Algae Biofuels Aff
1AC
Plan: The United States federal government should give financial incentives for algae
biofuels in US territorial oceanic waters.
Inherency
Federal Algae Biofuel implementation doesn’t exist now, the tech, skills and knowhow
exist for the plan, the only thing missing is federal funding for innovation of newer
technology. This plan would provide an alternative to fossil fuels.
Ramanujan 13|By Krishna Ramanujan “Work needed to make algal biofuel viable, study suggests”
(http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/01/work-needed-make-algal-biofuel-viable-study-says)
Although biofuels from algae hold great promise, Cornell researchers find that more
innovation is needed to make the technology economically and energetically viable at a
commercial scale. To date, researchers have struggled to determine if the nonrenewable energy it takes to make a gallon of algal
biofuel will be equal to, less than or greater than the energy produced. A Cornell study published online Dec. 13 in the journal Environmental
Science and Technology has addressed that question. The work was led by Deborah Sills, a postdoctoral associate in the research groups of
Charles Greene, director of the Ocean Resources and Ecosystems Program and professor of earth and atmospheric sciences, and Jefferson
Tester, associate director for energy at the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future and the Croll Professor of Sustainable Energy Systems in
the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. The researchers used computer simulations to analyze uncertainties in the algal biofuel
production lineup. They found that when oil is extracted from algae through thermal drying, or when the algal cultivation step has a low yield,
the energy produced is less than the energy expended to produce the fuel. However, when
methods that promote high
algal yields are matched with wet extraction techniques -- both processes that require further
technical innovation -- algal biofuels can provide a viable alternative to liquid fossil fuels, like
gasoline and diesel. Compared with land plants, algae can produce greater than 10 times
more oil per acre, use nutrients more efficiently, and do not require high-quality agricultural
land. Also, marine algae do not require large quantities of freshwater. The study examines each step in the process, from growing marinebased algae to separating and refining biofuel products and by-products. A life cycle framework helped establish ranges of possible outcomes
with probabilistic methods employed to characterize key variables, which the authors say is the correct approach for assessing such developing
technologies. "Our
biggest contribution is pointing out how important it is to report the range of
values needed for technologies that don't exist," Sills said. "There is no algae to biofuel
industry yet," so no large-scale sets of data exist to judge how feasible algal biofuels can be,
Sills added. "We show that improvements are needed at every single step of the process."
"We've tried to be more transparent and reflect on the inherent variability and unknown
character of the processes involved," Tester said. Values reported in previous studies, while not incorrect, represented
specific case studies and often reported findings as a single value. This yielded incomplete information for making strong conclusions about the
viability of algal biofuels, the researchers said. Making biofuels from algae is a five-step process: cultivation; harvesting and dewatering; lipid
(oil) extraction; lipid conversion to liquid biofuel; and creating such value added co-products as methane from bio-digesters, or animal feed
from leftover carbohydrates and proteins.
Climate Change
Scenario 1: warming
Warming is anthropogenic and a major threat
Deibel 7 [Terry L. Professor of IR at National War College, 2007 “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for
American Statecraft”, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today]
Finally, there
is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future,
demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly
life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once
a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on
climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming
is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of
disagreement over the fun damentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates
almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the
next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”;
“glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”;
“rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct
temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “ Earth’s
warming climate is estimated to
contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads ; “widespread bleaching
from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating ,” concluded
Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities
some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per
million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately,
atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their
increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects
will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms,
spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying
countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice
sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern
third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the
Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would
otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP
annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming,
based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and
causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place
in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is
that “humankind’s continuing
enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with
the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system . At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re
just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the
Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse .” During the Cold War, astronomer
Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy
both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global
warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious
and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military
challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence
of life on this planet.
Algae ensure transition away from fossil fuels - solves warming
Kassebaum 11 (William R. Kassebaum, P.E., is president and CEO of Algaeon, Inc., a company developing algae
cultivation methods and biofuel production. He is a Senior Member of the IEEE and serves as chair of the Central Indiana
Section (2006-present), co-chair of the Central Indiana Engineering Consultants’ Network, and chair of the coordinating
committee of the IEEE-USA Alliance of IEEE Consultants’ Networks (AICN). “Biofuel — A Viable Solution Engineered from
Algae“[http://www.todaysengineer.org/2011/Jul/biofuel.asp] July,11, 2011- M.V.)
At the end of 2006, worldwide oil consumption was in excess of 31 billion barrels
per year. During that year, the U.S. consumed 7.55 billion barrels. With limited domestic sources of crude oil, the United States was forced
to import 4.9 billion of those barrels (65 percent). According to the Energy Information Administration, world
Increasing Demand for Oil¶
consumption of oil rose by 1.63 percent annually for more than 20 years. Recently, however, the rate increased as
China and India’s consumption has grown at 7.5 percent and 5.5 percent annually, making them the world’s first and fifth largest consumers of
oil, respectively. By
the year 2020, oil consumption is projected to increase by 60 percent.¶ Decreasing Supply of
order to produce oil from fossil oil wells, it first needs to be discovered. The peak of world oil field
discoveries occurred in 1965 at around 55 billion barrels per year. The rate of oil discoveries has been declining steadily
since that time. Between 2002-2007, less than 10 billion barrels per year of oil were discovered. Also,
new discoveries are often in areas where extraction is much more expensive, such as extremely deep
wells, extreme down-hole temperatures and environmentally sensitive areas where expensive
technology is required to extract the oil. Additionally, many of the world’s remaining reserves are in unconventional, hard to
extract forms such as oil shale or tar sands. Experts agree that the world has reached or will soon reach its peak oil
production. This means production levels will wane and ultimately fall.¶ Mandates for Sustainable Energy¶
Increasing demand for energy, diminishing fossil fuels, global warming along with the growing security
and economic risks of supporting Middle East oil have set the stage for domestic green energy. The U.S. government,
the military and commercial sectors are all looking for ways to transition to alternative energy. Although billions have been
invested in this area over the past decade, there is no viable commercial green solution that can
compete with the portability, energy density and availability of petroleum products. The closest are
corn- and soybean-based ethanol and biodiesel biofuels. Costs in labor and natural resources like water
are alarmingly high, while energy density is low and ultimately divert food products from consumers. On
the other hand, in the right growth environment, microalgae doubles biomass on a daily or weekly basis
and produces energy-dense oil with a comparatively low overhead in manpower, water and other
commodity resources. While algae grow, they recycle carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) for cleaner air and
carbon credits. What was missing until now was a commercially scalable, high-capacity algae cultivation technology that yields
competitively priced fuel production.¶ Microalgae cultivation for the production of biofuels provides the solutio n¶
Why Algae?¶ Algae production has the potential to outperform other biodiesel products such as soy or corn.
The production of biocrude oil and biodiesel from microalgae is significantly more efficient than the
production of fuel from food crops. Unlike soy, which produce approximately 70-100 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year, or
corn, which produce 150-300 gallons of ethanol per acre per year, algae can produce in excess of 10,000 gallons per acre
per year of raw biocrude oil.¶ By growing a variety of algae strains and species, numerous renewable
biofuel products can be produced — specifically a true biocrude algae oil, a biodiesel feedstock algae oil, butanol, and other
Fossil Oil¶ In
chemical precursors required for high-performance fuels.¶ The true biocrude oil is a light, low-sulfur, high-quality petroleum oil product that
may be hydrocracked in an oil refinery to produce many high-quality lower-weight products such as gasoline, kerosene and diesel. The biodiesel
feedstock oils are high-quality lipids that may be substituted for soy oil (or other seed oils) in biodiesel refineries. Butanol is a well-known highquality biofuel candidate that has properties similar to gasoline, it is mixable in any proportion with gasoline for use in standard combustion
engines, and is readily applicable to the jet fuel market as well. In addition, other chemical precursors are produced to feed existing commercial
processes to make components of high-performance ASTM certifiable fuels, including general aviation fuels and turbine engine fuels.¶ Further,
the microalgae cultivation process has the advantage (over petroleum production from deep wells) of consuming
atmospheric CO2 thereby creating the opportunity to participate in a carbon credit or "cap and trade"
markets where they exist. Also, the residual biomass contains significant energy and useful chemicals in the proteins, sugars and
starches. This biomass can be used to produce high performance fuels, as well as for recovering valuable fertilizer components.¶
Unchecked global warming is catastrophic—action now is needed to prevent the
collapse of civilization
Hansen 12 — James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Adjunct Professor in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, holds a Ph.D. in Physics from the
University of Iowa, 2012 (“Game Over for the Climate,” New York Times, May 12, Available Online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print,
Accessed 7/18/14, Miriam)
Global warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President
Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.” If Canada
proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate. Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice
the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If
we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and
conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when
sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that
the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy
coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s
species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk. That is the long-term outlook. But
near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid
region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come,
occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and
more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food
prices would rise to unprecedented levels. If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to
reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast
continue to burn our
refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in
the ground. The
global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would
can say with high confidence
that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not
natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change. We have known since the 1800s that carbon
happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We
dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now,
and temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its
long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising — and it’s because we are forcing them higher with
fossil fuel emissions. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150
years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the
United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out
our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows,
leave our children a climate system that is out of their control. We need to start reducing emissions significantly, not create new ways to
increase them. We should impose a gradually rising carbon fee, collected from fossil fuel companies, then distribute 100 percent of the
collections to all Americans on a per-capita basis every month. The government would not get a penny. This market-based approach would
stimulate innovation, jobs and economic growth, avoid enlarging government or having it pick winners or losers. Most Americans, except the
heaviest energy users, would get more back than they paid in increased prices. Not only that, the reduction in oil use resulting from the carbon
price would be nearly six times as great as the oil supply from the proposed pipeline from Canada, rendering the pipeline superfluous,
according to economic models driven by a slowly rising carbon price. But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels
pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world’s governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of
billions of dollars per year. This encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through mountaintop removal, longwall mining,
hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic drilling. President Obama speaks of a “planet in peril,” but he
does not provide the leadership needed to change the world’s course. Our leaders must speak candidly to the public — which yearns for open,
honest discussion — explaining that our continued technological leadership and economic well-being demand a reasoned change of our energy
course. History has shown that the American public can rise to the challenge, but leadership is essential. The
science of the situation
is clear — it’s time for the politics to follow. This is a plan that can unify conservatives and liberals, environmentalists and
business. Every major national science academy in the world has reported that global warming is real,
caused mostly by humans, and requires urgent action. The cost of acting goes far higher the longer we
wait — we can’t wait any longer to avoid the worst and be judged immoral by coming generations.
Scenario 2: food security
Food insecurity high now
Rappler 14 (Rappler is a news organization based in the Philippines “The 2013 Global Hunger Index”
03/01/2014 http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/specials/rich-media/44898-2013-globalhunger-index)
MANILA, Philippines - Global hunger has generally declined since the 1990s, a glimmer of hope that could make the Millennium
Development Goal of reducing hunger by half before 2015 even more possible. However, progress is not equally and simultaneously
shared, and the struggle for most countries to sustain food security is far from over.¶ The reality is that
some countries suffer higher and more alarming degrees of hunger and malnutrition compared to
others. As in a race, countries running towards the hunger reduction finish line can be fast or slow, strong or weak, with varying levels and rates of progress.
Hunger is still a severe problem for many countries. ¶ In October 2013, the International Food Policy Research Institute,
Welthungerhilfe, and Concern Worldwide published a report on the Global Hunger Index (GHI), which
has been used to assess, measure and map global hunger using collated country-level statistics. The report, 8th in an annual publication series, also called for better
strategies in building resilience among poor and vulnerable communities to improve food security. ¶ The
report revealed, among many key
findings, that about 19 countries still have “alarming” and “extremely alarming” situations of hunger. This
does not include several countries that still have a “serious” state of hunger. Highest levels of hunger were found in South Asian and
Sub-Saharan African countries.¶ The graphic below maps global hunger by indicating the GHI for each country. Countries are in varying shades
depending on the degree of hunger assessed for each area. Mouse over a country to see the specific GHI score, along with data related to the key components.¶
The GHI is calculated based on 3 key components: Undernourishment – percentage of undernourished people to the total
population. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), this refers to the consumption of less than 1,800 kilocalories – the average required intake
Child underweight – share of children less than 5 years old who are underweight. Child mortality – mortality rate of children
There is considerable progress being made every year, but it is no
reason to slow down. Efforts to develop food security and reduce hunger have to continue for the long
haul, not just for some countries – but for all.
for a healthy life.
less than 5 years old. What does the report generally tell us?
Food riots escalate to global war – ignite all regional hot spots
Bernardo V. Lopez September 10 1998 “Global recession phase two: Catastrophic (Private sector
views)”, BusinessWorld
Certainly, global
recession will spawn wars of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple for
dwindling food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional
conflicts in key flashpoints can easily erupt such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines,
as in some Latin American countries, splintered insurgency forces may take advantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the
countryside. Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Famine
can be triggered in key Third World nations with India,
North Korea, Ethiopia and other African countries as first candidates. Food riots and the breakdown of
law and order are possibilities. Global recession will see the deferment of globalization, the shrinking of international trade especially of high-technology commodities such as in the computer, telecommunications, electronic and automotive industries. There will
be a return to basics with food security being a prime concern of all governments, over industrialization and trade
expansions. Protectionism will reemerge and trade liberalization will suffer a big setback. The WTO-GATT may have to redefine its
provisions to adjust to the changing times. Even the World Bank-IMF consortium will experience continued crisis in dealing with financial
hemorrhages. There will not be enough funds to rescue ailing economies. A few will get a windfall from the disaster with the erratic movement
in world prices of basic goods. But the majority, especially the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), will suffer serious shrinkage. Megamergers and acquisitions will rock the corporate landscape. Capital markets will shrink and credit crisis and spiralling interest rates will spread
internationally. And environmental advocacy will be shelved in the name of survival. Domestic markets will flourish
but only on basic commodities. The focus of enterprise will shift into basic goods in the medium term. Agrarian economies are at an advantage
since they are the food producers. Highly industrialized nations will be more affected by the recession. Technologies will concentrate on
servicing domestic markets and the agrarian economy will be the first to regrow. The setback on research and development and high-end
technologies will be compensated in its eventual focus on agrarian activity. A return to the rural areas will decongest the big cities and the
ensuing real estate glut will send prices tumbling down. Tourism and travel will regress by a decade and airlines worldwide will need rescue.
Among the indigenous communities and agrarian peasantry, many will shift back to prehistoric subsistence economy. But there will be a more
crowded upland situation as lowlanders seek more lands for production. The current crisis for land of indigenous communities will worsen.
Land conflicts will increase with the indigenous communities who have nowhere else to go either being massacred in
armed conflicts or dying of starvation. Backyard gardens will be precious and home-based food production will flourish. As
unemployment expands, labor will shift to self-reliant microenterprises if the little capital available can be sourced. In the past, the US could
afford amnesty for millions of illegal migrants because of its resilient economy. But with unemployment increasing, the US will be forced to
clamp down on a reemerging illegal migration which will increase rapidly. Unemployment in the US will be the hardest to cope with since it
may have very little capability for subsistence economy and its agrarian base is automated and controlled by a few. The riots and looting of
stores in New York City in the late '70s because of a state-wide brownout hint of the type of anarchy in the cities. Such looting in this most
affluent nation is not impossible. The weapons industry may also grow rapidly because of the ensuing wars. Arms escalation will
have
primacy over food production if wars escalate. The US will depend increasingly on weapons exports to nurse its economy back
to health. This will further induce wars and conflicts which will aggravate US recession rather than solve it. The US
may depend more and more on the use of force and its superiority to get its ways internationally.
This will collapse civilization --- causes disease spread, terrorism, and economic
collapse
Brown, 9 --- founder of both the WorldWatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute (May
2009, Lester R., Scientific American, “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?”)
The biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in poor countries to cause
government collapse. Those crises are brought on by ever worsening environmental degradation
One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project
the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much of the time this approach works well.
But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today's
economic crisis.
For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous.
Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we
expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so dire--and how would
we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes
that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our
civilization might devolve into chaos--and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too!
For many years I have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and
their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point
to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that food
shortages could bring down not only individual governments but also our global civilization.
I can no longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines
that are undermining the world food economy--most important, falling water tables, eroding
soils and rising temperatures--forces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible.
The Problem of Failed States
Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my
conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third decade of charting
trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one.
In six of the past nine years world grain production has fallen short of consumption, forcing a
steady drawdown in stocks. When the 2008 harvest began, world carryover stocks of grain (the
amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) were at 62 days of consumption, a near record
low. In response, world grain prices in the spring and summer of last year climbed to the
highest level ever.
As demand for food rises faster than supplies are growing, the resulting food-price inflation puts
severe stress on the governments of countries already teetering on the edge of chaos. Unable to buy
grain or grow their own, hungry people take to the streets. Indeed, even before the steep climb in
grain prices in 2008, the number of failing states was expanding [see sidebar at left]. Many of
their problem's stem from a failure to slow the growth of their populations. But if the food
situation continues to deteriorate, entire nations will break down at an ever increasing rate . We
have entered a new era in geopolitics. In the 20th century the main threat to international security
was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of power but its
absence that puts us at risk.
States fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and
basic social services such as education and health care. They often lose control of part or all of
their territory. When governments lose their monopoly on power, law and order begin to
disintegrate. After a point, countries can become so dangerous that food relief workers are no
longer safe and their programs are halted; in Somalia and Afghanistan, deteriorating conditions
have already put such programs in jeopardy.
Failing states are of international concern because they are a source of terrorists, drugs, weapons and
refugees, threatening political stability everywhere. Somalia, number one on the 2008 list of failing
states, has become a base for piracy. Iraq, number five, is a hotbed for terrorist training.
Afghanistan, number seven, is the world's leading supplier of heroin. Following the massive
genocide of 1994 in Rwanda, refugees from that troubled state, thousands of armed soldiers
among them, helped to destabilize neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (number six).
Our global civilization depends on a functioning network of politically healthy nation-states to control
the spread of infectious disease, to manage the international monetary system, to control
international terrorism and to reach scores of other common goals. If the system for controlling
infectious diseases--such as polio, SARS or avian flu--breaks down, humanity will be in trouble .
Once states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If enough states
disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of global civilization itself .
Algae solves food crisis
USU 14 (Utah State University- “USU researchers: Algae biofuel can help meet energy demand” Utah State University (USU)
is a public research university in Logan, Utah. Founded in 1888 as Utah's agricultural college, USU focused on agriculture,
domestic arts, and mechanic arts[http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10491/usu-researchers-algae-biofuel-can-help-meetenergy-demand] June 05, 2014-M.V.)
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 bulletsolution 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 large-scale model.¶ “Visual representations of physical and biophysical processes
are very powerful tools,” McGinty says. “Adding
the geospatial interpolation component brought the data into
focus.Ӧ 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 is more sustainable than corn- solves CO2 and land
World Watch 13 (World Watch Institute- Founded in 1974 by Lester Brown as an independent research institute
devoted to global environmental concerns, Worldwatch was quickly recognized by opinion leaders around the world for its
foresight and accessible, fact-based analysis. “Better Than Corn? Algae Set to Beat Out Other Biofuel Feedstocks”
[http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5391] 2013- M.V.)
Forget corn, sugar cane, and even switchgrass. Some experts believe that algae is set to eclipse all other biofuel
feedstocks as the cheapest, easiest, and most ENVIRONMENTALLY friendly way to produce liquid fuel,
reports Kiplinger’s Biofuels Market Alert. “It is easy to get excited about algae,” says Worldwatch Institute biofuels expert Raya Widenoja. “It
looks like such a promising fuel source, especially if it’s combined with advances in biodiesel processing.”¶ The inputs for algae
are simple: the single-celled organisms only need sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to grow. They can quadruple in biomass in
just one day, and they help remove carbon from the air and nitrogen from wastewater, another
environmental benefit. Some types of algae comprise more than 50 percent oil, and an average acre of
algae grown today for pharmaceutical industries can produce 5,000 gallons (19,000 liters) of biodiesel each
year. By comparison, an average acre of corn produces 420 gallons (1,600 liters) of ETHANOLper year, and
an acre of soybeans yields just 70 gallons (265 liters) of biodiesel per year.¶ “Your bang for your buck is just bigger
because you can really do this on a much smaller amount of land and yet yield much, much higher biomass,” said Michael S. Atkins, CEO of San
Francisco area-based Ocean Technology & Environmental Consulting (OTEC). Douglas Henston, CEO of Solix Biofuels, a
company that
grows algae for biofuels, has estimated that replacing all current U.S. diesel fuel use with algae biodiesel
would require using only about one half of 1 percent of the farmland in production today. Algae can also
grow on marginal lands, such as in desert areas where the groundwater is saline.¶ Other Worldwatch Articles You
Might Enjoy¶ Worldwatch Perspective: Nothing is Simple, Not Even Biofuels¶ Biofuels Must Be Made Sustainably, Says European Commission¶
Biofuels in Africa May Help Achieve Global Goals, Experts Say¶
Economy
Oil Volatility is likely
Clayton 12 (Blake Clayton, fellow for energy and national security at the Council on Foreign Relations, “The Real Reason Energy Traders
Are Losing Sleep,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/03/the_real_reason_energy_traders_are_losing_sleep?page=full, 10/3/12,
7/15/14, MEM)
Ask the leaders of OPEC what it's like to control the world oil market right now and they would
probably laugh at your premise. Today's market jitters are largely beyond their control. The U.S. Federal
Reserve's new open-ended commitment to expanding its balance sheet will likely push up the price of real assets like oil, even as White House
chatter about dipping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) keeps the markets guessing about a sudden price collapse. At the same time,
U.S. and European Union sanctions on Iran have crippled its oil exports, contributing to soaring oil prices and sparking demonstrations in
downtown Tehran over the plunging value of the rial.¶ The
potential for oil prices to shoot sharply higher or lower in
the coming months due to events far outside OPEC's control is real, though still improbable. An Israeli
military strike against Iran has the potential to drive oil prices skyward, just as the spread of Europe's
debt crisis could cause oil markets to collapse. Add to this mix the threat of a so-called hard landing for
China's economy or Washington falling over the fiscal cliff, either of which could send oil prices
sharply lower. Yes, unrest in the Middle East is a continuous threat to stable oil prices, but political decision-making in the
West and China is injecting more than its fair share of uncertainty into the market.¶ Part of this uncertainty is
the result of policy incoherence in Washington. There is more than a little irony in the fact that the White House may decide to tap the SPR, the
nation's 695 million barrel emergency fuel stockpile, to prevent a harmful rise in gas prices stemming in part from the decisions of the Fed.
The mere announcement of the latest round of quantitative easing by Ben Bernanke, in addition to
the already-loose monetary stance of other major central banks, was enough to send oil prices higher,
only to crash shortly thereafter. The bounce would no doubt have been larger had many market participants not anticipated the
Fed's decision. But the Fed's aggressive monetary easing is partly responsible for putting the Obama administration in the unenviable position
of having to consider dipping into the SPR in order to keep a short-supplied market from pushing up prices too high.¶ And yet the policy
dissonance in Washington has not been nearly so vexing to the oil market -- or to financial markets more broadly -- as the uncertainty
surrounding the eurozone. Hardly a week passes without investors frantically buying or selling oil on the faintest whisper from the European
Central Bank, Chancellor Angela Merkel, or the leaders of the most imperiled debtor nations. The unending lurch from Eden to Armageddon on
trading floors around the world is typical of the so-called "risk on, risk off" capital-market mentality that has swept across every asset class -and oil is no exception. Demand
for oil correlates closely to global economic growth. When Europe's nagging
ills appear on the mend, the outlook for growth appears brighter, causing oil prices to rise. Ditto on the flip
side. But the sheer complexity of the problems facing European leaders, not to mention the uncertainty of domestic support for their policy
prescriptions and the risk of cross-border contagion, mean oil prices have lurched to-and-fro with unusual velocity.¶ The
prospect of a
cataclysmic European tailspin is what economists call a left-side tail risk to prices: low in probability,
but with the potential to topple the oil market should worldwide growth stall or even shrink. But
right-side tail risk -- that oil markets might spike -- is also causing risk managers to lose sleep. The market's
primary worry is an Israeli air strike on Iran, possibly with backing from or in coordination with the United States. If that happens, Tehran may
well retaliate by disrupting tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, the passage through which 35 percent of all traded seaborne oil flows. These
are not idle fears. U.S.-led naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf, which have included mine-sweeping drills, are already underway, and Iran has
test fired missiles at ship-like targets near the Strait. Were Washington or its allies to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran, oil prices would soar.
Though Iran may be setting the stage for a confrontation, Western powers may end up being the ones to pull the trigger, setting off energy
markets.¶ Even if such a conflict never materializes, efforts by the United States and the European Union to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions have
already contributed to rising prices. Tightening U.S. sanctions and an EU ban on Iranian oil imports have caused the country's crude exports to
fall to less than half of last year's average. This tightening of the screws has been disastrous for Iran, which depends on oil for 80 percent of its
foreign revenue. By causing prices in the United States to rise, however, this strategy for bringing Tehran to the negotiating table has also been
painful for American consumers. Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of sanctions in this or any other case, they have clearly caused global oil
markets to labor under a strain that they would not have had to grapple with otherwise.¶ Still
other wild cards remain far
outside the control of OPEC. Market participants are already speculating about what measures Beijing will take to spur waning real
economic growth. Oil has bounced along with other assets investors perceive as relatively risky, like
emerging market equities, because of guessing about whether China might opt for more aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus in
the near future. Market fears persist about the possibility of a so-called Chinese "hard landing" and what it could mean for oil prices.
Meanwhile, back in the United States, the much-discussed fiscal cliff looms. Its combination of tax hikes and spending sequestrations, due to
drop in January if Congress fails to cut a deal, could weigh on domestic growth and hence oil demand. That loss could shave several percentage
points off oil prices over the course of several years, according to a recent Citigroup analysis. Any mixed signals from Congress that cause Wall
Street to question if or how it might tackle the approaching legislative deadline are sure to set off fireworks in the oil market in the meantime.¶
Make no mistake: Unrest in the Middle East has the potential to destabilize energy markets. With a civil war
raging in Syria and North Africa in the midst of a trying transition period, it's not difficult to see how oil supplies could be interrupted. Trouble
elsewhere in Africa, in places like the Sudan and Nigeria, is not helping matters. Given these realities, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which oil
prices move significantly higher for an extended period absent something going wrong in that part of the world, which contains 70 percent of
known oil reserves. Yet when it comes to sovereign decision-making, moves
from Washington, Brussels, and Beijing may
prove more unsettling to global energy markets in the months ahead than anything OPEC does.
Supply shocks are distinct – studies prove that even a small shock now would disrupt
the economy
Erwin 11 (Sandra Erwin, editor of National Defense Magazine, “30 Cut in U.S. Oil Imports Would Avert Future Catastrophe, Study Warns”,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=577, 11/1/11, 7/15/14, MEM)
A group of retired U.S. military officers unveiled a new study that is seeking to reenergize the debate over the nation's billion-dollar a day
foreign-oil habit.¶ Unless the United States curtails its consumption of petroleum, these military greybeards caution, any
future crisis
that disrupts oil supplies could hamstring the nation’s economy and cause global instability.¶ “We have
seen oil shocks before … But at today’s level of U.S. consumption, a sustained disruption would be
devastating – crippling our very freedom of movement,” said retired Army Gen. Paul Kern, chairman of the military
advisory board of CNA Corp., a government-funded think tank. ¶ In a report released Nov. 1, a group of 13 generals and admirals are calling for
"immediate, swift and aggressive action" over the next decade to reduce U.S. oil consumption by 30 percent. ¶ Of nearly 88 million barrels of oil
consumed worldwide every day, the United States eats up the biggest share, with 20 million barrels. Slightly more than half of the petroleum
the United States consumes comes from foreign countries: Two-thirds from the Middle East, and the rest from Canada and Mexico.¶ “You could
wake up tomorrow morning and hear that the Iranians sense an attack on their nuclear power plants and preemptively take steps to shut off
the flow of oil in the Gulf,” retired Marine Corps Gen. James T. Conway says in a CNA news release. “The U.S. would likely view this as a threat
to our economy, and we would take action. And there we are, drawn into it.Ӧ Even
a small interruption of daily oil supply
can have huge ripple effects, the study contends.¶ Even though just 2 percent of U.S. oil supplies come from Libya, the
military campaign there this summer prompted the U.S. Department of Energy to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve.¶ A larger crisis could disrupt the entire fabric of the U.S. economy, the CNA analysis concludes. If
America reduces its current rate of oil consumption by 30 percent and diversifies its fuel sources, the study says, the U.S. economy would be
relatively insulated from such upheaval, even in the event of a complete shutdown of a strategic chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz, the
international passageway for 33 percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments. ¶ The report, titled, “Ensuring America's Freedom of
Movement: A National Security Imperative to Reduce U.S. Oil Dependence,” was sponsored by the San Francisco-based Energy Foundation, a
partnership of major donors interested in solving the world's energy problems. ¶ CNA
analyzed the potential economic
impact of a future oil disruption. Under a worst-case scenario 30-day closure of the Strait of Hormuz,
the analysis finds that the U.S. would lose nearly $75 billion in GDP. By cutting current levels of U.S. oil dependence
by 30 percent, the impact would be nearly zero.¶ Echoing the Obama administration’s pitch that green energy stimulates the economy, the CNA
advisory board’s vice chair, retired Navy Adm. Lee Gunn, says that given today’s high employment, the timing is right to diversify the nation’s
energy sources. “Currently, our collective national conscience is focused on jobs, and rightly so,” he says. “But rather than divert us from the
task, moving away from oil could contribute to restoring our economic strength.Ӧ The military also could benefit significantly from a 30
percent reduction in U.S. oil consumption, says the report. Achieving such a reduction would spawn diversified power sources other than oil of
which the Defense Department could take advantage. Less oil use equals less oil we are required to import and greater flexibility for military
presence in dangerous parts of the world. This flexibility could translate into putting fewer American troops in harm's way and keeping more
dollars at home.
Algae biofuels are the best oil replacement
Lacurci 5/12 (Jenna Iacurci, journalist for GALO; “Algenol’s Algae-Based Biofuel: The Next Generation in
Renewable Energy”; http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6997/20140512/algenols-algae-basedbiofuel-the-next-generation-in-renewable-energy.htm; May 12, 2014)
Algenol, an up-and-coming company that specializes in algae-based biofuels, has developed and perfected its
revolutionary technology, likely securing its spot as the next generation's leader in renewable energy. In
collaborating with University of Toronto scientists, CEO Paul Woods developed Algenol's patented Direct to Ethanol technology, which enables
the production of the four most important fuels (ethanol, gasoline, jet, and diesel fuel) for around a mere $1.27 per gallon, according to the
company's website. A
combination of algae, sunlight, carbon dioxide (CO2), saltwater and non-arable land
yields a whopping 8,000 total gallons of liquid fuel per acre per year - that's way more than the 420 gallons
of fuel per acre per year that corn biofuel produces, Woods told Nature World News (NWN). Despite corn biofuels'
contributions to the renewable energy industry, Woods is excited to make way for his revolutionary methods. "So like all natural progressions
we'll move away from, or at least add on top of, taking food and making fuel out of it, into something that I think
is a lot more advanced," Woods said. Direct to Ethanol technology - what Woods refers to as the "3rd generation" in biofuel technique is a two-step process. First, the concoction of sunlight, algae and CO2 produces ethanol, and then the leftover algae biomass is converted to
biodiesel, gasoline and jet fuel. It
is the only renewable fuel production process that can convert more than 85
percent of its CO2 feedstock into the four most important fuels, Algenol's website notes.
Avoiding US economic decline key to global economy
Frighetto and Wolf 13 (Jennifer Frighetto Vice President, Global Corporate Communications at Nielsen, Director of Media
Relations, North America Buy Business at Nielsen, Public Relations Manager and Business Group, Corporate PR Lead at Hewitt Associates (now
Aon Hewitt), Corporate Communications, Manager at Enesco Corporation, Senior Account Executive at Margie Korshak, Inc., Elizabeth Jones
Wolf, Director, Global Corporate Media Relations at Nielsen, Associate Director, Corporate Media Relations at APCO Worldwide, Senior
Specialist, Communications at Target Corporation, Editorial Assistant at CQ Press, studied at University of Minnesota, Nielen.com,
http://www.nielsen.com/content/corporate/us/en/press-room/2013/global-consumer-confidence-measures-at-91-in-q4-2012.html, 2/5/13,
7/15/14, MEM)
"North
America is slowly but steadily heading in the right direction," said Dr. Bala. "Compared to a year ago, North
America showed progress toward recovery with a six-point year-on-year consumer confidence increase, driven mainly by a
three-point increase in a positive job outlook, up from 37 percent to 40 percent year-on-year. With continued weakness in Europe
and uneven growth in Asia, it may well be that with a brighter job market, the United States will serve as the critical engine of
improved global economic activity in 2013."
Global economic decline causes nuclear war
Auslin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar at American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman, Resident Fellow at American Enterprise
Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, , http://www.aei.org/article/100187, 3/6/09, 7/15/14, MEM)
global chaos followed hard
on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally
worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.
The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20
million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a
year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The
regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's
neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has
had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in
downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that
devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture
toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external
conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic
stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's
unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the
specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets.
Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer
Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while
nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not
bode well for the rest of Europe. A
prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise
tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved
ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what
they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .
The Middle East and other countries will model US algae biofuels
Das 6/24 (BipLab Das, science journalist for nature Middle East Emerging science in the Arab world, “Microscopic algae can
bring biofuel boon in the Middle East”, http://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2014.159,
6/24/14, 7/18/14, MEM)
To assess the biofuel-generating potential of algae at various global locations, the researchers
grewNannochloropsis oculata — microscopic algae found in freshwater and marine systems — in
photobioreactors exposed to a constant temperature and ambient light. They simulated the algae
growth and lipid content at 4,388 global locations by tweaking the variables hourly according to
location-specific metrological data. “We have found that the algae yielded maximum annual average
lipid between 24 and 27 cubic metres per hectare per year for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Australia,
Brazil, Colombia and India,” says lead researcher Jason Quinn from the Utah State University. “The
major advantage of growing microalgae is that it does not require quality land like traditional
terrestrial crops,” adds Quinn. Terrestrial crops such as soybeans, on the other hand, required 27 times
more agricultural land to give the same output. When it comes to biofuel-generating potential in terms
of volumes, algae also surpass soybeans and corn. Besides Egypt and Saudi Arabia, countries like
Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates can use this knowledge to utilize non-arable land and
supplement 30% of their yearly consumption of transportation fuel by microalgae-based biofuel,
suggests the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1. In
theory, the prospect of algae-based biofuel for the Middle East is appealing. “With year-around sun
and mild winters, most of the Middle East countries have access to seawater with plenty of nonarable land for algae cultivation,” says Kourash Salehi-Ashtiani from the New York University Abu Dhabi.
Solvency
USFG key to algae biofuels
Bracmort 13 (Kelsi Bracmort, spciealist in agricultural conservation and natural resources policy;
“Algae’s Potential as a Transportation Biofuel”; http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42122.pdf; April 1, 2013)
Since at least the late 1970s, Congress has appropriated funds for ABB, some of which were targeted for general agency programs and some for
specific projects. Federal
research development funding for ABB has fluctuated over time. The Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense of (DOD) are the two agencies that have spent the most money on
ABB. ABB had been a minor component of the DOE biofuels program relative to other biofuels. DOE has funded algae through its
Office of Biomass Program (OBP), the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E), Office of Science, the
Fossil Energy Program, and the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR). DOE reports it spent
approximately $43.0 million on ABB in 2012. Additionally, DOE reports it spent approximately $51.5 million on ABB in FY2013. As of
December 2010, DOE cumulatively had invested about $236 million in algae R&D. The DOE OBP spent roughly
$183 million on algae R&D from FY2009 to FY2011, of which roughly $146 million was from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5) and roughly $37 million was program funding. The
ARRA funding was spent on three algae related
integrated biorefinery with the capacity to produce more than 100,000 gallons of fuel ethanol per year;
and Solazyme, with $22 million in DOE cost-share and close to $4 million in non-federal funding to build,
operate, and optimize a pilot-scale integrated biorefinery with the capacity to produce 300,000 gallons
of purified algal oil per year) and one at demo scale (Sapphire, with $50 million in DOE cost-share and roughly $85 million in non-federal
funding to construct an integrated algal biorefinery with the capacity to produce 1,000,000 gallons of jet fuel and diesel per year).27
Additionally, $49 million from ARRA was spent on the National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bio-products (NAABB) algae biofuels R&D
consortium project, a cost-shared effort with industry, university, and national lab partners. OBP
program funds were spent to
support three other cost-shared algae R&D consortium projects and a number of additional algaerelated projects with industry, universities, national labs, and the National Academy of Sciences. DOE also
supported algae R&D through a nearly 20-year Aquatic Species Program (ASP) at a total cost of roughly $25 million from 1978 to 1996. The
major focus of the ASP was to produce biodiesel from high lipid-content algae grown in ponds, using
waste CO2 from coal-fired power plants.28
Offshore algae uniquely key to large scale production, only alternative to solve for
fossil fuels and doesn’t compete for land, uniquely key to solve Agriculture and the
Econ.
Danan 13|“NASA OMEGA Project: The Ocean as a Platform for Biofuel By Nico Danan on Jun 21, 2013
in Interviews” (http://blog.planetos.com/nasa-omega-project-the-ocean-as-a-platform-for-biofuel/) A.B.
Biofuels could be a long term, sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, but only if they are
produced in sufficient quantities to meet the demand, with a price at the pump that people
will tolerate, and without competing with agriculture for water, fertilizer, or land. These three
issues of scale, economics, and competition with agriculture, are why people have lost faith in
biofuels. But if there were a way to produce huge quantities of cheap biofuels that didn’t
compete with food production, it would be a different story. When I analyzed where we could produce biofuels
and make it scalable, affordable and not compete with agriculture, I realized OMEGA is the answer. That is, we need to move
offshore. More specifically, using photobioreactors floating in protected bays to grow microalgae on the wastewater from coastal cities
currently dumped offshore. This way we address the issues of scale and competition with agriculture.
Think about it. There’s plenty of space offshore and with sea level rise there will be new
opportunities to make large-scale OMEGA systems. The reason we focused on algae, is that they
represent by far the biggest and most sustainable source of oil , compared to soybean, sunflower and palm oil.
And using wastewater dumped offshore, solves the agriculture problems of water, fertilizer,
and land. OMEGA clearly addresses two of the big three biofuels problems, so the big remaining problem is whether OMEGA can be
affordable.
Ocean water key to production of Algae biofuels, solves biodiversity
Danan 13|“NASA OMEGA Project: The Ocean as a Platform for Biofuel By Nico Danan on Jun 21, 2013
in Interviews” (http://blog.planetos.com/nasa-omega-project-the-ocean-as-a-platform-for-biofuel/) A.B.
The water source has to be from wastewater, which is freshwater in most countries. Algae grow on the nutrients in
the wastewater, they also treat the wastewater. They remove the nitrogen and phosphate, the heavy
metals, and many of the pharmaceuticals and other contaminants. Another advantage to using freshwater
algae, is that if the system leaks, it releases organisms into the ocean that cannot compete with marine
species. This means we will not be releasing invasive species. We know from experience that when
resources are limiting and people get desperate, the environment suffers. OMEGA has a built in environmental
sensitivity from the onset. The OMEGA structure will provide substrate for increased local biodiversity. Depending on
its design, it can also provide a refuge for marine organisms. The interview concluded as Jonathan shared thoughts with us
about a recent visit to Japan and fascinating lectures he had given about the next step of human evolution in the age of the Anthropocene. He
concluded our conversation with a quote: “It
must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more
doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has
the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old system and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
one.” Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Algae is better than corn and soybean as a renewable- countries have enough places
to grow algae biofuel
USU 6/5 (Utah State University, “USU researchers: Algae biofuel can help meet energy demand”,
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10491/usu-researchers-algae-biofuel-can-help-meet-energy-demand, 6/5/14, 7/18/14,
MEM)
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.”
2AC inherency
A development of the Algae biofuel business is crucial, there is only small region
production in the squo
Wen 14|Zhiyou Wen, Biological Systems Engineering Department, Virginia Tech “Algae for Biofuel
Production” (http://www.extension.org/pages/26600/algae-for-biofuel-production#.U8SAI_ldXqU) A.B.
Production Challenges the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has performed a significant effort to pursue the commercial production of algal
was still
major factors limiting commercial algal production exist:
the difficulty of maintaining desirable species in the culture system, the low yield of algal oil, and the
high cost of harvesting the algal biomass. DOE concluded that there was a significant amount of land,
water, and CO2 to support the algal biofuel technology. In recent years, algal biofuel production has
gained renewed interest. Both university research groups and start-up businesses are researching and
developing new methods to improve the algal process efficiency with a final goal of commercial algal
biofuel production. The research and development efforts can be categorized into several areas: Increasing
oil content of existing strains or selecting new strains with high oil content. Increasing growth rate of algae. Developing robust algalgrowing systems in either an open-air environment or an enclosed environment. Co-product development other than the oil.
Using algae in bioremediation. Developing an efficient oil-extraction method. One way to achieve these goals is to genetically and
metabolically alter algal species. The other is to develop new or improve existing growth technologies so that the
same goals listed above are met. However, it should be noted that this new wave of interest has yet to
result in a significant breakthrough.
biofuel through its ASP program from the 1980s to 1990s. After 16 years of research, DOE concluded that the algal biofuel production
too expensive to be commercialized in the near future. Three
There are challenges to overcome, technology and investment is key to national
biofuel production
Queensland 12|“COULD UNEATEN ALGAE BE THE NEXT BIOFUEL?”UNIVERSITY OF
QUEENSLANDrightOriginal Study Posted by Bronwyn Adams-Queensland on August 12, 20
(http://www.futurity.org/could-uneaten-algae-be-the-next-biofuel/) A.B.
U. QUEENSLAND (AUS) — Focusing
on fast-growing and hardy microscopic algae, rather than the most oil-rich,
could lead to cheaper and more efficient alternative fuel. “Previously the main focus has been looking for oil-rich algae,
but usually these are tastier to predators—like microscopic scoops of ice cream,” says Evan Stephens of the University of Queensland’s Institute
for Molecular Bioscience and Solar Biofuels Research Centre. Australia could potentially become an oil exporter like the Middle East by devoting
just one percent of land to algae farms, according to Stephens. “The
integration of new technologies means we can turn a
broad range of algae into bio-crude oil that can be processed in existing oil refineries, so now the
success of the industry comes down to rapid growth and low production costs. “A major new frontier is
in the biology and developing new strains—and we’ve already made significant advances through the
identification of high-efficiency strains that have really stable growth, as well as being resistant to
predators and temperature fluctuations.” Stephens and colleagues have identified hundreds of native species of microscopic
algae from freshwater and saltwater environments around Australia. They have tested these against thousands of environmental conditions in
the laboratory, creating a shortlist of top performers. The researchers are putting the algae through their paces at a pilot processing plant that
opened in Brisbane, Australia in April. Traditionally, algae have been grown for health foods, aquaculture, and waste-water treatment but in
recent years, algae oil has become the focus of an emerging biofuel industry. University of Warwick Fullerene ‘mimic’ would boost solar cells
supertornado_525 University of Sheffield Super tornadoes blast heat from Sun jatropha2_525 Penn State Stress test for biofuel plant finds key
genes Stephens
says its production was expensive and viable commercial production had not yet been
achieved in Australia or overseas. “While we know that we can produce algae oil that is even higher quality
than standard petroleum sources, we are working to increase the efficiency of production with the
ultimate aim being to compete with fossil fuels dollar for dollar,” he says. He says it was important to get
economies of scale right before commercializing algae biofuels. “There are still important challenges in
science and engineering to be overcome to achieve the high efficiency needed to compete with
conventional petroleum.” The researchers at the Solar Biofuels Research Centre have recently published a study on the emerging
microalgae industry, which appears in Current Opinion in Chemical Biology. Also they are collaborating with researchers from Bielefeld
University and Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, on work that is soon to be released in the Journal of Petroleum and
Environmental Biotechnology. Investors in the project include Finland’s Neste Oil, global engineering company KBR, Siemens, the Queensland
Government, and Cement Australia.
2AC Climate Change
Algae reduces CO2 emissions
ABO 13 (The Algae Biomass Organization (ABO) is a non-profit organization whose
mission is to promote the development of viable commercial markets for renewable
and sustainable commodities derived from algae. I “ALGAE BIOFUEL CAN CUT CO2
EMISSIONS BY UP TO 68 PERCENT COMPARED TO PETROLEUM FUELS FINDS NEW
PEER REVIEWED STUDY”- [http://www.algaebiomass.org/algae-biofuel-can-cutco2-emissions-by-more-than-50-compared-to-petroleum-fuels-finds-new-peerreviewed-study/] September 19, 2013- M.V.)
Algae-derived biofuel can reduce life cycle CO2 emissions by 50 to 70 percent
compared to petroleum fuels, and is approaching a similar Energy Return on Investment (EROI) as conventional petroleum according to a new peer-reviewed paper published in
Bioresource Technology. The study, which is the first to analyze real-world data from an existing algae-to-energy demonstration scale farm, shows that the environmental and energy benefits of algae
biofuel are at least on par, and likely better, than first generation biofuels.¶ “This study affirms that algae-based fuels provide results without compromise,” said
Mary Rosenthal, ABO’s executive director. “With significant emissions reductions, a positive energy balance, nutrient
recycling and CO2 reuse, algae-based fuels will be a long-term, sustainable source of fuels for our
nation.”¶ The study, “Pilot-scale data provide enhanced estimates of the life cycle energy and emissions profile of algae biofuels produced via hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL),” is a life cycle analysis of an algae
MINNEAPOLIS (September 19, 2013) –
cultivation and fuel production process currently employed at pre-commercial scales. The authors examined field data from two facilities operated by Sapphire Energy in Las Cruces and Columbus, New Mexico that grow
algae technologies at
commercial scale are projected to produce biofuels with lower greenhouse gas emissions and EROI
values that are comparable to first generation biofuels. Additionally, algae based biofuels produced through
this pathway at commercial scale will have a significant energy return on investment (EROI), close to
petroleum and three times higher than cellulosic ethanol. The system that was evaluated recycles
nutrients, can accept an algae feed that is up to 90 percent water in the processing phase, and the
final product can be blended with refinery intermediates for refining into finished gasoline or diesel
product, resulting in significant energy savings throughout the process.¶ “These real-world data from demonstration scale facilities
and process algae into Green Crude oil. Sapphire Energy’s Green Crude can be refined into drop-in fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.¶ The study concluded that
gave us new insight and allowed us to understand how scale will impact the benefits and costs of algae-to-energy deployment.” said lead author Andres F. Clarens, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental
algae-based fuels made using HTL have an environmental profile that is comparable to conventional biofuels.Ӧ
surpass advanced biofuels such as cellulosic
ethanol in terms of both energy returns and greenhouse gas emissions.
Engineering at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “These results suggest that
The authors also write that expected improvements in the industry mean that algae-based biofuels are set to
Algae solves food crisis and climate change
USU 14 (Utah State University- “USU researchers: Algae biofuel can help meet energy
demand” Utah State University (USU) is a public research university in Logan, Utah.
Founded in 1888 as Utah's agricultural college, USU focused on agriculture,
domestic arts, and mechanic
arts[http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10491/usu-researchers-algae-biofuelcan-help-meet-energy-demand] June 05, 2014-M.V.)
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.Ӧ 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.Ӧ 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.Ӧ 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 is more sustainable than corn- solves CO2 and land
World Watch 13 (World Watch Institute- Founded in 1974 by Lester Brown as an
independent research institute devoted to global environmental concerns,
Worldwatch was quickly recognized by opinion leaders around the world for its
foresight and accessible, fact-based analysis. “Better Than Corn? Algae Set to Beat
Out Other Biofuel Feedstocks”[http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5391] 2013M.V.)
Forget corn, sugar cane, and even switchgrass. Some experts believe that algae is set to eclipse all other biofuel
feedstocks as the cheapest, easiest, and most ENVIRONMENTALLY friendly way to produce liquid
fuel, reports Kiplinger’s Biofuels Market Alert. “It is easy to get excited about algae,” says Worldwatch Institute biofuels expert Raya
Widenoja. “It looks like such a promising fuel source, especially if it’s combined with advances in biodiesel processing.” ¶ The
inputs for algae are simple: the single-celled organisms only need sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide to grow. They can
quadruple in biomass in just one day, and they help remove carbon from the air and nitrogen from
wastewater, another environmental benefit. Some types of algae comprise more than 50 percent oil,
and an average acre of algae grown today for pharmaceutical industries can produce 5,000 gallons
(19,000 liters) of biodiesel each year. By comparison, an average acre of corn produces 420 gallons
(1,600 liters) of ETHANOLper year, and an acre of soybeans yields just 70 gallons (265 liters) of biodiesel
per year.¶ “Your bang for your buck is just bigger because you can really do this on a much smaller amount of land and yet yield much,
much higher biomass,” said Michael S. Atkins, CEO of San Francisco area-based Ocean Technology & Environmental Consulting (OTEC).
Douglas Henston, CEO of Solix Biofuels, a
company that grows algae for biofuels, has estimated that replacing
all current U.S. diesel fuel use with algae biodiesel would require using only about one half of 1
percent of the farmland in production today. Algae can also grow on marginal lands, such as in
desert areas where the groundwater is saline.¶ Other Worldwatch Articles You Might Enjoy¶ Worldwatch Perspective:
Nothing is Simple, Not Even Biofuels¶ Biofuels Must Be Made Sustainably, Says European Commission¶ Biofuels in Africa May Help
Achieve Global Goals, Experts Say¶
Warming
Algae reduces CO2 emissions
ABO 13 (The Algae Biomass Organization (ABO) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to
promote the development of viable commercial markets for renewable and sustainable
commodities derived from algae. I “ALGAE BIOFUEL CAN CUT CO2 EMISSIONS BY UP TO 68
PERCENT COMPARED TO PETROLEUM FUELS FINDS NEW PEER REVIEWED STUDY”[http://www.algaebiomass.org/algae-biofuel-can-cut-co2-emissions-by-more-than-50-comparedto-petroleum-fuels-finds-new-peer-reviewed-study/] September 19, 2013- M.V.)
Algae-derived biofuel can reduce life cycle CO2 emissions by 50 to 70 percent
compared to petroleum fuels, and is approaching a similar Energy Return on Investment (EROI) as conventional petroleum according to a new peer-reviewed paper published in
Bioresource Technology. The study, which is the first to analyze real-world data from an existing algae-to-energy demonstration scale farm, shows that the environmental and energy benefits of algae
biofuel are at least on par, and likely better, than first generation biofuels.¶ “This study affirms that algae-based fuels provide results without compromise,” said
Mary Rosenthal, ABO’s executive director. “With significant emissions reductions, a positive energy balance, nutrient
recycling and CO2 reuse, algae-based fuels will be a long-term, sustainable source of fuels for our
nation.”¶ The study, “Pilot-scale data provide enhanced estimates of the life cycle energy and emissions profile of algae biofuels produced via hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL),” is a life cycle analysis of an algae
MINNEAPOLIS (September 19, 2013) –
cultivation and fuel production process currently employed at pre-commercial scales. The authors examined field data from two facilities operated by Sapphire Energy in Las Cruces and Columbus, New Mexico that grow
algae technologies at
commercial scale are projected to produce biofuels with lower greenhouse gas emissions and EROI
values that are comparable to first generation biofuels. Additionally, algae based biofuels produced through
this pathway at commercial scale will have a significant energy return on investment (EROI), close to
petroleum and three times higher than cellulosic ethanol. The system that was evaluated recycles
nutrients, can accept an algae feed that is up to 90 percent water in the processing phase, and the
final product can be blended with refinery intermediates for refining into finished gasoline or diesel
product, resulting in significant energy savings throughout the process.¶ “These real-world data from demonstration scale facilities
and process algae into Green Crude oil. Sapphire Energy’s Green Crude can be refined into drop-in fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.¶ The study concluded that
gave us new insight and allowed us to understand how scale will impact the benefits and costs of algae-to-energy deployment.” said lead author Andres F. Clarens, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental
algae-based fuels made using HTL have an environmental profile that is comparable to conventional biofuels.Ӧ
surpass advanced biofuels such as cellulosic
ethanol in terms of both energy returns and greenhouse gas emissions.
Engineering at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “These results suggest that
The authors also write that expected improvements in the industry mean that algae-based biofuels are set to
Failure to incentivize widespread offshore wind production in the US would lock in
climate change – the result is extinction.
Thaler, Professor of Energy Policy, Law & Ethics at the University of Maine School of Law and
School of Economics, 2012
(Jeff, “FIDDLING AS THE WORLD BURNS: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE URGENTLY REQUIRES A
PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE PERMITTING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS,” Environmental Law,
Volume 42, Issue 4, September, Online:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148122)
Thus, Part III focuses on one promising technology to demonstrate the flaws in current licensing
permitting regimes, and makes concrete recommendations for reform.16 Wind power generation
from onshore installations is proven technology, generates no greenhouse gases, consumes no
water,17 is increasingly cost-competitive with most fossil fuel sources,18 and can be deployed
relatively quickly in many parts of the United States and the world.19 Offshore wind power is a
relatively newer technology, especially deep-water floating projects, and is presently less costcompetitive than onshore wind.20 However, because wind speeds are on average about 90%
stronger and more consistent over water than over land, with higher power densities and lower
shear and turbulence,21 America’s offshore resources can provide more than its current electricity
use.22 Moreover, since these resources are near many major population centers that drive
electricity demand, their exploitation would “reduc[e] the need for new high-voltage transmission
from the Midwest and Great Plains to serve coastal lands.”23 Therefore, in light of Part III’s
spotlight on literally dozens of different federal (let alone state and local) statutes and their
hundreds of regulations standing between an offshore wind project applicant and construction,
Part IV makes concrete statutory and regulatory recommendations to more quickly enable the full
potential of offshore wind energy to become a reality before it is too late.¶ II. OUR ENERGY USE
AND ITS RESULTANT CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS¶ A. Overview¶ Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap
heat in the atmosphere.24 The primary GHG emitted by human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2),
which in 2010 represented 84% of all human-sourced GHG emissions in the U.S.25 “The combustion of
fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation,
accounting for about 40% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 33% of total U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions in 2009.”26 Beginning with the 1750 Industrial Revolution, atmospheric concentrations
of GHGs have significantly increased with greater use of fossil fuels—which has in turn caused our
world to warm and the climate to change.27 In fact, climate change may be the single greatest threat
to human society and wildlife, as well as to the ecosystems upon which each depends for survival.28¶ In
1992, the U.S. signed and ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), the stated objective of which was:¶ [To achieve] stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient
to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not
threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.29¶ In 2007,
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that it is “very likely”—at least 90%
certain—that humans are responsible for most of the “unequivocal” increases in globally averaged
temperatures of the previous fifty years.30¶ Yet in the twenty years since the UNFCCC, it also is
unequivocal that GHG levels have not stabilized but continue to grow, ecosystems and food
production have not been able to adapt, and our heavy reliance on fossil fuels perpetuates
“dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”31 Equally unequivocal is that
2011 global temperatures were “the tenth highest on record and [were] higher than any previous
year with a La Nina event, which [normally] has a relative cooling influence.”32 The warmest
thirteen years of average global temperatures also “have all occurred in the [fifteen] years since
1997.”33 Global emissions of carbon dioxide also jumped 5.9% in 2010—500 million extra tons of
carbon was pumped into the air—“the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial
Revolution [began in 1750], and the largest percentage increase since 2003.”34¶ In order to even
have a fifty-fifty chance that the average global temperature will not rise more than 2°C 35 beyond
the temperature of 1750,36 our cumulative emissions of CO2 after 1750 must not exceed one trillion
tons. However, by mid-October 2012 we had already emitted over 561 billion tons, and at current
rates, we will emit the trillionth ton in June 2043.37 The consequence is that members of “the current
generation are uniquely placed in human history: the choices we make now—in the next 10–20
years—will alter the destiny of our species (let alone every other species) unalterably, and
forever.”38 Unfortunately by the end of 2011, the more than 10,000 government and U.N. officials
from all over the world attending the Durban climate change conference39 agreed that there is a
“significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual
emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a
likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2°C or 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.”40¶ What are some of the growing economic, public health, and environmental
costs to our country proximately caused41 by our daily burning of fossil fuels? The National
Research Council (NRC) recently analyzed the “hidden” costs of energy production and use not
reflected in market prices of coal, oil, and other energy sources, or in the prices of electricity and
gasoline produced from them.42 For the year 2005 alone, the NRC estimated $120 billion of
damages to the U.S. from fossil fuel energy production and use, reflecting primarily health damages
from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation.43 Of
that total, $62 billion was due to coal-fired electricity generation;44 $56 billion from ground
transportation (oil-petroleum);45 and over $2.1 billion from electricity generation and heating with
natural gas.46 The $120 billion figure did not include damages from climate change, harm to
ecosystems and infrastructure, insurance costs, effects of some air pollutants, and risks to national
security, which the NRC examined but did not specifically monetize.47 The NRC did, however,
suggest that under some scenarios, climate damages from energy use could equal $120 billion.48
Thus, adding infrastructure and ecosystem damages, insurance costs, air pollutant costs, and fossilfueled national security costs to reach a total of $240 billion, it becomes clear that fossil
consumption costs Americans almost $300 billion each year49—a “hidden” number likely to be
larger in the future.¶ What does the future hold for a carbon-stressed world? Most scientific
analyses presently predict that by 2050 the Earth will warm by 2–2.5°C due to the rising level of
GHGs in the atmosphere; at the high-end of projections, the 2050 warming could exceed 4.5°C.50
But those increases are not consistent globally; rather, “[i]n all possible [predicted] outcomes, the
warming over land would be roughly twice the global average, and the warming in the Arctic
greater still.”51¶ For example, the NRC expects that each degree Celsius increase will produce
double to quadruple the area burned by wildfires in the western United States, a 5%–15%
reduction in crop yields, more destructive power from hurricanes, greater risk of very hot
summers, and more changes in precipitation frequency and amounts.52 Globally, a summary of
studies predicts that at a 1°C global average temperature rise would reduce Arctic sea ice by an
annual average of 15% and by 25% in the month of September;53 at 2°C Europe suffers greater
heat waves, the Greenland Ice Sheet significantly melts, and many land and marine species are
driven to extinction;54 at 3°C the Amazon suffers severe drought and resultant firestorms that will
release significantly more carbon into the atmosphere;55 at 4°C hundreds of billions of tons of
carbon in permafrost melts, releasing methane in immense quantities, while the Arctic Ocean ice
cap disappears and Europe suffers greater droughts.56¶ To presently assess what a 5°C rise will
mean, we must look back into geological time, 55 million years ago, when the Earth abruptly
experienced dramatic global warming due to the release of methane hydrates—a substance
presently found on subsea continental shelves.57 Fossils demonstrate that crocodiles were in the
Canadian high Arctic along with rain forests of dawn redwood, and the Arctic Ocean saw water
temperatures of 20°C within 200 km of the North Pole itself.58 And a 6°C average rise takes us even
further back—to the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago—when up to 95% of species
relatively abruptly became extinct.59 This may sound extreme, but the International Energy Agency
warned this year that the 6°C mark is in reach by 2050 at current rates of fossil fuel usage.60
However, even given the severity of these forecasts, many still question the extent to which our
climate is changing,61 and thus reject moving away from our largely fossil-fueled electricity,
transportation, and heating sources. Therefore, in this next subsection I provide the latest scientific
data documenting specific climate impacts to multiple parts of the U.S. and global daily lives, and
the costly consequences that establish the urgency for undertaking the major regulatory reforms I
recommend in Part IV of this Article.¶ B. Specific Climate Threats and Consequences¶ 1. When
Weather Extremes Increase¶ A 2011 IPCC Special Report predicted that:¶ It is virtually certain [99–
100% probability] that increases in the frequency of warm daily temperature extremes and
decreases in cold extremes will occur throughout the 21st century on a global scale. It is very likely
[90–100% probability] that heat waves will increase in length, frequency, and/or intensity over
most land areas. . . . It is very likely that average sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in
extreme sea levels in extreme coastal high water levels.62¶ Similarly, a House of Representatives
committee report (ACESA Report) found that “[t]here is a broad scientific consensus that the United
States is vulnerable to weather hazards that will be exacerbated by climate change.”63 It also found
that the “cost of damages from weather disasters has increased markedly from the 1980s, rising to
more than 100 billion dollars in 2007. In addition to a rise in total cost, the frequency of weather
disasters costing more than one billion dollars has increased.”64 In 2011, the U.S. faced the most
billion-dollar climate disasters ever, with fourteen distinct disasters alone costing at least $54
billion to our economy.65 In the first six months of 2012 in the U.S., there were more than 40,000
hot temperature records, horrendous wildfires, major droughts, oppressive heat waves, major
flooding, and a powerful derecho wind storm, followed in August by Hurricane Isaac ($2 billion
damages), and in October by Hurricane Sandy ($50 billion damages).66¶ The IPCC Synthesis
identified impacts from growing weather hazards upon public health to include: more frequent and
more intense heat waves; more people suffering death, disease, and injury from floods, storms,
fires, and droughts; increased cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality associated with groundlevel ozone pollution; changes in the range of some infectious disease carriers spreading, for
example, malaria and the West Nile virus; and increased malnutrition and consequent disorders.67
The NRC Hidden Costs of Energy report’s damage assessment concluded that the vast majority of
the $120 billion per year were based on health damages,68 including an additional 10,000–20,000
deaths per year.69 By 2050, cumulative additional heat-related deaths from unabated climate
change are predicted to be roughly 33,000 in the forty largest U.S. cities, with more than 150,000
additional deaths by 2100.70¶ Weather extremes also threaten our national security, which is
premised on stability. In 2007, the CNA Corporation’s report National Security and the Threat of
Climate Change described climate change as a “threat multiplier for instability” and warned that:¶
Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security. The predicted
effects of climate change over the coming decades include extreme weather events, drought,
flooding, sea level rise, retreating glaciers, habitat shifts, and the increased spread of lifethreatening diseases. These conditions have the potential to disrupt our way of life and to force
changes in the way we keep ourselves safe and secure.71¶ The following year, in the first ever U.S.
government analysis of climate change security threats, the National Intelligence Council issued an
assessment warning, in part, that climate change could threaten U.S. security by leading to political
instability, mass movements of refugees, terrorism, and conflicts over water and other
resources.72¶ 2. When Frozen Water Melts¶ In 2007, the IPCC predicted that sea levels would rise
by eight to twenty-four inches above current levels by 2100;73 since then, however, numerous
scientists and studies have suggested that the 2007 prediction is already out-of-date and that sea
levels will likely rise up to 1.4 meters (m), or 55 inches, given upwardly trending CO2 emissions.74
The 2009 ACESA Report found that rising sea levels are:¶ [A]lready causing inundation of low-lying
lands, corrosion of wetlands and beaches, exacerbation of storm surges and flooding, and increases
in the salinity of coastal estuaries and aquifers. . . . Further, about one billion people live in areas
within 75 feet elevation of today’s sea level, including many US cities on the East Coast and Gulf of
Mexico, almost all of Bangladesh, and areas occupied by more than 250 million people in China.75¶
This year NASA’s Chief Scientist testified to Congress that two-thirds of sea level rise from the last
three decades is derived from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and the melting Arctic region;
he then warned:¶ [T]he West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS), an area about the size of the states of
Texas and Oklahoma combined . . . contains the equivalent of 3.3 m of sea level, and all that ice rests
on a soft-bed that lies below sea level. In this configuration, as warm seawater melts the floating ice
shelves, causing them to retreat and the glaciers that feed them to speed up, there is no mechanism
to stop the retreat and associated discharge, if warming continues. Thus the WAIS exhibits great
potential for substantial and relatively rapid contributions to sea level rise.¶ In Greenland, the
situation is not as dramatic, since the bed that underlies most of the ice is not below sea level, and
the potential for unabated retreat is limited to a few outlet glaciers. In Greenland, however, summer
air temperatures are warmer and closer to ice’s melting point, and we have observed widespread
accumulation of meltwater in melt ponds on the ice sheet surface.76¶ In the West Antarctic ice
sheet region, glacier retreat appears to be widespread, as the air has “warmed by nearly 6°F since
1950.”77 As for Greenland’s ice sheet, it also is at greater risk than the IPCC had thought.¶ Recent
studies with more complete modeling suggest that the warming threshold leading to an essentially
ice-free state is not the previous estimate of an additional 3.1°C, but only 1.6°C. Thus, the 2°C target
may be insufficient to prevent loss of much of the ice sheet and resultant significant sea level
rise.78¶ The ACESA Report also identified the Arctic as “one of the hotspots of global warming”79
because “[o]ver the past 50 years average temperatures in the Arctic have increased as much as
7°F, five times the global average.”80 Moreover, in “2007, a record 386,000 square miles of Arctic
sea ice melted away, an area larger than Texas and Arizona combined and as big a decline in one
year as has occurred over the last decade.”81 “Arctic sea ice is melting faster than climate models
[had] predict[ed,] and is about [thirty] years ahead” of the 2007 IPCC predictions, thus indicating
that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in the late summer beginning sometime between 2020 and
2037.82¶ How is the Arctic’s plight linked to non-Arctic impacts? “The Arctic region arguably has
the greatest concentration of potential tipping elements in the Earth system, including Arctic sea
ice, the Greenland ice sheet, North Atlantic deep-water formation regions, boreal forests,
permafrost and marine methane hydrates.”83 Additionally:¶ Warming of the Arctic region is
proceeding at three times the global average . . . . Loss of Arctic sea ice has been tentatively linked to
extreme cold winters in Europe . . . . Near complete loss of the summer sea ice, as forecast for the
middle of this century, if not before, will probably have knock-on effects for the northern midlatitudes, shifting the jet streams and storm tracks.84 ¶ Since 1980, sea levels have been rising
three to four times faster than the global average between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and
Boston, Massachusetts.85 “[P]ast and future global warming more than doubles the estimated odds
of ‘century’ or worse floods occurring within the next 18 years” for most coastal U.S. locations.86¶
Although land-based glacier melts are not major contributors to sea level rise, they do impact
peoples’ food and water supplies. Virtually all of the world’s glaciers, which store 75% of the
world’s freshwater, are receding in direct response to global warming, aggravating already severe
water scarcity—both in the United States and abroad.87 While over 15% of the world’s population
currently relies on glacial melt and snow cover for drinking water and irrigation for agriculture, the
IPCC projects a 60% volume loss in glaciers in various regions and widespread reductions in snow
cover throughout the twenty-first century.88 Likewise, snowpack has been decreasing, and it is
expected that snow cover duration will significantly decrease in eastern and western North
America and Scandinavia by 2020 and globally by 2080.89¶ Climate change thus increases food
insecurity by reducing yields of grains, such as corn and wheat, through increased water scarcity
and intensification of severe hot conditions, thereby causing corn price volatility to sharply
increase.90 Globally, the number of people living in “severely stressed” river basins will increase
“by one to two billion people in the 2050s. About two-thirds of global land area is expected to
experience increased water stress.”91¶ 3. When Liquid Water Warms¶ Over the past century,
oceans, which cover 70% of the Earth’s surface, have been warming. Global sea-surface
temperatures have increased about 1.3°F and the heat has penetrated almost two miles into the
deep ocean.92 This increased warming is contributing to the destruction of seagrass meadows,
causing an annual release back into the environment of 299 million tons of carbon.93 Elevated
atmospheric CO2 concentrations also are leading to higher absorption of CO2 into the upper ocean,
making the surface waters more acidic (lower pH).94 “[O]cean chemistry currently is changing at
least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed during the 650,000 years preceding our [fossilfueled] industrial era.”95 This acidification has serious implications for the calcification rates of
organisms and plants living at all levels within the global ocean. Coral reefs—habitat for over a
million marine species—are collapsing, endangering more than a third of all coral species.96
Indeed, temperature thresholds for the majority of coral reefs worldwide are expected to be
exceeded, causing mass bleaching and complete coral mortality.97 “[T]he productivity of plankton,
krill, and marine snails, which compose the base of the ocean food-chain, [also] declines as the
ocean acidifies,”98 adversely impacting populations of “everything from whales to salmon”99—
species that are also are being harmed by the oceans’ warming.100¶ Extinctions from climate
change also are expected to be significant and widespread. The IPCC Fourth Assessment found that
“approximately 20– 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased
risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5– 2.5°C”101—a range likely
to be exceeded in the coming decades. “[R]ecent studies have linked global warming to declines in
such [] species as [] blue crabs, penguins, gray whales, salmon, walruses, and ringed seals[; b]ird
extinction rates are predicted to be as high as 38[%] in Europe and 72[%] in northeastern
Australia, if global warming exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels.”102 Between now and 2050,
Conservation International estimates that one species will face extinction every twenty
minutes;103 the current extinction rate is one thousand times faster than the average during
Earth’s history,104 in part because the climate is changing more than 100 times faster than the rate
at which many species can adapt.105¶ 4. When Land Dries Out¶ The warming trends toward the
Earth’s poles and higher latitudes are threatening people not just from melting ice and sea level
rise, but also from the predicted thawing of 30%–50% of permafrost by 2050, and again as much or
more of it by 2100.106 “The term permafrost refers to soil or rock that has been below 0°C (32°F)
and frozen for at least two years.”107 Permafrost underlies about 25% of the land area in the
northern hemisphere, and is “estimated to hold 30[%] or more of all carbon stored in soils
worldwide”— which equates to four times more than all the carbon humans have emitted in
modern times.108 Given the increasing average air temperatures in eastern Siberia, Alaska, and
northwestern Canada, thawing of the Northern permafrost would release massive amounts of
carbon dioxide (doubling current atmospheric levels) and methane into the atmosphere.109
Indeed, there are about 1.7 trillion tons of carbon in northern soils (roughly twice the amount in the
atmosphere), about 88% of it in thawing permafrost.110 Permafrost thus may become an annual
source of carbon equal to 15%–35% of today’s annual human emissions.111 But like seagrass
meadows and unlike power plant emissions, we cannot trap or prevent permafrost carbon
emissions at the source.¶ Similarly, forests, which “cover about 30[%] of the Earth’s land surface
and hold almost half of the world’s terrestrial carbon . . . act both as a source of carbon emissions to
the atmosphere when cut, burned, or otherwise degraded and as a sink when they grow.”112 A
combination of droughts, fires, and spreading pests, though, are causing economic and
environmental havoc: “In 2003 . . . forest fires in Europe, the United States, Australia, and Canada
accounted for more global [carbon] emissions than any other source.”113 There have been
significant increases in both the number of major wildfires and the area of forests burned in the U.S.
and Canada.114 Fires fed by hot, dry weather have killed enormous stretches of forest in Siberia
and in the Amazon, which “recently suffered two ‘once a century’ droughts just five years
apart.”115¶ Climate change also is exacerbating the geographic spread and intensity of insect
infestations. For example:¶ [I]n British Columbia . . . the mountain pine beetle extended its range
north and has destroyed an area of soft-wood forest three times the size of Maryland, killing 411
million cubic feet of trees—double the annual take by all the loggers in Canada. Alaska has also lost
up to three million acres of old growth forest to the pine beetle.116¶ Over the past fifteen years the
spruce bark beetle extended its range into Alaska, where it has killed about 40 million trees more
“than any other insect in North America’s recorded history.”117 The drying and burning forests,
and other increasingly dry landscapes, also are causing “flora and fauna [to move] to higher
latitudes or to higher altitudes in the mountains.”118¶ The human and environmental costs from
failing to promptly reduce dependence on carbon-dioxide emitting sources for electricity, heating,
and transportation are dire and indisputable. Rather than being the leader among major countries
in per capita GHG emissions, our country urgently needs to lead the world in cutting 80% of our
emissions by 2050 and using our renewable energy resources and technological advances to help
other major emitting countries do the same. However, significantly increasing our use of carbonfree renewable sources to protect current and future generations of all species—human and nonhuman—requires concrete changes in how our legal system regulates and permits renewable
energy sources. One source with the potential for significant energy production and comparable
elimination of fossil fueled GHGs near major American and global population centers is offshore
wind.
China is reducing its CO2 emissions
Duggan 13 (Jennifer Duggan, Shanghai-based journalist, “How China’s action on air pollution is slowing
its carbon emission”, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/nov/21/china-airpollution-carbon-emissions, 11/21/13)
It's been a week of mostly bad news for the planet but there may be a small glimmer of hope as new
research shows the growth of
emissions from China, the world's biggest emitter, may be slowing due to its efforts to clean up the air
pollution problem in many of its cities. The United Nations climate change talks in Warsaw are so far not making sufficient
progress to ensure the agreed goal of keeping global temperature increases to below 2C and new research shows that global CO2 emissions
from burning fossil fuels will rise to a record high of 36 billion tonnes in 2013. The research from the Global Carbon Budget also estimates that
in 2012, China contributed 27% of global CO2 emissions. However, the
latest Climate Change Performance Index published by
Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe suggests that China is taking action to clean up its act
as it tries to deal with its hazardously high levels of air pollution. The report states: "Recent developments
indicate a slower growth of CO2 emissions and a decoupling of CO2 growth and GDP growth. Both, its heavy
investments in renewable energies and a very critical debate on coal in the highest political circles, resulting from the heavy smog situation in
many towns, give hope for a slower emission growth in the future." China's
slower growth of emission is linked to its
attempts to improve its air pollution that rather than being linked to international efforts to improve
climate change. However, the source of both its hazardous air pollution and its CO2 emissions is its reliance on coal to fuel its massive
economic growth. So efforts to improve its air quality will also bring reductions in CO2 emissions.
Algae solves food crisis and climate change
USU 14 (Utah State University- “USU researchers: Algae biofuel can help meet
energy demand” Utah State University (USU) is a public research university in
Logan, Utah. Founded in 1888 as Utah's agricultural college, USU focused on
agriculture, domestic arts, and mechanic
arts[http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10491/usu-researchers-algaebiofuel-can-help-meet-energy-demand] June 05, 2014-M.V.)
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.Ӧ 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.Ӧ 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.Ӧ 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.”
Food security
World hunger now
Rappler 14
Rappler is a news organization based in the Philippines “The 2013 Global Hunger Index” 03/01/2014
http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/specials/rich-media/44898-2013-global-hunger-index
Global hunger has generally declined since the 1990s, a glimmer of hope that could make the Millennium
However, progress is not equally and simultaneously
shared, and the struggle for most countries to sustain food security is far from over.¶ The reality is that
some countries suffer higher and more alarming degrees of hunger and malnutrition compared to
others. As in a race, countries running towards the hunger reduction finish line can be fast or slow, strong or weak, with varying levels and rates of progress.
Hunger is still a severe problem for many countries. ¶ In October 2013, the International Food Policy Research Institute,
Welthungerhilfe, and Concern Worldwide published a report on the Global Hunger Index (GHI), which
MANILA, Philippines -
Development Goal of reducing hunger by half before 2015 even more possible.
has been used to assess, measure and map global hunger using collated country-level statistics. The report, 8th in an annual publication series, also called for better
strategies in building resilience among poor and vulnerable communities to improve food security. ¶ The
report revealed, among many key
findings, that about 19 countries still have “alarming” and “extremely alarming” situations of hunger. This
does not include several countries that still have a “serious” state of hunger. Highest levels of hunger were found in South Asian and
Sub-Saharan African countries.¶ The graphic below maps global hunger by indicating the GHI for each country. Countries are in varying shades
depending on the degree of hunger assessed for each area. Mouse over a country to see the specific GHI score, along with data related to the key components. ¶
The GHI is calculated based on 3 key components: Undernourishment – percentage of undernourished people to the total
population. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), this refers to the consumption of less than 1,800 kilocalories – the average required intake
Child underweight – share of children less than 5 years old who are underweight. Child mortality – mortality rate of children
There is considerable progress being made every year, but it is no
reason to slow down. Efforts to develop food security and reduce hunger have to continue for the long
haul, not just for some countries – but for all.
for a healthy life.
less than 5 years old. What does the report generally tell us?
2AC Oil Shocks
Algae biofuels have the potential to reduce oil dependence
Parry 11 (Parry, Wynne. "Algae: Biofuel of the Future?" LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 14 Apr. 2011. Web. 16 July 2014.
<http://www.livescience.com/13718-oil-algae-biofuels-water-renewable-energy.html>. Wynne Parry is a senior writer for
livescience.com Fred and Eric and Miriam).
Oil produced by algae growing in an area roughly the size of South Carolina could replace a
sizable chunk of the oil the United States imports for transportation , according to a new analysis that also
contends that water use — a drawback to algal biofuel — could be minimized. ¶ "Algae has been a hot topic of biofuel
discussions recently, but no one has taken such a detailed look at how much America could make, and how much water and land it
would require, until now," said Mark Wigmosta, a U.S. Department of Energy hydrologist who was the lead researcher for the analysis. "This
research provides the groundwork and initial estimates needed to better inform renewable
energy decisions."¶ The researchers concluded that farmed algae could produce 21 billion gallons of oil, fulfilling a federal goal set for
advanced biofuel production in 2022. Growing algae domestically would help reduce the U.S. dependence
on foreign oil — in 2009, slightly more than half of the petroleum used in the U.S. came from abroad.¶ Algae grown in freshwater ponds
in the country's most sunny and humid climates — the Gulf Coast, the southeastern seaboard and the Great Lakes — would require the least
water, the researchers said.¶ Algae
have some important advantages as a source of biofuel, which in
this case would be made by extracting and refining oils called lipids produced by the simple
plants. Algae can produce 80 times more oil than an equal area of corn does . And unlike with corn,
which is used to make ethanol, algae grown for biofuel production wouldn't interfere with a food crop,
since algae aren't a widespread food source. Algae also consume carbon dioxide, the primary
greenhouse gas, and can grow in (and clean) municipal wastewater.
Algae biofuels key replace oil and to the economy
Daly 13 (John Daly, the chief analyst for Oilprice.com, Dr. Daly received his Ph.D. in 1986 from the School of Slavonic and East European
Studies, University of London, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, served as Director of Programs at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC before joining UPI as International Correspondent, U.S.Central Asia Biofuels Ltd, Oilprices.com, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/Research-Unlocks-Algae-Biofuel-Potential.html,
11/25/13, 7/14/14,MEM)
The researchers are well aware of the economic implications of their study. By increasing
the yields of algae biofuel,
production costs for biofuels could be lowered, the researchers believe. The team also said the speed of algal biofuel crop
production could be advanced, writing in their paper, “Maintaining high growth rates and high biomass accumulation is
imperative for algal biofuel production on large economic scales.” The research when patented and commercially
available has the potential to move algae to the forefront of the most promising feedstocks for future biofuel
production. Algae’s advantages include their widespread availability, higher oil yields and that they
reduce the pressure on cultivated land for production of biodiesel. Thus, algae will be the future of fuel.
Algae as a fuel source are incredible. Some types of algae are made up of 50 percent oil, which can be made into biofuel
more economically. Theoretically, algae can yield between 1,000-20,000 gallons of oil per acre, depending on
the specific strain.
The U.S. is prone to oil shocks
Aziz 6/20 (John Aziz, economics and business editor at TheWeek.com and previous work appeared on Business Insider;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/energy-environment/oil-shocks-ahead-probablynot.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0; “The lessons of Iraq: The U.S. economy is still way too vulnerable to oil price shocks”; June 20,
2014)
With oil prices rising due to the crisis in Iraq, it's become clear that for all the progress the U.S. has made
in securing energy independence, it is still far too vulnerable to geopolitical turmoil halfway around the
world. And the only way to change that is for the U.S. to wean itself off oil. Now, sometimes rising oil
prices can signify growing global economic strength. Demand for oil is a bellwether of the market's
appetite for energy, so if prices are climbing on booming demand, then that's a pretty happy sign. But oil
price spikes can also spell serious problems. Rising energy and transportation prices — which affect
nearly every product and service —trickle down and squeeze businesses and consumers. Mortgages and
other loans can suddenly become unaffordable as energy prices rise, encouraging defaults. This appears
to be what occurred between 2006 and 2008. While the seeds of the financial crisis — excessive
consumer and financial sector debt, and risky financial practices — were sown much earlier, rising
energy and transportation prices surely exacerbated the credit crunch. Indeed, rising oil prices were
arguably one of the factors that triggered the crisis, the straw that broke the camel's back.With Iraq
facing an incipient civil war, the issue is coming back into focus. A big enough oil spike translating into
soaring energy prices could once again squeeze American consumers and businesses, leaving the
economy vulnerable to a recession. Of course, the U.S. is in a better position to weather the storm than
in 2007. Interest rates remain near historic lows, giving debtors some breathing room. The total level of
debt relative to the size of the economy is lower, too. And the U.S. — thanks to a shale oil and natural
gas boom — is much less dependent on energy brought in from abroad. But just because the U.S. is
importing a lower proportion of its energy doesn't mean that it isn't vulnerable to energy shocks. The
U.S. energy market is part of the global energy market. If oil supplies are cut off or impeded in the
Middle East (or elsewhere) the U.S. will still be affected, because the rest of the global marketplace will
still need to buy oil. That means that the price of oil for Americans will still rise.
Several Empirics
Roubini and Setser 04 (Nouriel Roubini, cofounder and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, a
global macroeconomic strategy research firm PhD in economics; Brad Setser, serves at the National
Economic Council and served the US Treasury Department; “The Effects of the Recent Oil Price Shock on
the US and Global Economy;” http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/papers/OilShockRoubiniSetser.pdf;
August 2004)
These effects are not trivial: oil shocks have caused and/or contributed to each one of the US and global
recessions of the last thirty years. Specifically: - The 1974-1975 US and global recession was triggered by
the tripling of the price of oil following the Yom Kippur war and the following oil embargo. - The 19801981 US and global recession was triggered by a spike in the price of oil following the Iranian revolution
in 1979. - The 1990-1991 US recession was partly caused by the spike in the price of oil following the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in the summer of 1990. - The 2001 US and global recession was partly caused by
the sharp increase in the price of oil in 2000 following the California energy crisis and the tensions in the
Middle East (the beginning of the second intifada). But other factors were more important: the bust of
the internet bubble, the collapse of real investment and, in smaller measure, the Fed tightening
between 1999 and 2000.
Rooted plants are the root cause of food insecurity
Edwards 12 (Mark Edwards, professor at Arizona State University, CEO at Green Algae Strategy
Partners, founder at Green Independence, “A Green Algae Strategy to Prevent War”,
http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/algae-and-national-security-part-1/, 10/18/12, 7/18/14, MEM)
The root of the problem The
root cause of food insecurity stems from the problem that terrestrial plants are
dependent on roots. When land plants evolved from algae 500 million years ago, they made substantial compromises. Plants had
to use about 30% of their energy on roots, 25% on superstructure, and another 35% on sexual apparatus – seeds.
All the energy directed into plant structure slowed growth and made plants more vulnerable to weather
and available water. Industrial agriculture methods improved yields but made crops far more consumptive of
fossil resources and substantially less whether tolerant. Industrial methods also increased waste and pollution. Why
industrial agricultural methods lead to food insecurity. No new technologies offer hope to overcome the substantial
problems with terrestrial crops. Genetically engineered seeds may improve weather tolerance and reduce resource consumption, but those
seeds are at least a decade away. No one knows if genetic changes will increase or decrease food security. Environmentalists and scientists
have serious concern about the health impacts of transgenic plants on people, animals and the environment.
Algae is the better alternative to oil
Edwards 12 (Mark Edwards, professor at Arizona State University, CEO at Green Algae Strategy
Partners, founder at Green Independence, “A Green Algae Strategy to Prevent War”,
http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/algae-and-national-security-part-1/, 10/18/12, 7/18/14, MEM)
Peace microfarms liberate growers from dependence on increasingly expensive cropland, fresh water and other non-renewable resources.
Peace microfarms
avoid conflicts over diminishing natural resources by growing microcrops using
abundance methods. Abundance allows affordable organic food production in any practically any climate, altitude, latitude or
geography. Microcrops include the full spectrum of microorganisms such as algae, yeast, fungi, bacteria, archaea, plankton and many
others. Microcrops deliver sustainable advantages over field crops, including that they grow food with
almost no waste and zero pollution. Microfarms leave a positive carbon, water and ecological footprint. Abundance
methods do not compete with industrial agriculture because microfarms avoid, to the degree possible, the use
of finite resources. Microfarms scale to any size and may be sited practically anywhere, including cities. Growers recover low cost
nutrients from sterilized waste streams and transform them into valuable freedom foods and other products. Growers use abundance methods
to assure a sustainable food supply for many generations. Societies that
use peace microfarms to grow freedom foods do not
have to go to war over food or the fossil resources required to produce food. Of course, countries go to war for
reasons other than their food supply, but peace microfarms eliminates a primary reason for war. Peace microfarms enable societies
to grow good food and avoid war by employing the tiniest plant on the planet—algae.
Algae are important for marine ecosystems
NOAA 13 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Ecological Assessment of Algae”,
http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/cred/algae.php, 2013)
The importance of algae to the ecosystem is staggering: Algae
form the base of the food web Some species occupy much of the
help oxygenate the ocean for animal life to thrive Healthy coral tissue often requires
microscopic symbiotic algae for survival: if algae are expelled from coral tissue because of stress, coral bleaching
occurs—a scenario that is becoming all too real in many geographic locations Although large, fleshy algal forms are the most recognizable
available substrate They
floral components on reefs to most divers, tiny turf algae and CCA also are widespread and play significant roles in ecosystems. Turf algae are
the first to colonize vacant substrate and cover essentially every nonliving hard surface on a reef. Turf algae also are
among the most
important food sources for herbivorous fishes and invertebrates. Relatively fast-growing CCA act as glue on reefs,
cementing loose components of a reef system together, and serve as a settling surface for larval invertebrates and other algae. Without CCA
holding everything together, much of a reef would be washed into deep water or onto shore during heavy storms. Without
algae, there
would be no tropical reef ecosystems.
Algae biomass solves for any oil crises
Oilgae 11 (Oilgae is the global information support resource for the algae fuels industry. he Oilgae team comprises: Scientific researchers biotechnologists, microbiologists and bio-informatics professionals. Renewable energy industry researchers - who have a background in
analysing industry trends, technical and economic feasibilities of disruptive ideas, and Engineers. “About Oilgae”, 2/11, Oilgae)
One ton of algae biomass requires about 1.8 T of CO2; this implies that out of 10 billion T of CO2 that the
power plants emit, we can get about 5.5 billion T of algae biomass. The right strains of algae have about
30% of oil by weight. Thus, 5.5 billion T of algae will result in about 1.65 billion tons of oil. The total
world consumption of oil is about 4.2 billion T of oil every year. Wing to the fact that high purity CO2 gas
is not required for algae cultivation, flue gas containing CO2 and water can be fed directly to the
photobioreactor. Power plants that are powered by natural gas or syngas have virtually no SO2 in the
flue gas. The other polluting products such as NOx can be effectively used as nutrients for micro algae.
Microalgae culturing yields high value commercial products that could offset the capital and the
operation costs of the process, at least to some extent. In addition to biofuels, algae are also as the
starting point for high-protein animal feeds, agricultural fertilizers, biopolymers / bioplastics, glycerin
and more. Depending on the species, algae can grow in temperatures ranging from below freezing to
158oF. The entire process is a renewable cycle. Business opportunities exist both for companies that are
CO2 emitters as well as for external businesses such as consulting and engineering companies that are
willing to work with power plants to make the algae-based CO2 sequestration and biofuels production a
reality. Algae thus provide a number of businesses and companies the ability to control their CO2
emissions while at the same time obtain an alternative revenue source through the resultant biofuel
feedstock. A number of businesses around the world have realized the potential of algae-based CO2
capture and are taking their first steps to explore this exciting avenue. In order to assist industries and
companies that are keen on exploring the potential of using algae for CO2 capture, Oilgae has come up
with the Oilgae Guide to Algae-based CO2 Capture, a comprehensive report on this topic. The report
focuses on the potential of algae-based CO2 capture, and provides critical inputs on current efforts,
bottlenecks, costs and challenges facing this vital segment.
2AC Economy
2AC oil shocks
Algae biofuels have the potential to reduce oil dependence
Parry 11 (Parry, Wynne. "Algae: Biofuel of the Future?" LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 14 Apr. 2011. Web. 16 July 2014.
<http://www.livescience.com/13718-oil-algae-biofuels-water-renewable-energy.html>. Wynne Parry is a senior writer for
livescience.com Fred and Eric and Miriam).
Oil produced by algae growing in an area roughly the size of South Carolina could replace a
sizable chunk of the oil the United States imports for transportation , according to a new analysis that also
contends that water use — a drawback to algal biofuel — could be minimized. ¶ "Algae has been a hot topic of biofuel
discussions recently, but no one has taken such a detailed look at how much America could make, and how much water and land it
would require, until now," said Mark Wigmosta, a U.S. Department of Energy hydrologist who was the lead researcher for the analysis. "This
research provides the groundwork and initial estimates needed to better inform renewable
energy decisions."¶ The researchers concluded that farmed algae could produce 21 billion gallons of oil, fulfilling a federal goal set for
advanced biofuel production in 2022. Growing algae domestically would help reduce the U.S. dependence
on foreign oil — in 2009, slightly more than half of the petroleum used in the U.S. came from abroad.¶ Algae grown in freshwater ponds
in the country's most sunny and humid climates — the Gulf Coast, the southeastern seaboard and the Great Lakes — would require the least
water, the researchers said.¶ Algae
have some important advantages as a source of biofuel, which in
this case would be made by extracting and refining oils called lipids produced by the simple
plants. Algae can produce 80 times more oil than an equal area of corn does . And unlike with corn,
which is used to make ethanol, algae grown for biofuel production wouldn't interfere with a food crop,
since algae aren't a widespread food source. Algae also consume carbon dioxide, the primary
greenhouse gas, and can grow in (and clean) municipal wastewater.
Oil shocks inevitable
Janssens, Nyquist, and Roelofsen 11 (Tom Janssens, partner of the McKinsey & Company, majored in
economics; Scott Nyquist, co-leader of McKinsey’s Sustainability & Resource Productivity Practice and leader of the
global Energy Practice, published articles on the challenges facing global energy markets; Occo Roelofsen, director
in McKinsey’s Amsterdam office and specializes in the oil and gas sector;
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/another_oil_shock; McKinsey&Company)
It’s been a while since the world has been truly preoccupied with the threat of sustained high oil prices.
The global economic recovery has been muted, and a double-dip recession remains possible. But that
dour prospect shouldn’t make executives sanguine about the risk of another oil shock. Emerging
markets are still in the midst of a historic transition toward greater energy consumption. When global
economic performance becomes more robust, oil demand is likely to grow faster than supply capacity
can. As that happens, at some point before too long supply and demand could collide—gently or
ferociously. The case for the benign scenario rests on a steady evolution away from oil consumption in
areas such as transportation, chemical production, power, and home heating. Moves by many major
economies to impose tougher automotive fuel efficiency standards are a step in this direction. However,
fully achieving the needed transition will take more stringent regulation, such as the abolition of fuel
subsidies in oil-producing countries, Asia, and elsewhere, as well as widespread consumer behavior
changes. And historically, governments, companies, and consumers have been disinclined to tackle
tough policy choices or make big changes until their backs are against the wall. This inertia suggests
another scenario—one that’s sufficiently plausible and underappreciated that we think it’s worth
exploring: the prospect that within this decade, the world could experience a period of significant
volatility, with oil prices leaping upward and oscillating between $125 and $175 a barrel (or higher) for
some time. The resulting economic pain would be significant. Economic modeling by our colleagues
suggests that by 2020, global GDP would be about $1.5 trillion smaller than expected, if oil prices spiked
and stayed high for several years.
Oil shocks unlikely
Krauss 10/8/13 (Clifford Krauss, correspondent for the New York Times, national business
correspondent; “Oil Shocks Ahead? Probably Not”; The New York Times; October 8, 2013)
OVER the last few months, as an Egyptian government fell in a coup, the United States
considered an attack on Syria and disgruntled Libyan terminal guards blocked oil exports, the only predictable news
was the rise in oil prices to levels not seen in more than two years. It all seemed distressingly similar to previous oil
shocks. That is, until the higher prices suddenly retreated, along with President Obama’s plans to retaliate for Syria’s apparent
HOUSTON —
use of chemical weapons. What is the lesson of the summer minispike? Are we poised to return to $145-a-barrel oil and $4.50-a-gallon
gasoline? The answer from most energy experts is probably not, because the
fundamental global oil demand and supply
equation has changed so drastically over the last three years. Even before the collapse of plans to attack Syria and the
new overtures of Iran to improve relations with the West, the financial company Raymond James published a report forecasting a lowering of
oil prices from $109 in 2013 to $95 in 2014 and $90 in 2015. Some analysts
are predicting even lower prices, and not only
because of the frenzy of shale drilling in the United States and rapid oil sands development in Canada. “Oil prices
at about $100 a barrel is at a sweet spot,” said Paul Bledsoe, senior fellow in the Climate and Energy Program at the German Marshall Fund.
“It’s high enough to incentivize remarkable investment in new production techniques and equally large investments in efficiency
improvements. And the underlying factor of relatively modest economic growth seems to be with us for quite a while.” Predictions about oil
and gasoline prices are precarious when there are so many political and security hazards. But it is likely that the world has already entered a
period of relatively predictable crude prices. Even at their highest point in late summer, oil prices
remained roughly 25 percent
below levels of five years ago, not counting inflation, and gasoline prices on Labor Day weekend were at multiyear lows. And
while oil slightly above $100 a barrel oil and nearly $3.50-a-gallon gasoline are high by historical measures, they are at a surprisingly benign
level given the on-and-off disruptions in the Middle East and North Africa over the last three years.
2AC ekon high now
Economy high
Jean 6/20 (Sheryl Jean, a financial professional currently employed by Wells Fargo Advisors and Investment
Advisory representative; “Growth of cities fueling U.S. economy”; Dallas News; June 20, 2014)
The nation’s metropolitan areas, including Dallas-Fort Worth, are growing fast and fueling the health of the U.S.
economy, according to a U.S. Conference of Mayors report released Friday at its annual meeting in Dallas. By the end
of 2015, 60 percent of U.S. metro areas will have regained all of the jobs they lost in the recession, Kevin
Johnson, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and Sacramento’s mayor, said. “Cities are back in a
major way,” he said. “Mayors are optimistic after struggling through the recession that we’re turning the corner.” In 2013, all 363
metro areas saw their economies grow an average of 2.1 percent, employment grow 1.9 percent and
population rise 0.9 percent. This year, research firm IHS Global Insight expects 95 percent of U.S. metros to see
economic growth.
2AC US ekon decline
US economic collapse would lead to resource wars, nuclear wars, and extinction – it
comes before all other impacts
Newsflavor, 9 (Newsflavor, a network of journalists that cover current events, political coverage, world news, and
opinions, April 9, “Will an Economic Collapse Kill You?” http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will-an-economic-collapse-kill-you/,
4/9/09, 7/14/14, MEM)
It may or may not sound likely to you, but the economy is on the brink of collapse. The stock market is
riding a sled down a steep hill. The United States government is spending money faster than it can print
it. opinRight now the government is passing bills and proposals that will give trillions of dollars to failing companies and bankrupt manufacturers. They
believe that by giving these companies resources to invest and expand, the economy will expand. The problem with this plan is that the same companies that are
receiving billions of dollars in aid aren’t prepared to handle this money better than they used capitol in the past. Chances are these companies still have the same
investors and management that they did pre-bailout, so who’s to say that they won’t make the same mistakes they’ve made in the past? The most likely thing to
happen is that these companies are going to spend this money the same way they have in the past and that these companies are going to go bankrupt, again. These
companies are the lynchpin of the economy, such as major insurance providers, banks, investment firms, manufacturers, etc. If these companies or firms were to
Not just the United States economy, because the U.S.
is a major trade partner in this world, and most other countries are dependent on the United States one
way or another, a United States collapse would cause a domino effect on the world’s economy. If the
United States economy failed, for example, we could see Iraq, Iran, and Russia fall with them, because
all of their economies are reliant off the selling of oil. Then the nations who are reliant on their
economies would fail, etc. Now it’s time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy. With
five official nations having nuclear weapons, and four more likely to have them there could be major
consequences of another world war. The first thing that will happen after an economic collapse will be
war over resources. The United States currency will become useless and will have no way of securing reserves. The United States has
little to no capacity to produce oil, it is totally dependent on foreign oil. If the United States stopped getting foreign oil, the government
would go to no ends to secure more, if there were a war with any other major power over oil, like
Russia or China, these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons. Once one nation launches a
nuclear weapon, there would of course be retaliation, and with five or more countries with nuclear
weapons there would most likely be a world nuclear war. The risk is so high that acting to save the
economy is the most important issue facing us in the 21st century.
collapse, the economy would be falling down the same pit as these companies.
Economic Collapse causes nuclear wars worldwide
Friedberg & Schoenfeld 8 (Aaron Friedberg is a professor at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. Gabriel
Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary, is a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., of politics and
international relations, Wall Street Journal,“The Dangers of a Diminished America,” Ocbtober 21, 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122455074012352571?mg=reno64wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB122455074012352571.html, 7/15/14, MEM)
With the global financial system in serious trouble, is America's geostrategic dominance likely to diminish? If so, what would that mean? One
immediate implication of the crisis that began on Wall Street and spread across the world is that the primary instruments
of U.S. foreign policy will be crimped. The next president will face an entirely new and adverse fiscal position. Estimates of this year's
federal budget deficit already show that it has jumped $237 billion from last year, to $407 billion. With families and businesses hurting, there
will be calls for various and expensive domestic relief programs. In the face of this onrushing river of red ink, both Barack Obama and John
McCain have been reluctant to lay out what portions of their programmatic wish list they might defer or delete. Only Joe Biden has suggested
a possible reduction -- foreign aid. This would be one of the few popular cuts, but in budgetary terms it is a mere grain of sand. Still, Sen.
Biden's comment hints at where we may be headed: toward a major reduction in America's world role, and perhaps even
a new era of financially-induced isolationism. Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars,
already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous
withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion -- might well become even more popular with
annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the
coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many
Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. Then there are the dolorous
consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the
advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other
things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets
as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat
from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while
Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also
give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage,
it will leave a dangerous power
vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as
defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there
are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to
cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their
divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear
toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal
strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has
demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the
global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to
foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political
legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to
divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European
nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past
dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power. What
does this all mean? There
is no substitute for America on the world stage. The choice we have before us is
between the potentially disastrous effects of disengagement and the stiff price tag of continued American
leadership.
Global economic collapse turns the case – causes food crisis, economic hardships, and
increases poverty
Klare 9 (Michael T. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies at Hampshire College, Huffington Post, “The
Second Shockwave” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-second-shockwave_b_176358.html, 3/19/09,
7/14/14, MEM)
While the economic contraction is apparently slowing in the advanced industrial countries and may reach bottom in the not-too-distant
future, it's only beginning to gain momentum in the developing world, which was spared the
earliest effects of the
global meltdown. Because the crisis was largely precipitated by a collapse of the housing market in the United States and the resulting
disintegration of financial products derived from the "securitization" of questionable mortgages, most developing nations were unaffected by
the early stages of the meltdown, for the simple reason that they possessed few such assets. But now, as the wealthier nations cease investing
in the developing world or acquiring its exports, the crisis is hitting them with a vengeance. On top of this, conditions are deteriorating at a time
when severe drought is affecting many key food-producing regions and poor farmers lack the wherewithal to buy seeds, fertilizers, and fuel.
The likely result: A looming food crisis in many areas hit hardest by the global economic meltdown. Until now, concern
over the human impact of the global crisis has largely been focused -- understandably so -- on unemployment and economic
hardship in the United States, Europe, and former Soviet Union. Many stories have appeared on the devastating impact of plant closings,
bankruptcies, and home foreclosures on families and communities in these parts of the world. Much less coverage has been devoted to the
meltdown's impact on people in the developing world. As the crisis spreads to the poorer countries, however, it's likely that people
in these areas will experience hardships every bit as severe as those in the wealthier countries -- and, in many cases, far worse. The greatest
worry is that most of the gains achieved in eradicating poverty over the last decade or so will be wiped out, forcing tens or
hundreds of millions of people from the working class and the lower rungs of the middle class back into the penury
from which they escaped. Equally worrisome is the risk of food scarcity in these areas, resulting in widespread malnutrition,
hunger, and starvation. All this is sure to produce vast human misery, sickness, and death, but could also result in social and political unrest of
various sorts, including riot, rebellion, and ethnic strife. The president, Congress, or the mainstream media are not, for the most part, discussing
these perils. As before, public interest remains focused on the ways in which the crisis is affecting the United States and the other major
industrial powers. But the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and U.S. intelligence officials, in three recent reports, are paying
increased attention to the prospect of a second economic shockwave, this time affecting the developing world.Sinking Back Into Penury In late
February, the World Bank staff prepared a background paper for the Group of 20 (G-20) finance ministers meeting held near London on March
13 and 14. Entitled "Swimming Against the Tide: How Developing Countries Are Coping with the Global Crisis," it provides a preliminary
assessment of the meltdown's impact on low-income countries (LICs). The picture, though still hazy, is one of deepening gloom. Most LICs were
shielded from the initial impact of the sudden blockage in private capital flows because they have such limited access to such markets. "But
while slower to emerge," the report notes, "the impact of the crisis on LICs has been no less significant as the effects have spread through other
channels." For example, "many LIC governments rely on disproportionately on revenue from commodity exports, the prices of which have
declined sharply along with global demand." Likewise, foreign direct investment is falling, particularly in the natural resource sectors. On top of
this, remittances from immigrants in the wealthier countries to their families back home have dropped, erasing an important source of income
to poor communities. Add all this up, and it's likely that "the slowdown in growth will likely deepen the deprivation of the
existing poor." In many LICs, moreover, "large numbers of people are clustered just above the poverty line and are
therefore particularly vulnerable to economic volatility and temporary slowdowns." As the intensity of the crisis grows,
more and more of these people will lose their jobs or their other sources of income (such as those all-important
remittances) and so be pushed from above the poverty line to beneath it. The resulting outcome: "The economic crisis is projected to
increase poverty by around 46 million people in 2009."
Modeling
Algae biofuel avoids environmental challenges other biofuels can’t- countries are
interested
Wolan 11 (Christian Wolan, writer of Forbes, “Can Algae Get Countries To Kick Foreign Oil?”,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christianwolan/2011/03/09/can-algae-biofuel-get-america-to-kick-its-foreign-oil-addiction/,
3/9/11, 7/18/14, MEM)
Other countries are betting on algae as well. “There
is intense interest in algal biofuels and bioproducts in this country and
abroad, including in Australia, Chile, China, the European Union, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and others ,” a
spokes person for the Department of Energy said. “The Asia Pacific region has been culturing algae for food and pharmaceuticals for many centuries, and these
countries are eager to use this knowledge base for the production of biofuels.” It is likely that several more years of sustained research, development and
demonstration–RD&D–will be necessary to overcome the cost and scale barriers associated with algal biofuels. In the meantime, meaningful quantities of fuels and
products will be produced by first-movers that will move the industry closer to realizing the full potential of this technology.” A month ago, the Mexican government
announced a partnership with the algae technology developer OriginOil, and project operators Genesis Ventures, and Ensenada’s Center for Scientific Research and
Higher Education to produce 1 percent, or about 6.6 million gallons, of the country’s jet fuel in the next five years. If all goes well, “Mexico’s Manhattan Project”
seeks to produce twenty times that amount by 2020 and propel the country to the forefront of biofuel producing nations Advantages algae has over other sources
may make it the world’s favored biofuel. “ On
one hand, algae is much more efficient at converting solar energy into
chemical energy than terrestrial crops. This means that less surface area needs to be dedicated to
biomass production,” Chris Beaven, OriginOil’s senior director of business development and public affairs, said. Algae could potentially
produce over 20 times more oil per acre than other terrestrial crops. “On the other hand, algae avoids
many of the environmental challenges associated with conventional biofuels,” Beaven said. “Algae does not require
arable land or potable water, which completely avoids competition with food resources.”
Algae is better than corn and soybean as a renewable- countries have enough places
to grow algae biofuel
USU 6/5 (Utah State University, “USU researchers: Algae biofuel can help meet energy demand”,
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10491/usu-researchers-algae-biofuel-can-help-meet-energy-demand, 6/5/14, 7/18/14,
MEM)
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.”
AT: trade-off with food/plant life
No trade off-they can coexist
Wall 12 (Tim Wall, worked as a lab tech on the Human Genome Project, maintained an aquaponics system, was in the Peace Corps,
“Oceanic Algae Can Be Crude, Oil That Is”, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceanic-algae-could-produce-oil-121129.htm, 11/29/12,
7/15/14,MEM)
Biofuel is better for humans and the environment when the plants used to make the power don’t need valuable
freshwater or cropland that could be used instead for food. Often today’s algae-based biofuels are grown in freshwater, but some
companies have made the switch successfully to marine algae and a new report says the technique is
just as viable on a commercial scale. Marine algae bio-oil rigs could keep the plant-powered power source from competing for
shrinking fresh water supplies, while greatly expanding the area available for production. “What this means is that you can use ocean
water to grow the algae that will be used to produce biofuels. And once you can use ocean water, you are
no longer limited by the constraints associated with fresh water. Ocean water is simply not a
limited resource on this planet,” said Stephen Mayfield, a biologist at UC San Diego who led a study on the feasibility of using
marine algal species to produce biofuel, in a press release.
No trade-off- ocean water is better
Wall 12 (Tim Wall, worked as a lab tech on the Human Genome Project, maintained an aquaponics system, was in the Peace Corps,
“Oceanic Algae Can Be Crude, Oil That Is”, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceanic-algae-could-produce-oil-121129.htm, 11/29/12,
7/15/14,MEM)
Growing algal biofuels in fresh water raises several problems that salt water algae doesn’t. One, using fresh water creates another food vs. fuel
debate, since crops also need fresh water. Plus, humans and livestock need to drink fresh water. All that pressure on potable water is drinking
rivers dry, such as the Colorado, and is draining the world’s easily accessible aquifers faster than they are being replenished. Using
oceanic
algae could also open up the vast oceans as potential bio-oil production areas. Sapphire Energy, which produces algal
biofuel in water-poor New Mexico, states on their website that their operations are already designed to not compete for fresh water. The
company already uses salt water, albeit on dry land, and expects to produce 100 barrels per day of algal crude oil in
2013. Sapphire collaborated with UC San Diego on this research.
AT: causes environmental problems
Algae biofuel solves fracking
Wall 12 (Tim Wall, worked as a lab tech on the Human Genome Project, maintained an aquaponics system, was in the Peace Corps,
“Oceanic Algae Can Be Crude, Oil That Is”, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceanic-algae-could-produce-oil-121129.htm, 11/29/12,
7/15/14,MEM)
Fossil fuel extraction and transport operations, such as coal slurry pipelines and hydraulic fracturing of methane
deposits (fracking), use tremendous amounts of fresh water. Considering that one main goal of biofuels is to solve the
problems created by fossil fuels, growing algae in a way that doesn’t compete for drinking water is
another feather in its cap.
The algae biofuel process helps the environment
Woods 14 (Paul Woods, CEO of Algenol, industrial biotechnology company that is commercializing
patented algae technology for production of ethanol and other fuels, Renewable energy world.com,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/04/for-the-greater-green-algae-basedadvanced-biofuels-bring-a-clean-affordable-solution, 4/23/14, 7/16/14, MEM)
When it comes to fuel production, climate change is a crucial issue that cannot be avoided. In the U.S., 3,600 million
metric tons of CO2 are emitted from stationary sources alone, not to mention the additional output from vehicles. A key aspect of
algae biofuel production provides a viable solution to this crisis. To create this fuel, the CO2 produced
by other industrial processes is captured and used as feedstock for the algae in an outdoor reactor
system, resulting in ethanol through photosynthesis. As solutions to reducing and handling waste
emissions are developed and discussions of carbon capture and storage increase, algae’s unique
process of carbon capture and reuse provides an even more sustainable alternative. Moreover, the algae
biofuel production process helps address fresh water scarcity and drought issues by naturally
converting saltwater into 1.4 gallons of fresh water for every gallon of fuel. Other biofuels, like corn ethanol, can
require up to 15 gallons of fresh water to produce a single gallon of fuel. In addition, not only does algae biofuel require less
land than typical biofuels, the land it does use can be marginal – saving valuable, arable land for food
growth and eliminating the link between food prices and fuel. As populations continue to grow and food supplies
diminish, solutions that allow the most efficient use of our natural resources are critical.
The Woods evidence also answers this. It’s the second card under AT: corn ethanol is
better
AT: can’t solve transportation
Salt water algae solves transportation emissions
R&D 12 (research and development magazine, “New study shows saltwater algae viable for biofuels”,
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2012/11/new-study-shows-saltwater-algae-viable-biofuels, 11/26/12, 7/15/14, MEM)
"What this means is that you
can use ocean water to grow the algae that will be used to produce
biofuels. And once you can use ocean water, you are no longer limited by the constraints associated with fresh water. Ocean water
is simply not a limited resource on this planet," said Stephen Mayfield, Ph.D., a professor of biology at UC San Diego,
who headed the research project. The availability of significant saltwater environments for algae production has been documented in recent
years. According to a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL) report, algal
fuels grown in saline water from
existing aquifers and recycling nutrients would be able to provide up to twice the goal for
advanced biofuels set under the Energy Independence and Security Act (roughly 40 billion gallons or
20% of annual transportation fuel demand).
Algae biofuel extraction tech is safe and can solve transportation emissions
Lin and Gibson 09 (Victor Lin, Ames Laboratory Chemical and Biological Sciences, Kerry Gibson, Ames Laboratory Public
Affairs, The Ames Lab.gov, “Nanofarming Technology Extracts Biofuel Oil Without Harming Algae”,
https://www.ameslab.gov/news/news-releases/nanofarming-technology-extracts-biofuel-oil-without-harming-algae, 4/29/09,
7/16/14, MEM)
Algae is widely touted as the next best source for fueling the world’s energy needs.
AMES, Iowa –
But
one of the greatest challenges in creating biofuels from algae is that when you extract the oil from the algae, it kills the organisms, dramatically raising production
Now researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory and Iowa State
University have developed groundbreaking “nanofarming” technology that safely harvests oil
from the algae so the pond-based “crop” can keep on producing. Commercialization of this new
technology is at the center of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between
the Ames Laboratory and Catilin, a nano-technology-based company that specializes in
biofuel production. The agreement targets development of this novel approach to reduce the
cost and energy consumption of the industrial processing of non-food source biofuel
feedstock. The three-year project is being funded with $885,000 from DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Industrial Technology
costs.
Program as part of the 2008 Nanomanufacturing for Energy Efficiency program, and $216,000 from Catilin and $16,000 from Iowa State University in matching
“nanofarming” technology uses nanoparticles to extract oil from the algae. The
process doesn’t harm the algae like other methods being developed, which helps reduce both
production costs and the production cycle. Once the algal oil is extracted, a separate and
proven solid catalyst from Catilin will be used to produce ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) and EN certified biodiesel. The
potential of algae for fuel is tremendous as up to 10,000 gallons of oil may be produced on a
single acre of land. According to other estimates, if fuel from algae production replaced all the petroleum
fuel used annually for ground transportation in the United States, it would require only
15,000 square miles – or half the size of South Carolina – to produce that quantity of algalbased fuel,(2) or just less than 70 percent of the total corn acreage in Iowa for 2007.
funds. The so-called
(1)
(3)
Algae biofuel can fuel airplanes
Howell 09 (Katie Howell, writer for scientific America, “Is Algae the Biofuel of the Future?,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/algae-biofuel-of-future/, 4/28/09, 7/16/14, MEM)
The company's jet fuel was tested earlier this year by two of three airlines testing the commercial use of algae-based
fuels in flight. Continental Airlines reported that the Boeing 737-800 test flight on Jan. 7 was successful. That test
was the first commercial airline test of algae-based biofuel. "Continental's primary role in the demonstration was to
show that the biofuel blend would perform just like traditional jet fuel in our existing aircraft without
modification of the engines or the aircraft," said Holden Shannon, Continental's senior vice president for global research and
security, during a congressional hearing last month. "This is important because ... the current engine and airframe
technology is unlikely to change materially for many years, so it is crucial that alternative fuel be safe
for use with the current aircraft technology." Zenk said the test flight showed that algae fuel gets better mileage than
petroleum-based jet fuel. "We noticed a 4 percent increase in energy density in the fuels because of the
lower-burning temperatures in the engine itself, which resulted in greater fuel mileage," he said
AT: Corn ethanol is better
Algae Biofuel is better than Corn ethanol
Radford 6/24 (Jamie Radford, writer for Illawarra Mercury, “Ideas bloom for seaweed cultivation on
the South Coast”, http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2373831/ideas-bloom-for-seaweedcultivation-on-the-south-coast/, 6/24/14, 7/15/14, MEM)
On Tuesday Dr Winberg co-hosted the 5th Congress of the International Society for Applied Phycology, which was held in Australia for the first
time. The Congress brought together experts from around the world to debate the viability of using algae and seaweed as an alternative source
of food and biofuels. Per hectare, algae
produces 20 times more biofuel than corn, and can be used to
make biodiesel, not just ethanol. Indeed, algae was recognised as a viable alternative fuel source as early as 1976 by the US
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the US Department of Energy estimates that algae would only
require a seventh of the area used to grow corn, and it could replace all petroleum used in
the US with biofuels.
Algae biofuel is economically and environmentally
Woods 14 (Paul Woods, CEO of Algenol, industrial biotechnology company that is commercializing patented algae
technology for production of ethanol and other fuels, Renewable energy world.com,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/04/for-the-greater-green-algae-based-advanced-biofuelsbring-a-clean-affordable-solution, 4/23/14, 7/16/14, MEM)
Yield refers to the fuel production level per acre of a crop. Corn
ethanol, the most common form, has an average yield of 420 gallons of fuel per acre per
year. Other crops provide higher yields, but even the best biomass alternative, Brazilian sugarcane, produces only 860 gallons per acre/per year, hardly
scratching the surface of algae’s proven yields which could reliably reach 8,000 gallons per acre/per
year. In addition, while first generation corn ethanol requires almost as much energy to grow and harvest as it provides, very little energy is
required to establish and maintain algae growth. Why does this matter? Many argue that the cost of biofuels, both
environmentally and economically, is too high. When significantly more fuel can be produced in less time, on less land, while
using less energy, the cost to the consumer can be drastically reduced along with the environmental
impacts of production. As technology in the industry continues to advance and yields increase, costs
will continue to fall, proving advanced biofuels have the ability to compete — and in some cases work in conjunction with — traditional
fossil fuel sources.
2AC Solvency
Commercially viable amounts of algae biofuels depend on USFG incentives
TTH 11 (The Triple Helix, “Algae Biodiesel: A Shift to Green Oil?”,
http://triplehelixblog.com/2011/11/algae-biodiesel-a-shift-to-green-oil/, 11/17/11)
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
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.
for CNBC notes, “The
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
federal government and ultimately
algae fuel’s potential depends on incentives from the
on support from its constituents.
Ocean water key to production of Algae biofuels, solves biodiversity
Danan 13|“NASA OMEGA Project: The Ocean as a Platform for Biofuel By Nico Danan on Jun 21, 2013
in Interviews” (http://blog.planetos.com/nasa-omega-project-the-ocean-as-a-platform-for-biofuel/) A.B.
The water source has to be from wastewater, which is freshwater in most countries. Algae grow on the nutrients in
the wastewater, they also treat the wastewater. They remove the nitrogen and phosphate, the heavy
metals, and many of the pharmaceuticals and other contaminants. Another advantage to using freshwater
algae, is that if the system leaks, it releases organisms into the ocean that cannot compete with marine
species. This means we will not be releasing invasive species. We know from experience that when
resources are limiting and people get desperate, the environment suffers. OMEGA has a built in environmental
sensitivity from the onset. The OMEGA structure will provide substrate for increased local biodiversity. Depending on
its design, it can also provide a refuge for marine organisms. The interview concluded as Jonathan shared thoughts with us
about a recent visit to Japan and fascinating lectures he had given about the next step of human evolution in the age of the Anthropocene. He
concluded our conversation with a quote: “It
must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more
doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has
the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old system and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new
one.” Machiavelli (1469-1527)
The only option to National based algae biofuel production is the ocean, on land
production doesn’t solve
Danan 13|“NASA OMEGA Project: The Ocean as a Platform for Biofuel By Nico Danan on Jun 21, 2013
in Interviews” (http://blog.planetos.com/nasa-omega-project-the-ocean-as-a-platform-for-biofuel/) A.B.
There is no alternative, considering the constraint that biofuels must be made from wastewater and
considering where the sources of wastewater are located. Look, we know how much energy we have from the sun, in
different part of the world and we know the efficiency of photosynthesis; we can calculate the Kilojoules per square meter per day (kJ/m2/da)
output. If we are generous about photosynthetic efficiency, which is on average <1%, but we assume it can be practically pushed to 5.6%, we
can get about 500 kJ/m2/da from algae. All this embedded energy would be used up if we have to pump wastewater from cities out to some
remote site where there is space to grow thousands of acres of algae. In other words, we
cannot pump wastewater from our
cities to algae ponds and we cannot build algae ponds inside our cities without destroying the urban
infrastructure. We might be able to build photobioreactors in our cities, but they have to be cooled on land, which is another waste of
energy. OMEGA (offshore) is
the only option. Besides, we already pump our wastewater offshore, it doesn’t
impact urban infrastructure, and the floating photobioreactors are cooled by seawater. This obviously only works for coastal cities,
the good news is that most major cities in the world are coastal.
Their answers don’t assume the positive impacts of producing commercial wide algae
biofuel, The plan solves and our impacts are comparative
Menetrez 12|“An Overview of Algae Biofuel Production and Potential Environmental Impact Marc Y.
Menetrez* Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, United States” (pubs.acs.org/est) A.B
Developing this technology into a commercial success, however, will be a challenge. Many issues must
be addressed for the algae industry to advance from its current state to commercial success. Of these
issues, environmental impact is paramount. Algae production has demonstrated many positive
environmental effects as well as the potential for negative effects on human health and the
environment. Numerous benchtop experiments and pilot projects have been conducted and small-scale
production facilities and theoretical process models and projections have been established.5,7−10
However, little extensive information has been published detailing algae production processes or algaederived biofuel research and development that has been put into practice. Often, the existing literature
either is specific to a unique example or is broader in scope. Additionally, what little published
information there is often fails to describe the importance of algae production, how that information fits
into the present state of knowledge, or what environmental impacts might result from expansion of the
algae industry. 8. Biofuel Production. The potential for microalgae to generate biofuel is augmented by
their fast growth, reaching maturity in as little as three days while producing in excess of half their
weight in oil.25, 74 The production yield can vary greatly depending on the algal culture, method (such
as open pond or PBR), reactor (batch, fed-batch, or continuous operation), and culture technique
(autotrophic or hetero- trophic). Algae have been cultivated to produce feedstocks needed for the
production of biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, and petroleum.7 In fact, algae productivity is higher
than that of many energy crops (6−12 times greater than the energy production for corn or switch
grass).75 The advantage of high productivity is that the cultivation of algae requires a smaller land
area.7, 76, 77 High productivity and high lipid content make algae a potentially important future source
of biofuel.
Green Algae is a great substitute for corn ethanol – solves food scarcity
Saxena 11 (Saxena, Radhicka S. “Will biofuel produced from algae power the future?” 12/24, Athena
Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.)
With the demand for alternative fuels on the rise, engendered mainly by the ballooning prices of fossil fuels, there is an inherent need to
manufacture algae based biofuels commercially by bringing down the input cost of production. As they are environmentally friendly, biofuels
are greatly preferred over fossil fuels for energy production. Biofuels
can be produced using both algae and food crops,
but owing to many reasons it is a good idea to not use the latter for their production. Food scarcity is a
massive crisis that mankind will have to tackle in the future and using crops for production of fuel means
plummeting the supply of food. Additionally, to grow food crops you need resources like arable land, fresh water, etc. and fertilizers
such as superphosphate, the reserves of all which are limited. Thus, using food crops for biofuel production is not a feasible solution as it is
much better to cultivate them to meet global food supplies. Thus,
if biofuel from algae can be produced at a lower cost,
then it would help greatly to combat the impending energy crisis. A good thing about using algae is that
they can produce oils required to manufacture biodiesel as well as sugar needed to manufacture
ethanol. One of the biggest benefits of using algae is that they produce a huge amount of energy, much
greater than that produced by food crop based biofuels. For instance, the amount of energy produced by
algae growing in a large sized garage is equivalent to the energy generated by soybeans growing on land
that is as large as a football field. As they are harvested in a short time of about 1-10 days, algae definitely grow a lot faster than
food crops. Algae can grow double their size in 24 hours and sometimes even less. Although initial investment in land will be required to
cultivate algae, you do not require arable land to crop them. Algae can be developed on land that is not suitable for planting food crops like
desert areas, rocky soil and even land with saline groundwater resources. Moreover,
algae can grow in any type of climate
and weather conditions unlike food crops. That notwithstanding, the production of biofuels nevertheless remains expensive. A
good way to lower the cost of algae biofuels is to use strains with lower lipid content as they grow about 30 times faster than other types of
algae. Along with fast growing algae strains, sourcing ones that can be harvested easily would help tremendously to lower the input cost of
production. Finding varieties of algae that meet all these conditions will help immensely to bring down the cost of producing biofuels. Other
huge hurdles that come in way of producing algae biofuel at a viable cost are the expensive equipment required and also sourcing sterile
carbon dioxide at a low cost which can be supplied while growing algae in a closed system.
Marine algae can be produced on a large scale
Walker 13 ( Krist Walker, Senior Vice President, Global Client Leader at Nielsen, Executive Director Consulting
Services at Nielsen, studied at University of Virginia, “Breakthroughs and Applications of Biofuel with Marine Algae”,
http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=466, 11/27/13, 7/21/14, MEM)
After several attempts at altering marine algae genetic material, researchers targeted special enzymes
found in diatoms through a process called transcriptomics that blocked the ability of lipases, or “fatreducing” enzymes, to perform their function. Consequently, researchers were able to generate a
significant increase in lipids while continuing to feed the algae all the nutrients they could consume.
Accumulating massive amounts of biomass by maintaining accelerated rates of growth without
compromising the integrity of marine algae is vital to actualizing production of biofuel on the level that
fossil fuels are currently being produced. With significant advances consistently developing in regards to
lipid extraction, identification of relevant algae strains and refining technology to facilitate the widescale presentation of algae biofuels, further methods to improve the integration of enzyme modification
and nutrient applications as well as harvesting techniques are needed to address economical
approaches to building biorefineries capable of manufacturing separate biofuels from a single source of
biomass materials.
Federal incentives are key to send a clear signal to investors- has bipartisan support
Silverstein 11 (Ken Silverstein, background in economics and public policy, writer and editor for more than two decades covering the
energy industry, published a hundred periodicals, sourced in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, NPR, in the US and abroad,
invited speaker at energy industry conferences and appeared on C-SPAN, holds a B.A and M.B.A. degrees from Tulane University, and a M.A.
from American University, “Algae Biofuels Desire Fast Lane”, http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/04/algae-biofuels-desire-fast-lane, 4/15/11,
7/21/14, MEM)
Most people have heard of ethanol. Most folks are not familiar with algae. Those in the business of
growing algae as a replacement to petroleum want to change that and they want to start by getting
Congress to give them parity in the existing tax code. Algae offers promise as not just a transportation
fuel but also as a carbon sink that lessens the environmental impact on such things as coal-fired power.
While algae-to-biofuel is beginning to gain some traction, the industry says that it will need government
support so that it can mass produce. The algae biofuels sector is asking U.S. lawmakers to treat it the
same way as they do other advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol. And that means including algae
in the tax incentives given to advanced biofuels as well as including it in the Renewable Fuels Standard
that sets alternative fuel targets. When the code was written, algae was a nascent concept that never
wound up on anyone’s radar. Now, the industry says times have changed. “This legislation would send a
strong signal to the investment community that the federal government is behind algae biofuel and that
it sees it as a strategic part of the nation’s energy future,” says Chris Beaven, senior director for Origin
Oil. “Right now, we are in trials and the enactment of this bill could get us into the market. It would let
Wall Street know we are an industry worth investing in.” Legislation has been introduced in both the
U.S. House and U.S. Senate. According to Beaven, the measure has bipartisan support and the industry
hopes that it would be included in a comprehensive energy bill where it would be signed into law. The
measure previously passed the House and fell one vote short in the Senate, he says, noting that the
primary obstacle is that the “ethanol” detractors may wrongly link the two and thereby deliver a knockout blow. Between 2005 and 2009, the algae biofuels sector tripled to the point that more than 100
such companies exist today. Already, that industry accounts for 20,000 jobs in 40 states -- if one includes
all of the ancillary businesses that crop up around it. Advocates say that this could increase 10-fold in
the coming years if Congress gives it parity with other advanced biofuels.
Marine algae can made on a large scale
Liebert 12 (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News, “Can algae-derived oils support large-scale, low-cost biofuels
production?”, http://www.sciencecodex.com/can_algaederived_oils_support_largescale_lowcost_biofuels_production103723, 12/12/12, 7/21/14, MEM)
Microalgae are single-celled organisms that can be grown in open ponds, tubes, or bags, with just sunlight and carbon dioxide, or in the dark and fed sugars or
starches. They can be genetically modified to optimize their productivity. John Benemann, Ian Woertz, and Tryg Lundquist,
MicroBio Engineering, Inc. (Walnut Creek, CA) and California State Polytechnic University (San Luis Obispo, CA), present the results of an engineering and economic
study of vegetable oil production from microalgae grown in open ponds. In the Review article "Life Cycle Assessment for Microalgae Oil Production" the authors also
project the energy input and greenhouse
gas emissions required to carry out this process at large scale.
Algae biofuels will be produced on a large scale- removes algae blooms
AquaFUELS 13 (Aqua Fuels, respond to the need of understanding the place of algae and aquatic biomass in the present
and future renewable energy sources portfolio in EU with a careful eye to sustainability and social implications,
http://www.aquafuels.eu/attachments/079_D%203.4%20-%20Impact%20on%20developing%20countries.pdf, 2013, 7/21/14,
MEM)
Developing countries play a specific role in the future of algae biofuels, as potential producers,
consumers or suppliers to the developed economies. It should also be borne in mind that several
developing countries, including China and India as well as other economies in Southeast Asia, can
actually be regarded as more advanced than developed countries when it comes to large‐scale algae
cultivation, in particular macro‐algae. However, the development of algae production facilities for food
or feed had so far avoided the issue of harvesting and extraction, which represents a significant
bottleneck for developing countries as well as for developed countries. In this respect, developing
countries may have an advantage over developed countries, as low labor costs allows more laborintensive harvesting and extraction techniques, which could contribute to a less energy‐intensive
process and therefore improve both economic and environmental sustainability. Although tropical
climates can be considered as an asset, in particular for low‐cost open ponds technologies allowing to
use the temperature and sunlight from the environment, the limited investment and R&D capacities can
represent an issue for an industrial process where technological bottlenecks can be expected to play a
major role for market development in the coming years. Similarly to other biofuels, algae biofuels could
help fighting the forthcoming energy scarcity, which will affect developing countries to an even greater
degree than developed economies. In this respect, algae biofuels could represent the only way to
maintain effective transport systems in countries in lack of infrastructure and to allow continued
agricultural development. Algae cultivation in developing countries could allow mitigating or using the
potentially negative effects of pollution and global warming by removing pollution from algae blooms or
using water supply created by floods related to the rising sea level.
Tax incentives are key to algae biofuels
Frimerman 12 (Debra H. Frimerman, Attorney at Stoel Rives LLP, went to University of Minnesota Law School, University
pf California, Santa Barbara,“THE LAW OF ALGAE – Financing Your Algae Biofuels Projects-,
http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/financing_your_algae_biofuels_proje_1af9f361f07b6.pdf, 2012, 7/22/14, MEM)
Tax Incentives and Other Tax Considerations. Tax considerations may play a crucial role in the overall
financing of an algae biofuels project. Like many other alternative energy sources, algae biofuels may
qualify for certain tax credits and other tax incentives that, if properly utilized, can provide significant
financing advantages. Making the most out of the available tax incentives also may strongly influence
choice-of-entity, debt vs. equity, and other financing decisions. Identifying and maximizing the benefit of
tax and other government incentives require careful advance planning. Generally, producers of certain
blends of biofuels and taxable fuels may qualify for a refundable credit against the excise tax imposed
on the removal of taxable fuel from a refinery or terminal, the entry of taxable fuel into the United
States, or the sale of taxable fuel. To qualify for the credit, the blender must either use the qualifying
mixture in its own trade or business, or sell the qualifying mixture to a buyer for use as a fuel in the
buyer’s business. Alternatively, a producer of algae-sourced biofuels may be eligible for a credit against
income tax liability with respect to alcohol or biodiesel blended, sold, or used as fuel in a trade or
business. Each of these credits currently is set to expire on a specific date, and timing is therefore very
crucial. In addition to tax credits, an algae biofuels project may qualify for bonus depreciation,
accelerated depreciation, and other tax benefits. These tax benefits can create significant tax losses
that, if financing is properly structured, can provide a significant component of an investor’s overall
return.
2AC States CP
States can’t do algae biofuels- federal regulations
ABB 13 (Advanced Biotechnology for Biofuels, “Regulation of Industrial Use of Algae or Cyanobacteria in the United States
(Part 1)”, http://dglassassociates.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/regulation-of-industrial-use-of-algae-or-cyanobacteria-in-theunited-states-part-1/, 9/17/13, 7/22/14, MEM)
Some observers feel that open-pond uses of modified algae for biofuel production might fall
under USDA’s jurisdiction rather than EPA’s, particularly since photosynthetic algae have
historically been classified as plants, and in fact the definition of “plant” in the USDA rule
includes “eukaryotic algae”. However, as I’ve pointed out in an earlier post, under the
biotechnology rule, USDA does not regulate “plants”, but instead “plant pests”, and so the fact
that “eukaryotic algae” are included in the definition of “plant” may have little bearing on the
question. As stated above, the only microorganisms that would fall under these regulations
would be ones that contained sequences from any of the specific microbial, plant and animal
genera listed in 7 CFR Part 340.2 of the rule. This list does not appear to include the names of
any of the genera of algae that have been suggested for biofuel use. Also, the USDA rule only
applies for deliberate uses of regulated organisms in the open environment, and so the rule
could arguably only apply to open-pond uses of modified algae. The regulations give USDA the
leeway to determine that other organisms are “potentially” plant pests and therefore subject to
the rule. Moreover, there would be nothing stopping an applicant from requesting that USDA
become voluntarily involved in review of a proposed activity that was otherwise subject to EPA
jurisdiction. So, it remains to be seen if a role for USDA will emerge in the regulation of
modified algae used in fuel or chemical production.
States don’t have the certification to convert algae biofuels
ABB 13 (Advanced Biotechnology for Biofuels, “International Regulations Governing the Use of Algae or Cyanobacteria in
Fuel or Chemical Production”, http://dglassassociates.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/international-regulations-governing-theuse-of-algae-or-cyanobacteria-in-fuel-or-chemical-production/, 9/16/13, 7/22/14, MEM)
Fuel Regulation: Algae-produced fuels may need to be registered or certified before sale in certain
countries, and may also be subject to blending mandates or laws that may require documentation of
sustainable production. I have discussed some of these programs in detail in earlier blog posts, for
example, posts on this blog on the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard and the EU Renewable Energy
Directive, and posts on Biofuel Policy Watch regarding ethanol mandates andbiodiesel mandates
around the world. Laws requiring certification of fuels are usually fairly straightforward, and gaining
certification should not be difficult for fuels that resemble or are identical to existing fuels. In countries
where there are either mandates or targets for nationwide use of biofuels or other renewable fuels, it is
often incumbent upon the fuel manufacturer to register with the government and/or to prove that the
fuel meets the relevant definition so that its use can count against the mandated or targeted volumes.
Perm do Both- We get the perm, only state, local and federal government agencies
solve, either They don’t solve the aff or the perm solves back all offense on the CP
Bracmort 14|“Algae’s Potential as a Transportation Biofuel Kelsi Bracmort Specialist in Agricultural
Conservation and Natural Resources Policy January 30, 2014” A.B.
The primary challenge for ABB is that it has not yet been demonstrated to be economical at commercial
scale.17 If economic production can be achieved, the potential impact on the national transportation
fuel network would need to be assessed. Also, as mentioned above, algae cultivation requires significant
amounts of CO2, and there are questions about where this CO2 would come from. While the CO2 could
come from existing stationary sources, it may be incorrect to assume that all algae processing facilities
would be located near existing sources of CO2 or that enough CO2 from existing sources would be
available to meet demand for commercial levels of ABB production. It is likely that siting and permitting
of these facilities would require involvement of local, state, and federal government agencies. It is
unclear how use of CO2 from a power plant for the production of algae would be treated under the
Clean Air Act.18 There may be supply and demand concerns for ABB. The use of some feedstocks for
biofuels has been controversial, as some report that rising demand for biofuels shifts biomass
feedstocks and arable land away from use for other purposes (e.g., food).19 Some assert that significant
quantities of resources (e.g., land, water, and CO2) exist to support algae-based biodiesel production;20
however, it is not clear if existing resources can support biodiesel and bio-jet fuel, bioethanol, and more
from algal feedstock. The National Research Council (NRC) reports that the quantity of water necessary
for algae cultivation is a concern of high importance, among others, that has to be addressed for
sustainable development of ABB.21 In general, biofuels derived from open-pond algae production
consume more water for feedstock production and fuel processing than petroleum-derived fuels,
although the water quality may not be comparable, since some algae is able to use waste- or brackish
water. One reported possible technique to drastically curb water use is to site ABB facilities at optimized
locations—locations where land with the lowest water use per liter of biofuel produced is available—but
algae would still use significantly more water than petroleum.22 Another technique is to use water
unsuitable for other purposes. Algae requires both water and nutrients (e.g., phosphorus) to grow,
which may inadvertently put it in competition with other areas of agriculture, depending on water
sources and land types selected for algae cultivation should ABB be produced at a large scale. Also,
large-scale ABB production may involve the use of genetically modified algae, which some may oppose
because of concerns that genetically modified algae may escape into the environment and become
invasive, as algae that are non-native to that location.
Either solvency or link turn to PTix, on tax creds for Algae bio (Retag)
Bracmort 14|“Algae’s Potential as a Transportation Biofuel Kelsi Bracmort Specialist in Agricultural
Conservation and Natural Resources Policy January 30, 2014”
Congress has debated whether algae-based biofuel could help diversify the U.S. transportation fuel
portfolio. While Congress has created a policy that mandates the use of alternative fuels for
transportation (e.g., RFS2) and set up tax credits that support alternative fuel production, much of the
legislation and tax provisions for alternative transportation fuel is constrained to a set of feedstock types
(e.g., cellulosic) and fuel types as defined in the statute (e.g., ethanol, biodiesel). Going forward,
Congress may choose to reevaluate how it supports alternative fuels by possibly expanding the
feedstock and fuel types that qualify for transportation and energy mandates. For example, in the past
the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240) amended both the cellulosic biofuel
production tax credit and the cellulosic biofuel depreciation allowance to include algae-based biofuels.
Both tax incentives expired at the end of 2013 and it is not known if the incentives will be extended.
Additionally, algae is eligible for one part of the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP).44 Some in
Congress have expressed interest in ABB because it could have significantly lower greenhouse gas
emissions on a life-cycle basis than conventional fuels.45 If ABB is to become an alternative to help
reduce U.S. dependence on petroleum and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some stakeholders
contend that consistent, comprehensive, long-term (for the duration of multiple congressional sessions)
policy support, as well as further research and development, would be required. Options that have been
proposed for policies to encourage ABB include modifying the RFS2, creating a federal low-carbon fuel
standard, or placing a tax on carbon.
2AC- Military CP doesn’t solve
The Military doesn’t have the resources to fund biofuels
Gay 14 (John E. Gay, Commander, Deputy Public Affairs Officer of United States Fleet Forces Command ,“JFQ 73 | Green
Peace: Can Biofuels Accelerate Energy Security?”,
http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/NewsArticleView/tabid/7849/Article/8465/jfq-73-green-peace-can-biofuels-accelerateenergy-security.aspx, 4/1/14, 7/19/14, MEM)
For the United States to achieve energy security, it must reduce its dependence on foreign oil. However,
should the military—the branch of government responsible for national security—be responsible for
investing its limited resources as a venture capitalist to jumpstart a biofuels industry and be forced to
purchase fuels at 10 times the cost of readily available petroleum-based fuels? Not only does this not
make good economic sense, but it also puts our national security at risk. Biofuels mandates divert scarce
military resources away from critical programs such as weapons modernization, maintenance, training,
and readiness. America’s military is the largest consumer of liquid fuels in the world, but it still only
accounts for 3.6 percent of annual U.S. consumption. This low percentage is not enough to spark a
biofuels industry and affect overall fuel prices.
Neg
Climate Change
Warming
Warming is inevitable and we are pass the point of no return
Worstall 5/13 (Tim Worstall, Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, written for The Times, Daily Telegraph, Wall
Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer and online for the ASI, IEA, Social Affairs Unit, Spectator, The Guardian, The Register and
Techcentralstation, “If Antarctic Melting Has Passed The Point Of No Return We Should Do Less About Climate Change,
Not More”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/05/13/if-antarctic-melting-has-passed-the-point-of-no-return-weshould-do-less-about-climate-change-not-more/, 5/13/14, 7/19/14, MEM)
Except an
economist is going to look at that past “the point of no return ”. That is, again without contesting the
it was that we needed to do to cause this sea
level rise (you can even call it a calamity or a disaster if you wish) we have already done. It doesn’t matter what we
do in the future because, given that it’s past that point of no return, whatever we do do won’t
make it not happen. That’s what that point of no return phrase actually means. So, given that it’s going
water level rise resulting, that this is all about sunk costs. Whatever
to happen whatever we do what effort should we be expending to try and stop it happening, what should we be doing? The answers to those
two questions being
none and nothing. If it’s going to happen anyway then we shouldn’t waste
resources in trying to stop it happening. Now, if the original claim was that without immediate and stringent action then it
might happen then perhaps more action might be logically supportable. But given that the claim is actually that whatever we do it’s going to
happen then the correct decision is simply to shrug our shoulders and go invest in some sandbags to keep back the floods. For
however
much we impoverish ourselves by killing off industrial society, or by razing all the coal fired
stations to build more expensive solar installations, that flooding is going to happen anyway. So,
why make ourselves poorer in order to change nothing? As I say, the policy prescriptions you can get from these descriptions of climate change
can change quite alarmingly depending upon whether you view them through the lens of economics or not. If
it’s inevitable that
past emissions will raise sea levels four feet then there’s no point at all in limiting current
emissions to prevent that four foot rise. We might as well face the floods being as rich, fat and
happy as we can, without wasting resources on trying to prevent something inevitable.
No anthropogenic warming and no impact – scientific consensus flows our way.
Taylor 2/13 – Forbes magazine contributor on energy and environmental issues, citing a survey published by Organization Studies, a peerreviewed academic journal (James, “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis”, 2/13/13; <
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/>)
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but
these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus
exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are
creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization
Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary
cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys
of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming
claims. According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with
Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature,
and humans are the main or central cause.” The authors of the survey report, however, note that the
overwhelming majority of
scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In
their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the
Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no
impact on their personal lives.” Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the
respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a
smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is
settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?” The
next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose
climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the
‘real’ cause of climate
change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is
overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no
impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is
accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.” The final group of
scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being
both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also
skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.” Taken together,
skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming
is human caused and a serious concern. The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the
these four
“Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group,
they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is
overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are
also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to
the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.” The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents,
fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate
public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled
and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.” Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36
One interesting aspect of this new
survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as
“denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to
skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate
projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow
connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’ Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports
percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists.
We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an
asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to
government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe. People who look behind the selfserving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among
scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the
asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical
scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. Taken
together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe
global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
Alt causes
Developing countries are the largest emitters of CO2
Lefeber 8/24/2012 (Rene DOCTOR CHAIR IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW THE THE
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM Polar Warming: An Opportune
Inconveniencehttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151241
The single biggest environmental threat for the Polar Regions, however, is global warming. Global
warming is addressed by the international community through the regulation of the concentrations of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that have an anthropogenic origin (mitigation).91 The temperature
in the Polar Regions rises faster than anywhere else on Earth. The causes are not yet fully understood,
but it is presumed that specific regional features, such as the observed decrease in the power of snow
and ice to reflect sunlight (albedo effect), contribute significantly to the relative fast rise of the
temperature. This is caused, amongst others, by the deposit of smut in the Polar Regions which was
released into the atmosphere by the emission of black carbon (or soot). Developing countries are the
main source of emissions of black carbon in the 21st century. The emissions of industrialized countries
have been significantly reduced in the second halve of the last century. Public health considerations
were the main reason for the implementation of various measures, such as the use of catalysts in cars,
to achieve emission reductions of black carbon. Black carbon is a greenhouse gas under the 1992 United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Climate Change Convention), but it is not subject to
the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol to that Convention (Art. 3.1 and Annex A). Furthermore,
developing countries are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol emission targets even though these countries
are now the main source of contemporary emissions of this greenhouse gas
AT: Bio-d
Warming improves biodiversity.
Goklany 12 – science and technology policy analyst for the US Department of the Interior, Assistant Director of Programs, Science, and
Technology Policy, represented the US at the IPCC, rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the
IPCC First Assessment Report, PhD in electrical engineering (Indur M., “Is Climate Change the Number One Threat to Humanity?” 8/28/12;
http://goklany.org/library/Goklany_WIREs.pdf)
Despite concerns about the ecological impacts of warming,
the FTA studies suggest that it may actually reduce
existing stresses on ecosystems and biodiversity through 2085–2100. Table 4, provides FTA results for 2085–2100 regarding
the variation in three specific ecological indicators across the different IPCC scenarios. 23,25 One indicator is the net biome productivity (a
measure of the terrestrial biosphere’s net carbon sink capacity). The second indicator is the area of cropland (a crude measure of the amount of
habitat converted to human use; the lower it is, the better is it for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystems). Such land conversion to
agriculture is perhaps the single largest threat to global terrestrial biodiversity. 114,115 The third indicator is the global loss of coastal wetlands
relative to 1990 levels. The table shows that biosphere’s
sink capacity under each scenario would be higher in 2100
than in the base year (1990), largely due to higher CO 2 concentrations and because these effects were
not projected to be overridden by the negative effects of higher temperatures over that period. For the
same reasons, global sink capacity would be higher for the A1FI and A2 scenarios. Partly for the same reasons and its lower population
compared to other scenarios, the amount of cropland in 2100 would be lowest for the A1FI world. This is followed by the B1 and B2 worlds.
through 2100 the warmest (A1FI) scenario would
have the least habitat loss and, therefore, pose the smallest risk to terrestrial biodiversity and
ecosystems, while the B2 scenario would pose the greatest risk to habitat, biodiversity and ecosystems. Regarding coastal
wetlands, although losses due to sea level rise (SLR) are substantial, the contribution of global warming
to total losses in 2085 are smaller than losses due to subsidence from other man ‐ made causes. 23 Table 4
[Levy et al. did not provide cropland estimates for the A2 scenario.] Thus,
shows that wetland losses are much higher for the A1FI and A2 scenarios than for the B1 and B2 scenarios. This is, however, due mainly to the
assumption that the first two scenarios would have higher non ‐ climate change related subsidence (Ref. 23, p. 76) but this assumption is
questionable. 9
Adaptation solves
Adaption solves - new methods
Vermeulen and Challinor 13(Dr Sonja Vermeulen is the Head of Research for the CGIAR Research Program on Climate
Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Dr Andy Challinor is a professor at the Institute for Climate and Atmosphere Science, School of
Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds, and co-leads research on climate adaptation in CCAFS. “How farmers can adapt to a warming
world”,http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/20136585711493753.html)
In these examples, countries have made progress on climate-resilient agriculture by focusing on what
is known rather than what remains unclear. Computer models can be used to estimate climate
impacts on a range of timescales. Models can predict areas of crop failure in West Africa a few months
ahead of the harvest, for example. On longer timescales, models show that northeast China’s wheat-growing regions will need
more heat-tolerant crops within a few decades. This kind of knowledge helps us select adaptation strategies with
confidence despite many remaining uncertainties about the future.¶ It is not just heat stress that is
important. Low-lying coastal rice-growing regions should prepare for more saline conditions fed by a
rise in sea level. Areas plagued by drought should sustainably tap their groundwater rather than deplete it. In parts of Texas,
Oklahoma and Kansas, for example, maize farmers could switch to sorghum and other less waterintensive crops where groundwater depletion has made irrigation more difficult.¶ Scientists are
learning to communicate climate predictions and uncertainties in ways that are more useful to
planners and policymakers. It is more helpful to say when a particular change is likely to happen - “starting sometime between 2020
and 2040, there won’t be enough rain here to grow vegetables without irrigation” - than to give a string of probabilities linked to distant
futures. All of society - especially farmers - needs to know when specific changes are needed.¶ As the amount of greenhouse gases in our
atmosphere continues to increase, the effects of climate change on agriculture will become increasingly visible. It is urgent to adjust or even
transform agriculture even if our knowledge is incomplete. The
science of adaptation has matured enough for us to
make robust adaptation plans based on what we do know. It is time to embrace and deploy this
science and start figuring out how we will feed ourselves in the future.
Food security
Algae doesn’t solve food crisis
Forbes 12 (Professor Chris Rhodes became involved with environmental issues while working in Russia during the
aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He studied chemistry at Sussex University, rising to become the youngest
professor of physical chemistry in the U.K. at the age of 34. The Achilles' Heel Of Algal Biofuels: Peak Phosphate”
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/29/the-achilles-heel-of-algal-biofuels-peak-phosphate-3/] 2/29/2012 @
1:25PM- M.V.)
The depletion of world rock phosphate reserves will restrict the amount of food that can be grown
across the world, a situation that can only be compounded by the production of biofuels, including
the potential large-scale generation of biodiesel from algae. The world population has risen to its
present number of 7 billion due to cheap fertilizers, pesticides and energy sources, particularly oil.
Almost all modern farming has been engineered to depend on phosphate fertilizers, and those made
from natural gas, e.g. ammonium nitrate, and on oil to run farm machinery and to distribute the final produce. A peak in
worldwide production of rock phosphate is expected by 2030, which lends fears over how much
food the world will be able to grow in the future, against a rising number of mouths to feed. We may be close to the
peak in world oil production too.¶ World rock phosphate production amounts to around 140 million tons,
and food production is already being thought compromised by rock phosphate resource depletion.
In comparison, we would need 352 million tons of the mineral to grow sufficient algae to replace all
the oil-derived fuels used in the world. The US produces less than 40 million tons of rock phosphate annually, but would
require enough to produce around 25% of the world’s total algal diesel, in accord with its current “share” of world petroleum-based fuel,
or 88 million tons of rock phosphate. Hence, for the US, security of fuel supply could not be met by algae-to-diesel production using even
all its indigenous rock phosphate output, and significant further imports would be needed. This is in addition to the amount of the
mineral necessary to maintain agriculture.¶
It is salutary that there remains a competition between growing
crops (algae) for fuel and those for food, even if not directly in terms of land, for the fertilizers that
both depend upon. This illustrates for me the complex and interconnected nature of, indeed Nature, and which like any stressed
chain, will ultimately converge its forces onto the weakest link in the “it takes energy to extract energy” sequence. It seems quite
clear that with food production already stressed, the production of (algal) biofuels will never be
accomplished on a scale anywhere close to matching current world petroleum fuel use (>20 billion
barrels/annum). Thus, the days of a society based around personalized transport run on liquid fuels are numbered. We must reconsider
too our methods of farming, to reduce inputs of fertilizers, pesticides and fuel. Freshwater supplies are also at issue, in the complex
transition to a more localised age that uses its resources much more efficiently. ¶ There is a Hubbert-type analysis of human population
growth which indicates that rather than rising to the putative “9 billion by 2050″ scenario, it will instead peak around the year 2025 at
7.3 billion, and then fall. It is probably significant too that that population growth curve fits very closely both with that for world
phosphate production and another for world oil production. It seems to me highly indicative that it is the decline in resources that will
underpin our demise in numbers as is true of any species: from a colony of human beings growing on the Earth, to a colony of bacteria
growing on agar nutrient in a Petri-dish.
Alt cause – lack of investment in agriculture, natural disasters, displacement, and food
wastage
WFP ‘14
World Food Programme is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger, as well as the United Nations frontline agency. “Hunger:
What Causes Hunger?”. 2014. http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people. And yet, one person in eight on the planet goes to bed
hungry each night. In some countries, one child in three is underweight. Why does hunger exist? There are many reasons for the
presence of hunger in the world and they are often interconnected. Here are six that we think are important. Poverty trap People living in
poverty cannot afford nutritious food for themselves and their families. This makes them weaker and less able to earn the money that would
help them escape poverty and hunger. This is not just a day-to-day problem: when children are chronically malnourished, or ‘stunted’, it can
affect their future income, condemning them to a life of poverty and hunger. In developing countries, farmers often cannot afford seeds, so
they cannot plant the crops that would provide for their families. They may have to cultivate crops without the tools and fertilizers they need.
Others have no land or water or education. In short, the poor are hungry and their hunger traps them in poverty. Lack
of investment in
agriculture. Too many developing countries lack key agricultural infrastructure, such as enough roads,
warehouses and irrigation. The results are high transport costs, lack of storage facilities and unreliable water
supplies. All conspire to limit agricultural yields and access to food. Investments in improving land management,
using water more efficiently and making more resistant seed types available can bring big improvements. Research by the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization shows that investment in agriculture is five times more effective in
reducing poverty and hunger than investment in any other sector. Climate and weather. Natural
disasters such as floods, tropical storms and long periods of drought are on the increase -- with
calamitous consequences for the hungry poor in developing countries. Drought is one of the most
common causes of food shortages in the world. In 2011, recurrent drought caused crop failures and
heavy livestock losses in parts of Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya. In 2012 there was a similar situation in the Sahel region of West
Africa. In many countries, climate change is exacerbating already adverse natural conditions. Increasingly, the
world's fertile farmland is under threat from erosion, salination and desertification. Deforestation by
human hands accelerates the erosion of land which could be used for growing food. War and
displacement. Across the globe, conflicts consistently disrupt farming and food production. Fighting
also forces millions of people to flee their homes, leading to hunger emergencies as the displaced find themselves
without the means to feed themselves. The conflict in Syria is a recent example. In war, food sometimes becomes
a weapon. Soldiers will starve opponents into submission by seizing or destroying food and livestock
and systematically wrecking local markets. Fields are often mined and water wells contaminated,
forcing farmers to abandon their land. Ongoing conflict in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo has contributed
significantly to the level of hunger in the two countries. By comparison, hunger is on the retreat in more peaceful parts of Africa such as Ghana
Unstable markets. In recent years, the price of food products has been very unstable. Rollercoaster food prices make it difficult for the poorest people to access nutritious food consistently . The
poor need access to adequate food all year round. Price spikes may temporarily put food out of reach, which can
have lasting consequences for small children. When prices rise, consumers often shift to cheaper, lessnutritious foods, heightening the risks of micronutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition.
Food wastage. One third of all food produced (1.3 billion tons) is never consumed. This food wastage
represents a missed opportunity to improve global food security in a world where one in 8 is hungry. Producing
this food also uses up precious natural resources that we need to feed the planet. Each year, food that
is produced but not eaten guzzles up a volume of water equivalent to the annual flow of Russia's Volga River.
Producing this food also adds 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, with
consequences for the climate and, ultimately, for food production.
and Rwanda.
Alt causes - climate change
CFS 2/27/14 (Center for Food Safety is a non-profit organization working to advocate environmental
reform to advance human health through regulating harmful food production and promoting
sustainable organic agriculture, “New Report Connects Climate Change & Food Insecurity” – February
27, 2014 – http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2948/new-report-connects-climatechange-and-food-insecurity)
Underscores Organic Agriculture's Climate Resilience Food
security requires a stable climate and, according to a new report
released today by Center for Food Safety’s Cool Foods Campaign, this security is being jeopardized by climate change. The
report, “Food and Climate: Connecting the Dots, Choosing the Way Forward,” outlines the climate requirements for successful food production,
and examines two competing food production methods – industrial and organic – to reveal how they contribute to the climate problem, how
resilient they are in the face of escalating climate shocks, and how organic agriculture can actually help to solve the climate crisis. “It isn’t
widely discussed, but the industrialization of our food supply is a major driver of global climate change, and, ironically, this is undermining our
future ability to produce an adequate supply of food” said Cool Foods Campaign director Diana Donlon. “In fact, taken in the aggregate, the
global food system is responsible for approximately half of all greenhouse gases.” Droughts
and heat waves in 2012 in the U.S.
percent of agricultural land, causing an estimated $30 billion in damages.
Already in 2014, California, which produces nearly half the nation’s fruits and vegetables, is experiencing
the worst drought in its 153 year history. In the report, Center for Food Safety examines how industrial agriculture –
alone affected approximately 80
the dominant method of food production in the U.S. – externalizes many social and environmental costs
while relying heavily on fossil fuels. Organic farming, by comparison, requires half as much energy,
contributes far fewer greenhouse gasses, and, perhaps most surprisingly, is more resilient in the face of
climate disruption. “While our current climate trajectory is daunting, a future defined by food insecurity
and climate chaos is not inevitable. We can still alter our course. Regenerative, organic agriculture has
tremendous, untapped potential to strengthen food security while adapting to climate uncertainties and
even helping to mitigate them,” said Donlon.
Many causes of food insecurity – aff can’t solve because there are too many factors
such as climate change, corruption, diseases, and population growth
Harvest Help ’12 (Harvest Help is a website designed to detail food crises, international response,
causes of food insecurity, and ways to aid in these problems, specifically in Africa and third-world
countries. “Causes of Food Insecurity in African and Other Third World Countries” – 2012 –
http://www.harvesthelp.org.uk/causes-of-food-insecurity-in-african-and-other-third-worldcountries.html)
The majority of the severest food crises after the second half of the 20th century were caused by a
combination of several factors. The most common causes of food insecurity in African and other Third World
countries were: Drought and other extreme weather events. The comparison of the severest food crises in the later history
reveals that all were preceded by drought or other extreme weather events. They resulted in poor or failed harvests which in turn resulted food
scarcity and high prices of the available food. Pests,
livestock diseases and other agricultural problems. In addition to
extreme weather events, many failed harvests in African and other Third World countries were also caused by pests such as desert locusts.
Cattle diseases and other agricultural problems such as erosion, soil infertility, etc. also play a role in food insecurity. Climate
change.
Some experts suggest, that drought and extreme weather in regions affected by food crises in the recent decades could be a result of climate
change, especially in the West and East Africa which have problems with recurrent extreme droughts. Military conflicts. Wars and military
conflicts worsen food insecurity in African and other Third World countries. They may not be directly responsible for food crises but they
exacerbate scarcity of food and often prevent the aid workers from reaching the most affected people. Lack of emergency plans.
History of the severest food crises shows that many countries were completely unprepared for a crisis and unable to resolve the situation
without international aid. Corruption
and political instability. In spite of criticism lately, the international community has always
send help in the form of food supplies and other means which saved millions of lives in the affected regions. However, the international aid
often did not reach the most vulnerable populations due to a high level of corruption and political instability in many Third World countries.
Cash crops dependence. Many African and Third World governments encourage production of the so-called cash crops, the income
from which is used to import food. As a result, countries which depend on cash crops are at high risk of food crisis because they do not produce
enough food to feed the population. AIDS. The disease which is a serious public health concern in the sub-Saharan Africa worsens food
insecurity in two ways. Firstly, it reduces the available workforce in agriculture and secondly, it puts an additional burden on poor households.
Rapid population growth. Poor African and Third World countries have the highest growth rate in the world which puts them at
increased risk of food crises. For example, the population of Niger increased from 2.5 million to 15 million from 1950 to 2010. According to
some estimations, Africa will produce enough food for only about a quarter population by 2025 if the current growth rate will continue.
No resource wars- best studies prove
Pinker ‘11 [Steven, Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of
Psychology at Harvard University, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,”
Google Books]
Once again it seems to me that the appropriate response is "maybe, but maybe not." Though climate change can cause plenty of misery and deserves to be
mitigated for that reason alone, it will not necessarily lead to armed conflict. The political
Halvard Buhaug, Idean Salehyan, Ole Theisen, and Nils Gleditsch, are
scientists who track war and peace, such as
skeptical of the popular idea that people fight wars
over scarce resources. Hunger and resource shortages are tragically common in sub-Saharn countries such as
Malawi, Zambia, and Tanzania, but wars involving them are not. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tsunamis (such
as the disastrous one in the Indian Ocean in 2004) do not generally lead to armed conflict. The American dust bowl in the
1930s, to take another example, caused plenty of deprivation but no civil war. And while temperatures have
been rising steadily in Africa during the past fifteen years, civil wars and war deaths have been falling. Pressures on
access to land and water can certainly cause local skirmishes, but a genuine war requires that hostile
forces be organized and armed, and that depends more on the influence of bad governments, closed
economies, and militant ideologies than on the sheer availability of land and water. Certainly any connection
to terrorism is in the imagination of the terror warriors: terrorists tend to be underemployed lower-middle-class men, not subsistence farmers. As for
genocide, the Sudanese government finds it convenient to blame violence in Darfur on desertification, distracting the world from its own role in tolerating or
encouraging the ethnic cleansing. In
a regression analysis on armed conflicts from 1980 to 1992, Theisen found that conflict
was more likely if a country was poor, populous, politically unstable, and abundant in oil, but not if it
had suffered from droughts, water shortages, or mild land degradation. (Severe land degradation did have a small
effect.) Reviewing analyses that examined a large number (N) of countries rather than cherry-picking
one or two, he concluded, "those who foresee doom, because of the relationship between resource
scarcity and violent internal conflict, have very little support in the large-N literature." Salehyan adds that
relatively inexpensive advances in water use and agriculture practices in the developing world can yield massive
increases in productivity with a constant or even shrinking amount of land, and that better governance
can mitigate the human costs of environmental damage, as it does in developed democracies. Since the state of the
environment is at most one ingredient in a mixture that depends far more on political and social
organization, resource wars are far from inevitable, even in a climate-changed world.
Status quo solves food insecurity
Lewis 1-10-14 [Kim, international broadcaster for VOA News, “Expanded Research Puts Global Food
Security on the Horizon,” http://www.voanews.com/content/cgiar-agriculture-food-africa-asia-maizerice-nutrient-crops-research-scientists/1827211.html]
Scientists and food experts have high hopes in achieving global food security as the Cinsultatvie Group on
Internnational Agricultural Research (CGIAR) recently announced a billion-dollar funding milestone.¶ The world’s largest
agriculture research partnership says funding for research and development went from $500 million dollars in 2008 to $1
billion dollars in 2013.¶ CGIAR partners around the world conduct research to reduce poverty in rural areas to overcome complex challenges
in areas such as climate change, water scarcity, land degradation and chronic malnutrition. The new funding allows the
consortium to expand their focus on their 16 global research programs in developing policies and technologies. ¶ The
increased funding has also allows the partnership to commit to providing 12 million African households with
sustainable irrigation; saving 1.7 million hectares of forest from destruction; and providing 50 million
poor people with access to highly nutritious food crops. Two major crops that have already been improved upon due to
expanded research are maize and rice.¶ “Results of those changes, for example, have allowed for a large expansion in the work on drought
tolerant maize, particularly in Africa, and in Asia on flood tolerant rice, where the fruits of research have gotten into the hands of farmers in a
very, very rapid way,” says Jonathan Wadsworth, executive secretary of the CGIAR Fund Council.¶ He uses rice as an example. Four years after
the release of new types of rice that withstand temporary flooding in Asia, he said over four million farm
families are reaping the benefits.¶ “In Africa, on drought tolerant maize, hundreds of thousands of farmers are now using varieties
which give them a harvest even in times of drought,” says Wadsworth.¶ In severe drought conditions of sub-Saharan Africa and in the Sahel
region, agroforestry
is being incorporated into the production of maize production. ¶ In looking ahead into the year
are already meeting these
challenges head on.¶ “I think one thing which we have shown in the CGIAR is that food security is not only a question of the amount of
2014, Wadsworth sees challenges throughout the agriculture production cycle. However, scientists
food, it’s also to do with the quality of the food which is produced and available both to rural households, and to urban population," he
explains.¶ He points out that one of the areas that CGIAR has been developing over the last few years and will expand on this year is increasing
the nutritional value of staple crops to ensure higher levels of protein, micro-nutrients, and vitamins that are essential to the health of the
population, particularly for pregnant and lactating women, and children.¶ He highlights new
research done in Latin America that has
yielded new types of sweet potato. Now more nutrient-enriched, this crop has been introduced in Africa, and the high levels
of vitamin A in the sweet potato will improve the vitamin A deficient diets in many African countries.
Food shortages don’t cause war
Allouche ’11 [Jeremy, professor at MIT, Research Fellow, Water Supply and Sanitation at the Institute
for Development Studies, “The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political
analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade,” Food
Policy, Vol. 36, S3-S8, January, online]
The question of resource scarcity has led to many debates
on whether scarcity (whether of food or water) will lead to
conflict and war. The underlining reasoning behind most of these discourses over food and water wars comes from the Malthusian
belief that there is an imbalance between the economic availability of natural resources and population growth
since while food production grows linearly, population increases exponentially. Following this reasoning, neo-Malthusians claim that finite
natural resources place a strict limit on the growth of human population and aggregate consumption; if these limits are exceeded, social
breakdown, conflict and wars result. Nonetheless, it seems that most empirical
studies do not support any of these neohave dramatically increased labour
productivity in agriculture. More generally, the neo-Malthusian view has suffered because during the last two centuries
humankind has breached many resource barriers that seemed unchallengeable. Lessons from history: alarmist
scenarios, resource wars and international relations In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number of alarmist scenarios have linked the
increasing use of water resources and food insecurity with wars. The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a
Malthusian arguments. Technological change and greater inputs of capital
dominant discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international organizations (UNEP,
2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that ‘water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for
wars and conflict’ (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and conflict are here used for raising
water/food as key policy priorities at the international level. In the Middle East, presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers
have also used this bellicose rhetoric. Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; ‘the next war in the Middle East will be over water, not politics’
(Boutros Boutros-Gali in Butts, 1997, p. 65). The question is not whether the sharing of transboundary water sparks political tension and
alarmist declaration, but rather to what extent water has been a principal factor in international conflicts. The
evidence seems quite
weak. Whether by president Sadat in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan, none of these declarations have been followed up
by military action. The governance of transboundary water has gained increased attention these last decades. This has a direct impact on
the global food system as water allocation agreements determine the amount of water that can used for irrigated agriculture. The likelihood of
conflicts over water is an important parameter to consider in assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food systems. None
of the various and extensive databases on the causes of war show water as a casus belli. Using the
International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set and supplementary data from the University of Alabama on water conflicts, Hewitt, Wolf and
Hammer found only seven disputes where water seems to have been at least a partial cause for conflict
(Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In fact, about 80% of the incidents relating to water were limited purely to governmental
rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001, p. 18). As shown in The Basins At Risk (BAR) water event database, more than twothirds of over 1800 water-related ‘events’ fall on the ‘cooperative’ scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes into
account a much longer period, the following figures clearly demonstrate this argument. According to studies by the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), organized
political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more than 3600 waterrelated treaties, and approximately 300 treaties dealing with water management or allocations in international basins have been
negotiated since 1945 (FAO, 1978 and FAO, 1984). The fear around water wars have been driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates
scarcity with violence, conflict and war. There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and transboundary
conflict. Most specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se but rather the allocation of water resources between
the different riparian states (see for example Allouche, 2005, Allouche, 2007 and [Rouyer, 2000] ). Water rich
countries have been
involved in a number of disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example India/Pakistan or
Brazil/Argentina). The perception of each state’s estimated water needs really constitutes the core issue in transboundary water relations.
Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality, perceptions of the
amount of available water shapes people’s attitude
towards the environment (Ohlsson, 1999). In fact, some water experts have argued that scarcity drives the process of co-operation
among riparians (Dinar and Dinar, 2005 and Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006). In terms of international relations, the threat of water
wars due to increasing scarcity does not make much sense in the light of the recent historical record. Overall, the water war
rationale expects conflict to occur over water, and appears to suggest that violence is a viable means of securing national water supplies, an
argument which is highly contestable. The debates over the likely impacts of climate
change have again popularised the idea of
water wars. The argument runs that climate change will precipitate worsening ecological conditions contributing to resource scarcities,
social breakdown, institutional failure, mass migrations and in turn cause greater political instability and conflict (Brauch, 2002 and Pervis and
Busby, 2004). In a report for the US Department of Defense, Schwartz and Randall (2003) speculate about the consequences of a worst-case
climate change scenario arguing that water shortages will lead to aggressive wars (Schwartz and Randall, 2003, p. 15). Despite
growing
concern that climate change will lead to instability and violent conflict, the evidence base to
substantiate the connections is thin ( [Barnett and Adger, 2007] and Kevane and Gray, 2008).
No food wars- empirics prove
Salehyan ‘07 [Idean, Professor of Political Science, University of North Texas, “The New Myth About
Climate Change,” Foreign Policy, Summer,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922]
First, aside
from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity
and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an abundance
of natural resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of
civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace
Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed
conflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be
witnessing this downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental
5 million people in
Malawi have been experiencing chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi
has yet to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of
people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity.
Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars.
Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that
Empirics prove- food security is stable
FPD ’13 [Food Product Design, multi-media brand focused on the application of science based
ingredients that drive innovative & compliant food and beverage products for the consumer market,
“Despite Challenges, Global Food Security Stable,”
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/news/2013/07/despite-challenges-global-food-securitystable.aspx]
Global food security has remained largely stable over the past year despite challenges, including food price
volatility, new areas of political unrest, the ongoing European economic crisis, and a severe summer drought in the
Midwestern U.S. and Eastern Europe, according to the Global Food Security Index 2013 Report from Economist Intelligence Unit.¶ While the
global average food security score remained virtually unchanged in the latest index (53.5) compared with a year ago
(53.6), some notable trends emerged. Developing countries made the greatest food security gains in the past year. Ethiopia, Botswana and the
Dominican Republic led the way, rising eight places on average in the global food security rankings, based largely on greater food availability
and income growth.¶ High-income countries still dominate the top 25% of the index, but falling national incomes hurt food security in many
cases, especially in countries on the periphery of Europe. The United States retained the top ranking in the 2013 GFSI, with some shifts in the
Top 10 group resulting in Norway taking the second spot, and France the third.¶ “Prices
for some key food crops, especially grains,
spiked last year, raising food costs globally," said Leo Abruzzese, global forecasting director for the Economist Intelligence Unit.
“Fortunately, those prices have retreated in the last six months, although they remain higher than they were just a few years
ago. The EIU expects the prices of wheat and other grains to fall further during 2013, which is good news for global food security."¶ The GFSI,
developed by the EIU and sponsored by DuPont is intended to deepen the dialogue on food security by examining the core issues of food
affordability, availability and quality across a set of 107 developed and developing countries worldwide. The dynamic benchmarking model
evaluates 27 qualitative and quantitative indicators which collectively create the conditions for food security in a country.¶ The 2013 Global
Food Security Index builds on the insights from last year’s assessment and includes two new indicators—corruption and urban absorption
capacity, and two new countries—Ireland and Singapore.¶ Key findings from this year’s index include:¶ Overall
average food security
remained consistent with last year. No region’s score improved dramatically, but Sub-Saharan Africa showed the biggest
gain, climbing by around one point in the index. Last year’s drought in some key growing regions will have reduced food security
for a period of time, as grain prices rose, although that trend eased later in the year.
Global food systems are stabilizing
Schwab 4-29-14 [Charles Schwab is a financial services firm with a 40-year history, “3 Factors Helping
Food Stocks,” http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/3-Factors-Helping-Food-Stocks]
In 2013, investors were hungry for food companies as record-low interest rates led them to seek out dividend-paying stocks. This
interest in food stocks helped the sector to a 22% gain for the year as of mid-October,1 outpacing the S&P 500® Index’s 19% increase. But
with interest rates possibly on the rise, will food stocks lose their appeal? ¶ Not necessarily, says Brad Sorensen, Director of Market and Sector Analysis at the
Schwab Center for Financial Research. Three
factors are leaning in food stocks’ favor:¶ Stable prices. Global commodity
prices may be nearing the end of an extended upward trend, so any resulting price stability could boost
food makers’ profits. “These companies operate in a pretty low-margin environment, so any cost savings certainly benefits them,” Brad says. ¶ Low
sensitivity to interest rate changes. Historically, food stocks haven’t been as affected by higher interest rates
as other consumer staples because demand for food stays relatively constant.¶ Long-term outlook. The United Nations expects the
world population to add almost one billion people over the next 12 years.2 Given how closely food sales are linked with population growth, Brad believes equity
investors should consider food companies as part of their long-term core portfolio.
Ocean Acidification Impact
Anthropogenic rising C02 causes ocean acidification which affects marine biodiversity
Doney , Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, 09 (Sctott C. Doney 1/2009
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
PB)
Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean
pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. The process of ocean acidification is
well documented in field data, and the rate will accelerate over this century unless future CO2 emissions
are curbed dramatically. Acidification alters seawater chemical speciation and biogeochemical cycles of
many elements and compounds. One well-known effect is the lowering of calcium carbonate saturation
states, which impacts shell-forming marine organisms from plankton to benthic molluscs, echinoderms,
and corals. Many calcifying species exhibit reduced calcification and growth rates in laboratory
experiments under high-CO2 conditions. Ocean acidification also causes an increase in carbon fixation
rates in some photosynthetic organisms (both calcifying and noncalcifying). The potential for marine
organisms to adapt to increasing CO2 and broader implications for ocean ecosystems are not well
known; both are high priorities for future research. Although ocean pH has varied in the geological past,
paleo-events may be only imperfect analogs to current conditions. Over the past 250 years, atmospheric
carbon dioxide (CO2) levels increased by nearly 40%, from preindustrial levels of approximately 280
ppmv (parts per million volume) to nearly 384 ppmv in 2007 (Solomon et al. 2007). This rate of increase,
driven by human fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is at least an order of magnitude faster than
has occurred for millions of years (Doney & Schimel 2007), and the current concentration is higher than
experienced on Earth for at least the past 800,000 years (Lüthi et al. 2008). Rising atmospheric CO2 is
tempered by oceanic uptake, which accounts for nearly a third of anthropogenic carbon added to the
atmosphere (Sabine & Feely 2007, Sabine et al. 2004), and without which atmospheric CO2 would be
approximately 450 ppmv today, a level of CO2 that would have led to even greater climate change than
witnessed today. Ocean CO2 uptake, however, is not benign; it causes pH reductions and alterations in
fundamental chemical balances that together are commonly referred to as ocean acidification. Because
climate change and ocean acidification are both caused by increasing atmospheric CO2, acidification is
commonly referred to as the “other CO2 problem” (Henderson 2006, Turley 2005).¶ Ocean acidification
is a predictable consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 and does not suffer from uncertainties
associated with climate change forecasts. Absorption of anthropogenic CO2, reduced pH, and lower
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) saturation in surface waters, where the bulk of oceanic production occurs,
are well verified from models, hydrographic surveys, and time series data (Caldeira & Wickett
2003,2005; Feely et al. 2004, 2008; Orr et al. 2005; Solomon et al. 2007). At the Hawaii Ocean TimeSeries (HOT) station ALOHA the growth rates of surface water pCO2 and atmospheric CO2 agree well
(Takahashi et al. 2006) (Figure 1), indicating uptake of anthropogenic CO2 as the major cause for longterm increases in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and decreases in CaCO3 saturation state.
Correspondingly, since the 1980s average pH measurements at HOT, the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series
Study, and European Station for Time-Series in the Ocean in the eastern Atlantic have decreased
approximately 0.02 units per decade (Solomon et al. 2007). Since preindustrial times, the average ocean
surface water pH has fallen by approximately 0.1 units, from approximately 8.21 to 8.10 (Royal Society
2005), and is expected to decrease a further 0.3–0.4 pH units (Orr et al. 2005) if atmospheric CO2
concentrations reach 800 ppmv [the projected end-of-century concentration according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenario].¶ Fossil fuel
combustion and agriculture also produce increased atmospheric inputs of dissociation products of
strong acids (HNO3 and H2SO4) and bases (NH3) to the coastal and open ocean. These inputs are
particularly important close to major source regions, primarily in the northern hemisphere, and cause
decreases in surface seawater alkalinity, pH, and DIC (Doney et al. 2007). On a global scale, these
anthropogenic inputs (0.8 Tmol/yr reactive sulfur and 2.7 Tmol/yr reactive nitrogen) contribute only a
small fraction of the acidification caused by anthropogenic CO2, but they are more concentrated in
coastal waters where the ecosystem responses to ocean acidification could be more serious for
humankind.¶ Seawater carbon dioxide measurements have been conducted since the beginning of the
nineteenth century (Krogh 1904) but were sparse until the middle of the twentieth century (Keeling et
al. 1965, Takahashi 1961) and particularly until the Geochemical Sections (GEOSECS) (1973–1979) (Craig
& Turekian 1976, 1980) and Transient Tracers in the Ocean (TTO) (1981–1983) (Brewer et al. 1985)
programs. Even so, the GEOSECS and TTO measurements were significantly less precise than those of
today. Although researchers recognized that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the surface ocean
was more or less in equilibrium with overlying atmosphere CO2, they largely dismissed the potential
impact on the ocean biota because calcite (the assumed CaCO3 mineralogy of most calcifying organisms)
would remain supersaturated in the surface ocean.¶ Since then, multiple studies revealed several issues
that elevate ocean acidification as a threat to marine biota: (a) the calcification rates of many shellforming organisms respond to the degree of supersaturation (e.g.,Smith & Buddemeier 1992, Kleypas et
al. 1999); (b) aragonite, a more soluble CaCO3 mineral equally important in calcifying organisms, may
become undersaturated in the surface ocean within the early 21st century (Feely & Chen 1982, Feely et
al. 1988, Orr et al. 2005); and (c) the biological effects of decreasing ocean pH reach far beyond limiting
calcification.¶
97% of climatologists may agree with you, but 98% of their data is wrong.
Taylor 7/13 - managing editor of Environment and Climate News, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, environmentalist JD from
Syracuse University (James M., “IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models are Failing”, 7/13/13; < http://news.heartland.org/newspaperarticle/2013/07/13/ipcc-lead-author-says-climate-models-are-failing>)
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Hans von Storch told Der Spiegel that climate models are
having a difficult time replicating the lack of global warming during the past 15 years. “So far, no one has been
able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break," said Storch. Storch said the models say the planet
should be warming much more than it has. "According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by
around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years
was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero," Storch told Der Spiegel. "This
is a serious
scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it
presents its next Assessment Report late next year. 98 Percent of Models Wrong IPCC may have to revise its climate models to
reflect real-world climate conditions, Storch noted. "At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global
warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the
simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in
recent years leading to more of a temperature increase," Storch told the magazine. "If things continue as they have been,
in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our
climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it
very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations," he explained. Rewards of Scientific
Method “Hans von Storch is simply doing what all real scientists do: examine the most recently available data and use it to guide your path to
conclusions,” meteorologist Anthony Watts, proprietor of the popular WattsUpWithThat.com climate science website, told Environment &
Climate News. “The nature of science is to go where the data tells you to go, not to go where you believe you should, and that is what von
Storch is doing as a scientist,” Watts explained. “Meanwhile, those who go in the direction they believe they should go—or are told to go—are
continuing on like lemmings marching to the sea, blissfully unaware that the road of science has a U-turn sign up ahead. The belief-system
pileup at the U-turn will be something to behold.” “The latest admission regarding the failure of IPCC's climate models in accounting for the
stasis in the global temperature trend for the past 15 years is really no surprise,” Cambridge, Massachusetts climate scientist Willie Soon said.
“It is merely professor Hans von Storch reporting the scientific evidence in an honest manner. The IPCC climate models have a long history of
predicting too much warming, and Storch’s observations show that is still the case. “There
is a strong disconnect between
carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures. The evidence for this is every day becoming more
difficult to deny,” Soon added.
Warming’s not an existential risk – adaptation, mitigation, geoengineering, and
empirically no runaway.
Muller 12 – writer on ethics and existential risks (Jonatas, “Analysis of Existential Risks”, 2012; < http://www.jonatasmuller.com/xrisks.pdf>)
A runaway global warming, one in which the temperature rises could be a self- reinforcing process, has
been cited as an existential risk. Predictions show that the Arctic ice could melt completely within a few years, releasing methane
currently trapped in the sea bed (Walter et al. 2007). Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Abrupt methane
releases from frozen regions may have been involved in two extinction events on this planet, 55 million years ago in the Paleocene– Eocene
Thermal Maximum, and 251 million years ago in the Permian–Triassic extinction event. The
fact that similar global warmings
have happened before in the history of our planet is a likely indication that the present global
warming would not be of a runaway nature. Theoretical ways exist to reverse global warmings with
technology, which may include capturing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, deflecting solar
radiation, among other strategies. For instance, organisms such as algae are being bioengineered to convert atmospheric
greenhouse gases into biofuels (Venter 2008). Though they may cause imbalances, these methods would seem to
prevent global warming from being an existential risk in the worst case scenario, but it may still produce
catastrophic results.
Warming is irreversible.
Whitaker 12 – Examiner reporter, citing study by the American Meteorological Society (Sterling, “New Report Calls Global Warming
‘Irreversible’, predicts global collapse”, 8/29/12; < http://www.examiner.com/article/new-report-calls-global-warming-irreversible-predictsglobal-collapse>)
Global warming has become irreversible, according to a new report from the American Meteorological Society. EIN Newswire
reports that the AMS made the startling finding in an information report published on August 20, 2012. The report finds that even if
governments, corporations and individuals cut their green house gas emissions drastically today, it
would still be too late to head off a coming global disaster. Those findings echo the claims made in the 1972 report
'Limits to Growth,' in which a team of MIT researchers entered a variety of different economic and environmental scenarios into a computer
model. Most of those scenarios indicated that without significant limits to human consumption patterns, the result would be a complete global
economic collapse by 2030. The 1972 report also stated that to avoid the predicted consequences, drastic changes were required to protect the
environment. In the ensuing decades the
environmental outlook has continued to worsen, human consumption
has grown and the population of the world has exploded.
Oil Shock
Oil shocks inevitable
Janssens, Nyquist, and Roelofsen 11
(Tom Janssens, partner of the McKinsey & Company, majored in economics; Scott Nyquist, co-leader of McKinsey’s
Sustainability & Resource Productivity Practice and leader of the global Energy Practice, published articles on the
challenges facing global energy markets; Occo Roelofsen, director in McKinsey’s Amsterdam office and specializes
in the oil and gas sector; http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/another_oil_shock;
McKinsey&Company)
It’s been a while since the world has been truly preoccupied with the threat of sustained high oil prices.
The global economic recovery has been muted, and a double-dip recession remains possible. But that
dour prospect shouldn’t make executives sanguine about the risk of another oil shock. Emerging
markets are still in the midst of a historic transition toward greater energy consumption. When global
economic performance becomes more robust, oil demand is likely to grow faster than supply capacity
can. As that happens, at some point before too long supply and demand could collide—gently or
ferociously. The case for the benign scenario rests on a steady evolution away from oil consumption in
areas such as transportation, chemical production, power, and home heating. Moves by many major
economies to impose tougher automotive fuel efficiency standards are a step in this direction. However,
fully achieving the needed transition will take more stringent regulation, such as the abolition of fuel
subsidies in oil-producing countries, Asia, and elsewhere, as well as widespread consumer behavior
changes. And historically, governments, companies, and consumers have been disinclined to tackle
tough policy choices or make big changes until their backs are against the wall. This inertia suggests
another scenario—one that’s sufficiently plausible and underappreciated that we think it’s worth
exploring: the prospect that within this decade, the world could experience a period of significant
volatility, with oil prices leaping upward and oscillating between $125 and $175 a barrel (or higher) for
some time. The resulting economic pain would be significant. Economic modeling by our colleagues
suggests that by 2020, global GDP would be about $1.5 trillion smaller than expected, if oil prices spiked
and stayed high for several years.
Oil shocks unlikely
Krauss 10/8/13 (Clifford Krauss, correspondent for the New York Times, national business
correspondent; “Oil Shocks Ahead? Probably Not”; The New York Times; October 8, 2013)
OVER the last few months, as an Egyptian government fell in a coup, the United States
considered an attack on Syria and disgruntled Libyan terminal guards blocked oil exports, the only predictable news
was the rise in oil prices to levels not seen in more than two years. It all seemed distressingly similar to previous oil
shocks. That is, until the higher prices suddenly retreated, along with President Obama’s plans to retaliate for Syria’s apparent
HOUSTON —
use of chemical weapons. What is the lesson of the summer minispike? Are we poised to return to $145-a-barrel oil and $4.50-a-gallon
gasoline? The answer from most energy experts is probably not, because the
fundamental global oil demand and supply
equation has changed so drastically over the last three years. Even before the collapse of plans to attack Syria and the
new overtures of Iran to improve relations with the West, the financial company Raymond James published a report forecasting a lowering of
oil prices from $109 in 2013 to $95 in 2014 and $90 in 2015. Some analysts
are predicting even lower prices, and not only
because of the frenzy of shale drilling in the United States and rapid oil sands development in Canada. “Oil prices
at about $100 a barrel is at a sweet spot,” said Paul Bledsoe, senior fellow in the Climate and Energy Program at the German Marshall Fund.
“It’s high enough to incentivize remarkable investment in new production techniques and equally large investments in efficiency
improvements. And the underlying factor of relatively modest economic growth seems to be with us for quite a while.” Predictions about oil
and gasoline prices are precarious when there are so many political and security hazards. But it is likely that the world has already entered a
period of relatively predictable crude prices. Even at their highest point in late summer, oil prices
remained roughly 25 percent
below levels of five years ago, not counting inflation, and gasoline prices on Labor Day weekend were at multiyear lows. And
while oil slightly above $100 a barrel oil and nearly $3.50-a-gallon gasoline are high by historical measures, they are at a surprisingly benign
level given the on-and-off disruptions in the Middle East and North Africa over the last three years.
Economy
Economy is resilient
The global economy is resilient to oil shocks
Farchy 12 (Jack Farchy, Finical Times correspondents, expertise in commodities, “World more resilient to oil price rises”,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/11c38c74-a8e4-11e1-b085-00144feabdc0.html#axzz37mbOvhDM, 5/28/12, 7/17/14, MEM)
The world economy has become more resilient to rising oil prices, according to the International Monetary Fund, although it
warned that a supply shock could still derail global growth. In new research published on its website, the IMF argued that the world had become less
sensitive to a jump in oil prices thanks to more proactive monetary policy, increasing energy efficiency
and greater diversity of energy sources among importing countries. “During the current economic
downturn, the price of oil hit over $100 a barrel and prices rose close to levels only seen in the 1970s [in real terms],” the IMF
said. “But the increases have not triggered global recessions as they did in the 1970s and 80s.” High oil prices have
become a priority for global policy makers as they wrestle with weak economic growth and the possible disruption of supplies from Iran, the world’s third-largest
exporter. Leaders of the G8 nations
this month agreed to release oil from their strategic reserves if there is further
disruption to supply, saying that “increasing disruptions in the supply of oil to the global market over the
past several months […] pose substantial risk to global economic growth”. On Monday, oil prices rose for the third straight
session as traders responded to the lack of progress in last week’s negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. ICE July Brent crude oil rose 28 cents to $107.11 a
barrel, although it remains 12.9 per cent lower than it was at the end of March. The IMF conceded that “large, abrupt price changes remain difficult to absorb,
particularly if they come from supply disruptions”. But it noted that recent supply outages – such as the loss of Libya’s oil from the global market during last year’s
civil war – have been small relative to the disruptions of the 1970s, such as the Arab oil embargo or the Iranian revolution. Nonetheless, it
argued that the
global economy had demonstrated greater resilience to rising oil prices in the past few years than in the
1970s. In part, this is because the rally in prices in recent years has been driven by global demand
growth rather than supply shocks.
The US economy an global economy are resilient
Newsweek Staff 10 (writer for Newsweek, “The Great Shock Absorber”, http://www.newsweek.com/great-shockabsorber-108203, 3/13/10, 7/17/14, MEM)
The U.S. and global economies were able to withstand three body blows in 2005—one of the worst
tsunamis on record (which struck at the very end of 2004), one of the worst hurricanes on record and
the highest energy prices after Hurricane Katrina—without missing a beat. This resilience was
especially remarkable in the case of the United States, which since 2000 has been able to shrug off the
biggest stock-market drop since the 1930s, a major terrorist attack, corporate scandals and war. Does
this mean that recessions are a relic of the past? No, but recent events do suggest that the global
economy's "immune system" is now strong enough to absorb shocks that 25 years ago would probably
have triggered a downturn. In fact, over the past two decades, recessions have not disappeared, but
have become considerably milder in many parts of the world. What explains this enhanced recession
resistance? The answer: a combination of good macroeconomic policies and improved microeconomic
flexibility. Since the mid-1980s, central banks worldwide have had great success in taming inflation.
This has meant that long-term interest rates are at levels not seen in more than 40 years. A lowinflation and low-interest-rate environment is especially conducive to sustained, robust growth.
Moreover, central bankers have avoided some of the policy mistakes of the earlier oil shocks (in the
mid-1970s and early 1980s), during which they typically did too much too late, and exacerbated the
ensuing recessions. Even more important, in recent years the Fed has been particularly adept at crisis
management, aggressively cutting interest rates in response to stock-market crashes, terrorist attacks
and weakness in the economy. The benign inflationary picture has also benefited from increasing
competitive pressures, both worldwide (thanks to globalization and the rise of Asia as a manufacturing
juggernaut) and domestically (thanks to technology and deregulation). Since the late 1970s, the United
States, the United Kingdom and a handful of other countries have been especially aggressive in
deregulating their financial and industrial sectors. This has greatly increased the flexibility of their
economies and reduced their vulnerability to inflationary shocks. Looking ahead, what all this means is
that a global or U.S. recession will likely be avoided in 2006, and probably in 2007 as well. Whether the
current expansion will be able to break the record set in the 1990s for longevity will depend on the
ability of central banks to keep the inflation dragon at bay and to avoid policy mistakes. The prospects
look good. Inflation is likely to remain a low-level threat for some time, and Ben Bernanke, the
incoming chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, spent much of his academic career studying the past
mistakes of the Fed and has vowed not to repeat them. At the same time, no single shock will likely be
big enough to derail the expansion. What if oil prices rise to $80 or $90 a barrel? Most estimates
suggest that growth would be cut by about 1 percent—not good, but no recession. What if U.S. house
prices fall by 5 percent in 2006 (an extreme assumption, given that house prices haven't fallen
nationally in any given year during the past four decades)? Economic growth would slow by about 0.5
percent to 1 percent. What about another terrorist attack? Here the scenarios can be pretty scary, but
an attack on the order of 9/11 or the Madrid or London bombings would probably have an even
smaller impact on overall GDP growth.
Economy empirics
Empirical studies show no causal relationship between economic decline and war
Miller 01 (Morris Miller, professor of economics, “Poverty: A Cause of War?”,
http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v17n1p08.htm, 2001, 7/17/14, MEM)
Library shelves are heavy with studies focused on the correlates and causes of war. Some of the
leading scholars in that field suggest that we drop the concept of causality, since it can rarely be
demonstrated. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to look at the motives of war-prone political leaders
and the ways they have gained and maintained power, even to the point of leading their nations to
war. Poverty: The Prime Causal Factor? Poverty is most often named as the prime causal factor.
Therefore we approach the question by asking whether poverty is characteristic of the nations or
groups that have engaged in wars. As we shall see, poverty has never been as significant a factor as
one would imagine. Largely this is because of the traits of the poor as a group - particularly their
tendency to tolerate their suffering in silence and/or be deterred by the force of repressive
regimes. Their voicelessness and powerlessness translate into passivity. Also, because of their
illiteracy and ignorance of worldly affairs, the poor become susceptible to the messages of war-bent
demagogues and often willing to become cannon fodder. The situations conductive to war involve
political repression of dissidents, tight control over media that stir up chauvinism and ethnic
prejudices, religious fervor, and sentiments of revenge. The poor succumb to leaders who have the
power to create such conditions for their own self-serving purposes. Desperately poor people in poor
nations cannot organize wars, which are exceptionally costly. The statistics speak eloquently on this
point. In the last 40 years the global arms trade has been about $1500 billion, of which two-thirds
were the purchases of developing countries. That is an amount roughly equal to the foreign capital
they obtained through official development aid (ODA). Since ODA does not finance arms purchases
(except insofar as money that is not spent by a government on aid-financed roads is available for
other purposes such as military procurement) financing is also required to control the media and
communicate with the populace to convince them to support the war. Large-scale armed conflict is
so expensive that governments must resort to exceptional sources, such as drug dealing, diamond
smuggling, brigandry, or deal-making with other countries. The reliance on illicit operations is well
documented in a recent World Bank report that studied 47 civil wars that took place between 1960
and 1999, the main conclusion of which is that the key factor is the availability of commodities to
plunder. For greed to yield war, there must be financial opportunities. Only affluent political
leaders and elites can amass such weaponry, diverting funds to the military even when this runs
contrary to the interests of the population. In most inter-state wars the antagonists were wealthy
enough to build up their armaments and propagandize or repress to gain acceptance for their
policies. Economic Crises? Some scholars have argued that it is not poverty, as such, that contributes
to the support for armed conflict, but rather some catalyst, such as an economic crisis. However, a
study by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik shows that this hypothesis lacks merit. After studying 93
episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin American and Asia since World War II, they
concluded that much of the conventional thinking about the political impact of economic crisis is
wrong: "The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... or (in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of
violence... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises
by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another)."
No war
No impact
Jervis 11 (Robert Jervis, Professor in the Department of Political Science of International and Public Affairs at Columbia,
“Force in Our Times,” http://www.siwps.com/news.attachment/saltzmanworkingpaper15842/SaltzmanWorkingPaper15.PDF?origin=publication_detail, Vol. 25, No. 4, p. 403-425, December 2011, 7/17/14, MEM)
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-my-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 preexisting 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.
Economic shocks have no effect on global peace – your authors assume biased studies
Bazzi and Blattman 11(Samuel Bazzi, , UC San Diego Department of Economics PhD, Christopher, Yale Departments of
Political Science and Econ Assistant Professor , Center for Global Development, “Economic Shocks and Conflict: The (Absence
of?) Evidence from Commodity Prices,”
http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/1425755_file_Bazzi_Blattman_price_shocks_FINAL.pdf, 12/1/11, 7/17/14, MEM)
Ultimately, however, the fact that commodity price shocks have no discernible effect on new conflict
onsets, but some effect on ongoing conflict, suggests that political stability might be less sensitive to
income or temporary shocks than generally be- lieved. One possibility is that successfully mounting an
insurgency is no easy task. It comes with considerable risk, costs, and coordination challenges. Another
possibility is that the counterfactual is still conflict onset. In poor and fragile nations, income shocks of
one type or another are ubiquitous. If a nation is so fragile that a change in prices could lead to war,
then other shocks may trigger war even in the absence of a price shock. The same argument has been
made in debunking the myth that price shocks led to fiscal collapse and low growth in developing
nations in the 1980s.19 B. A general problem of publication bias? More generally, these findings should
heighten our concern with publication bias in the con- flict literature. Our results run against a number
of published results on commodity shocks and conflict, mainly because of select samples,
misspecification, and sensitivity to model assump- tions, and, most importantly, alternative measures
of instability. Across the social and hard sciences, there is a concern that the majority of published
research findings are false (e.g. Gerber et al. 2001). Ioannidis (2005) demonstrates that a published finding is less likely to be true when there is a greater number and lesser pre-selection of tested relationships; there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and models; and when more
teams are involved in the chase of statistical significance. The cross-national study of con- flict is an
extreme case of all these. Most worryingly, almost no paper looks at alternative de- pendent variables
or publishes systematic robustness checks. Hegre and Sambanis (2006) have shown that the majority
of published conflict results are fragile, though they focus on time- invariant regressors and not the
time-varying shocks that have grown in popularity. We are also concerned there is a “file drawer
problem” (Rosenthal 1979). Consider this deci- sion rule: scholars that discover robust results that fit a
theoretical intuition pursue the results; but if results are not robust the scholar (or referees) worry
about problems with the data or em- pirical strategy, and identify additional work to be done. If further
analysis produces a robust re- sult, it is published. If not, back to the file drawer. In the aggregate, the
consequences are dire: a lower threshold of evidence for initially significant results than ambiguous
ones.20
Solvency
Fossil fuels are better than algae biofuel
Stecker 12 (Tiffany Stecker, Agriculture reporter, Greenwire at E&E Publishing,LLC, “Algal Biofuel Sustainability Review
Highlights Concerns about Water Supply”, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/algal-biofuel-sustainability-reviewhightlights-concerns-about-water-safety/, 10/25/12, 7/18/14, MEM)
Energy output in relation to inputs, or "energy return on investment," remains an issue for algae, says
the report. Overall, algae biofuel yields a low energy output for all of the energy needed to produce it.
Fossil fuels can produce up to six times more energy than even the most efficient algae fuels, as a
ratio of output to the input energy.
Algae is unproven and unfeasible.
The Oil Drum ’08 [“Biofuel Conference Call Including a New Biodiesel from Algae,” August 22,
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4439#more]
In some ways, the Solazyme approach is not too different from an ethanol approach. With ethanol,
yeast often acts on corn or biomass feedstock to provide alcohol as an output. With this approach, it is
algae that acts on biomass, to provide an oil as an output. Solazyme claims that it has been able to
produce biodiesel fuel that meets the standards for Number 2 diesel fuel. They claim that the fuel they
produce can be used at 100% concentration, year around, without problems. I believe that the tests
they have run were in only one vehicle, for one year. It seems to me that more tests would be needed to
show the limitations of the fuel. For example, do microorganisms grow in the fuel, and cause the
problems in the tank after a couple of years? Solazyme claims that the process they have developed can
be scaled up fairly quickly. They have tried to make the process as compatible with existing equipment
as possible. The oils they have made to date have been made on large scale equipment owned by
someone else, using short production runs. If they leased the equipment full time, or built their own
facility, they claim they could make the oil in quantity. Whether or not this can be done needs to be
proven, because collecting and processing adequate biomass for any biofuel operation is challenging.
Little progress has been made in the development of algae biofuels
Morris 12 (Alison Morris, wrote for the Wall Street Journal Europe, reporter for Fox News, “Algae Energy
– Dead in the Water”, http://capitalresearch.org/2012/09/algae-energy-dead-in-the-water/, September
1, 2012)
Summary: In February, President Obama touted his plan to fund algae biofuel as a domestic alternative
fuel source. But years of government investment have failed to overcome the obstacles algae faces to
becoming a viable source of fuel, and as with other alternative energy enthusiasms, disturbing
connections have arisen between campaign contributors and government grants. President Obama
detailed his solution for the nation’s “energy problem” to an audience at the University of Miami this
February. Though most of the plan consisted of the same old dubious solutions like solar power, he
made one new and surprising addition: algae. “We’re making new investments in the development of
gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance—algae…. You’ve got a
bunch of algae out here, right? If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing all
right.” It sounds like science fiction, but the federal government has explored algae biofuel for decades.
It began in the Carter administration as a small portion of the newly created Department of Energy
called the Aquatic Species Program and continued into the 1980s as a hoped-for alternative to
increasingly expensive gasoline (sound familiar?). Though algae research has continued, very little actual
progress has been made toward the goal of algae as a feasible energy source.
Algae cannot be produced at the scale needed for U.S. consumption.
The Oil Drum ’08 [“Biofuel Conference Call Including a New Biodiesel from Algae,” August 22,
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4439#more]
Regarding whether this could be a panacea, there are still a lot of obstacles in the way. The process is
only at a developmental stage, and hasn't been tested at scale. Also, the total amount of biomass
available in the US isn't necessarily all that great, if one starts burning it for fuel in vehicles. We are
basically using the same biomass to replenish our soil; to provide wood for heating homes; to provide
biomass for fueling electric power plants; to provide feedstock for cellulosic ethanol and now to provide
feedstock for algal diesel as well. There is clearly not enough biomass to do all of these things at the
scale some might like, simultaneously.
Algae is under-researched, not economical, and not proven on a large scale.
Sapling 08 [TheEnvironmentSite.org, “Algenol,” http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/biofuelforum/14476-algenol.html]
Another reason could be it would be more difficult to check it out in Mexico. I have no idea why you
would assume the permitting process is easier in Mexico. They are going to be using photo bioreactors
(PBR) made of plastic. The size of the proposed farm is 102,000 acres, or 156 square miles or 2.3 times
the size of Washington DC! Their PBRs are sealed so they need some sort of piping and pumping system
to get CO2 and nutrients in and another set of tubing to collect condensed ethanol. This is a lot of
material. And it has to be maintained and repaired in the blistering hot sun. Look at the state of algae
research on the DOE’s NREL website. Look at the state of the USAF/DOE program. The Algae Biomass
Organization shows only a handful of peer reviewed documents on algae and all of them are about
CO2abatement, none are about fuel. I’m not saying algae fuel can’t be done, I’m saying it can’t be done
economically and has not been proven on a large scale.
The promise of algae ethanol is nothing more than a scam.
Sapling 08 [TheEnvironmentSite.org, “Algenol,” http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/forum/biofuelforum/14476-algenol.html]
Come on use the internet for something other than porn. This algae thing is a scam. When gas was over
$4.00 a gallon just a few months ago, Algenol said their fuel would be "about $3.00 or $1.00 less than
fuel today". Now it's, “can sell ethanol at a price that is cheaper than any other fuel all across the United
States”. So they’ve managed to cut their prices in half magically? Their magical alga also desalinates
water? Do some research on biological desalination. It does not exist! Most desalination plants use
reverse osmosis and spend big money using chemicals to kill algae! What do they do with the salt?
Desalination plants pay big bucks to get rid of it. I assume they process it into pixie dust and sell it to
Disney. And their magical algae doesn’t need harvesting, they just collect condensed ethanol vapors???
OK let’s pretend that’s so. So the algae, that grows much faster than conventional crops, never needs to
be removed from the photo bioreactors and never dies? O-K. Google “Biofields S.A.P.I de .C.V” and you
find nothing other than discussion of the Algenol deal. Do that search and omit “Algenol” and “850” and
you get one page of hits and they all still only relate to them building a plant in the desert. Where does a
two year old company that hasn’t ever done anything get $1 billion dollars! It’s too bad there are no real
journalists anymore. They just print what sells and nonsense like this sells. These guys are going to soak
up the government money for alternative fuels. That would be cool if they were going to do real
research and actually produce something. I fear this will not be the case. They are betting on some
nonsensical carbon trading law and money from our wise elected officials in DC.
Despite any potential, no infrastructure or consistent method for developing algal
biofuels.
CNET News, byline Michael Kanellos, 2007, “The challenge of algae fuel: An expert speaks,”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9765452-7.html MH
Right now, though, no one is producing it commercially. Companies such as LiveFuels, GreenFuel
Technologies and Solazyme hope to start seeing algae oil get into the fuel markets in a substantial way
over the next few years, but it's still mostly experimental. GreenFuel recently hit some snags and
changed CEOs. One challenge is removing the water. It's not uncommon to have 1 gram of usable algae
in every liter of water. "That's 1,000 parts of water for every part of algae," he said. The industry is also
in the midst of a few religious wars. One is controlled versus open ponds. In controlled facilities,
engineers can regulate the growth of organisms and control what kinds of species grow in the
environment. These facilities cost quite a bit. Controlling the rate of growth can also be a problem.
"Open ponds are the cheapest, simplest solution," he said. "But it is much harder to maintain
consistency." Then there is the question of using biologically enhanced organisms or a mixture of
naturally occurring species. Enhanced organisms can produce more oil per cell. However, they may not
thrive if foreign species enter the pond.
Kritiks
Don’t treat discourse as prior. Role of the ballot arguments over-privilege the
importance of any individual. Making political theory into an end in itself undermines
decision-making.
Sophia MIHIC Poli Sci & Philosophy @ Northeastern Illinois ’10 in Democracy and Pluralism: The Political
Thought of William E. Connolly ed. Finlayson p. 96-98
The recent renewal of interest in interpretation, as found within the 'Perestroika' movement, has for the
most part merely been a return: a reprise and re-application of the earlier arguments against behavioral
approaches to the study of politics. Stephen White has lamented the inferiority of these current debates
and initiatives in political science when contrasted with the field's selfquestioning in the 1970s, a
disciplinary critique 'characterized by a rich discussion' about what the study of politics could be and
should do (White, 2002: 179). I The takers of the linguistic turn have been congratulated, rightly, for
insisting that evaluation is constitutive of the 'what' that is politics. Debate over what a more engaged
practice of political theory might be has been advanced by theorists working on new approaches to
relationships between abstraction and concrete analysis.2 But the linguistic tum itself has been neglected
as an object of theoretical solicitude. What interpretive limitations, or even traps, were produced in that
initial encounter between political theory and behavioral inquiry ? And how do the effects of these
limitations persist? l This chapter returns to the linguistic turn of the 1970s and explores the effects of
arguments against the fact/value dichotomy in political science, not with respect to the behavioral
approaches against which they were posed, but within the work of political theorists who posed the
criticisms.3 Focusing on the work of William Connolly and Charles Taylor, I argue that in the aftermath of
debates over the fact/value dichotomy they shrink from constituting the seeable - from the theoretical tasks
of pursuing the descriptive and evidentiary implications of their own arguments - because they are caught up
in what I identify as the hegemony of normative theorizing.4 I am not suggesting that this shrinking - from
what less generically we might refer to as the empirical, the concrete, or the material - is reducible to the
intent of either author. Likewise in the subfield of political theory the hegemony of normative theorizing,
which compels and allows this retreat, is not the conscious program of an author or of any group of
theorists. It is better understood as a language game, or discursive formation, within which political
theorists in North America work and of which they are for the most part unquestioning. The hegemony of
normative theorizing is a force in language and practice that compels the political theorist to present his
or her work in a particular form : the disciplinary demand of their subfield is that theorists clearly
articulate and affirm the evaluative implications of their own findings. 5 ] will demonstrate how this
requisite normative declaration produces a nonchalance and disregard toward facticity - toward, that is,
the constitution and hence the quality of fact. Further, I will argue that this discursive compulsion, or move
in the language game, effects a second move: the exaggerated emphasis on evaluation creates an undue
emphasis on the evaluator as political actor and/or position-taking political theorist. I cannot argue that either
of these moves is wrong. To engage the constitutive force of just one of language, thought or world is to
engage the others also - to engage normativity is to engage facticity. But what does consistently
entering into interpretation with the goal of evaluative declaration conceal? What is foreclosed when
we ask the political theorist to explicate and affirm his or her position in every interpretation? The
hegemony of normative theorizing is supported by the widely held view that political theory is
concerned with justice - with articulating alternative conceptions of the 'good' political life. But my
concern is not solely with such expressly normative theories as Rawls' monumental reduction of the
social theories of welfare liberalism to a moral choice, or political theory concerned with evaluative
perspicuity or expertise in ethics. We find the hegemony of normative theorizing, the entreaty to
endorse and a compulsive subject-centeredness, in the work of diagnostic political theorists like
Connolly and Taylor in whose work the emphasis on evaluation characteristic of the hegemony of
normative theorizing emerges as a reactive response to the goal of value-neutrality in behavioralism. I
will argue that the concomitant glorification of the perspective of the agentic human subject is a reactive
response to the presumptive blank space that is the behavioral subjec t. These responses are reactive in a
theoretical sense: we will see that the hegemony of normative theorizing in Connolly's and Taylor's work
is evidenced, first, in their conversations with their opponent (behavioralism) and in arguments with
each other. The chapter seeks to trouble our familiarity with such debates so as to identify paths not
taken. A presumption of my argument is that the linguistic tum, as taught to us by Connolly and Taylor,
suggested interpretive possibilities that are greater than those realized by either theorist.6 The early
lessons of 'Perestroika' seem to have been that political theorists should learn some facts - rendered by
our empirically-trained sister political scientists - and theorize about them. But we will see that the
prepositional remove of this 'about' suggests a sanguine empiricism in contrast to the possibilities of an
interpretive political science sketched during the I 970s. As evidence of this under-realization, the
chapter will examine the lingering effects of the struggle with behavioralism in exchanges between
Connolly and Taylor over the work of Michel Foucault. Here, we will see their shrinking from the
constitution of the seeable as an aversion to interpretation in the third perso n - an aversion, that is, to
nonagent- centered argumentation. They each struggle with and cannot accommodate arguments with
structural valences and/or dimensions. For both, any theorizing in the third person is the voice of
science and of the foe to be avoided.7 Thus, I am reading Connolly and Taylor canonically, as enunciative
modalities, situated within disciplinary conditions that contain the epistemic insights of the radical
theory that inheres within the continental philosophies on which writers such as they draw; the subjectcentered focus permeating their thinking is not simply a matter of authorial choice.8
Theory without policy implications is has no effect on the real world–policy education is
necessary for good theory
FEAVER 2001 (Peter, Asst. Prof of Political Science at Duke University, Twenty-First Century Weapons Proliferation, p 178)
At the same time, virtually all good theory has implications for policy. Indeed, if no conceivable extension of
the theory leads to insights that would aid those working in the ‘real world’, what can be ‘good’
about good theory? Ignoring the policy implications of theory is often a sign of intellectual
laziness on the part of the theorist. It is hard work to learn about the policy world and to make
the connections from theory to policy. Often, the skill sets do not transfer easily from one
domain to another, so a formidable theorist can show embarrassing naivete when it comes to the
policy domain he or she putatively studies. Often, when the policy implications are considered, flaws in the
theory (or at least in the presentation of the theory) are uncovered. Thus, focusing attention on
policy implications should lead to better theorizing. The gap between theory and policy is more
rhetoric than reality. But rhetoric can create a reality–or at least create an undesirable kind of
reality–where policy makers make policy though ignorant of the problems that good theory would expose, while theorists spin arcana without a
view to producing something that matters. It is therefore incumbent on those of us who study
proliferation–a topic that raises interesting and important questions for both policy and theory–to
bring the communities together. Happily, the best work in the proliferation field already does so.