Inherency
No disads – offshore wind exists now – plan is key to expansion
Navigant Consulting, Inc. ’13 (Bruce Hamilton, Principal Investigator, Lindsay Battenberg, Mark Bielecki, Charlie Bloch,
Terese Decker, Lisa Frantzis, Jay Paidipati, Andy Wickless, Feng Zhao, October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf)
Since the last edition of this report, several potential U.S. offshore wind projects have
achieved notable advancements in their development processes. In addition to two BOEM
commercial lease auctions for federal Wind Energy Areas (WEAs), other, later-stage,
commercial-scale projects have made incremental progress toward starting construction. On
the demonstration project front, the DOE awarded seven Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)
project grants in December 2012 that will help address ongoing challenges and cost barriers
to offshore wind energy. In addition, in June 2013, the University of Maine (in partnership with the DOE) installed the United
States’ first offshore wind turbine, a 1/8-scale pilot turbine on a floating foundation. This section provides an overview of these and other
updates to U.S. offshore wind project developments.
Offshore wind is blocked in the status quo because of an incoherent regulatory
framework- without federal action local opposition ensures no wind development
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
The drastic growth in electricity produced by wind in the United States indicates that wind
power is poised to become a significant component of the United States' energy portfolio.'
Installed wind capacity has grown from about 1,000 megawatts (MW) in 1985 to nearly 35,000 MW by the end of 2009, enough to power
roughly 9.7 million homes. As of September 2008, the United States led the world in energy produced by wind turbines.3 According to
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), currently
installed wind power capacity in the United States will
avoid an estimated sixty-two million tons of carbon dioxide annually, or the equivalent to taking 10.5
million cars off the road.4 The federal government appears to recognize the opportunities and benefits that wind power offers. In
February 2009, Congress positioned wind power generation to continue its rapid growth5 by renewing production tax credits for wind
power projects through 2012. Congress also gave the wind industry options for investment tax credits or U.S. Treasury Department
grants for certain wind power projects placed in service by 2012.7 In addition, in July 2009, DOE announced up to $30 billion in loan
guarantees for renewable energy projects, including wind power. President Obama continues to promote renewable energy, including
wind energy, as well. For example, in his 2010 State of the Union, the President spoke repeatedly about the need for renewable energy
investment.9 DOE predicts that by 2030 the United States could get as much as 20 percent of its electricity from wind, if the nation is able
to overcome certain challenges to wind power progress today.'0 In
spite of the impressive growth in the U.S. wind
industry, the United States has not kept pace with other countries in developing offshore
wind facilities. Though offshore wind has been used in other countries for nearly twenty
years,'1 none of the United States' current wind capacity comes from offshore wind.12 An
estimated 900,000 MW of potential wind energy capacity exists off the coasts of the United
States -an estimated 98,000 MW of it in shallow waters.14 This shallow-water capacity could power between 22
and 29 million homes, or between 20 and 26 percent of all U.S. homes. The nation has failed to take
advantage of this promising resource. This failure can be ascribed in part to the unevenly balanced
distribution of the costs and benefits of offshore wind technology, as well as to the
incoherent regulatory framework in the United States for managing coastal resources.17 While
the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are frequently regional, national, or even global,
the costs are almost exclusively local. The U.S. regulatory framework is not set up to handle
this cost-benefit gap. As a result, local opposition has stalled offshore wind power development,
and inadequate attention has been paid to its wide-ranging benefits. The Cape Wind project in
Massachusetts is a stark example of how local forces have hindered offshore wind power development. The project is expected to have a
maximum production of 450 MW and an average daily production of 170 MW, or 75 percent of the 230-MW average demand of Cape Cod
and neighboring islands.'8 In addition to this electricity boon to energy-constrained Massachusetts,19 Cape Wind will reduce regional air
pollution and global carbon dioxide emissions.20 Nonetheless, local opponents to Cape Wind protest its effect on the surrounding
environment, including its aesthetic impacts.21 Without
an effective way to champion the regional, national,
and global benefits of offshore wind, policymakers have been unable to keep local interests from
controlling the process through protest and litigation . After about ten years of waiting and fighting, Cape Wind
developers have still not begun construction. Although the
failure of offshore wind power in the United
States is discouraging, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) offers a potential solution.
With specific revisions, the CZMA could serve as the impetus that offshore wind power needs
for success in the United States.
***Economic Competitiveness Advantage
Jobs Down
Despite recent gains in the job market, more are needed to secure the recovery
CNN, 6/6
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/06/investing/may-jobs-report/
It took two years to wipe out 8.7 million American jobs but more than four years to gain them all
back. That's according to the Department of Labor's latest jobs report, which shows the U.S.
economy added 217,000 jobs in May. With that job growth, there are now more jobs in the
country than ever before. The last time we were near this point was January 2008, just before
massive layoffs swept throughout the country, leading the unemployment rate to spike to 10%. The
unemployment rate is unchanged at 6.3% for May, and much has improved since the worst
of the crisis. Yet, this isn't the moment to break out the champagne. Given population growth
over the last four years, the economy still needs more jobs to truly return to a healthy place.
How many more? A whopping 7 million, calculates Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the
Economic Policy Institute. President Obama's administration was quick to point out that the
recovery is still incomplete by their standards. "We're moving in the right direction, but we have
a lot more work to do," said Secretary of Labor Tom Perez. "There are way too many people who
are still on the sidelines." As of May, about 3.4 million Americans had been unemployed for six
months or more, and 7.3 million were stuck in part-time jobs although they wanted to work fulltime. Both these numbers are still elevated compared to historic norms, and are of concern to
Federal Reserve officials, who will meet in two weeks to re-evaluate their stimulus policies. Overall,
this has been the longest jobs recovery since the Department of Labor started tracking jobs data in
1939. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney predict it will take two to three more years to return
to "full employment," which they define as an unemployment rate around 5.5%.
Econ down- jobs key
US economic recovery will be halted without significant job growth
Fitch Ratings 2014
(“Fitch: U.S. Jobs Surveys Tell Same Story, Despite Differences” By: Fitch Ratings, Business Wire (English), 01/14/2014, ebsco)
Last week's U.S.
employment surveys for December support Fitch's view that the healing of the
labor market is not proceeding quickly enough to drive a significant pick-up in U.S. economic
growth. Despite a decline in the headline unemployment rate to 6.7% in December, labor
productivity and participation rates have stayed weak since the recession. We remain concerned that
high levels of unemployment and under-employment will continue to dampen consumer spending and
delay the start of a more robust economic recovery. Differences between the monthly employment reports released
by ADP and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), evident in the December payrolls data, will likely be smoothed over the next quarter as monthly
numbers are adjusted. While significantly different, we believe both surveys have shown ongoing, accelerating improvements in job creation over
recent months. Unfortunately, the reports still indicate
that U.S. employment levels are not rising fast
enough to offset job losses suffered during the last recession. The U.S. economy needs to
generate between 185,000 and 200,000 jobs monthly to significantly reduce unemployment.
The higher December payrolls number from ADP reflects stronger jobs growth at the end of 2013, but appears to be a catch up relative to the BLS
numbers over the last 24 months. BLS reports reflect an average increase of 187,000 jobs per month over that period, while ADP averaged
170,000. Typically, the net difference between the reports is below 0.06% of total jobs each month. For December, ADP reported net growth of
238,000 jobs while BLS reported only 74,000. Last February 2013, by contrast, BLS reported a significantly higher monthly jobs number than
ADP. Of greater concern is that the December increase is not statistically significant. So if the BLS number is not revised, it is likely that there
was little or no discernible employment growth in the fourth quarter. This repeats recent seasonality patterns
in the U.S. economy where the greatest growth is experienced in the first part of the year and tails off each year. BLS jobs growth was highest in
the first and second quarters of 2013, adding an estimated 637,000 and 569,000 jobs, respectively. ADP's highest quarter is the fourth quarter at
638,000 and the second highest is the first at 529,000. To further cloud the data, GDP growth for the third quarter has been attributed to a large
inventory increase, casting doubt on the fundamental strength of the economy in the second half of last year. Fitch projects a modest increase in
U.S. GDP growth in 2014 and 2015. The outlook for U.S. corporate credit is stable. However, little
expected in the near term.
positive momentum is
Manufacturing is down now
Manufacturing declining, we are losing economic competitiveness
Smil ’11 (Vaclav Smil, economist for Breakthrough institute, The Manufacturing of Decline, The Breakthrough Institute,
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-1/the-manufacturing-of-decline, accessed: 6/30/14 GA)
But these
numbers can be deceptive. America's manufacturing sector has retreated faster and
further in relative terms than that of any other large, affluent nation. US manufacturing as a
percentage of GDP declined from 27 percent in 1950 to 23 percent in 1970 to 14 percent in 2000 to
11 percent in 2009. While manufacturing as a share of GDP has also declined in Germany and Japan, both countries have
retained relatively larger manufacturing sectors at 17 and 21 percent, respectively. The contribution of manufacturing to per capita GDP
is also higher in Germany ($6,900) and Japan ($8,300) than in the United States. The
most shocking, but
underemphasized, fact about global manufacturing is that Germany's share of global
merchandise exports is actually higher than America's (9 percent vs. 8.5 percent in 2009), despite having an
economy just one-quarter of the size. As a consequence , the United States is lagging as a global economic
competitor. In 2009, Germany and Japan had large manufacturing trade surpluses ($290 and $220 billion, respectively) while
the United States had a massive manufacturing trade deficit ($322 billion).5 The other key measure -- little
known in popular discussions of manufacturing -- is export intensity, the ratio of a nation's exports to its total manufacturing sales. The
global average export intensity is twice as high as that of the United States, which ranked 13th out of the 15 largest manufacturing
countries in 2009, higher only than Russia and Brazil.6 Meanwhile, the leading EU countries had export intensities 2.5 times to 4 times
higher than America's. Comparisons of the value of manufactured exports on a per capita basis are even more dramatic: they are higher
in Spain ($3,700), Japan ($4,000), Canada ($4,600), and Germany ($11,200) than in the United States ($2,400). The
US
manufacturing sector is also badly trailing China's, though in order to fully appreciate this, one must calculate
the real value of China's artificially undervalued currency (the yuan renminbi, or RMB). The 2009 data from the United Nations lists US
manufacturing output at $1.79 trillion versus RMB 14 trillion or $2.1 trillion for China when converted at the official exchange rate for
2009 (about RMB 6.8/US dollar).7 But according to the purchasing power parity (PPP) conversion preferred by the International
Monetary Fund, one RMB should be worth 29 cents, or RMB 3.4/US dollar. Even if the real RMB value were only 50 percent higher than
the official rate, the total added by China's manufacturing in 2009 would be in excess of $3 trillion, or about 67 percent above the US
America has historically been an effective mass-maker of low- to medium- quality
products for its huge domestic market, but an inferior exporter. As long as America
imported few manufactured goods, energy, and food, this weakness did not matter. Today,
however, America has enormous manufactured imports, a huge energy import bill, and a lower surplus on its food trade . For the
last 35 years, the US has had a positive and rising balance in service trade and, until 2006, a
generally worsening balance in trading of goods (including food, fuels, and raw materials). Recent exports of
total.
manufactured products increased (in nominal terms) by nearly half between 2000 and 2008 before dropping by 25 percent in 2009 as a
result of the economic downturn and then almost recovering in 2010. But the imports of manufactures also kept on rising -- by about 46
percent between 2000 and 2008.8 The United States has imported more than it has exported for so long that few remember the switch
from net exporter to net importer. From 1896 to the early 1970s, the United States had a trade surplus. In 1976, America's trade deficit
was just $6 billion, but by 1990, the trade deficit was more than 13 times larger at $80 billion (all in nominal terms). By 2006 it was
almost 10 times bigger still: $759 billion. While the economic downturn reduced the annual total to $375 billion in 2009, it rose again in
2010 to nearly $500 billion. Indeed, America's trade
deficit is larger than the individual GDPs of all but
19 countries in the world. The United States is failing even where it was once dominant. In
1950, American companies made about 95 percent of cars sold in the United States; 60 years later, the country that invented mass
automobile production bought most of its light vehicles from foreigners. The crossover occurred in the summer of 2007 when the Detroit
Three began to sell less than half of all passenger cars and light trucks bought in the United States. Three years later, the Detroit share
had declined further. In 2010, roughly 45 percent of all light vehicles sold were from American makers while 55 percent came from
foreign makers (with Japanese companies accounting for nearly 85 percent of the latter share).9 While Ford did eventually manage to
improve its performance, General Motors, previously the world's largest auto manufacturer, lost its primacy and had to be salvaged by
While the conventional wisdom is that
the United States has a strong comparative advantage in advanced technology, the reality is
that in this sector, the US trade deficit grew nearly 50 percent from 2009 to 2010, when it
public funds. But the US automobile sector isn't the only one losing ground.
was $81 billion, and by nearly 65 percent in the first three months of 2011 (compared to the first
three months of 2010). The consequences, in terms of jobs, are plain to see. Today, unemployment in the United States is at almost 9
percent compared to around 7 percent in Germany and 5 percent in Japan. The
loss of manufacturing jobs explains a
hefty part of the difference. By the end of 2010 only 8.2 percent of American workers were employed in manufacturing,
while about 19 percent of German workers and 18 percent of Japanese workers are employed in manufacturing.
US Falling Behind- Fed Renewables key
Global clean tech investment high now, but US is in danger of losing its clean tech
leadership – PTC key to signal US interest in renewable energy.
Greene 6/14/12, Nathaniel (Director of renewable energy policy at The Energy Collective, Masters in Energy Policy from
Berkeley). “Congress’ 2 trillion dollar clean energy challenge.” The energy collective.
http://theenergycollective.com/nathanaelgreene/87197/congress-2-trillion-dollar-clean-energy-challenge
But as excited
as I am about the incredible advances renewable energy has made, I am equally
concerned that the US will miss out on the paradigm shift in the world energy market. That
concern was highlighted recently by the release of three important reports, one from Third Way, one
from the Pew Charitable Trusts, and one published jointly by the Breakthrough Institute, the
Brookings Institute and the World Resources Institute. All three highlight that we’ve made incredible progress
in the last several years towards a clean, renewable energy future. But all three also point to the same conclusion: We can let slip
this incredible economic opportunity if we allow key federal incentives for clean, renewable
energy to expire. The Third Way report likened our current moment to one faced by photography giant Kodak which failed
capitalize on its early—in fact, industry-leading—digital photography technology. Congress, too, seems to be having a
Kodak moment, failing to grasp the energy paradigm shift now underway. Perhaps that’s why,
they’ve let several key renewable energy incentives lapse, including the Section 1603 cash grant program for
solar, credited with producing 75,000 jobs. Others, like the Production Tax Credit for wind, and several advanced energy
manufacturing incentives will expire soon, reduce employment in wind by 37,000 jobs. All told, per the
Institute report, federal investment in clean, renewable energy will fall to just a quarter of its
2009 total by the end of 2014. If we fail to continue investing in renewable energy, we’ll lose
our recent global leadership in clean energy investment to countries such as China, Germany
and South Korea. They’re still pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into this exciting field,
just as it’s starting to transform the way the world gets power. World renewable markets are
growing exponentially of late. Less than ten years ago, solar power was a cottage industry. Now, it’s what a recent report by
McKinsey & Company calls “a $100 billion business with global reach.” Federally funded advances in both in
technology and in the way that technology is deployed have helped drive this growth. Already,
the price of wind power has dropped 90 percent in the last 30 years, thanks to innovations developed at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and promoted through the soon-to-expire Production Tax Credit. Similarly, the price of solar electricity has plunged over the
last eight years, as government incentives and standards have driven both demand and incredible economies of scale. In 2004, one
manufacturer of US-made solar panels sold them for $2.94 a watt. Today, their price is 73 cents a watt—75 percent lower. That’s why
it’s troubling, and a bit perplexing, too, to see Congress oppose the extension of programs that have
driven so many advances and produced so many jobs in this burgeoning field. Clean,
renewable energy creates jobs, cleans the air our kids breathe, and reduces our dependence
on dirty coal and foreign oil. Let’s not miss out on the economic chance of a lifetime by
pulling the rug out from under these programs. They spur clean, renewable energy’s success,
both in the US and in the $2 trillion world market.
US losing clean energy leadership now – federal policy key to regain it.
Fox 2010, Maggie L (President and CEO, Climate Reality Project). “America needs to lead.” Energy National Journal.
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2010/08/can-the-us-keep-up-in-clean-en.php
America has a history of leadership in the technological revolutions that change the world. We won the race to put a man on the
moon, and we led the world in creating the Internet. Yet in
the clean energy race, our global competitors
are winning. And that means we could lose the chance to create millions of American jobs in
new clean energy industries. While the Senate has delayed action on climate and clean
energy legislation, the rest of the world is moving on aggressively. China just announced it
plans to set up a domestic carbon trading program. And it is backing up these efforts with
serious investments in clean, renewable energy. Last year, China invested nearly twice as
much as the United States in clean energy technologies, and has now installed nearly as much renewable
energy capacity as the United States has. It's wrong that the open checkbooks of fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists obstructed
progress on legislation, while poll after poll shows a majority of Americans do want to act. The
global race to invest in
clean energy is on — and the climate crisis is not going away. And the United States is falling further and
further behind. Our path forward is clear. We must take every opportunity to adopt
policies that reduce harmful carbon pollution and encourage investment in clean energy.
We need to support a strong renewable electricity standard — such as a mandate for 25% renewable
electricity by 2025, which could create jobs for American manufacturers. We need to support goals to reduce
America's oil use, backed up with stronger fuel economy standards and an improved
transportation infrastructure. Federal policy is also needed on other programs. We must back efforts to
improve energy efficiency, such as the Home Star, Building Star and Rural Star programs, to provide rebates to
consumers — which would create jobs and save money at the same time. We should extend tax credit provisions
that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy. And we should prioritize research
and development in renewable energy technologies. The American Energy Innovation Council, which
includes members Bill Gates and John Doerr, is focused specifically on reasserting America’s energy technology leadership through
robust, public investments in the development of world-changing energy technologies, and is an example of the kind of attention
and commitment needed to further long-term clean energy innovation. While all of these policies and efforts would be helpful, we
cannot lose sight of our larger goal: A limit on carbon pollution that would encourage the private sector to
transition to clean energy. And our leaders should oppose attempts to weaken the laws we already have that protect the air we
breathe and the water we drink. The
clean energy revolution will shape the global economy in the
21st century. And we should seize the opportunity to lead it.
Wind k 2 Manufacture/econ
Offshore wind is key to creating jobs in the United States and abroad in port economy
Hopkins 12
Robert B. Hopkins, Duane Morris LLP. "Offshore Wind Farms in US Waters Would Generate Both US
and Foreign Maritime Jobs." Renewable Energy World. N.p., 12 July 2012. Web. 22 Aug. 2012.
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/07/offshore-wind-farms-in-u-s-waterswould-generate-both-u-s-and-foreign-maritime-jobs?cmpid=rss>.
With no offshore wind energy farms yet built off U.S. coastlines, various states over the
last few years have proposed offshore wind energy legislation as a future investment in
renewable energy as well as a vehicle for American job creation. The immediate future of
U.S. offshore wind farms may depend on whether Congress renews certain tax credit and
federal loan guarantee programs. In the event that offshore wind farms move forward, it is
likely that both U.S. maritime and foreign maritime workers will be involved in
construction and maintenance. A recent study by The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory estimated the potential generating capacity from offshore wind farms located off
U.S. coastlines to be 4 times the present total U.S. electrical generating capacity. The
construction and maintenance of offshore wind farms to tap into even a small percentage
of this potential will demand a robust and competent maritime workforce. The U.S.
understandably wants to avoid the situation that occurred in England with the installation of
the Thanet Wind Farm, currently the largest operating offshore wind farm in the world (300
megawatts). The Thanet project received criticism for its lack of significant British job creation.
U.S. wind farm developers, green energy advocates and some U.S. politicians have
stressed that offshore wind farms will create jobs for both U.S. maritime and U.S. shorebased workers. In addition, some have pointed to a federal statute known as the Jones Act, to
assert that foreign-flagged vessels crewed by foreign maritime workers may not even be
involved in U.S. offshore wind farm projects. However, such a broad statement is not entirely
accurate, and the issue is somewhat complex. The Jones Act, which was enacted in 1920,
establishes a system for protecting American maritime jobs and requires that U.S.-flagged
vessels be used to transport merchandise between points in U.S. territorial waters (i.e., up to 3
nautical miles off the coastline). Moreover, this requirement is extended 200 miles offshore to
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) in certain
scenarios involving man-made objects that are affixed to the seabed. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), the federal agency that enforces the Jones Act, has issued a number of rulings
that conclude that the Jones Act in certain situations does not apply to the actual installation of
wind turbines by large-scale vessels known as jack-up lift vessels. Moreover, there has been
some debate on whether the Jones Act would apply to vessels travelling to an established wind
farm located over 3 miles off the coastline in the OCS for such things as maintenance and repair.
A bill clarifying that the Jones Act would apply in this maintenance/repair scenario (HR 2360)
has recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is now awaiting a vote in the U.S.
Senate. Thus, at present, from a purely legal standpoint, foreign-flagged vessels would
likely be able to participate in the installation of the proposed wind farms, but there is
some uncertainty as to whether foreign-flagged vessels would be able to participate in
maintenance/repair work. Complicating all of this is the dearth of U.S.-flagged jack-up lift
vessels capable of undertaking much of the very heavy work involved in the installation of
offshore wind turbines. To further confound matters, with a boom in offshore wind farm
construction in Europe and China, many foreign-flagged jack-up lift vessels capable of such
work are now booked for the next several years. Factoring in all of the above, it is likely that
large foreign-flagged vessels will play a significant role in the initial installation of wind
turbines off U.S. coastlines, with an opportunity for smaller U.S.-flagged vessels to render
assistance. However, with the lack of available large scale foreign-flagged vessels, there are
obvious long term investment opportunities for the construction of large U.S.-flagged vessels or
for the conversion of other large U.S.-flagged vessels to undertake much of the above heavy
work. One possible option is to convert U.S.-flagged vessels now working in the oil and gas
fields in the Gulf of Mexico for this purpose. Such investment opportunities will obviously
become more attractive if a large number of wind farms move forward in the U.S.. As to
certain maintenance/repair, which could be done by smaller U.S.-flagged vessels already
in existence, if Congress passes HR 2360, U.S.-flagged vessels will be required to maintain
and repair the wind turbines. Moreover from a practical standpoint, even if HR 2360 does not
become law, it may not make economic sense to employ smaller foreign-flagged vessels for
certain maintenance/repair work. Thus if U.S. offshore wind farms become a reality, U.S.
maritime workers as well as foreign maritime workers will likely be involved in
construction and maintenance
The plan creates a strong domestic wind industry that revitalizes U.S. manufacturing.
This creates over $200 billion in revenue and tons of jobs
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram,
Ram Power, L.L.C., September 2010, “Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States,
Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL),
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014
Developing a domestic wind industry offers a viable way to revitalize our domestic
manufacturing sector and create high-paying, stable jobs while increasing the nation’s
competitiveness in twenty-first century energy technologies. In the 20% scenario, 54 GW of
offshore wind would create more than $200 billion in new economic activity with a high
percentage of that revenue remaining in the local economies. This offshore wind power
development would create many benefits beyond the $200 billion in revenues because the
power generated would have no fuel price variability, no emissions, and no significant use of
water resources. Finally, offshore wind development would reduce dependence on foreign energy
resources.
Increasing offshore wind revitalizes the manufacturing sector and overall U.S.
economy while reducing emissions
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram,
Ram Power, L.L.C., September 2010, “Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States,
Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL),
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014
Offshore wind has the potential to address all three issues: the energy supply, the
environment, and the economy. Offshore wind uses the vast renewable wind resources
adjacent to the ocean perimeter of the United States, which are domestic, indigenous,
inexhaustible energy supplies in close proximity to our urban energy load centers. Offshore
wind turbines can convert the strong ocean winds into clean, renewable power with no
harmful emissions. Offshore wind has the potential to contribute significantly to the
revitalization of the U.S. manufacturing sector, which will help strengthen both the
economies of coastal states and the U.S. economy as a whole.
Increasing offshore wind require revitalization of ports and manufacturing to reduce
costs
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water
Power Program and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation, and Enforcement, February 2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an
Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/
national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014
Offshore wind provides an opportunity for revitalization of U.S. ports and heavy industry
facilities. Due to the large scale of offshore wind turbine components, towers and foundation
structures, it is generally advantageous to limit or eliminate overland transport from
assembly and installation scenarios in order to maximize process efficiency and minimize
logistics time and costs. In addition, European experience has clearly indicated that it will be
necessary to create a purpose‐built installation, operations, and maintenance (IO&M)
infrastructure for offshore wind, including specialized vessels and port facilities. To assist
industry and regional port facilities in making informed decisions regarding design requirements
for IO&M infrastructure, DOE will participate in collaborative studies of infrastructure needs and
capabilities for the benefit of all national regions.
Current offshore wind energy program is behind the curve – expanded funding,
updated grid infrastructure, and streamlined process for permitting and location to
manage the difference – reinvigorates the manufacturing industry
Casey 12
Tina, Triple Pundit Online, April 24,US and UK to collaborate on Offshore Wind Power,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/04/us-and-uk-partner-on-floating-wind-turbines/,
The U.S. has to play a bit of catch-up, but the Obama Administration had the foresight to
get itself into a good position just ahead of the conference with the March 1 announcement of a
six-year, $180 million round of funding for four innovative offshore wind energy
installations that will demonstrate the potential for lowering the cost of wind power
through utility-scale planning. The Department of Energy will also provide support for
reducing associated expenses including grid connection, permitting and approval
processes – though unfortunately it seems that at least one state legislature (okay, so
Wisconsin) will not be of much assistance. Also coming into play is a five-year, $41 million
round of funding for offshore wind projects announced by the Department of Energy last fall,
aimed at getting new technologies out of the lab and into the water more quickly, partly by
helping to spur domestic manufacturing and other aspects of the wind industry supply
chain. The two latest funding rounds join a $24 million wind energy research program funded
by the Recovery Act near the beginning of the Obama Administration in 2009. That funding went
to three consortia headed by the Illinois Institute of Technology, the University of Maine and the
University of Minneapolis to develop both onshore and offshore technologies, while establishing
a long term academic platform for the development of career innovators in advanced wind
power tech.
Long-term extension of PTC key to US economic competitiveness – manufacturing and
growth.
Caperton 1/10/12, Richard W (Director of Clean Energy Investment at the Center for American Progress.). “Fair, Effective,
and Efficient Tax Policy Is Key for Driving Renewable Energy Growth.” Center for American Progress.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/renewable_energy_investment.html
Since its creation the
PTC has only been extended for two years at a time. When it’s not in effect,
there’s virtually zero investment. When it is in effect, investment is tremendous. There are also
more formal economic studies suggesting the positive outcome of the PTC: Economist Gilbert
Metcalf, for example, finds that “[T]he data suggest that much of the current investment in wind can
be explained by the production tax credit for wind.” (For more information on how we know the PTC works,
see the CAP report, “America’s Hidden Power Bill.”) The PTC also has real benefits for American workers. At
least 85,000 people work in the wind industry. These workers are spread all across our country and
throughout the industry. We have people making turbines, installing them, and operating them, all in good-paying jobs.
Unfortunately, we don’t have as many people working in the wind industry as we could. While the
windmanufacturing sector has grown in recent years, it has historically been crippled by the
PTC expiring every two years. Manufacturers know that this on-again, off-again cycle for the industry would leave
them with virtually no business every other year, so American wind farms use some imported parts. Indeed, we have more demand
for certain turbine parts than we have domestic manufacturing capacity. In particular, U.S. manufacturing capacity is insufficient for
gearboxes, generators, bearings, and castings. The
lack of consistent policy is clearly contributing to U.S.
underinvestment in domestic production of these strategic technologies. Our economic
competitors have simultaneously developed robust manufacturing capacity to serve both
their growing domestic demand and meet global demand through technology exports. (see
Figure 2) Over the past three years, however, the United States experienced tremendous growth in
wind manufacturing, partly because of the relatively stable PTC, which was most recently
extended for four years as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
known as the stimulus. In that time new manufacturers set up shop across the country and the composition of domestic parts that
each turbine made has steadily increased while our wind energy imports declined. This should be a lesson to Congress: A
longterm PTC is more valuable than a short-term extension when we look at the overall
impact on jobs and growth.
Wind energy is key to US job growth, specifically in manufacturing.
NDRC 2012. “American wind farms: breaking down the benefits from planning to production.” September 2012.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/american-wind-farms-IP.pdf
This report shows that workers contributing to wind
energy include everyone from engineers to
construction employees; from blade manufacturers to gearbox makers; from electricians to
operators. And they’re located all across the country. Our research finds that just one typical wind farm
of 250MW creates 1,079 direct jobs over the lifetime of the project. 5 Already 25 projects of
similar or greater size have been built in the United States and another 100 wind projects
sized from 150-MW to 250-MW are in operation. Importantly, these jobs aren’t only created on the actual
wind farm site during the installation of the wind turbines. These jobs are also created throughout the sizable
wind farm economic “ecosystem”—the chain of activities and businesses that, over time, constitute
the many steps of building a wind farm. To accurately measure how many direct jobs are
created (excluding indirect and induced jobs), our analysis looks across the entirety of this wind farm value
chain, from the measurement of wind resources at the early stages, to the project’s
permitting and financing, to the manufacture of the components and materials that
comprise the wind turbines, to the construction of this wind power project, and finally, its
annual operations and maintenance. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s National Wind
Technology Center, there are 14 key value chain activities that contribute to the production of
wind power (NREL also identifies education, training, and outreach organizations, which are not included in this analysis). 6
We analyze each of the 14 steps independently to determine the number of workers involved at each step in the building of a
simulated 250-MW wind farm. The
research identifies 557 total non-construction workers for a
250-MW wind farm. This includes 80 in preplanning and development, 432 workers in
manufacturing, 18 in sales and distribution, and 27 in operations and maintenance.
Construction jobs add 522 jobs to the overall project. These workers are spread among three categories,
with 273 working on on-site civil works, such as roads, and foundations; 202 working on
mechanical assembly, such as the installation of the wind turbines; and 47 working on on
site electrical work, such as grid connection. Our analysis also confirmed that a large number of
manufacturing jobs are created throughout the supply chain for a wind farm, and a
growing number of the jobs are being filled by American workers. 7 For example, the domestic
content of wind turbines (the fraction of wind farm equipment sourced in America, as measured by cost) has
essentially doubled in the last six years, from 35 percent in 2005-2006 to 67 percent in 2011.
8 A recent Accenture report highlighted that companies are more and more focused on manufacturing
near demand centers. 9 In the wind industry, this dynamic is potentially even more
apparent, given the size and complexity of wind turbines and therefore the
advantageousness of local production for transport reasons. This report has specifically chosen to
profile either American companies or foreign companies with a strong domestic presence, to highlight that all of the jobs created
from U.S. wind farm development can be located in America.
Creation of wind farms coincides with creation of jobs, high number of employees
needed to manufacture wind turbines
Goossens in 2012(Average U.S. Wind Farm Creates 1,079 Jobs, Report Finds,By Ehren
Goossens, Sep 11, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/average-wind-farmcreates-1-079-jobs-nrdc-report-finds.html)
Planning, building and operating a typical utility-scale wind farm creates 1,079 jobs over its
lifetime, an industry that’s supported in part by a U.S. tax credit, according to the Natural Resources Defense
Council. A 250-megawatt project generates 522 construction jobs, 432 positions in
manufacturing, 80 for planning and development, 18 sales slots and 27 for operations, the
New York-based environmental group said in a report today. If Congress fails to extend the
production tax credit, a federal incentive that’s scheduled to expire Dec. 31, that job creation
will be threatened, the group said. The wind industry currently employs about 75,000 U.S.
workers. Extending the credit will “level the playing field” for wind, making it more competitive with the “heavily subsidized” fossilfuels industry, Cai Steger, a policy advocate for the group and co-author of the report, said on a conference call today. “Every time a wind
farm gets built, American jobs are created,” he said in an e-mailed statement. The research shows “what the PTC has done for the wind
industry -- and why it’s essential that it is extended.” ‘Potential Layoffs’ New wind-farm development has slowed in the U.S. ahead of the
expiration date, according to Scott Viciana, a vice president at Ventower Industries LLC. “There has been a definite pullback of
development in the U.S.,” Viciana said on the call. “With the expiration, we will be faced with some potential layoffs. It keeps us up at
night.” The Monroe, Michigan-based manufacturer of towers for wind turbines employs about 55 people. Vestas Wind Systems A/S
(VWS), the world’s biggest maker of wind turbines, expects shipments to decline next year and said Aug. 22 it’s cutting 1,400 jobs
worldwide. That’s in addition to the 2,335 positions it eliminated in January. The company is considering firing 1,600 U.S. workers, a
decision it says hinges largely on whether the PTC is extended. President Barack Obama supports extending the incentive, which gives
producers a tax credit of 2.2 cents a kilowatt-hour. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, opposes it.
Wind Technology majorly expands US manufacturing sector according to recent
reports
DoE in 2013(Energy Dept. Reports: U.S. Wind Energy Production and Manufacturing Reaches
Record Highs, August 6, 2013 http://energy.gov/articles/energy-dept-reports-us-wind-energyproduction-and-manufacturing-reaches-record-highs)
Energy Dept. Reports: U.S. Wind Energy Production and Manufacturing Reaches Record Highs August 6, 2013 - 8:00am WASHINGTON –
The Energy Department released two new reports today showcasing record growth across the U.S. wind market -- increasing America’s
share of clean, renewable energy and supporting tens of thousands of jobs nationwide. According to these reports , the
United
States continues to be one of the world’s largest and fastest growing wind markets. In 2012,
wind energy became the number one source of new U.S. electricity generation capacity for the
first time – representing 43 percent of all new electric additions and accounting for $25 billion in U.S. investment. In the first four years of
the Obama Administration, American electricity generation from wind and solar power more than doubled. President Obama’s Climate
Action Plan makes clear that the growth
of clean, renewable wind energy remains a critical part of an
all-of-the-above energy strategy that reduces harmful greenhouse gas emissions, diversifies our energy
economy and brings innovative technologies on line. The Obama Administration has committed to another
doubling of the renewable electricity generation from energy resources like wind power by 2020. “The tremendous growth in the U.S.
wind industry over the past few years underscores the importance of consistent policy that ensures America remains a leader in clean
energy innovation,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “As the fastest growing source of power in the United States, wind is paving the
way to a cleaner, more sustainable future that protects our air and water and provides affordable, clean renewable energy to more and
more Americans.” The
tremendous growth in the overall U.S. wind industry has led directly to
more American jobs throughout a number of sectors and at factories and power plants
across the country. According to industry estimates, the wind sector employs over 80,000 American
workers, including workers at manufacturing facilities up and down the supply chain, as
well as engineers and construction workers who build wind installations. Wind Technologies Market
Report The Energy Department and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory today released the 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report
– detailing the latest trends in the U.S. wind power market. Last year, over 13 gigawatts (GW) of new wind power capacity were added to
the U.S. grid – nearly double the wind capacity deployed in 2011. This tremendous growth helped America’s total wind power capacity
surpass 60 GW at the end of 2012 – representing enough capacity to power more than 15 million homes each year, or as many homes as
in California and Washington state combined. The country’s cumulative installed wind energy capacity has increased more than 22-fold
since 2000. At the same time, the proportion of wind turbine components such as towers, blades, and gears made in America has
increased dramatically. The report estimates seventy-two percent of the wind turbine equipment installed in the U.S. last year was made
by domestic manufacturers, nearly tripling from 25 percent in 2006-2007. The report also finds that nine states now rely on wind power
for more than 12 percent of their total annual electricity consumption – with wind power in Iowa, South Dakota and Kansas contributing
more than 20 percent. Additionally, Texas added over 1,800 megawatts of wind power last year, more than any other state. On a
cumulative basis, Texas remains a clear leader with over 12 GW installed at the end of 2012 -- more than twice as much as California, the
next-highest state. Also according to the Energy Department’s 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report, technical and design innovation
allowing for larger wind turbines with longer, lighter blades has steadily improved wind turbine performance and has expanded wind
energy production to less windy areas. Since 1998, the average capacity of wind turbines in the U.S. has increased by 170 percent. At the
same time, wind project capital and maintenance costs continue to decline, lowering the cost of wind energy to near-record lows. The
price of wind under long-term power purchase contracts signed in 2011 and 2012 averaged 4 cents per kilowatt hour – making wind
competitive with a range of wholesale electricity prices seen in 2012. Distributed Wind Market Report For the first time, the Energy
Department and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory today issued the 2012 Market Report on Wind Technologies in Distributed
Applications – highlighting strong growth in the U.S. distributed wind energy market. Compared
to traditional,
centralized power plants, distributed wind energy installations directly supply power to the
local grid near homes, farms, businesses and communities– helping to improve grid
reliability and efficiency. Turbines used in these applications can range in size from a few hundred watts to multi-megawatts,
and can help power remote, off-grid homes and farms as well as local schools and manufacturing facilities. Over the past ten
years, the U.S. distributed wind market has grown more than five-fold. The report finds that distributed
wind in the U.S. reached a 10-year cumulative installed capacity of more than 812 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2012 – representing
more than 69,000 units across all 50 states. Between 2011 and 2012, U.S. distributed wind capacity grew by 175 MW, with about 80
percent of this growth coming from utility-scale installations. At the state level, Iowa, Massachusetts, California and Wisconsin led the
nation in new distributed wind power capacity in 2012. Still, most distributed wind buyers continue to choose small wind turbines,
which have a rated capacity of no greater than 100 kilowatts. Last year, domestic sales from U.S. wind suppliers accounted for nearly 90
percent of new small wind generation capacity. Broadly, nine out of the top ten wind turbine models installed last year in U.S. distributed
applications were made in America. The wind sector’s growth underscores the importance of continued policy support and clean energy
tax credits to ensure that wind manufacturing and jobs remain in America. The 2012 Wind Technologies Market Report expects 2013 to
be a slow year for new capacity additions, due in part to continued policy uncertainty and project development timelines. While
the
report notes that 2014 is expected to be more robust, as developers commission projects
that will begin construction in 2013, it also notes that projections for 2015 and beyond are
much less certain.
Renewables k 2 Comp
Clean energy is key to US economic competitiveness – trade deficit and innovation.
Swezey 2/17/10, Devon (Project Director at Breakthrough Institute and co-author of "Rising
Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a major report on international clean tech competitiveness). “It’s not all
good: why you should worry about the clean energy race.” The breakthrough institute.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/02/its_not_all_good_why_you_shoul.shtml
Nations that gain "first-mover advantages" are sure to see high rates of return on their investment. If the United States
remains sidelined while other nations quickly develop domestic clean tech industries,
there will be real consequences for long-term economic competitiveness, as well as
forgone jobs, tax revenues, and clean tech export opportunities. Clean Tech Innovation: The Rise of
the Rest The second pillar of the "it's all good" argument is that the United States' capacity for innovation will keep it competitive. In
Plumer's words, "China will likely continue to dominate in low-cost manufacturing, while the United States focuses more on the
innovation side." This passive
resignation to China's clean tech dominance is one reason the
United States is behind in clean energy today. According to a recent study by the office of U.S. Senator Ron
Wyden, the U.S. renewable energy trade deficit has increased 1400% in just the last five
years. While the United States invented the majority of the clean energy technologies in wide use today,
they have largely been commercialized and produced elsewhere. Now, we are buying them back in
spades. The idea that there can be a clear innovation/manufacturing dichotomy between the United States and its economic rivals is
complicated by another alarming trend: the United States is steadily losing its innovative edge relative to other nations. As Fareed
Zakaria describes in a recent Newsweek cover story, America emerged as a world leader in innovation after decades of massive
government investment in basic science and research at our universities beginning in World War II. But since
the early
1980s, federal investment in innovation, particularly in energy technology, has remained
stagnant. Today, the innovation gap that for decades was a measure of U.S. economic strength is closing as other nations move
quickly to develop their innovative capacity. Recently, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) ranked the
United States 6th out of 40 countries in innovation capacity and internal competitiveness and dead last in the rate of improvement
over the last decade. America's lead
in energy innovation is slipping. The U.S. is only slightly
ahead of Japan in clean energy patents and government investment in energy R&D. As a
percentage of GDP, nations like Japan and South Korea actually outspend the United States on energy innovation two-to-one. If the
greatest future demand for clean energy technologies and the locus of clean energy manufacturing both develop in Asia, it is not
clear that the lion's share of energy innovation will remain in the United States. In fact, some companies are already moving their
research operations to China. Applied Materials, a U.S. company and the world's largest solar equipment manufacturer, recently
built the world's most advanced solar R&D facility in Xian, China. Among the reasons cited by Applied Materials for the relocation to
China was that China, not the U.S., "will be the biggest solar market in the world." Applied is not alone. Danish wind giant Vestas just
built the world's biggest wind turbine manufacturing facility in China, which will build turbines with the company's state-of-the art
technology. America's underinvestment
in energy innovation, and the simultaneous gains
made by other nations should be a major wake-up call to U.S. policymakers. At the very least, it
should dispel the notion that America's historic reign as a global innovation leader is a
substitute for an effective economic competitiveness strategy. The Primacy of Policy The last leg of the
"it's all good" stool is the idea that China's dominance in clean energy manufacturing is inevitable, thanks to lower labor costs.
"China," writes Christina Larson, "is becoming the wind-turbine factory to the world for much the same reasons it has long been the
TV and t-shirt factory to the world: lower wages, lower land prices, fewer regulatory and other requirements." But the production
of clean technologies is a high-tech value-added industry; building solar panels, wind turbines or high-speed trains is more akin to
producing semiconductors, automobiles, and airplanes than t-shirts and televisions. Manufacturing clean tech goods requires a
skilled labor force with technical expertise--the kind of labor force that is supposedly America's comparative advantage. It seems
foolish to compare China's dominance in low-cost, low-skill textile manufacturing to high-tech products or complex engineering
projects like the construction and localization of new nuclear power plants, which China is pursuing aggressively with assistance
from foreign partners. Historic leaders in clean tech manufacturing have all been technologically advanced, high-wage nations like
Germany, Denmark, Japan, and the United States. And in spite of China's recent advances, these nations still have large and growing
clean energy manufacturing industries. Cheap labor in China certainly contributes to China's cost advantages in clean energy, as do
the lower costs of land, and access to low-cost financing. But perhaps the most important element of China's comparative advantage
in clean energy is smart policy. Until clean energy technologies are as cheap as fossil fuels the clean tech industry will continue to be
driven by public policy, and the Chinese government has enacted consistent, generous long-term policies that have turned the
nation into the world's clean tech leader. Both the central government and provincial governments have made a long-term
commitment to invest in clean energy technologies at each stage of the technology value chain. R&D expenditures have grown 20%
per year each year for the past two decades, and energy is a priority R&D sector. Generous manufacturing incentives are luring
foreign companies to locate in China. Laws requiring the purchase of renewable energy and technology specific deployment policies
such as variable feed-in-tariffs for wind power have succeeded in building world leading clean tech markets. And investments in
new infrastructure and science, math and engineering education will help lay the long-term foundation for a clean energy economy.
China's robust, targeted, and consistent public investment in technology, education and infrastructure, not cheap labor, is the
primary reason for its successes in clean energy. Instead of bemoaning the higher labor costs here in the United States, clean energy
advocates and policymakers should be searching for ways to strengthen our public policies and increase our investments in clean
energy technologies. There is no reason
why the United States should not compete vigorously for
the high-tech, high-wage clean energy jobs that will result from the tremendous growth of the
global clean energy industry. There are few growth opportunities large enough to serve as a
new foundation of economic prosperity in the United States--clean energy is one such
opportunity. But in order to effectively compete with other nations the U.S. must have a national strategy
that invests in the critical areas for clean technology competitiveness--research and innovation,
manufacturing, domestic markets, infrastructure, and education. Given the United States' current comparative advantages in clean
energy innovation, the
United States could also gear its manufacturing sector toward demonstrating
and commercializing the next generation of clean energy technologies. Leaping ahead of the
competition could help American firms capitalize on new clean technologies that can be manufactured here and exported abroad.
The promise of clean energy economy is real. But without a real clean energy strategy to
make the United States competitive, so is the possibility that the large majority of new jobs
and industries will be created outside of the United States. No amount of conference organizing jobs will
replace the lost opportunity to build a vibrant U.S. clean tech manufacturing sector. The race is on--it's past time that
the United States got in the game.
Clean tech development is key to global economic competitiveness – innovation and
jobs.
(Pernick and Wilder 12)
Ron and Clint; cofounder and managing director of Clean Edge and senior editor at Clean Edge;
Clean Tech Nation; HarperCollins Publishers, September 2012. Googlebooks.
Every day, new examples highlight the growing mainstreaming of clean tech. But clean tech’s business growth and increasing ubiquity
are only part of the story. As we will outline in this book, clean
tech has become the most critical industry of the
21st century—an essential component to global economic success for all developed countries, and
increasingly for developing nations as well. To some, that may seem like a bold statement. And let’s be honest: In terms of current annual
revenue, even the giants of clean tech pale in comparison with oil behemoths like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. But
consider that in
the first half of this century, the move to cleaner, more efficient, less carbonintensive energy will hugely impact, if not completely transform, many of the largest industries on earth,
including electric power utilities, suppliers of transportation fuel, residential and commercial construction companies, and automotive
and aerospace manufacturers. This transformation is well under way from Shanghai to Stuttgart, from San Francisco to Seoul.
“The low-carbon economy will absolutely survive the recession.” John Fernandez, the U.S. assistant secretary of commerce for economic
development, told a nationwide convention of economic development officials in June 2011. “China, Germany, Brazil, and
other countries are making new bets on technology that will be critical to manufacturing
amid moving all industries forward. There is only one path forward for the U.S.—to invest in
clean technologies and energy efficiency to drive global economies.’ Fernandez has plenty of company.
An increasingly loud chorus of influential voices—among them German chancellor Angela Merkel, GE chairman and CEO Jeffrey
lmmelt, and renowned Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter—have
begun pointing to clean tech as the
key driver of technology innovation, high-skills job creation, and global economic
competitiveness in the years and decades ahead.
PTC extension key to avoid clean tech crash – tanks US economy and clean tech
leadership.
Swezey 7/8/11, Devon (project director at Breakthrough Institute). “The coming clean tech crash.” Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devon-swezey/the-coming-clean-tech-cra_b_892582.html
The global clean energy industry is set for a major crash. The reason is simple. Clean energy is still
much more expensive and less reliable than coal or gas, and in an era of heightened budget austerity,
the subsidies required to make clean energy artificially cheaper are becoming
unsustainable. Clean tech crashes are nothing new. The U.S. wind energy industry has collapsed three
times before, first in the mid 1990s and most recently in 2002 and 2004, when Congress failed to extend the
tax credit that made it profitable. But the impact and magnitude of the coming clean tech
crash will far outstrip those of past years. As part of its effort to combat the economic recession, the federal
government pumped nearly $80 billion in direct investment and tax credits into the clean energy sector, catalyzing an
unprecedented industry expansion. Solar energy, for example, grew 67 percent in the United States in 2010. The U.S. wind energy
industry also experienced unprecedented growth as a result of the generous Section 1603 clean energy stimulus program. The
industry grew by 40 percent and added 10 GW of new turbines in 2009. Yet many
of the federal subsidies that
have driven such rapid growth are set to expire in the next few years, and clean energy
remains unable to compete without them. The crash won't be limited to the United States. In
many European countries, clean energy subsidies have become budget casualties as
governments attempt to curb mounting deficits. Spain, Germany, France, Italy and the Czech Republic have
all announced cuts to clean energy subsidies. Such cuts are not universal, however. China, flush with cash, is bucking the trend,
committing $760 billion over 10 years for clean energy projects. China is continuing to invest in low-carbon energy as a way of
meeting its voracious energy demand, diversifying its electricity supply and alleviating some of the negative health consequences of
its reliance on fossil energy. If U.S. and
European clean energy markets collapse while investment
continues to ramp up in China, the short-term consequences will likely be a migration of
much of the industry to Asia. As we wrote in our 2009 report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," this would have
significant economic consequences for the United States, as the jobs, revenues and other
benefits of clean tech growth accrue overseas.
Wind power results in local jobs- recent study proves
The Daily Yonder ’12 (8/30/12, The Daily Yonder, The Economic Impact of Wind Energy, http://www.dailyyonder.com/economicimpact-wind-energy/2012/08/29/4381)
There are 47,000 megawatts of wind energy capacity installed in the U.S. The authors of a
new study say that for each megawatt of wind capacity, a county gains half a job and just over
$11,000 in total personal income. This is the wind energy farm in Roscoe, Texas, where 627 wind turbines can churn out
as much as 781.5 megawatts of power. A new study finds that for every megawatt of wind capacity installed in a county, half a job is
created. There has been
a surge in wind power development in recent years, and wind energy
has been promoted both as a clean supply of energy and as a way to build local economies,
especially in rural areas. Wind energy has recently become part of the presidential election, as incentives for wind development have
been promoted by President Obama and dismissed by Republican nominee Mitt Romney. What impact does wind energy have on local
jobs and income? Until now, there has been no systematic analysis of how wind energy development affects rural counties. A new paper
by five researchers* attempts to measure what the wind industry means for rural counties. According to the
study,
published in the current issue of Energy Economics, the researchers find that wind energy
development does increase both total personal income and employment in the county where
the development takes place. The economists looked at wind capacity installed from 2000 to
2008 in 12 states: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. In all, the study area included 1,009 counties.
The researchers found that for every megawatt of wind power capacity installed, total county personal income increased by $11,150
over the 2000 to 2008 period. And, for every megawatt of wind energy installed in a county, one half of a job was created. Jason Brown, et
al. The most powerful wind turbine is rated at 7 megawatts. One of the world’s largest wind turbine farms is in Roscoe, Texas, where
there are 627 wind turbines and a total installed capacity of 781.5 megawatts. The researchers attempted to weed out all the other
factors that determine job growth and income in a county’s economy — such as the distance from the county to a city and the presence of
natural amenities (lakes, mountains or rivers). When those economic drivers were taken into account, the effect
of wind
energy alone was small in some counties, but relatively large in counties with the most wind
development. In the group of counties that experienced the most impact from wind energy development, county-level personal
income rose a little less than one percent between 2000 and 2008. “In absolute terms, the average estimated increase in annual personal
income from wind power development for the top quartile of counties (in terms of percentage impact, i.e., 0.86% and above) was
estimated to be $2,552,679 over the sample period,” the researchers found. In the counties most impacted by wind development (those
in the top quarter), employment rose an average of 1.4 percent, or 132 jobs. Brown, et al. This is the amount of wind capacity, in
megawatts, installed in the study area. By the end of 2011, roughly 47,000 megawatts of wind turbines had been installed in the U.S.,
accounting for about 2.5 percent of the nation’s electricity supply. From 2007 to 2010, wind contributed 36 percent of all new electric
generation built in the U.S. “Whether the local economic development impacts of wind power are sizable enough to be policy relevant on
a local, state, or national level is open to debate,” the researchers conclude.* The five authors of the report, "Ex post analysis of economic
inpacts from wind power development in U.S. counties," are Jason P. Brown and John Pender of the USDA’s Economic Research Service;
Ryan Wiser and Ben Hoen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; and Eric Lantz of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The article appears in Energy Economics 34 (2012), pages 1743-1754.
Wind Energy large part of US Economy- Raised GDP
Trabish ’13 (Herman Trabish, April 13, 2013, The Energy Collective, Wind Energy Industry’s $25 Billion Impact on US Economy,
http://theenergycollective.com/hermantrabish/209746/25-billion-impact-wind-industry)
In a record-setting year, the
U.S. wind industry’s 28 percent growth boosted its job count back to
80,000 and had a discernible impact on the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by putting $25
billion in private investment to work, according to the industry’s newly released Annual
Market Report. When the U.S. Department of Commerce revised its estimate of Q4 2012 GDP growth up from 0.1 percent to 0.4
percent, it noted as significant the increase in its estimate for nonresidential structures growth to 16.7 percent, up from 5.8 percent,
according to IHS Global Insight (NYSE:IHS) economists and verified by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
Electricity power sector spending alone, according to BEA statistics, accounted for almost 37
percent of Q4’s increase in nonresidential structure spending. And that sector’s numbers included the 8,385
megawatts of wind added in Q4, which was almost 64 percent of the year’s total of 13,131 megawatts of new installed capacity and which
IHS economists called “massive.” It was, therefore, reasonable for IHS economists to identify
the wind industry’s
fourth quarter as a major boost to U.S. GDP. The U.S. wind industry’s 45,125 operational
utility-scale turbines represent an installed nameplate capacity of 60,007 megawatts,
according to the new American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) industry report. That is
about equivalent to 60 nuclear power plants. The over 13 gigawatts of new capacity made wind the year’s leading
builder of new U.S. generation capacity with a 42 percent share. It took leadership away from natural gas and become the only renewable
to ever rank first. The Q4 burst of new development, driven by uncertainty about the fate of the industry’s vital $0.022 per kilowatt-hour
production tax credit (PTC), pushed the U.S. past even China and back into first place internationally for new wind construction. A PTC
extension was finally approved by Congress on January 1. It included new language that will allow the benefit to apply into 2014. There
are 74 U.S. utilities now purchasing wind-generated electricity through PPAs or direct ownership, AWEA Senior Policy Analyst Emily
Williams noted in a briefing. More significantly, 43 percent of all electricity providers now have wind-generated electricity in their
systems through various agreements. The top twenty investor-owned utilities account for roughly 26,500 megawatts, 44 percent, of
wind’s installed capacity, Williams added. GE (NYSE:GE) was once again the U.S. market turbine manufacturing leader, with a 38.2
percent share. Siemens (NYSE:SI) captured a 20.1 percent share to move from its third place standing last year to second, and Vestas, at
13.8 percent, dropped a notch to third. Gamesa jumped up from ninth to fourth place and Acciona made the top ten this year at ninth
place. Suzlon fell to tenth but REpower, its subsidiary, moved up from eighth to fifth. Active U.S. manufacturers grew to 28, a 57 percent
increase over 2010. The sector was so busy, Williams noted, that developers were getting turbines wherever they could. The average size
of the 6,751 turbines built during 2012 was 1.95 megawatts, down slightly from 2011’s 1.97-megawatt average size. The dip was
indicative of a shift in industry preference toward turbines that take advantage of technology breakthroughs in electronics, mechanics
and materials to incorporate taller towers and/or bigger rotors and longer blades, Williams noted. Such turbines can
achieve
higher capacity factors and harvest winds that are slower and/or higher up, in places where
wind projects have not been built before. GE’s 1.6-megawatt machine, considered among the best in the world for
low-wind regions, led the 1.5- to 1.6-megawatt platform that constituted almost 40 percent of turbines installed. The new turbine
technologies and advances in siting evaluation “have enabled most wind project owners to achieve capacity factors in the range of 30
percent to 40 percent,” the report added. There were 559 U.S. wind-related manufacturing facilities in 44 states producing 67 percent of
the 8,000 component content of turbines installed in the U.S. last year. There were thirteen utility-scale blade facilities, twelve tower
facilities, and twelve turbine nacelle assembly facilities. Combined, they have a 13-gigawatt capacity
Wind Energy K2 Econ- supports jobs and growing percentage of economy
Natural Resources Defense Council ND (From National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Wind Industry Annual
Market Report 2010 Annual Report AWEA, Wind Energy, http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/wind.asp)
Wind power is an affordable, efficient and abundant source of domestic electricity. It's pollution-free and costcompetitive with energy from new coal- and gas-fired power plants in many regions. The wind industry
has been growing rapidly in recent years. In 2011 alone, 3,464 turbines went up across the United States, and today, American
wind generates enough electricity to power more than 11 million homes, creates steady income for investors and landowners, and
provides manufacturing, construction and operation jobs for at least 75,000 Americans. A
typical 250 MW wind farm (around 100 turbines) will create 1,073 jobs over the lifetime of
the project. And by generating additional local and state tax revenues from lease payments, wind farms also have the
potential to support other community priorities, such as education, infrastructure, and
economic development.[1] In some months, wind energy provides more than 6 percent of our
nation's electricity, and experts estimate that in the future, wind energy could realistically
supply five times that amount -- 30 percent or more of our electricity needs.[2] Still, wind turbines
and transmission systems need to be sited carefully to minimize their impacts on wildlife and the landscape.
China is beating us
Clean energy development is key to stay competitive with China- they are currently
outpacing the US in economic gains from wind manufacturing
(Swezey 10) Devon (Project Director at Breakthrough Institute and co-author of "Rising Tigers,
Sleeping Giant," a major report on international clean tech competitiveness). “It’s not all good: why
you should worry about the clean energy race.” The breakthrough institute.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2010/02/its_not_all_good_why_you_shoul.shtml
In his State of the Union Speech, President Obama issued what is now a familiar refrain: "the nation
that leads the clean
energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy." If there were still doubts about which
nation has the edge they were put to rest days later by a bluntly titled front-page article in the New York Times, "China is Leading
Global Race to Make Clean Energy." Though the story is not new, the article is the latest indication of the alacrity with
which China has emerged as a clean energy powerhouse in the span of just a few years. China now manufactures
more solar cells than any nation in the world, and recently surpassed the United States as the largest market
for wind turbines in 2009. According to "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a recent study by the Breakthrough Institute, China is
also a world leader in advanced transportation technologies and batteries, is increasingly localizing the production of nuclear power
plants, and has developed some of the world’s most advanced CCS technology. Despite the mounting
evidence, many
have dismissed the idea that the United States is competing in a "clean energy race" with
China, or that it matters. Some critics assert that characterizing the intense competition as a "race" obscures the climate benefits of
greater clean energy deployment throughout the world and the "win-win" nature of a global clean energy economy. The New Republic’s
Brad Plumer embodies this "it’s all good" line of reasoning, writing: If China zooms ahead and figures out how to make really cheap wind
turbines, that doesn’t hurt anyone–it just makes the enormous task of cutting global carbon emissions that much easier. Plumer’s casual
attitude towards the economic consequences of ceding clean tech manufacturing leadership to China is a slap in the face to U.S. Senators
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The pair has been working hard to secure the new clean energy manufacturing jobs
that can help revitalize the industrial heartland. At Yale e360, environmental journalist Christina Larson similarly suggests that the
United States has little to lose if China dominates emerging clean tech industries: The United States will still gain many new green-collar
jobs in installation and maintenance, which can only be locally based, as well as sales teams, conference planners, and other positions
already arising to support the growing green-tech field. Forget about the export-oriented, high-value added, high-wage clean energy
manufacturing jobs of the future that Democrats have promised will jumpstart the ailing American economy; the clean energy conference
organizing industry is now open for business. The New America Foundation’s Reihan Salam mocks the idea of a "clean technology race,"
arguing erroneously that the barriers to entry in clean energy are low and that any established competitive advantage will be
"ephemeral." He compares China’s clean tech policies to Japan’s policies of the 1980s, as if the Japanese government did not succeed in
supporting the development of what are still world leading high technology industries in automobiles, electronics, and high value steel
manufacturing. While Japan was investing in high-tech industries the United States was simultaneously accelerating the financialization
of its economy, creating trillions of dollars of paper wealth that has largely vanished over the last two years. Indeed, Salam admits that
federal investment in technology has spawned entire new industries like aerospace and electronics, but takes pains to paint similar
investments that can catalyze the development of new clean technologies as "disastrous." Apparently our surging clean tech competitors
in Asia and the EU didn’t get the message. It’s Not All Good There seem to be three pillars of the "it’s all good" argument advanced in
various forms by Plumer, Larson, and Salam. The first simply asserts, "Isn’t it great that we’ll have cheaper clean energy?" To be sure,
more low-carbon power is a good thing for the climate irrespective of who manufactures it. But the
desire to reduce carbon
emissions is not a justification for American complacency in the race to develop and deploy
clean energy. In fact, real competition for clean tech industries could drive many of the innovations
that the reduce the costs of clean technologies, and the United States full participation in the
clean energy race will accelerate climate objectives. Ultimately, while climate mitigation is clearly a motivating
factor, the clean energy race is also about the development and location of new industries
capable of driving economic growth in the 21st century. The clean tech market will be large enough to
accommodate multiple nations. But the burgeoning sector is hotly contested, and the greatest economic
returns will accrue to those nations that move with the greatest zeal and commitment to
develop their domestic industries. Nations that gain "first-mover advantages" are sure to see high rates of return on their
investment. If the United States remains sidelined while other nations quickly develop domestic
clean tech industries, there will be real consequences for long-term economic
competitiveness, as well as forgone jobs, tax revenues, and clean tech export opportunities. Clean Tech Innovation: The Rise of
the Rest The second pillar of the "it's all good" argument is that the United States' capacity for innovation will keep it competitive. In
Plumer's words, "China will likely continue to dominate in low-cost manufacturing, while the United States focuses more on the
innovation side." This passive
resignation to China's clean tech dominance is one reason the United
States is behind in clean energy today. According to a recent study by the office of U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, the U.S.
renewable energy trade deficit has increased 1400% in just the last five years. While the United States invented the
majority of the clean energy technologies in wide use today, they have largely been
commercialized and produced elsewhere. Now, we are buying them back in spades. The idea that there can be a clear
innovation/manufacturing dichotomy between the United States and its economic rivals is complicated by another alarming trend: the
United States is steadily losing its innovative edge relative to other nations. As Fareed Zakaria
describes in a recent Newsweek cover story, America emerged as a world leader in innovation after decades of massive government
investment in basic science and research at our universities beginning in World War II. But since the early 1980s, federal investment in
innovation, particularly in energy technology, has remained stagnant. Today, the
innovation gap that for decades was
a measure of U.S. economic strength is closing as other nations move quickly to develop their
innovative capacity. Recently, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) ranked the United States 6th out of
40 countries in innovation capacity and internal competitiveness and dead last in the rate of improvement over the last decade.
America's lead in energy innovation is slipping. The U.S. is only slightly ahead of Japan in clean energy patents and
government investment in energy R&D. As a percentage of GDP, nations like Japan and South Korea actually outspend the United States
on energy innovation two-to-one. If
the greatest future demand for clean energy technologies and the
locus of clean energy manufacturing both develop in Asia, it is not clear that the lion's share
of energy innovation will remain in the United States. In fact, some companies are already
moving their research operations to China. Applied Materials, a U.S. company and the world's largest solar
equipment manufacturer, recently built the world's most advanced solar R&D facility in Xian, China. Among the reasons cited by Applied
Materials for the relocation to China was that China, not the U.S., "will be the biggest solar market in the world." Applied is not alone.
Danish wind giant Vestas just built the world's biggest wind turbine manufacturing facility in China, which will build turbines with the
company's state-of-the art technology. America's underinvestment
in energy innovation, and the
simultaneous gains made by other nations should be a major wake-up call to U.S.
policymakers. At the very least, it should dispel the notion that America's historic reign as a global
innovation leader is a substitute for an effective economic competitiveness strategy. The Primacy
of Policy The last leg of the "it's all good" stool is the idea that China's dominance in clean energy manufacturing is inevitable, thanks to
lower labor costs. "China," writes Christina Larson, "is becoming the wind-turbine factory to the world for much the same reasons it has
long been the TV and t-shirt factory to the world: lower wages, lower land prices, fewer regulatory and other requirements." But the
production of clean technologies is a high-tech value-added industry; building solar panels, wind turbines or high-speed trains is more
akin to producing semiconductors, automobiles, and airplanes than t-shirts and televisions. Manufacturing clean tech goods requires a
skilled labor force with technical expertise--the kind of labor force that is supposedly America's comparative advantage. It seems foolish
to compare China's dominance in low-cost, low-skill textile manufacturing to high-tech products or complex engineering projects like the
construction and localization of new nuclear power plants, which China is pursuing aggressively with assistance from foreign partners.
Historic leaders in clean tech manufacturing have all been technologically advanced, high-wage nations like Germany, Denmark, Japan,
and the United States. And in spite of China's recent advances, these nations still have large and growing clean energy manufacturing
industries. Cheap labor in China certainly contributes to China's cost advantages in clean energy, as do the lower costs of land, and access
to low-cost financing. But perhaps the
most important element of China's comparative advantage in
clean energy is smart policy. Until clean energy technologies are as cheap as fossil fuels the clean tech industry will continue
to be driven by public policy, and the Chinese government has enacted consistent, generous long-term
policies that have turned the nation into the world's clean tech leader. Both the central government and
provincial governments have made a long-term commitment to invest in clean energy technologies at each stage of the technology value
chain. R&D expenditures have grown 20% per year each year for the past two decades, and energy is a priority R&D sector. Generous
manufacturing incentives are luring foreign companies to locate in China. Laws requiring the purchase of renewable energy and
technology specific deployment policies such as variable feed-in-tariffs for wind power have succeeded in building world leading clean
tech markets. And investments in new infrastructure and science, math and engineering education will help lay the long-term foundation
for a clean energy economy. China's robust, targeted, and consistent public investment in technology, education and infrastructure, not
cheap labor, is the primary reason for its successes in clean energy. Instead of bemoaning the higher labor costs here in the United States,
clean energy advocates and policymakers should be searching for ways to strengthen our
public policies and increase our investments in clean energy technologies. There is no
reason why the United States should not compete vigorously for the high-tech, high-wage
clean energy jobs that will result from the tremendous growth of the global clean energy industry. There are few
growth opportunities large enough to serve as a new foundation of economic prosperity in
the United States--clean energy is one such opportunity. But in order to effectively compete with other nations
the U.S. must have a national strategy that invests in the critical areas for clean technology competitiveness--research and innovation,
manufacturing, domestic markets, infrastructure, and education. Given
the United States' current comparative
advantages in clean energy innovation, the United States could also gear its manufacturing
sector toward demonstrating and commercializing the next generation of clean energy
technologies. Leaping ahead of the competition could help American firms capitalize on new clean technologies that can be
manufactured here and exported abroad. The promise of clean energy economy is real. But without a real clean
energy strategy to make the United States competitive, so is the possibility that the large majority of new jobs and industries will be
created outside of the United States. No amount of conference organizing jobs will replace the lost opportunity to build a vibrant U.S.
clean tech manufacturing sector. The race is on--it's past time that the United States got in the game.
Global commitment to renewable energy is high, but China is leading in clean energy
manufacturing – policy certainty is key to competitiveness of domestic wind industry.
(Moore 13)
Molly; AmeriCorps Communications Outreach / Managing Editor, The Appalachian Voice; A clean(er) world; The Appalachian Voice - Issue
6 (Dec/Jan 2013); 2012. http://appvoices.org/2012/12/05/a-cleaner-world/
That America and Appalachia’s energy consumption and output are tied to international forces should come as no surprise. Immigrants
from the British Isles and Eastern Europe who came to Central Appalachia to work in the coal mines knew that in the 19th and 20th
centuries. Today, as nations develop, technology advances and policies shift, the
international energy landscape is
changing, as is America’s place in it. Like sea level and human population, the world’s appetite for energy
is rising. Without significant changes in policy, such as a worldwide push towards energy savings, global electricity
demand will increase over 70 percent from current levels by 2035, the International Energy
Agency projects. Renewable sources of power are expected to account for half of new worldwide
energy capacity. Coal’s share of overall electrical generation is projected to decline from two-fifths to about onethird, putting it on par with the amount of power expected to come from renewables. The percentage of U.S. electricity coming from coal
is already close to that one-third prediction, a record low, but the country will need to make significant gains in renewable energy in
order to fall in line with the projected global average by 2035. In 2011, America derived about 9 percent of its energy from renewables,
while Germany used renewable sources to produce 20 percent of its energy. Looked at another way, however, America doesn’t seem so
far behind. At
the end of 2011, the United States was second after China in total renewable
energy capacity, according to a report by public research and advocacy organization The Pew Charitable Trusts. Follow
the Clean Money “I don’t think [the United States] gets enough credit for leading in many, many ways in renewable energy,” says Richard
Caperton, director of clean energy investment for think tank Center for American Progress. He notes that the field of renewable
energy is diverse and encompasses manufacturing, project development, deployment and
financing. Compared to other nations, the U.S. is strong on some of those fronts and falls behind in others. Caperton says America
is great at “getting concrete and steel in the ground” by planning and installing wind
turbines and solar farms. Compared to China, America also does well at integrating
alternative energy sources with utilities. Though it’s difficult to track information on China’s power system, he says,
the country continues to build wind farms and solar arrays that aren’t connected to the grid. “Our banks and venture capital investors
and private equity investors are, I think, world leaders in their knowledge of the field and in their willingness to finance renewable
energy projects both domestically and abroad,” he says. The U.S. invested $48.1 billion in clean energy in 2011, more than any other
nation. The Pew Charitable Trusts attribute that dramatic increase in clean energy investment to the fact that entrepreneurs and
financiers were making the most of government policies that expired at the end of that year. Following that boom, growth in clean energy
investment slowed in both America and around the world. In the third quarter of 2012, those investments were 20 percent lower than
they were a year ago, reports research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Bloomberg attributed the global drop to uncertain
clean energy policies in countries such as the U.S. and United Kingdom. Caperton says most countries at
the forefront of
the clean energy field benefit from policy certainty — dependable tax incentives, loan
guarantees and state renewable energy goals. “[Those countries] have a general commitment to low-carbon power
sources that feeds into every decision they make in the power sector,” he says. “If they know they want to have a zero-carbon fuel mix by
2050, they’re able to plan today for that future and that really helps their investments.” Making and Trading the Energy Future One
of
those areas where the U.S. is doing fairly well but could improve is renewable energy
manufacturing — making the photovoltaic cells, wind turbine blades and countless other building
blocks of clean energy technology. With the International Energy Agency projecting that the amount of power generated
from renewable sources will be three times greater than 2010 levels by 2035, manufacturers see a big opportunity.
China currently leads the world’s solar and wind energy industries. Of the top ten wind
manufacturers in 2011, four are Chinese companies and one, GE Wind, is American, reports
international organization Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. “Where China does really well is a strong
national commitment to providing financial incentives for manufacturing,” Caperton says. “Every country,
eventually, will be transitioning to low-carbon power and China wants to manufacture that for the rest of the world. So they’re making
strong commitments today to set themselves up to be the future manufacturing leader.”
Manufacturing Here
Manufacturing of wind turbines happens in the United States
Bowden 13
[Nicholas, April, Electric Regulation: Renewable Incentives Have Led to Job Creation,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gas.21681/full, lecturer in the Economics Department
and regulatory policy research associate for the Institute for Regulatory Policy Studies at Illinois
State University]
In 2009, 5,700 wind turbines were installed in the United States. Each turbine has blades ranging from 34 to 55 meters, hubs weighing 8
to 10 tons, and towers standing 80 to 100 meters and weighing 55 to 70 tons. These 5,700 turbines required over 17,000 blades, 1.7
million cubic yards of concrete, 36,000 miles of rebar, and 3.2 million bolts. The structural elements of the turbine represent about 50
percent of the total cost, while the mechanical and electronic components represent the other 50 percent. The major mechanical
components include the gearbox, power converter, generator, transformer, pitch and yaw controls, rotor hub, bearings, braking systems,
and drive shafts. In
2011, approximately 470 facilities were manufacturing or assembling these
components of wind turbines in the United States. This number is a dramatic increase from the 30 facilities that
existed in 2004. There are a wide range of component manufacturers and assembly facilities. Some facilities assembled turbines and
produced gearboxes, rotor blades, and towers used exclusively in the wind industry, while others produced wires, bearings, power
electronics, and other components that are used across a range of industrial applications . An
estimated 67 percent of
these components installed in the United States were manufactured domestically in 2011,
whereas only 35 percent were domestically manufactured in 2006. The remaining components not
manufactured in the United States were imported primarily from Europe (Denmark, Germany, Spain, and Italy) in the form of fully
assembled turbines. These imports came at a total cost of approximately $1.2 billion. However, the trade imbalance was softened by
approximately $250 million in fully assembled turbines that were exported from the United States in 2011.
Offshore Wind Farms will generate jobs domestically
Weia et al 10
[Max Weia, Shana Patadiab, Daniel M. Kammena February 2010Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can
the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages 919–931]
The clean energy industry has been targeted as a key area for investment for both
environmental and economic reasons. Building up a domestically produced clean energy supply can provide greater
energy independence and security, has notable environmental benefits due to reduced CO2 emissions, and can act as a driver for
Job creation is an especially pressing issue as
the world recovers from the most severe recession in decades with double digit unemployment rates in many countries . Clean
energy can create many domestic jobs, and additionally, many of these jobs are guaranteed
to stay domestic as they involve construction and installation. By investing in energy
efficiency measures, money otherwise spent on energy costs can be redirected to stimulate
the economy through job creation. A wide portfolio of energy sources including low carbon approaches, such as nuclear
significant, positive economic growth through continual innovation.
and carbon capture, are gaining attention as there are global efforts being made to reduce carbon emission in the next two decades. In
the process, through replacing outdated infrastructure and developing better energy conservation and production practices, a
foundation is built for future domestic stability and growth. An
increasing number of studies are finding that
greater use of renewable energy (RE) systems and energy efficiency provides economic
benefits through job creation, while at the same time protecting the economy from political
and economic risks associated with over-reliance on a limited suite of energy technologies
and fuels. We focus on the power sector in this study as it is the largest primary energy sector and also the fastest growing sector,
and most job creation studies have been done in this area. This report reviews 15 recent studies on the job creation potential of
renewable energy, energy efficiency, and low carbon sources such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and nuclear power. The
paper first clarifies job definitions and then a common metric and normalization methodology is introduced to allow for meaningful
comparison of studies. A meta-study of many papers is done to take ranges and averages of normalized job multipliers. Unlike most other
renewable energy studies, an attempt is made to take into account job losses in the coal and natural gas industry as a first step to
capturing wider economy effects. Using the normalized direct employment multipliers from the meta-study, a simple analytical jobs
model is described that generates job projections out to 2030 as a function of user-defined scenarios for EE, RE, and low carbon supply
sources. The paper is thus a unique synthesis of many existing studies and the resultant jobs model can assist policy makers in answering
three key questions: 1. What are the job creation sensitivities of adopting various clean energy approaches and energy efficiency? 2. How
would large-scale growth in the renewable energy sector impact affect overall employment taking into account job losses in the fossil
fuel sector? 3. What is the job creation potential for low carbon approaches such as nuclear power or carbon capture and storage? In
order to compare the various studies on an equal footing, we adopt two simple normalizations to calculate lifetime average employment
per unit of energy. First, “one-time” employment factors such as construction and installation (“job-years per peak MW”) are averaged
over plant lifetime to obtain an average employment number (“jobs per peak MW”) that can be directly added to ongoing employment
factors such as operations and maintenance. Next, to allow for comparison between technologies with different capacity factors, we
calculate employment per unit of energy (“job-years per GWh”) or per unit of average-MW of power output (“job-years per average
MW”). Our modeling approach yields the following key conclusions: (1) The
renewable energy and low carbon
sectors generate more jobs per unit of energy delivered than the fossil fuel-based sector. (2)
Among the common RPS technologies, solar photo voltaics (PV) creates the most jobs per unit of electricity output. (3) Energy
efficiency and renewable energy can contribute to much lower CO2 emissions and significant
job creation. Cutting the annual rate of increase in electricity generation in half and
targeting a 30% RPS in 2030 each generates about 2 million job-years through 2030. (4) A
combination of renewable energy, EE, and low carbon approaches such as nuclear and CCS can yield over 4 million job-years through
2030 with over 50% of the electricity supply from non-fossil supply sources. The spreadsheet-based model is available for download at
http://rael.berkeley.edu/node/20. As policy makers struggle with the current global recession and search for sectors in the economy
that can provide sustainable long-term growth, these results can serve as useful data points in assessing the employment potential of
clean energy and low carbon sources 2. Background There has been a large increase in reports and interest on green jobs in the past 2
years. “Green jobs” typically refer to those jobs that play a direct role in reducing environmental impact of enterprises and economic
sectors, ultimately to levels that are sustainable (UNEP, 2008). In the energy efficiency (EE) context where the majority of jobs are
induced jobs from energy savings, the jobs created are not strictly “green jobs”, but rather are employment opportunities that
presumably would not have been created without the EE programs. In this work, we focus on job creation associated with well-defined
industries or technologies including jobs in renewable energy and low carbon sources, as well as jobs resulting from energy efficiency
investments. The bulk of these reports are from non-government organizations (NGO), national laboratories, or universities but there
have been fewer peer-reviewed journal publications. Multiple recent studies have appeared in the past few years on EE, wind, solar PV,
solar thermal, and geothermal, while other areas have received less attention. The studies have a wide range of estimates and report
their data in different ways and using different definitions of employment. All of the studies referred to in this report are from developed
world. For renewable energy, most reports are analytical-based studies. Wind is representative of this sector, and of the five studies
summarized here, one is from industry, two from NGOs, one from a research institute, and one from a consulting firm. All five are
essentially “bottom up” estimates based on industry/utility surveys, the outlook of project developers and equipment manufacturers,
and/or primary employment data from companies across manufacturing, construction, install, and operations and maintenance (O&M).
Four of five studies include direct employment estimates, only one has both direct and indirect employment estimates, while none
include induced employment. Only one study includes a detailed cost benefit study. In general, these studies comprehend the
employment within a given industry such as biomass or solar. Thus net job impacts to the overall economy are not comprehended since
industry to industry interactions are not captured. EE studies, on the other hand, generally utilize more complete input/output (I/O)
models (Laitner and McKinney, 2008; Roland-Holst, 2008) which attempt to model full impacts to the US economy. Differences between
analytical and I/O models and their relative merits are discussed further in Section 3. As studies about green jobs have proliferated in the
past few years from a wide variety of sources with varying estimates of job creation benefits and methodologies, several critiques of
green jobs studies and their conclusions have appeared (see for example, Calzada, 2009; Moriss, 2009). Critics of green job studies cite
allegedly incomplete accounting for the costs of green job programs, namely the jobs that are lost or shifted by such programs, and
whether large capital investments by the government would be better spent elsewhere in the private sector. For example, requiring
renewable energy sources that are more expensive than conventional sources and/or directing large government subsidies for their
production may drive up costs and cost jobs or may furthermore crowd out other business investment. However, neither green job
studies nor their critiques typically include avoided environmental costs or other potential benefits (less imported fossil fuel, reduced
health care costs, etc.) that would favor green job programs. Longer-term costs are difficult to quantify with uncertainties in their
magnitude, attribution and timing but have the prospect for catastrophic irremediable damages. Furthermore, in some cases, businesses
may not be equipped or organized to invest in large-scale beneficial projects such as grid modernization where the government may
need to play an active planning and/or investment role. At the macroeconomic level, it has been argued that global warming is one of
history's greatest market failures and that to preclude the prospect of severe economic and social consequences in the future a transition
to a low carbon economy is urgently needed. Policies and programs to support this transition are one way of viewing the green jobs
movement, and thus the key questions do not focus on whether or not to support “green jobs”, but how best to do it—which policies have
the greatest benefit to cost ratio, how long-term benefits should be balanced against short-term costs, how economic dislocations should
be minimized, and how best to position government policies in dynamic and competitive global markets. 3. Job definitions and job study
methodologies It is important to define employment terms as there is often confusion about types of jobs and job-years. One job-year (or
equivalently person-year or “full-time equivalent” FTE job) is full time employment for one person for a duration of 1 year. Often, “jobs”
and “job-years” are used interchangeably; however, referring to “jobs” created without a duration can be misleading. The definitions of
direct, indirect, and induced jobs vary widely by study. Here we describe our definitions and usage of these categories. Direct
employment includes those jobs created in the design, manufacturing, delivery, construction/installation, project management and
operation and maintenance of the different components of the technology, or power plant, under consideration. This data can be
collected directly from existing facilities and manufacturers in the respective phases of operation. Indirect employment refers to the
“supplier effect” of upstream and downstream suppliers. For example, the task of installing wind turbines is a direct job, whereas
manufacturing the steel that is used to build the wind turbine is an indirect job. Induced employment accounts for the expenditureinduced effects in the general economy due to the economic activity and spending of direct and indirect employees, e.g. non-industry jobs
created such as teachers, grocery store clerks, and postal workers. When discussing energy efficiency, a large portion of the induced jobs
are the jobs created by the household savings due to the energy efficiency measures. There are two types of studies encountered while
focusing on the employment impacts in the renewable industry: (1) those that use input–output models of the economy (“top-down”);
and (2) those that use simpler, largely spreadsheet-based analytical models (“bottom-up”). Both types of models have advantages and
disadvantages (Kammen, 2004) and are reviewed briefly here. I/O models are intended to model the entire economy as an interaction of
goods and services between various industrial sectors and consumers. I/O models provide the most complete picture of the economy as
a whole. They capture employment multiplier effects, as well as the macroeconomic impacts of shifts between sectors; that is to say, they
account for losses in one sector (e.g. coal mining) created by the growth of another sector (e.g. the wind energy industry). I/O models are
thus designed to encompass both the direct and indirect employment effect of shifts in energy demand as brought upon by various
policies as well as the induced economic effects due to economic impacts of spending by workers. In practice, I/O models are very
complex and can be opaque to understand. Within a larger I/O model there are also disaggregation problems in modeling the
employment generated by specific technology types such as solar PV or wind and in isolating the impact of specific policies versus a suite
of policies. Collecting data to build an I/O model is highly data and labor intensive, and I/O models also can suffer from time delays
between when industry data has been collected and when the I/O model has been run. Most analytical models calculate direct
employment impacts only, but an increasing number include indirect jobs as well. Although analytical models typically do not account for
job losses in the fossil fuel sector they are much easier to understand and model. Sensitivity analysis of specific policies or changing key
assumptions can be readily modeled, and data can be collected more frequently than with I/O models. We note that quantifying job
impacts in developing nations for emerging “green” industries can be a challenge for both I/O and analytical models. Consider the
challenge of quantifying job impact in the recycling industry in China or India. An I/O approach would have to synthesize the
employment impact by assigning some component of input supplies and labor from existing industrial sectors, while a direct approach
would have quantify the job impacts of an often informal work environment. Moreover, both model types generally do not capture
industry innovation which may lead to reduced job dividend over time and of course, any model is subject to policy uncertainty e.g.
changes in standards, mandates, incentives, tax credits, etc. Various normalization approaches for comparing the job creation potential of
different technologies can be utilized. They include jobs produced for a given level of spending (Pollin, 2008), or jobs produced for a
given level of output such as jobs produced per unit of energy production. Jobs produced per unit energy provides an indication of job
creation potential for aggressive conversion of the existing energy supply to renewable and low carbon sources, and this metric is
adopted here. 4. Comparing the studies Table 1 contains a list of the studies reviewed while a detailed summary of the studies’ respective
methodologies is provided in Appendix A. A complication is that the studies report their data in different forms using different methods
and in different units. We follow the approach described in detail in Kammen (2004) to normalize the data from each study. A brief
description of the approach is given here. Table 1. List of studies reviewed. Ref. Year Author—affiliation Study—type of model 1 2009
Isabel Blanco and Christian Kjaer—European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) Wind at Work: Wind energy and job creation in the EU
(analytical model) 2 2009 Julio Friedmann—Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Personal communcation, 13 February 2009, on
Carbon capture and storage job impacts (analytical model) 3 2009 José Goldemberg—State of São Paulo, Brazil Personal communication,
13 February 2009, on Energy efficiency and jobs data 4 2009 SkyFuels and National Renewable Energy Laboratory Personal
communication, 21 March 2009, on Solar Thermal jobs data. (I/O model) 5 2008 John A. “Skip” Laitner and Vanessa McKinney—
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Positive Returns: State Energy Efficiency Analyses Can Inform US Energy Policy
Assessments (I/O model) 6 2006 Winfried Hoffman, Sven Teske—European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) and Greenpeace
Solar Generation: Solar Electricity for Over One Billion People and Two Million Jobs by 2020 (analytical model) 7 2006 McKinsey
Consulting Wind, Oil and Gas: the Potential of Wind (analytical model) 8 2006 George Sterzinger—Renewable Energy Policy Project
(REPP) Jobs and Renewable Energy Project (analytical model) 9 2006 L. Stoddard, J. Abiecunas, R. O'Connell—National Renewable
Energy Laboratory Economic, Energy, and Environmental Benefits of Concentrating Solar Power in California (I/O model) 10 2005 Doug
Arent, John Tschirhart, Dick Watson—Western Governors’ Association Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative (CDEAC) Geothermal Task
Force (analytical model) 11 2004 Daniel M. Kammen, Kamal Kapadia, and Matthias Fripp—Energy and Resources Group, Universtiy of
California, Berkeley Putting Renewables to Work: How Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate? (analytical model) 12 2004
C.R. Kenley, et al.—Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC US Job Creation
Due to Nuclear Power Resurgence in the United States (analytical model) 13 2002 B. Heavner and S. Churchill—CALPIRG (California
Public Interest Research Group) Charitable Trust Job Growth from Renewable Energy Development in California (I/O model) 14 2001 G.
Simons (California Energy Commission) and T. Peterson (EPRI) California Renewable Technology Market and Benefits Assessment
(analytical model) 15 2001 Virender Singh of Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) and Jeffrey Fehrs of BBC Research and Consulting
The Work that Goes into Renewable Energy (analytical model) Table options We consider two job function groupings: (1) construction,
installation, and manufacturing (CIM) and (2) operations, maintenance, and fuel processing. Items in the first group are typically
reported in “job-years per MW installed” or equivalently, “job-years per peak (or nameplate) MW” while the second group is reported in
jobs per peak MW over the lifetime of the plant. How then to best combine one-time employment (e.g. installation) with ongoing
employment? We opt to average over the life of the project. By converting the CIM job-years per peak MW to average jobs per megawatt
over the lifetime of the plant, the two can be combined. This assumes that a large number of facilities of a given type are being built (and
eventually replaced) throughout the economy, which is a reasonable assumption for many renewable energy sources. Next, the total jobs
per peak megawatt (MWp) is normalized to total jobs per average megawatt (MWa) by dividing jobs per peak megawatt by the capacity
factor, where the capacity factor is the fraction of a year that the facility is in operation. This follows since lower capacity technologies
will have to build more plants than higher capacity technologies to deliver the same power. This averaging technique has the advantage
of providing a simple metric for comparing employment for different technologies. Annual employment for a given technology is
calculated based on only two parameters: annual output energy (in GWh) and the employment multiplier (in job-years per GWh). This
simplicity enables a straightforward implementation of a jobs model without having to track the exact details of combining one-time
employment activities with ongoing employment on a year to year basis, and the approach converges to the correct number of
cumulative job-years after several years. The disadvantage of this technique, however, is that it underestimates total employment for a
technology that is growing rapidly (e.g. renewable energy technologies), while it overestimates employment for a technology that is
reducing capacity. We also note that some studies were consulted but not included in this report due to lack of supporting information
for their job estimates. Moreover, existing studies may not cover all components of employment considered (manufacturing,
construction, installation, operations and maintenance, and fuel processing). The more comprehensive papers, which presented
jobs/MW data along with person-years data, were used most extensively. Table 2 presents a detailed job generation summary of the
studies that were analyzed. Some technologies were represented by many studies (solar and wind); some technologies were not studied
as frequently (geothermal, biomass); and for some, job estimates were not readily available (municipal solid waste). For the latter we
adopted placeholder values of 0.15 job-years/GWh as a conservative estimate at the lower range of renewable and low carbon
multipliers. Table 2. Comparison of jobs/MWp, jobs/MWa and job-years/GWh across technologies. Work-hours per year 2000 Capacity
factor (%) Equipment lifetime (years) Employment components Average employment over life of facility Total jobs/MWp Total
jobs/MWa Total job-years/GWh Energy technology Source of numbers CIM (job-years/MWp) O&M (jobs/MWp) Fuel extraction and
processing (job-years/GWh) CIM O&M and fuel processing CIM O&M and fuel processing CIM O&M and fuel processing Total Avg
Biomass 1 EPRI 2001 85 40 4.29 1.53 0.00 0.11 1.53 0.13 1.80 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.21 Biomass 2 REPP 2001 85 40 8.50 0.24 0.13 0.21 1.21
0.25 1.42 0.03 0.16 0.19 Geothermal 1 WGA 2005 90 40 6.43 1.79 0.00 0.16 1.79 0.18 1.98 0.02 0.23 0.25 0.25 Geothermal 2 CALPIRG
2002 90 40 17.50 1.70 0.00 0.44 1.70 0.49 1.89 0.06 0.22 0.27 Geothermal 3 EPRI 2001 90 40 4.00 1.67 0.00 0.10 1.67 0.11 1.86 0.01 0.21
0.22 Landfill Gas 1 CALPIRG 2002 85 40 21.30 7.80 0.00 0.53 7.80 0.63 9.18 0.07 1.05 1.12 0.72 Landfill Gas 2 EPRI 2001 85 40 3.71 2.28
0.00 0.09 2.28 0.11 2.68 0.01 0.31 0.32 Small Hydro EPRI 2001 55 40 5.71 1.14 0.00 0.14 1.14 0.26 2.07 0.03 0.24 0.27 0.27 Solar PV 1
EPIA/Greenpeace 2006 20 25 37.00 1.00 0.00 1.48 1.00 7.40 5.00 0.84 0.57 1.42 0.87 Solar PV 2 REPP 2006 20 25 32.34 0.37 0.00 1.29
0.37 6.47 1.85 0.74 0.21 0.95 Solar PV 3 EPRI 2001 20 25 7.14 0.12 0.00 0.29 0.12 1.43 0.60 0.16 0.07 0.23 Solar Thermal 1
Skyfuels/NREL 2009 40 25 10.31 1.00 0.00 0.41 1.00 1.03 2.50 0.12 0.29 0.40 0.23 Solar Thermal 2 NREL 2006 40 25 4.50 0.38 0.00 0.18
0.38 0.45 0.95 0.05 0.11 0.16 Solar Thermal 3 EPRI 2001 40 25 5.71 0.22 0.00 0.23 0.22 0.57 0.55 0.07 0.06 0.13 Wind 1 EWEA 2008 35
25 10.10 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.40 1.15 1.14 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.17 Wind 2 REPP 2006 35 25 3.80 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.14 0.43 0.41 0.05 0.05 0.10
Wind 3 McKinsey 2006 35 25 10.96 0.18 0.00 0.44 0.18 1.25 0.50 0.14 0.06 0.20 Wind 4 CALPIRG 2002 35 25 7.40 0.20 0.00 0.30 0.20
0.85 0.57 0.10 0.07 0.16 Wind 5 EPRI 2001 35 25 2.57 0.29 0.00 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.83 0.03 0.09 0.13 Carbon Capture & Storage Friedmann,
2009 80 40 20.48 0.31 0.06 0.51 0.73 0.64 0.91 0.07 0.10 0.18 0.18 Nuclear INEEL 2004 90 40 15.20 0.70 0.00 0.38 0.70 0.42 0.78 0.05
0.09 0.14 0.14 Coal REPP 2001 80 40 8.50 0.18 0.06 0.21 0.59 0.27 0.74 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.11 Natural Gas CALPIRG 2002 85 40 1.02 0.10
0.09 0.03 0.77 0.03 0.91 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.11 Energy Efficiency 1 ACEEE 2008 100 20 0.17 0.38 Energy Efficiency 2 Goldemberg, 2009 100
20 0.59 Table options A typical calculation for direct employment is described for the example of a Vestas wind plant in the US
(McKinsey, 2006). From the report, a 228 MW (peak) onshore wind farm generates 500 jobs in development and installation for 5 years
and 40 O&M jobs for 20 years. This translates to 2500 job-years for development/installation and 800 job-years for O&M. Dividing these
numbers by 25 years for lifetime gives the average number of jobs per peak MW over the life of the plant. Dividing by an estimated 35%
capacity factor for wind plants gives the result 1.25 jobs per average MW for CIM and 0.40 jobs per average MW for O&M. The reference
report also provides employment estimates for offshore wind farms and both data points are factored into the final data entry in Table 2.
Note that this example does not explicitly include manufacturing jobs in wind turbine production and thus the job multiplier for CIM is
probably an underestimate for direct jobs as defined above. For CCS, we considered three options for CCS implementation: postcombustion capture retrofit for pulverized coal, post-combustion retrofit for natural gas, and pre-combustion capture design for IGCC
(Friedmann, 2009). Employment impact for the first two options were considered to be additive to existing coal and natural gas
employment while jobs for IGCC CCS were treated as stand-alone since new plant construction is involved. Resultant job numbers for the
three options are 0.17, 0.22, and 0.16 job-years/GWh, respectively, and the average of these results is taken in Table 2. In the energy
efficiency sector we used a multiplier of 0.38 job-years/GWh of energy savings that is the average of Goldemberg (2009) and Laitner and
McKinney (2008). We assume that the majority of jobs are induced jobs (90%) and only 10% are direct jobs associated with energy
efficiency products or installation, an assumption used by the ACEEE in the past (Geller, 1992). The business-as-usual (BAU) case of
energy demand already assumes a certain amount of energy savings and energy efficiency-induced jobs due to existing building codes
and appliance standards, industry improvement, and implicit programs (EPRI, 2009), so our energy efficiency net job gains are
additional jobs above and beyond this implicit baseline level. Fig. 1 shows the average and range of direct employment multipliers per
unit energy for ten different energy technologies based on the studies considered in Table 1. A large amount of variation is seen in many
technologies, particularly solar PV. This may be due to implicit differences in data collection and analysis methodology between different
studies. For technologies with more than one study, our approach of averaging the studies thus reduces the weight of any one study.
Solar PV has the highest average job multiplier with a large gap between it and the next highest renewable technologies (geothermal and
solar thermal). In part, this is likely due to the many discrete panel installations contributing to solar PV development (as compared to a
single location for a wind farm). Full-size image (27 K) Fig. 1. Average and range of direct employment multipliers for ten different
energy technologies based on the studies from Table 1. Figure options Comparing among the technologies, we find a spread among the
distribution of jobs between CIM and O&M. Biomass, natural gas, and coal are seen to have the largest fuel processing requirement. We
were not able to find a direct estimate for nuclear power fuel processing requirements. Solar and wind are found to have the highest ratio
of CIM to O&M jobs and for solar this is likely due to a large installation component of employment. 5. Analytical model description In this
section we describe an Excel-based analytical model for the US power sector designed to estimate net employment impacts under
various user-defined energy supply scenarios for the 2009–2030 time frame. The model synthesizes data from the 15 job studies
summarized above covering renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage and nuclear power in addition to coal and
natural gas. We utilize the normalization approach of taking average employment per unit energy produced over plant lifetime, as
described in Section 4. In addition to these average employment multipliers provided by the meta-study, the user can specify
assumptions for the following three supply sectors in the model: (1) energy efficiency assumption to 2030; (2) RPS percentage and
technology portfolio contributions; and (3) low carbon percentage and portfolio contributions. Unlike other job studies, job losses in the
coal and natural gas industry are modeled to project net employment impacts. Combinations of factors are readily modeled, e.g. the
number of jobs with both increased EE and increased RE. The model thus provides guidance and quantification to the three key
questions posed in Section 1. We take as our baseline the December 2008 Energy Information Administration (EIA) roadmap of
electricity generation and projected electricity source contributions out to 2030. The baseline or BAU numbers of direct and indirect jobs
are calculated with this amount of generation and partitioning of energy sources. Our calculator then computes how the job picture shifts
with greater or lower energy efficiency, varying amounts of renewable energy, and differing portfolio mixes of RPS and low carbon
technologies. For the renewable and low carbon technology sectors we include only direct and indirect jobs since most studies in these
two sectors utilize analytical based job generation models and do not include estimates of induced jobs. For indirect jobs, we took the
average multiplier from three reports, a solar study from the United States (Bezdek, 2007), a European wind report (EWEA, 2009), and a
renewable energy study from Germany (Staiss, 2006). This gave an indirect multiplier of 0.9 that for simplicity was applied to all
technologies. (For example if the direct multiplier for technology B is 0.2 job-years/GWh, the indirect multiplier is 0.2×0.9=0.18 jobyears/GWh and the total jobs produced is 0.38 job-years/GWh). Clearly this is a rough approximation for indirect jobs and we expect
variation between technologies. Some reports included much higher estimates for indirect jobs (Kenley, 2004 nuclear study and
Stoddard, 2006 solar thermal report) but we took a more conservative average approach to avoid double counting direct and indirect
jobs. A net job creation number for the renewable and low carbon technology sectors is calculated by factoring in job loss impacts to the
coal and natural gas industry due to increases in renewable energy or low carbon technologies. Previous studies have focused on gross
renewable energy job creation under various RPS or technology scenarios, e.g. “a 20% national RPS in 2020 produces 160,000 direct
jobs.” For this work, we ask what amount of net jobs can be created over and above what is projected from existing policies and
accounting for any job losses that may occur from reductions in the supply of electricity from coal and natural gas. For energy efficiency,
we include direct, indirect and induced jobs, or equivalently net jobs created per unit energy saved. This may bias the results in favor of
energy efficiency. However, we were not comfortable making an analytical estimate for induced employment for renewable energy and
low carbon sources since most studies in these two sectors do not include estimates of induced jobs. Energy efficiency studies, on the
other hand, tend to utilize I/O models and their authors argue that most of the employment from energy efficiency investment is from
energy bill savings and subsequent-induced employment, and their estimates are included here. In addition to the direct and indirect job
multipliers described above, our model accepts the following user inputs: the annual rate of increase of electricity demand (BAU is about
0.74%) to 2030, the target RPS and low carbon supply percentages in 2020 and 2030, and the technology components (wind, biomass,
etc) for the RPS and low carbon supply in 2020 and 2030. Overall electricity demand is then translated to the various supply sources as
specified by user input, and a mapping of these supply sources to overall employment is performed using the multipliers from Table 2.
Net employment can then be calculated by taking the difference between the modeled scenario and the BAU scenario based on EIA
reference data for electricity demand and supply sources. A screen shot of the model's input deck is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Sample
screen shot of jobs model showing input parameters for RPS and low carbon fraction and components in 2020. Time frame 2009–2030
Generation assumptions BAU Electricity increase in 2030 over 2009 (%) BAU 24% RPS assumptions BAU 2020 RPS % of total gen. 20.0%
7.4% 2030 RPS % of total gen. 30.0% 9.1% RPS portfolio—2020 % total generation BAU 2020 Biomass 9.5% 3.5% Hydro (small) 1.5%
0.6% Geothermal 1.1% 0.4% Municipal solid waste 1.3% 0.5% Solar PV 1.0% 0.4% Solar thermal 0.1% 0.0% Wind 5.5% 2.0% RPS %
20.0% 7.4% Low carbon assumptions BAU 2020 low carbon % of total gen. 24.6% 24.6% 2030 low carbon % of total gen. 22.6% 22.6%
Low carbon portfolio—2020 BAU Carbon capture and storage (% coal gen.) 0.0% 0.0% Conventional hydropower 5.9% 5.9% Nuclear (%
to include in RPS) 18.7% 18.7% Low carbon % 24.6% 24.6% Inputs are in bold italics. Table options We assume electricity demand
reductions are provided by energy efficiency and not from reduced energy usage due to other effects such as conservation or behavior
changes. The supply of low carbon sources such as nuclear and hydro is also assumed to not decrease over time beyond BAU levels, so
that any reduction in energy demand over BAU is assumed to be taken from coal or natural gas. This implies that the absolute percentage
of nuclear and hydro power will increase over time as more energy efficiency is achieved even with no new nuclear or hydro
construction. Our model assumes that transmission, distribution, and storage capacity are not constraints, especially when projecting
high percentages of RE and low carbon sources. This assumption also leads to the simplification that all renewable power generation
displaces coal and natural gas, which may not be the case today or in the near future for intermittent sources such as wind power in the
absence of large-scale storage. Clearly, significant investment in both infrastructure and research and development (R&D) is needed to
enable this and both the electricity grid and storage have been targeted in the US federal government's 2009 stimulus package. This work
does not include analysis of leakage and jobs that are exported, i.e. all jobs are assumed to reside within the country of interest, nor is the
potential increase in jobs from export of manufactured goods considered (Lehr et al., 2008). The concern for the former is that
manufacturing jobs may be predominantly exported to lower labor cost countries such as China or Vietnam. While design and
development jobs (“front end”) and maintenance and service jobs (“back end”) remain onshore, a “hollowing out” of the manufacturing
sector might occur in the middle. This effect has not been thoroughly studied for clean energy and may vary by technology.
Manufacturing wind turbines on-site is often more economical than producing them for export and accordingly, Danish turbine maker
Vestas is expanding aggressively in the United States (Glader, 2009). Nor do we consider local vs. national employment effects. It is
possible that some regions of the country would see heavier job losses than others, so policies could be tailored to address these
inequalities for example through targeted subsidies or job re-training programs. For example, West Virginia may be hit
disproportionately hard by job losses due to its coal mining industry while California may benefit relatively more due to its solar
resource. Other references show that a national increase in renewable energy can benefit all regions of the adopting country (Staiss
2006). We do not explore detailed cost benefit analysis. For example, if more renewable energy is built, electricity prices may become
more expensive, increasing costs for businesses and reducing employment in those businesses. However, overall costs are calculated to
be relatively small fraction of GDP in several studies (see for example McLennan Magasanik, 2009). Moreover, a full cost benefit analysis
would include other benefits from cleaner energy which are not typically included (e.g. better health, environmental benefits). Rather
than focusing on a single sector such as wind or solar, some studies consider a portfolio of greenhouse gas reduction policies with the
assumption that a cap and trade system for greenhouse gases is in place. For example, the California AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act
includes a suite of policies including vehicle standards, energy efficiency programs (e.g. building codes, appliance standards, and
combined heat and power), and renewable energy mandates (Roland-Holst, 2008). In this way, more cost effective measures such as
energy efficiency can compensate for less cost effective but rapidly growing sectors such as solar PV. The net economic impacts then
become highly dependent on the rate of technological innovation, but if innovation is assumed to follow historical trends and strong
policies are in place for energy use reduction then significant job growth can result. 6. Discussion of model results Annual employment
for energy efficiency beyond BAU are plotted in Fig. 2 for two electricity generation scenarios. The “medium-EE” case represents 50%
lower annual growth rate than BAU or 0.37% annual growth in electricity generation versus 0.74% for BAU, and the “flat energy” case
represents no increase in annual electricity generation (0.74% lower growth than BAU). Both curves show steadily increasing job growth
as the total energy saved increases steadily over time with features in the two curves reflecting the BAU reference energy demand data.
Full-size image (30 K) Fig. 2. Annual job-years generated over BAU due to energy efficiency improvement. Figure options Cumulative jobyears from 2009 through 2030 versus annual improvement in energy efficiency for various energy supply approaches are shown in Fig.
3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Cumulative job-years are computed by adding the job-years above BAU each year for a given scenario. This metric is
often implicitly or explicitly quoted in jobs studies for a given time frame and we utilize it here to compare different technologies. We
project employment to 2030 since nuclear and CCS have long lead times and we would not expect appreciable gains by 2020. The three
marker points on each curve represent BAU, medium-EE, and flat energy cases, respectively. Full-size image (38 K) Fig. 3. Cumulative
job-years over BAU due to energy efficiency improvement for 2009–2020 and 2009–2030, respectively. Figure options Full-size image
(79 K) Fig. 4. (a) Cumulative job-years for 2009–2030 over BAU due to RPS for various RPS targets in 2030. (b) Cumulative job-years for
2009–2030 over BAU due to nuclear power for various nuclear generation targets in 2030. (c) Cumulative job-years for 2009–2030 over
BAU due to CCS for various CCS targets in 2030. Figure options Full-size image (82 K) Fig. 5. (a) Cumulative job-years over BAU for 2009–
2030 due to energy efficiency and RPS for various RPS targets in 2030. (b) Cumulative job-years over BAU from 2009–2030 due to
energy efficiency, RPS, nuclear power, and CCS, for various RPS targets in 2030 and assuming 25% nuclear generation and 10% CCS in
2030, respectively. Figure options For the medium-EE case, half-a-million total jobs are generated from 2009 to 2020 and 1.9 million
total job-years from 2009 to 2030 (Fig. 3), while for the flat energy case, we project 1 million and just under 4 million job-years,
respectively This is in the absence of any other changes from BAU supply sources. Employment generation by RPS as function of EE for
various RPS target percentages in 2030 is shown in Fig. 4a. For a fixed target RPS percentage in 2030, total RPS job-years decrease with
improved EE since as the overall electricity generation “pie” is reduced, the absolute amount of renewable energy is reduced. RPS targets
of 10%, 20%, and 30% in 2020 are assumed for RPS targets of 20%, 30%, and 40% in 2030, respectively. Coal and natural gas jobs are
lost but at a lower rate than renewable energy job are created. While the model allows for the flexibility of changing the portfolio of RPS
constituent technology percentages, RPS calculations in Fig. 4a assume a BAU “portfolio” distribution in 2020, i.e. the makeup of the RPS
replicates the BAU constituent percentages in 2020 (approximately 47% biomass, 27% wind, 8% small hydro, 7% municipal solid waste,
6% geothermal, 5% solar PV, and 1% solar thermal). 2030 RPS portfolio components are then scaled by the proportional increase in
overall RPS from 2020 to 2030. Note that by changing the constituent technology target percentages in 2020 and 2030, job numbers
would shift either higher or lower depending on portfolio distribution and relative job multipliers. In particular, if geothermal, solar, or
solar thermal targets are higher than BAU levels, job generation will increase since these three technologies have the highest job
multipliers among renewable energy technologies. Similar plots are shown in Fig. 4b and c for nuclear power and CCS, respectively. For
example, a 20% (25%) nuclear fraction of overall generation in 2030 with BAU EE is projected to generate 60,000 (140,000) job-years.
Nuclear employment scenarios assume that 2020 nuclear generation meets the “high growth” EIA target of 112 GW in the US in 2020 or
19.2% of overall generation (EIA, 2009). Nuclear numbers are relatively low in our model. Nuclear jobs may be underestimated based on
the nuclear references not including some job categories (design, site work, licensing, oversight, waste management, decontamination,
and decommissioning). The nuclear study (Kenley, 2004) also estimated large indirect and induced job multipliers that were not fully
captured in this report. The CCS employment curves assume CCS achieves 1% of overall generation in 2020. For reference, IEA has set
goals for 20 large-scale demonstration plants for CCS globally by 2020 and 9% of power generation by 2030 under an “emission
stabilization” scenario (IEA, 2009). Currently CCS has a lack of viable demonstration plants and large uncertainties in commercial
viability, technology, and regulatory environment. Unless there are major national initiatives and expansion coupled with rapid
technological progress, we do not expect a high penetration rate of the technology in the next decade. The cumulative job plots for 2009–
2030 are then additive. For example, Fig. 5a shows EE+RPS employment for various RPS targets in 2030. For a 2030 RPS target of 30%
and medium-EE improvement, employment is projected at 4 million, or a similar number of jobs could be achieved with BAU RPS and flat
energy demand. About a half-million job-years are added with the addition of 25% nuclear generation and 10% CCS in 2030, respectively
(Fig. 5b). This scenario would translate to an electricity sector that has 65% of its supply from renewable or low carbon sources. The
addition of learning curves to our model could lead to a decreasing of the jobs dividend over time as real capital costs fall. Many studies
exclude learning curve information beyond a qualitative discussion. The DOE (2008) wind study excludes learning curves from their
economic development model and utilizes a “static model that does not taken into account improvements in industry productivity.” For
solar PV, the European Photo Voltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace (EPIA/Greenpeace 2006) project CIM employment to
decrease by about 25% from 2010 to 2020 due to industry learning and cost reduction. Assuming a flat growth rate for O&M jobs, this
would lead to a 17% lower employment multiplier in 2020. This may provide an upper bound on the total employment reduction from
our projections since solar PV has generally shown a faster learning rate than other RE sources. From a policy perspective, it is
interesting to note that although the construction of turbines, solar panels, or other pieces of equipment can be easily done elsewhere,
the installation of any technology necessarily creates local jobs. While coal and natural gas plants are typically centralized, large
installations and renewable sources can be used for utility scale developments, distributed renewable sources can provide local
“distributed” employment with environmental and financial advantages such as shorter lead times and lower initial cost (Lovins, 1976).
As a result, renewable energy can provide much-needed opportunities for domestic job growth in developing countries. For example,
UNEP's (2009) report on green jobs cites an example of women and youth in Bangladesh getting jobs as solar technicians. These jobs
have the doubly positive effect of both giving the local people jobs, as well as improving the eco-friendliness of the local economies.
Similar job creation has been observed in Kenya where there is a thriving local economy of solar module sales and installation (Jacobson
and Kammen, 2007). This incremental penetration of local economies with renewable sources can often provide a faster path to
economic development and electrification than large-scale fossil fuel power plants. Green jobs can also address the specific concern that
skilled jobs are often sent abroad. According to the American Solar Energy Society green jobs report (ASES, 2008), job growth in the
renewable energy and energy efficiency industries is biased towards technical, scientific, professional, and skilled workers. For example,
wind energy is a reliable job creator for both skilled and unskilled labor, as discussed by the European Wind Energy Association report
(EWEA, 2009). The wind turbines themselves necessitate construction and installation, as well as longer-term maintenance work.
Additionally, the creation of wind farms requires planning, obtaining of permits, and ongoing supervision of the turbines. Thus the wind
industry employs a range of skilled and professional workers, from engineers, to meteorologists, to site managers that is not easily
outsourced. The solar industry similarly employs a range of workers, and the numerous technical skills involved in the creation of solar
PV necessitate skilled labor. To summarize our results, we find that the renewable energy and low carbon sector generates more jobs
than the fossil fuel-based sector per unit of energy delivered (i.e. per GWh generated). Many sectors can contribute to both very low CO2
emissions and significant job creation and a combination of technologies may be necessary to meet GhG emissions targets. A national RPS
of 30% in 2030 coupled with “medium-EE” scenario (0.37% reduction in annual energy growth rate) can generate over 4 million jobyears, and further increasing nuclear generation to 25% and CCS to 10% of total generation in 2030 can generate an additional 500,000
job-years. 7. Conclusion There are three key arguments for building a domestic clean energy industry: improved energy security,
environmental protection and benefits, and as a potential engine for economic growth. Indeed, employment benefits of renewable energy
could go to countries that start early and build strong export markets. Job creation from clean energy can provide an even larger benefit
in developing nations that lack the resources for large centralized power plants. Consistent and long-term policies are a key requirement
for growth of a “green economy” and carbon pricing is essential for long-term technology and policy change. This work provides policy
makers with a framework for understanding various green jobs reports and presents a normalized methodology for comparing
employment impacts for various energy supply sources. We stress that data aggregation of these reports should focus on uniform
methodology of job metrics and definitions, and analysts need to be careful when comparing technologies and to be specific about the
timing and duration of employment. We also present a simple spreadsheet model that policy makers in the US can use to project job
generation over time as a function of varying targets in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and low carbon sources. Such a model can be
easily adopted to other countries or markets, although the job multiplier data is probably most applicable to developed countries. We
find that all renewable energy and low carbon sources generate more jobs than the fossil fuel sector per unit of energy delivered while
the type of employment differs between technologies (e.g. manufacturing vs. resource extraction) and the timing and location of
employment may differ within a given country or geography. This information can be useful for policy makers who are designing long
range energy policies or short-term government programs to provide economic stimulus or incentives for direct employment. Energy
efficiency investment offers a high payoff in induced jobs and is generally the least cost and often the most readily implementable
approach. More energy efficiency can diminish the need for both additional fossil fuel plants and new renewable energy sources. Our
study thus offers additional support for aggressive energy efficiency policies such as reduction of market barriers, improving public
awareness and education, and facilitating EE financing. For areas of future work, a cost benefit analysis of various investments in RE
would be useful, taking into account the cost of carbon as well as environmental, health, and security benefits. Economic modeling to
include full industry-to-industry interactions would bring this work beyond the simple employment model projections presented here.
Our analysis did not disaggregate the location of manufacturing jobs across sectors and this information would be very useful for policy
makers. Important issues include the regional and international distribution of jobs, job-needs assessments and job training programs
across job-types and sectors, manufacturing policies, and financing issues such as subsidies and public/private project financing. More
discussion on the most effective policies to promote green jobs in the context of EE, RE, and low carbon sources should be pursued. An
expanded technology analysis and envelope would include more up to date information on coal and natural gas employment estimates,
further elaboration on CCS costs and employment benefits, and inclusion of “smart grid”, storage, ocean energy and other emerging
technologies. We alluded to the impact of learning rates on employment multipliers but a fuller discussion of time dependencies is clearly
appropriate. For example in addition to industry learning rates, are there any inflection points in capital or labor requirements as RE
grows as a fraction of overall power supply, or are there any trends in the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs? Expansion of this analysis
should include developing nations. We expect similar range of employment numbers in the developed world but there may be material
differences or greater changes over time in the developing world. Some areas that may warrant additional treatment in the developing
world are “informal economy” sectors such as recycling that may lend themselves to bottom up analysis, issues of biomass sustainability,
micro-grids, and distributed power and generation.
Fabrication facilities need to be near the wind farms to reduce costs
Fingersh, 2006
(L., M. Hand, and A. Laxson, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Wind Turbine Design Cost and
Scaling Model) 3.4.2.3 Offshore Transportation
There are two elements of transporting an offshore wind turbine. One element is to get the
turbine components to the port staging and assembly area. The second is to get the
assembled turbine to the installation site. This second of these cost elements is covered in the
offshore installation cost (see Section 3.4.2.5). The cost element in the offshore transportation category (somewhat of a misnomer)
covers only the cost of bringing the components to the assembly site onshore. The costs for 3 to 5 MW turbines show a significant
increase over smaller machines due to the premiums for moving such large structures over the road or by rail to wind farm sites in the
central plains. These costs may be significantly
reduced by locating fabrication facilities close to the
port and staging areas. For the estimates in this model, the scaling formulas developed in the WindPACT studies were used.
These are the same factors as described in Section 3.4.1.19 above. Offshore transportation cost factor $/kW = 1.581E-5 * machine rating
2 - 0.0375 * machine rating + 54.7
Vestas has factories in the Unites States
Natalie 6/30
[Obiko Pearson, 2014, Vestas Wins 450 Megawatts of U.S. Wind-Turbine Orders,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-30/vestas-wins-450-megawatts-of-u-s-wind-turbineorders.html, Natalie Obiko Pearson is a reporter for Bloomberg News in New Delhi]
Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS), the world’s biggest wind-turbine maker, won orders totaling 450 megawatts from Electricite
de France SA’s renewable unit to supply two U.S. wind farms. Vestas will deliver 225 machines to EDF Renewable Energy’s Roosevelt
project in New Mexico and its Slate Creek farm in Kansas, according to a statement on the website of the Aarhus, Denmark-based
manufacturer. Both wind farms are scheduled to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2015, Vestas said. Its factories
in
Colorado will be involved in manufacturing key components, including the nacelles, blades and towers, it
said.
Goldwind increasing investment in US markets
Goossens 12
[Ehren Jan 20, China’s Goldwind Expanding in U.S. as Rivals Cut Back,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/goldwind-buys-two-10-megawatt-montana-windfarms-from-volkswind.html, reporter for Bloomburg News]
Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co., China’s second-largest
wind-turbine maker, indicated it’s
picking up market share in the U.S. as falling prices and expiring subsidies force rivals to pare back. Goldwind
bought two 10-megawatt wind farms in Montana to showcase its equipment and has taken orders in seven other U.S.
states since it started sales in the region in June 2010, according to a company statement released yesterday. The U.S. government
allowed an incentive for the wind industry to expire in December and hasn’t acted to extend a tax credit due to lapse at the end of 2012.
Goldwind’s market share is growing the fastest of the top five companies concentrated on
turbines, Bloomberg New Energy Finance data show. “Goldwind has financed a large-scale
project to prove its turbine viability, and the other Chinese manufacturers haven’t done
that,” Amy Grace, a wind industry analyst for the London- based researcher, said in an interview. “There’s no question that
Goldwind will have more U.S. sales.”
Econ Comp k 2 Hegemony
US economic competitiveness is foundational to US hegemony – security interests and
foreign perception.
DeLeon 2011, Rudy (Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress). “Are we ready?
An independent look at the readiness posture of US forces.” Center for American Progress.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/03/are_we_ready.html/print.html
Meeting the readiness challenges of the next 20 years and creating the financial wherewithal for
these capabilities will not happen if the Department of Defense and Congress maintain
the status quo on managing fiscal resources—both within the defense budget and across
the entire federal budget. In order to reap savings that may be reinvested within defense, and to justify additional
resources for force structure and equipment modernization, the Department of Defense and Congress must work together to
reestablish the tools that restore fiscal responsibility to the budget process—tools that were lost when balanced-budget rules were
abandoned about ten years ago. The Gramm-Rudman budget agreement in 1987, the 1990 budget agreement between President
George H. W. Bush and Congress, and the 1996 budget agreement between President Clinton and Congress that produced a
balanced federal budget by the end of the 1990’s protected the fiscal resources needed for our national security. But these
agreements also demanded sound budget management on the national security side. But it
is not just sound budget
management of our national defense that’s needed. The United States must get its entire
economic house in order. The notion that the economic decline of the United States is
inevitable and irreversible hurts American security—even as U.S. military capabilities
remain dominant. U.S. national security has long rested on the strength of our economy,
but creeping doubts about American economic resiliency feed the foreign perception
that Washington is a declining power. This gives rising global powers little incentive to
heed U.S. calls for greater responsibility, cooperation, and transparency. Instead, it may well
give them more license to discuss “anti-access strategies” and “economic and security
zones of influence”—developments that could conceivably lead to military
miscalculations highly dangerous to our national security. That is why moving forward on
the American economic challenge of creating jobs by promoting economic
competitiveness and innovation while reducing our long-term budget deficits is
extremely important to U.S. security interests. The character of American enterprise and
resourcefulness should not be underestimated, but it requires unified actions by the
United States and effective leadership by U.S. policymakers. The President and Congress need to make
clear that they are up to the task, and then prove it in the coming months. There is no higher national security
priority.
US competitiveness is key to hegemony and independently solves great power war
(Baru 2009)
Sanjaya Baru is a Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School in Singapore Geopolitical Implications of the Current Global Financial Crisis,
Strategic Analysis, Volume 33, Issue 2 March 2009 , pages 163 - 168
Hence, economic policies and
performance do have strategic consequences.2 In the modern era, the idea
that strong economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul
Kennedy. 'Victory (in war)', Kennedy claimed, 'has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base'.3 Drawing
attention to the interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and
the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power
projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to better combine
military and economic strength scored over others. 'The fact remains', Kennedy argued, 'that all of the major
shifts in the world's military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive
balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the international system has
been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great Power wars, where victory has always
gone to the side with the greatest material resources'.4 In Kennedy's view, the geopolitical
consequences of an economic crisis, or even decline, would be transmitted through a nation's
inability to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously sustain economic growth
and military power, the classic 'guns versus butter' dilemma.
Hege Solves War
US hegemony deters great power conflicts – history proves.
Zhang and Shi 11
[Yuhan, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C. *** AND*** Lin, Columbia University. She also
serves as an independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant for the World Bank in Washington, D.C. “America’s decline: A
harbinger of conflict and rivalry” http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/]
Over the past two decades, no other state has had
the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under
these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with
US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute
great power conflicts. However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers,
so will the pulling power behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order
where power is more diffuse, American interests and influence can be more readily
challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid. As history attests, power decline and
redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late 19th century
America’s emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest
towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British power, the
American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion would eventually see the US attain
the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international
system with democracy and rule of law. Defining this US-centred
system are three key characteristics:
enforcement of property rights, constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and
groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such
political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have
appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative
relations. However, what will happen to these advances as America’s influence declines? Given that
America’s authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America,
Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the
answer to this question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way. Public
imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems of the
1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral
institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations. For
example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washington’s withering leadership to pursue their
own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free
markets would become more politicised — and,
major powers would compete for supremacy. Additionally, such power plays
have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s, US economic
well, less free — and
power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the US dollar also becoming less
attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did
international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods
world without American hegemony is one where great power wars reemerge, the liberal international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade
protectionism devolves into restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility
we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.
System in 1973). A
Best data proves that hegemony solves proximate causes of war.
(Owen 11)
John M. (Professor of Politics at University of Virginia, PhD from Harvard University). “Don’t
Discount Hegemony.” February 11, 2011. www.cato-unbound.org/2011/02/11/john-owen/dontdiscount-hegemony/
Andrew Mack and his colleagues at
the Human Security Report Project are to be congratulated. Not only do
a study with a striking conclusion, driven by data, free of theoretical or
ideological bias, but they also do something quite unfashionable: they bear good news. Social scientists
they present
really are not supposed to do that. Our job is, if not to be Malthusians, then at least to point out disturbing trends, looming catastrophes,
and the imbecility and mendacity of policy makers. And then it is to say why, if people listen to us, things will get better. We do this as if
our careers depended upon it, and perhaps they do; for if all is going to be well, what need then for us? Our colleagues at Simon Fraser
University are brave indeed. That may sound like a setup, but it is not. I shall challenge
neither the data nor the
general conclusion that violent conflict around the world has been decreasing in fits and
starts since the Second World War. When it comes to violent conflict among and within
countries, things have been getting better. (The trends have not been linear—Figure 1.1 actually shows that the
frequency of interstate wars peaked in the 1980s—but the 65-year movement is clear.) Instead I
shall accept that Mack et al. are correct on the macro-trends, and focus on their explanations they
advance for these remarkable trends. With apologies to any readers of this forum who recoil from academic debates,
this might get mildly theoretical and even more mildly methodological. Concerning international wars, one version of the “ nuclearpeace” theory is not in fact laid to rest by the data. It is certainly true that nuclear-armed states have been involved in
many wars. They have even been attacked (think of Israel), which falsifies the simple claim of “assured destruction”—that any nuclear
country A will deter any kind of attack by any country B because B fears a retaliatory nuclear strike from A. But the most
important “nuclear-peace” claim has been about mutually assured destruction, which obtains
between two robustly nuclear-armed states. The claim is that (1) rational states having secondstrike capabilities—enough deliverable nuclear weaponry to survive a nuclear first strike by an enemy—will have an
overwhelming incentive not to attack one another; and (2) we can safely assume that nuclear-armed
states are rational. It follows that states with a second-strike capability will not fight one another. Their colossal atomic arsenals
neither kept the United States at peace with North Vietnam during the Cold War nor the Soviet Union at peace with Afghanistan. But the
argument remains strong that those arsenals did help keep the
United States and Soviet Union at peace with
each other. Why non-nuclear states are not deterred from fighting nuclear states is an important and open question. But in a time
when calls to ban the Bomb are being heard from more and more quarters, we must be clear about precisely what the broad trends
toward peace can and cannot tell us. They may tell us nothing about why we have had no World War III, and little about the wisdom of
banning the Bomb now. Regarding
the downward trend in international war, Professor Mack is
friendlier to more palatable theories such as the “democratic peace” (democracies do not fight one another, and
the proportion of democracies has increased, hence less war); the interdependence or “commercial peace” (states
with extensive economic ties find it irrational to fight one another, and interdependence has increased, hence less war); and the notion
that people around the world are more anti-war than their forebears were. Concerning the
downward trend in civil wars, he favors theories of economic growth (where commerce is enriching enough
people, violence is less appealing—a logic similar to that of the “commercial peace” thesis that applies among nations) and the end
of the Cold War (which end reduced superpower support for rival rebel factions in so many Third-World countries). These are all
plausible mechanisms for peace. What is more, none of them excludes any other; all could be working toward the same end. That would
be somewhat puzzling, however. Is the world just lucky these days? How is it
that an array of peace-inducing
factors happens to be working coincidentally in our time, when such a magical array was absent in the past?
The answer may be that one or more of these mechanisms reinforces some of the others, or perhaps some
of them are mutually reinforcing. Some scholars, for example, have been focusing on whether economic growth might support democracy
and vice versa, and whether both might support international cooperation, including to end civil wars. We would still need to explain
how this charmed circle of causes got started, however. And here let me raise another factor, perhaps even less appealing than the
“nuclear peace” thesis, at least outside of the United States. That factor is what international relations scholars call hegemony—
specifically American hegemony. A theory
that many regard as discredited, but that refuses to go away, is called
hegemonic stability theory. The theory emerged in the 1970s in the realm of international political economy. It asserts
that for the global economy to remain open—for countries to keep barriers to trade and investment low—one
powerful country must take the lead. Depending on the theorist we consult, “taking the lead” entails paying
for global public goods (keeping the sea lanes open, providing liquidity to the international economy),
coercion (threatening to raise trade barriers or withdraw military protection from countries that
cheat on the rules), or both. The theory is skeptical that international cooperation in economic matters can
emerge or endure absent a hegemon. The distastefulness of such claims is self-evident: they imply that it is good for
everyone the world over if one country has more wealth and power than others. More precisely, they imply that it has been good for the
world that the United States has been so predominant. There is no obvious reason why hegemonic stability theory could not apply to
other areas of international cooperation, including in security affairs, human rights, international law, peacekeeping (UN or otherwise),
and so on. What I want to suggest here—suggest, not test—is that American
hegemony might just be a deep cause
of the steady decline of political deaths in the world. How could that be? After all, the report states that United
States is the third most war-prone country since 1945. Many of the deaths depicted in Figure 10.4 were in wars that involved the United
States (the Vietnam War being the leading one). Notwithstanding politicians’ claims to the contrary, a candid look at U.S. foreign policy
reveals that the
country is as ruthlessly self-interested as any other great power in history. The
answer is that U.S. hegemony might just be a deeper cause of the proximate causes outlined by
Professor Mack. Consider economic growth and openness to foreign trade and investment, which (so
say some theories) render violence irrational. American power and policies may be responsible for
these in two related ways. First, at least since the 1940s Washington has prodded other countries
to embrace the market capitalism that entails economic openness and produces sustainable economic growth. The United
States promotes capitalism for selfish reasons, of course: its own domestic system depends upon growth, which in turn depends upon the
efficiency gains from economic interaction with foreign countries, and the more the better. During the Cold War most of its allies
accepted some degree of market-driven growth. Second, the U.S.-led
western victory in the Cold War damaged
the credibility of alternative paths to development—communism and import-substituting industrialization being
the two leading ones—and left market capitalism the best model. The end of the Cold War also involved an end to the
billions of rubles in Soviet material support for regimes that tried to make these alternative models work. (It also, as Professor Mack
notes, eliminated the superpowers’ incentives to feed civil violence in the Third World.) What we call globalization
is caused
emergence of the United States as the global hegemon. The same case can be made,
with somewhat more difficulty, concerning the spread of democracy. Washington has supported democracy only under
in part by the
certain conditions—the chief one being the absence of a popular anti-American movement in the target state—but those conditions have
become much more widespread following the collapse of communism. Thus in the 1980s the Reagan administration—the most anticommunist government America ever had—began to dump America’s old dictator friends, starting in the Philippines. Today Islamists
tend to be anti-American, and so the Obama administration is skittish about democracy in Egypt and other authoritarian Muslim
countries. But general U.S. material and
moral support for liberal democracy remains strong.
Hegemony is the key to global security and transnational cooperation – powerful
actors get things done
Beckley, ’11 [Michael Beckley is a research fellow in the International Security Program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs. He will become an assistant professor of political science at Tufts University in the fall of 2012.
“China’s Century?”. International Security, Winter 2011/12, Vol. 36, No. 3, Pages 41-78. December 28 2011.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00066]
The other potential reaction is retrenchment—the divestment of all foreign policy obligations save those linked to vital interests, defined
in a narrow and national manner. Advocates of retrenchment assume, or hope, that the world will sort itself out on its own; that
whatever replaces American hegemony, whether it be a return to balance of power politics or a transition to a postpower paradise, will
naturally maintain international order and prosperity. Order and prosperity, however, are
unnatural. They can
never be presumed. When achieved, they are the result of determined action by powerful
actors and, in particular, by the most powerful actor, which is, and will be for some time, the United
States. Arms buildups, insecure sea-lanes, and closed markets are only the most obvious
risks of U.S. retrenchment. Less obvious are transnational problems, such as global warming,
water scarcity, and disease, which may fester without a leader to rally collective action.
Hegemony, of course, carries its own risks and costs. In particular, America’s global military presence might tempt policymakers to use
force when they should choose diplomacy or inaction. If the
United States abuses its power, however, it is not
because it is too engaged with the world, but because its engagement lacks strategic vision.
The solution is better strategy, not retrenchment. The first step toward sound strategy is to
recognize that the status quo for the United States is pretty good: it does not face a hegemonic rival, and
the trends favor continued U.S. dominance. The overarching goal of American foreign policy should be to
preserve this state of affairs. Declinists claim the United States should “adopt a neomercantilist international economic
policy” and “disengage from current alliance commitments in East Asia and Europe.” 161 But the fact that the United States
rose relative to China while propping up the world economy and maintaining a hegemonic
presence abroad casts doubt on the wisdom of such calls for radical policy change.
Hegemony solves war – The United states maintains control
Kagan 11 – Robert, Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution (January 24, 2011,
“The Price of Power,” http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/pricepower_533696.html?page=3)
Others have. For decades “realist” analysts have called for a strategy of “offshore balancing.” Instead of the United States
providing security in East Asia and the Persian Gulf, it would withdraw its forces from Japan, South Korea, and the Middle East and let the nations in those
regions balance one another. If the balance broke down and war erupted, the United States would then intervene militarily until balance was restored. In the
Middle East and Persian Gulf, for instance, Christopher Layne
has long proposed “passing the mantle of regional stabilizer”
to a consortium of “Russia, China, Iran, and India.” In East Asia offshore balancing would mean letting China, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and others manage their own problems, without U.S. involvement—again, until the balance broke down and war erupted, at which point the
United States would provide assistance to restore the balance and then, if necessary, intervene with its own forces to restore peace and stability. Before
examining whether this would be a wise strategy, it is important to understand that this really is the only genuine alternative to the one the United States has
pursued for the past 65 years. To their credit, Layne and others who support the concept of offshore balancing have eschewed halfway measures and airy
assurances that we can do more with less, which are likely recipes for disaster. They recognize that either the United States is actively involved in providing
security and stability in regions beyond the Western Hemisphere, which means maintaining a robust presence in those regions, or it is not. Layne and others
are frank in calling for an end to the global security strategy developed in the aftermath of World War II, perpetuated through the Cold War, and continued
by four successive post-Cold War administrations. At the same time, it
is not surprising that none of those administrations
embraced offshore balancing as a strategy. The idea of relying on Russia, China, and Iran to jointly
“stabilize” the Middle East and Persian Gulf will not strike many as an attractive proposition. Nor is U.S.
withdrawal from East Asia and the Pacific likely to have a stabilizing effect on that region. The prospects
of a war on the Korean Peninsula would increase. Japan and other nations in the region would face the
choice of succumbing to Chinese hegemony or taking unilateral steps for self-defense, which in Japan’s
case would mean the rapid creation of a formidable nuclear arsenal. Layne and other offshore balancing enthusiasts, like
John Mearsheimer, point to two notable occasions when the United States allegedly practiced this strategy. One was the Iran-Iraq war, where the United
States supported Iraq for years against Iran in the hope that the two would balance and weaken each other. The other was American policy in the 1920s and
1930s, when the United States allowed the great European powers to balance one another, occasionally providing economic aid, or military aid, as in the
Lend-Lease program of assistance to Great Britain once war broke out. Whether this was really American strategy in that era is open for debate—most
would argue the United States in this era was trying to stay out of war not as part of a considered strategic judgment but as an end in itself. E ven
if the
United States had been pursuing offshore balancing in the first decades of the 20th century, however,
would we really call that strategy a success? The United States wound up intervening with millions of
troops, first in Europe, and then in Asia and Europe simultaneously, in the two most dreadful wars in
human history. It was with the memory of those two wars in mind, and in the belief that American strategy in those
interwar years had been mistaken, that American statesmen during and after World War II determined on the new
global strategy that the United States has pursued ever since. Under Franklin Roosevelt, and then under the leadership of
Harry Truman and Dean Acheson, American leaders determined that the safest course was to build “situations of
strength” (Acheson’s phrase) in strategic locations around the world, to build a “preponderance of power,” and
to create an international system with American power at its center. They left substantial numbers of troops in East Asia
and in Europe and built a globe-girdling system of naval and air bases to enable the rapid projection of force to strategically important parts of the world.
They did not do this on a lark or out of a yearning for global dominion. They
simply rejected the offshore balancing strategy, and
they did so because they believed it had led to great, destructive wars in the past and would likely do so
again. They believed their new global strategy was more likely to deter major war and therefore be less
destructive and less expensive in the long run. Subsequent administrations, from both parties and with often differing perspectives
on the proper course in many areas of foreign policy, have all agreed on this core strategic approach. From the beginning this strategy was assailed as too
ambitious and too expensive. At the dawn of the Cold War, Walter Lippmann railed against Truman’s containment strategy as suffering from an
unsustainable gap between ends and means that would bankrupt the United States and exhaust its power. Decades later ,
in the waning years of
the Cold War, Paul Kennedy warned of “imperial overstretch,” arguing that American decline was inevitable “if the trends in
national indebtedness, low productivity increases, [etc.]” were allowed to continue at the same time as “massive American commitments of men, money and
materials are made in different parts of the globe.” Today, we
are once again being told that this global strategy needs to
give way to a more restrained and modest approach, even though the indebtedness crisis that we face in
coming years is not caused by the present, largely successful global strategy. Of course it is precisely the success of that
strategy that is taken for granted. The enormous benefits that this strategy has provided, including the financial
benefits, somehow never appear on the ledger. They should. We might begin by asking about the global security order that the United
States has sustained since Word War II—the prevention of major war, the support of an open trading system, and
promotion of the liberal principles of free markets and free government. How much is that order worth? What would be
the cost of its collapse or transformation into another type of order? Whatever the nature of the current economic difficulties,
the past six decades have seen a greater increase in global prosperity than any time in human history.
Hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. Once-backward nations have become economic
dynamos. And the American economy, though suffering ups and downs throughout this period, has on
the whole benefited immensely from this international order. One price of this success has been maintaining a sufficient
military capacity to provide the essential security underpinnings of this order. But has the price not been worth it? In the first half of the 20th century, the
United States found itself engaged in two world wars. In the second half, this
global American strategy helped produce a peaceful
end to the great-power struggle of the Cold War and then 20 more years of great-power peace. Looked
at coldly, simply in terms of dollars and cents, the benefits of that strategy far outweigh the costs. The
danger, as always, is that we don’t even realize the benefits our strategic choices have provided. Many assume
that the world has simply become more peaceful, that great-power conflict has become impossible, that
nations have learned that military force has little utility, that economic power is what counts. This belief in
progress and the perfectibility of humankind and the institutions of international order is always alluring to Americans and Europeans and other children of
the Enlightenment. It was the prevalent belief in the decade before World War I, in the first years after World War II, and in those heady days after the Cold
War when people spoke of the “end of history.”
It is always tempting to believe that the international order the United
States built and sustained with its power can exist in the absence of that power, or at least with much
less of it. This is the hidden assumption of those who call for a change in American strategy: that the
United States can stop playing its role and yet all the benefits that came from that role will keep pouring
in. This is a great if recurring illusion, the idea that you can pull a leg out from under a table and the table
will not fall over.
Hegemony stops great power wars and creates global stability
Kagan, Senior Fellow at Brookings, 3-14-’12 (Robert, “America has made the world freer, safer
and wealthier” CNN, http://us.cnn.com/2012/03/14/opinion/kagan-world-americamade/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
We take a lot for granted about the way the world looks today -- the widespread freedom, the unprecedented global
prosperity (even despite the current economic crisis), and the absence of war among great powers. In 1941 there were only a
dozen democracies in the world. Today there are more than 100. For four centuries prior to 1950, global GDP rose by less than 1 percent a year. Since 1950 it has risen by an average
of 4 percent a year, and billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. The first half of the 20th century saw the two most destructive wars in the history of mankind, and in prior
for the past 60 years no great powers have gone to war. This
is the world America made when it assumed global leadership after World War II. Would this
world order survive if America declined as a great power? Some American intellectuals insist that a
"Post-American" world need not look very different from the American world and that all we
need to do is "manage" American decline. But that is wishful thinking. If the balance of
power shifts in the direction of other powers, the world order will inevitably change to suit
their interests and preferences. Take the issue of democracy. For several decades, the balance of power in the world has favored democratic
governments. In a genuinely post-American world, the balance would shift toward the great power
centuries war among great powers was almost constant. But
autocracies. Both China and Russia already protect dictators like Syria's Bashar al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence in
the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to
power. What about the free market, free trade economic order? People assume China and other rising powers that have benefited so much from the present system would have
a stake in preserving it. They wouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. But China's form of capitalism is heavily dominated by the state, with the ultimate goal being
Although the Chinese have been beneficiaries of an open international
economic order, they could end up undermining it simply because, as an autocratic society, their priority
is to preserve the state's control of wealth and the power it brings. They might kill the goose because they can't figure
out how to keep both it and themselves alive. Finally, what about the long peace that has held among the great powers for the better part of six decades? Many people
imagine that American predominance will be replaced by some kind of multipolar harmony.
But multipolar systems have historically been neither stable nor peaceful. War among the
great powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the long periods of multipolarity
in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The 19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four decades each,
punctuated, however, by major wars among great powers and culminating in World War I, the most destructive and deadly war mankind had known up to that point. The era
of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace
than certainty about who holds the upper hand. Many people view the present international
order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy,
preservation of the ruling party.
strengthening international institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior, and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government --
there was nothing inevitable about the world that was
created after World War II. International order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is
the domination of one vision over others -- in America's case, the domination of liberal free
market principles of economics, democratic principles of politics, and a peaceful
international system that supports these, over other visions that other nations and peoples
may have. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it. If and when American
power declines, the institutions and norms American power has supported will decline, too. Or
they may collapse altogether as we transition into another kind of world order, or into
disorder. We may discover then that the United States was essential to keeping the present
world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and
harmony but chaos and catastrophe -- which was what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.
forces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations. But
Hegemony is a good thing – It protects democracy
Kagan 12, Robert, senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution [“Why the World
Needs America,” February 11th,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213262856669448.html]
With the outbreak of World War I, the age of settled peace and advancing liberalism—of European civilization approaching its pinnacle—
collapsed into an age of hyper-nationalism, despotism and economic calamity. The once-promising spread of democracy and liberalism
halted and then reversed course, leaving a handful of outnumbered and besieged democracies living nervously in the shadow of fascist
and totalitarian neighbors. The collapse
of the British and European orders in the 20th century did not produce a new dark
age—though if Nazi Germany and imperial Japan had prevailed, it might have—but the horrific conflict that it produced was, in its
own way, just as devastating. Would the end of the present American-dominated order have less dire consequences? A surprising
number of American intellectuals, politicians and policy makers greet the prospect with equanimity. There is a general sense that the end
of the era of American pre-eminence, if and when it comes, need not mean the end of the present international order, with its widespread
freedom, unprecedented global prosperity (even amid the current economic crisis) and absence of war among the great powers.
American power may diminish, the political scientist G. John Ikenberry argues, but "the underlying foundations of the liberal
international order will survive and thrive." The commentator Fareed Zakaria believes that even as the balance shifts
against the U.S., rising powers like China "will continue to live within the framework of the current international system."
And there are elements across the political spectrum—Republicans who call for retrenchment, Democrats who put their faith in
international law and institutions—who don't imagine that a "post-American world" would look very different from the American world.
If all of this sounds
too good to be true, it is. The present world order was largely shaped by American power
and reflects American interests and preferences. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other nations, the world order
will change to suit their interests and preferences. Nor can we assume that all the great powers in a post-American
world would agree on the benefits of preserving the present order, or have the capacity to preserve it,
even if they wanted to. Take the issue of democracy. For several decades, the balance of power in the world has favored democratic
governments. In a genuinely post-American world, the
balance would shift toward the great-power autocracies. Both
Beijing and Moscow already protect dictators like Syria's Bashar al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence
in the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to power. The balance in a
new, multipolar world might be more favorable to democracy if some of the rising democracies—Brazil, India, Turkey, South Africa—
picked up the slack from a declining U.S. Yet not all of them have the desire or the capacity to do it. What about the economic order of free
markets and free trade? People assume that China and other rising powers that have benefited so much from the present system would
have a stake in preserving it. They wouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Unfortunately, they might not be able to help
themselves. The creation and survival of a liberal economic order has depended, historically, on great powers that are both
willing and able to support open trade and free markets, often with naval power. If a declining America is unable to maintain
its long-standing hegemony on the high seas, would other nations take on the burdens and the expense of sustaining navies to fill in the
gaps? Even if they did, would this produce an open global commons—or rising tension? China and India are building bigger navies, but
the result so far has been greater competition, not greater security. As Mohan Malik has noted in this newspaper, their "maritime rivalry
could spill into the open in a decade or two," when India deploys an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean and China deploys one in the
Indian Ocean. The move from American-dominated oceans to collective policing by several great powers could be a recipe for
competition and conflict rather than for a liberal economic order. And do the Chinese really value an open economic system? The Chinese
economy soon may become the largest in the world, but it will be far from the richest. Its size is a product of the country's enormous
population, but in per capita terms, China remains relatively poor. The U.S., Germany and Japan have a per capita GDP of over $40,000.
China's is a little over $4,000, putting it at the same level as Angola, Algeria and Belize. Even if optimistic forecasts are correct, China's per
capita GDP by 2030 would still only be half that of the U.S., putting it roughly where Slovenia and Greece are today. Although the
Chinese have been beneficiaries of an open international economic order, they could end up undermining it simply
because, as an autocratic society, their priority is to preserve the state's control of wealth and the power that it
brings. They might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs because they can't figure out how to keep both it
and themselves alive. Finally, what about the long peace that has held among the great powers for the better part of six decades?
Would it survive in a post-American world? Most commentators who welcome this scenario imagine that American
predominance would be replaced by some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have historically
been neither particularly stable nor particularly peaceful. Rough parity among powerful nations is a source of uncertainty that
leads to miscalculation. Conflicts erupt as a result of fluctuations in the delicate power equation. War among the great
powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the long periods of multipolarity from the 16th to the 18th
centuries, culminating in the series of enormously destructive Europe-wide wars that followed the French Revolution and ended with
Napoleon's defeat in 1815. The 19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four decades each,
punctuated by major conflicts. The Crimean War (1853-1856) was a mini-world war involving well over a million Russian, French,
British and Turkish troops, as well as forces from nine other nations; it produced almost a half-million dead combatants and many more
wounded. In the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), the two nations together fielded close to two million troops, of whom nearly a halfmillion were killed or wounded. The peace that followed these conflicts was characterized by increasing tension and competition,
numerous war scares and massive increases in armaments on both land and sea. Its climax was World War I, the most destructive and
deadly conflict that mankind had known up to that point. As the political scientist Robert W. Tucker has observed, "Such stability and
moderation as the balance brought rested ultimately on the threat or use of force. War remained the essential means for maintaining the
balance of power." There is little reason to believe that a return to multipolarity in the 21st century would bring greater peace and
stability than it has in the past. The era of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe
for great-power
peace than certainty about who holds the upper hand. President Bill Clinton left office believing that the key
task for America was to "create the world we would like to live in when we are no longer the world's only superpower," to prepare for "a
time when we would have to share the stage." It is an eminently sensible-sounding proposal. But can it be done? For particularly in
matters of security, the rules and institutions of international order rarely survive the decline of the nations
that
erected them. They are like scaffolding around a building: They don't hold the building up; the building holds
them up. Many foreign-policy experts see the present international order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of
advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening international institutions, evolving "norms" of
international behavior and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government—forces of change
that transcend the actions of men and nations. Americans certainly like to believe that our preferred order survives because it is right
and just—not only for us but for everyone. We assume that the triumph of democracy is the triumph of a better idea, and the victory of
market capitalism is the victory of a better system, and that both are irreversible. That is why Francis Fukuyama's thesis about "the end
of history" was so attractive at the end of the Cold War and retains its appeal even now, after it has been discredited by events. The idea
of inevitable evolution means that there is no requirement to impose a decent order. It will merely happen. But international order is not
an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others—in America's case, the domination of free-market and
democratic principles, together with an international system that supports them. The present order will last only as long as those who
favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it. There was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after
World War II. No divine providence or unfolding Hegelian dialectic required the triumph of democracy and capitalism, and there is no
guarantee that their success will outlast the powerful nations that have fought for them. Democratic progress and liberal economics
have been and can be reversed and undone. The ancient democracies of Greece and the republics of Rome and Venice all fell to
more powerful forces or through their own failings. The evolving liberal economic order of Europe collapsed in the 1920s and 1930s. The
better idea doesn't have to win just because it is a better idea. It requires great powers to champion it. If and when American power
declines, the institutions and norms that American power has supported will decline, too. Or more likely, if history is a
guide, they may collapse altogether as we make a transition to another kind of world order, or to disorder. We may discover
then that the U.S. was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power
was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe—which is what the world looked like right before the American
order came into being.
At: Hege bad- pursuit inevitable
US interventionism is inevitable – elites will cling to hegemony.
Calleo 9 – David P. Calleo (University Professor at The Johns Hopkins University and Dean Acheson Professor at its Nitze School of
Advanced International Studies (SAIS)) 2009 p. 4-5
It is tempting to believe that America’s recent misadventures will discredit and suppress
our hegemonic longings and that, following the presidential election of 2008, a new administration will
abandon them. But so long as our identity as a nation is intimately bound up with seeing
ourselves as the world’s most powerful country, at the heart of a global system, hegemony is likely
to remain the recurring obsession of our official imagination, the id´ee fixe of our foreign policy.
America’s hegemonic ambitions have, after all, suffered severe setbacks before. Less than half a
century has passed since the “lesson of Vietnam.” But that lesson faded without forcing us to
abandon the old fantasies of omnipotence. The fantasies merely went into remission, until
the fall of the Soviet Union provided an irresistible occasion for their return. Arguably, in its collapse, the Soviet Union proved to be
a greater danger to America’s own equilibrium than in its heyday. Dysfunctional imaginations are
scarcely a
rarity – among individuals or among nations. “Reality” is never a clear picture that imposes itself from
without. Imaginations need to collaborate. They synthesize old and new images, concepts, and ideas
and fuse language with emotions – all according to the inner grammar of our minds. These synthetic constructions become
our reality, our way of depicting the world in which we live. Inevitably, our imaginations present us with
only a partial picture. As Walter Lippmann once put it, our imaginations create a “pseudo-environment between ourselves and the
world.”2
No impact turns – pursuit of hegemony is inevitable.
(Edelman 10)
Eric S (PhD in Diplomatic History from Yale, Foreign Ambassador). “Understanding America’s Contested Primacy.” Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments.
Most observers, including critics of US primacy, have tended to see continuity in US policy across the George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and
George W. Bush Administrations. Some have noted that the current administration also seems committed to US primacy. With
three
consecutive presidencies committed to a strategy of continued United States primacy it was
not surprising that candidate Barack Obama issued a similar call for “renewing American leadership.” “Today,” he
wrote in the summer of 2007, the United States is “again called to provide visionary leadership.” Candidate Obama suggested that “the
American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America’s great
promise and historic purpose in the world.”38 In office, however, there appears to be more of a debate within the administration
about American decline and its implications for the country’s foreign and national security policies. Some have
suggested
that accommodation to decline is implicit in the Administration’s flirtation with a policy of
“strategic reassurance” to China and broader accommodation to decline. As two observers
recently noted, President Obama’s “foreign policy strategy is to reposition America for the postAmerican world. Understanding that the United States’ brief moment of global dominance has
come and gone, he aims to ensure America gets its way by forging tactical alliances. He will work
with China on the global economy, with Russia on nuclear disarmament, and with anyone else who can help serve the US’s interest.” It
is too early to make a definitive judgment of how the present administration will address the
issue of US primacy and if the above description is an accurate portrayal of the administration’s aims, but history would
suggest that the argument for continued US leadership will prevail. The administration’s avoidance of
any public description of its policies in these terms, the controversy associated with strategic reassurance to China, and the president’s
noticeable avoidance of the term during his November 2009 trip to China are all consistent with that view.39 The
debate over
primacy is not a partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have been divided over the issue of whether and how to
maintain America’s primacy in the international system. As the country contends with a rising China, the increased economic clout of the
other so-called BRIC countries, and the prospect of a multipolar world these debates will undoubtedly continue. One
factor that
will shape the debate is the willingness of the American people to support the policy and pay
the attendant costs of continued predominance. Some believe that the American public, exhausted by eight years
of military exertion in Iraq and Afghanistan, and focused by the Great Recession on job creation and health care, may be willing to
accommodate US policy to other rising powers and forego a policy of global primacy. There is no doubt that these factors have shaped the
recent public perception of America’s role in the world. Poll data has long shown that, when asked for their view, Americans will express
a preference for acting in concert with other nations in the international arena. There
has also, however, been consistent
public support for US leadership in global affairs and as Samuel Huntington suggested in the
late 1980’s there may have been an electoral penalty for the perception that the Carter
Administration was accommodating itself to American decline. American society, because of its
heavy emphasis on individual achievement and its relatively free-wheeling market economy, is much more competitive
than European social welfare states. Although that may change over time, for the moment it seems
likely that when faced with choices about decline Americans are likely to opt for continued
leadership. That certainly is the lesson of the post-Cold War period.40
Offshore wind increases economic growth- it creates manufacturing and distribution
jobs, and increases exports
N’dolo 10 – associate principal @ Camoin Associates
(Michael and Bruce Bailey, “Offshore development can yield economic benefits,” North American
Wind Power, Fall 2010)
Wind power is a job-creation engine . According to the American Wind Energy Association, the wind industry
supported over 85,000 jobs in 2009 alone. Most of these jobs were in manufacturing, an area of the
U.S. labor force that has
been declining rapidly for years. The wind energy industry represents a significant
opportunity for turning this decline around .¶ Although wind power industry clusters exist in North America, there
are many
specifics to offshore wind that differentiate it from its onshore cousin.
Requirements such as installation vessels, unique turbine components, specialized
research focus, and professional and technical experience are not yet present in the
North American workforce skill set. All of these unique requirements represent an
economic opportunity for job creation, ranging from research, design and
manufacturing to operations and maintenance.¶ Vessels. Highly specialized installation vessels must
be built, operated, repaired and docked during the off-season. The newest generation of such vessels
under development in Europe can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to construct and can require a small army of
workers in ports with sufficient ship-building capacity. In addition, other smaller
vessels are necessary for ongoing maintenance and repair operations.¶ The Jones Act
requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports are carried in U.S.-flagged ships that are
constructed in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by ¶ permanent residents of the U.S. Although some developers have been
successful in requesting an exception, allowing them to use foreign vessels, the Jones Act creates a significant barrier for off-shore
developers. Investing
and developing a domestic vessel industry to serve the offshore
market would significantly increase the attractiveness of a region to offshore
developers and investors, in addition to creating jobs to support the new industry.¶
Components. Offshore components tend to he larger and bulkier. Certain components are either unique to
(foundations) or modified for (hermetically sealed nacelles, seaworthy substations, nacelle-mounted or substation-mounted helicopter
pads for maintenance, and corrosion-resistant materials) offshore use. One
of the largest portions of the
installed cost of a typical offshore wind farm is directly attributable to the
manufacturing and pro-assembly of turbine and foundation components. In regions where a
high level of wind component manufacturing currently exists, there is significant opportunity tor creating
offshore wind component manufacturing clusters.¶ Installation. Turbines and foundations
must be assembled in a staging area, loaded onto a vessel and installed. There are limitations
on the ability of any one state or province to service both coasts, but it is reasonable to assume, for example, that an installation
cluster in the Mid-Atlantic region of the¶ U.S. could provide installation capacity for a
number of projects on the East Coast.
Manufacturing K 2 Econ
US manufacturing critical to economic stability, innovation, security, and the job
sector
Kurfess 13
(Tom, an ASME Fellow. is a professor of mechanical engineering at 6eorgia Institute of Technology. Before that
he was assistant director for advanced manufacturing at the White House Office of Science and technology policy, “Why Manufacturing
Matters”, ASME, EBSCO, Date accessed 6/29/14)
Services make up nearly two-thirds of the U.S. economy. Manufacturing accounts for only 12 percent. For many
decades,
economists looking at this disparity argued that manufacturing played a minor role in the modern
economy, and that $1 billion generated by ware housing, transportation, and retailing produced the same economic benefits as $1
billion in production. They were wrong. Over the past decade, more and more economists have
confirmed that manufacturing is indeed different from services. It is essential to innovation, and tightly
linked to our nations economic health and national security. First, while manufacturing might be a
small component of the U.S. economy, its output still came to $1.9 trillion in 2012, and by itself would have
made the worlds tenth largest economy. The US manufacturing sector was larger than the
total economies of lndia, Canada, Mexico, or South Korea. The United States was the world’s leading producer
of manufactured goods from 1895 through 2009. Although some experts estimate that Chinese output surpassed that of the U.S. in 2012.
the United States remains the world’s largest advanced technology producer. Manufactured goods constituted 86 percent of all US
exports in 2010. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, every
dollar spent in manufacturing generates
$1.48 in economic activity more than any other major economic sector. Also, improvements in
productivity have leveraged the productive power of the American worker, enabling more manufacturing output per person. It is true
that manufacturing employment has declined significantly since the start of the century, but the
sector still employs 12
million workers, just under 9 percent of total U.S. employment. It also supports nonmanufacturing jobs up and down the supply chain, from mining to warehousing. as well as engineering, financial,
and legal services. Manufacturing is also necessary to support national and homeland security
According to the Department of Defense, for instance, in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, “In the mid-tolong term, it is imperative that we have a robust industrial base with sufficient manufacturing
capability and capacity to preserve our technological edge afld provide for the reset and recapitalization of
our force7 These arguments about the importance of manufacturing are important and well known. But what has changed the minds of
many economists over the past decade is that manufacturing plays an essential role in innovation. While manufacturing is only 12
percent of the U.S. economy, it accounts for two-thirds of all private spending on R&D. While it provides only 9 per cent of ILS. jobs. it
employs one out of three engineers. Fully 60 percent of royalties from licensing intellectual property go to manufacturing firms.
Manufacturing is the engine that drives US, innovation. It transforms laboratory research
into new products and production processes that generate profits and make the world a
better place, It creates new and vital industries, ranging from computers and wireless to biotechnology and solar
power. As engineers and manufacturers develop new technologies, they build the capabilities
to extend and innovate in new fields. Those innovations give manufacturers the
performance or cost edge they need to compete in a crowded international marketplace.
Continued decline of the manufacturing sector eliminates the chance for robust
economic growth
Walter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram,
Ram Power, L.L.C., September 2010, “Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States,
Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL),
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014
The nation is also recovering from the most significant economic downturn since the Great
Depression. Economists are raising concerns about a return to economic slowdown (gross
domestic product [GDP] growth fell from 3.7% in the first quarter of 2010 to 2.4% in the second
quarter of 2010) and the prospect of a jobless recovery (as of this writing, the unemployment rate
is at 9.5%, down just 0.6 percentage points from its high of 10.1% in October 2009; see Bureau of
Economic Analysis 2010; Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010). In addition, the U.S. manufacturing
sector, traditionally a source of economic strength, has been buffeted by the outsourcing of
production operations overseas and, more recently, the recession. Data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics show that the manufacturing industry as a whole lost more than 4.1 million jobs
between 1998 and 2008 and suggest that the sector will lose an additional 1.2 million jobs by 2018.
A continued decline in manufacturing activity will likely increase our nation’s trade deficit;
eliminate stable, high-wage jobs for skilled domestic workers; and generally reduce the
potential for robust economic growth.
Tech innovation k 2 econ
Innovation is key to growth and prosperity, lack of innovation puts the nation at risk
of decline
Levinson 2/11, Levinson, Marc, economist, historian, author and journalist with a long track
record of writing and speaking about economic and business issues. "The Rise and Fall of Western
Innovation." Strategy-Buissness. PwC Strategy & Inc., 11 Feb. 2014. http://www.strategybusiness.com/article/14102a?pg=all Web. 30 June 2014.
Mass Flourishing is meant to be Edmund Phelps’s chef d’oeuvre, the capstone to a half century of research into the sources of national
wealth. In it, the Nobel Prize–winning Columbia University economist lays out one Big Idea: Innovation
is the key to
economic growth, prosperity, and human happiness. Openness to innovation explains the Western world’s
sudden shift from stasis to growth starting in the 19th century, Phelps claims, and the United States’ willingness to find
new ways of doing things made it wealthier than any other nation. Now, though, a decline in
the pace of innovation threatens prosperity, in the U.S. and everywhere else. The main cause
of this decline, according to Phelps, is corporatism—the inevitable tendency of businesses,
workers, and other interests to band together to protect what they have. In modern economies, he
says, corporations, unions, and other interests turn government into an agency for forestalling
change and preserving the status quo. This problem has been worse in Europe than in the U.S., which is why
productivity and per capita incomes in Europe have persistently lagged. But even in the U.S., he contends, “ the waning of
innovation was largely behind the increased joblessness and downward pressure on wages
that have been endemic to the post-1972 period.” Having written a couple of books that highlight corporate
efforts to hinder innovation, I’m sympathetic to this argument. Readers of the influential book The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic
Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities (Yale University Press, 1982), by the late U.S. economist Mancur Olson, will find that Phelps is
plowing familiar ground. But Phelps goes well beyond Olson in making specific historical claims about the ways in which declining
innovation has crippled modern economies by dragging down productivity, reducing
employment, and diminishing wealth. Unfortunately, he doesn’t prove his case. Part of the issue lies in how Phelps
measures innovation. He constructed an indicator conceptually similar to Tobin’s q, which compares the market value of a company’s
assets with their replacement cost. Arguing that a “country’s stock markets offer a clue to the dynamism of its economy,” Phelps takes the
market capitalization of a nation’s public companies, defined as the value of their shares plus outstanding bonds, and divides it by the
output of the country’s busi-nesses..
Innovation is positively related to job creation
Hausman and Johnson ’14 (Angela Hausman, economist, Wesley Johnson, business professor, The role of
innovation in driving the economy: Lessons from the global financial crisis, Journal of Business Research,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631300115X, accessed: 6/30/14 GA)
Unfortunately, most of the innovations predicted for the last 10 years failed to materialize (Florida, 2009). Fewer innovations stem from
overt efforts to appease increasingly risk averse and short-term oriented stockholders (Florida, 2009). Short-term gains make stock
prices skyrocket and increase rewards for financial managers, investors, and firms who ignore investments in long-term innovations
(Mandel, 2009). Short-term orientation encourages a firm focus on increasing the market share for existing products and controlling
costs, as these behaviors result in higher stock prices (Blass, 2002). Without
innovations to entice consumers,
firms increasingly depend on cost containment measures to provide short-term gains when
consumer spending declines; a feature prominent in the recent economic decline. Cost
containment begins a downward spiral as workers are laid-off, which further decreases consumer spending, which creates a need for
greater cost containment, causing more lay-offs. Innovation is so important in coaxing away consumer dollars that innovation helps
buffer the effects of increased competition on prices (Blass, 2002). Thus, producing
innovative products is the only
way to avoid pricing wars that reduce profitability, ultimately leading to shrinking markets
and death for weaker companies. Not only are pricing pressures increasing, but global
competition creates extreme competition. Because the line between leader and also-ran is
razor-thin, companies must innovate faster, operate leaner, and think globally just to
survive (van Opstal, 2009).
Innovation promotes strong economic recovery by lessening competition temporarily
Hausman and Johnson ’14 (Angela Hausman, economist, Wesley Johnson, business professor, The role of
innovation in driving the economy: Lessons from the global financial crisis, Journal of Business Research,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631300115X, accessed: 6/30/14 GA)
Of course, not all firms lost sight of the innovation holy grail during the recession and they reap great rewards from their innovative
efforts. For instance, Intel chair, Craig Barrett, states 90% of his yearly revenue comes from products that did not even exist in January of
that year (Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, 2007). Multiple
innovations released by
Apple Computer, including their widely successful iPad, contribute to massive profits (and
record stock prices). However, too few firms share the experiences of Intel and Apple and
rediscovering the importance of innovation is the key to revitalizing businesses and ensuring a
robust recovery
(Rose, 2010). In
fact, some believe that innovation is not only a viable strategy for
improving current economic conditions and avoiding economic downturns, but ensures a
stronger, healthier, and more stable economy emerges (Rose, 2010). A McKensey study, for instance, indicates that
twice as many firms failed in 1995 as in 1975, just 20 years earlier (van Opstal, 2009). Many of these firms might still operate if they
focused efforts on innovation, according to Blass (2002), who believes that new products ensure the survival of a firm under conditions
of hyper-competition and protect its profit margins. In fact, innovative products contributed significantly to recovery from the last major
economic crisis in the 1970's (Chinadaily, 2009). Companies
and countries that adapt by moving innovative
strategy to the forefront may emerge stronger when the US and much of the rest of the world
emerges from the current financial situation, according to Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric (Economist, 2008). We hear the same tune
from industry associations and think tanks. For instance the Conference Board states: “We hear it daily across the global business
community: The only way out of this crisis is to innovate our way out… it [innovation] should be front and center in strategic planning at
all levels of companies and economies,” (AP, 2009). National Science Board (2009) echoes this statement, highlighting the role of
innovation in creating strategic competitive advantage and improving the lives of consumers and their governments. Since
innovation spurs job growth, innovation is especially critical in an economy saddled with
stubborn, double-digit unemployment rates that defy efforts to improve them, including a
trillion-dollar stimulus plan invested by the US government and similar expenditures by
much of the industrialized world.
US Econ k 2 World Econ
US economy is key to global economy – economic collapse provokes nuclear war and
terrorism.
Frank in 8
Nicholas Frank; Founder of Holigent, a non-profit organization focused on environmental and economic sustainability; “The Dark Scenario”;
http://holigent.org/Holigent.org/Dark_Scenario.html
Over the years, the U.S. government has spent $14 trillion more than it collected in taxes as of January 2011. Accumulating such
massive debt is the road to bankruptcy. Numbers aside, the legacy of borrowing from the future amounts to taxing our children and
grandchildren without their consent. That corrupts the system and amounts to moral bankruptcy of democracy. While
the
U.S. is still the consuming engine of the global economy, it is a hollowed economy losing
credibility while running on IOUs and borrowed time. Given the increasing
interconnectedness of the world’s economies, the collapse of the U.S. economy would
inevitably plunge the world into global economic chaos. A 21st century depression will
likely prove worse than the Great Depression of the 20th century given that world population has
tripled since 1929 while essential resources and the life support capacity of our planet
have diminished. Polarization and War Following the fall and dissolution of the Soviet Union, EastWest polarization was replaced by a fragmented polarization of the world among
cultures, religions and most significantly between the haves and the have-nots. The
threat of Mutually Assured (nuclear) Destruction of the Cold War is replaced by terrorism at the hands of
suicide bombers recruited mostly from the inexhaustible ranks of the billion have-nots
of the world who live in poverty without hope. An even larger-looming threat is a war
between the United States and other powers at the end of the oil age when trade
relations, by then broken by depressed economies, will no longer serve as the glue
between past trading partners. Instead, competition for diminishing resources will
dominate the agenda and may spark an intentional or accidental nuclear war.
Econ Solves War
Economic downturn causes internal conflict, great power wars over territorial
disputes, and extinction.
Auslin 2009, scholar at American Enterprise Institute,
[Michael, “The global Economy Unravels” American Enterprise
Institute, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.29502/pub_detail.asp]
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The
Great Depression showed how social and
global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across
the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, 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.
Economic Recessions Cause Wars and Revolutions
Cooke 10
[Shamus Cooke, a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action and Global
Research. May 10, 2010 http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-economic-recessions-cause-wars-andrevolutions/19080 7/16/14-CMH]
A quick glance around the globe reveals a ruined international economy, wars and more wars in the
works, and revolutionary movements aplenty — all connected phenomena. No, the apocalypse is not coming;
but the international economic system currently used to arrange the social order is crumbling,
taking everyone down with it. The global capitalist system is in far worse shape than most people
realize: it may only take the tiny economy of Greece to go bankrupt to break this camel’s back —
and finally the word “recession” will be antiquated and “depression” will be in vogue. How did this
happen? A great economic downturn would have happened years ago were it not for the monstrous debt that many governments created
— consumer, corporate, and state — to prop up the economic system, since debt was needed to fuel the consumption that corporations
depended on for the purchase of their products. When this global debt bubble burst, the current crisis was ignited. The
debts
started going unpaid and the banks stopped lending, creating the “credit crunch.” Giant
corporations thus began failing, and the governments that are heavily “influenced” by these
corporations went on a bailout frenzy: billions and trillions of taxpayer money poured into these
companies, keeping them alive to plunder another day. After the bailouts, stupid politicians everywhere declared the
capitalist system “saved,” and the crisis over. But bigger crises were already visible on the horizon. The debt that nations used to bailout
private corporations was too massive. If these countries’ currencies are to retain any value, the debt must be trimmed (the Euro for
example, is widely believed to be “finished”). The battle over how this trimming takes place can be properly referred to as “class war” —
a revolution in Greece is brewing over such an issue, with Portugal, Spain, and Italy not far behind. All over Europe and the U.S. the
corporate elite is demanding that the giant government debts — due to bailouts and wars — be reduced by lowering wages, gutting
social services, slashing public education, Social Security, Medicare, etc. Labor unions and progressive groups are demanding that the
rich and corporations, instead, pay for the crisis that they created through progressive taxation, eliminating tax havens, and if need be,
nationalization. This tug of war over society’s resources is class war. The
global crisis has developed to such a
degree that no middle ground can be safely bargained. This revolution-creating dynamic
also spawns wars. Corporations demand that wages and benefits be reduced during a recession so that “profitability is restored.”
This is the only way out of a global recession, since nothing is produced under capitalism if it doesn’t create a profit; and recessions
destroy profit. But there are other ways to restore profits. While corporate-controlled governments work to restore domestic
profitability by attacking the living standards of workers, they likewise look abroad to fix their problems. A sure-fire way to increase
profits is to export more products overseas, something Obama has mentioned in dozens of speeches. One way to ensure that a foreign
country will accept/market your exported goods is by threatening them, or attacking them. An occupied country, like Iraq for example,
was forced to allow a flood of U.S. corporations inside to pillage as they saw fit — an automatic export boom. When the world market
shrinks during a recession — since consumers can afford to buy fewer goods — the urge to dominate markets via war increases
dramatically. These same shrinking markets compel international corporations, based in different nations, to insanely compete for
markets, raw materials, and cheap labor. War is a very logical outcome in such circumstances. President Obama reminds us: “The world’s
fastest-growing markets are outside our borders. We need to compete for those customers because other nations are competing for
them.” Having a giant military establishment to back them up enables U.S. corporations to be better “competitors” than other nations.
War also serves as a valuable distraction to an angry public which is demanding jobs, higher
wages, health care, well-funded public education, and taxes on the wealthy. Better to channel
this anger into hatred toward a “foreign enemy.” The above issues are the ones certain to dominate major events
in the coming years. The class war that is erupting as a result of the global depression will affect the
majority of people in many nations, through joblessness, shrinking wages, the destruction of
government services, or war. As working people in the U.S. begin a fight against these policies, the corporate elite will stop at
nothing to implement them, and the social unrest in Europe will be transferred to the U.S. More working people will come to the
realization that an economic system owned by giant corporations — themselves owned by very wealthy individuals — is irrational, and
needs to be replaced.
Economic decline increases the likeliness of nuclear conflict
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow-in-Residence of Post Carbon Institute, December 12, 2012,
“Conflict and Change in the Era of Economic Decline: Part 2: War and peace in a shrinking
economy,” http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-12/conflict-and-change-in-the-era-ofeconomic-decline-part-2-war-and-peace-in-a-shrinking-economy, Accessed 5/18/2014
When empires crumble, as they always do, the result is often a free-for-all among previous subject
nations and potential rivals as they sort out power relations. The British Empire was a seeming
exception to this rule: in that instance, the locus of military, political, and economic power simply
migrated to an ally across the Atlantic. A similar graceful transfer seems unlikely in the case of
the U.S., as economic decline during the 21st century will be global in scope. A better analogy
to the current case might be the fall of Rome, which led to centuries of incursions by barbarians as
well as uprisings in client states. Disaster per se need not lead to violence, as Rebecca Solnit argues
in her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster. She
documents five disasters—the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; earthquakes in San Francisco and
Mexico City; a giant ship explosion in Halifax, Canada; and 9/11—and shows that rioting, looting,
rape, and murder were not automatic results. Instead, for the most part, people pulled together,
shared what resources they had, cared for the victims, and in many instances found new sources of
joy in everyday life. However, the kinds of social stresses we are discussing now may differ from the
disasters Solnit surveys, in that they comprise a “long emergency,” to borrow James Kunstler’s
durable phrase. For every heartwarming anecdote about the convergence of rescuers and
caregivers on a disaster site, there is a grim historic tale of resource competition turning normal
people into monsters. In the current context, a continuing source of concern must be the large
number of nuclear weapons now scattered among nine nations. While these weapons primarily
exist as a deterrent to military aggression, and while the end of the Cold War has arguably
reduced the likelihood of a massive release of these weapons in an apocalyptic fury, it is still
possible to imagine several scenarios in which a nuclear detonation could occur as a result of
accident, aggression, pre-emption, or retaliation. We are in a race—but it’s not just an arms race;
indeed, it may end up being an arms race in reverse. In many nations around the globe the means
to pay for armaments and war are starting to disappear; meanwhile, however, there is
increasing incentive to engage in international conflict as a way of re-channeling the
energies of jobless young males and of distracting the general populace, which might otherwise
be in a revolutionary mood. We can only hope that historical momentum can maintain The Great
Peace until industrial nations are sufficiently bankrupt that they cannot afford to mount
foreign wars on any substantial scale.
***Warming Advantage
Warming = Real/Anthro
Warming is real and anthropogenic – most unbiased, holistic, and objective studies
prove.
Muller 7/28/12, Richard (a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation
fellow, is the author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.). “The conversion of a climatechange skeptic.” NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-changeskeptic.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three
years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my
on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the
prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are
almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and
objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my
daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two
and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a
half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase
results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the
mind, threw doubt
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on
global warming. In its 2007 report, the
I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the
prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement,
that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent
warming could be natural. Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated
statistical methods
developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth
land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics:
biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior
groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used
virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations
and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is
completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially
troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt
dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions ; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for
beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other
ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because
of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent
temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What
has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape
to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions
like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon
dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. Just as important,
our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability,
based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th
century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250
years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned
from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little. How definite is the
attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else
we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra
warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism,
but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match
the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our
analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large,
complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their
hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close
agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known
greenhouse gas increase. It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is
attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my
skepticism about them hasn’t changed. Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting
the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the
Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years
ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and
indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling
elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous. The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five
scientific papers now online atBerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its
clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of
our
papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper
with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is
the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis. What about the
future? As carbon
dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I
expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over
land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid
economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically
adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer
questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate
regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic
spectrum about what can and should be done.
Global and Regional warming has been confirmed to be human caused – scientific
consensus
Christidis et al. in 11 (Nikoloas, “The contribution of anthropogenic forcings to regional
changes in temperature during the last decade” Climate Dynamics, Online First™, 16 September
2011)
Climate change detection and attribution studies compare observations with output from
climate models in a rigorous statistical framework to assess possible causes of recent
climatic changes (Hegerl and Zwiers 2011). Such studies underpin the key attribution statement
in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that relates human
influences on the climate to the observed global mean warming in the last few decades.
The IPCC attributes most of the observed warming to anthropogenic forcings with a
likelihood that has increased from[66 to[90% between the last two assessment reports (Mitchell et al. 2001; Hegerl et al. 2007).
While human
influences have been identified as the main driver of the global temperature
change, the scientific focus has gradually been moving to the attribution of regional changes (Stott et al. 2010). Although so far
more emphasis has been placed on temperature changes, which is also what this paper concentrates on, a widening range of other
aspects of regional climates has also been considered, including changes in the hydrological cycle (Zhang et al. 2007; Min et al.
2008; Barnett et al. 2008) and extremes (Stott et al. 2011; Zwiers et al. 2011; Min et al. 2011). As N. Christidis (&) with the global
temperature change, human influence has been identified as the main contributor to continental warming in recent years and the
anthropogenic fingerprint has now been detected in the observed warming in all the
continents (Stott 2003; Zwiers and Zhang 2003; Gillett et al. 2008).
Overwhelming scientific evidence concludes that warming exists and is happening at
unprecedented Rates
Avi-Yonah and Uhlman ‘8 (Reuven S., Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, and David M., Professor
at the University of Michigan Law School, March 18, “Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax is a Better Response to Global
Warming than Cap and Trade,” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1109167)
The scientific evidence that global warming is occurring is overwhelming. In its synthesis
report released in November 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”)
stated that “[e]leven of the last twelve years (1995- 2006) rank among the twelve
warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperatures (since 1850).”5
The IPCC reported that temperature increases have occurred throughout the world, but
most significantly at higher northern latitudes.6 The melting of Arctic ice has often been
called “the canary in the coal mine” of global warming.7 In 2007, Arctic ice melted at record
levels, causing the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage to navigation for the first
time.8 During the same summer, a record 552 billion tons of ice melted from the Greenland ice
sheet.9 It is hard to overstate the significance of melting in Greenland. If global warming
continues unabated, climatologists predict that the entire Greenland ice sheet would
melt, causing several meters of sea level rise and coastal flooding that could imperil
much of the Eastern United States.10 While some skeptics argue that global warming is
part of normal climate change,11 few climatologists agree. The earth has experienced
periods of cooling and warming over time, but warming has never occurred at the rate
that it is happening today. The most recent IPCC report noted that “[m]ost of the observed
increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] concentrations.”12 Anthropogenic
greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Carbon dioxide is by far the most significant of the
greenhouse gases, accounting for approximately seventy-five percent of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions between 1970 and 2004.13 Annual global emissions of carbon
dioxide increased “almost fivefold in the past century,” and these emissions “have tripled since
1950.”14 The most significant contributing factor in the carbon dioxide emissions
increase is the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heating, air conditioning, and
transportation; land- use changes, particularly deforestation, also have played a significant but
smaller role.15
Tipping Point
Tipping point coming now – over next four decades.
Times of India 1/31/12. “Artic changes could spell dire consequences.”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Arctic-changes-couldspell-dire-consequences/articleshow/11698545.cms
The first
signs of dangerous climate change in the Arctic could spell dire consequences for
the whole of humankind, scientists warn. The Arctic has been warming at three times the
global average and the loss of sea ice, which had melted faster in summer than predicted, was
linked tentatively to recent extreme cold winters in Europe. But there's more to come and in a manner that has
not been highlighted before. University of Western Australia researchers say the Arctic region is
fast approaching a series of imminent "tipping points" that could trigger an abrupt domino
effect of large-scale climate change across the entire planet, the Swedish journal AMBIO and Nature
Climate Change report. "There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion. This has
major consequences for the future of humankind as climate change progresses," said Carlos
Duarte, professor and director of the university's Oceans Institute. Researchers suggest that the
loss of Arctic summer sea ice, most likely over the next four decades, if not before, was
expected to have abrupt knock-on effects on cities including Beijing, Tokyo, London,
Moscow, Berlin and New York, according to a varsity statement.
We are approaching tipping point now that will trigger extinction – studies show.
Climate Wire 6/7/12. “Is Earth near an environmental tipping point?” Scientific American.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-earth-nearing-environmental-tipping-point
Human activities are pushing Earth toward a "tipping point" that could cause sudden,
irreversible changes in relatively stable conditions that have allowed civilization to
flourish, a new study warns. There are signs that a toxic brew of climate change, habitat loss and
population growth is dramatically reshaping life on Earth, an international team of
researchers reported yesterday in the journal Nature. Those pressures are greater than the natural
forces that caused the end of the last ice age roughly 11,700 years ago, a time when half the
planet's large mammal species went extinct and humans migrated out of Africa. "We are doing
enough to cause one of these tipping points," said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a paleobiologist at the
University of California, Berkeley. "The question now is, how close are we? Is it inevitable? What are the
changes that we see coming down the road that we should be aware of in order to make the best of it, essentially." The answer
provided by Barnosky and more than 20 other experts in paleontology, ecology, geology,
population biology and complex systems isn't comforting. The scientists say it's likely -- though
not certain -- that Earth is close to another wholesale transformation, but when that will
happen and whether it will be irreversible isn't clear. "We know that at the landscape scale, if you disturb
between 50 to 90 percent of patches, you see major changes in ones that you haven't disturbed directly," Barnosky said. "We
know that we are at a point on the planet where you have more than 43 percent of the
land surface wholesale transformed for human needs. If we transform more and more,
we'll be at a point where even places we haven't transformed with our sledgehammers
will go through major changes."
Warming = Extinction
Warming could lead to human extinction.
Snow and Hannam 14
[Deborah Snow, Peter Hannam covers broad environmental issues ranging from climate change to
renewable energy for Fairfax Media. March 31, 2014
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humansextinct-warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html-7/16/14-CMH]
The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming
''extinct'' as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned. Helen Berry, associate dean in the faculty of health at the
University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and colder at different points in the planet's
history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it is today. ''What is remarkable, and alarming,
is the speed of the change since the 1970s, when we started burning a lot of fossil fuels in a massive
way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to match this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of
it, it will mean our extinction eventually.'' Professor Berry is one of three leading academics who have contributed to the
health chapter of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors Tony McMichael, of
the Australian National University, and Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra, have outlined the health risks of rapid global warming
in a companion piece for The Conversation, also published on Monday. The three warn that the
adverse effects on population
health and social stability have been ''missing from the discussion'' on climate change. ''Humandriven climate change poses a great threat, unprecedented in type and scale, to wellbeing, health
and perhaps even to human survival,'' they write. They predict that the greatest challenges will come from under nutrition and
impaired child development from reduced food yields; hospitalizations and deaths due to intense heat waves, fires and other weatherrelated disasters; and the spread of infectious diseases. They warn the ''largest impacts''
will be on poorer and
vulnerable populations, winding back recent hard-won gains of social development programs.
Projecting to an average global warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they say ''people won't be able to cope,
let alone work productively, in the hottest parts of the year''. They say that action on climate change would
produce ''extremely large health benefits'', which would greatly outweigh the costs of curbing emission growth. A leaked draft of the
IPCC report notes that a warming climate would lead to fewer cold weather-related deaths but the benefits would be ''greatly''
outweighed by the impacts of more frequent heat extremes. Under a high emissions scenario, some land regions will experience
temperatures four to seven degrees higher than pre-industrial times, the report said. While some adaptive measures are possible, limits
to humans' ability to regulate heat will affect health and potentially cut global productivity in the warmest months by 40 per cent by
2100. Body temperatures
rising above 38 degrees impair physical and cognitive functions, while
risks of organ damage, loss of consciousness and death increase sharply above 40.6 degrees, the draft
report said. Farm crops and livestock will also struggle with thermal and water stress. Staple crops such as
corn, rice, wheat and soybeans are assumed to face a temperature limit of 40-45 degrees, with temperature thresholds for key sowing
stages near or below 35 degrees, the report said.
Warming ends the capacity for Earth to support life, ushering in the next great
extinction event
Sify 2010 – Sydney newspaper citing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at University of Queensland and Director of the Global
Change Institute, and John Bruno, associate professor of Marine Science at UNC; Sify News, “Could unbridled climate changes lead to
human extinction?”, http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-internationalkgtrOhdaahc.html
The findings of the comprehensive report: 'The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems'
emerged from a synthesis of recent research on the world's oceans, carried out by two of the world's leading
marine scientists. One of the authors of the report is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of Queensland and the
director of its Global Change Institute (GCI). 'We
may see sudden, unexpected changes that have serious
ramifications for the overall well-being of humans, including the capacity of the planet to
support people . This is further evidence that we are well on the way to the next great extinction
event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg. 'The findings have enormous implications for mankind, particularly if the trend
continues. The earth's ocean, which produces half of the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per
cent of human-generated carbon dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying
signs of ill-health. It's as if the earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day!,' he added. 'We are entering a period in
which the ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive change and in some cases beginning to fail', he
added. The
'fundamental and comprehensive' changes to marine life identified in the report include rapidly
warming and acidifying oceans, changes in water circulation and expansion of dead zones within the ocean
depths. These are driving major changes in marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and
mangroves (important fish nurseries); fewer, smaller fish; a breakdown in food chains; changes in the distribution of
marine life; and more frequent diseases and pests among marine organisms. Study co-author John F Bruno,
associate professor in marine science at The University of North Carolina, says greenhouse gas emissions are
modifying many physical and geochemical aspects of the planet's oceans, in ways 'unprecedented
in nearly a million years'. 'This is causing fundamental and comprehensive changes to the way marine
ecosystems function,' Bruno warned, according to a GCI release. These findings were published in Science.
Catastrophic warming risks extinction
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and
Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate
Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122)
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end
of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping
emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of
Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the
second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the
developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and
stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of
widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic
and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an
existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human
the century."
experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case
adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
Warming Causes War
Global Warming Leads to War
Kempe, 2007
[Frederick, Founder and CEO of Atlantic Council, April 24, 2007, Global Warming Equals True
Equivalent of War: Frederick Kempe,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_kempe&sid=aHrRgVR
9Hcl]
Global-warming skeptics I have long been among them now must face the fact that some of America's toughest military leaders have
embraced climate change as so real and unavoidable that future national defense
and intelligence strategies
must be shaped to deal with all the potentially disruptive changes. Those who doubt the climate's
possible impact on history need only read the Bible or daily newspapers' accounts of the Darfur conflict, which is in no small part a battle
between groups of herders and farmers. It was the failure of the herders' grazing lands that sent them south in search of water, and that
resulted in a conflict with farming tribes on those lands. In
short, Darfur shows how climate change can push
social and ethnic strains to the breaking point. More Instability The generals and admirals reckon
that projected climate change will make marginal living conditions even worse in many
Asian African and Middle Eastern nations, causing greater dangers than the political
instability of today's failed states. That, in turn, might result in internal conflicts and wars,
rising extremism, terrorism, and trends toward authoritarianism and radical ideologies.
Even stable regions will face challenges, they argue, as refugees from drought and declining food
production in Latin America and Africa seek havens in the U .S. and Europe. What the generals and admirals want is for future
strategic planning to take these new threats into account in force planning, particularly for natural disasters from extreme
weather and pandemic diseases. 'We Will Pay' They want the U. S. to become a more constructive partner" on reducing greenhouse- gas
emissions. They urge
the Pentagon to assess the impact on U .S. military installations worldwide
of rising sea levels and extreme weather, which could compromise critical defense installations on coastlines and on
low-lying Pacific islands. We will pay for this one way or another," says General Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the U .S. Central
Command, who was part of the group. 'We
will pay to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions today. Or we will
pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives."
the effects of warming could trigger multiple scenarios for conflict
Kolmannskog 8 (Vikram Odedra, April, Norwegian Refugee Council, “Future floods of refugees:
A comment on climate change, conflict and forced migration”,
http://www.nrc.no/arch/_img/9268480.pdf, Accessed 6/28/08)
According to the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), the sudden disaster
conflicts are likely to occur more frequently in future: Firstly, regions at risk, particularly
Central America, generally have weak economic and political capacities, making
adaptation and crisis management very difficult. Secondly, storm and flood disasters
along the densely populated coasts of the Indian subcontinent and China can cause major
damage and trigger or intensify migration processes which in turn could trigger
conflict.40 Parallel with the growing risk of sudden disasters, Bangladesh is furthermore
plagued by political violence and a growing trend toward Islamist extremism.
climate change leads to violent conflict—south asia proves
Sappenfield 7 (Mark, December 6, Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor, “Global warming
may heat up conflicts, too”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1206/p13s02-wogi.htm, Accessed
6/28/08)
The reason he gives is one heard throughout this corner of India, where Himalayan peaks give way to fertile flood plains:
Immigrants from Bangladesh are taking over. It is a visceral fear in India's Northeast,
where people say they feel under siege – their culture, politics, and security threatened
by a tide of Bangladeshis who are here illegally. "On the surface there is peace," says Mr. Das, who says he
was forced out of his village through intimidation and murders by immigrants. "But this migration is a tragedy for us." For now,
there is relative calm. But security analysts worry that unrest
could flare up again because of a new threat:
global warming. As negotiators gather in Bali, Indonesia, this week to begin work on an agreement to fight climate change
worldwide, concern is mounting that altered weather patterns will stoke conflict in various parts of the globe. And this area of South
Asia sits atop most experts' watch lists. Bangladesh
is not only one of the countries most vulnerable to
climate change, it is also chronically unstable. It is in the midst of a political crisis and
showing signs of nascent Islamist fundamentalism. The effects of global warming could
amplify the forces of instability, experts say. That remains an extreme view. The clearest threat,
most agree, is a mass migration that sparks renewed conflict in the Indian Northeast – an
independent-minded area of mountains and jungles fiercely proud of its distinct heritage
and already fretted by a dozen insurgencies. "It is the No. 1 conflict zone for climate
change," says Peter Schwartz, chairman of the Monitor Group, a research firm in San Francisco that recently released a study on
the security risks presented by climate change. That field of study is relatively new, but analysts are beginning to lay the map of
forecasted climate change over the map of political weakness to see where changes in weather could lead to volatility. No one
argues that climate change alone will lead to war. But analysts suggest that it could be a
pivotal factor that tips vulnerable regions toward conflicts. "Climate change is a threat
multiplier," says Geoff Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Program at the Woodrow Wilson Institute
in Washington. "It's not that it creates a whole new set of problems, it's that it will make things
that are already a problem worse." For that reason, few expect climate change to throw Europe or North America
into chaos. Both have the political stability and economic resources to cope. Areas that lack these advantages – such as sub-Saharan
Africa, Latin America, and South Asia – are most at risk, experts say. History
suggests that climate can help
breed political instability. One recent study charted climate changes, wars, and several
other variables back to the 1400s. It found that significantly cooler periods were
characterized by large-scale crop loss, starvation, and conflict.
Warming = Species Extinction
A hotter world means more extinctions.
Walsh 13
[Brian Walsh, a senior writer for TIME magazine, covering energy and the environment. May 13,
2013. http://science.time.com/2013/05/13/why-a-hotter-world-will-mean-moreextinctions/7/16/14-CMH]
The end of last week saw the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere finally pass the 400-partper-million threshold. That means carbon levels are higher now than they’ve been for at least
800,000 years, and most likely far longer. There’s nothing special per se about 400 parts per million — other than giving all of us a
change to note it in article like this one — but it’s a reminder that we are headed very fast into a very uncertain future. Parts
per million and global temperature change, though, are just numbers. What matters is the effect they will
have on life — ours, of course, but also everything else that lives on the planet earth. I’ve written before that
while I certainly worry and fear the impact that unchecked climate change will have on humanity, I also feel relatively — relatively — confident that we will,
in some ways, muddle through. Human beings have already proved that they are extremely adaptable, living — with various degrees of success — from the
hottest desert to the coldest corner of the Arctic. I don’t think a future where temperatures are 4˚F or 5˚F or 6˚F warmer on average will be an optimal one
for humanity, to say the least. But I don’t think it will be the end of our species either. (I’ve always favored asteroids for that.) (PHOTOS: Up in the Air:
Celebrate World Migratory Bird Day) But the
plants and animals that share this planet with us are a different story.
Even before climate change has really kicked in, human expansion had led to the destruction of habitat on land and in the sea, as we crowd out other species.
By some estimates we’re already in the midst of the sixth great extinction wave, one that’s largely
human caused, with extinction rates that are 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than the background rate
of species loss. So what will happen to those plants and animals if and when the climate really starts
warming? According to a new study in Nature Climate Change, the answer is pretty simple: they will run out of habitable
space, and many of them will die. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that 20% to 30% of species
would be at increasingly high risk of extinction if global temperatures rise more than 2˚C to 3˚C above
preindustrial levels. Given that temperatures have already gone up by nearly 1˚C, and carbon continues to
pile up in the atmosphere, that amount of warming is almost a certainty. But Rachel Warren and her colleagues at
the University of East Anglia (UEA), in England, wanted to know more precisely how that extinction risk intensifies with warming — and whether we
might be able to save some species by mitigating climate change. In the Nature Climate Change paper, they found that
almost two-thirds of common plants and half of animals could lose more than half their climatic range by
2080 if global warming continues unchecked, with temperatures increasing 4˚C above preindustrial levels by the
end of the century. Unsurprisingly, the biggest effects will be felt near the equator, in areas like Central America,
Sub-Saharan Africa, the Amazon and Australia, but biodiversity will suffer across the board. In
statement, Warren said: Our research predicts that climate change will greatly reduce the diversity of even
very common species found in most parts of the world. This loss of global-scale biodiversity would
significantly impoverish the biosphere and the ecosystem services it provides. We looked at the
effect of rising global temperatures, but other symptoms of climate change such as extreme weather
events, pests, and diseases mean that our estimates are probably conservative. Animals in
particular may decline more as our predictions will be compounded by a loss of food from plants.
GHG’s threaten coral reef ecosystems
Guldberg 07
[Ove, Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.full]
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts per million and
global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to 2100, values that significantly exceed those of
at least the past 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under
conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean acidification will compromise
carbonate accretion, with corals becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less
diverse reef communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained . Climate change
also exacerbates local stresses from declining water quality and overexploitation of key species,
driving reefs increasingly toward the tipping point for functional collapse . This review presents
future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious consequences for reef-associated
fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and people. As the International Year of the Reef 2008 begins,
scaled-up management intervention and decisive action on global emissions are required if the loss
of coral-dominated ecosystems is to be avoided.
Increases in [CO2]atm > 500 ppm (11) will push carbonate-ion concentrations well below 200
μmol kg–1 (aragonite saturation < 3.3) and sea temperatures above +2°C relative to today's values
(Scenario CRS-C, Fig. 1). These changes will reduce coral reef ecosystems to crumbling frameworks
with few calcareous corals (Fig. 5C). The continuously changing climate, which may not stabilize for
hundreds of years, is also likely to impede migration and successful proliferation of alleles from
tolerant populations owing to continuously shifting adaptive pressure. Under these conditions,
reefs will become rapidly eroding rubble banks such as those seen in some inshore regions of the
Great Barrier Reef, where dense populations of corals have vanished over the past 50 to 100 years .
Rapid changes in sea level (+23 to 51 cm by 2100, scenario A2) (8), coupled with slow or nonexistent
reef growth, may also lead to “drowned” reefs (36) in which corals and the reefs they build fail to
keep up with rising sea levels.
Coral reef ecosystem close the tipping point
Guldberg 07
[Ove, Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.full]
Maintaining ecological resilience is the central plank of any strategy aiming to preserve coral
reef ecosystems . Ecological resilience (4) is a measure of the rate at which an ecosystem returns to
a particular state (e.g., coral-dominated communities ) after a perturbation or disturbance (e.g.,
hurricane impacts). Recent changes to the frequency and scale of disturbances such as mass coral
bleaching, disease outbreaks, and destructive fishing, coupled with a decreased ability of corals to
grow and compete, are pushing reef ecosystems from coral- to algal-dominated states (4, 22 ). If
pushed far enough, the ecosystem may exceed a “tipping point” (22) and change rapidly into an
alternative state with its own inherent resilience and stability, often making the possibility of
returning to a coral-dominated state difficult.
Wind Power Solves Warming
Wind power can offset fossil fuel use- this solves warming
Biello 12 – Associate editor @ Scientific American
(David, “The Sky Is the Limit for Wind Power,”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-limit-for-wind-power)
Wind turbines on land and offshore could readily provide more than four times the power
that the world as a whole currently uses. Throw in kites or robot aircraft generating electricity from sky-high winds
and the world could physically extract roughly 100 times more power than presently employed—and the climatic consequences remain
minimal.¶ Two new computer-model analyses suggest
there are few limits to the wind's potential.
Although "there are physical limits to the amount of power that can be harvested from winds, these limits are
well above total global energy demand," explains climate-modeler Kate Marvel of Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, who led the analysis published September 9 in Nature
Climate Change.
(Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) Current global demand is roughly 18 terawatts. (A
terawatt is one trillion watts.)
Wind energy preferable to coal and natural gas- cost and environmental impacts
Natural Resources Defense Council ND (From National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Wind Industry Annual
Market Report 2010 Annual Report AWEA, Wind Energy, http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/wind.asp)
Wind energy produces no polluting emissions of any kind, including those that cause global warming. Wind
turbines use a
fuel that's free, inexhaustible and immune from the drastic price swings to which fossil fuels
are subject. With careful siting and outreach to the local community, wind farms can be built in a fraction of the time it takes to
construct coal or natural-gas power plants. A 50-megawatt wind farm can be completed in less than a year. In the right location, it
takes only three to eight months for a wind energy farm to recoup the energy consumed by
its building and installation -- one of the fastest "energy payback times" of any energy
technology on the market. Although bird and bat safety are ongoing concerns, wind power does not contribute to the
plethora of other environmental and public health costs caused by conventional fossil power production: acid rain in lakes, mercury in
fish, particulate-matter respiratory illnesses, coal mine slag, nuclear waste fuel storage, and so on. The
National Academy of
Sciences estimates that electricity generation from coal, oil-fueled vehicles and
transportation, and electricity production from natural gas caused an estimated $120 billion
in damages in 2005, with health-related damages accounting for almost all of these costs. The
growing use of wind energy creates manufacturing and technical jobs, and significantly more
jobs per dollar invested compared to non-renewables technology, according to the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Wind power consumes no water during operation. This will be an increasingly important
attribute as the water-energy nexus grows in importance and as water use becomes an increasingly important facet of defining
sustainability
Offshore wind solves for greenhouse gasses
Shroeder 10
Erica Shroeder California Law Review, Volume 98 | issue 5, Article 5. “Turning offshore wind on”
10/31/2010- Erica Schroeder, Turning Offshore Wind On, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 1631 (2010). Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol98/iss5/4
Once a wind project is built, it involves only minimal environmental impacts compared
to traditional electricity generation. Wind power emits negligible amounts of traditional
air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases. 62 Lower emissions of traditional air pollutants mean
fewer air quality-related illnesses locally and regionally. 63 Lower greenhouse gas
emissions will help to combat climate change, effects of which will be felt locally and
around the world.64 According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of
climate change will include melting snow, ice, and permafrost; significant effects on
terrestrial, marine, and freshwater plant and animal species; forced changes to
agricultural and forestry management; and adverse human health impacts, including
increased heat-related mortality and infectious diseases.65 The U.S. Energy Information
Administration estimates that the United States emits 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse
gases annually, and it expects emissions to increase to 7.9 billion metric tons by 2030,
with 40 percent of emissions coming from the electric power sector. 66 Thus, if the
United States can get more of its electricity from wind power, it will contribute less to
climate change, and help to mitigate its negative impacts. Furthermore, wind power does
not involve any of the additional environmental costs associated with nuclear power or
fuel extraction for traditional electricity generation, such as coal mining and natural gas
extraction.67 Wind power generation also does not require the water necessary to
cool traditional coal, gas, and nuclear generation units.68
Offshore Wind farms directly trade off with CO2 from fossil fuels- substantially better
than onshore turbines
DOE 11
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power
Program
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement
February 7, 2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf
On average, one gigawatt of installed offshore wind power capacity can generate 3.4
million megawatt‐hours (MWh) of electricity annually. Generating the same amount of
electricity with fossil fuels would consume 1.7 million tons of coal or 27.6 billion cubic
feet of natural gas and would emit 2.7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
annually (S. Dolan 2010). Because offshore winds generally blow more strongly and
consistently than onshore winds, offshore wind turbines operate at higher capacity factors2 than
wind turbines installed on land. In addition, daily offshore wind speed profiles tend to
correspond well to periods of high electricity demand by coastal cities, such that the
strongest winds (and thus highest potential energy generation) correspond to the periods of
greatest electricity demand(W. Musial 2010).
AT Wind increases C02
Wind power comparatively reduces more co2 than other energy sources – studies
show.
Wang and Sun 2012, Yuxuan (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Center for Earth System
Science, Institute for Global ChangeStudies, Tsinghua University) and Tianye (School of Environment, Tsinghua University). “Life cycle
assessment of CO2 emissions from wind power plants: Methodology and case studies.” Elsevier – Renewable Energy, Volume 43, July
2012, pgs 30-36. January 14, 2012. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000043
This study developed a new simple and direct method for calculating CO2 emissions per
kWh electricity produced by wind power plants. The results obtained herein confirm that wind energy
produces the lowest CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity compared to fossil fuel and
other renewable sources. Energy and metallurgy dominate CO2 emissions from material
consumption. Among the four phases of the wind power plant’s life cycle, the production phase of wind turbines
contributes most to the total emissions. Recycling during decommission is an important step, which
theoretically can decrease the impact from the production phase by nearly half. Optimal
management in the transport phase could reduce overall CO2 emissions by as much as 12%
of the total emissions of a power plant, even with recycling. For countries with large wind
potential and large territories, a large amount of CO2 emission could be saved in the
transport phase. The result of a real case in China shows that with reasonable shorter transport
routes, the related emissions could be reduced by 33%. Compared with offshore wind plants, onshore
ones have lower CO2 emissions per kWh electricity produced. The difference in CO2 emissions between wind
turbines and wind power plants is significant and should not be ignored when considering the CO2
emissions related to offshore power plants. If China can reach a total installed capacity of
300 GW in 2030 as predicted, annual savings of CO2emissions could amount to 780
Mtons. In this case, however, wind electricity would supply just 8.5% of China’s total electricity demand in 2030, lower even than
present-day condition in Europe where wind electricity accounts for 4.8% of the total energy consumption. There is ample room for
more rapid development of wind energy in China accompanied by larger CO 2-saving potential. Compared
with other
energy sources, wind power has the greatest potential to reduce CO2 emissions,
especially through onshore, large rated power turbines that have low emission per
functional unit. Sensitivity tests show that the measures taken to increase the CP would result in
significant emissions reductions. Obviously, the use of wind to produce electricity constitutes an environmental
improvement, and more research on this technology is needed.
Reduces Coal Use
Wind energy lowers the use of gas and coal
Renewable UK in 2014 [UK’s Energy Trade Association, 3/27/2014,
http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases.cfm/record-breaking-wind-energy-leadsto-decrease-in-coal-and-gas-production]
RenewableUK says new statistics published today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change prove the case for wind power.
Statistics were released covering both 2013 and the final quarter of 2013,and the figures
showed increased amounts of renewable energy, with wind foremost, leading to coal and gas
consumption decreasing. Renewable energy increased to a record 15% of power in 2013, leading
the amount of coal and gas needed to drop by 3% and 1% respectively. The report states: “Provisional
estimates show that carbon dioxide emissions fell between 2012 and 2013; the key factor driving the change was a switch in electricity
generation away from fossil fuels”. In 2013
electricity from wind power grew 40%, meaning it provides over
50% of renewable energy. Wave and tidal also saw an increase of 75% in power generated in 2013 compared to 2012. For the
last quarter of 2013 the figures are even better with a record for renewable electricity of 18% compared to 13% in Q4 2012. For that
quarter onshore wind generation was up 64% compared to the same period in 2012 and offshore wind increased 42%. The strong
wind energy performance meant that coal’s share of the electricity mix was 7% lower in Q4 2013
compared to a year earlier, with the gas share also falling to the lowest quarterly share of
generation for at least fifteen years. However, the UK’s import dependency on fossil fuels continued to grow despite the
lower production levels needed, with coal imports increasing from Russia and other countries. RenewableUK’s Director of External
Affairs Jennifer Webber said: “At a time when we needed it most, wind delivered. Onshore
wind generation was up 64%
compared to the previous year, and wind as a whole delivered over 10% of the UK’s total power
needs across the quarter, proving it's a force to be reckoned with. Wind energy's generation was the equivalent of
power for 7.86 million homes for the full quarter. By developing our wind resource we ease our reliance on
costly imported foreign fuels and reduce the amount of polluting CO2 in our atmosphere. In
addition by using our natural resources we’re creating thousands of jobs, like the ones Siemens announced just this week. The UK has a
choice – stay in hock to foreign powers for our energy or invest in secure, clean renewables and build tens of thousands of jobs for British
workers”
Wind Energy likely to replace coal- coal-fired power plants old and expensive
Navigant Consulting, Inc. ’13 (Bruce Hamilton, Principal Investigator, Lindsay Battenberg, Mark Bielecki, Charlie Bloch,
Terese Decker, Lisa Frantzis, Jay Paidipati, Andy Wickless, Feng Zhao, October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf)
Since 2000, most new power generation capacity in the United States has come from natural gas and wind (see Figure 4-2), partly in
response to the environmental impacts of coal-fired electricity generation. EIA In
addition to having a lower carbon
intensity than coal, natural gas prices have remained relatively low, in large part to the
supply of low-cost gas from the Marcellus Shale. Natural gas prices surpassed $6/MMbtu in January 2010 but
since then have largely remained below $5/MMbtu, including a low of less than $2/MMbtu in April 2012 This decline has reduced
wholesale electricity prices and has made natural gas-fired generation sources even more attractive than wind, in many cases. Continued
low natural gas prices could greatly constrain demand for offshore wind farms in the United States. However, if natural gas prices were
to rise significantly—for example, due to increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports—the attractiveness of offshore wind as an
electricity generation source in the United States could increase. In recent years, some electric utilities in the United States have
announced plans to retire coal-fired power plants or to convert them to natural gas. Navigant analysis reveals executed and planned
retirements through 2017 that exceed 37 GW. There are multiple factors involved in these retirement decisions. Many
of the
United States’ coal-fired power plants are over 50 years old and expensive to continue to
operate and maintain. Complying with environmental requirements, such as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) mercury and air toxics standards and proposed
carbon dioxide emissions limits, can also be costly. While the reduction in generation
capacity created through coal plant retirements will certainly not be filled entirely by a
variable-output resource such as wind, Continued coal plant retirements could play a role in
increasing the demand for offshore wind plants in the United States.
Wind Energy likely to replace coal- coal-fired power plants old and expensive
Navigant Consulting, Inc. ’13 (Bruce Hamilton, Principal Investigator, Lindsay Battenberg, Mark Bielecki, Charlie Bloch,
Terese Decker, Lisa Frantzis, Jay Paidipati, Andy Wickless, Feng Zhao, October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf)
Since 2000, most new power generation capacity in the United States has come from natural gas and wind (see Figure 4-2), partly in
response to the environmental impacts of coal-fired electricity generation. EIA In
addition to having a lower carbon
intensity than coal, natural gas prices have remained relatively low, in large part to the
supply of low-cost gas from the Marcellus Shale. Natural gas prices surpassed $6/MMbtu in January 2010 but
since then have largely remained below $5/MMbtu, including a low of less than $2/MMbtu in April 2012 This decline has reduced
wholesale electricity prices and has made natural gas-fired generation sources even more attractive than wind, in many cases. Continued
low natural gas prices could greatly constrain demand for offshore wind farms in the United States. However, if natural gas prices were
to rise significantly—for example, due to increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports—the attractiveness of offshore wind as an
electricity generation source in the United States could increase. In recent years, some electric utilities in the United States have
announced plans to retire coal-fired power plants or to convert them to natural gas. Navigant analysis reveals executed and planned
retirements through 2017 that exceed 37 GW. There are multiple factors involved in these retirement decisions. Many
of the
United States’ coal-fired power plants are over 50 years old and expensive to continue to
operate and maintain. Complying with environmental requirements, such as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) mercury and air toxics standards and proposed
carbon dioxide emissions limits, can also be costly. While the reduction in generation
capacity created through coal plant retirements will certainly not be filled entirely by a
variable-output resource such as wind, Continued coal plant retirements could play a role in
increasing the demand for offshore wind plants in the United States.
Climate Leadership
United States federal domestic action on climate change key to global climate
leadership
Talbott 12
Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution, and John-Michael Arnold, special assistant to
the President at Brookings, 5-25-2012, “It’s the Climate, Stupid!”
Brookings,http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/5/25%20americas
%20role%20talbott/0525%20americas%20role%20talbott.pdf
And then there’s climate change, the most urgent, most consequential, most dangerous issue of
these times. Climate change is also the ultimate example of the nexus between U.S. domestic
and foreign policy. As long as the United States is tied up in knots at home, it can’t lead the
world. American voters today have an unprecedentedly onerous distinction: they are both the first
generation to realize that they live in the era of global warming and also the last generation with a
chance to do something about it. The human enterprise must cut its emissions of greenhouse gases
by 50 percent in the coming decades, a period when population is projected to grow by 50 percent.
That means in the next five years people have got to begin bending the curve of emissions
that drives global warming—otherwise it will probably be too late to head off an irreversibly
catastrophic tipping point somewhere around midcentury. In meeting this daunting challenge,
the United States—which has pumped almost a third of total global carbon emissions into the
atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution— is uniquely able to catalyze international
consensus and action. Whether that is called a window of opportunity or a window of obligation,
it is closing. During his campaign for the presidency four years ago and in the afterglow of being
elected, Obama seemed ideal for the role and responsibility of catalyst. His identity and biography
were like a parable of the United States as an artifact of globalization at its best. In his statements
on the campaign trail in 2008, in his victory speech in Grant Park, and in his inaugural address, he
gave priority to rescuing what he called a “planet in peril,” and he vowed to put new emphasis on
cooperative solutions to global threats, particularly climate change. In 2009 he undertook a rescue
mission to prevent a debacle at the Copenhagen conference on climate change. Back home, he was
still pushing hard for cap-and-trade legislation only to see it eventually collapse in the Senate. Since
then, the climate issue has been the most conspicuous symptom of 2013itis. The looming question
of the 2012 campaign is whether that disease, as its nickname suggests, can be cured after the
election. Will a reelected Obama succeed in his second term where he failed in his first? Or will a
President Mitt Romney, if he survives the lingering resistance to his nomination within the GOP and
goes on to triumph in November, muster the political will to make up for all these lost years? It
won’t be easy. Both men have demonstrated an awareness of the challenge and its urgency in the
past. During Romney’s governorship, Massachusetts imposed mandatory carbon emission limits on
power plants. But that was six years ago. Now, in a concession to the skeptics who hold sway in his
party, Mitt Romney’s position is that “we don’t know what’s causing climate change.” As for how
2012 will end, no one yet knows who will win the election and how the Earth’s fever chart will look,
but they can be sure of this: not only will the United States score zero progress on the
climate/energy issue, but there will be backsliding in terms of the public debate and education
surrounding it. That’s in part because outright deniers of the science and opponents of corrective
action have the upper hand in that debate, but also it’s because of the widespread antipathy in the
American electorate to any new taxes, notably including a carbon tax by that or any other name.
One must hope that both those factors recede in 2013 and that it’s not too late for the United
States to make the transition from being a huge part of the problem to becoming a
significant—and leading—part of the solution.
US leadership in clean technology is key to international cooperation on climate
change – solves warming.
Grote 6/20/12, Carl (Junior Fellow at the American Security Project). “America’s Role as International Climate Talks Shift
Focus.” American Security Project. http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/americas-role-as-international-climate-talks-shiftfocus/
Mounting rifts at home make American cooperation with international initiative all the
more difficult. In accordance with the Copenhagen Climate Accord the U.S. committed to reducing 17% of its greenhouse gas
emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. Brazil and Japan will cut emissions by 39 and 25 percent below 1990 levels, respectively.
Clearly, the U.S. commitment is lagging as it has the most lax emission target of the participating developed countries. As noted by
Rebecca Burns, the 2011 Durban Climate Conference achieved little except a global climate initiative to be negotiated in 2015.
Nonetheless, Durban was a definite step in the right direction-as long as meaningful negotiations actually occur. Burns, however,
asserts that the focus of the talks will be on a “green economy.” Conceivably, this refers in large part to government support of
sustainable economic growth by enticing investment and providing stimuli to renewable energy projects. The BP Statistical Review
of World Energy 2012 reported that power generated from renewable sources rose 17.7 percent in 2011. In the U.S. alone, solar
installations grew by 109 percent. Seemingly, the
advent of a “green economy” is well underway.
“world’s
largest clean-energy investor,” the U.S. should continue these investments. As in any industry,
production of clean-energy technology can be expected to achieve economies of scale; the
capital and costs needed to bring such technologies to market will decline per unit. Such
a development would make solar panels, wind turbines, etc. more competitive in the
global market, and one could expect to see accelerated displacement of fossil fuels by
these cleaner energy sources. Besides the economic benefits of becoming a global
industry leader, the U.S. would benefit from a stabilizing climate along with the rest of the
world. After all, the larger the share of the global energy portfolio renewable sources account for, the fewer greenhouse gases
emitted. The United States, therefore, should embrace a role at the forefront of the clean-energy
industry as international climate talks shift their focus away from regulating emissions
and towards developing a green economy. In doing so, the United States will strengthen its
economy, greatly contribute toward climate change mitigation, and in turn create a more
secure future for itself and the world.
Considerable gains must be made by the sector, though, to obtain significant climate change reductions. But, as the
We control the internal link to cooperation – only the United States facilitates a global
bargaining table
(Brooks et al 13)
STEPHEN G. BROOKS is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. G. JOHN IKENBERRY is Albert G. Milbank Professor of
Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. WILLIAM C.
WOHLFORTH is Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. This article is adapted from their essay "Don't Come
Home, America: The Case Against Retrenchment," International Security, Winter 2012-13. “Lean Forward In Defense of American
Engagement” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-johnikenberry-and-william-c-wohlforth/lean-forward?page=show, accessed January 4, 2013.
CREATING COOPERATION What goes for the global economy goes for other forms of international cooperation. Here, too, American
leadership benefits many countries but disproportionately helps the United States. In
order to counter transnational
threats, such as terrorism, piracy, organized crime, climate change, and pandemics, states
have to work together and take collective action. But cooperation does not come about
effortlessly, especially when national interests diverge. The United States' military efforts to
promote stability and its broader leadership make it easier for Washington to launch joint initiatives
and shape them in ways that reflect U.S. interests. After all, cooperation is hard to come by in regions where
chaos reigns, and it flourishes where leaders can anticipate lasting stability. U.S. alliances are about security first, but they
also provide the political framework and channels of communication for cooperation on
nonmilitary issues. NATO, for example, has spawned new institutions, such as the Atlantic Council, a
think tank, that make it easier for Americans and Europeans to talk to one another and do business. Likewise, consultations with allies in
East Asia spill over into other policy issues; for example, when American diplomats travel to Seoul to manage the military alliance, they
also end up discussing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Thanks to conduits such as this, the United States can use bargaining chips in one
issue area to make progress in others. The
benefits of these communication channels are especially
pronounced when it comes to fighting the kinds of threats that require new forms of
cooperation, such as terrorism and pandemics. With its alliance system in place, the United States is in a stronger
position than it would otherwise be to advance cooperation and share burdens. For example, the intelligence-sharing network within
NATO, which was originally designed to gather information on the Soviet Union, has been adapted to deal with terrorism. Similarly, after
a tsunami in the Indian Ocean devastated surrounding countries in 2004, Washington had a much easier time orchestrating a fast
humanitarian response with Australia, India, and Japan, since their militaries were already comfortable working with one another. The
operation did wonders for the United States' image in the region. The United States' global role also has the more direct effect of
facilitating the bargains among governments that get cooperation going in the first place. As the scholar Joseph Nye has written, "The
American military role in deterring threats to allies, or of assuring access to a crucial resource such as oil in the
Persian Gulf, means that the provision of protective force can be used in bargaining situations.
Sometimes the linkage may be direct; more often it is a factor not mentioned openly but present in the back of statesmen's minds."
AT Warming Inevitable
Global warming is not inevatble, cutting back emissons now is key to prevent impacts
Desjardins, 13, [Cléa Desjardins, senior advisor, media relations at Concordia University, Global
warming: irreversible but not inevitable, Concordia University,
http://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/stories/2013/04/02/global-warming-irreversible-but-notinevitable.html]
There is a persistent misconception among both scientists and the public that there is a delay between
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and the climate’s response to those emissions. This misconception
has led policy makers to argue that CO2 emission cuts implemented now will not affect the climate
system for many decades. This erroneous line of argument makes the climate problem seem more
intractable than it actually is, say Concordia University’s Damon Matthews and MIT’s Susan Solomon in a
recent Science article. The researchers show that immediate decreases in CO2 emissions would in fact
result in an immediate decrease in the rate of climate warming. Explains Matthews, professor in the Department of
Geography, Planning and Environment, “If we can successfully decrease CO2 emissions in the near future, this
change will be felt by the climate system when the emissions reductions are implemented – not in
several decades." “The potential for a quick climate response to prompt cuts in CO2 emissions opens up the possibility that the
climate benefits of emissions reductions would occur on the same timescale as the political decisions
themselves.” In their paper, Matthews and Solomon, Ellen Swallow Richards professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science,
show that the onus for slowing the rate of global warming falls squarely on current efforts at reducing CO2
emissions, and the resulting future emissions that we produce. This means that there are critical implications for the
equity of carbon emission choices currently being discussed internationally. Total emissions from developing countries may soon exceed those
from developed nations. But developed countries are expected to maintain a far higher per-capita contribution to present and possible future
warming. “This
disparity clarifies the urgency for low-carbon technology investment and diffusion to enable
developing countries to continue to develop,” says Matthews. “Emission cuts made now will have an
immediate effect on the rate of global warming,” he asserts. “I see more hope for averting difficult-to-avoid negative impacts
by accelerating advances in technology development and diffusion, than for averting climate system changes that are already inevitable. Given
the enormous scope and complexity of the climate mitigation challenge, clarifying these points of hope is critical to motivate change.”
It’s not too late to solve warming – we can prevent warming greater than .8 degrees
Celsius
Hosansky and Drummond in 09 (David Hosansky and Rachael Drummond, UCAR; and John
Hules, Berkeley Lab “It's Not Too Late to Change Global Warming's Course Simulations Show That
Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would Save Arctic Ice, Reduce Sea Level Rise”
The threat of global warming can still be greatly diminished if nations cut emissions of heat-trapping
greenhouse gases by 70 percent this century, according to a study led by scientists at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). While global temperatures would rise, the most dangerous
potential aspects of climate change, including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost
and significant sea level rise, could be partially avoided. "This research indicates that we can no longer avoid
significant warming during this century," says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead author. "But if the world were to implement
this level of emission cuts, we
could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid an even greater
catastrophe." To simulate a century of climate conditions, the researchers used more than 2000 processors of Franklin, the
National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center's (NERSC) Cray XT4 system, as well as computers at the Oak Ridge and Argonne
Leadership Computing Facilities and at NCAR. Over the past two years, the NCAR team received a total allocation of 50 million processor
hours on NERSC computers for a variety of climate studies. Average global temperatures have
warmed by close
to 1 degree Celsius (almost 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era. Much of the
warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon
dioxide. This heat-trapping gas has increased from a pre-industrial level of about 284 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to
more than 380 ppm today. With research showing that additional warming of about 1 degree C (1.8
degrees F) may be the threshold for dangerous climate change, the European Union has called for dramatic
cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. Congress is also debating the issue. To examine the impact of
such cuts on the world's climate, Washington and his colleagues ran a series of global supercomputer studies with the NCAR-based
Community Climate System Model (CCSM). They assumed that carbon dioxide levels could be held to 450 ppm at the end of this century.
That figure comes from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which has cited 450 ppm as an attainable target if the world quickly
adopts conservation practices and new green technologies to cut emissions dramatically. In contrast, emissions are now on track to reach
about 750 ppm by 2100 if unchecked. The
team's results showed that if carbon dioxide were held to 450
ppm, global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees C (about 1 degree F) above current readings by the
end of the century. In contrast, the study showed that temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to 2.2 degrees C (4
degrees F) globally above current observations, if emissions were allowed to continue on their present course (Figure 1
Climate mitigation works, irreversible doesn’t mean unavoidable
Matthews and Solomon ’13 (H.D. Matthews, ecologist, S. Solomon, environmentalist, both at MIT, Irreversible
Does Not Mean Unavoidable, MIT open access papers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric, and
Planetary Sciences, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/87694, accessed: 6/30/14 GA)
There is a commonly held belief among both scientists and the general public that there is a
delay between the CO2 emissions we put into the atmosphere, and the resulting climate
change. As a consequence, there is a perception that current and near-future climate warming is
pre-determined by past CO2 emissions, and by extension, that CO2 emissions reductions
implemented now will not have any effect on the future rate of global warming for at least
several decades. In this perspective, we argue that this conclusion is based on an incomplete
interpretation of the inertia of the climate system. Considering the opposing effects of both physical climate and
carbon cycle inertia, there is a compelling argument that the climate response to CO2 emissions
cuts would not be delayed by lags in the climate system. Consequently, climate mitigation efforts
implemented today would be of immediate importance for future global temperatures. This has
important implications for climate policy: the potential for a rapid climate response to prompt CO2 emissions cuts opens the possibility
that the climate benefits of emissions reductions would occur on the same timescale as the political decisions themselves . This
question of how decreases in CO2 emissions would affect global temperatures has
unfortunately been clouded in recent years in part by confusion regarding physical climate
issues of ‘unrealized warming’ and irreversibility(1). The notion that there is unrealized warming or ‘warming in
the pipeline’(2) if the concentrations of carbon dioxide (and other radiative forcing agents) were to remain fixed at current levels has
been misinterpreted to mean that increases in the Earth’s global temperature are inevitable, regardless of how much or how quickly we
decrease our emissions(1). Such statements have been widely reported in both popular coverage of climate change* and in scientific
publications† . Further misunderstanding
likely stems from recent studies that have shown that
the warming that has already occurred due to past anthropogenic carbon dioxide increases
is irreversible on a time scale of at least a thousand years(4, 5) – but irreversibility of past
changes does not mean that further warming is unavoidable.
It’s not too late- action now can reverse and mitigate warming
Peters 12 - Center for International Climate and Environmental Research
(Peer Reviewed Journal, Glen, “The challenge to keep global warming below 2 [deg]C, Glen P. Peters,
Robbie M. Andrew, Tom Boden, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Corinne Le Quéré, Nature Climate
Change, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1783.html)
On-going climate negotiations have recognized a “significant gap” between the current trajectory of global greenhouse-gas emissions and the “likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2
°C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”1. Here we compare recent trends in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, cement production and gas flaring with the primary emission scenarios used by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Carbon dioxide emissions are the largest contributor to long-term climate change and thus provide a good baseline to assess progress and examine consequences.
We find that current emission trends continue to track scenarios that lead to the highest temperature increases. Further
delay in global mitigation makes it
increasingly difficult to stay below 2 °C. Long-term emissions scenarios are designed to represent a range of plausible emission trajectories as input for climate
change research2, 3. The IPCC process has resulted in four generations of emissions scenarios2: Scientific Assessment 1990 (SA90)4, IPCC Scenarios 1992 (IS92)5, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)6, and the
evolving Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)7 to be used in the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The RCPs were developed by the research community as a new, parallel process of scenario
development, whereby climate models are run using the RCPs while simultaneously socioeconomic and emission scenarios are developed that span the range of the RCPs and beyond2. It is important to regularly re-
In the past, decadal trends in CO2 emissions have
responded slowly to changes in the underlying emission drivers because of inertia and path dependence in technical, social and political systems9. Inertia and path
dependence are unlikely to be affected by short-term fluctuations2, 3, 9 — such as financial crises10 — and it is probable that emissions will continue to rise for
a period even after global mitigation has started11. Thermal inertia and vertical mixing in the ocean, also delay the temperature response to CO2 emissions12.
assess the relevance of emissions scenarios in light of changing global circumstances3, 8.
Because of inertia, path dependence and changing global circumstances, there is value in comparing observed decadal emission trends with emission scenarios to help inform the prospect of different futures being
Global CO2 emissions have
increased from 6.1±0.3 Pg C in 1990 to 9.5±0.5 Pg C in 2011 (3% over 2010), with average annual growth rates of 1.9% per year in the 1980s, 1.0% per year in the 1990s, and 3.1% per year since 2000. We
realized, explore the feasibility of desired changes in the current emission trajectory and help to identify whether new scenarios may be needed.
estimate that emissions in 2012 will be 9.7±0.5 Pg C or 2.6% above 2011 (range of 1.9–3.5%) and 58% greater than 1990 (Supplementary Information and ref. 13). The observed growth rates are at the top end of all four
generations of emissions scenarios (Figs 1 and 2). Of the previous illustrative IPCC scenarios, only IS92-E, IS92-F and SRES A1B exceed the observed emissions (Fig. 1) or their rates of growth (Fig. 2), with RCP8.5 lower
but within uncertainty bounds of observed emissions. Figure 1: Estimated CO2 emissions over the past three decades compared with the IS92, SRES and the RCPs. The SA90 data are not shown, but the most relevant
(SA90-A) is similar to IS92-A and IS92-F. The uncertainty in historical emissions is ±5% (one standard deviation). Scenario data is generally reported at decadal intervals and we use linear interpolation for intermediate
years. Full size image (386 KB) Figures index Next Figure 2: Growth rates of historical and scenario CO2 emissions. The average annual growth rates of the historical emission estimates (black crosses) and the
emission scenarios for the time periods of overlaps (shown on the horizontal axis). The growth rates are more comparable for the longer time intervals considered (in order: SA90, 27 years; IS92, 22 years; SRES, 12
years; and RCPs, 7 years). The short-term growth rates of the scenarios do not necessarily reflect the long-term emission pathway (for example, A1B has a high initial growth rate compared with its long-term behaviour
and RCP3PD has a higher growth rate until 2010 compared with RCP4.5 and RCP6). For the SRES, we represent the illustrative scenario for each family (filled circles) and each of the contributing model scenarios (open
circles). The scenarios generally report emissions at intervals of 10 years or more and we interpolated linearly to 2012; a sensitivity analysis shows a linear interpolation is robust (Supplementary Fig. S14). Full size
image (112 KB) Previous Figures index Observed emission trends are in line with SA90-A, IS92-E and IS92-F, SRES A1FI, A1B and A2, and RCP8.5 (Fig. 2). The SRES scenarios A1FI and A2 and RCP8.5 lead to the highest
temperature projections among the scenarios, with a mean temperature increase of 4.2–5.0 °C in 2100 (range of 3.5–6.2 °C)14, whereas the SRES A1B scenario has decreasing emissions after 2050 leading to a lower
temperature increase of 3.5 °C (range 2.9–4.4°C)14. Earlier research has noted that observed emissions have tracked the upper SRES scenarios15, 16 and Fig. 1 confirms this for all four scenario generations. This
indicates that the space of possible pathways could be extended above the top-end scenarios to accommodate the possibility of even higher emission rates in the future. The new RCPs are particularly relevant because, in
contrast to the earlier scenarios, mitigation efforts consistent with long-term policy objectives are included among the pathways2. RCP3-PD (peak and decline in concentration) leads to a mean temperature increase of
1.5 °C in 2100 (range of 1.3–1.9 °C)14. RCP3–PD requires net negative emissions (for example, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) from 2070, but some scenarios suggest it is possible to stay below 2 °C without
negative emissions17, 18, 19. RCP4.5 and RCP6 — which lie between RCP3–PD and RCP8.5 in the longer term — lead to a mean temperature increase of 2.4 °C (range of 1.0–3.0 °C) and 3.0 °C (range of 2.6–3.7 °C) in 2100,
respectively14. For RCP4.5, RCP6 and RCP8.5, temperatures will continue to increase after 2100 due to on-going emissions14 and inertia in the climate system12. Current emissions are tracking slightly above RCP8.5,
and given the growing gap between the other RCPs (Fig. 1), significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep 2 °C as a feasible goal18, 19, 20. To follow an emission trend that can keep the temperature increase
below 2 °C (RCP3-PD) requires sustained global CO2 mitigation rates of around 3% per year, if global emissions peak before 202011, 19. A delay in starting mitigation activities will lead to higher mitigation rates11,
higher costs21, 22, and the target of remaining below 2 °C may become unfeasible18, 20. If participation is low, then higher rates of mitigation are needed in individual countries, and this may even increase mitigation
costs for all countries22. Many of these rates assume that negative emissions will be possible and affordable later this century11, 17, 18, 20. Reliance on negative emissions has high risks because of potential delays or
failure in the development and large-scale deployment of emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage, particularly those connected to bioenergy17, 18. Although current emissions are tracking the higher
The historical record shows that some
countries have reduced CO2 emissions over 10-year periods, through a combination of (non-climate) policy
intervention and economic adjustments to changing resource availability. The oil crisis of 1973 led to new policies on energy supply and energy savings, which produced a decrease in the share of fossil
scenarios, it is still possible to transition towards pathways consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 °C (refs 17,19,20).
fuels (oil shifted to nuclear) in the energy supply of Belgium, France and Sweden, with emission reductions of 4–5% per year sustained over 10 or more years (Supplementary Figs S17–19).A continuous shift to natural
gas — partially substituting coal and oil — led to sustained mitigation rates of 1–2% per year in the UK in the 1970s and again in the 2000s, 2% per year in Denmark in the 1990–2000s, and 1.4% per year since 2005 in
These examples highlight the practical feasibility of emission reductions through
fuel substitution and efficiency improvements, but additional factors such as carbon leakage23 need to be considered. These types of emission reduction can help initiate a
transition towards trajectories consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 °C, but further mitigation
measures are needed to complete and sustain the reductions. Similar energy transitions could be encouraged and co-ordinated across countries in the next 10 years using available technologies19, but welltargeted technological innovations24 are required to sustain the mitigation rates for longer
periods17. To move below the RCP8.5 scenario — avoiding the worst climate impacts — requires early action 17, 18, 21
the USA (Supplementary Figs S10–12).
and sustained mitigation from the largest emitters22 such as China, the U nited S tates, the European Union and India. These four regions together account for over half of global CO2
emissions, and have strong and centralized governing bodies capable of co-ordinating such actions. If similar energy transitions are repeated over many decades in a broader range of developed and emerging economies,
the current emission trend could be pulled down to make RCP3-PD, RCP4.5 and RCP6 all feasible futures. A shift to a pathway with the highest likelihood
to remain below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels (for example, RCP3-PD), requires high levels of technological, social and political innovations, and an increasing need to rely on net negative emissions in the future11, 17,
timing of mitigation efforts needs to account for delayed responses in both CO2 emissions9
(because of inertia in technical, social and political systems) and also in global temperature12 (because of inertia in the climate system). Unless large and
concerted global mitigation efforts are initiated soon, the goal of remaining below 2 °C will very soon
become unachievable.
18. The
Every Reduction Key
All emission reductions help prevent global warming- one carbon offset leads to more
Terrapass ND (Terrapass, How emissions reduction projects work, http://www.terrapass.com/learn/project-standards/)
Emissions reduction projects reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in one of three ways: By capturing and
destroying a greenhouse gas that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere. An example of this is a methane gas capture project at
a landfill; By
producing energy using a clean, renewable resource that eliminates the need to
produce that same energy from fossil fuels, the burning of which releases greenhouse gas
into the atmosphere. An example of this is wind power; or By capturing and storing (or “sequestering”)
greenhouse gases to prevent their release into the atmosphere. An example of this is a project that promotes the healthy growth and
maintenance of forests. Some projects entail more than one of these activities at the same time. For example, gas capture projects at
landfills not only prevent the release of methane gas into the atmosphere, but they also use the captured methane to generate electricity
that would otherwise be generated by burning fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas. What is a carbon offset, anyway? A
carbon
offset is a certificate representing the reduction of one metric ton (2,205 lbs) of carbon
dioxide emissions, the principal cause of climate change. Although complex in practice, carbon offsets are
fairly simple in theory. If you develop a project that reduces carbon dioxide emissions, every ton of
emissions reduced results in the creation of one carbon offset. Project developers can then
sell these offsets to finance their projects. There are hundreds of different types of carbon
reduction projects. For example, a dairy farm can install an anaerobic digester to captures and destroys methane that would
otherwise be released when animal manure decomposes. However, such anaerobic digester projects are typically expensive to install and
maintain. In order to finance the construction and operation of a digester project, a dairy farm can sell the emission reductions in the
form of carbon offsets. Carbon offsets are therefore an available tool for individuals and organizations that wish to mitigate the impact of
their own carbon footprint.
AT China Alt Cause
China is taking initiatives to reduce carbon emissions – they will reduce up to 45% by
2020
Yingchun 2013
(Gong, November 21, 2013, “China will notably cut CO2 emissions by 2020”,
http://www.china.org.cn/environment/warsaw_climate_talks/201311/21/content_30663021.htm)
"China will continue to step up its efforts to address climate change in a bid to achieve the
target of reducing CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from the 2005 levels,"
reiterated Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation and vice chairman of the National Development and Reform
Commission (NDRC) during the high-level segment of the Warsaw Climate Change Conference on Nov. 20. ¶ The high-level segment of the Warsaw Climate
conference on Wednesday and offered four suggestions
for the ongoing climate negotiations.¶ Xie urged all countries to join in sincere cooperation
to deal with the ongoing climate change that poses great global threats to sustainable development. He pointed out that the
Change Conference kicked off on Tuesday. Xie attended the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the common commitment adhered to by all parties. Additionally, the principles of
equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities serve as guidelines for the international community to follow. He called on all
parties to turn the outcomes of the documents of past COP/CMP conferences into real actions and make the Warsaw Conference a meeting of
"implementation."¶ Xie noted that funding is key to the success of the conference. "Funding is the prerequisite for developing countries to take actions in
mitigation, adaptation, loss and damages, technology development & transfer, capacity building and transparency," he said. Therefore, he urged developed
countries to fulfill all their funding commitments and develop a clear roadmap for providing US$100 billion each year by 2020.¶ The
emission
reduction targets show the ambition of the different parties involved, Xie continued. He stressed that the
Warsaw Conference should urge all, especially those developed countries, to ratify the Amendment to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol
as soon as possible. "If developed countries follow the requirement of a scientific report [Emission Gap Report 2013 released by United Nations Environment
Program] by increasing their emission reduction targets to 40 percent by 2020, the so-called gap in emission reduction efforts would no longer exist," he
said.¶ Xie also pointed out the achievements that China has made thus far in dealing with air pollution issues and addressing climate change, given that
China's energy consumption per unit GDP has decreased by 26.4 percent over the past eight
years and over 2.35 billion tons of CO2 have been cut, a 28 percent drop in carbon intensity.
The stock volume of forest in China has increased by 1.723 billion cubic meters, exceeding the target of 1.3 billion cubic meters, he said.¶ Moreover, Xie said
China has undertaken a series of new actions to deal with climate change since 2012, such as the launch of China's first National Low Carbon Day and the
carbon exchange pilot project. Furthermore, China has carried out South-South cooperation and has continuously provided US$10 million each year to
support capacity building in other developing countries since 2011. ¶ On a final note, Xie stated that China
is carrying out internal
consultation and analysis for the development of further actions. He believed China will make contributions and efforts
for addressing climate change around the world after 2020.
The US and China are working together to cap emissions – together they will
significantly reduce air pollution
Automotive News 2013
(December 5, 2013, “U.S. to help China crack down on vehicle emissions”,
http://www.autonews.com/article/20131205/OEM11/131209907/u.s.-to-help-china-crackdown-on-vehicle-emissions)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The
United States will help China implement stricter emission standards for
vehicles in a bid to help the world's biggest carbon emitter tackle rampant air pollution, the White House said today. The
¶
announcement was one of several made at the conclusion of Vice President Joe Biden's visit to China, where he met with President Xi Jinping and other
senior Chinese officials to discuss ways to strengthen economic ties between the countries in addition to the escalating geopolitical tensions in the East
China Sea.¶ Under the new agreement, the United States pledged to give China technical assistance to implement a new round of vehicle emissions standards,
known as China VI, which would
require cars to have filters that capture particulate matter that
contributes to heavy smog. "These standards, when implemented, will have significant air quality and
climate benefits and reduce vehicle fuel use," according to a White House fact sheet. Addressing climate change
¶
¶
internationally through both multilateral and bilateral relationships is a pillar of President Barack Obama's Climate Action Plan, a strategy released in June to
tackle heat-trapping greenhouse gases.¶ China
and the United States are the world's No. 1 and No. 2 emitters of greenhouse gas emissions,
respectively. Experts say joint action between the two provides the biggest hope for tackling global climate
change. Greening the growing fleet According to China's Ministry of Public Security, passenger car ownership in China reached 120 million by the end
¶
¶
of 2012. At the current growth rate, passenger car ownership will top 200 million by 2020. ¶ But as some of China's major cities try to cope with choking air
pollution, they have placed new restrictions on vehicle sales. ¶ China is currently in the process of implementing its fourth-stage emissions standards, or
China IV diesel standards, which would cap the allowed sulfur content at 50 parts per million next year, down from current levels of 350 parts per million. ¶
China V standards for diesel and refined gasoline will be rolled out next; they will not take effect until 2017. They will lower the sulfur content limit to 10
parts per million.¶ China vs. U.S. standards¶ The city of Beijing, which has a population of over 20 million and will have as many as 6 million private cars by
2015, implemented the China V standard in February to tackle record pollution that surpassed hazardous levels early this year.¶ By contrast, the United
States allows a sulfur content of 15 parts per million while the European Union allows diesel fuel to have a sulfur content of 10 parts per million.¶ One U.S.
official said it is a significant development that the United States is helping China jump-start the sixth stage of vehicle emissions standards while it is still
working on its 2017 standards.¶ "The United States is interested in moving to China to six as soon as possible," the official said. "It is a clear signal that
China wants to move forward in an accelerated way that will have far reaching impacts on
air quality and public health." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department officials will help Chinese counterparts
¶
with modeling, testing and other technical research required for developing those standards. ¶ The two countries also agreed to continue working together to
phase down the consumption of hydrofluorocarbons, a highly potent greenhouse gas used in refrigeration. ¶ They also agreed to jointly study phasing out
fossil fuel subsidies in both countries.
AT India Alt Cause
India announced plans to reduce carbon emissions – it seeks energy efficiency that will
help world emissions decrease
Ramesh 2009
(Randeep, December 2, 2009, “India to reduce carbon intensity by 24% by 2020”,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/02/india-carbon-intensity-target)
A worker at the Suzlon wind turbine factory at Khori, Maharashtra.
India, the world’s fourth-highest emitter of greenhouse gases, has been
under pressure from developed nations to announce what it will do to control emissions.
Photograph: Gautam Singh/AP India could reduce its carbon intensity by 24% by 2020 compared with
2005 levels, government sources revealed today.¶ ¶ The leaked figures, which emerged ahead of the Copenhagen
climate change summit next Monday, follow Beijing's announcement last week that China would move to
cut carbon intensity - the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic growth - by more than 40% by 2020. The EU has already
¶
¶¶
pledged a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2020 - set to rise to 30% if other developed countries match the European target - while the US last month
proposed cuts of 17%.¶ ¶ Sources told the Indian media that the reduction in carbon intensity could go up to 37% by 2030, compared to 2005. India's
environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, is expected to make a statement in parliament tomorrow to announce the targets, Reuters reported.¶ ¶ To
reduce emissions, India's national action plan on climate change sees increasing solar power
generation, improving energy efficiency and enhancing carbon sinks as a route to "greener
growth". In August, India laid out an ambitious plan to generate 20GW of solar power by 2020, which could equate to 75% of the world's solar energy.
¶
The country, which is the world's fourth-highest emitter of greenhouse gases, has been under pressure from developed nations to announce what it will do
to control emissions.¶ With an economy estimated to grow at 6.5% next year, many have pointed out that Delhi's contribution to global warming will
increase substantially.¶ India's "voluntary reductions" were first floated by Ramesh last week during talks with the Chinese prime minister. ¶ He told
journalists then that India could not afford to be seen as lagging behind in other nations in offering to act. "We have to look at it. I don't think we can sweep
(aside) the fact that China, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa and peer group countries have put down voluntary, unilateral, non-legally binding, quantitative
targets," the minister said.¶ Ramesh also said Delhi would shoot down the Danish proposal to set a "peaking year" after which global emissions will fall. A
draft proposal suggested that global emissions peak by 2020. ¶ A senior government official who declined to be named told Reuters that India's final targets,
likely to be presented at next week's global climate change talks in Copenhagen, could reflect a broad range rather than a specific figure. ¶ Talks for a new
global climate treaty to succeed the 1997 Kyoto protocol beyond 2012 are deadlocked as rich and poor nations trade blows. The issues range from emission
targets to the financial aid for developing countries to help them cope with the effects of climate change. ¶ Delhi has been a hardliner in the negotiations
saying it won't accept legally binding emission caps and offered only to keep per-capita output of carbon lower than that of richer nations. The average
Indian's carbon footprint is eight times smaller than the average person in Britain.
***Solvency
1ac solvency/plan card
1ac solvency – the usfg should mandate offshore and increase funding
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
Despite its ineffectiveness to date, the
CZMA has great potential to serve as a framework for offshore
wind power development. With some simple but clear revisions that could enhance federal
influence, mimicking Denmark's stronger centralized control of energy development, the CZMA could be used to
mandate offshore wind power-friendly CZMPs where applicable . At the same time, the Act will continue
to uphold the federalism values ingrained in the management of coastal resources in the
United States. These revisions should be: To include an explicit mandate for offshore wind
power development where appropriate and feasible on all U.S. coasts; To require revisions
to CZMPs in accordance with this new mandate; And To increase funding and other
incentives for offshore wind power development. Revising the CZMA is not a new idea for Congress. For example,
during the Cape Wind federal jurisdiction saga, Cong. William D. Delahunt (D-MA) proposed a set of revisions to the CZMA257 in
response to the Cape Wind federal jurisdiction confusion.258 Although these did not pass, 259 and focused on agency jurisdiction over
offshore wind rather than the promotion of offshore wind, the proposal at least demonstrates some willingness in Congress to take on
the idea of revising the CZMA. Indeed, the CZMA has been amended in the 260 past, for example to encourage aquaculture. In a promising
sign of state willingness to cooperate in coastal management, Massachusetts and fifteen other states participated in MMS's initial
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process, which261 was MMS's effort to determine how to address offshore wind
permitting. Several commenters in the process, including representatives of state agencies, urged MMS to coordinate with state
authorities in finding suitable locations for 262 offshore wind facilities. More recently, Massachusetts's Ocean Management Plan
explicitly suggests coordination with MMS for offshore renewable energy 263 siting. Although the United States has evolved a
fundamentally different approach to coastal management from Denmark, revisions to the CZMA should
shift our
national approach toward increased, centralized influence and coordination that has
worked so effectively in that country. Currently the CZMA recognizes the potential importance of offshore energy
development and requires the consideration of the development of energy facilities that "are of greater than local significance" in state
plans.264 These vague
standards are not sufficient, however, as evidenced by the failure of offshore wind power
development in the United States, and in Cape Wind in particular. The CZMA should be revised to include an explicit
mandate to states to
permit, and possibly even to
promote, offshore wind energy and other renewable
energy development in appropriate locations . The term "development" should broadly
encompass generation facilities as well as transmission lines and other works required to
allow facilities to operate effectively. While it is important for states to continue to respond to local concerns and
negative impacts, the federal government needs a stronger voice in favor of the national interest
in offshore wind power development. This new mandate would not have a detrimental effect
on the federal government's broad goal of environmental protection. It would not give offshore wind
power developers a right to develop anywhere off the coast, but it would push development in locations that are
appropriate environmentally. Along with studies relating to optimal coastal development conditions, for example, wind
pattern studies, MMS's PEIS could serve as a useful starting point in defining what "appropriate locations" should entail. The PEIS
examines "the potential environmental consequences of implementing the [Alternative Energy and Alternate Use Program on the OCS]
and will be used ,,265 to establish initial measures to mitigate environmental consequences. Individual projects would almost certainly
still require individual EISs under NEPA, which would further ensure environmentally appropriate offshore renewable development. In
fact, NEPA would effectively serve as a backstop to the development that a revised CZMA would encourage, as it would discourage or
prohibit environmentally harmful overdevelopment. This revision
to the CZMA could change how coastal
states treat offshore wind power development in two ways. First, it would require changes to
many states' CZMPs to reflect the new national priority for offshore renewable energy sources,
including offshore wind. Second, the new CZMA mandate would affect how states approach the
federal consistency review process with respect to renewable permitting and construction in state
and federal waters.266 The federal government would likely certify offshore wind projects as consistent with states' revised CZMPs
because development of offshore renewable energy would be an explicit goal in the states' CZMPs under the revised CZMA. Similarly ,
states would less frequently be able to object to these determinations, because they would
have difficulty finding inconsistency with their revised state CZMPs. 267 And even if a coastal state did
object to a federal determination, the Secretary of Commerce could overrule the state's objection as
inconsistent with the new objectives of the CZMA.268 Thus, the revised CZMA would more
effectively compel states to consider the national benefits of offshore wind in addition to just
their consideration of the local costs. Further, it would give offshore wind proponents
support in combating local opposition to projects. This revision could come in tandem with revisions to the
Energy Policy Act or as part of an entirely new energy agenda. President Barack Obama has repeatedly expressed interest in a new
trajectory for energy policy in the United States that focuses on climate change, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy
independence. 269 Congress could take advantage of this momentum to make these related revisions to the CZMA as well. In fact, reform
of an existing, familiar set of regulations, like the CZMA, may be more palatable to Congress, and an easy first step to take with regard to
renewable energy.
All three parts of the aff are key- funding won’t work without a regulatory framework
that encourages states to develop offshore wind.
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
A revised CZMA would provide a promising solution to the problems that offshore wind
energy and other offshore renewable energy sources have faced in the United States.
Specifically, offshore wind power development has faced repeated failures due to the
mismatch between local costs and national benefits, and the absence of a regulatory
framework to reconcile them. While it may come too late to make a difference for Cape Wind, a
new CZMA could still ensure success for offshore wind power in other locations around the
United States. Still, to be truly effective, revising the CZMA needs to be just one step in a broader
offshore wind or renewable energy program. While a new CZMA would address problems
related to offshore wind farm siting, this is just one barrier that offshore wind power
development needs to overcome. For example, as with all renewable energy sources, the
importance of positive federal government policies and incentives, such as the production
tax credits mentioned previously, are key to offshore wind power's success.
AT Cost
Offshore Wind has minimal downside and the cost-factors will be quickly resolved on
a short learning curve
Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in
Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning
Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p
Whereas many of the benefits of offshore wind power are national or even global, the costs
are almost entirely local. The downsides to offshore wind that drive most of the opposition to
offshore wind power are visual and environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects
complain about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local property values.79
They also make related complaints about negative impacts on coastal recreational activities and
tourism.80 However, studies have failed to show statistically significant negative aesthetic or
property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts. In addition,
opponents frequently cite offshore wind power’s environmental costs. These costs are site
specific and can involve harm to plants and animals, and their habitats.82 This harm includes
impacts on birds, which can involve disruption of migratory patterns, destruction of habitat, and
bird deaths from collision with the turbine blades.83 However, these adverse impacts are
generally less dramatic than those associated with fossil fuel extraction and generation, and
in a well-chosen site they can be negligible.84 A recent, exhaustive study of the environmental
impact of major offshore wind farms in Denmark concluded that ―offshore wind farms, if placed
right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine
environment and vulnerable species.‖85A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more
expensive to build, and more difficult to install and maintain, than onshore wind farms.86 The cost
of an offshore wind project is estimated to be at least 50 percent greater than the onshore
equivalent.87 Short- and long-term technical improvements could help to lower offshore
wind costs, however, and government assistance may help them occur more quickly.88
Incentives Solve
The PTC incentivizes wind energy development
US Department of Energy, 2013
US Department of Energy. "Federal Incentives for Wind Power." US Department of Energy. US
Department of Energy, Oct. 2013. Web. 19 July 2014.
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/57933_eere_wwpp_federal_incentives.pdf>.
The federal government uses several tax-based policy incentives to stimulate the
deployment of renewable energy. The Department of the Treasury's Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) administers these incentives. The federal Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit
(PTC), established by the Energy Policy Act of I992, allows owners of qualified, renewable
energy facilities to receive tax credits for each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated
by the facility over a 10-year period. Qualified wind power projects are eligible to receive 2.3
cents per kWh for the production of electricity from utility-scale 1" wind turbines (indexed for
inflation).
The federal government should increase financial and tax incentives to substantially
increase offshore wind energy
Norman Y. Mineta, Co-Chair, Joint Ocean Commission Initiative and Former U.S. Secretary of
Commerce, Transportation, January 2014, “Review of: Time to Chart a New Course For the Health
of Our Oceans,” Sea & Technology, http://www.sea-technology.com/
features/2014/0114/7_Mineta.php, Accessed 4/25/2014
Action two is to promote ocean renewable energy development and reinvest in our oceans. With
two successful offshore wind lease sales this past summer and more to come, the U.S. has an
opportunity to be a leader in promoting ocean renewable energy development as a safe,
environmentally responsible and economical energy source. In order to accelerate the
development of offshore wind energy and other renewable energy sources, the Joint
Initiative calls on the administration and Congress to provide adequate financial and tax
incentives for companies working to develop these technologies. The Joint Initiative also
supports the establishment of a dedicated ocean investment fund that would use a portion of the
revenues from offshore commercial energy projects—including oil and gas, and wind energy—to
support ocean and coastal science, management and ecosystem restoration efforts to help
managers and commercial interests make the best possible decisions up and down the coasts.
But federal loan guarantees don’t exist yet – key to offshore wind expansion –
uncertainty precludes investment as banks only partially evaluate potential farms
underfunding projects
Caperton et al '12
Richard W. Caperton is the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at
American Progress. , "Encouraging Investment Is Key to U.S. Offshore Wind Development" 1/12/12
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/offshore_wind.html
Loan guarantees Uncertainty around offshore wind turbines’ operational performance also
makes it difficult to finance these projects. When a bank evaluates a wind farm, it predicts how
much power the turbines will produce each year and will only “count” the power that they’re
extremely confident will be produced. With an innovative technology like offshore wind, this could
mean that only half of the turbines’ expected output is “bankable.” This affects whether or not a
bank thinks the developer will pay back a loan, and ultimately influences whether or not a bank offers
a loan. This is a significant problem for offshore wind developers. But the federal government
can solve this problem by guaranteeing a loan to a project developer. In this case the government
agrees to pay back a loan if the developer is unable to. This puts banks at ease (after all, the U.S.
government has a perfect track record of paying back loans) and will allow financing to flow
freely. Congress has two simple ways to create a loan guarantee program for offshore wind. They can
create a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, or “Green Bank,” which would offer financing
tools like loan guarantees for innovative technologies. Or they can allocate funding to cover the cost
of new loan guarantees for offshore wind under the existing Department of Energy Loan
Guarantee Program. Either way forward would help drive investment in the burgeoning offshore
wind industry.
A renewables transition is coming now, but uncertainty from the private sector
prevents its actualization.
(Mormann 2012)
Felix. "Enhancing the Investor Appeal of Renewable Energy."Environmental Law 42 (2012). LEXIS.
The good news is that a timely transition
to a low-carbon, renewables based electricity sector
appears within technological reach. In 2008, former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore announced his plan
to “Re-power America” 20 with 100% clean electricity from renewables within a decade. Since then, over half a dozen
independent studies have confirmed the technological feasibility of meeting the entire
electricity demand of a given country, 21 region, 22 or even the world, 23 with renewable sources of
energy. In their timeframes for the shift to renewables, the feasibility studies range from 2050 24 as mandated by the two-degree
scenario, to 2030, 25 to an extremely ambitious Gore-esque transition as early as 2020. 26 The bad news is that we
remain far
from harnessing the full technological potential of power generation from renewable
sources of energy. Current projections forecast that renewables will account for only 15% of
American electricity generation by 2035. 27 Compared to a renewables share of 10% in 2010, 28 the projected
growth over the next quarter of a century is relatively modest. Our business-as-usual trajectory, therefore, is too
slow to reap the trifecta of environmental, economic, and energy security rewards that await
the winner of the Race to Renewables. One U.S. commentator has already warned that, without a strong
commitment to renewables, “we may look toward a future of imported clean technology as a
substitute for imported dirty fuels.” 29 A whole plethora of obstacles presently stand in the way of a timely scale-up of
renewable energy technologies. Economists have long warned of environmental externalities and other market failures and
imperfections in the electricity sector that hinder renewables in their competition with fossil fuel incumbents. 30 Recent legal
scholarship has investigated regulatory and other non-economic barriers to the large-scale deployment of renewable energy
technologies, offering policy recommendations to cut through the red tape. 31 Even if these barriers are removed, scaling-up
renewable energy technologies will still require an enormous infusion of capital. At a
macroeconomic level, the overall cost of transitioning to an electricity sector based on renewables has been estimated at around $100
trillion globally— not including the necessary investments in transmission infrastructure. 32 Notwithstanding recent growth in venture
capital and other clean-tech investment, the transition to a low-carbon, renewables-based electricity sector will require a massive influx
of trillions of dollars in additional capital. 33 An
investment of such magnitude, however, exceeds the financial
means of even the wealthiest nations—including the United States, burdened with a national debt
exceeding $15 trillion. 34 Budget austerity measures make it unlikely that military spending can provide renewable energy technologies
with the type of capital injection that has helped other emerging technologies, such as the Internet or GPS, reach the stage of commercial
application. 35 The
private sector, therefore, is called upon to provide the capital necessary for the
large-scale deployment of renewables. From the private sector’s microeconomic perspective,
investment in renewable energy technologies is wrought with risks and uncertainties about, for example,
technology innovation, fuel price development, emission regulation and pricing, and the
fiercely debated comparative advantage between centralized utility-scale generation and
distributed generation. 36 The high-stakes, high-risk nature of energy investment is exacerbated by the notoriously long
“valley of death” between the proof of concept and commercial deployment of power generation technologies. 37 In the information
technology industry, a simple mouse click may be all it takes to bring a new website or smartphone application online for its large-scale
commercial deployment. In contrast, electricity
generation technology often requires up-front investment
of hundreds of millions of dollars to prove its suitability for large-scale commercialization. It
is in these early stages of commercial deployment, however, that banks and financial markets
are the most reluctant to provide the direly needed capital, much less at low cost. This Article starts with the
presumption that public policy should serve as a catalyst to leverage the necessary private sector investment to deploy renewable energy
technologies at scale. ‘
AT Intermittency
Wind energy is more reliable than all nonrenewable energy
Provenzano, 13
Provenzano, Victor. Has an MBA. "The Intermittency of Wind and Solar: Is It Only Intermittently a
Problem?" CleanTechnica. CleanTechnica, 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 July 2014.
<http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/12/intermittency-of-wind-and-solar-is-it-onlyintermittently-a-problem/>.
The
most intermittent renewables, wind and solar PV, are also the most reliable of all
renewables. They require almost no maintenance and repair. Solar PV is able to generate power
98% of the time (in the Nordic summer when the sun does not set); onshore wind is able to generate power 98% of the time; and
offshore wind, 95% of the time. What is more, in contrast to centralized renewable baseload plants, most often
only a single solar panel or a single wind turbine will require repair or maintenance at any
one time, not the entire wind farm or solar array; thus, a utility-scale solar array or wind farm is able to stay “up and running” when
planned or unplanned maintenance is being done. To some extent then, the high degree of long-term reliability of
wind and solar PV will partly offset the short-term variability that solar panels and wind
turbines will experience, locally at least, yet only if, inconceivably, they are forced to remain
in isolation from the smart grid with its array of distributed renewables and supple design
strategies.
Electricity offers a solution for possible wind intermittency
Rugolo and Aziz, No date
Rugolo, Jason, and Michael J. Aziz. Jason is a scientist at Zero Mass Labs, PhD, applied
physics at Harvard University "Electricity Storage for Intermittent Renewable Sources." Electricity
Storage for Intermittent Renewable Sources (n.d.): n. pag. Harvard. Harvard. Web. 18 July 2014.
<http://aziz.seas.harvard.edu/files/mja212.pdf>.
Electricity storage (ES) represents a large class of technologies with the potential to address
the intermittency problem without a significant marginal carbon footprint compared to
fossil fuel combustion. Many types of ES exist, all which have the common characteristic that they convert
electricity into stored energy in some medium through a conversion device, and then, either
through the same device or another, convert that stored energy back into electricity, while
losing some in the round trip due to dissipative processes. Among them are pumped hydro, compressed air,
flow batteries, solid-electrodRecent studies of wind power installed on United¶ Statesgridshaveatternptedtodeterminelheactual¶ cost of
intermittency. They indicate it is currently in¶ Iheareaofaz-S tentlIsofacentperkWh,depend-¶
ingonpenetration.Thehigheroostswerefor20%¶ " ' lfewtemhsofaeentperkwh is not¶ percentage of the¶ ¶ total cost of generating power
(whicli for wind power¶ might be in the range of 2-6 ¢IkWh). lntermiltency
Wind energy is very efficient – it produces more energy than it consumes
Shwartz, 2014
Shwartz, Mark. Communications Manager, Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford
University writer at Stanford News Service "Wind Farms Can Provide a Surplus of Reliable Clean
Energy to Society, Stanford Study Finds." Stanford News. Stanford News, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 July
2014. <http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2014/pr-wind-farm-energy-032014.html>.
"Wind technologies generate far more energy than they consume," Dale said. "Our study showed
that wind actually produces enough surplus electricity to support up to 72 hours of either
battery or geologic storage. This suggests that the industry could deploy enough storage to
cope with three-day lulls in wind, common to many weather systems, and still provide net electricity to
society." The results were especially good for onshore wind turbines. "We found that onshore wind backed by three days of geologic
storage can support annual growth rates of 100 percent – in other words, double in size each year – and still maintain an energy surplus,"
he said. "These results are very encouraging," said study co-author Sally Benson, a professor of energy resources engineering and
director of the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford. "They
show that you could create a
sustainable energy system that grows and maintains itself by combining wind and storage
together. This depends on the growth rate of the industry, because the faster you grow, the
more energy you need to build new turbines and batteries."
Wind fluctuations are accommodated for
Goggin, 13
Goggin, Michael. Michael Goggin is the manager of transmission policy for the American Wind
Energy Association. "Wind Power Is a Reliable Technology That Provides Societal and Consumer
Benefits." MinnPost. MinnPost, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 18 July 2014.
<http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/01/wind-power-reliable-technologyprovides-societal-and-consumer-benefits>.
Wind energy has already proven a reliable energy source by providing significant amounts
of electricity across major parts of the United States. Iowa produces more than 20 percent of its electricity
from wind, and when wind energy recently provided more than 25 percent of the electricity being used across 11 Midwest
states, including Minnesota, the regional grid operator MISO commented, "Wind
represents one of the fuel
choices that helps us manage congestion on the system and ultimately helps keep prices low
for our customers and the end-use consumer." In Minnesota, 12.7% in 2011 In Minnesota, wind power in 2011
contributed 12.7 percent of the state's electricity generation, supported up to 3,000 jobs, and contributed $8 million in land
lease payments. It saves consumers money as well. A 2012 report from Synapse Energy Economics found that
wind
energy can save the average Midwestern household up to $200 per year. Data and analysis
from utilities, the government and independent utility system operators confirm that adding
wind energy displaces large quantities of fossil-fuel use and carbon dioxide pollution. That’s
because when the wind is blowing, the electricity generated displaces the output of the most expensive, least efficient power
plants. In Minnesota, as wind grew from providing less than 4 percent of the state’s electricity in 2006 to almost 10 percent in
2009, electric sector carbon-dioxide emissions fell by more than 10 percent, or 4 million tons. Fluctuations are
accommodated Utility operators accommodate gradual and predictable changes in wind
output with the same tools they use to deal with fluctuations in electricity demand as well as
sudden outages of large fossil and nuclear power plants, which are far more costly to deal
with.
AT Transportation
Transportation already available for offshore wind production- vessels from oil and
gas sector can be used
Navigant Consulting, Inc. ’13 (Bruce Hamilton, Principal Investigator, Lindsay Battenberg, Mark Bielecki, Charlie Bloch,
Terese Decker, Lisa Frantzis, Jay Paidipati, Andy Wickless, Feng Zhao, October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdf)
Many of the initial installation vessels used in the offshore wind sector were retrofitted from
the offshore oil and gas sector. While certain shipbuilders are designing and building custom
vessels for offshore wind development, it can still be economical in some markets to
upgrade vessels from the oil and gas sector. An increase in offshore oil and gas activity could limit the availability
and/or increase the cost of these vessels for use in wind applications, as they may be returned to service in the oil and gas sector. Indeed,
Seajacks, a vessel operator, indicates on its website that its “self-propelled vessels are
suitable for installation and maintenance of offshore wind turbines, and are also able to
perform maintenance work on offshore oil and gas platforms.”48 Another potential issue is that the
availability of laydown area and cranes at key maritime ports could be constrained by offshore oil and gas activity. This issue, however, is
not expected to be as significant in the North and Mid-Atlantic as it is in the North Sea.
USFG key
Federal regulations are key- local interests will continue to block offshore
development despite its overwhelming benefits
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
Despite the aforementioned challenges, offshore wind remains important to the United States'
energy future. Its many benefits make it an ideal choice to meet some of the country's
growing electricity demand, especially as the United States begins to realize the severity of
the threats from both climate change and its dependence on foreign fuels.89 In addition to the
environmental and economic benefits that offshore and onshore wind power provides, the
proximity of offshore wind to U.S. electricity demand and the resulting lower transmission
costs arc crucial.90 The many benefits of offshore wind outweigh its primarily local
environmental and aesthetic costs, most of which can be minimized with careful planning
and community relations. In spite of these compelling drivers, a primary obstacle to offshore
wind power development is the lack of a regulatory framework with which to reconcile the local
costs with the regional and national benefits.9' The current regulatory framework is described in
the next Part. Until the federal government puts a revised framework in place, such as the revised
CZMA proposed in Part V, states and local groups fixated on immediate, local costs will retain
the ability to stall and even block offshore wind power development. Without federal
regulatory revision, offshore wind will not realize its full promise.
USFG key - saves money
Siting and planning can offset any costs to offshore wind power- national control is
key
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
The benefits of offshore wind power are significant, frequently outweighing its costs, which
tend to be site specific. With careful planning and siting, wind power developers can
substantially reduce and nearly eliminate the costs associated with wind power generation.
In the United States, however, localities and local interests exert substantial control over
offshore wind siting and permitting, and regional and national interests have ineffective
recourse for dealing with strong local power, as described in more detail in Part III. Because of
this dominant local control and the localized costs of offshore wind power development, the
cost-benefit balance tends to tip against the global benefits of offshore projects. As a result,
there are currently no offshore wind projects under construction in the United States,
despite several proposals.57
USFG key- financial support
Federal financial and regulatory support is key- giving control to state governments
ensures that localities will block offshore wind development
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
Ultimately, the CZMA, with its focus on decentralized, state control over coastal-zone
management, leaves the federal government and offshore wind proponents with minimal
recourse in their struggle to develop offshore wind projects . The CZMA allows states nearcomplete control over their coastal zones through their CZMPs, with almost no role for the
federal government in promoting offshore wind energy (or any kind of renewable energy).
Because electricity transmission lines must necessarily run through slates' coastal zones to
reach consumers, states therefore have significant control over offshore wind projects.
Through federal consistency review, their direct control can even extend into federal
waters; though states have not often employed this process, the Secretary of Commerce has
seemed willing to give them some deference when they do. Given a policy of such strong local
control, and the absence of a firm federal mandate for offshore wind power development,
local interests have been able to stall both federal and state permitting processes, often
through litigation. Proponents of offshore wind have little federal support, and no
guaranteed source of state support, on which to rely. Cape Wind presents a compelling and
frustrating illustration of this problem.
Federal funding ensures development of offshore wind power
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
As previously discussed, a federal agency, MMS, is responsible for siting 272 and permitting offshore wind power generation facilities.
Although the CZMA alludes to the ability of the federal government to play another role by
encouraging energy facility development through "financial assistance,' it is once again
vague. Congress would need to back up its commitment to offshore wind power
development and renewable energy, in general—with funding increases and incentives for such
development in particular. Such assistance could include incentives for not only generation
facilities, but also transmission and distribution lines, and any other related works
necessary for functioning offshore wind farms. Funding could be dependent on state CZMP
revision, as described above, to encourage prompt revision. Congress has already recognized the importance of tax incentives for
renewable energy in its renewal of the Production Tax Credit through 20I2.274 Other studies have shown a correlation
between these credits and increases in renewable energy investment, and have postulated
more significant increases with a longer-term incentive.275 While this revision would likely be the hardest of
the three for Congress to swallow, particularly during an economic downturn, there is at least one compelling reason for Congress to
consider it: offshore
wind power development can create jobs, both regionally and nationally.276
acknowledged the potential for clean energy to create new
jobs, with particular urgency as the United States continues to sec high rates of unemployment.2'7 In addition, the President
has acknowledged the importance of public spending to stimulate the economy.2™ In
particular, he has promised to spend significantly on renewable energy, in part because of
its job-creation potential.179 Or, as with the other aforementioned revisions to the CZMA, these incentives might be tied into
Indeed, President Obama has explicitly
broader revisions to the Energy Policy Act or the creation of new climate change legislation.2™ While this idea might buck historical
trends related to federal involvement in Coastal Zone development, it is well within the realm of practical policies already being
discussed.
USFG key- oversight
Federal oversight is key- without a mandate for offshore wind and increased federal
funding states and localities will block new development.
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
The CZMA has had some measure of success-almost every coastal state participates and it has led states to view their Coastal Zones
as "unified ecological area[s]."230 Still, despite clear undertones of environmental protection, the Act has failed to serve as an
effective tool to promote offshore wind power development, even at well-suited sites such as the location of
the Cape Wind project. The CZMA's failure with respect to offshore wind can be attributed to lack of
specificity
in the terms of the Act. That is, without
more explicit guiding principles and requirements ,
states can fulfill the process required by the CZMA—the development of CZMPs— while not meeting any
particular standards .2" This leaves states with substantial discretion, but without a coherent,
overarching goal
driven by a federal plan.
In particular, with its decentralized structure and only brief explicit mention of the
national benefits of offshore energy development, the
CZMA gives insufficient encouragement to states to
recognize the benefits of offshore wind power in their CZMPs.232 For example, the CZMA explicitly mandates that
coastal states "anticipate and plan" for climate change and resulting sea level rise and other adverse effects.213 However, it fails to
specify the role for offshore wind energy or offshore renewable energy, even in a general manner, in such climate-change planning and in
state CZMPs. Once the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a state has given "adequate consideration" to the "national interest" in
its CZMP, the federal government no longer has control over energy facility development in state waters.234 Thus coastal states can
block proposed turbines in state waters and proposed transmission lines from offshore turbines proposed for federal waters. Or, as in
the Cape Wind saga, most of which occurred before the Oceans Act was passed, states can simply not encourage, or even address,
renewable energy production, giving proponents no mandate to rely on in litigation and administrative processes. In a more extreme
situation, through federal consistency review, a coastal state retains a "reverse-preemption power" for federal projects and permits in
state and federal waters, as long as these projects affect the state's coastal zone.235 Therefore, as projects outside of a state's CZMP will
frequently impact a state's coastal zone, states can also potentially block permitting and/or construction of turbines not only in their
coastal zones, but also in federal waters outside of their CZMP's jurisdiction. Through these two mechanisms—state CZMPs and
federal consistency review—local interests focused on local costs in coastal states can stall
or block offshore wind power development, despite compelling national and global reasons to
promote it. The CZMA offers no support to counteract this local opposition, such as a prooffshore wind federal mandate.
In addition, the
federal government has offered only low levels of
funding for renewable energy activity offshore.2 6 When this factor is combined with the regulatory uncertainty
resulting from so much discretion given to each individual state, it
is not surprising that the CZMA has been an
ineffective tool for promoting offshore wind power development.
US must require states to amend their policies to support offshore wind
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
To give this new offshore renewable energy mandate effect, Congress or the Secretary of
Commerce should instruct states to revise their CZMPs in 270 order to achieve full
compliance with the new requirement. Once the plans are revised, the CZMA already
provides the Secretary of Commerce with a mechanism to ensure there are no gaps or
deficiencies in state plans. As noted previously, before approving a state's CZMP, the Secretary of
Commerce must ensure the CZMP is in compliance with the CZMA and all other additional 27 rules
and regulations the Secretary has promulgated.271 If the CZMA's "purposes" were to include
promotion of offshore wind power generation, the Secretary of Commerce could make sure
the CZMPs carry out that purpose. Thus, states could retain some measure of control, but the
broader benefits of offshore wind power development would be integrated into both the
CZMA and the CZMPs. As noted previously, CZMPs revised in favor of offshore wind would
also give proponents of development more statutory support in any state litigation by
offshore wind opponents and may even deter such litigation altogether.
USFG key- licensing
National policy key to propel offshore wind through faster licensing
Jackson, 13 (Derrick, 3/2/2013, “Politics imperil offshore wind sweet spots,”
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/02/sour-politics-imperil-offshore-wind-sweetspots/wZHvvjxVMtZKx2Y42iRpII/story.html, JMP)
Kyle Aarons, a fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said that despite Obama’s high-profile advocacy of renewable
energy in his State of the Union address, only 30 states have adopted renewable energy standards, and most states without them are
Republican strongholds that soundly voted against Obama for president. “No two state
policies are alike, and we’re
not really anticipating much progress on new states,” Aarons said. “I wouldn’t say we’re stuck on
renewables overall. We have a lot of potential to still catch up. Onshore wind will still
probably do well, but without a national policy, I would imagine that offshore, being newer, will
be pretty slow.” Rick Sullivan, Massachusetts secretary for energy and environmental affairs,
agreed, saying in a telephone interview that a national policy would likely speed up offshore wind
development . “I think you’d not only see more permits, but faster permitting should allow
developers to take advantage of the most up-to-date wind technology out there rather than it
taking years to put up something that may be outdated,” Sullivan said. Being outdated weighed heavily on the
minds of participants at the offshore conference. While Cape Wind and Block Island’s Deepwater Wind are finally poised to plunge their
first platforms into the water, Europe had a record year in offshore wind development, installing 369 turbines. Denmark announced it
now gets 30 percent of energy from wind. Investors at
the conference said billions of dollars are sitting on
the sidelines as America’s wind potential waits for a national policy . Deepwater Wind board manager
Bryan Martin gave credit to Salazar for getting wind energy as far as he has, “but we’re
tapped out on the state-by-state
model.” The White House and Congress must tap into a national model , or the U nited S tates will
remain on the sidelines for good.
Offshore > Onshore
Offshore wind power produces more electricity than land-based wind power
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
Although the United States only has wind turbines on land, offshore wind turbines have the
potential to be larger and to produce more energy than onshore turbines. The Zond Z-750, a
typical onshore wind turbine used in projects during the late 1990s, has a 208-foot tower, blades
that span 79 feet, and a rotor diameter of 164 feet.39 True to its name, the Z-750 can generate 750
kW al ils peak output,40 This falls in the middle of the range in capacity for onshore, utility-scale
turbines, which range from 100 KW to several MW.*1 As of2007, the average size for an onshore
wind turbine was 1.65 MW.42 Offshore wind turbines can get significantly larger and more
powerful, typically ranging from 2.0 to 3.6 MW, with a 260-foot tower and a rotor diameter of
approximately 295 to 350 feet. 4J Turbines with capacities as large as 5 MW have been installed
offshore,*4 and in 2008, a wind developer purchased an offshore turbine with an impressive
7.5 MW capacity.45
Offshore wind overcomes the drawbacks to traditional wind power- you can produce
more, and it’s closer to transmission centers
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
Moreover, offshore
wind power has certain attributes that give it added benefits compared to
onshore wind. Wind tends to be stronger and more consistent offshore-both benefits when it comes to
wind power generation. 69 70 This is largely due to reduced wind shear and roughness on the open
ocean. Wind shear and roughness refer to effects of the landscape surrounding turbines on the quality of wind and thus the amount of
electricity produced. While long grass, trees, and buildings will slow wind down significantly, water is generally very smooth and has
much less of an effect on wind speeds.72 In addition, because
offshore wind projects face fewer barriers-both
natural and manmade-to their expansion, offshore developers can take advantage of
economies of scale and build larger wind farms that generate more electricity.73 Importantly, offshore
wind also could overcome the problems that onshore wind faces regarding the distance
between wind power generation and electricity demand. That is, although the United States has considerable
onshore wind resources in certain areas, mostly in the middle of the country, they are frequently distant from areas with high electricity
demand, mostly on 74 the coasts, resulting in transmission problems. By contrast, offshore
resources are near coastal
electricity demand centers.75 In fact, twenty-eight of the contiguous forty-eight states have
coastal boundaries, and these same states use 78 percent of the United States' electricity.76
Thus, offshore wind power generation can effectively serve major U.S. demand centers and
avoid many of the transmission costs faced by remote onshore generation. 77 If shallow water
offshore potential (less than about 100 feet in depth) is met on the nation's coasts, twenty-six of
the twenty-eight
coastal states would have sufficient wind resources to meet at least 20 percent of their
electricity needs, and many states would have enough to meet their total electricity demand.
Benefits to investing in offshore wind – technological advances make offshore wind
energy more cost effective.
Makridos 2013, Christos (a doctoral student in the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford
University). Offshore wind power resource availability and prospects: A global approach,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111300097X.
There are many reasons for increased interest in offshore wind energy.5 While offshore wind power is
generally 1.5–2 times as expensive as its onshore wind counterpart, new technological advances are making it
much more cost-effective since equipment is becoming more capable of leveraging high wind
speeds that are only present miles off a coast. Furthermore, offshore resources have remained
largely untapped. This implies high marginal benefits for increased offshore wind
expansion. According to McCrone et al. (2012), global investment in renewable energy totaled $257
billion in 2011; this was an increase of a factor of six from 2004. Much of this is fueled by (1)
the expectation that governments will impose regulation, quantity, or price instruments to
limit greenhouse gas (GHG) and pollution criteria emissions, and (2) the considerable
technological progress that the renewable sector has made in recent years. Therefore, understanding
the relative offshore wind power prospects and contingencies is especially important to facilitate sound investment decisions in the wind
sector for the coming years. Since there have yet to be any truly global academic assessments of offshore wind power, this article
addresses a pertinent area in the literature in hopes of generating further inquiry.
Offshore wind energy better than onshore wind energy – it is more reliable and can
generate more electricity.
Trident Energy 11, (an independent developer of enabling technology for the offshore renewables industry), Offshore
Wind, http://www.tridentenergy.co.uk/offshore-renewable-energy/offshore-wind/.
Energy generation from offshore wind has several benefits when compared to its onshore
equivalent. Offshore winds are smoother and more powerful than onshore winds so offshore
farms can generate more electricity, more reliably than those onshore. Offshore wind farms
are less controversial than onshore projects and often easier to locate close to major population centres
where most energy is consumed. Offshore wind is expected to play an important role in future renewable energy
generation because of these benefits. The European Wind Energy Association forecasts installation of
150GW offshore wind in Europe by 2030. China connected its first offshore wind farm to the
grid in 2010 and aims to install 30GW by 2020. The US Department of Energy estimates that
54GW could feasibly be installed in the USA by 2030.
Offshore wind turbines have multiple advantages over onshore wind – they improve
on almost all drawbacks of onshore wind turbines.
Musial, Walt and Sandy Butterfield. (Sandy is the Chief Engineer and Walt is the Principle Engineer at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is a report to the National Technical Information Service for the U.S. Department of Commerce)
Future for Offshore Wind Energy in the United States: Preprint. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36313.pdf
Offshore wind turbines have a number of advantages over onshore ones. The size of onshore
turbines is constrained by capacity limitations of the available transportation and erection
equipment. Transportation and erection problems are mitigated offshore where the size and lifting
capacities of marine shipping and handling equipment still exceed the installation requirements for multimegawatt wind turbines.
Onshore, particularly in Europe or on the East Coast of the United States, the visual appearance of massive turbines in populated areas
may be undesirable. At
a sufficient distance from the coast, visual intrusion is minimized and wind
turbines can be larger, thus increasing the overall installed capacity per unit area. Similarly,
less attention needs to be devoted to reduce turbine noise emissions offshore, which adds
significant costs to onshore wind turbines. Also, the wind tends to blow faster and more
uniformly at sea than on land. A higher, steadier wind means less wear on the turbine
components and more electricity generated per square meter of swept rotor area. Onshore
turbines are often located in remote areas, where the electricity must be transmitted by
relatively long power lines to densely populated regions, but offshore turbines can be
located close to high-value urban load centers, simplifying transmission issues. On the negative
side of offshore development, investment costs are higher and accessibility is more difficult, resulting in higher capital and maintenance
costs. Also, environmental conditions at sea are more severe: more corrosion from salt water and additional loads from waves and ice.
And obviously, offshore construction is more complicated. Despite the
difficulties of offshore development, it
holds great promise for expanding wind generation capacity. In Europe and the eastern
United states, the amount of space available for offshore wind turbines is many times larger
than for onshore ones. A sizable fraction of the future growth in Europe will likely happen offshore [2]. Indeed, the European
wind industry has already begun to shift its focus offshore. At the end of 2003, the total installed capacity of offshore wind energy was
529 MW [3].
Onshore wind uses less land space than offshore wind
Union of Concerned Scientist, No Date (The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous,
independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmentalimpacts-wind-power.html)
Offshore wind facilities, which are currently not in operation in the United States but may become
more common , require larger amounts of space because the turbines and blades are bigger than
their land-based counterparts . Depending on their location, such offshore installations may
compete with a variety of other ocean activities, such as fishing, recreational activities, sand and
gravel extraction, oil and gas extraction, navigation, and aquaculture. Employing best practices in
planning and siting can help minimize potential land use impacts of offshore and land-based wind
projects [4].
The AWEA staff finds that offshore wind reduces consumer utility bills – a combination
of studies show consumers in states with more wind energy are better off than
consumers in states with less.
American Wind Energy Association, February 12, 2014.
Washington, D.C., — A
new white paper report finds that wind energy is keeping electric bills low
for American homes and businesses, thanks to plummeting wind energy costs driven by
technological improvements. The report was compiled by staff at the American Wind Energy
Association and uses publicly available data and more than a dozen studies from
government, utility, and other independent sources to explore how wind energy affects
consumers’ energy bills. A highlight of the report is just-released Department of Energy data showing that consumers
in the states that use the most wind energy have fared much better than consumers in states
that use less wind energy. Consumers in the top wind energy-producing states have seen
their electricity prices actually decrease by 0.37 percent over the last 5 years, while all other
states have seen their electricity prices increase by 7.79 percent over that time period. The
following chart summarizes how consumers have fared in states that produce more than 7 percent of their electricity from wind (Texas,
Wyoming, Oregon, Oklahoma, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa) relative to other states.
“During last month’s cold snaps, we saw very high wind energy output play a critical role in
protecting consumers across the country from skyrocketing energy prices. This study
confirms that wind energy is providing that benefit every day,” said Michael Goggin, Senior
Electric Industry Analyst at the American Wind Energy Association. The report highlights a number of ways in
which wind energy protects consumers by displacing the use of more expensive and polluting sources of energy. A
main driver is that wind energy costs have fallen by 43 percent over the last four years, as
documented by DOE data. The study also examines 15 studies by independent grid
operators, state governments, academic experts, and others confirming that wind energy
reduces energy costs for consumers. Finally, the report documents the dozens of U.S. utilities that are
locking in record low wind prices that will protect their consumers from fuel price
fluctuations for decades. As Mr. Goggin explains, “With the drastic cost declines over the last few years, wind energy
offers consumers a great deal today. That deal will only get better with time because that low
price is locked in for the life of the wind project, as the fuel will always be free. No other
major source of energy can offer that kind of price stability. Diversifying our energy mix with
zero fuel cost, zero emission wind energy is a win-win for consumers and the environment.”
Hurricanes Add-On
Large off shore wind farms could disrupt a hurricane – computer simulations by
Jacobson showed hurricanes could reduce wind speeds by up to 92 mph and decrease
a storm surge by up to 79 percent.
Carey, Feb 26 2014. Bjorn (is the Science Information Officer at Stanford University. Mark Z. Jacobson is the professor of civil
and environmental engineering at Stanford), Offshore wind farms could tame hurricanes before they reach land, Stanford-led study
says.http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/hurricane-winds-turbine-022614.html
Computer simulations by Stanford's Mark Jacobson indicate huge offshore wind farms could
significantly reduce wind speed and storm surge from major hurricanes. For the past 24 years,
Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, has been developing a complex
computer model to study air pollution, energy, weather and climate. A recent application of
the model has been to simulate the development of hurricanes. Another has been to
determine how much energy wind turbines can extract from global wind currents. In light of
these recent model studies and in the aftermath of hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, he said, it was natural to wonder: What would happen
if a hurricane encountered a large array of offshore wind turbines? Would the energy extraction due to the storm spinning the turbines'
blades slow the winds and diminish the hurricane, or would the hurricane destroy the turbines? So he
went about
developing the model further and simulating what might happen if a hurricane encountered
an enormous wind farm stretching many miles offshore and along the coast. Amazingly, he found
that the wind turbines could disrupt a hurricane enough to reduce peak wind speeds by up
to 92 mph and decrease storm surge by up to 79 percent. The study, conducted by Jacobson,
and Cristina Archer and Willett Kempton of the University of Delaware, was published online
in Nature Climate Change. The researchers simulated three hurricanes: Sandy and Isaac, which
struck New York and New Orleans, respectively, in 2012; and Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005. "We found that
when wind turbines are present, they slow down the outer rotation winds of a hurricane,"
Jacobson said. "This feeds back to decrease wave height, which reduces movement of air toward the center of the hurricane, increasing
the central pressure, which in turn slows the winds of the entire hurricane and dissipates it faster." In the
case of Katrina,
Jacobson's model revealed that an array of 78,000 wind turbines off the coast of New Orleans
would have significantly weakened the hurricane well before it made landfall. In the computer
model, by the time Hurricane Katrina reached land, its simulated wind speeds had decreased by 36-44 meters per second (between 80
and 98 mph) and the storm surge had decreased by up to 79 percent. For Hurricane Sandy, the model projected a wind speed reduction
by 35-39 meters per second (between 78 and 87 mph) and as much as 34 percent decrease in storm surge. Jacobson
acknowledges that, in the United States, there has been political resistance to installing a few
hundred offshore wind turbines, let alone tens of thousands. But he thinks there are two
financial incentives that could motivate such a change. One is the reduction of hurricane
damage cost. Damage from severe hurricanes, caused by high winds and storm surge-related flooding, can run into the billions of
dollars. Hurricane Sandy, for instance, caused roughly $82 billion in damage across three states. Second, Jacobson said, the wind
turbines would pay for themselves in the long term by generating normal electricity while at
the same time reducing air pollution and global warming, and providing energy stability. "The
turbines will also reduce damage if a hurricane comes through," Jacobson said. "These factors, each on their own, reduce the cost to
society of offshore turbines and should be sufficient to motivate their development." An alternative plan for protecting coastal cities
involves building massive seawalls. Jacobson said that while these might stop a storm surge, they wouldn't impact wind speed
substantially. The cost for these, too, is significant, with estimates running between $10 billion and $40 billion per installation.
Current turbines can withstand wind speeds of up to 112 mph, which is in the range of a
category 2 to 3 hurricane, Jacobson said. His study suggests that the presence of massive turbine
arrays will likely prevent hurricane winds from reaching those speeds.
OWP Solves Price Shocks
Offshore wind is key to diversify US energy needs- this solves foreign dependence and
price shocks
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
Many of the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are similar to those of onshore wind, though
offshore wind has its own unique set of benefits. To start, wind power generation can help meet
the growing energy demand in the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration
predicts that the demand for electricity in the United States will grow to 5.8 billion MWh in
2030, a 39 percent increase from 2005. The more that wind power can help to meet this
demand, the more diversified the United States' energy portfolio will be, and the less susceptible
the nation will be to dependency on foreign fuel sources and to price fluctuations in traditional
fuels .59 In addition, wind power benefits the United States by creating a substantial number
of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind energy facilities. 60 In an April 2009
speech at the Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant in Iowa, President Obama predicted
that if the United States "fully pursue[s] our potential for wind energy on land and offshore," wind
power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030.61
***AT Disads
AT Birds DA
Wind farms form a lower risk to birds than other energy sources – a synthesis of
multiple studies by the Carbon Brief determines wind farms killed 20,000 birds in 2009
while fossil fuel and nuclear power plants killed over 14 million combined.
Webster, Robin and Freya Roberts 13, (Robin Webster is over energy policy and analysis for the Carbon Brief, a website
that covers development updates on climate science and energy policy, with a particular focus on the UK. This study is about the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds and it examines peer-reviewed research and other scientific evidence to determine the effect of wind
turbines on bird death). Bird death and wind turbines: a look at the evidence. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/04/wind-farmsand-birds/
Despite these concerns, the
current body of research suggests wind farms have not significantly
reduced bird populations. Several studies suggest birds have the ability to detect wind
turbines in time and change their flight path early enough to avoid them. And one small study found
no evidence for sustained decline in two upland bird species on a wind farm site after it had been operating for three years . Another
found that wild geese are able to avoid offshore wind turbines. A large peer-reviewed study
in the Journal of Ecology monitored data for ten different bird species across 18 wind farm
sites in the UK. It found that two of them- curlew and snipe - saw a drop in population during
the construction phase, which did not recover afterwards. But the population of the other
eight species were restored once the wind farms were built. Wind farms may not affect all birds, but what if
they affect birds of prey disproportionately? Some of the reason why this might happen is genetic - certain species like vultures, for
example, have blind spots in their visual field which means they cannot see objects directly in front of them (like wind turbines) when
flying. Large birds like hen harriers, eagles and vultures are also slower to reproduce than other species and so their populations are
more likely to be affected by a small number of deaths. There are specific locations elsewhere in the world where wind farms have
caused impressive-sounding numbers of fatalities amongst birds of prey. In the Altamont Pass in California, for example, one study found
about 4,000 wind turbines killed 67 golden eagles and 1,127 birds of prey in a year. In southern Spain, 252 wind turbines located in an
area used by many birds of prey and on the migratory path of many large birds killed a 124 birds of prey in a year. At another location in
southern Spain 256 turbines killed 30 griffin vultures and 12 common kestrels. The RSPB references these studies, concluding "some
poorly sited wind farms" in California and Spain have caused major bird casualties - in other words the wind farms were sited in areas
where there were a lot of birds and not enough thought given to what the effects will be on bird populations. But it adds that these are
atypical and a result of bad planning in sensitive areas -arguing that better-sited wind farms do not cause the same number of deaths.
There are studies to show that siting wind farms more sensitively can make a difference to
how bird populations adapt to their new neighbours. In one frequently cited study, one wind
farm in Spain created feeding sites away from turbines and shut down turbines at peak flight
times. Vulture deaths were reduced by 50 per cent for an electricity production loss of just
0.07 per cent. The RSPB's parent group Birdlife International describes another project in Wyoming. Wind farms located
on a flight path used by golden eagles and hawks posed a "serious threat", it says. But the
turbines were set back slightly - with the result that ultimately very few birds are killed.
According to Birdlife International, with a thorough environmental assessment as part of the
planning process, bird deaths can be significantly reduced. In Scotland for example, planners use maps to
identify high risk areas for protected birds. Some wind farms, such as the Penescal wind farm in Texas, use radar systems to detect flocks
of birds and shut off the wind turbines as they approach. Overall, the RSPB says it scrutinises "hundreds" of wind farm applications every
year in order to assess their possible impact on wildlife and bird populations and ultimately objects to six per cent of them. Lots of
human activities kill birds. What's perhaps surprising, given the amount of attention it gets, is how few birds wind
turbines kill in relation to other things. Several studies have compared the effect of different
energy sources on bird mortality overall. One, published earlier this year, calculates wind farms killed
20,000 birds in 2009 in the US - while nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled
power plants more than 14 million. The research concludes that taken together, fossil-fueled
facilities are about 17 times more dangerous per gigawatt hour of electricity produced to
birds than wind and nuclear power stations. And that's without getting into other human activities and structures -
including buildings, roads and domestic cats. US estimates published last year in a commentary piece in the journal Nature, although
highly uncertain, also suggest the impact of wind turbine is far smaller than many other causes of bird death. The RSPB
says it
supports wind power - not because wind farms pose a lower risk to birds than other energy
sources - but because in its view climate change poses the "single greatest long-term threat"
to bird species. Climate change is predicted to harm bird populations by affecting breeding
or migration patterns, or altering their habitats. There is evidence to show that in certain, specific locations wind
farms have caused significant fatalities amongst birds of prey - but there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting the conclusion that
birds of prey will be 'massacred' on a wider scale. The few studies on wind farm siting are also encouraging, indicating that it can be used
as an effective tool to reduce mortality. Compared to other aspects of modern society, careful planning can lead to much-reduced
mortality.
Wind farms are not a great danger to birds – compared to conventional electricity
sources, wind farms killed the least amount of birds.
Sovacool, Benjamin K. 13. (Director of the Danish Center for Energy Technology and Professor of
Business and Social Sciences at Aarhus University), The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009
update, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857.
This study, however, finds that wind
energy is actually beneficial to birds when compared to other
sources of electricity, particularly nuclear power and fossil fuels. Through a synthesis of
hundreds of studies on avian mortality and energy and electricity production, the study
finds that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and
0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil fueled power stations are
responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. When put into context for the United States,
about 20,000 birds died from wind farms in 2009 but nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and
fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million, estimates illustrated by Fig. 1. The Figure also shows how the
number of absolute birds killed by wind energy pales in comparison to other causes such as windows and cats. The paper concludes that
further study is needed, but also that conventional electricity
birds and avian wildlife than wind farms.
sources appear to pose a greater danger to
AT Biodiversity DA
Offshore wind farms in soft bed areas provide for artificial habitats and increased
biodiversity
Langhamer, 12, [Olivia Langhmaer Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Høgskoleringen 5, 7491 Trondheim, Norway, Scientific World Journal, Artificial Reef
Effect in relation to Offshore Renewable Energy Conversion: State of the Art,
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/386713/. ]
The rapid worldwide growth of offshore renewable energy production will provide marine
organisms with new hard substrate for colonization, thus acting as artificial reefs. The artificial reef
effect is important when constructing, for example, scour protections since it can generate an enhanced habitat. Specifically, artificial
structures can create increased heterogeneity in the area important for species diversity
and density. Offshore energy installations also have the positive side effect as they are a sanctuary area for trawled organisms . Higher
survival of fish and bigger fish is an expected outcome that can contribute to a spillover to
outer areas. One negative side effect is that invasive species can find new habitats in artificial reefs and thus influence the native habitats and their
associated environment negatively. Different scour protections in offshore wind farms can create new habitats
compensating for habitat loss by offshore energy installations. These created habitats differ
from the lost habitat in species composition substantially. A positive reef effect is dependent
on the nature and the location of the reef and the characteristics of the native populations. An
increase in surface area of scour protections by using specially designed material can also support
the reef effect and its productivity. Artificial offshore constructions will inevitably be
colonized by a number of organisms. This should be considered when constructing for example scour protections with their
potential to enhance the reef effect for higher biodiversity or commercial interesting species . Artificial reefs generally hold greater
densities and biomass of fish and decapods, and provide higher catch rates, compared to
surrounding soft bottom areas, and in several cases also in relation to adjacent natural reefs [17–24]. There are, however, some studies
that show no significant impacts of artificial reefs on fish assemblages [25]. The proposed reasons for higher abundance and
diversity of fish on and around artificial reefs differ among organisms. The most important
seems to be the provision of shelter from both predation and water movements, and
enhanced feeding grounds. Fish also seem to use the structures as reference points for
spatial orientation Coming at the base of wind power farms, scouring protections may have a potential in terms of altering the nature of the
seabed in the vicinity of wind farms. In that way different shapes and sizes may create different habitats and thus dictate what kind of organisms colonize for
living and feeding. Wind
farms are usually constructed on soft bottom substrate for technical
reasons, and this contributes to higher complexity in three-dimensional scale. Therefore,
scour protections have the potential to turn exposed, biodiversity-poor soft bottoms into
species rich ecosystems. When the conditions are ideal, wind park foundations will become heavily
colonized by organisms abundant in the water mass or nearby hard-bottom habitats. The
colonization is highly dependent on sufficient number of larvae and suitable environmental conditions [27]. On the other hand habitat mitigation can occur
depending on the location of the renewable energy installations. Therefore, adequate location decision is important to prevent negative impacts in areas
where red-listed or key-species exist.
Wind Farms serve as artificial reefs and serve massive benefits to local marine
environments
Casey 12, [Zoë Casey Senior Communications Officer at European Wind Energy Association,
European Wind Energy Association, Offshore Wind Farms Benefit Sea Life- Study Says,
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/12/offshore-wind-farms-benefit-sealife-says-study/ ]
Offshore wind farms can create a host of benefits for the local marine environment, as well
as combatting climate change, a new study by the Marine Institute at Plymouth University
has found. The Marine Institute found that wind farms provide shelter to fish species since sea bottom
trawling is often forbidden inside a wind farm, and it found that turbine support structures
can create artificial reefs for some species. A separate study at the Nysted offshore wind
farm in Denmark confirmed this finding by saying that artificial reefs provided favourable
growth conditions for blue mussels and crab species. A study on the Thanet offshore wind farm
in the UK found that some species like cod shelter inside the wind farm. One high-profile issue covered
by the Marine Institute study was that of organisms colliding with offshore wind turbines. The study, backed-up by a number of previous
studies, found that many
bird species fly low over the water, avoiding collision with wind turbine
blades. It also found that some species, such as Eider ducks, do modify their courses slightly to avoid
offshore turbines. When it comes to noise, the study found “no significant impact on
behaviour or populations.” It noted that a separate study in the Netherlands found more
porpoise clicks inside a Dutch wind farm than outside it “perhaps exploiting the higher fish
densities found”. The study also said that offshore wind power and other marine renewable energies
should be rolled out rapidly in order to combat the threats to marine biodiversity, food
production and economies posed by climate change. “It is necessary to rapidly deploy large
quantities of marine renewable energy to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel
burning which are leading to ocean acidification, global warming and climatic changes,” the study published said. EWEA forecasts
that 40 GW of offshore wind capacity will be online in European seas by 2020 which will offset 102 million tonnes of CO2 every year. By
2030, the expected 150 GW of offshore capacity will offset 315 million tonnes of CO2 annually – that’s a significant contribution to the
effort to cut carbon. “It
is clear that the marine environment is already being damaged by the
increasingly apparent impacts of climate change; however it is not too late to make a
difference to avoid more extreme impacts,” the study said. “If you bring all these studies together they all point to a
similar conclusion: offshore wind farms have a positive impact on the marine environment in several ways,” said Angeliki Koulouri,
Research Officer at EWEA. “First they contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions, the major threat to biodiversity, second, they provide
regeneration areas for fish and benthic populations,” she added. Koulouri and the studies noted in this blog suggest that further research
is needed, in particular because impacts are season and site specific, and they note one proviso: offshore wind farms must be carefully
planned and sited in order not to dramatically disturb sensitive marine environments. “Developers and
regulators
should work closely with marine ecologists and conservation groups at an early stage to
identify suitable locations for marine renewables,” the Marine Institute study recommended.
Offshore wind improves the biodiversity of marine life and have little to no impact on
birds- dutch study proves
Lindeboom in 11 [Prof. Dr. H.J. Lindeboom 09/08/11, Expert in maritime and ecology with
IMARES Wagenigen UR, Offshore wind farm promotes biodiversity, European Commison- Cordis,
http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/33703_en.html]
New European
research has shown that a North Sea wind farm has little negative effect on the
fauna around it. In fact, researchers found that the presence of the wind farm actually
provided a new natural habitat for organisms living on the seabed. Researchers in the Netherlands from
IMARES (Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies) at Wageningen UR (University and Research centre), the Bureau
Waardenburg and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ) analysed the
short-term ecological effects of the wind farm that was built near Windpark Egmond aan Zee
(OWEZ), the first large-scale offshore wind farm built off the Dutch North Sea coast. The farm has
the total capacity to provide energy for up to 100,000 households. Writing in the online journal Environmental Research Letters, the
team summarise the
first two years of research from the farm and explain how it contributed
significantly to the biodiversity of the area, with their research turning up organisms such as
mussels, anemones and crabs. Normally when a wind farm is constructed, researchers expect disruptive effects as a result
of the driving of piles into the seabed; this can create new hard substrates in the form of piles and protective rocks. Known effects also
include the presence of rotating wind turbine blades, possible underwater noise and the absence of other human activities such as
commercial fishing. However, this North-Sea wind farm seems to have bucked the trend. Specifically, the researchers looked
at the effects of the offshore wind farm on benthic organisms, fish, birds and marine
mammals. The team found that new species become established, and communities of
animals arise on the wind turbine piles and the rocks piled around the columns, leading to a
local increase in biodiversity. They also found the fish fauna to be incredibly varied. Another interesting
finding was that the wind farm seems to provide shelter to cod. Porpoises were also heard
more often inside the wind farm than outside it. Despite these positive findings, it does seem that the wind farm's
appeal is not universal: various bird species, including the gannet, were observed to avoid it.
Seagulls, on the other hand, didn't seem too put off by its presence, with no notable decline in their
numbers detected. And cormorants were even found to have increased in numbers near the
farm! Thankfully, the number of birds that collided with the turbines appeared to be quite low,
according to the team's observations and model calculations. But can these results be used to state
conclusively that wind farms promote biodiversity? By comparing their findings with previous results, the Dutch researchers warn that
the impact of a wind farm depends on its location and on the depth of the surrounding sea. The location of the OWEZ wind farm is
favourable due to the relatively low numbers of birds that fly through the area at this distance from the coast. The presence of various
habitat types and the intensity with which the area is used by others also plays a big part in how well the wind farm integrates into the
surroundings. It seems in this case, that amid the hustle and bustle of the busy Dutch coastline, the wind farm offers fauna a seemingly
calm oasis. The team conclude that special areas should be designated for wind farms, so as to best avoid disruption to birds, for example.
This way wind farms can both generate cleaner energy and contribute to fostering biodiversity.
Loss of biodiversity is not to be feared- offshore wind farms have proven to improve
biodiversity
Garus 13,[Katharina Garus 10/31/2013, Professor at the University of Cambridge, Offshore wind
farms increase biodiversity, Sun and Wind Energy,
http://www.sunwindenergy.com/news/offshore-wind-farms-increase-biodiversity]
Contrary to what many fear, offshore wind farms do not have a negative effect on plants and
wildlife. A study conducted at the alpha ventus wind farm under the auspices of the German
Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) shows that neither the obliteration of
fauna nor mass killings of birds need be feared. "We are pleased that there has been no negative
impact on the marine environment here," BSH President Monika Breuch-Moritz said. The opposite is actually
the case: The foundations of offshore wind turbines form artificial reefs, on which mussels,
sea anemones, sea lilies and starfish settle. The researchers noticed increased biodiversity.
The fish population at the alpha ventus wind farm also shows greater biodiversity. New species
found in the area include long-spined scorpionfish, mackerel and dragonet. To detect the fish, the scientists used a special fish sonar for
the first time, which they set up next to the wind turbines on the seabed. Another important
result of the research
project is a binding guideline for methods to perform underwater acoustic measurements. It
is the basis for DIN and ISO guidelines, which serve as a template for European countries. During the project, new
methods were developed for detecting and evaluating populations of birds, marine
mammals, fish and benthos in the vicinity of the offshore wind farms.
Offshore wind turbines good for biodiversity.
Lindeboom 11
[Hans, Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone,
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/035101]
The number of offshore wind farms is increasing rapidly, leading to questions about the
environmental impact of such farms. In the Netherlands, an extensive monitoring programme is
being executed at the first offshore wind farm (Offshore Windfarm Egmond aan Zee, OWEZ). This
letter compiles the short-term (two?years) results on a large number of faunal groups obtained so
far. Impacts were expected from the new hard substratum, the moving rotor blades, possible
underwater noise and the exclusion of fisheries. The results indicate no short-term effects on the
benthos in the sandy area between the generators , while the new hard substratum of the
monopiles and the scouring protection led to the establishment of new species and new fauna
communities . Bivalve recruitment was not impacted by the OWEZ wind farm. Species composition
of recruits in OWEZ and the surrounding reference areas is correlated with mud content of the
sediment and water depth irrespective the presence of OWEZ. Recruit abundances in OWEZ were
correlated with mud content, most likely to be attributed not to the presence of the farm but to the
absence of fisheries . The fish community was highly dynamic both in time and space . So far, only
minor effects upon fish assemblages especially near the monopiles have been observed. Some fish
species, such as cod, seem to find shelter inside the farm. More porpoise clicks were recorded inside
the farm than in the reference areas outside the farm. Several bird species seem to avoid the park
while others are indifferent or are even attracted . The effects of the wind farm on a highly variable
ecosystem are described. Overall, the OWEZ wind farm acts as a new type of habitat with a higher
biodiversity of benthic organisms, a possibly increased use of the area by the benthos, fish, marine
mammals and some bird species and a decreased use by several other bird species.
Offshore wind does not cause loss of wildlife- farms can be sited to avoid harming
birds and other species
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
In addition, opponents frequently cite offshore wind power's environmental costs. These
costs are site specific and can involve harm to plants and animals, and their habitats. 82 This
harm includes impacts on birds, which can involve disruption of migratory patterns,
destruction of habitat, and bird deaths from collision with the turbine blades.83 However, these
adverse impacts are generally less dramatic than those associated with fossil fuel extraction
and generation, and in a well-chosen site they can be negligible.84 A recent, exhaustive study
of the environmental impact of major offshore wind farms in Denmark concluded that
"offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant
damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.,,85
AT Spending
Offshore worth the cost: generate more electricity than onshore
Fingersh, 2006 (L., M. Hand, and A. Laxson, Wind Turbine Design Cost and Scaling Model,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
In the future, to help lower costs, specialized equipment should be developed for installing
turbines on piles or floating platforms. Ocean-going cranes and special barges capable of station
keeping in currents and winds will be needed to allow erection of the turbine. An alternative to
special ships with cranes will be land-based cranes loaded onto special barges and maneuvered into
place for installation. Regardless, it is expected that the installation of very large offshore
turbines will be more cost effective in the long run than similar land-based installations, due
to the greater hauling capacity of barges and lifting capacity of offshore crane equipment. For
shallow water installation, this cost element also includes transport of the turbine from shore to the
installation site. In the future a separate cost element will need to be developed for transport of
turbines to sites further offshore. Costs in this model are once again based on private industry
communications converted to a scaling factor according to machine rating.
AT Property Values DA
There is no correlation between offshore wind and decreased property values or
tourism
Erica Schroeder in 2010, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010, Yale
School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003 California Law
Review Vol 98 Issue 5, Turning Offshore Wind On,
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawrevie
w
Whereas many of the benefits of offshore wind power are national or even global, the costs are
almost entirely local. The downsides to offshore wind that drive most of the opposition to
offshore wind power are visual and environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects complain
about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local property values.79 They
also make related complaints about negative impacts on coastal recreational activities and
tourism. However, studies have failed to show statistically significant negative aesthetic or
property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts.