OSW
***AFFIRMATIVE***
1ac Plan
The United States federal government should revise the Coast Zone
Management Act to:
 mandate offshore wind power development where appropriate and
feasible on all U.S. coasts;
 require revisions to states' Coastal Zone Management Plans in
accordance with this mandate;
 increase incentives for offshore wind power development.
1ac Solvency
The lack of a strong and effective federal mandate is a key barrier blocking
offshore wind development
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (October 2010, Erica,
California Law Review, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” Vol. 98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
III Current Regulatory Framework for Offshore Wind
Both state and federal governments share control over offshore wind project siting approval and
permitting. Geography determines the jurisdiction of each: state governments control their
respective Coastal Zones, from the baseline of their shores out three nautical miles, n92 and the
federal government controls the Outer Continental Shelf beyond that. n93 Offshore wind
turbines are typically located on the Outer Continental Shelf; n94 thus, the federal government
sites and permits this component of an offshore wind project. n95 To get the electricity to
consumers on land, however, offshore wind projects must necessarily include transmission lines
from the turbines, through state waters and onto land. State governments control the siting and
permitting of these [*1643] transmission lines. n96 Both federal and state jurisdiction are
described in more detail later, along with the CZMA. The CZMA provides the primary
mechanisms for balancing state and federal interests in coastal waters. n97 It leaves states
with substantial discretionary power and no federal mandate regarding offshore wind power
development, despite its undertones of environmental protection.
A. Federal Jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction begins more than three nautical miles from the shore, along the Outer
Continental Shelf, and ends two hundred nautical miles out to sea. n98 Analyses of offshore
wind capacity typically assume that wind farms will be built in federal waters, more than five
miles from the coast. n99 Thus, federal jurisdiction covers the generation component of an
offshore wind project, mainly the turbines. n100 This includes site approval and permitting for
project construction. n101
Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 grants the Department of the Interior (DOI) primary
authority over offshore wind farm approval and permitting. n102 Section 388 specifies that the
Minerals Management Service (MMS), a branch of DOI, controls the offshore wind facility
permitting process; the Secretary of the Interior makes the final permitting decision. n103 This
grant of authority extends MMS's existing authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(OCSLA), which gives it management rights over the Outer Continental Shelf primarily for
offshore fossil fuel extraction. n104 Because of MMS's experience with managing offshore oil
and gas extraction, Congress deemed it the proper body for offshore wind permitting as well.
n105 Opponents of the decision have been concerned with MMS's lack of experience with
marine habitat regulation and protection. n106 Fortunately, MMS appears receptive to
coordinating with other agencies with relevant experience, like the Army Corps of Engineers,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Coast Guard, Department of Energy, and Environmental
Protection Agency, as well [*1644] as appropriate state actors. n107
Section 388 came in response to controversy over which federal agency had permitting
authority during the early stages of the Cape Wind project, which is described in more detail in
Part IV. While Section 388 does not resolve all of the issues relating to federal jurisdiction over
offshore wind, n108 its designation of MMS as the primary permitting agency marks Congress's
first step toward a unified review process for offshore alternative energy. n109 Nonetheless, the
current federal regulatory environment for offshore wind remains confusing. In April 2009,
President Obama took a first step toward remedying some of that confusion by announcing a
coordinated program, headed by DOI, for federal offshore renewable energy permitting. The
program will cover not only offshore wind power generation, but also other offshore renewable
energy, such as electricity generated from ocean currents. n110 Despite this progress toward an
improved federal regulatory program, barriers to offshore wind power still exist, largely due to
the absence of a strong and effective federal mandate promoting offshore wind power
development and the powers that states retain over project siting. n111
B. State Jurisdiction
Under the Submerged Lands Act, state jurisdiction generally covers ocean territory three miles
or less from the coast, n112 an area known as the Coastal Zone. n113 As noted previously, any
electricity generated in an offshore facility must be transmitted to land through the state
controlled Coastal Zone. Therefore, state - and sometimes local - authorities ultimately have a
role to play in any offshore wind project through the siting and permitting of transmission cables
that are necessary to bring electricity from the turbines to land. Although state and localities
may only exert direct control over the permitting of transmission cables, they will almost
certainly consider the impact of the generation turbines on their aesthetic view environment.
They know that denying transmission permits effectively stalls or destroys the construction of
generation facilities. States will also likely consider such [*1645] aesthetic and environmental
considerations in the federal consistency review process, with which they may also block federal
activities and permits. n114 Federal consistency review is a component of the CZMA, and will be
described in more detail below.
Because most of the costs of offshore wind power development are local, there is a strong
argument for state and local control over offshore wind project siting: because localities must
deal with the downsides of offshore wind projects, they should control where those projects are
placed. n115 On the other hand, there are broader, positive effects of offshore wind power
development - such as energy security improvement and environmental benefits like climate
change mitigation - that imply a need for stronger federal intervention to balance
appropriately the costs and benefits of offshore wind. n116 The CZMA attempts to provide a
formal structure for such balancing, but it ultimately leaves the states with too much power, and
the federal government and offshore wind farm proponents with no formal federal
encouragement or support.
C. The Coastal Zone Management Act: Attempting to Reconcile Local Interests with National
Priorities
The overarching goal of the CZMA is "to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to
restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding
generations." n117 The CZMA mentions the development of energy facilities in the Coastal
Zone, but its language is vague, and generally requires only that states undertake "adequate
consideration of the national interest" in siting energy facilities, and "give consideration" to any
applicable national or interstate energy plan or program. n118 The CZMA also mentions energy
with regard to funding for development: "The national objective of attaining a greater degree of
energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by providing Federal financial assistance to meet
state and local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activity in or affecting the coastal
zone." n119 However, the CZMA does not mention offshore wind energy or renewable energy
at all.
Although the CZMA acknowledges the "national interest in the effective management, beneficial
use, protection, and development of the coastal zone," n120 it allows states substantial
discretion over their coastal zone management through CZMPs, which the Secretary of
Commerce oversees. n121 As noted previously, the Submerged Lands Act defines state coastal
zones as [*1646] three miles from the shoreline. n122 The CZMA mechanism of federal
consistency review extends state power further, past their coastal zones, by allowing states to
review and sometimes overrule federal actions and permits in federal waters. n123
Before the CZMA was promulgated, the coastal zone had long been subject to decentralized
management. n124 The CZMA continues this tradition with its own approach to federalism,
explicitly encouraging cooperation between local, state, and federal levels of government in
their management of coastal resources. n125 Specifically, under the CZMA, each state makes its
own CZMP. n126 The CZMA provides a variety of policy considerations for states to incorporate
into their management programs. Prioritizing construction of certain facilities, specifically
energy facilities, in states' coastal zones is one of several listed considerations. n127 Others
include protecting natural resources; minimizing the loss of life and property to flooding and sea
level rise; improving coastal water quality; allowing public recreational access to the coast;
restoring urban waterfronts and preserving coastal features; coordinating and simplifying
governmental management procedures for coastal resources; consulting and coordinating with
federal agencies; giving timely and effective notice for public and local participation in
governmental decision making; comprehensive planning for marine resource preservation; and
studying sea level rise and land subsidence. n128 The Secretary of Commerce examines states'
CZMPs, making sure they are in accordance with the CZMA's policy considerations and other
mandates, and any other federal regulations. n129 In particular, the CZMA requires that states
adequately consider the national interest in "siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are
of greater than local significance. In the case of energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the
State has given consideration to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program."
n130 Once approved by the Secretary of Commerce, however, state CZMPs are subject to very
little federal constraint under the CZMA, leaving states with nearly complete discretion within
their coastal zones.
State control is expanded by federal consistency review, n131 a mechanism unique to the
CZMA. Consistency review allows a state to review a federal agency activity or permit within or
outside of the coastal zone for compatibility [*1647] with the state's CZMP when the activity or
permit affects the state's coastal zone. n132 Under this mechanism, the federal agency must
submit a "consistency determination" (for an activity) or "consistency certification" (for a
permit) to the state before moving forward with the project. n133 For federal permits, which
would be more relevant to offshore renewable development than federal actions, the state then
has the opportunity to concur with or object to the agency's certification. n134 "No license or
permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state ... has concurred with the
applicant's certification." n135 Thus, a coastal state's control extends beyond its own coastal
zone into federal waters, as it has the ability to review - and potentially block - any project that
affects their coastal zone. In the end, however, the Secretary of Commerce - by her own
initiative or in response to an appeal - can overrule the state's protest by finding that a permit is
consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or otherwise in the interest of national security.
n136
Since the passage of the CZMA in 1972 until March 2010, states had filed 141 appeals with the
Secretary protesting federal permits affecting their coastal zones. n137 States settled their
issues with the federal government in 64 instances, or 45 percent of these cases. n138 The
Secretary dismissed or overrode state appeals in 32 instances, or 23 percent of these cases.
n139 Of the remaining 45 appeals that the Secretary considered for their substance, the
Secretary overrode the state's objection in 14 cases, or 31 percent of the time, and accepted the
state's objection in 30 cases, or 67 percent of the time. n140 Only 19 of the 45 appeals related
to energy facilities, but all of these related to oil or natural gas projects; the Secretary overrode
these appeals about half of the time. n141 Although states do not choose to use their federal
consistency review power over federal permits frequently, as these numbers show, it is
nonetheless a powerful tool that extends their power beyond their coastal zones.
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 [*1648] projects. The CZMA allows states
near-complete 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 states' 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.
The plan ensures offshore wind development --- it maintains NEPA reviews to
prevent environmentally destructive over development
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (October 2010, Erica,
California Law Review, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” Vol. 98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
V The Coastal Zone Management Act: A Potential Solution
The Cape Wind example poignantly illustrates the disconnect between local costs and national
benefits with regard to offshore wind power development, and the potential for local interests
to hijack state and federal processes and stall a project . The federal government needs a
stronger role in the process to counteract narrow-minded state and local opposition. With a
well-integrated federal perspective, agencies and developers could properly weigh regional,
national, and global benefits of offshore wind against its limited local costs.
The CZMA presents an obvious starting point for a revised regulatory framework. It already
covers the states' coastal zones - that is, the area three miles or less from the shore - and leaves
states with substantial power. n227 However, it currently does not give sufficient weight to the
national interest in the benefits of offshore wind power. Some academics have come to a similar
conclusion, but their revisions are tentative and minor. n228 Now is a time for more decisive
and bold action. With the change in the United States' administration, the deteriorating climate
situation, and the nation's ongoing energy and economic crises, the country has both the
opportunity and the need to make effective changes. However, setting up an entirely new
regulatory scheme, as some have suggested, n229 goes too far: it fails to acknowledge what
Congress can realistically accomplish and ignores the tools we already have in our hands in the
CZMA. With some strengthening revisions, the CZMA might become the simple solution that
helps the U nited S tates turn offshore wind on.
A. An Ineffective Tool to Promote Offshore Wind
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 areas." n230 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 [*1658] explicit guiding principles and
requirements, states can fulfill the process required by the CZMA - the development of CZMPs while not meeting any particular standards. n231 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. n232 For example, the CZMA explicitly
mandates that coastal states "anticipate and plan" for climate change and resulting sea level rise
and other adverse effects. n233 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. n234 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. n235 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. n236 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.
[*1659]
B. Denmark: An Example of Offshore Success
Not surprisingly, offshore wind power development has been most successful in places with a
powerful, centralized government implementing a strong pro-offshore wind power policy. n237
Denmark in particular has been successful in its promotion of wind power, especially offshore
wind power. n238 By the end of 2006, Denmark was generating 20 percent of its electricity from
wind, both offshore and onshore. n239 Since 1991, Denmark has erected eight offshore wind
farms, with a total capacity of 423 MW, n240 meeting about 4.5 percent of Denmark's power
needs. n241 The Danish Energy Authority, the governmental agency that oversees energy facility
construction, required the construction of the two largest Danish offshore wind farms - Horns
Rev and Nysted. n242 Its requirement resulted from a governmental action plan outlining the
expansion of wind power in Denmark, which emphasized the expansion of offshore wind power
in particular. n243
The Danish government has promoted wind power generation for decades, and the Danish
Energy Authority serves as the centralized head of the Danish government's offshore wind policy
implementation. n244 The Energy Authority is a "one stop shop" for the many parties interested
in offshore wind power development. n245 It determines whether to pursue an Environmental
Impact Assessment, which it then uses, along with relevant legislation, to determine whether to
allow offshore development. n246
At the same time, the government has worked to win support from a wide range of
stakeholders, including energy companies, industry, municipalities, research institutions,
nongovernmental organizations, and consumers. n247 In localities around the Horns Rev
offshore wind farm, people expressed concerns before construction regarding the lack of local
involvement in the process, the negative visual and aesthetic impact of the project, and the
resulting negative effect on tourism. n248 After construction, and after no drop in tourism
occurred, attitudes gradually shifted to neutral or even somewhat positive towards the [*1660]
project. n249 Denmark offers a lesson in the power of constructed offshore wind projects to
change negative attitudes. n250 The same transformation might be possible in the United
States.
In 2007, after nearly a year of negotiations, the Danish government committed to increasing its
wind power generation capacity by 1,300 MW by 2012, bringing its capacity to a total of 4,400
MW, n251 or nearly 50 percent of Denmark's total power needs. n252 This increase will include
400 MW of new offshore generation on existing wind farms, Horns Rev and Nysted, and at least
400 MW of offshore generation in new wind farms. n253 The Danish government's commitment
to renewable energy, wind power, and, in particular, offshore wind power, fits into the
European Union's broad pro-renewable energy goals. Specifically, the EU aims to generate 21
percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010 as part of its efforts to combat
climate change and to reduce its dependence on coal, oil, and natural gas. n254 A number of
other EU countries also have strong offshore wind programs. n255 Although Denmark has
traditionally been touted as the leader in offshore wind production, the United Kingdom
recently overtook it with a total offshore generation capacity of 590 MW. n256
C. Suggested Revisions to the CZMA
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
[*1661]
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 CZMA
n257 in response to the Cape Wind federal jurisdiction confusion. n258 Although these did not
pass, n259 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 past, for example to
encourage aquaculture. n260
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, which was MMS's effort to determine how to address offshore wind permitting.
n261 Several commenters in the process, including representatives of state agencies, urged
MMS to coordinate with state authorities in finding suitable locations for offshore wind
facilities. n262 More recently, Massachusetts's Ocean Management Plan explicitly suggests
coordination with MMS for offshore renewable energy siting. n263
1. Mandate Offshore Wind Power Development
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. n264 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 [*1662] 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 to establish initial measures to mitigate environmental
consequences." n265 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. n266
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. n267 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. n268 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 [*1663] 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. n269 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.
2. Require Revisions to State Plans
To give this new offshore renewable energy mandate effect, Congress or the Secretary of
Commerce should instruct states to revise their CZMPs in order to achieve full compliance with
the new requirement. n270 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 rules and regulations
the Secretary has promulgated. n271 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.
3. Increase Funding and Incentives for Offshore Wind
As previously discussed, a federal agency, MMS, is responsible for siting and permitting offshore
wind power generation facilities. n272 Although the CZMA alludes to the ability of the federal
government to play another role by [*1664] encouraging energy facility development through
"financial assistance," n273 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 2012. n274 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. n275
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. n276
Indeed, President Obama has explicitly acknowledged the potential for clean energy to create
new jobs, with particular urgency as the United States continues to see high rates of
unemployment. n277 In addition, the President has acknowledged the importance of public
spending to stimulate the economy. n278 In particular, he has promised to spend significantly
on renewable energy, in part because of its job-creation potential. n279 Or, as with the other
aforementioned revisions to the CZMA, these incentives might be tied into broader revisions to
the Energy Policy Act or the creation of new climate change legislation. n280 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.
Only a federal mandate can guarantee the expansion of wind energy
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (October 2010, Erica,
California Law Review, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” Vol. 98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
However, the Oceans Act and Ocean Management Plan, though promising, have come late in
the game for Cape Wind, nine long years after the project sought its initial federal permits. For
most of this time, Cape Wind proponents had to fight state and local interests at every turn, at
both the state and federal levels, with no explicit state or federal mandate to back them up in
administrative processes or litigation. Although Massachusetts finally appears to be explicitly
acknowledging the broad benefits of offshore wind power, other states may not have such
foresight, and other projects may face the same uphill battle as Cape Wind against powerful
opposition focused on local costs. Without a stronger federal policy in the process promoting
the broad benefits of [*1657] offshore wind, and one with a congressional mandate and
requirements to back it up, offshore wind power development is sure to be slow. The CZMA
offers a potential way for the federal government to assert itself and the benefits of offshore
wind in state and local decision making.
Pre-emption of state barriers solves – nuclear power, hydropower, cell tower
and vehicle emissions statutes prove
Thaler 12 – Visiting Professor of Energy Policy, Law & Ethics, University of Maine School of Law
and School of Economics
(Jeff, “FIDDLING AS THE WORLD FLOODS AND BURNS: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE URGENTLY
REQUIRES A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE PERMITTING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS,”
Environmental Law, 42, Lexis)//BB
However, statutes expediting agency review of offshore wind projects ¶ solve only part of the
problem—after all, litigation delayed and plagued the ¶ Cape Wind project even after it received
its multiple regulatory approvals.266 ¶ Thus, as in Maine, there should be both expedited and
limited judicial ¶ reviews of agency decisions on offshore wind projects.267¶ ¶ Any effort toward
national-scale coordinated and streamlined review of ¶ offshore wind projects must also
consider the separate state and local ¶ regulatory obstacles before a project can begin
construction. Again, there is ¶ federal precedent for limiting the delay or denial of deserving
projects that ¶ are deemed critical to the country’s economic, energy, or environmental ¶
interests. For example, the role of state and local agencies in permitting, ¶ licensing, or
regulating nuclear and hydroelectric power projects, cell ¶ towers, and vehicle emissions has
been restricted by Congress with the ¶ support of the courts.268 Comparable legislation for
siting and permitting ¶ offshore wind projects, including their associated transmission corridors,
is ¶ in order. Just as state and local governments cannot regulate cell tower ¶ siting on the basis
of impacts from the radio frequency emissions,269 those ¶ governments should also be
prohibited from regulating on the basis of harm ¶ to wildlife if the proposed project follows
federal guidelines and laws, such ¶ as the ESA, the MMPA, and the MBTA. ¶ The CZMA federal
consistency requirement also provides many ¶ opportunities to delay approval of offshore wind
energy projects. One set of ¶ proposals has been to streamline the CZMA process, as well as to ¶
legislatively include in the Act “an explicit mandate for offshore wind power ¶ development
where appropriate and feasible on all U.S. coasts; [t]o require ¶ revisions to [states’] CZMPs in
accordance with this new mandate; and [t]o ¶ increase funding and other incentives for offshore
wind power [planning ¶ and] development.”270 One consequence would be requiring “changes
to ¶ many states’ CZMPs to reflect the new national priority for offshore ¶ renewable energy
sources, including offshore wind.”271 A second ¶ consequence would be that 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.”272
Long-term incentives ensure that the supply chain follows on – fed support key
Galluci 11 - Staff Reporter at InsideClimate News Honduras Contributor at Fodor's, Co-Editor &
Reporter at The News, Newsroom Intern at Associated Press, Newsroom Intern at Columbus
Business
(Maria, “Never-Used Tax Credit Could Jumpstart US Offshore Wind Energy—if Renewed,”
http://truth-out.org/news/item/4778:neverused-tax-credit-could-jumpstart-us-offshore-windenergy%E2%80%94if-renewed)
Matt Kaplan, a North American wind analyst at IHS Emerging Energy Research, said removing
the tax credit's end date could help lure investors by guaranteeing the government's support
even if projects gets held up by bureaucracy or politics.¶ "Having a long-term incentive for
offshore wind would help ... investors to feel a bit more comfortable with knowing what they
can expect out of these projects," he said.¶ But even if the bill passes Congress, attracting
financing will remain a challenge for never-before-seen wind farms in America, said Amy Grace,
a North American wind analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Most financiers prefer to
invest only after the first generation of projects proves successful, she said. "Most banks want to
be the first to invest in your second project."¶ Still, the subsidy gives the industry at least a shot,
she said. "The tax credit won't guarantee investment in the industry. But not having the tax
credit will guarantee no investment in the industry."¶ Why The Legislation May Have a Chance¶
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) introduced the Senate bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in July,
in part to support NRG Bluewater's planned Delaware wind park.¶ Carper, who chairs the Senate
finance committee, said last month that he would meet with all six Senate members of the Joint
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to discuss the bill. The panel is tasked with creating a
plan to curb $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit by Thanksgiving. Clean energy
supporters in Congress have appealed to committee members in recent months to secure or
extend tax credits for cleantech manufacturing and R&D.¶ In the House, Reps. Bill Pascrell (DN.J.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) have proposed a companion bill that they say would help a 25megawatt project by Fishermen's Energy get built off New Jersey's coastline.¶ The 3,000megawatt incentive would cost the U.S. Treasury roughly $1.5 billion, according to estimates
provided to InsideClimate News by Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development
Coalition, a lobbying group. The current tax credit, which the federal stimulus approved in 2009
for offshore and land-based wind, geothermal, biomass and other clean energy projects, costs
roughly $3 billion. ¶ Grybowski of Rhode Island's Deepwater said he's optimistic the investment
tax credit will be approved by Congress, despite the ideological resistance from some
Republicans to continue Obama's green energy subsidies in the wake of the collapse of solar
firm Solyndra, which received a $535 million federal loan.¶ "We have lots of strong support on
both sides of the aisle," he said.¶ One possible reason is that payments to the large-scale
projects won't begin for five years. "We think it will take 10 years before those first 3,000
[megawatts] are used up," explained Lanard. He and other advocates of the bills hope this will
sway a spending-averse Congress to okay the measure.¶ Another selling point is jobs.
Mandelstam of NRG Bluewater said the first 200 megawatts of its Delaware project would
create 500 construction and supply chain jobs over three years—a point he aims to drive home
to lawmakers.¶ According to the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the
Obama administration's goal to deploy 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity in the next
decade and 54,000 megawatts by 2030, would create more than 43,000 permanent jobs and
generate around $200 billion in new economy activity.¶ A large chunk of that growth would
come from luring global turbine and equipment manufacturers to set up shop along the
Atlantic Coast , developers say. Lanard noted that making one offshore wind turbine requires
some 8,000 parts from hundreds of different companies.¶ Mandelstam, who also heads the
offshore group of the American Wind Energy Association, said he often plays "matchmaker"
between European manufacturers and legislators and governors in coastal states, in an effort to
entice them to open factories in the U.S. But manufacturers aren't likely to follow until turbines
are out at sea, he said. " The supply chain will follow the projects ."¶ Along with creating jobs, a
domestic network of suppliers and skilled technicians could significantly cut the cost of building
an offshore wind farm in the U.S., which right now "is higher than it would be for a comparable
project in northern Europe, where there's a developed supply chain," Deepwater's Grybowski
said.¶ Who Will Build the First Offshore Wind Farm?¶ Meanwhile, the race to build America's
first floating wind farm is on. At this point Deepwater's proposed 30-megawatt Block Island
demo installation off Rhode Island appears to be leading—in part because it doesn't need
government financing.¶ The tax credit is "less critical for the Block Island wind farm because it is
a smaller project," Grybowski said. The project, which includes an underwater network of
transmission cables to carry electricity from wind turbines to the mainland, is expected to cost
around $250 million. Permits could be wrapped up by 2013, and the turbines, which would
produce enough power for 12,000 homes on the island, could go up that same year.¶ "We are
confident that we will have a financing package in place to allow the project to proceed,"
Grybowski said. But for larger wind farms, he added, federal support is "critical ."¶ For now it's
still anyone's guess which utility-scale wind part will be up and running first—and by when.¶ If
the tax credit is extended, the first payments for big projects would likely be dispensed in five
years or later and divvied up among the leaders—Cape Wind, NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind
park and Deepwater's trio of 1,000-megawatt projects.¶ Cape Wind and NRG Bluewater are the
furthest along. NRG Bluewater says it expects to wrap up all the necessary permitting by 2014. It
could sign a lease even sooner from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM),
which is expected to start leasing blocks off the coasts of Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland and
Virginia by the end of this year. (The developer is also seeking to build an additional 2,000
megawatts off Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.)¶ Theoretically, winds
blowing off the Atlantic Coast's Outer Continental Shelf could provide more than 1,000
gigawatts of electricity, enough to power 800 million average homes. But it's not just the
Atlantic states that are vying for offshore renewable energy.¶ Ohio wants to build a 20megawatt demo on Lake Erie. Off the coast of Galveston, Tex., developer Coastal Point Energy is
proposing a 12-megawatt project. It suffered a setback this summer after utility Austin Energy
turned down the developer's proposal for a power purchase agreement. Eventually, Coastal
Point hopes to build 300 megawatts at the site and 2,100 more megawatts throughout the
area.¶ The key for the entire U.S. offshore wind industry will be consistent government
support , say the developers. "Stability in tax and regulatory policies will go a long way toward
helping this industry develop in the United States," Grybowski said.
1ac Warming
Warming is anthropogenic – the most comprehensive data-sets are conclusive
Green 13 – Professor of Chemistry @ Michigan Tech
*John Cook – Fellow @ Global Change Institute, produced climate communication resources
adopted by organisations such as NOAA and the U.S. Navy
**Dana Nuccitelli – MA in Physics @ UC-Davis
***Mark Richardson – PhD Candidate in Meteorology, et al.,
(“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,”
Environmental Research Letters, 8.2)//BB
An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public
support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also
increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012).
Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate
scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012,
Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the
analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the
scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level
of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW
(anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).¶ Surveys of climate scientists have found strong
agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and
Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific
agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the
increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on
the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007).¶ The peerreviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus
among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the
search 'global climate change' found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus
position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that
found a consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).¶ Despite
these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that
the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007,
public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant
disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007).
Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the
earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).¶ Through analysis of climaterelated papers published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most comprehensive
analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and evolution of consensus
over the last two decades.¶ 2. Methodology¶ This letter was conceived as a 'citizen science' is not
provided. Schulte estimated a higher percentage of endorsements and rejections, possibly
because the strict methodology we adopted led to a greater number of 'No Position' abstracts.
Schulte also found a significantly greater number of rejection papers, including 6 explicit
rejections compared to our 0 explicit rejections. See the supplementary information (available
at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia) for a tabulated comparison of results. Among 58 selfrated papers, only one (1.7%) rejected AGW in this sample. Over the period of January 2004 to
February 2007, among 'global climate change' papers that state a position on AGW, we found
97% endorsements .¶ 5. Conclusion¶ The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a
necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a
significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either
disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to
human activity (Pew 2012).¶ Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to
confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western
Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global
warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active
scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is
exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing
opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified
(Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the
UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of
improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).¶ The narrative presented by
some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while
'...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A
systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering
this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published
research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position
on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract
ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Even if some warming is inevitable, keeping it below 4 degrees avoids the worst
impacts
Kim 12 – PhD in Anthropology @ Harvard, former president of Dartmouth, Now President of
the World Bank
(Jim Yong, “Turn Down the Heat,” p. ix)//BB
The 4°C scenarios are devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food
produc- tion potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming
dryer, wet regions wet- ter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the
tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased frequency of
high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodiversity , including coral reef
systems.¶ And most importantly, a 4°C world is so different from the current one that it
comes with high uncer- tainty and new risks that threaten our ability to anticipate and
plan for future adaptation needs.¶ The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting
prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back
decades of sustainable development.¶ It is clear that we already know a great deal about the
threat before us. The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global
warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8°C
above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are acidi- fying;
sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per
decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food
crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought.¶ Despite the global community’s best
intentions to keep global warming below a 2°C increase above pre-industrial climate, higher
levels of warming are increasingly likely. Scientists agree that countries’ cur- rent United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission pledges and commitments
would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming. And the longer those pledges remain
unmet, the more likely a 4°C world becomes.¶ Data and evidence drive the work of the
World Bank Group. Science reports, including those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, informed our decision to ramp up work on these issues, leading to, a World
Development Report on climate change designed to improve our understanding of the
implications of a warming planet; a Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change,
and a report on Inclusive Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate for ambitious
action on climate change, not only because it is a moral imperative, but because it makes good
economic sense.¶ But what if we fail to ramp up efforts on mitigation? What are the
implications of a 4°C world? We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science
and the potential impact on development in such a world.¶ It would be so dramatically
different from today’s world that it is hard to describe accurately; much relies on
complex projections and interpretations.¶ We are well aware of the uncertainty that
surrounds these scenarios and we know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree
on the degree of risk. But the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient to justify
strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to avoid that scenario is vital for the
health and welfare of communities around the world. While every region of the world will be
affected, the poor and most vulnerable would be hit hardest .¶ A 4°C world can, and
must, be avoided .¶ The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate for
international and regional agreements and increasing climate financing. We will redouble
our efforts to support fast growing national initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions and
build adaptive capacity as well as support inclusive green growth and climate smart
development. Our work on inclusive green growth has shown that—through more efficiency
and smarter use of energy and natural resources—many opportunities exist to drastically reduce
the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic
growth.¶ This report is a stark reminder that climate change affects everything. The solutions
don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The solutions lie in effective risk
management and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a 4°C
degree world in mind. The World Bank Group will step up to the challenge.
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)//BB
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-
Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate
change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security
of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the
strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on
security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned
as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose
an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human
experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case
adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
industrial levels by the end of the century."
Independently, emissions cause ocean acidification – extinction
Romm 12 – physicist and climate expert, Fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
(Joseph J., “Science: Ocean Acidifying so fast that it threatens humanity’s ability to feed itself”,
3/2/12; http://earthlawcenter.org/news/headline/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatenshumanitys-ability-to-feed-itself/)
The world’s oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they
did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon
sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to
survey the geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. “What
we’re doing today really stands out,” said lead author Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “We know that life during past ocean
acidification events was not wiped out—new species evolved to replace those that died off. But
if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care
about—coral reefs, oysters, salmon.” James Zachos, a paleoceanographer at University of
California, Santa Cruz, with a core of sediment from some 56 million years ago, when the oceans
underwent acidification that could be an analog to ocean changes today. That’s the news
release from a major 21-author Science paper, “The Geological Record of Ocean Acidification”
(subs. req’d). We knew from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the oceans are now acidifying
10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species
occurred. But this study looked back over 300 million and found that “the unprecedented
rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place” has put marine life at risk in a frighteningly
unique way: … the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of
driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in
at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an
unknown territory of marine ecosystem change. That is to say, it’s not just that acidifying oceans
spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century” as a 2010 Geological Society study put it.
We are also warming the ocean and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a
recipe for mass extinction. A 2009 Nature Geoscience study found that ocean dead zones
“devoid of fish and seafood” are poised to expand and “remain for thousands of years.“ And
remember, we just learned from a 2012 new Nature Climate Change study that carbon dioxide is
“driving fish crazy” and threatening their survival. Here’s more on the new study: The oceans act
like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the gas reacts with seawater to
form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor. But
if CO2 goes into the oceans too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks
and some plankton need for reef and shell-building. That is what is happening now. In a review
of hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, a team of researchers from five countries found
evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans changed even
remotely as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, some 56 million
years ago. In the early 1990s, scientists extracting sediments from the seafloor off Antarctica
found a layer of mud from this period wedged between thick deposits of white plankton fossils.
In a span of about 5,000 years, they estimated, a mysterious surge of carbon doubled
atmospheric concentrations, pushed average global temperatures up by about 6 degrees C, and
dramatically changed the ecological landscape. The result: carbonate plankton shells littering
the seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown layer of mud. As many as half of all species of benthic
foraminifers, a group of single-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went extinct,
suggesting that organisms higher in the food chain may have also disappeared, said study co-
author Ellen Thomas, a paleoceanographer at Yale University who was on that pivotal Antarctic
cruise. “It’s really unusual that you lose more than 5 to 10 percent of species over less than
20,000 years,” she said. “It’s usually on the order of a few percent over a million years.” During
this time, scientists estimate, ocean pH—a measure of acidity–may have fallen as much as 0.45
units. (As pH falls, acidity rises.) In the last hundred years, atmospheric CO2 has risen about 30
percent, to 393 parts per million, and ocean pH has fallen by 0.1 unit, to 8.1–an acidification rate
at least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago, says Hönisch. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change predicts that pH may fall another 0.3 units by the end of the century,to 7.8,
raising the possibility that we may soon see ocean changes similar to those observed during the
PETM. More catastrophic events have shaken earth before, but perhaps not as quickly. The
study finds two other times of potential ocean acidification: the extinctions triggered by massive
volcanism at the end of the Permian and Triassic eras, about 252 million and 201 million years
ago respectively. But the authors caution that the timing and chemical changes of these events
is less certain. Because most ocean sediments older than 180 million years have been recycled
back into the deep earth, scientists have fewer records to work with. During the end of the
Permian, about 252 million years ago, massive volcanic eruptions in present-day Russia led to a
rise in atmospheric carbon, and the extinction of 96 percent of marine life. Scientists have found
evidence for ocean dead zones and the survival of organisms able to withstand carbonate-poor
seawater and high blood-carbon levels, but so far they have been unable to reconstruct changes
in ocean pH or carbonate. At the end of the Triassic, about 201 million years ago, a second burst
of mass volcanism doubled atmospheric carbon. Coral reefs collapsed and many sea creatures
vanished. Noting that tropical species fared the worst, some scientists question if global
warming rather than ocean acidification was the main killer at this time. The effects of ocean
acidification today are overshadowed for now by other problems, ranging from sewage
pollution and hotter summer temperatures that threaten corals with disease and bleaching.
However, scientists trying to isolate the effects of acidic water in the lab have shown that lower
pH levels can harm a range of marine life, from reef and shell-building organisms to the tiny
snails favored by salmon. In a recent study, scientists from Stony Brook University found that
the larvae of bay scallops and hard clams grow best at pre-industrial pH levels, while their shells
corrode at the levels projected for 2100. Off the U.S. Pacific Northwest, the death of oyster
larvae has recently been linked to the upwelling of acidic water there. In parts of the ocean
acidified by underwater volcanoes venting carbon dioxide, scientists have seen alarming signs of
what the oceans could be like by 2100. In a 2011 study of coral reefs off Papua New Guinea,
scientists writing in the journal Nature Climate Change found that when pH dropped to 7.8, reef
diversity declined by as much as 40 percent. Other studies have found that clownfish larvae
raised in the lab lose their ability to sniff out predators and find their way home when pH drops
below 7.8. “It’s not a problem that can be quickly reversed,” said Christopher Langdon, a
biological oceanographer at the University of Miami who co-authored the study on Papua New
Guinea reefs. “Once a species goes extinct it’s gone forever. We’re playing a very dangerous
game.”
THE PLAN SOLVES
US offshore wind development curbs carbon emissions
Thaler 12 - Professor of Energy Policy, Law & Ethics
(Jeff, “FIDDLING AS THE WORLD BURNS: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE URGENTLY REQUIRES A
PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE PERMITTING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS,” 42 Environmental
Law Journal 1101)//BB
as the economic and health costs from fossil fuel emissions have grown so too has the byzantine labyrinth of laws and
regulations to be navigated before a renewable energy project can be approved, let alone financed and
developed. 6 The root cause goes back to the 1970s when some of our fundamental environmental laws
were enacted, before we were aware of climate change threats, to slow down the review of
proposed projects by requiring more studies of potential project impacts before approval.7 But in
our increasingly carbon-based 21st century, we need a paradigm shift. While achieving important goals, those federal
Unfortunately,
laws and regulations, and similar ones at the state and local levels, have become so unduly burdensome, slow, and expensive that they will chill investment in, and kill any
significant growth of, renewable carbon-free energy sources and projects, thereby imposing huge economic, environmental and social costs upon both our country and the world8
unless they are substantially changed. Indeed, by 2050 the U.S. must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to even stabilize atmospheric levels of carbon, and can do so by increasing generated electricity
from renewable sources from the current thirteen percent up to eighty percent9-- but only if there are targeted new policy efforts to accelerate, fifty times faster than since 1990, implementation of clean,
renewable energy sources.10 Thus, Part II focuses on one promising technology to demonstrate the flaws in its current licensing permitting regimes, and makes concrete recommendations for reform.11
Wind power generation from onshore installations is proven, generates no GHGs and consumes no water,12 is increasingly cost-competitive with
most fossil fuel sources, and can be employed relatively quickly in many parts of the United States
and world. Offshore wind power is a relatively newer technology, especially deep-water floating projects, and presently less cost-competitive than onshore wind. However, because
wind speeds are on average about ninety percent stronger and more consistent over water than over land, with
higher power densities and lower shear and turbulence,13 America’s offshore resources can
provide more than our current electricity use.14 Moreover, these resources are near many major cities
that are home to much of the population and electricity demand thereby “reducing the need for
new high-voltage transmission from the Midwest and Great Plains to serve coastal lands…”15 Therefore, in light Part II’s spotlight on literally dozens of different federal (yet
alone state and local) statutes and their hundreds of regulations standing between an offshore wind project applicant and construction, Part III makes concrete statutory and regulatory recommendations to
much more quickly enable the full potential of offshore wind energy to become a reality before it is too late. Greenhouse gases
(GHGs) trap heat in the atmosphere; the primary GHG emitted by human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2), which in 2012 represented 84 percent
of all human-sourced U.S. GHG emissions.16 “The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for
about 40% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 33% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2009.”17 The significant increased concentrations of GHGs into our atmosphere since the 1750 Industrial Revolution began
Climate change may be the single greatest threat to human
society and wildlife, as well as to the ecosystems upon which each depends for survival .19 In 1992, the U.S. signed and ratified the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), whose stated objective was: “[s]tabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to
adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”20 In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that it is “very likely,” at least ninety percent certain, that humans are
responsible for most of the “unequivocal” increases in globally averaged temperatures of the previous fifty
years. 21 Yet in the twenty years since the UNFCCC, it also is unequivocal that GHG levels have not stabilized but continue
greater use of fossil fuel sources have caused our world to warm and climate to change.18
to grow , ecosystems and food production have not been able to adapt, and our heavy reliance on fossil-fueled energy continues “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”22
Equally unequivocal is that 2011 global temperatures were “the tenth highest on record and
[were] higher than any previous year with a La Nina event, which [normally] has a relative cooling
influence”; “the warmest 13 years of average global temperatures [also] have all occurred in the
15 years since 1997.”23 Global emissions of carbon dioxide also jumped 5.9% in 2010 by the largest amount on record -- 500 million extra tons of carbon was pumped into the air, “the
largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution [began in 1750], and the largest percentage increase since 2003.”24 In order to even have a fifty-fifty chance that the average global temperature
will not rise more than 2° C25 beyond the temperature of 1750,26 our cumulative emissions of CO2 after 1750 must not exceed one trillion tons; but by mid-July 2012 we had already emitted over 559 billion tons
and rising, and at current rates will emit the trillionth ton in July 2043.27 The consequence is that “the current generation are uniquely placed in human history: the choices we make now—in the next 10-20
years—will alter the destiny of our species (let alone every other species) unalterably, and forever.”28 Unfortunately, by the end of 2011 the more than 10,000 government and U.N. officials from all over the
world attending the Durban climate change conference29 agreed that there is a “significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases
by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.”30 What are some of the
growing economic, public health, and environmental costs to our country proximately31 caused by our daily burning of fossil fuels? The National Research Council (NRC) analyzed the "hidden" costs of energy
production and use not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them. For the year 2005 alone, the NRC estimated $120 billion of damages to the
U.S. from fossil fuel energy, reflecting primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. Of that total, $62 billion was due to coal-fired electricity
generation; $56 billion from ground transportation (oil-petroleum); and over $2.1 billion from electricity from and heating with natural gas. The $120 billion figure did not include damages from climate change,
harm to ecosystems and infrastructure, insurance costs, effects of some air pollutants, and risks to national security, which the NRC examined but did not specifically monetize. 32 The NRC did, however, suggest
that under some scenarios climate damages from energy use could equal $120 billion.33 Thus, adding natural resource damages from harm to ecosystems, infrastructure damages, insurance costs, air pollutant
costs, and fossil-fueled national security costs to $240 billion, our burning of fossil fuels appears to be costing Americans about $300 billion each year—a “hidden” number likely to be larger in the future. What
does the future hold for a carbon-stressed world? Most scientific analyses presently predict that by 2050 the Earth may warm by 2 to 2.5° C due to the rising level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; at the
high-end of projections, the 2050 warming could exceed 4.5° C.34 But those increases are not consistent globally; rather, “[i]n all possible [predicted] outcomes, the warming over land would be roughly twice the
global average, and the warming in the Arctic greater still.”35 For example, the NRC expects that each degree Celsius increase will produce in the U.S. double to quadruple the area burned by wildfires in the
western U.S.; a 5-15 percent reduction in crop yields; more destructive power from hurricanes; greater risk of very hot summers; and more changes in precipitation frequency and amounts.36 Globally, a summary
of studies predicts that a 1°C global average temperature rise will reduce Arctic sea ice by an annual average of fifteen percent and by twenty-five percent in Septembers 37; at 2°C Europe suffers greater heat
waves, the Greenland Ice Sheet significantly melts, and many land and marine species are driven to extinction; at 3°C the Amazon suffers severe drought and resultant firestorms that will release significantly more
carbon into the atmosphere38; at 4°C hundreds of billions of tons of carbon in permafrost melt, releasing methane in immense quantities, while the Arctic Ocean ice cap disappears and Europe suffers greater
droughts.39 To presently assess what a 5°C rise will mean, we must look back into geological time, 55 million years ago, when the Earth abruptly experienced dramatic global warming due to the release of
methane hydrates--a substance presently found on subsea continental shelves. Fossils demonstrate that crocodiles were in the Canadian high Arctic, breadfruit trees were growing on the coast of Greenland, and
the Arctic Ocean saw water temperatures of 20 °C within 200km of the North Pole itself.40 And a 6°C average rise takes us even further back, to the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago, when up to
95% of species relatively abruptly became extinct.41 This may sound extreme, but the International Energy Administration warned this year that the 6°C mark is in reach by 2050 at current rates of fossil fuel
usage.42 However, even given the severity of these forecasts, many still question the extent that our climate is changing,43 and thus reject moving away from our largely fossil-fueled electricity, transportation and
heating sources. Therefore, in this next subsection I provide the latest scientific data documenting specific climate impacts to multiple parts of U.S. and global daily lives, and the costly consequences that establish
the urgency for undertaking the major regulatory reforms I recommend in Part III of this Article. B. Specific Climate Threats and Consequences 1. When Weather Extremes Increase A 2011 IPCC Special Report
predicted that it is virtually certain [99-100% probability] that increases in the frequency of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur throughout the 21st century on a global
scale. It is very likely [90% to 100% probability] that heat waves will increase in length, frequency, and/or intensity over most land areas….
It is very likely that average sea level
rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme sea levels and extreme coastal high water levels. 44 Similarly, a House of Representatives
Committee report (ACESA Report) found that “[t]here is a broad scientific consensus that the United States is vulnerable to weather
hazards that will be exacerbated by climate change.”45 It also found that the “cost of damages from weather disasters has increased markedly from
the 1980s, rising to more than $100 billion in 2007. In addition to a rise in total cost, the frequency of weather disasters costing more than one billion dollars has increased."46 In 2011, the U.S. faced the most
billion-dollar climate disasters ever, with fourteen distinct disasters alone costing at least $53 billion to our economy.47 In the first six months of 2012 in the U.S., there were more than 40,000 hot temperature
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report identified impacts from growing
more people suffering death, disease and injury from
floods, storms, fires, and droughts; increased cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality
associated with ground-level ozone pollution; changes in the range of some infectious disease
carriers spreading , for example, malaria and the West Nile virus; and increased malnutrition and
records, horrendous wildfires, major droughts, oppressive heat waves, major flooding, and a powerful derecho wind storm.48
weather hazards upon public health to include: more frequent and more intense heat waves;
consequent disorders.49 As noted above, $120 billion per year of the NRC’s Hidden Energy report’s damage assessment were based on health damages,50 including an additional 10,000-20,000 deaths per year.51
And by 2050, cumulative heat-related deaths from unabated climate change are predicted to be an additional 33,000 in the forty largest U.S. cities, with more than 150,000 additional deaths by 2100.52
Weather extremes also threaten our national security, whose policy is premised on stability. In 2007 the CNA Corporation’s report
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change described climate change as a “ threat multiplier for instability ” and warned that
p]rojected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security. The predicted effects of climate change over the coming decades include extreme weather events, drought,
flooding, sea level rise, retreating glaciers, habitat shifts, and the increased spread of lifethreatening diseases. These conditions have the potential to disrupt our way of life and to force changes in the way we keep
ourselves safe and secure.53 The following year, in the first-ever U.S. government analysis of climate change security threats, the National Intelligence Council issued
an assessment warning, in part, that climate change could threaten U.S. security by leading to
political instability, mass movements of refugees, terrorism, and conflicts over water and
other resources .54
2. When Frozen Water Melts In 2007 the IPCC predicted that sea levels would rise by 8 to 24 inches above current levels by 2100; since then, however, numerous
scientists and studies have suggested that the 2007 prediction is already out-of-date and that sea levels will likely rise up to 1.4 meters (55 inches) given upwardly trending CO2 emissions.55 The 2009 ACESA
Report found that rising sea levels are already causing inundation of low-lying lands, corrosion of wetlands and beaches, exacerbation of storm surges and flooding, and increases in the salinity of coastal estuaries
and aquifers…. Further, about one billion people live in areas within 75 feet elevation of today's sea level, including many US cities on the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, almost all of Bangladesh, and areas
occupied by more than 250 million people in China.56 This year NASA’s Chief Scientist testified to Congress that two-thirds of sea level rise from the last three decades is derived from the Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets and the melting Arctic region, then warned: [t]he West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS), an area about the size of the states of Texas and Oklahoma combined….contains the equivalent of 3.3 m of sea level,
and all that ice rests on a soft-bed that lies below sea level. In this configuration, as warm seawater melts the floating ice shelves, causing them to retreat and the glaciers that feed them to speed up, there is no
mechanism to stop the retreat and associated discharge, if warming continues. Thus the WAIS exhibits great potential for substantial and relatively rapid contributions to sea level rise. … In Greenland, the
situation is not as dramatic, since the bed that underlies most of the ice is not below sea level, and the potential for unabated retreat is limited to a few outlet glaciers. In Greenland, however, summer air
temperatures are warmer and closer to ice’s melting point, and we have observed widespread accumulation of meltwater in melt ponds on the ice sheet surface..57 In the West Antarctic ice sheet region, glacier
retreat appears to be widespread, as the air has “warmed by nearly 6°F since 1950.”58 As for Greenland’s Ice Sheet, it also is at greater risk than the IPCC had thought. Recent studies with more complete modeling
suggest that the warming threshold leading to an essentially ice-free state is not the previous estimate of an additional 3.1°C, but only 1.6°C. Thus, the 2°C target may be insufficient to prevent loss of much of the
Ice Sheet and resultant significant sea level rise.59 The ACESA Report also identified the Arctic as “one of the hotspots of global warming”60 because “[o]ver the past 50 years average temperatures in the Arctic
have increased as much as 7 °F, five times the global average.”61 Moreover, in “2007, a record 386,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice melted away, an area larger than Texas and Arizona combined and as big a
decline in one year as had occurred over the previous decade”.62 “Arctic sea ice is melting faster than climate models [had] predict[ed], and is about thirty years ahead” of the 2007 IPCC predictions, thus heading
toward the Arctic Ocean being ice-free in the late summer beginning sometime between 2020 and 2037.63 How is the Arctic’s plight linked to non-Arctic impacts? “The Arctic region arguably has the greatest
concentration of potential tipping elements in the Earth system, including Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice sheet, North Atlantic deep-water formation regions, boreal forests, permafrost and marine methane
hydrates.”64 Additionally: Warming of the Arctic region is proceeding at three times the global average….Loss of Arctic sea ice has been tentatively linked to extreme cold winters in Europe… Near complete loss
of the summer sea ice, as forecast for the middle of this century, if not before, will probably have knock-on effects for the northern mid-latitudes, shifting jet streams and storm tracks.65 Since 1980, sea levels
have been rising three to four times faster than the global average between Cape Hatteras, N.C. and Boston.66 “[P]ast and future global warming more than doubles the estimated odds of ‘century’ or worse
floods occurring within the next 18 years” for most coastal U.S. locations.67 Although land-based glacier melts are not major contributors to sea level rise, they do impact peoples’ food and water supplies.
Virtually all of the world's glaciers, which store seventy-five percent of the world’s freshwater, are receding in direct response to global warming, aggravating already severe water scarcity--both in the United
States and abroad.68 While over fifteen percent of the world population currently relies on melt water from glaciers and snow cover for drinking water and irrigation for agriculture, the IPCC projects a sixty
percent volume loss in glaciers in various regions and widespread reductions in snow cover throughout the twenty-first century.69 Likewise, snowpack has been decreasing, and it is expected that snow cover
increases food insecurity by
reducing yields of grains, such as corn and wheat, from increased water scarcity and
intensification of severe hot conditions, thereby causing corn price volatility to sharply increase.71 Globally,
duration will significantly decrease in eastern and western North America and Scandinavia by 2020, and globally by 2080.70 Climate change thus
the number of people living in "severely stressed" river basins will increase “by one to two billion people in the 2050s”…About two-thirds of the global land area is expected to experience increased water
stress”.72 3. When Liquid Water Warms Over the past century, oceans, which cover seventy percent of the Earth’s surface, are warming. Global sea-surface temperature has increased about 1.3°F, while the
heat has also penetrated almost two miles into the deep ocean.73 This increased warming is contributing to the destruction of seagrass meadows, causing an annual release back into the environment of 299
million tons of carbon.74 Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations also are leading to higher absorption of CO2 into the upper ocean, making the surface waters more acidic (lower Ph).75 “[O]cean
chemistry currently is changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed during the 650,000 years preceding our [fossil-fueled] industrial era.”76 The acidification has serious implications for the
Coral reefs, the habitat for about a quarter of (over a
million ) of marine species, are collapsing, endangering more than a third of all coral species77;
indeed, temperature thresholds for the majority of coral reefs worldwide are expected to be
exceeded, causing mass bleaching and complete coral mortality.78 “[T]he productivity of plankton,
krill, and marine snails, which compose the base of the ocean food-chain, [also] declines as the
ocean acidifies,”79 adversely impacting populations of everything from whales to salmon80-- who
also are being harmed by the oceans’ warming up. 81 Extinctions from climate change also are
expected to be significant and widespread. The IPCC Fourth Assessment found that “approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely
calcification rates of organisms and plants living at all levels within the global ocean.
]ecent studies have
linked global warming to declines in such [] species as [] blue crabs, penguins, gray whales, salmon, walruses, and ringed seals[; b]ird extinction rates are
to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5°C82—a range likely to be exceeded in the coming decades. “[R
predicted to be as high as 38 percent in Europe and 72 percent in northeastern Australia, if global warming exceeds 2°C above pre-industrial levels.”83 Between now and 2050, Conservation International
one species will face extinction every twenty minutes; the current extinction rate is one
thousand times faster than the average during Earth's history, 84 in part because the climate is
changing more than 100 times faster than the rate at which many species can adapt.85 4. When Land Dries Out
estimates
The warming trends toward the Earth’s poles and higher latitudes are threatening people not just from melting ice and sea level rise, but also from the predicted thawing of permafrost of thirty to fifty percent by
2050, and as much or more of it by 2100.86 “The term permafrost refers to soil or rock that has been below 0°C (32°F) and frozen for at least two years.”87 Permafrost underlies about twenty-five percent of the
land area in the northern hemisphere, and is “estimated to hold 30 percent or more of all carbon stored in soils worldwide”—which equates to four times more than all the carbon humans have emitted in modern
times.88 Given the increasing average air temperatures in Eastern Siberia, Alaska and northwestern Canada, thawing of the Northern permafrost would release massive amounts of carbon dioxide (doubling
current atmospheric levels) and methane89 into the atmosphere. Indeed, there are about 1.7 trillion tons of carbon in northern soils (roughly twice the amount in the atmosphere), about eighty-eight percent of it
in thawing permafrost.90 Permafrost thus may become an annual source of carbon equal to fifteen to thirty-five percent of today's annual human emissions.91 But like seagrass meadows and unlike power plant
emissions, we cannot trap or prevent permafrost carbon emissions at the source. Similarly, forests, which “cover about 30 percent of the Earth's land surface and hold almost half of the world's terrestrial
carbon…act both as a source of carbon emissions to the atmosphere when cut, burned, or otherwise degraded and as a sink when they grow...”92 A combination of droughts, fires, and spreading pests, though,
are causing economic and environmental havoc:. “In 2003, [] forest fires in Europe, the United States, Australia, and Canada accounted for more global [carbon] emissions than any other source...”93 There have
been significant increases in both the number of major wildfires and the area of forests burned in the U.S. and Canada.94 Fires fed by hot, dry weather have killed enormous stretches forest in Siberia and in the
Amazon, “which recently suffered two ‘once a century’ droughts just five years apart”.95 Climate change also is exacerbating the geographic spread and intensity of insect infestations. For example, in British
Columbia “the mountain pine beetle extended its range north and has destroyed an area of soft-wood forest three times the size of Maryland, killing 411 million cubic feet of trees—double the annual take by all
the loggers in Canada. Alaska has also lost up to three million acres of old growth forest to the pine beetle.”96 Over the past fifteen years the spruce bark beetle extended its range into Alaska, where it has killed
about 40 million trees, “more than any other insect in North America's recorded history”.97 The drying and burning forests, and other increasingly dry landscapes, also are causing “flora and fauna”[ to move] to
higher latitudes or to higher altitudes in the mountains”. 98 The human and environmental costs from failing to promptly reduce dependence on carbon-dioxide emitting sources for electricity, heating and
Rather than being the leader among major countries in per capita GHG
emissions, our country urgently needs to lead the world in cutting eighty percent our emissions by 2050, and using
transportation are dire and indisputable.
our renewable energy resources and technological advances to help other major emitting
countries do the same . However, significantly increasing our use of carbon-free renewable sources to
protect current and future generations of all species—human and non-human—requires concrete
changes in how our legal system regulates and permits renewable energy sources. One of those
sources with the potential for significant energy production and comparable elimination of fossil fueled greenhouse gases near major
is offshore wind . II. THE OFFSHORE WIND POWER PERMITTING AND LEASING OBSTACLE COURSE A. Overview of Technology and Attributes As
noted in the Introduction, offshore wind energy projects have the potential to generate large quantities of
pollutant-free electricity near many of the world’s major population centers, and thus to help reduce the ongoing and projected economic, health,
and environmental damages from climate change.99 Wind speeds over water are stronger and
more consistent than over land, and “have a gross potential generating capacity four times
greater than the nation’s present electric capacity.”100 The net capacity factor101 for offshore
turbines is greater than standard land-based turbines, and their blade-tip speeds are higher than
their land-based counterparts.102 Offshore wind turbine substructure designs mainly fall into three depth categories: shallow (30 m or less), transitional (>30 m to 60 m), and
American and global population sources
deep water (>60 m).103 All of the grid-scale offshore wind farms in Europe have monopole foundations embedded into the seabed in water depths ranging from 5m to 30m; the proposed American projects such
as Cape Wind in Massachusetts and Block Island in Rhode Island would likewise be shallow-water installations.
Offshore wind is comparatively the cleanest and most productive renewable
energy
Jensen 13 – partner in the Washington, DC office of Holland & Hart LLP
(Thomas, et al, “From the 35th Public Land Law Conference: Balancing Act and Paradigm Shift:
The Role of Public Lands in America's Energy Future: Oceans: Are Ocean Wind Turbines like
Homesteads and Gold Mines and Railroads? A Public Lands Policy Question for the Climate
Change Era,” 34 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 93)//BB
The ocean wind resource in United States marine waters is estimated to be as large as 4,223
gigawatts ("GW"), 12 with as many as 1,372 terawatt hours of electricity available off the East
Coast alone. 13 The low estimate of the resource is roughly four times the generating
capacity of the current United States electric grid. 14
Ocean wind is a green energy asset owned by the American people. It is an energy source for
the country that will be available forever. It can be found in undeveloped areas near almost all
coastal urban centers. It is of a potential scale that dwarfs most other alternatives , and is big
enough to shrink the United States' carbon footprint toward fitting even the most constrictive
greenhouse gas policy.
[99] Today, America's ocean wind energy is unharvested. While thousands of turbines spin
onshore, and nations around the globe have developed at least 57 marine wind projects, 15 no
turbines have been sited in United States waters. An energy resource area larger than the total
landmass of the United States, 16 one wholly owned by the American people, is unused and
wasted as a tool to power our communities.
Full-scale offshore wind would enough electricity for the entire country
Levitan 13 - writes about energy, the environment, and health. His articles have been
published by Scientific American, Discover, IEEE Spectrum, Grist, and others. In previous articles
for Yale Environment 360, he has written about vehicle-to-grid technology for electric cars and
cities' efforts to recycle food scraps and organic waste
(Dave, “Will Offshore Wind Finally Take Off on U.S. East Coast?,”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/will_offshore_wind_finally_take_off_on_us_east_coast/2693/)//B
B
“The East Coast is the Saudi Arabia of offshore wind, because there is enough energy there to
provide the entire U.S. with electricity if it was fully developed,” says Matt Huelsenbeck, a
marine scientist and offshore wind expert with the non-profit group Oceana. The National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, part of the Department of Energy, puts the onshore and offshore
U.S. wind energy potential at 4,150 gigawatts, around four times the entire electricity
requirements of the United States. The Northeast and mid-Atlantic coasts in particular are windy
spots with water depths that make development feasible.
Electricity-emissions reductions sufficiently solve global warming
Akorede 12 - .F., Ph.D degree in Electrical Power Engineering from Universiti Putra Malaysia
(H. Hizam,M.Z.A. Ab Kadir,I. Aris,S.D. BubaElectrical & Electronic Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, “Mitigating the anthropogenic global warming
in the electric power industry,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16.5)//BB
5. Power industry's share of CO2 emissions To identify the most productive mitigation
strategies, it is crucial to understand the current as well as the projected sources of GHGs, most
especially CO2[30]. Looking at Fig. 5, it is glaringly evident that CO2 constitutes the largest share
(76.7 percent) of the total global GHGs emissions recorded in 2004. In the same vein, energy
supply sector which comprises of power generation and heat supply, accounted for nearly 26
percent of the overall anthropogenic GHG emissions in the same year, as depicted in Fig. 6. To
narrow down to CO2 emissions, Fig. 7 identifies individual contribution of each sector to global
CO2 emissions. As a group, energy supply, which is responsible for 41 percent of the total global
CO2 is by far the largest producer of CO2 in 2008, followed by the transportation sector. In fact,
it is glaringly visible in the figure that these two sectors alone constitute two-thirds of the total
CO2 in the atmosphere in the year. According to the International Energy Agency, out of the 41
percent of the man-made CO2 emissions mentioned previously, the power sector is responsible
for 37 percent. The sector creates about 23 billion tons of global CO2 emissions per year. Out of
this, the United States produces the most CO2 from electricity generation, releasing 2.8 billion
tons of CO2 each year, while China is close to overtaking it with her annual 2.7 billion tons
emissions [31]. By this amount, China CO2 emissions in electric supply sector is about half of the
country's total volume, even though plans are still underway to expand her coal-fired facilities in
the next decade [8]. In the UK, 38 percent of GHG emissions produced is from energy supply
sector [32]. Carbon dioxide emissions by source compiled in 2005 by Information Analysis
Center, World Resources Institute (WRI) for the year 2000 is plotted and shown in Fig. 8. The
emissions sources considered are CO2 emitted primarily in to the air from burning of solid fuels
(SF) such as coal, liquid fuels (LF) such as petroleum products, gaseous fuels (GF), e.g. natural
gas, gas flaring (GL), cement manufacturing (CM), and land-use change (LU). All together, it is
evident from the plots that 73.3 percent of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the
atmosphere is from fossil fuels burning. Meanwhile, the International Energy Outlook (IEO2010)
[33] has forecasted the world energy demand at 739 quadrillion Btu in 2035. This figure is
equivalent to 49 percent increase of the energy consumed in 2007, estimated at 495 quadrillion
Btu. To adequately cope with the projected demand, the said document similarly projected a
growth in the generation of 95.12 MWh in the same period. Fig. 9 illustrates the energy mix of
the projected generation from 2007 to 2035. From the figure, it is seen that the world net coalfired generation nearly doubles over the projection period, from 7.9 trillion kWh in 2007 to 15.0
trillion kWh in 2035. It is apparent in the reference case that coal continues to fuel the largest
share of worldwide electric power production by a wide margin of 43 percent of the total
generation. With this scenario, all things being equal, more GHGs are expected to be emitted
into the atmosphere, leading to more globalwarming. Due to this fact, the power generation
sector, which is projected to grow at an annual rate of 2 percent, is seen to have the greatest
potential to reduce CO2 emissions in the coming decades [30]. To accomplish this goal, the CO2
emissions per kWh of electrical energy produced can be reduced by using newer and novel
power production technologies. Current retrofit technology is theoretically available, but will
likely be substantially more expensive per unit of power generated, than would be the case for
new plants with CO2 capture [30]. To mitigate globalwarming arising from the power industry,
various areas and approaches are suggested and discussed in details in the following section of
this paper. 6. Mitigating globalwarming in power sector Since the highest amount of CO2 is
generated in the power sector, curbing the CO2 produced in this sector would go a long way in
mitigating global warming . To address this issue, it is suggested in [4] to decarbonise the
power sector by at least 60 percent by 2050 since coal emits about 1.7 times as much carbon
per kWh of energy produced as natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil. However, the task to
accomplish this is not an easy one, as elaborated in the later part of this paper. Other measures
proposed for addressing globalwarming in the realm of power generation identified and
discussed in this study include adoption of carbon capture and storage technology,
improvement in energy efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy, increasing the share
of nuclear power generation, and decarbonisation of fossil fuels. Each of these possible
mitigation techniques is discussed in turn in the following subsections.
1ac Hegemony
Fast growth promotes US leadership and solves great power war
Khalilzad 11 – PhD, Former Professor of Political Science @ Columbia, Former ambassador to
Iraq and Afghanistan
(Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United
Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the
Defense Department from 1990 to 1992. "The Economy and National Security" Feb 8
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmaykhalilzad)//BB
economic
trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as
global leader. While the United States suffers from
low economic growth, the
economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. continuation
could lead to a shift
from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading to
geopolitical
Today,
and fiscal
fiscal imbalances and
The
of these two trends
in turn
rivalry and war among the great powers .
even
increased
The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be
protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing
sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held
national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years.
proportions. If
interest rates
Without faster economic growth
would crowd out other spending
and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous
were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget —
or require
substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations,
It was the economic
that led both countries to relinquish
precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order.
devastation of Britain and France
their empires
during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers,
. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to
the United States would be
compelled to retrench,
shedding international commitments We face this
domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth
withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical,
reducing its military spending and
.
. Even though
countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a
If U.S. policymakers fail to act
The closing of
the gap
could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers,
and
the higher risk of escalation.
the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership
multi-polar systems have been unstable, with
major wars among the great
powers.
American retrenchment could have devastating
multi-polar world.
and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge.
between the United States and its rivals
powers to play major powers against one another,
increase incentives for local
undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of
The stakes are high. In modern history,
. By contrast,
their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and
Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.
consequences
there would be a
heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out
conflict
weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from
the United States.
hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their
regions
. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario,
. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers,
Either way,
.
Slow growth leads to hegemonic wars – relative gap is key
Goldstein 7 - Professor of Global Politics and International Relations @ University of
Pennsylvania,
(Avery Goldstein, “Power transitions, institutions, and China's rise in East Asia: Theoretical
expectations and evidence,” Journal of Strategic Studies, Volume30, Issue 4 & 5 August, EBSCO)
Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on the consequences
for international politics of a shift in power between a dominant state and a rising power. In War
and Change in World Politics, Robert Gilpin suggested that peace prevails when a dominant
state’s capabilities enable it to ‘govern’ an international order that it has shaped. Over time,
however, as economic and technological diffusion proceeds during eras of peace and
development, other states are empowered. Moreover, the burdens of international governance
drain and distract the reigning hegemon, and challengers eventually emerge who seek to
rewrite the rules of governance. As the power advantage of the erstwhile hegemon ebbs, it may
become desperate enough to resort to theultima ratio of international politics, force, to
forestall the increasingly urgent demands of a rising challenger. Or as the power of the
challenger rises, it may be tempted to press its case with threats to use force. It is the rise and
fall of the great powers that creates the circumstances under which major wars, what Gilpin
labels ‘ hegemonic wars’ , break out.13 Gilpin’s argument logically encourages pessimism about
the implications of a rising China. It leads to the expectation that international trade,
investment, and technology transfer will result in a steady diffusion of American economic
power, benefiting the rapidly developing states of the world, including China. As the
US simultaneously scurries to put out the many brushfires that threaten its far-flung global
interests (i.e., the classic problem of overextension), it will be unable to devote sufficient
resources to maintain or restore its former advantage over emerging competitors like
China. While the erosion of the once clear American advantage plays itself out, the US will find
it ever more difficult to preserve the order in Asia that it created during its era of
preponderance. The expectation is an increase in the likelihood for the use of force – either by
a Chinese challenger able to field a stronger military in support of its demands for greater
influence over international arrangements in Asia, or by a besieged American
hegemon desperate to head off further decline. Among the trends that alarm those who would
look at Asia through the lens of Gilpin’s theory are China’s expanding share of world trade and
wealth(much of it resulting from the gains made possible by the international economic order a
dominant US established); its acquisition of technology in key sectors that have both civilian and
military applications (e.g., information, communications, and electronics linked with to forestall,
and the challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the transition to a new
international order whose contours it will define. the ‘revolution in military affairs’); and an
expanding military burden for the US (as it copes with the challenges of its global war on
terrorism and especially its struggle in Iraq) that limits the resources it can devote to preserving
its interests in East Asia.14 Although similar to Gilpin’s work insofar as it emphasizes the
importance of shifts in the capabilities of a dominant state and a rising challenger, the powertransition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler present in The War Ledger focuses more
closely on the allegedly dangerous phenomenon of ‘crossover’– the point at which a dissatisfied
challenger is about to overtake the established leading state.15 In such cases, when the power
gap narrows, the dominant state becomes increasingly desperate . Though suggesting why a
rising China may ultimately present grave dangers for international peace when its capabilities
make it a peer competitor of America, Organski and Kugler’s power-transition theory is less clear
about the dangers while a potential challenger still lags far behind and faces a difficult struggle
to catch up. This clarification is important in thinking about the theory’s relevance to
interpreting China’s rise because a broad consensus prevails among analysts that Chinese
military capabilities are at a minimum two decades from putting it in a league with the US in
Asia.16 Their theory, then, points with alarm to trends in China’s growing wealth and power
relative to the United States, but especially looks ahead to what it sees as the period of
maximum danger – that time when a dissatisfied China could be in a position to overtake the US
on dimensions believed crucial for assessing power. Reports beginning in the mid-1990s that
offered extrapolations suggesting China’s growth would give it the world’s largest gross
domestic product (GDP aggregate, not per capita) sometime in the first few decades of the
twentieth century fed these sorts of concerns about a potentially dangerous challenge to
American leadership in Asia.17 The huge gap between Chinese and American military
capabilities (especially in terms of technological sophistication) has so far discouraged prediction
of comparably disquieting trends on this dimension, but inklings of similar concerns may be
reflected in occasionally alarmist reports about purchases of advanced Russian air and naval
equipment, as well as concern that Chinese espionage may have undermined the American
advantage in nuclear and missile technology, and speculation about the potential military
purposes of China’s manned space program.18 Moreover, because a dominant state may
react to the prospect of a crossover and believe that it is wiser to embrace the logic of
preventive war and act early to delay a transition while the task is more manageable, Organski
and Kugler’s power-transition theory also provides grounds for concern about the period prior
to the possible crossover.19
States will inevitably compete for relative status – only primacy can prevent
conflict
Wohlforth 9 - Professor of government at Dartmouth
(William, “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War” World Politics, 61:1, January,
Project Muse)
Second, I question the dominant view that status quo evaluations are relatively independent of the distribution of capabilities. If the status of states
depends in some measure on their relative capabilities, and if states derive utility from status,
then different distributions of capabilities may affect levels of satisfaction, just as different
income distributions may affect levels of status competition in domestic settings. 6 Building on
research in psychology and sociology, I argue that even capabilities distributions among major powers
foster ambiguous status hierarchies, which generate more dissatisfaction and clashes over the
status quo. And the more stratified the distribution of capabilities, the less likely such status competition is. Unipolarity thus generates far
fewer incentives than either bipolarity or multipolarity for direct great power positional competition over status.
Elites in the other major powers continue to prefer higher status, but in a unipolar system they
face comparatively weak incentives to translate that preference into costly action. And the absence of such
incentives matters because social status is a positional good—something whose value depends on how much one has in relation to others.7 “If everyone has high status,”
While one actor might increase its status, all cannot simultaneously do
so. High status is thus inherently scarce, and competitions for status tend to be zero sum.9 I begin by
Randall Schweller notes, “no one does.”8
describing the puzzles facing predominant theories that status competition might solve. Building on recent research on social identity and status seeking, I then show that
under certain conditions the ways decision makers identify with the states they represent may
prompt them to frame issues as positional disputes over status in a social hierarchy. I develop hypotheses
that tailor this scholarship to the domain of great power politics, showing how the probability of status competition is likely to be linked to polarity. The rest of the article
the theory
advanced here is consistent with what we know about large-scale patterns of great power
conflict through history; by [End Page 30] demonstrating that the causal mechanisms it identifies did drive
relatively secure major powers to military conflict in the past (and therefore that they might do so again if the world were
bipolar or multipolar); and by showing that observable evidence concerning the major powers’ identity politics
and grand strategies under unipolarity are consistent with the theory’s expectations. Puzzles of
investigates whether there is sufficient evidence for these hypotheses to warrant further refinement and testing. I pursue this in three ways: by showing that
Power and War Recent research on the connection between the distribution of capabilities and war has concentrated on a hypothesis long central to systemic theories of power
transition or hegemonic stability: that major war arises out of a power shift in favor of a rising state dissatisfied with a status quo defended by a declining satisfied state.10
Though they have garnered substantial empirical support, these theories have yet to solve two intertwined empirical and theoretical puzzles—each of which might be explained
by positional concerns for status. First, if the material costs and benefits of a given status quo are what matters, why would a state be dissatisfied with the very status quo that
Most of the best known and most
consequential power transitions in history featured rising challengers that were prospering
mightily under the status quo. In case after case, historians argue that these revisionist powers sought recognition and standing rather than specific
alterations to the existing rules and practices that constituted the order of the day. In each paradigmatic case of hegemonic war, the
claims of the rising power are hard to reduce to instrumental adjustment of the status quo. In R. Ned
Lebow’s reading, for example, Thucydides’ account tells us that the rise of Athens posed unacceptable threats not to the
had abetted its rise? The rise of China today naturally prompts this question, but it is hardly a novel situation.
security or welfare of Sparta but rather to its identity as leader of the Greek world, which was an
important cause of the Spartan assembly’s vote for war.11 The issues that inspired Louis XIV’s and Napoleon’s dissatisfaction with
the status quo were many and varied, but most accounts accord [End Page 31] independent importance to the drive for a position of unparalleled primacy. In these and other
the rising challenger’s dissatisfaction is often difficult to
connect to the material costs and benefits of the status quo, and much contemporary evidence
revolves around issues of recognition and status.12 Wilhemine Germany is a fateful case in point. As Paul Kennedy has argued,
underlying material trends as of 1914 were set to propel Germany’s continued rise indefinitely, so
long as Europe remained at peace.13 Yet Germany chafed under the very status quo that abetted this rise and its
elite focused resentment on its chief trading partner—the great power that presented the least
plausible threat to its security: Great Britain. At fantastic cost, it built a battleship fleet with no plausible
strategic purpose other than to stake a claim on global power status.14 Recent historical studies present strong
evidence that, far from fearing attacks from Russia and France, German leaders sought to provoke
them, knowing that this would lead to a long, expensive, and sanguinary war that Britain was
certain to join.15 And of all the motivations swirling round these momentous decisions, no serious historical account fails to register German leaders’ oftexpressed yearning for “a place in the sun.” The second puzzle is bargaining failure. Hegemonic theories tend to model war as a
conflict over the status quo without specifying precisely what the status quo is and what flows
of benefits it provides to states.16 Scholars generally follow Robert Gilpin in positing that the underlying issue concerns a
“desire to redraft the rules by which relations among nations work,” “the nature and
governance of the system,” and “the distribution of territory among the states in the system.”17 If
hegemonic struggles among leading states in post-Westphalian Europe,
these are the [End Page 32] issues at stake, then systemic theories of hegemonic war and power transition confront the puzzle brought to the fore in a seminal article by James
Fearon: what prevents states from striking a bargain that avoids the costs of war? 18 Why can’t states renegotiate the international order as underlying capabilities distributions
bargains are infeasible
when the issue at stake is indivisible and cannot readily be portioned out to each side. Most
aspects of a given international order are readily divisible, however, and, as Fearon stressed, “both the intrinsic complexity and
shift their relative bargaining power? Fearon proposed that one answer consistent with strict rational choice assumptions is that such
richness of most matters over which states negotiate and the availability of linkages and side-payments suggest that intermediate bargains typically will exist.”19 Thus, most
scholars have assumed that the indivisibility problem is trivial, focusing on two other rational choice explanations for bargaining failure: uncertainty and the commitment
problem.20 In the view of many scholars, it is these problems, rather than indivisibility, that likely explain leaders’ inability to avail themselves of such intermediate bargains.
Yet recent research inspired by constructivism shows how issues that are physically divisible can
become socially indivisible, depending on how they relate to the identities of decision makers.21
Once issues surrounding the status quo are framed in positional terms as bearing on the
disputants’ relative standing, then, to the extent that they value their standing itself, they may be unwilling to pursue
intermediate bargaining solutions. Once linked to status, easily divisible issues that theoretically provide
opportunities for linkages and side payments of various sorts may themselves be seen as indivisible and
thus unavailable as avenues for possible intermediate bargains. The historical record surrounding major
wars is rich with evidence suggesting that positional concerns over status frustrate bargaining:
expensive, protracted conflict over what appear to be minor issues; a propensity on the part of
decision makers to frame issues in terms of relative rank even when doing so makes bargaining
harder; decision-makers’ [End Page 33] inability to accept feasible divisions of the matter in dispute even when failing to do so imposes high costs; demands on the part of
states for observable evidence to confirm their estimate of an improved position in the hierarchy; the inability of private bargains to resolve issues; a frequently observed
compulsion for the public attainment of concessions from a higher ranked state; and stubborn resistance on the part of states to which such demands are addressed even when
acquiescence entails limited material cost. The literature on bargaining failure in the context of power shifts remains inconclusive, and it is premature to take any empirical
pattern as necessarily probative. Indeed, Robert Powell has recently proposed that indivisibility is not a rationalistic explanation for war after all: fully rational leaders with
perfect information should prefer to settle a dispute over an indivisible issue by resorting to a lottery rather than a war certain to destroy some of the goods in dispute.
What might prevent such bargaining solutions is not indivisibility itself, he argues, but rather the parties’ inability to
commit to abide by any agreement in the future if they expect their relative capabilities to continue to shift.22 This is the credible commitment problem to which many theorists
are now turning their attention. But how it relates to the information problem that until recently dominated the formal literature remains to be seen.23 The larger point is that
positional concerns for status may help account for the puzzle of bargaining failure. In the
rational choice bargaining literature, war is puzzling because it destroys some of the benefits or
flows of benefits in dispute between the bargainers, who would be better off dividing the spoils
without war. Yet what happens to these models if what matters for states is less the flows of
material benefits themselves than their implications for relative status? The salience of this question depends on the
relative importance of positional concern for status among states. Do Great Powers Care about Status? Mainstream theories generally posit
that states come to blows over an international status quo only when it has implications for
their security or material well-being. The guiding assumption is that a state’s satisfaction [End Page 34] with its place in the existing order is a
By that assumption, once a state’s status in an
international order ceases to affect its material wellbeing, its relative standing will have no
bearing on decisions for war or peace. But the assumption is undermined by cumulative research
in disciplines ranging from neuroscience and evolutionary biology to economics, anthropology,
sociology, and psychology that human beings are powerfully motivated by the desire for
favorable social status comparisons. This research suggests that the preference for status is a basic
disposition rather than merely a strategy for attaining other goals.25 People often seek tangibles
not so much because of the welfare or security they bring but because of the social status they
confer. Under certain conditions, the search for status will cause people to behave in ways that directly
contradict their material interest in security and/or prosperity.
function of the material costs and benefits implied by that status.24
There are hundreds of causes of conflict – hegemony deters and controls
escalation by internalizing costs
Moore 4 – Dir. Center for Security Law and Professor of Law @ University of Virginia, Editor of
the American Journal of International Law
(John Norton, “Solving the War Puzzle: Beyond the Democratic Peace,” pg. 41-43)
If major interstate war is predominantly a product of a synergy between a potential nondemocratic aggressor and an absence
of effective deterrence, what is the role of the many traditional "causes" of war? Past, and many contemporary, theories of war
have focused on the role of specific disputes between nations, ethnic and religious differences, arms races, poverty or social injustice, competition for resources, incidents and
accidents, greed, fear, and perceptions of "honor," or many other such factors. Such factors may well play a role in motivating aggression or in serving as a means for generating
The reality, however, is that while some of these may have more potential to contribute to war than others, there
may well be an infinite set of motivating factors, or human wants, motivating aggression. It is not independent
the existence of such motivating factors for war but rather the circumstances permitting or
encouraging high risk decisions leading to war that is the key to more effectively controlling war. And the same may also
fear and manipulating public opinion.
be true of democide. The early focus in the Rwanda slaughter on "ethnic conflict," as though Hutus and Tutsis had begun to slaughter each other through spontaneous
combustion, distracted our attention from the reality that a nondemocratic Hutu regime had carefully planned and orchestrated a genocide against Rwandan Tutsis as well as its
if we were able to press a button and end poverty, racism, religious intolerance,
injustice, and endless disputes, we would want to do so. Indeed, democratic governments must remain committed to policies that will produce a
better world by all measures of human progress. The broader achievement of democracy and the rule of law will itself assist in this progress. No one, however, has
yet been able to demonstrate the kind of robust correlation with any of these "traditional" causes of
war as is reflected in the "democratic peace." Further, given the difficulties in overcoming many of these social
problems, an approach to war exclusively dependent on their solution may be to doom us to war for
generations to come. A useful framework in thinking about the war puzzle is provided in the Kenneth Waltz classic Man, the State, and War,12 first published in
Hutu opponents.I1 Certainly
1954 for the Institute of War and Peace Studies, in which he notes that previous thinkers about the causes of war have tended to assign responsibility at one of the three levels
of individual psychology, the nature of the state, or the nature of the international system. This tripartite level of analysis has subsequently been widely copied in the study of
international relations. We might summarize my analysis in this classical construct by suggesting that the most critical variables are the second and third levels, or "images," of
analysis. Government structures, at the second level, seem to play a central role in levels of aggressiveness in high risk behavior leading to major war. In this, the "democratic
peace" is an essential insight. The third level of analysis, the international system, or totality of external incentives influencing the decision for war, is also critical when
government structures do not restrain such high risk behavior on their own. Indeed, nondemocratic systems may not only fail to constrain inappropriate aggressive behavior,
they may even massively enable it by placing the resources of the state at the disposal of a ruthless regime elite. It is not that the first level of analysis, the individual, is
unimportant. I have already argued that it is important in elite perceptions about the permissibility and feasibility of force and resultant necessary levels of deterrence. It is,
instead, that the second level of analysis, government structures, may be a powerful proxy for settings bringing to power those who may be disposed to aggressive military
adventures and in creating incentive structures predisposing to high risk behavior. We should keep before us, however, the possibility, indeed probability, that a war/peace
model focused on democracy and deterrence might be further usefully refined by adding psychological profiles of particular leaders, and systematically applying other findings
of cognitive psychology, as we assess the likelihood of aggression and levels of necessary deterrence in context. A post-Gulf War edition of Gordon Craig and Alexander George's
classic, Force and Statecraft,13 presents an important discussion of the inability of the pre-war coercive diplomacy effort to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait
without war.14 This discussion, by two of the recognized masters of deterrence theory, reminds us of the many important psychological and other factors operating at the
individual level of analysis that may well have been crucial in that failure to get Hussein to withdraw without war. We should also remember that nondemocracies can have
differences between leaders as to the necessity or usefulness of force and, as Marcus Aurelius should remind us, not all absolute leaders are Caligulas or Neros. Further, the
history of ancient Egypt reminds us that not all Pharaohs were disposed to make war on their neighbors. Despite the importance of individual leaders, however, we should also
major international war is predominantly and critically an interaction, or synergy, of certain characteristics at levels two and
of democracy and an absence of effective deterrence. Yet another way to conceptualize the importance of
democracy and deterrence in war avoidance is to note that each in its own way internalizes the costs to decision elites of
engaging in high risk aggressive behavior. Democracy internalizes these costs in a variety of ways including displeasure of the electorate at having war
keep before us that
three, specifically an absence
imposed upon it by its own government. And deterrence either prevents achievement of the objective altogether or imposes punishing costs making the gamble not worth the
risk.I5 VI Testing the Hypothesis Theory without truth is but costly entertainment. HYPOTHESES, OR PARADIGMS, are useful if they reflect the real world better than previously
perfection is unlikely. No general construct will fit all
cases even in the restricted category of "major interstate war"; there are simply too many variables. We should insist,
held paradigms. In the complex world of foreign affairs and the war puzzle,
on testing against the real world and on results that suggest enhanced usefulness over other constructs. In testing the hypothesis, we
can test it for consistency with major wars; that is, in looking, for example, at the principal interstate wars in the
however,
twentieth century, did they present both a nondemocratic aggressor and an absence of effective deterrence?' And although it is by itself not going to prove causation, we might
also want to test the hypothesis against settings of potential wars that did not occur. That is, in nonwar settings, was there an absence of at least one element of the synergy?
We might also ask questions about the effect of changes on the international system in either element of the synergy; that is, what, in general, happens when a totalitarian state
makes a transition to stable democracy or vice versa? And what, in general, happens when levels of deterrence are dramatically increased or decreased?
THE PLAN SOLVES
Offshore wind promotes fast US growth
N’dolo 10 – associate principal @ Camoin Associates
(Michael and Bruce Bailey, “Offshore development can yield economic benefits,” North
American Wind Power, Fall 2010)//BB
Economic opportunities
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
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
Jones Act creates a significant barrier for off-shore developers.
(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.
Even limited energy production leads to quick growth
Sargent 12
(Rob Sargent, U.S. Poised to Join the Race on Offshore Wind: Lawmakers Must Commit to More
Pollution-Free Energy”, http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/us-poised-join-raceoffshore-wind)//BB
The Turning Point for Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy includes details on the key milestones each
Atlantic Coast state and along with the wind potential and the economic benefits. Among the
highlights of the report: Offshore wind energy will be an economic powerhouse for America.
Harnessing the 52 gigawatts of already-identified available Atlantic offshore wind energy – just 4
percent of the estimated generation potential of this massive resource – could generate $200
billion in economic activity, create 300,000 jobs, and sustain power for about 14 million homes.
(Europe already produces enough energy from offshore wind right now to power 4 million
homes.) America is closer than ever to bringing offshore wind energy ashore. Efforts are
underway in 10 Atlantic Coast states, with over 2,000 square nautical miles of federal waters
already designated for wind energy development off of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Environmental reviews finding no significant impacts
have been completed, and leases are expected to be issued for some of these areas by the end
of the year. Despite this progress, leadership is urgently needed at both the state and federal
level to ensure offshore wind energy becomes a reality in America: President Obama should
set a clear national goal for offshore wind energy development , and each Atlantic state
governor should also a set goal for offshore wind development off their shores. These goals
must be supported by policies that prioritize offshore wind energy and other efforts to secure
buyers for this new source of reliable, clean energy.
The plan solves unemployment and diversifies fuel sources
Schroeder 10 – J.D @ Berkeley, M.E.M., Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies
(Erica, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” California Law Review, 98.5)//BB
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. 6 0 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
---2ac case extensions
Solvency – Positive economic support key
Subsidies key
Giordano 10 – JD, served four years of active duty in the United States Navy as a Surface
Warfare Officer where he gained unique training, experiences, and insights for working with
people and solving complex problems
(Michael, “ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, AND
THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED
STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
INDUSTRY,” 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149)//BB
Based on limited data from completed offshore wind projects in Europe, the U.S. Offshore Wind
Collaborative estimates that a fully installed offshore wind farm will cost as much as $ 4600 per
[1153] kilowatt of installed electric capacity. 22 That amount is almost twice as expensive as an
onshore wind farm. 23 The higher price tag for offshore wind projects results from extra "costs
related to turbines, installation, O&M [operation and maintenance], support structures,
electrical infrastructure, and engineering and management." 24 More costs arise because
offshore wind turbines must be equipped to handle more severe weather conditions than their
onshore counterparts. For example, monopile foundations require stronger, more expensive
materials in order to withstand storms, waves, and the sea air. 25 Costs are also higher because
offshore wind projects must be larger than onshore projects in order to offset additional costs of
cabling and installation in deeper water far from shore. 26 These added costs reduce the
number of potential investors because, absent government financial incentives, offshore wind
energy cannot compete on a cost-per-kilowatt-hour basis with traditional fossil fuels. 27¶
Addressing economic challenges and making offshore wind projects more attractive to investors
will take a concerted effort on the part of the government and the private sector. Although the
cost of onshore wind energy has decreased significantly over the past twenty years, at $ 0.04
per kilowatt-hour ("kWh"), wind energy remains more expensive than coal or hydropower. 28
Offshore wind energy is even more expensive, as it is projected to cost about twice as much as
onshore wind power. 29 Notwithstanding the fact that the coal and gas industries are much
more mature than wind energy, another contributing factor to the difference in cost is the
enormous gap in the amount of government subsidies for fossil fuels compared to those for
renewable energy [1154] sources. 30 From 2002 to 2008, the federal government subsidized
five dollars for fossil fuels for every two dollars it subsidized for renewable energy. 31 It will be
hard for offshore wind energy to compete if the federal government does not provide
support similar to what it has provided for fossil fuels.
Incentives necessary to boost wind energy
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (October 2010, Erica,
California Law Review, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” Vol. 98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
Technological improvements in the 1990s that resulted in increased turbine reliability and lower
production costs helped to spur wind power development. n30 Since 2006, the federal
government has been providing significant support to wind power, importantly in the form of
tax incentives, which has allowed for record growth for wind power in the U nited S tates. n31
None of this growth has occurred offshore, however.
Federal incentives are key to offshore wind development
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (October 2010, Erica,
California Law Review, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” Vol. 98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
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.
Stable federal financial incentives are key to effectively grow the industry
Plovnick, 12 (Amy, 12/19/2012, “Offshore Wind Energy Investments Should Be Just Tip Of
Iceberg,” http://earthtechling.com/2012/12/offshore-wind-energy-investments-should-be-justtip-of-iceberg/, JMP)
The Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced a major investment in offshore wind
projects in the Northwest, Midwest, Gulf, and East Coast. The DOE will provide seven projects
with an initial investment of $4 million, and may provide each project with $47 million over four
years with the goal of deploying these projects for commercial operation by 2017.
These grants represent a major boost for the offshore wind industry and will help innovative,
pioneering technologies become commercially viable. For example, one grant recipient, the
Fisherman’s Atlantic City Windfarm, plans to install up to six direct-drive turbines in state waters
off the coast of Atlantic City, New Jersey. The project will use an advanced bottom-mounted
foundation design and innovative installation procedures to mitigate environmental impacts,
and it will achieve commercial operation by 2015. All of the projects supported by these grants
promote exciting new technologies – everything from floating wind turbines to foundations that
use fewer materials.
While these DOE investments are a huge boost towards making innovative offshore wind
technologies commercially operational in the next five years, they represent a small step
towards the type of policy needed to help offshore wind energy reach its full potential. Offshore
wind resources in the U.S. could provide 4,000 GW of clean, domestic energy. An offshore wind
industry could support up to 200,000 jobs and spur over $70 billion in annual investments by
2030.Onshore wind has a similar potential for growth. Onshore wind already makes up more
than 50 GW of our generating capacity and supports 75,000 jobs. Wind power is on track to
meet 20% of our generating capacity by 2030.
To fully take advantage of our massive wind resources, stable, long-term federal policy is
needed. The wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) and offshore wind Investment Tax Credit (ITC) are
examples of such policies. These tax credits have helped the wind industry to grow, produce
clean energy, and provide well-paying jobs for thousands of Americans. The credits are at risk of
expiring, which would halt the wind industry’s growth and lead to the elimination of tens of
thousands of jobs.
Congress can renew the PTC and ITC and put the wind industry on track to generate thousands
of megawatts of clean energy. In fact, a bill doing just this has already passed the Senate Finance
Committee, and is now stalled in the House.
The DOE’s offshore wind grants are a small step towards meeting our wind energy potential.
Renewing the PTC and ITC would be a huge step. TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to do just that.
Solvency – On the brink
Mass development is just around the corner
Jensen 13 – partner in the Washington, DC office of Holland & Hart LLP
(Thomas, et al, “From the 35th Public Land Law Conference: Balancing Act and Paradigm Shift:
The Role of Public Lands in America's Energy Future: Oceans: Are Ocean Wind Turbines like
Homesteads and Gold Mines and Railroads? A Public Lands Policy Question for the Climate
Change Era,” 34 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 93)//BB
The size of the ocean wind resource is great - four times the total United States electricity
generation capacity today by one estimate. 4 Its location is near to many of the nation's largest
economic centers. The ocean wind resource is rich and in a good place. European and Asian
countries have moved aggressively to develop ocean wind and at least 55 projects are in
operation. 5 No offshore wind projects exist in the United States today, though several
pioneering projects are moving forward toward development.¶ United States policymakers have
begun to understand how to tap ocean wind, but are only at the threshold of that effort . The
Obama Administration's steps to promote ocean wind energy have been, quite literally,
unprecedented. The President and his key cabinet officials have made renewables, including
ocean wind, key elements of the Administration's energy policy. 6 Virtually all the prime
development areas - those with the highest and steadiest wind speeds - are located in federal
waters where use of the seabed is under the jurisdiction of the [96] United States Department
of the Interior ("DOI" or the "Interior Department"). 7 It would be difficult to overstate the
challenge faced by Interior Department officials, other agencies, and all categories of
stakeholders in creating a new regulatory regime for a brand new industry seeking to make new
industrial use of the oceans. 8 The current Administration's efforts have opened the door and
allowed a small number of investors to begin moving forward with development plans. That
such progress has occurred in just a few years is a credit to the quality of effort brought to the
task by people in government, the energy industry, academia, the marine conservation
community, and others.
Solvency – AT: OSW Impossible
Economic incentives ensures upgrades
Sargent 12
(Rob Sargent, U.S. Poised to Join the Race on Offshore Wind: Lawmakers Must Commit to More
Pollution-Free Energy”, http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/us-poised-join-raceoffshore-wind)//BB
The Turning Point for Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy includes details on the key milestones each
Atlantic Coast state and along with the wind potential and the economic benefits. Among the
highlights of the report: Offshore wind energy will be an economic powerhouse for America.
Harnessing the 52 gigawatts of already-identified available Atlantic offshore wind energy – just 4
percent of the estimated generation potential of this massive resource – could generate $200
billion in economic activity, create 300,000 jobs, and sustain power for about 14 million homes.
(Europe already produces enough energy from offshore wind right now to power 4 million
homes.) America is closer than ever to bringing offshore wind energy ashore. Efforts are
underway in 10 Atlantic Coast states, with over 2,000 square nautical miles of federal waters
already designated for wind energy development off of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Environmental reviews finding no significant impacts
have been completed, and leases are expected to be issued for some of these areas by the end
of the year. Despite this progress, leadership is urgently needed at both the state and federal
level to ensure offshore wind energy becomes a reality in America: President Obama should
set a clear national goal for offshore wind energy development , and each Atlantic state
governor should also a set goal for offshore wind development off their shores. These goals
must be supported by policies that prioritize offshore wind energy and other efforts to secure
buyers for this new source of reliable, clean energy.
Solvency – AT: High costs
High returns offset high costs
Puliafico 11 – JD @ Suffolk
(Amy, “ARTICLE: OFFSHORE WIND: WHAT STEPS NEED TO BE TAKEN TO ENSURE IT HAS A
FUTURE IN AMERICA,” 12 J. High Tech. L. 330)//BB
Unlike offshore wind farms, America has embraced land-based wind farms due to the available
space and lower energy costs. 14 However, land-based farms are limited because it is wasteful
to transfer electricity over long distances, and these farms are located in sparsely populated
areas. 15 More than half of the United States population lives near the ocean, so offshore
projects can be larger , and reach people easier , without the high transmission costs . 16
Additionally, offshore winds are "typically stronger and less turbulent than land-based winds,
increasing the revenue potential ," which can offset the higher costs of installation [333] and
maintenance. 17 Offshore development is the next logical and necessary step in green
technology. 18
Warming – OSW Solves Warming
OSW solves warming
Schroeder 10 - J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(Erica, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review)//BB
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 2005.58 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 pursues our potential for wind energy on land and offshore,‖
wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030.61 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 means fewer air quality-related illnesses locally and regionally.63 Lower
g reen h ouse g as 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.68Moreover, 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 This is largely due to reduced wind shear
and roughness on the open ocean.70 Wind shear and roughness refer to effects of the
landscape surrounding turbines on the quality of wind and thus the amount of electricity
produced.71 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.73Importantly, 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 the coasts, resulting in transmission problems.74 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 .78
Peer reviewed evidence
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)//BB
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 computermodel 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.)
Solves multiple warming causes
Rosenberg 8 – Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and Director, American
Legal Systems (LLM) Graduate Program, William and Mary Law School
(Ronald, “Article: Making Renewable Energy a Reality--Finding Ways to Site Wind Power
Facilities,” 32 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 635)//BB
3.Total Elimination of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Probably the strongest advantage of wind power is the absence of air pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions. Thermoelectric fossil-fuel-fired plants generate the largest percentage of
American electricity. 121 They are also the largest single CO2 contributor, even exceeding
contributions from all forms of transportation. 122 Wind power, by definition, does [661] not
burn any fuel so it does not emit any air pollutants or greenhouse gases. This lack of air
emissions is a permanent feature of a wind power facility. Conventional fossil fuel combustion
also results in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter,
hydrocarbons, mercury and other emissions which are considered to be air pollutants of
concern to the public's health and safety and regulated under clean air laws. 123 Additionally,
the absence of carbon dioxide resulting from wind power contributes to the reduction of global
warming gases. With the increased emphasis on the elimination of greenhouse gases, 124 the
substitution of fossil-fuel- generated electricity with non-combustion-produced electricity will
reduce the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions from America's electrical energy sector.
As American climate change policy begins to embrace more rigorous greenhouse gas reduction
goals, wind power could be viewed as a viable energy alternative to electricity generated from
coal and natural gas.
Warming – Mitigation solves
Action now can reverse 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
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.
re-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
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.
being realized, explore the feasibility of desired changes in the current emission trajectory and help to identify whether new scenarios may be needed.
We 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 scenarios, it is still possible to transition towards
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
pathways consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 °C (refs 17,19,20).
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 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 the USA (Supplementary Figs S10–12).
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 well-targeted
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 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
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.
the future11, 17, 18. The
Warming – AT: Squo solves warming
Need faster and more robust action
Stern 14 – Professor of Economics, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate
Change and the Environment at the LSE
(Nicholas, “Climate change is here now and it could lead to global conflict,” The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/storms-floods-climate-change-uponus-lord-stern)//BB
If we do not cut emissions, we face even more devastating consequences, as unchecked they
could raise global average temperature to 4C or more above pre-industrial levels by the end of
the century.¶ This would be far above the threshold warming of 2C that countries have already
agreed that it would be dangerous to breach. The average temperature has not been 2C above
pre-industrial levels for about 115,000 years, when the ice-caps were smaller and global sea
level was at least five metres higher than today.¶ The shift to such a world could cause mass
migrations of hundreds of millions of people away from the worst-affected areas. That would
lead to conflict and war, not peace and prosperity.¶ In fact, the risks are even bigger than I
realised when I was working on the review of the economics of climate change for the UK
government in 2006. Since then, annual greenhouse gas emissions have increased steeply and
some of the impacts, such as the decline of Arctic sea ice, have started to happen much more
quickly.¶ We also underestimated the potential importance of strong feedbacks, such as the
thawing of the permafrost to release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, as well as tipping
points beyond which some changes in the climate may become effectively irreversible.¶ What
we have experienced so far is surely small relative to what could happen in the future. We
should remember that the last time global temperature was 5C different from today, the Earth
was gripped by an ice age.¶ So the risks are immense and can only be sensibly managed by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which will require a new low-carbon industrial revolution.¶
History teaches us how quickly industrial transformations can occur through waves of
technological development, such as the introduction of electricity, based on innovation and
discovery.¶ We are already seeing low-carbon technologies being deployed across the world, but
further progress will require investment and facing up to the real prices of energy, including
the very damaging emissions from fossil fuels.¶ Unfortunately, the current pace of progress is
not nearly rapid enough , with many rich industrialised countries being slow to make the
transition to cleaner and more efficient forms of economic growth.
Carbon set to rise
EB 14
(Eco-Business: Climate News Network, “Carbon output 'will climb 29 per cent by 2035',”
http://www.eco-business.com/news/carbon-output-will-climb-29-cent-2035/)//BB
The good news, from the climate’s standpoint, is that while global demand for energy is
continuing to grow, the growth is slowing. The bad news is that one energy giant predicts global
carbon dioxide emissions will probably rise by almost a third in the next 20 years.¶ The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says greenhouse gas emissions need to peak by
2020 and then decline if the world is to hope to avoid global average temperatures rising by
more than 2°C over pre-industrial levels. Beyond 2°C, it says, climate change could become
dangerously unmanageable.¶ But BP’s Energy Outlook 2035 says CO2 emissions are likely to
increase by 29 per cent in the next two decades because of growing energy demand from the
developing world.¶ It says “energy use in the advanced economies of North America, Europe and
Asia as a group is expected to grow only very slowly – and begin to decline in the later years of
the forecast period”.¶ “¶ By 2035 energy use in the non-OECD economies is expected to be 69 per
cent higher than in 2012¶ BP Energy Outlook 2035¶ But by 2035 energy use in the non-OECD
economies is expected to be 69 per cent higher than in 2012. In comparison use in the OECD will
have grown by only 5 per cent, and actually to have fallen after 2030, even with continued
economic growth. The Outlook predicts that global energy consumption will rise by 41 per cent
from 2012 to 2035, compared with 30 per cent over the last ten.¶ Nor does it offer much hope
that the use of novel energy sources will help to cut emissions. It says: “Shale gas is the fastestgrowing source of supply (6.5 per cent p.a.), providing nearly half of the growth in global gas.”
Warming – AT: Wind leads to warming
The most recent rigorous studies point to the necessity and sufficiency of wind
power
Goggin 12 - Manager of Transmission Policy at the American Wind Energy Association,
Previously consulted for two environmental advocacy groups and a consulting firm supporting
the U.S. Department of Energy’s renewable energy programs, Holds an undergraduate degree
with honors from Harvard University
(Michael, Fact check: Coverage of Argonne wind and emissions study flawed, June 2006,
http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm? customel_dataPageID_1699=16631)
Other analyses using more accurate assumptions and more reliable sources have found that
wind’s emissions savings are as large or larger than expected. A recent analysis using real-world
data derived from EPA emission monitors found that in an absolute worst case, wind energy
achieves 98.3% of the expected carbon dioxide emissions savings, and 103.3% of the expected
nitrogen oxide emissions savings. An ongoing phase of that analysis, due to be completed within
the next several months, is likely to show that wind’s net emissions savings are even larger than
expected. This result occurs because wind energy tends to disproportionately displace dirtier
and less flexible coal generation instead of more flexible natural gas generation, so any slight
decrease in power plant efficiency is more than offset by this additional emissions savings. This
result was also found in the Argonne analysis, which noted that “…increasing wind generation
leads to a shift in dispatch from coal toward natural gas,” though those emissions savings were
masked by the larger impact of the incorrect assumption that wind energy would displace
nuclear generation. - Real-world data confirms that states that have added significant amounts
of wind energy, such as Illinois, have seen fossil fuel use and emissions decline by as much as or
more than expected. Department of Energy data for Colorado show that as wind energy jumped
from providing 2.5% of the state’s electricity in 2007 to 6.1% of the state’s electricity in 2008,
carbon dioxide emissions fell by 4.4%, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions fell by 6%,
coal use fell by 3% (571,000 tons), and electric-sector natural gas use fell by 14%. DOE data for
Texas show that as wind and other renewables’ share of Texas’s electric mix increased from
1.3% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2008, an increase in share of 3.1 percentage points. During that period,
electric sector carbon dioxide emissions declined by 3.3%, even though electricity use actually
increased by 2% during that time. Because of wind energy, the state of Texas was able to turn
what would have been a carbon emissions increase into a decrease of 8,690,000 metric tons per
year, equal to the emissions savings of taking around 1.5 million cars off the road. Similarly,
thanks to the growth of wind energy in the state, Illinois saw a 0.5% decrease in CO2 emissions
from 2006 to 2009, even though electricity use actually increased by 0.75% over that time
period. In Minnesota, as wind energy grew from providing less than 4% of the state’s electricity
in 2006 to almost 10% in 2009, electric sector carbon dioxide emissions fell by more than 10%,
or 4 million metric tons per year. As further evidence, four of the seven major independent grid
operators in the U.S. have studied the emissions impact of adding wind energy to their power
grids, and all four have found that adding wind energy drastically reduces emissions of carbon
dioxide and other harmful pollutants. While the emissions savings depend somewhat on the
existing share of coal-fired versus gas-fired generation in the region, as one would expect, it is
impossible to dispute the findings of these four independent grid operators that adding wind
energy to their grids has significantly reduced emissions. The results of these studies are
summarized below. Finally, analysis of readily available DOE data puts to rest the idea that wind
energy has a significant negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants. The
Department of Energy collects detailed data on the amount of fossil fuels consumed at power
plants, as well as the amount of electricity produced by those power plants. By comparing how
the efficiency of power plants has changed in states that have added significant amounts of
wind energy against how it has changed in states that have not, one can test the hypothesis that
wind energy is having a negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants. The data
clearly shows that there is no such relationship, and in fact states that use more wind energy
have seen greater improvements in the efficiency of their fossil-fired power plants than states
that use less wind energy. Specifically, coal plants in the 20 states that obtain the most
electricity from wind saw their efficiency decline by only 1.00% between 2005 and 2010, versus
2.65% in the 30 other states. Increases in the efficiency at natural gas power plants were
virtually identical in the top 20 wind states and the other states, at 1.89% and 2.03%
improvements respectively. The conclusion that adding wind energy actually increases fossil
plant efficiency makes intuitive sense, because as explained above, adding wind energy to the
grid displaces the output of the most expensive, and therefore least efficient, fossil-fired power
plants first.
Hegemony – OSW leads to fast growth
OSW promotes fast growth
N’dolo 10 – associate principal @ Camoin Associates
(Michael and Bruce Bailey, “Offshore development can yield economic benefits,” North
American Wind Power, Fall 2010)//BB
Avoided costs
There are many other ways that offshore development can positively impact local economics, all
of which focus on avoided costs. Often misunderstood or ignored, avoided costs are those that,
if not addressed, could result in money or opportunity leaving an area.¶ For example, is the
avoided costs of transmission system upgrades. Many metropolitan areas along the Eastern
Seaboard suffer from capacity issues in transmission infrastructure that require tens of billions
of dollars to remedy. The extent to which such costs can be delayed, reduced or avoided
altogether is an economic benefit to the host community and should be considered as an offset
to the perceived higher per-kilowatt power costs of offshore wind.¶ There are additional avoided
costs that may be more sig-nificant. Many states and some metropolitan areas have either
mandates or policy goals requiring the sourcing of renewable energy by a certain date. If such
power cannot be produced locally, providers will be required to source renewable power from
elsewhere. This is, in effect, taking local ratepayer dollars and sending them outside of the local
economy, a situation analogous to consumer dollars flowing out of the U.S. to pur-chase
electronics from low-cost manufacturing countries.¶ These outflows of dollars are tied to
massive job losses . For the exporting state or province, the ability to recapture these dollars
represents new money added to the local economy and additional economic activity. The final
avoided cost worth noting is that offshore, while expensive relative to fossil fuels, is less
expensive than some other sources of renewable energy such as solar or tidal. The differential
costs between offshore¶ wind and other forms of renewable energy can be considered avoided
costs that are not passed on to ratepayers.
Hegemony – AT: Energy costs turn – Link small
Only .2% increase [and that’s WITHOUT the subsidy of the plan]
Conathan 13
(Michael, “Making the Economic Case for Offshore Wind,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/02/28/54988/making-theeconomic-case-for-offshore-wind/)//BB
Taking each of our metrics in turn shows that even without including in the cost estimate the assistance from federal subsidies, the results
of this analysis are resoundingly positive.¶ Overall investment required¶ Of course, getting the offshore wind industry off
the ground in the United States will require an upfront investment, and in its analysis, the Brattle Group found that a
build-out to 54 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity would require an investment ranging from $18.5 billion to $52 billion—“assuming some greenhouse gas externalities are
included in the market price.Ӧ To place this figure in context, the Brattle Group also explored subsidies to other existing energy technologies and found them to be
“comparable in size” to the investment required to develop America’s offshore wind industry. Domestic oil subsidies, for example, from 1950to 2010 totaled approximately $369
billion, while coal subsidies totaled $104 billion, and natural gas totaled $121 billion. Recall that these subsidies are for industries that are already decades old and, as in the case
w does this investment translate to the
average American’s monthly electric bill? Numerous studies have shown that Americans living in coastal regions are willing to pay modestly
of oil and gas, are making annual profits in excess of $100 billion industrywide.¶ Cost to ratepayers¶ Ho
higher electricity bills if they know their electricity supply includes local offshore wind farms. A poll released in January 2013, for example, showed that 72 percent of Maryland
residents would be willing to pay $2 more per month for their electricity bills to develop an offshore wind industry.¶ The Brattle Group analysis finds that the cost of
building out a domestic offshore wind industry under the medium- or fast-learning scenarios—even without federal
subsidies—will result in an electricity rate increase of 0.2 percent to 1.7 percent if the cost is spread across the whole
country, and a 0.4 percent to 3 percent increase if costs are borne entirely by consumers in the Atlantic and Great Lakes regions. This equates to a range of
0.06 cents to 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour. (see Figure 2)
Hegemony – AT: Energy costs DA – Link turn
Lowers energy prices
Dinnell 7 – Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch,
Environmental Torts Section. B.A., University of Notre Dame; J.D., Tulane Law School.
(Adam, et al, “SYMPOSIUM ON INTERNATIONAL ENERGY LAW: ARTICLE: The Legal Hurdles to
Developing Wind Power as an Alternative Energy Source in the United States: Creative and
Comparative Solutions,” 27 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 535)//BB
A. Not in My Cape Cod: An Illustration of the Role Public Sentiment Plays in Development.
Although the United States does not currently have an offshore wind power development, 64
several projects are in the planning and permitting stage. 65 The U.S. Department of Energy
("DOE") is optimistic that competitive commercial wind power developments can be realized,
and "that U.S. offshore wind electric generating capacity could grow significantly over the next
two decades." 66 In fact, some experts believe that the development of offshore wind energy
could contribute "up to 70,000 megawatts of power to the electric grid by 2025, nearly [ten]
times the current level." 67 Growth of wind power along the coastal areas could result in lower
energy prices , as wind power develops as an alternative energy resource. 68
---2ac off-case answers
AT: Politics – Bipartisan
ITC is bipartisan – they just extended it in April!
---but it doesn’t solve the case, because it’s just for one year
Hess 4-4
(Daniel, “Senate Finance Committee Votes to Extend the ITC for Offshore Wind,”
http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/04/senate-finance-committee-votes-to-extend-the-itc-foroffshore-wind)//BB
The Senate Finance committee gave a strong bipartisan show of support for domestic offshore
wind energy yesterday by voting to extend the critical investment tax credit . This vote
resurrects a crucial incentive for this nascent clean energy industry and offers a great chance to
catapult the industry into the mainstream and allow companies to plan successful projects that
take advantage of the nation’s vast offshore wind potential.¶ The vote also shows that the
United States is finally getting serious about transitioning to a clean and domestically produced
energy future that mitigates the effects of global climate change and creates thousands of goodpaying American jobs in the process. Today’s action adds to the momentum being felt by the
offshore wind industry. The federal government is now holding multiple competitive lease sales
along the Atlantic Coast, the Cape Wind and Block Island projects are moving forward, and an
Oregon floating wind project recently received approval to develop its offshore wind resources.¶
While this is a great victory, the fight to extend the ITC is far from over . Now is not the time
to let up our efforts. Contact your Representatives and Senators and make sure they know how
important an extension of the ITC is for the future of offshore wind, and of clean and domestic
energy in the United States!
Party platforms prove offshore wind support is bipartisan
Jensen 13 – partner in the Washington, DC office of Holland & Hart LLP
(Thomas, et al, “From the 35th Public Land Law Conference: Balancing Act and Paradigm Shift:
The Role of Public Lands in America's Energy Future: Oceans: Are Ocean Wind Turbines like
Homesteads and Gold Mines and Railroads? A Public Lands Policy Question for the Climate
Change Era,” 34 Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 93)//BB
Federal lawmaking is usually an inefficient and difficult process, rarely more so than now. The
difficulties seem particularly acute in relation to proposals to legislate on climate or energy
policy. Anyone watching Capitol Hill today will see little encouragement that the Republican-led
House of Representatives and the Democratic-led Senate will find common ground to do
anything on those two issues in the near future.¶ An optimist would, however , note that the
Republican and Democratic party platforms from the 2012 presidential election can be
juxtaposed in a way that suggests an area of possible agreement. Both platforms acknowledge
the importance of the United States' natural resources, 230 and both agree that the country
should develop renewable energy. The Republicans' platform calls for policies aimed "at energy
security to ensure an affordable, stable, and reliable energy supply for all parts of the country"
and Democrats urge promotion of "smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy
generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits." 231¶ The Republican platform
"encourages the cost-effective development of renewable energy." 232 It promotes a "pathway
toward a market-based approach for renewable energy sources" and one that "aggressively
develops alternative sources for electricity generation such as wind." 233 However, it does so
with the caveat that "the taxpayers [144] should not serve as venture capitalists for risky
endeavors." 234 The party instead believes that the "role of public officials must be to
encourage responsible development across the board." 235 The party would "let the free
market and public's preferences determine the industry outcomes." 236¶ The Democratic
platform does not endorse privatizing natural resource development, but strongly endorses the
need to address global climate change. 237 The Democrats "commit to significantly reducing the
pollution that causes climate change." 238
Congress will support the plan
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (October 2010, Erica,
California Law Review, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” Vol. 98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
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 [*1663] 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. n269 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.
AT: Politics – Public support
Public supports offshore wind
Caperton 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)//BB
According to a nationwide survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute, about 7 in 10
Americans (71 percent) support “a shift of federal support for energy away from nuclear and
towards clean renewable energy such as wind and solar.” In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
states, undeveloped land is difficult to find. That means renewable energy developers have to
look further afield—in this case, to sea. In the early days of offshore wind, the obstacles to
development in the United States were largely borne of ignorance—concerns that offshore
turbines visible on the horizon would destroy property values; that noise, or safety, or storage of
lubricating fluid for the turbines would pose unacceptable risks. As other countries around the
world have moved ahead with offshore wind development and seen no ill effects from those
factors, however, such concerns have dramatically abated. Support from coastal residents is
fundamental to the potential success of offshore wind projects. After all, these wind farms will
effectively be built in their backyards. And recently, poll after poll has shown that coastal
residents are highly supportive of offshore wind energy. According to a poll of New Jersey
residents, offshore wind production is extremely popular among voters and its support cuts
across party and geographic lines. The analysis demonstrates that 78 percent of all New Jersey
voters and 77 percent of the state’s shore residents surveyed support the development of wind
power 12 to 15 miles off their coast. Public support is strong in Delaware as well. According to a
University of Delaware poll, general statewide support for offshore wind in Delaware is 77.8
percent, compared with an opposition of only 4.2 percent. In Maryland The Baltimore Sun
reported in October 2011 that 62 percent of Marylanders favor wind turbine construction off
the coast of Ocean City and would be willing to pay up to $2 more per month on electricity bills.
Mike Tidwell, head of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said, “Marylanders understand
that the benefits of offshore wind are more than worth a modest initial investment.”
Public loves it
Higgins 9 - Research Counsel, Rhode Island Sea Grant Legal Program and Marine Affairs
Institute at Roger Williams University School of Law
(Megan, “Symposium: Is Marine Renewable Energy a Viable Industry in the United States?:
Lessons Learned from the 7th Marine Law Symposium,” 14 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 562)//BB
A survey conducted in Delaware revealed that 77.8% of respondents support the development
of a wind farm six miles offshore. 105 A project proposed by Bluewater Wind will be developed
approximately twelve miles offshore. 106 Those in support of wind power favored the
development of renewable energy because of high electricity rates (but were willing to pay
approximately $ 1-30 more per month for wind energy versus oil or coal), air quality,
environmental impacts, aesthetics, and fishing impacts/boating safety. 107 Another survey
conducted in Rhode Island used photo-simulations, site selection drawings, wind measuring, and
a PowerPoint presentation on wind energy to [588] determine the public's perception of wind
energy projects, located both onshore and offshore. 108 The Rhode Island study found that the
community's "overall stance on wind turbine power" was 99% in favor . 109
AT: CPs That Don’t Change Regulatory Structure
Overbearing local control is the primary barrier blocking the development of
offshore wind --- plan key to solve
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (October 2010, Erica,
California Law Review, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” Vol. 98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
II Offshore Wind: Balancing Benefits and Costs
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 U nited
S tates, 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 U nited S tates, despite several proposals. n57
A. Benefits of Offshore Wind
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. n58 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. n59 In addition, wind power [*1639] benefits the United States
by creating a substantial number of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind energy
facilities. n60 In an April 2009 speech at the Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant in
Iowa, President Obama predicted that if the United States "fully pursues our potential for wind
energy on land and offshore," wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030. n61
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. n62 Lower emissions of traditional air pollutants means fewer air qualityrelated illnesses locally and regionally. n63 Lower greenhouse gas emissions will help to combat
climate change, effects of which will be felt locally and around the world. n64 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. n65 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. n66 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. n67 Wind
power generation also does not require the water necessary to cool traditional coal, gas, and
nuclear generation units. n68
Moreover, offshore wind power has certain attributes that give it added benefits compared to
onshore wind. Wind tends to be stronger and more [*1640] consistent offshore - both benefits
when it comes to wind power generation. n69 This is largely due to reduced wind shear and
roughness on the open ocean. n70 Wind shear and roughness refer to effects of the landscape
surrounding turbines on the quality of wind and thus the amount of electricity produced. n71
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. n72 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. n73
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 the coasts, resulting in transmission problems. n74 By contrast, offshore resources
are near coastal electricity demand centers. n75 In fact, twenty-eight of the contiguous fortyeight states have coastal boundaries, and these same states use 78 percent of the United States'
electricity. n76 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. n77 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. n78
B. Costs of Offshore Wind
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 [*1641] environmental . Opponents to offshore wind
projects complain about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local property
values. n79 They also make related complaints about negative impacts on coastal recreational
activities and tourism. n80 However, studies have failed to show statistically significant negative
aesthetic or property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts.
n81
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. n82 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. n83 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. n84 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." n85
A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult to
install and maintain, than onshore wind farms. n86 The cost of an offshore wind project is
estimated to be at least 50 percent greater than the onshore equivalent. n87 Short-and longterm technical improvements could help to lower offshore wind costs, however, and
government assistance may help them occur more quickly. n88
[*1642]
C. Balancing Costs and Benefits: The Future of Offshore Wind
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. n89 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
are crucial. n90 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. n91 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 .
AT: States CP – Federal waters
Federal waters key to testing and scaling
Sterne 9
(J.D. Roger Williams University): Symposium: The Seven Principles of Ocean Renewable Energy:
A Shared Vision and Call for Action. Lexis
THE NEED FOR ACTION America urgently needs new sources of clean energy. While the
deployment and evaluation of ocean energy technologies8 represent a unique and important
renewable energy opportunity, these technologies are being hampered and constrained by
several factors. The technologies are generally recognized as not sufficiently mature for
commercial-scale development. This makes it difficult for project developers to attract sufficient
capital, due to the perceived risk of these projects. Another factor, which is the focus of this
paper, is an uncertain regulatory system that results in larger transaction costs than are
appropriate for this demonstration phase of these emerging technologies. Principle 1. As
general policy, the United States should substantially increase electrical generation from
renewable sources. Ocean renewable energy has significant potential to contribute to this
increase. The United States government should use its authorities and commit the resources
needed to support a robust evaluation of ocean renewable energy technology and its potential
environmental impacts. Development of diverse and numerous sources of alternative 8. This
paper focuses on ocean energy generated from waves, tides, and currents. It does not address
other technologies deployable in the marine environment, including thermal conversion or
offshore wind, although these recommendations may also have relevance to those
technologies. renewable energy is critical to our nation's energy security and environmental well
being. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, ocean renewable energy in U.S.
waters has the estimated potential to supply some 400 Terawatt hours of clean power annually,
or roughly 10% of today's electrical demand.9 Yet project testing and deployment in coastal
waters is almost non existent. The federal role is crucial because virtually every site where ocean
renewable energy technology is likely to be tested or deployed is subject to federal jurisdiction.
Unlike conventional wind and solar, ocean renewable energy technology cannot be tested or
deployed on private land. The industry will emerge and mature in the United States only if the
federal government uses its considerable resources and authorities to answer critical
questions and encourage appropriate use of marine areas.
AT: States CP – Perm
Perm do both – shields the link to politics
Overby 3 – Professor of Law, Tulane University School of Law,
(Brooke, “Our New Commercial Law Federalism.” Temple University of the Commonwealth
System of Higher Education Temple Law Review, Summer, 76 Temp. L. Rev. 297 Lexis)
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition
by conscripting the States' officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States'
officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case
weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.n65 The concerns
Federal
authority to compel implementation of a national legislative agenda through the state legislatures
or officers would blur or launder the federal provenance of the legislation and shift political
articulated in New York and echoed again in Printz addressed the erosion of the lines of political accountability that could result from federal commandeering.n66
consequences and costs thereof to the state legislators. Left unchecked, Congress could foist upon the
states expensive or unpopular programs yet shield itself from accountability to citizens . While
drawing the line between constitutionally permissible optional implementation and impermissible mandatory implementation does not erase these concerns with
accountability, it does ameliorate them slightly.
2ac National Policy Key
National policy key to propel offshore wind --- will speed up 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.
***NEGATIVE***
---Off-case
Politics – Ocean policy link
No support for Ocean reform
Migliaccio 14 – JD @ Vermont Law School
(Emily, “NOTE: THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: CAN IT REDUCE MARINE POLLUTION AND
STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN BUREAUCRACY?,” 15 Vt. J. Envtl. L. 629)//BB
The Obama Administration issued Executive Order 13,547, intending for Congress to "show
support for effective implementation of the NOP, including the establishment of an ocean
investment fund"--the hope being that Congress would codify the Order in subsequent
legislation. 130 At present, Congress is wrestling with some bills relating to the NOP; however,
not all proposals support the policy. For example, the House has adopted an amendment to the
Water Resources and Development Act ("WRDA") 131 that would bar the Obama Administration
from implementing marine spatial planning under the WRDA, specifically "preventing the Army
Corps of Engineers and other entities that receive money from the bill from implementing such
planning as part of the National Ocean Policy." 132 Then again, also before Congress is a bill that
seeks to establish a National Endowment for the Oceans, which would fund programs and
activities to "restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their habitats
and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. . . ." 133 For this bill to pass, House and Senate
members must agree to prioritize ocean conservation and research, and allocate funds to [647]
the initiative. Although the NOP [National Ocean Policy] is appearing on the Congressional
docket, it is hard to find hope for successful ocean reform in the current congressional
atmosphere.
Politics – Taxes link
The plan triggers a fight
Coile 8 - journalist and reporter
(Zachary, San Francisco Chronicle, Lexis)//BB
Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean,
renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of
wind and solar power expire at the end of the year. The Senate failed for the second time in a
week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy.
The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight
between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them. Last month, the House
approved a bill to extend the credits by delaying an obscure tax break for companies with
foreign operations and closing a tax loophole for hedge fund managers. But Republicans
objected to what they called a stealth tax increase, and the Senate's 52-44 vote Tuesday.
Any evidence to the contrary is just political posturing
Coleman 8 - Washington Correspondent of the Albuquerque Journal
(Michael, political news journal, “Congress in Clouds on Tax Credits,”
www.abqjournal.com/opinion/coleman/2293354opinion06-22-08.htm)//BB
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. At a time when gas prices have soared past $4 per gallon
and OPEC countries are signaling that oil production may be peaking, Congress keeps stumbling
and bumbling and failing to pass simple legislation to move us toward new, clean energy
sources. Virtually every member of Congress claims to support extending tax credits to the
fledgling wind and solar industries. But despite a halfdozen chances and a 90 percent level of
support for renewable energy development, our elected officials in Washington just can't
seem to get the bill passed . The latest attempt came last week, when Republicans objected to closing a tax loophole for hedge-fund managers to help
pay for the $18 billion clean energy tax breaks. Meanwhile, Congress wonders why the American public holds them in such contempt. But Republicans don't deserve all of the
blame. Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress, couldn't resist larding up last week's Senate bill with a $1.6 billion giveaway to trial lawyers. In the process, they also
gave Republicans some political cover for voting against the bill. New Mexico Sens. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Pete
Domenici, the panel's top Republican, both support the renewable energy tax breaks. But they parted ways in their votes last week. Bingaman, who has voted for the wind and
solar tax break proposals with and without budget offsets, voted for them again last week. In an interview, Bingaman told me the latest proposal to shut the hedge fund
loophole to pay for the tax breaks was "eminently reasonable." Earlier this year Bingaman also voted, along with Domenici, to pass the tax breaks without any budget offsets.
That bill passed, but the House, led by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, shot the proposal down, insisting that the tax breaks be paid for somehow because fiscal discipline is
important, we should try to reign in the deficit. The House stripped that unpaid for proposal -- which passed the Senate 88-8 -- out of a larger housing bill Thursday. "The House
a recent House proposal to rescind
$18 billion in tax breaks for oil companies to pay for wind and solar failed in the Senate because
Democrats didn't have enough votes to override a Republican filibuster. Republicans argue that
stripping oil companies' tax breaks will force them to cut back on expensive exploration and
technology. Nobody wants that. Seriously. We need all the oil we can produce, too. Maybe
some of those Big Oil executives who make $30 million annually could help foot the bill?
Domenici, once an outspoken deficit hawk, voted against taking either the Big Oil money, or the
hedge fund money to pay for the renewable energy tax incentives. As he sees it, the energy tax
breaks will create investment and create jobs and pay for themselves. Maybe so, but doesn't it
make sense to at least try to offset the revenue loss? "I don't think we will ever pass this
package of taxes as long as the Democrats insist that we place a tax on someone or some
business," Domenici told me. Republicans also maintain that the solar and wind tax breaks
weren't paid for initially, so they need not be paid for now.
is right," Bingaman told me. "The responsible thing to do is make up the revenue somewhere else." Meanwhile,
Politics – Picking winners link
Even internal executive decisions on offshore wind cause partisan bickering –
accused of picking winners
Colman 13
(Zack, “Interior Dept. plans for offshore wind leases draw GOP fire,”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/303321-interior-dept-offshore-wind-plan-drawspartisan-fire)//BB
GOP lawmakers on Tuesday sharply criticized the Interior Department’s move to hold the
nation’s first offshore wind lease sale.¶ Sen. David Vitter (La.), the Environment and Public Works
Committee’s top Republican, said it amounted to the Obama administration “ picking energy
industry winners and losers .Ӧ Interior announced on Monday that it would hold an auction on
July 31 for 164,750 acres off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which has the
potential to generate 3,400 megawatts of electricity — enough to power 1 million homes.¶
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell called the pending lease sale — which has drawn interest from
nine firms — “history in the making.” She said the July bidding could be a bellwether for future
offshore wind lease sales, though she noted it might take time for a commercial industry to
develop because the projects are expensive and difficult to finance.¶ Democrats applauded the
move as a strong step toward developing alternative energy sources.¶ “Offshore wind is a win
for American jobs, for American energy security, and for our environment, and it will start off
the coast of New England. With lease sales in federal waters, offshore wind will also be a boon
for U.S. taxpayers,” Rep. Edward Markey (Mass.), the top Democrat on the House Natural
Resources Committee, said in a Tuesday statement.¶ For Republicans, the milestone is more of a
boondoggle.
Politics – Public link
Public opposes
Frulla 12 – partner in the law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP's Washington, D.C. office. He
represents commercial fishing and other ocean-related interests in judicial, legislative, and
regulatory matters
(David, et al, “Emerging Issue: Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: Found in the Wind: The
Value of Early Consultation and Collaboration with Other Ocean Users for Successful Offshore
Wind Development,” 17 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 307)//BB
Further, in the private sector, historic ocean users are deeply embedded in the social and
economic fabric of coastal communities, and remain skeptical of offshore wind's promises of
new jobs and environmental benefits, particularly if these are realized at the cost of risking their
ways of life. Many also fear the proliferation of a daunting array of independent regulatory and
management bodies, each with the potential to affect negatively their livelihoods. Finally,
historic users often lack the time and resources, not to mention the opportunity, to participate
in these various regulatory and planning processes.
Their power empirically stops offshore wind projects
Stolte 6 – Candidate for Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School, 2007; B.S., Petroleum
Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 2002
(Justin, “NOTE: THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005: THE PATH TO ENERGY AUTONOMY?,” 33 J.
Legis. 119)//BB
Nonetheless, possibly the biggest restraint on renewable energy as a domestic energy source is
the public's unwillingness to use it. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 included similar incentives to
those provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 120 and the supply of alternative energy has
only marginally increased since the incentives took effect. 121 Critics have argued that the price
of alternative energy is too high for it to become a viable energy supply. 122 This criticism is no
longer convincing. While solar power remains cost restrictive, the cost of wind power has
become very competitive with other sources of energy. 123 Furthermore, the Energy Policy
Act's renewal of the Renewable Energy Production Incentive program makes several forms of
renewable energy even more cost efficient. Much of the reason that alternative energy
production has remained stagnant - especially from wind turbines - is a result of the public's
unwillingness to adopt renewable energy into its standard of living. For instance, in states where
offshore wind-farms have been proposed, citizens have vehemently opposed them. In
Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project, a proposal to build a wind-farm off the shores of Cape
Cod, was strongly challenged by Cape Cod residents because it was deemed a potential eyesore.
124 Although the electricity generated by the Cape Wind project would have provided the
electricity necessary for Cape Cod and surrounding islands, the proposal continues to face
strong local opposition. 125 Analogous offshore projects have faced similar resistance from
communities who believe that the projects are not aesthetically pleasing. As technology
improves and the provisions provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 make renewable energy
a more viable source of energy, Americans, especially those who will be affected in some way by
the generation of alternative energy, will have to reassess their values in relation to their need
for energy.
States CP – 1nc
The 50 states and territories should collaborate to provide a long-term
investment tax credit for oceanic offshore wind energy and mandate oceanic
offshore wind is included as a substantial component of all state Renewable
Portfolio Standards.
The counterplan solves and federal support ALONE fails
Levitan 13 - writes about energy, the environment, and health. His articles have been
published by Scientific American, Discover, IEEE Spectrum, Grist, and others. In previous articles
for Yale Environment 360, he has written about vehicle-to-grid technology for electric cars and
cities' efforts to recycle food scraps and organic waste
(Dave, “Will Offshore Wind Finally Take Off on U.S. East Coast?,”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/will_offshore_wind_finally_take_off_on_us_east_coast/2693/)//B
B
The U.S. has no national renewable energy target, but 29 states and Washington, D.C., have
adopted their own. Northeastern states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been
aggressively pursuing renewables, and there is now legislation in New Jersey and Maryland
specifically targeting offshore wind development.¶ Kevin Jones, deputy director of the Institute
for Energy and the Environment at the Vermont Law School, says he is optimistic about the
development of offshore wind, especially in the Northeast, in part because there are so few
other options for renewables in the region and the opposition to onshore wind continues to
grow.¶ “If natural gas prices remain low I think the offshore industry is going to need public
policy support rather than federal subsidy , but it can happen if the Northeastern states work
together to achieve economies of scale,” says Jones. That collaboration could include states
collectively mandating that utility companies purchase a set amount of electricity from offshore
wind farms.
States CP – Solvency
California proves state tax credits can jumpstart renewable industries
Yudken 11 - Ph.D. in Technology and Society from Stanford , Founder of High Road Strategies,
LLC, a Consulting firm - Former Postdoc research Fellow Project on Regional & Industrial
Economics at Rutgers, Congressional Science and Engineering Fellow in Office of Sen. Boxer,
Senior Fellow Work & Technology Institute, Sectoral Economist for AFLCIO
(Joel S., "Clean¶ Energy¶ Manufacturing¶ in¶ California¶ Report¶ Prepared¶ for¶ Apollo¶ Alliance¶
BlueGreen¶ Alliance¶ Clean¶ Energy¶ Manufacturing¶ Project¶ San¶ Francisco,¶ CA." 7/17/11
http://www.highroadstrategies.com/downloads/Apollo-CA-CEM-Report.pdf)//BB
California’s
manufacturing base provides a strong foundation for
developing a robust clean energy manufacturing sector
California’s manufacturing strengths. Despite these loses,
large, diverse
. Most production of clean energy technologies is rooted in the design and manufacture of
conventional technologies and products. For example, solar photovoltaic manufacturing is centered in the semiconductor and related device manufacturing industry—some of the largest producers of photovoltaic cells in California are semiconductor
manufacturers—and the state’s strong glass industry is an important supplier in the fabrication of solar cells and module. Storage battery manufacturing is part of the electronic equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing industry. Wind
turbine manufacturing belongs to the turbine and turbine generator set industry within the machinery manufacturing sector.11 California’s global leadership in technology, large pools of educated, high-­‐ skilled workers, major transportation and
export hubs, and ready access to sources of venture capital, are some of the main advantages attracting inno
ia leads the nation in science and technology research,
development and innovation: — It is a major center for the design of automobiles, furniture, apparel, software, electronics, telecommunication services, computers and semiconductors.12 — Almost 25 percent of U.S. industrial R&D is performed in
California.13 — The state is home to over 40 federal laboratories and three of the ten NASA centers in the country—more than any other state in either category.14 — It leads in several strategic high-­‐ tech industry segments, with between 20­‐ 60% of U.S. market share in electronic components, commercial aerospace, medical instruments, biotechnology and transportation.15 — It leads the nation in patents—
manufacturing, professional and technical services, and information sectors employ more workers in each category than any other state. It also a leading state in high-­‐ wage services. California has nearly 1 million high-­‐ tech workers—more
than any other state and equal to one-­‐ eighth of all U.S. high-­‐ tech workers. It also has seven of the nation’s top 20 engineering schools and possesses the highest concentration of engineers, scientists, mathematicians and skilled
s a share of gross state product than the national average. For example, in 2009, the California companies received more than $11 billion or nearly half of
all VC invested in the United States.18 The top sectors receiving VC funding include software, telecommunications, biotechnology, medical devices and semiconductors.19 HRS-­‐ Apollo CA CEM Report—
airports—carrying 3 million tons of freight per year—and leads the country with eleven cargo seaports.20 A top exporter, it shipped merchandise totaling $143.2 bi llion overseas in 2010. The largest exports include computers and electronic
products—accounting for 29 percent of the state’s total merchandise exports in 2009, transportation equipment, machinery and chemicals. Twelve metr opolitan areas exported over $1 billion in 2008; the Los Angeles area led the state, with 39
An important advantage is
components, products, and systems.
helped spawn new solar and wind
percent of exports—the 3rd largest in the nation, followed by the San Jose-­‐ Sunnyvale-­‐ Santa Clara and the San Francisco-­‐ Oakland Fremont areas.21
California’s
market for clean energy
state tax credits
industries.
very large
the 1970s, federal and
generation
other
Spurred by the oil crises of
—during the first administration of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.—
Solar companies producing and installing solar heating and generation equipment proliferated and wind turbine farms were built on the slopes of hills in three primary locations around the state.22 California’s capacity
for renewable energy generation is extensive. Its sunny southeastern deserts have a high potential for solar energy production (solar cells and solar thermal). And substantial geothermal and wind power resources exist along the coastal ranges
and the eastern border with Nevada.23
States CP – Federal follow on
Small successes lead to future federal funding
Levitan 13 - writes about energy, the environment, and health. His articles have been
published by Scientific American, Discover, IEEE Spectrum, Grist, and others. In previous articles
for Yale Environment 360, he has written about vehicle-to-grid technology for electric cars and
cities' efforts to recycle food scraps and organic waste
(Dave, “Will Offshore Wind Finally Take Off on U.S. East Coast?,”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/will_offshore_wind_finally_take_off_on_us_east_coast/2693/)//B
B
Long, of the American Wind Energy Association, and others are confident that the initial phase
of offshore projects will illustrate to policy makers the attraction of offshore wind power.
Onshore wind, after all, is often plagued by siting issues, with nearby residents complaining
about the sight and sound of large turbines. Most U.S. offshore projects are now proposed far
enough off the coast that they will be essentially invisible — a lesson learned from the
“viewshed” controversy surrounding Cape Wind.¶ Proponents hope that the start of several
offshore projects will encourage more federal and state support and will serve as a reminder
that there is a lot of energy just a few miles off the beach.
---On-case
AT: Solvency
Offshore wind fails:
Limited foundation technology
Giordano 10 – JD, served four years of active duty in the United States Navy as a Surface
Warfare Officer where he gained unique training, experiences, and insights for working with
people and solving complex problems
(Michael, “ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, AND
THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED
STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
INDUSTRY,” 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149)//BB
One of the things keeping the offshore wind energy industry from growing is a lack of sufficient
technology. Expanded growth of the offshore wind industry will depend on research,
development, and innovation. 46 Areas of technological need include improved reliability,
greater environmental compatibility, and cost reduction. 47 Technological advances must
address these areas of need with regard not just to the design of turbines but also to the
installation process and maintenance.
At present, offshore wind turbines are basically larger versions of onshore wind turbines that
have been adapted to the marine environment. 48 The current foundation system for offshore
wind [1156] turbines consists of large steel tubes called monopiles, which are typically
embedded twenty-five to thirty meters below the mud line. 49 Monopile designs are considered
appropriate for waters up to thirty meters deep. 50 Offshore wind farms use large turbines
"ranging from the Vestas V-80 2 MW turbine to GE Wind's 3.6 MW turbine to Repower's 126 m
diameter, 5 MW turbine." 51
Present foundation technology limits the offshore wind energy industry's ability to harness the
full potential of offshore wind energy. The strongest and most consistent winds blow above
waters deeper than thirty meters. 52 A marginal "10% increase in wind speed creates a 33%
increase in available energy." 53 Thus, meaningful growth of offshore wind energy is dependent
upon the research and development of new technologies that enable developers to place
turbines in deep water. Some anticipate the creation of "stiffer, multi-pile configurations with
broader bases suitable … for water depths up to 60 m or greater." 54 From there, many expect
that foundations will transition even further, toward floating turbine structures that would be
fastened and secured to the ocean floor by wires. 55 Such a transition would have to make use
of existing technologies from the oil and natural gas industries, which already use floating
platforms. 56 Unlike oil and gas projects on the OCS, wind projects require fast, modular
installations that can be replicated easily due to the anticipated frequency of maintenance. 57
Researchers believe that "the biggest challenge [1157] for deepwater wind turbines will be to
merge the mature but expensive technologies borne of the oil and gas industry with the
experience of low-cost economic drivers fueling the shallow water offshore wind energy
industry." 58
Limited turbine capacity
Giordano 10 – JD, served four years of active duty in the United States Navy as a Surface
Warfare Officer where he gained unique training, experiences, and insights for working with
people and solving complex problems
(Michael, “ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, AND
THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED
STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
INDUSTRY,” 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149)//BB
Present constraints on turbine capacity also limit the amount of wind energy that can be
harnessed for electricity. The power and productivity of wind turbines increases as turbine
tower height and the area swept by the turbine blades increase. 59 For example, an increase in
rotor diameter from ten meters to fifty meters "yields a 55-fold increase in yearly electricity
output" because of the increase of the tower height and the size of the swept area. 60 Added
costs due to the construction and operation of offshore wind farms can be absorbed more easily
if the wind farm is able to generate more electricity. Most believe that offshore wind projects
will need 5 MW or larger turbines to capture wind power and reach the economies of scale
needed to make long-distance offshore sites financially viable. 61
No installation vessels
Giordano 10 – JD, served four years of active duty in the United States Navy as a Surface
Warfare Officer where he gained unique training, experiences, and insights for working with
people and solving complex problems
(Michael, “ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, AND
THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED
STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
INDUSTRY,” 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149)//BB
The installation process also brings technological challenges to the offshore wind energy
industry. In order to install offshore wind turbines, developers will need to hire a fleet of vessels
including "barges with compensated cranes, leg stabilized feeder fleets, oil and gas dynamic
positioning vessels, and floating heavy lift cranes." 62 "This imposes a limitation on American
offshore wind development, since all vessels used for construction and operations and
maintenance (O&M) … have been European," 63 and United States law mandates that only
United States-based vessels may work in United States waters, with little exception. 64 Thus,
growth of domestic offshore wind energy also depends on the construction of new, customized
vessels in the United States. Technology must also find ways to address uncertainties associated
with connecting to the electrical grid and finding ways to [1158] assemble turbines at nearby
land locations just prior to installation in the seabed.
Stakeholder opposition
McDonnell, 13 (Tim, 2/28/2013, “Why the US still doesn't have a single offshore wind
turbine; Here's a look at the top four reasons why offshore wind remains elusive in the US,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/windpower-renewableenergy, JMP)
2. Blowback from "stakeholders": Whale and bird lovers. Defenders of tribal lands. Fishermen.
The Koch brothers. Since it was proposed in 2001, Cape Wind, a wind farm whose backers say
could provide 75 percent of Cape Cod's energy needs, has been run through a bewildering
gauntlet of opponents and fought off more than a dozen lawsuits on everything from boat
traffic interference to desecration of sacred sites to harming avian and marine life. Just down
the seaboard another major project, Deepwater Wind, had to negotiate concerns that its
turbines would throw a roadblock in the migratory pathways of endangered right whales.
Alliance for Nantucket Sound, Cape Wind's main opposition group, claims the project "threatens
the marine environment and would harm the productive, traditional fisheries of Nantucket
Sound."
Last summer's "Cape Spin" is an excellent "tragicomic" rundown of the controversy:
Of course, there's another powerful factor at play here: NIMBYism. No one could put it better
than fossil fuel magnate Bill Koch, owner of a $20 million Cape Cod beachfront estate and donor
of $1.5 million to ANS: "I don't want this in my backyard. Why would you want to sail in a forest
of windmills?"
Why indeed.
But Catherine Bowes, a senior analyst with the National Wildlife Federation, says while there are
legitimate concerns for wildlife, Cape Wind and Deepwater have both bent over backwards to
accommodate them. "I think there's an attempt at hijacking" the wildlife message by the
NIMBYers, she says. "Wildlife issues are often used as a reason to oppose a project even by
those who have never cared about animals before." Many of the nation's leading environmental
organizations—including the NWF, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club—have come out in favor of
the project. It's easy to see why, Bowes says: "We know that the biggest threat to wildlife is
global warming."
Offshore wind is not competitive --- will kill investment
Taylor, 12 (8/10/2012, Phil, E&E reporter, “OFFSHORE WIND: With advance of tax credit and
OCS leases, optimism builds in nascent U.S. industry,”
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/08/10/1)
Still, skeptics of Interior's offshore wind energy program, known as "smart from the start,"
include the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank led by a former oil industry lobbyist,
which last month criticized the cost of new projects.
"It is 'dead in the water' because offshore wind energy is 3.4 times more expensive than
onshore wind energy," the group said in a July 26 blog post, "making it not a prudent investment
compared to other renewable alternatives for electricity generation."
--- XT: No Installation Vessels
No U.S. ships to install offshore turbines
McDonnell, 13 (Tim, 2/28/2013, “Why the US still doesn't have a single offshore wind
turbine; Here's a look at the top four reasons why offshore wind remains elusive in the US,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/windpower-renewableenergy, JMP)
3. Not a single ship in the U nites S tates is equipped to handle wind turbines: Forget about
whales and yacht routes. How the hell do you go about lodging a 450-ton, over-400-foot tall
turbine into the ocean floor? Answer: With one massive mother of a boat.
But there's a problem, says Chris van Beek, Deepwater's president: "At this point, there is not an
existing vessel in the US that can do this job."
The world's relatively small fleet of turbine-ready ships—500-foot, $200 million behemoths—is
docked primarily in Europe; an obscure 1920 law called the Jones Act requires ships sailing
between two US ports to be US-flagged, and once the foundation of an offshore turbine is laid it
counts as a "port." Consequently, turbine installation ships cruising in from, say, Hamburg,
wouldn't be able to dock in the States.
On top of that, given the pittance of offshore projects in the works in the United States, bringing
the ships in from abroad can be cost-prohibitive . Offshore turbines could find themselves all
dressed up with nowhere to go .
Weeks Marine of New Jersey is working to solve the problem by building the first country's first
turbine ship. They've completed the hull and hope to have the boat seaworthy by 2014, possibly
in time to chip in on putting up Cape Wind.
--- XT: Offshore Wind Not Competitive
U.S. demand will be low --- natural gas and ample onshore wind
North American WindPower, 12 (“Report: U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Progress Expected
To Be 'Lackluster' Through 2016,” 12/17/2012,
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.10836#.UNx7WcW
gRGk)
Offshore wind energy installations are expected to achieve a compound annual growth rate of
44% between 2011 and 2016, with 18 GW of installations expected by the end of that period,
according to a new analysis from MAKE Consulting. Much of that growth can be attributed to
favorable policy in Europe and China, the firm notes.
MAKE Consulting expects that Europe will be the growth powerhouse for offshore wind, with
the continent accounting for 62% of total installations in the 2011-2016 period. Of those
European installations, 77% will be driven by Germany and the U.K., which are striving toward
their ambitious 2020 offshore wind targets of 18 GW and 10 GW, respectively.
Mirroring the upward swing in northern Europe, the Asia Pacific region is expected to install 6.6
GW of offshore wind through 2016, representing 36% of the global offshore wind energy
market. Although China will remain the largest offshore wind market in the Asia Pacific, the
emergence of South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan will supplement growth during that period.
In sharp contrast, progress in the U.S. is expected to be lackluster, due to low gas and electricity
prices, an ample onshore resource and weak political commitment to renewables, MAKE
Consulting says.
Offshore wind asset ownership will remain dominated by European utilities and developers,
with Vattenfall and DONG Energy leading the way, according to the firm. Currently, southern
European utilities are not represented in the top asset owners, due to a lack of offshore wind
activity and challenging economics in their home markets, but they do represent a sizable chunk
of the 185 GW pipeline.
AT: Warming – Squo solves
Squo solves warming –
---volcanoes
---their evidence overestimates because it ignores external cooling factors
Santer 14 – PhD in Climatology, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
and former researcher at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit
(Benjamin, “Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature,” Nature
Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2098)//BB
Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and
tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability3, 4, 6, 7, external
cooling influences 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors12, 13. Several recent modelling
studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions1, 2, 4, 8
to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent
volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model
simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of
stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric
temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model
simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate
the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic
influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed
tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large
uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations
of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved
representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.
---natural gas, shift to a service economy and EPA regulations
Matthews 14 – PhD @ UTD, resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation
(Merrill, “The U.S. Has Taken Another Big Step in Reducing CO2 Emissions,”
http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=56335&n=commentaries-us-has-takenanother-big-step-reducing-co2-emissions)//BB
It's too early to break out the Champagne, but you might want to start icing down the bottle.
U.S. carbon emissions from electricity-generating power plants dropped 3.8 percent in 2012, to
their lowest level since 1994, according to the federal government's Energy Information
Administration (EIA). The United States hasn't won the fight to reduce carbon emissions yet, but
it's headed in the right direction.¶ That recent reduction is not an anomaly: energy-related
carbon emissions have declined in five of the last seven years, for a 12 percent reduction
between 2005 and 2012.¶ The U.S. decline appears to be part of a long -term trend due
primarily to power plants increasingly switching from coal to cheap and cleaner-burning
natural gas -- which emits about half the CO2 that coal does -- and to a shift from a
manufacturing economy to a service economy, which needs less energy to produce its
products.¶ In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) keeps pushing regulations
that make it increasingly difficult and costly to use coal.¶ And that reduction trend may
accelerate . While power plants are the primary source of carbon emissions, vehicles also play a
role. The widespread availability of cheaper and cleaner natural gas also explains why there is a
growing effort to shift long-haul trucks to natural gas instead of diesel fuel.¶ Engine
manufacturer Cummins has begun building and shipping big-rig engines that run on natural gas.
And United Parcel Service (UPS) intends to expand its fleet of 18-wheelers that run on liquefied
natural gas (LNG) by nearly 800 percent by the end of 2014, according to the New York Times.¶
Transportation consultant Karl Ziebarth thinks the trucking industry will have largely shifted to
natural gas within five to eight years. He notes another reason for the shift is being driven by
EPA regulations that require new pollution-control technology that's driving up the price of
diesel engines. Challenges remain, including the need for a refueling infrastructure, but he says
the growing demand will likely induce truck stop operators to make the needed investment.¶
Cars are also following suit, though the numbers are small. The Washington Post cites Dave
Hurst of Pike Research estimating that out of 14.5 million passenger cars and trucks sold in the
U.S. in 2012, a little more than 20,000 ran on natural gas. But even more than long-haul trucks,
people will need a convenient refueling infrastructure before natural gas-powered cars catch
on.¶ And even trains may be headed down the same track. BNSF Railway announced earlier this
year that it is working on a new engine that will run on LNG -- ironically, to transport what it
hopes will be a million barrels of oil a day, according to CNBC.
---wind power
Scheer 14 – BA @ Harvard in Environmental Studies
(Roddy, “Wind power still has a bright future as renewable energy resource,”
http://www.thevindicator.com/news/article_e0dfae9a-998b-11e3-aefa001a4bcf887a.html)//BB
Hydroelectric sources of power dwarf other forms of renewable energy, but wind power has
been a dominant second for years, and continues to show “hockey stick” growth moving
forward. According to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), global cumulative installed wind
capacity—the total amount of wind power available—has grown fifty-fold in less than two
decades, from just 6,100 megawatts (MW) in 1996 to 318,137 MW in 2013.¶ And the future
looks brighter still. Analysts from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) predict that wind will
account for the largest share—30 percent—of new renewables added to the global power grid
by 2030. That new renewables are expected to account for as much as 70 percent of all new
power sources over the next 20 years means that wind is poised to become a major player on
the global energy scene.¶ Here in the U.S., energy generated by domestic wind farms has nearly
tripled in just the past four years, despite a brief hiccup due to a lapse in the Production Tax
Credit, a renewable energy production incentive that effectively subsidizes the creation of more
wind farms. But even despite this, wind represented about a third of all new power added to the
U.S. grid over the past five years. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading
environmental non-profit and wind power advocate, forecasts that the U.S. will derive some 20
percent of its total electricity production from wind by 2030.¶ “The U.S. industry has many
reasons for favorable long-term prospects,” reports the American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA), a non-profit trade group representing the wind industry. “In addition to the record
activity at the end of 2013, wind energy helped keep the lights on and insulate against
temporary price spikes during the recent ‘polar vortex’ cold weather snap, demonstrating the
value of wind power in a balanced energy portfolio.Ӧ AWEA also points out recent reports
showing how incorporation of wind energy lowers costs for electric consumers. “And critical to
some parts of the country facing continuing drought, wind energy uses no water in its
production, as well as releasing no emissions,” adds the group.¶ The fact that wind energy in the
U.S. avoids some 100 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually is also good news.
AWEA adds that that number will grow as wind energy scales up to 20 percent of the grid and
beyond “making the addition of more wind power one of the fastest, cheapest, and largest-scale
ways for states to meet the Administration’s new goals for reducing carbon pollution from
power plants.”
The combined effect of these solutions are transforming the entire economy
Nanowerk 14
(“Natural gas, energy efficiency and renewable energy are leading America's energy
transformation,” http://www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=34329.php)//BB
The 2014 installment of the Sustainable Energy in America Factbook – produced for The
Business Council for Sustainable Energy by Bloomberg New Energy Finance – has found that
renewable energy, natural gas and energy efficiency advancements are leading a
transformation of America’s energy.¶ Despite ever-shifting political winds, the inherent
business case for efficient and sustainable energy sources has become even stronger over the
past year. The 2014 Factbook documents the upward trajectory of energy efficiency, natural gas
and renewable energy, using the latest data from 2013, and the edition adds yet another year of
data to document the long-term transition to cleaner, lower-carbon sources of energy
production.¶ Renewable energy provided 13 percent of U.S. electricity generation in 2013, up
from 12 percent in 2012 and just 8 percent in 2007. At the same time, renewable energy costs
reached all-time lows, allowing clean energy, with the aid of incentives, to be cheaper than fossil
fuel electricity in some parts of the country. Small, distributed generators and off-grid
installations, meanwhile, began to emerge as a transformative force in the power industry.
Financiers who back small-scale solar systems have raised nearly $6.7 billion since 2008.¶ “The
U.S. energy transformation that began in the mid-2000s gained additional momentum in 2013,”
said Lisa Jacobson, president of The Business Council for Sustainable Energy. “The Factbook
plays a vital role in chronicling this fast-moving transformation, which is creating whole new
industries and thousands of new jobs in the energy efficiency, natural gas and renewable energy
sectors.Ӧ The Business Council for Sustainable Energy commissioned Bloomberg New Energy
Finance to research and write the U.S. Sustainable Energy in America 2014 Factbook in order to
provide policy makers, journalists and industry professionals with up-to-date, accurate market
intelligence. The complete report and associated materials are available at:
http://www.bcse.org/sustainableenergyfactbook.html.¶ Energy efficiency financing is on an
upward trend. Spending by energy service companies and by electric and gas utilities, often to
comply with state efficiency resource standards, totaled more than $12 billion in 2012.
Meanwhile, 31 states and the District of Columbia, representing 77 percent of the U.S.
population, have legislation in place to enable the financing of energy efficiency via propertyassessed clean energy programs (PACE). Technology for mart grid and for smart homes is
making its way into the market and has potential to be pervasive in the future, driving even
further efficiency gains in the years ahead.¶ “The changes unfolding in the US energy industry
have been profound and , by the typical time scsale of the industry, abrupt ,” said Michel Di
Capua, Head of North American Analysis for Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “The effects of
these changes will be felt in seemingly every nook and cranny of the American economy, from
military bases to manufacturing plants , from homes to highways . 2013 saw some detours
from the long-term trends, but overall, it is clear that the long-term transformation of how the
US produces and consumes energy continues.”
AT: Warming – No solvency
Wind doesn’t solve global warming
Burnett 4 - Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)
(Sterling, “Wind power: Not green, but red,” http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/news/windpower-not-green-but-red/article_dd3a5dc3-058a-5f5b-9bac84c34897151e.html?mode=jqm)//BB
Wind power’s environmental benefits are usually overstated, while its significant environmental
harms are often ignored. Promised air pollution improvements have failed to materialize. Wind
farms generate power only when the wind is blowing within a certain range of speed. When
there is too little wind, wind towers don’t generate power; but when the wind is too strong,
they must be shut down for fear of being blown down. Even when they function properly, wind
farms average output is less than 30 percent of their theoretical capacity compared to 85 to 95
percent for combined-cycle gas fired plants. Because of intermittency problems, wind farms
need conventional power plants to supplement the power they do supply. Bringing a
conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning on a switch;
therefore most “redundant” fossil fuel power stations must run, even if at reduced levels,
continuously. Accordingly, very little fossil-fired electricity will be displaced and few emissions
will be avoided because fossil-fueled units (operating at less than their peak capacity and
efficiency or operating in “spinning reserve” mode – which means they are emitting more
pollution per energy produced than if operating at peak efficiency, imagine a car idling near
train tracks in case the power goes out) must be kept immediately available to supply electricity
when the output from wind turbines drop because wind speed slows or falls below minimums
required to power the turbines. Kilowatt-hours produced by wind turbines cannot be assumed
displace the emissions associated with an equal number of kWh from fossil-fueled generating
units. Combined with the pollutants emitted and CO2 released in the manufacture and
maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for
fossil fuels does not improve air quality very much.
Wind power won’t solve emissions
NRC 7
(National Research Council, May 2007, “Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects,” pg.
65)//BB
Projections for future wind-energy contributions to air-pollution emissions reductions in the
United States also are uncertain. However, given that current and future regulatory controls on
emissions of NOx and SO2 from electricity generation in the eastern United States involve total
caps on emissions, the committee concludes that development of wind-powered electricity
generation using current technology probably will not result in a significant reduction in total
emission of these pollutants from EGUs in the mid-Atlantic region. Using the future projections
of installed U.S. energy capacity by the U.S. Department of Energy, we further conclude that
development of wind-powered electricity generation probably will contribute to offsets of about
4.5% in emissions of CO2 from electricity generation sources in the United States by the year
2020. In 2005, emissions of CO2 from electricity generation were estimated to be 39% of all CO2
emissions in the United States.
Wind power actually increases C02 emissions
Lea, 12 --- director and economic adviser at the Arbuthnot Banking Group (January 2012, Ruth,
“Electricity Costs: The folly of wind power,”
http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf, JMP)
Wind-power is not effective in cutting CO 2 emissions
At first glance it could be assumed that wind-power could play a major part in cutting CO 2
emissions. Once the turbines are manufactured (an energy-intensive business in itself) and
installed then emissions associated with the electricity could be expected to be zero - as indeed
for nuclear power.
But, as pointed out in chapter 2, wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires
conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low
speeds (or not at all) or with uncontrolled variability (intermittency). Clearly the CO 2 emissions
associated with using back-up capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying
wind turbines. This is all the more relevant given the relatively high CO2 emissions from
conventional plants when they are used in a back-up capacity.
As energy consultant David White has written:5
“... (fossil -fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this supporting
role because it is being used to balance a reasonably predictable but fluctuating demand with a
variable and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines. Consequently, operating fossil
capacity in this mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally .”
-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if
it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes cost increases in backup, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean,
firm generation.” 6 In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power,
Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy
days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption , rather than saving it,
when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. 7,8 Ironically
and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions , compared
with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power.
Conclusions
Britain has committed itself to draconian cuts in CO2 emissions. On the basis of the costings
discussed in chapter 2, nuclear power and gas-fired CCGT were the preferred technologies for
generating reliable and affordable electricity. On the basis of the evidence presented above,
these two technologies are also the preferred technologies for reducing CO2 emissions.
Wind-power fails the test on both counts. It is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO2
emissions. If it were not for the renewables targets set by the Renewables Directive, windpower would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting
emissions. The renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU.
--- XT: Doesn’t Solve Warming
Germany proves that coal plants have to be constructed to try and ensure grid
stability
Rich, 13 --- author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government (Howard, 3/14/2013,
“Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale For World Leaders,”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-acautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/, JMP)
Merkel’s energy plan called for the addition of 25,000 megawatts of sea-based wind turbine
power by 2030. However through the first six months of 2012 only 45 megawatts had been
added to Germany’s existing 200-megawatt supply, according to an industry analyst quoted by
Reuters. And despite massive subsidies funded by a household energy surcharge (which
currently comprises 14 percent of German power bills), major wind projects in the North Sea are
being delayed or canceled due to skittish investors.
The basic problem? Wind farms are notoriously unreliable as a power source. Not only that,
they take up vast amounts of space and kill tens of thousands of birds annually.
“Generating energy with wind involves extreme fluctuations because it depends on the weather
and includes periods without any recognizable capacity for days, or suddenly occurring supply
peaks that push the grid to its limits,” a 2012 report from Germany energy expert Dr. Guenter
Keil notes. “There is a threat of power outages over large areas, mainly in wintertime when the
demand is high and less (power) gets delivered from abroad.”
A typical 20-turbine wind farm occupies an area of 250 acres. So in order for Merkel to achieve
her objective, she would have to cover an area six times the size of New York City with turbines.
Not surprisingly the erection of all those turbines – along with the infrastructure needed to
route their inconsistent power supply back to the German heartland – would be astronomical.
“The costs of our energy reform and restructuring of energy provision could amount to around
one trillion euros by the end of the 2030s,” Germany’s environmental minister announced last
month.
That sum could rise even higher, as last month a Harvard University study revealed the extent to
which the power generating potential of wind farms has been “overestimated.”
“The generating capacity of very large wind power installations may peak at between 0.5 and 1
watts per square meter,” the study concluded. “Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines’
slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.”
Such are the shifting sands upon which Merkel has staked her country’s energy future.
Because renewable power sources have been so unreliable, Germany has been forced to
construct numerous new coal plants in an effort to replace the nuclear energy it has taken
offline. In fact the country will build more coal-fired facilities this year than at any time in the
past two decades – bringing an estimated 5,300 megawatts of new capacity online. Most of
these facilities will burn lignite, too, which is strip-mined and emits nearly 30 percent more
carbon dioxide than hard coal.
In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean energy – and sticking its
citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can subsidize an energy source which will never
generate sufficient power.
This is the cautionary tale of command energy economics – one other nations would be wise to
heed.
Need for continued backup capacity prevents significant CO2 reductions and
increases costs of producing wind power
Korchinski, 12 --- chemical engineer who has spent his career working worldwide in the oil
refining and chemical industries (October 2012, William, “The Limits of Wind Power,”
http://reason.org/files/thelimitsofwindpower.pdf, JMP)
Existing estimates of the life-cycle emissions from wind turbines range from 5 to 100 grams of
CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. This very wide range is explained by
differ-ences in what was included in each analysis, and the proportion of electricity generated
by wind. The low CO 2 emissions estimates are only possible at low levels of installed wind
capacity, and even then they typically ignore the large proportion of associated emissions that
come from the need for backup power sources (“spinning reserves”).
Wind blows at speeds that vary considerably, leading to wide variations in power output at
different times and in different locations. To address this variability, power supply companies
must install backup capacity, which kicks in when demand exceeds supply from the wind
turbines; failure to do so will adversely affect grid reliability. The need for this backup capacity
significantly increases the cost of producing power from wind. Since backup power in most
cases comes from fossil fuel generators, this effectively limits the carbon-reducing potential of
new wind capacity.
AT: Hegemony – No solvency
Wind not key to manufacturing jobs
Platzer 11
Michaela D. Congressional Research Service, "U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal¶
Support for an Emerging Industry" 9/23/11 Cornell University ILR School,
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1871&context=key_workplac
e, 8/21/12
Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share of the 11.5 million domestic¶
manufacturing jobs in 2010, well under 1%. It seems unlikely , even given a substantial increase
in¶ U.S. manufacturing capacity, that wind turbine manufacturing will become a major source
of¶ manufacturing employment. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy forecast that if wind
power¶ were to provide 20% of the nation’s electrical supply in 2030, U.S. turbine assembly
and¶ component plants could support roughly 32,000 full-time manufacturing workers in
2026.82¶ AWEA’s more optimistic projection is that the wind industry could support three to
four times as¶ many manufacturing workers as at present if a long-term stable policy
environment were in place,¶ which implies a total of 80,000 jobs.83 Further employment growth
in the sector is likely to¶ depend not only upon future demand for wind energy, but also on
corporate decisions about¶ where to produce towers, blades, nacelles, and their most
sophisticated components, such as¶ gearboxes, bearings, and generators.
Wind not key to overall U.S. manufacturing --- parts will just be imported
IER, 11 (11/14/2011, Institute for Energy Research, “Rebutting Ms. Bode’s Wind Comments,”
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/14/rebutting-bodes-20-percent-by-2030/)
Current Wind Industry Jobs
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the number of wind manufacturing jobs
has remained relatively flat over the past 3 years at an estimated 20,000 jobs. (See chart below.)
The majority of the 75,000 jobs (60 percent) that Ms. Bode quotes are in finance and consulting
services, contracting and engineering services, and transportation and logistics. Only 3,500 jobs
were in construction and 4,000 in operations and maintenance in 2010.
Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share (less than 1 percent) of the
total manufacturing jobs (11.5 million) in the U nited S tates in 2010. According to the DOE
report that evaluated the 20 percent wind energy in 2030, turbine assembly and component
plants would supply about 32,000 manufacturing jobs in 2026. But the American Wind Energy
Association’s assessment is that the number would be 3 to 4 times that amount under a longterm stable policy environment. As CRS notes, the real number will be dependent not only on
the demand for wind, but also on corporate decisions of where to produce the needed
components. Those decisions could very well result in manufacturing jobs outside of the U nited
S tates. As CRS notes, imports of wind generating equipment increased from $482.5 million in
2005 to $2.5 billion in 2008, held at $2.3 billion in 2009 and decreased to $1.2 billion in 2010
due to lower relative demand for new wind energy, declining prices, and new manufacturing
plants in the U nited S tates. While European suppliers were the leaders in wind equipment
imports to the United States, South Korea and China are now becoming players in the U.S.
market.
Wind components will be imported and wind job growth is a net negative
O’Keefe, 12 --- CEO, George C. Marshall Institute (12/31/2012, William, “Wind Tax Credit
Advocacy: Blowing Smok,” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/12/should-congresssupport-wind-t.php)
A number of the comments supporting extension of the wind production tax credit are based on
half truths, illusions, and special interest politics.
One argument is that eliminating it will cost 37,000 jobs or more. There are two flaws in this
argument. First, it assumes that there is no difference between jobs created by inefficient
subsidies and more efficient allocation of resources. There is literature demonstrating that
green subsidies misallocate resources that cost more jobs than they create . A study
conducted by Spain’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos concluded “ we find that for every renewable
energy job that the state manages to finance, Spain’s experience…reveals with high
confidence…that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average… .” Second, most
of the jobs created by wind energy are in the manufacture of turbine blades and steel for wind
towers, most of which are imported .
AT: Hegemony --- Hurts Economy
Siphons off jobs from other more productive parts of the economy
Green, 9 --- Resident Scholar at the AEI (2/23/2009, “"Green" Illusions,”
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/green-illusions/)
Let's review the reasons why governments cannot create jobs, and why labelling them "green"
doesn't change the basic dynamics.
Let's start with the fallacy that governments can create jobs. This fallacy was exploded all the
way back in 1845 by a French politician and political economist named Frédéric Bastiat. Bastiat
pointed out that the only way governments can create jobs is by first obliterating other jobs .
Sometimes, they obliterate other jobs by diverting taxpayer money away from the economic
uses the taxpayer would have pursued if they had kept their taxes.
Other times, they obliterate jobs by imposing regulations that kill off one industry in favour of
another. In still other situations, they impose mandates, such as using recycled paper to create
an artificial market for recycled paper which reduce jobs in fresh-paper production.
In the green energy case, they are doing all of the above: Taxpayer dollars are being used to
subsidize the renewable energy sector; damaging regulations are being implemented on the
traditional fossil fuel sector, and mandates for the use of renewable energy are being issued,
creating a false market in wind power at the expense of fossil fuel and nuclear power.
Governments also invariably siphon off a good part of the money for "administration," creating
civil service jobs that pay comparatively higher wages than the private sector for similar activity.
Inevitably, government efforts to create jobs cost the economy jobs and, adding insult to injury,
divert limited resources to inefficient uses, causing economic underperformance .
Will destroy the economy with greater costs and electricity prices --- Germany
proves
O’Keefe, 12 --- CEO, George C. Marshall Institute (12/22/2012, William, “The Wind Tax Credit:
Green Welfare,” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/12/should-congress-support-windt.php?comments=expandall#comments, JMP)
Many European countries, especially Germany, have traveled the clean energy road and by
doing so have put their economies into a ditch . An analysis of Germany’s rush to renewables
by the European Institute for Climate and Energy warned of “ impending doom for the German
economy caused by the lemming like charge to the Green mirage of affordable renewable
energy.” The report went on, “The problem is that these energy sources are weather-dependent
and thus their sporadic supply is starting to wreak havoc on Germany’s power grid and is even
now threatening to destabilize power grids all across Europe ! … after tens of billions of euros
spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for consumers , not a single coal or gasfired power plant has been taken offline. To the contrary, old inefficient German plants have
been brought back into service in an effort to stabilize the grid.”
With an economy that increasingly is reliant on electric power generation, we need to focus on
abundant, reliable, and affordable sources of electric power generation. For the foreseeable
future, that source is natural gas.
There is a clear lesson from 40 years of energy industrial policy initiatives, including the wind tax
credit. It is simply not possible to create technological short cuts by throwing money at
alternative energy systems.
--- XT: Jobs Turn
Impact on jobs and economy will be a net negative
Schulz, 9 --- senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Energy Policy and the
Environment (Winter 2009, Max, “The Green-Jobs Engine That Can’t; Inefficient eco-friendly
technologies destroy more jobs than they create,” http://www.cityjournal.org/2009/19_1_green-jobs.html, JMP)
The alternative technologies at the heart of Obama’s plan, relying on more such government
handouts and mandates, will inevitably raise energy prices—and high power prices are job
killers. Industries that make physical products, whether cars or chemicals or paper cups, are
energy-intensive and will gravitate to low-energy-cost locales—which is why California and New
York, with some of the highest electricity prices in the country, have lost manufacturing jobs in
droves. But it’s not just manufacturers that need cheap electricity: Google, the poster child of
California’s information-technology economy, houses its massive server farms not in the Golden
State but in places with lower electricity costs, like North Carolina and Oregon. Policies that
drive up energy costs across the nation, as Obama intends, will drive many of these jobs not
elsewhere in the country but overseas.
Keep in mind, too, that the traditional industries currently supplying Americans with reliable,
affordable energy already employ millions of workers. The American Petroleum Institute reports
that the oil and gas industry employs 1.6 million Americans. Coal mining directly and indirectly
supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, according to the National Mining Association and the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A radical plan to transform our energy economy in favor of clean,
renewable energy technologies would put many of those men and women out of work.
But won’t all those new green jobs make up for whatever economic hardship results? That’s the
contention of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, among the best-known and most
influential evangelists for a green economy. In his most recent bestseller, Hot, Flat, and
Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution—and How It Can Renew America, Friedman argues
that a government-directed green program would rebuild America’s national strength and
bolster our economy for the twenty-first century—regardless of whether global warming turns
out to be a serious problem (which he believes it is). Friedman likens his proposal to training for
the Olympic triathlon. “If you make it to the Olympics, you have a much better chance of
winning, because you’ve developed every muscle,” he writes. “If you don’t make it to the
Olympics, you’re still healthier, stronger, fitter, and more likely to live longer and win every
other race in life.”
It’s a nice analogy, but Friedman, like Obama, sees only the upside. Danish economist Bjørn
Lomborg, author of books like The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, which decries climatechange alarmism, agrees that global warming is real and man-made, but he differs with
Friedman’s response. “It is foolish to deny climate change,” says Lomborg. “But it’s also foolish
to deny climate economics, which Friedman does.” Lomborg notes that Friedman’s argument
“simply fails to address the cost of his proposed solutions, and fails to weigh those costs against
the benefits.”
Obama and Friedman have become the latest proponents of a common economic fallacy. One
version holds that the Second World War and its aftermath were a boon for the American and
European economies, since militarizing in America and rebuilding Europe spurred much-needed
economic activity. Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman peddled another
version when, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, he suggested a possible silver lining: the
destruction of the World Trade Center would require new construction and therefore
reinvigorate economic activity downtown.
Such thinking was effectively debunked a century before World War II. The nineteenth-century
French economist Frédéric Bastiat made an invaluable contribution to modern economics by
demolishing the notion that a broken window is a good thing inasmuch as it provides work for
the glazier. As Bastiat observed, the money that goes to pay the glassmaker would, had the
window never been broken at all, have supported some other productive enterprise. Society as
a whole winds up poorer, even if the glassmaker profits.
With his promise of 5 million new green jobs, Barack Obama heaves a brick straight through
Bastiat’s window. Yesterday’s glazier is tomorrow’s solar-panel installer. The green-jobs promise
amounts to killing jobs in efficient industries to create jobs in inefficient ones—hardly a recipe
for economic success. William Pizer, a researcher with Resources for the Future and a lead
author of the most recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, reinforced the point at a symposium last April: “As an economist, I am skeptical that
[dealing with climate change] is going to make money. You’ll have new industries, but they’ll be
doing what old industries did but [at] a higher net cost. . . . You’ll be depleting other industries.”
Consumers will be hurt, too, Pizer notes. Digging deeper each month to pay for expensive
renewable energy, they will have less to save or spend in other areas of the economy.
There may be legitimate arguments for taking dramatic steps to fight climate change. Boosting
the economy isn’t one of them.
--- XT: Energy Prices Turn
Wind substantially drives up electricity costs
Dismukes, 12 --- professor, associate executive director, and director of Policy Analysis at the
Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University(11/1/2012, David E., America Energy
Alliance, “Removing Big Wind’s “Training Wheels” The Case for Ending the Federal Production
Tax Credit,” http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DismukesRemoving-Big-Winds-Training-Wheels.pdf)
VI. Wind’s Intermittency Increases Costs, Distorts Markets, and Imperils Reliability by Harming
Conventional Generation
Wind is an intermittent, unreliable generation resource, exhibiting relatively wide output swings
and producing most of its electricity during off-peak evening hours when power is least needed
as opposed to during day-time peaking hours when electricity demand is high, and when power
is needed the most.47Electricity grid operators must address numerous important operational
issues when integrating wind generation, including maintaining power quality, meeting power
availability requirements and expectations, and supporting system reliability.48 While all
generation must address these important integration criteria, wind generation’s scale,
intermittency, and variability creates a number of unique challenges49 that impose substantial
additional costs on electricity consumers .50
One of the most immediate challenges associated with integrating increased wind resources
into regional power grids is the development of costly transmission infrastructure to move
electricity from very remote rural areas, where wind speeds are usually at their highest, to
locations where loads are concentrated. Over the past five years alone, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has approved over $15 billion in new transmission investments
simply to facilitate the movement of wind generation.51 These investments translate into
higher costs and higher rates for retail customers.
AT: Hegemony – Impact defense
Decline will be peaceful and solves all their offense—only a risk of chain
ganging
MacDonald and Parent 11—Profs of Political Science @ Williams and Miami
(Paul K. and Joseph M., Graceful Decline?, International Security, Spring 2k11, Volume 35,
Number 4, Muse)
In short, the United States should be able to reduce its foreign policy commitments in East Asia
in the coming decades without inviting Chinese expansionism. Indeed, there is evidence that a
policy of retrenchment could reap potential benefits. The drawdown and repositioning of U.S.
troops in South Korea, for example, rather than fostering instability, has resulted in an
improvement in the occasionally strained relationship between Washington and Seoul.97 U.S.
moderation on Taiwan, rather than encouraging hard-liners in [End Page 42] Beijing, resulted in
an improvement in cross-strait relations and reassured U.S. allies that Washington would not
inadvertently drag them into a Sino-U.S. conflict.98 Moreover, Washington's support for the
development of multilateral security institutions, rather than harming bilateral alliances, could
work to enhance U.S. prestige while embedding China within a more transparent regional
order.99 A policy of gradual retrenchment need not undermine the credibility of U.S. alliance
commitments or unleash destabilizing regional security dilemmas. Indeed, even if Beijing
harbored revisionist intent, it is unclear that China will have the force projection capabilities
necessary to take and hold additional territory.100 By incrementally shifting burdens to regional
allies and multilateral institutions, the United States can strengthen the credibility of its core
commitments while accommodating the interests of a rising China. Not least among the benefits
of retrenchment is that it helps alleviate an unsustainable financial position. Immense forward
deployments will only exacerbate U.S. grand strategic problems and risk unnecessary clashes.101