1AC
Advantage One. Navy
Despite the new national ocean implementation plan, lack of effective
coordination of coastal marine spatial planning is causing spatial use
conflicts that disrupt naval readiness—only coordinated CSMP solves
Medina et al. ‘14
Monica Medina previously served as a Special¶ Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a¶ Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans¶ and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and¶ Atmospheric Administration. Joel Smith is a¶ Research Associate for the
Energy, Environment and¶ Security Program at the Center for a New American¶ Security. Commander Linda Sturgis is the United¶
States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow at the¶ Center for a New American Security. National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
The United States is a maritime nation ¶ with an expansive coastal ocean that is ¶ integral to
economic, environmental and national ¶ security.1¶ The coastal ocean hosts a wide range ¶ of
users, including the U.S. military, coastal ¶ shipping companies, offshore energy producers, ¶ commercial and sport fishermen,
recreational ¶ users and conservation groups. As a primary ¶ user of the coastal ocean, the U.S. military ¶ needs
dedicated and charted offshore areas in ¶ which to train and conduct exercises to prepare ¶ for
war, thwart terrorist activities and prevent ¶ other threats against the United States. For the ¶
Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps, operating ¶ in the coastal ocean is critical to maintaining ¶
operational readiness.2¶ Although the ocean may ¶ seem vast, a unified effort is necessary to
balance ¶ increased offshore activity with the need to ¶ maintain U.S. military proficiency and
national ¶ security and ensure the safety and sustainability ¶ of this vital resource. White House
Executive Order 13547 adopted the¶ final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean¶ Policy Task Force and established the
National¶ Ocean Council to implement an ocean policy¶ to safeguard the country’s ocean interests. The¶ executive order requires
the council to work with¶ stakeholders across the country to develop coastal¶ and marine spatial
planning.3 To improve transparency¶ and coordination, nine “regional planning¶ bodies” were created to manage the
neighboring¶ coastal ocean and produce plans by 2015 for incorporation¶ into the national ocean plan.4 Although¶ significant
progress has been made on national¶ ocean planning over the past four years, efforts¶ across the
nation to improve information sharing¶ and coordination among ocean users are inconsistent.¶
Meanwhile, increased offshore activity and¶ competition for space in the coastal ocean have created¶
tension among national security, commercial¶ industry and ocean conservation communities.5 As
a steward of the ocean, the military expends significanttime and resources to comply with federal¶
environmental requirements. However, military¶ users are often challenged by the
environmental¶ conservation community because of the potentially¶ harmful effects on ocean
life as a result of certain¶ military activities.6 The development of a national¶ coastal ocean
mapping system that integrates¶ geospatial data from all coastal ocean users (federal agencies,
the military, local and state regulators and¶ law enforcement, industry and private individuals)¶
would be an integral step toward balancing¶ the offshore training needs of the military with the¶
needs of ocean conservation groups and privatesector¶ communities. Such a mapping system
would¶ also help integrate federal, military and regional¶ planning efforts to manage these areas
more¶ effectively. Ultimately, it would increase transparency¶ and awareness of the burgeoning
activity¶ along America’s coasts. The military, in particular,¶ would benefit from a mapping
system, which would¶ inform operational planning efforts and help it¶ comply with applicable
environmental laws and¶ statutes.
The fragmentation of federal agency and arbitrary state regulations
causing marine spatial conflicts, damaging military training and
readinesss--coordinated spatial planning process solves
Medina et al. ‘14
Monica Medina previously served as a Special¶ Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a¶ Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans¶ and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and¶ Atmospheric Administration. Joel Smith is a¶ Research Associate for the
Energy, Environment and¶ Security Program at the Center for a New American¶ Security. Commander Linda Sturgis is the United¶
States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow at the¶ Center for a New American Security. National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
conflicTs of inTeresT Recent
disputes between the military and other users over the use of the coastal
ocean have highlighted competing economic, security and environmental interests in this
increasingly crowded space.¶ Off the coast of Virginia earlier this year, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security raised an
issue regarding the location of a planned offshore wind farm, contending that the introduc- tion of fixed infrastructure in “off limits” military training
areas could create an unsafe situation, endanger lives or impede military operations.22 Private operators in the area have also voiced concerns that the
proposed wind farm would shift the pre-established routes of commercial vessels navigating the area and “create delays or unsafe operating situations
for towing vessels during ¶ hazardous weather and restrict north to south coastal navigation.”23 Additionally, this area is situ- ated within the
migratory path of several marine species, including the previously mentioned North Atlantic right whale. In
March, the California state
government ruled to limit the Navy’s sonar and explosives activity dur- ing exercises off its
coast, citing potential harmful effects on highly concentrated numbers of endan- gered marine
mammals.24 It is unclear what effect this ruling will have; similar injunctions in the past by the California state government and other
governmental and nongovernmental organizations have led to exemptions by the federal government for the Navy. A recent court ruling in which a
consortium of conservation organizations lost a decision regarding Navy plans to build an under- sea training range further highlights the potential for
transparent communication and operational planning tool
based on “hard data” ocean maps would be a useful aid in avoiding similar disputes in the future
and would help to better align mili- tary offshore training needs for national defense readiness
conflict between conservation and military interests.25 A
with private-sector users and ocean con- servation groups. ocean Governance, regional coordination and the importance of data Management of the
coastal ocean is fundamentally an issue of governance. However,
the diverse group of agencies with statutory
obligations to manage ocean resources or undertake activities in these areas creates challenges
for effective governance in the coastal ocean. For instance, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management leases rights to drill for oil and natural gas and build wind farms in the
coastal ocean, while the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service manages the
number, type and location of fish that can be caught and oversees the permitting process for the Navy to use sonar in
training areas. In total, more than 140 federal laws govern the coastal ocean areas.26 The creation and empowerment of regional plan- ning bodies has
been a central pillar of the national ocean policy. The military, particularly the Coast Guard and Navy, play a key role in regional planning efforts along
with public and private stakeholders. Some
regional planning bodies have made significant progress to
advance ocean plan- ning. Because of a lack of funding and centralized oversight, efforts
throughout the nation have been inconsistent. The Northeast Regional Ocean Council and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council
on the Ocean (MARCO) are widely recognized as leaders in regional planning. MARCO has led the way in transparency, cooperation and data sharing
through the MARCO portal. If this level of effort could be replicated across the nation and integrated into an ocean plan, ocean users would clearly
benefit. Even for these relatively successful regional groups, challenges persist. Participants in a MARCO workshop in April noted that “the
fragmentation of federal management was so strong that it would be difficult for the Mid-Atlantic Regional
Planning Body to overcome in any meaningful way” and that “the lack of dedicated funding in support of
regional ocean planning was considered a substan- tial challenge.”27 For effective coastal and
marine spatial planning, the National Ocean Council must empower regional planning bodies to address the
competing uses in each region and resolve conflicts. Furthermore, there must be a national-level coor- dination mechanism to
ensure consistency across adjacent areas and nationally unified ocean gover- nance. Without
sustained funding for their efforts, regional planning bodies will face challenges in ¶ creating uniform plans by 2015, and
conflicts among users are likely to persist. Numerous information technology programs map
ocean use, but no single program comprehensively captures all major coastal ocean activities.
Perhaps the most notable effort, the ocean.data.gov web- site, is designed to serve as the National Ocean Council’s gateway for ocean use data. This
website has many positive qualities and has the potential to become a comprehensive resource for coastal ocean mapping. However ,
it is based
on limited data – almost exclusively from federal sources – and therefore captures only a subset
of coastal ocean activity. Other publicly available geospatial applica- tions, such as the “Marine Cadastre” program, a joint venture
between the NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, are useful in certain applictions, but are also limited by funding and scope of data.
Informed decisions require good data. To exemplify the importance of transparency and data sharing, the Coast Guard initiated the Atlantic Coast Port
Access Route Study to evaluate vessel routing from Florida to Maine and assist the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s efforts to identify priority
areas for offshore wind energy development. Data from automatic identification systems to track ves- sel movements were used to create a
comprehensive view of current shipping routes, allowing analysts to depict the concentration of vessel movements and approaches to ports along the
eastern seaboard. The data provide a useful starting point for dis- cussions about port access and vessel routing and efforts to preserve navigational
safety in conjunc- tion with offshore energy development proposals.28 This is an era of “big data” and ever-increasing amounts of publicly available
information. Ocean users should strive to foster information sharing, improved cooperation and conflict avoidance. As the environmental compliance
administrator, the
Council on Environmental Quality should encourage govern- ment agencies to use
coastal ocean mapping to ease the administrative burden of complying with federal statutes and
regulations. A comprehensive coastal ocean map- ping system – based either on an existing
platform, such as ocean.data.gov or on entirely new software – should compile, integrate and
analyze the available data. Those data need to be collected in a holistic manner for all ¶ major
activities in the coastal ocean, and they should include overlays describing such characteristics as water depth, bottom type, currents,
shipping routes, marine protected areas, commercial and recreational fishing grounds, projected oil and gas lease sales, and military training areas.
Using the standardized data collection methods, this system would produce region-specific
maps based on the unique characteristics of each area. A publicly accessible and user-friendly
mapping system could provide users and regional planning bodies with essential tools for
national ocean planning. Given the U.S. military’s history of researching and acquiring technology to advance coastal ocean awareness, we
recommend that it lead the map- ping effort, with input from public and private stakeholders. The military should invest in the development of a
national coastal ocean mapping system that would provide regional planning bodies with a unified tool for ocean planning. conclusion The
development of a national coastal ocean map- ping system would benefit all coastal ocean users
and is an integral step toward more effective and thorough ocean planning. Through comprehensive
awareness of major offshore activity, the United States would simultaneously advance national security, economic
development and ocean conser- vation. ¶
Availability and coordination of space is vital to readiness
LANDIS 13 (COMMANDER JAMES E. LANDIS ¶ Senior Military Counsel ¶ U.S. Navy ¶
CAPTAIN ROBIN fITCH ¶ U.S. Navy (ret), “Marine Planning Visions for the Future,” Fall 2013,
http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/archive/2013/Vol70_No3_Fall2013.pdf)
Effective Training ¶ In recent decades, the Navy has also taken on an increased role in international disaster response and
humanitarian relief. Now, as always, a credible naval presence provides stability and predictability.
Because resources, trade, and sea power are intricately linked, the U.S. Navy remains a vital
resource for national interests and for the peaceful, stable, and interdependent prosperity of
nations in the global community. The Navy’s ability to successfully execute the nation’s at-sea
policies and priorities is closely tied to its ability to train sailors and to develop weapons and
tactics. Navy training typically proceeds on a continuum, from teaching basic and specialized individual military skills to
intermediate skills or small unit training to advanced, integrated training events — culminating in multiservice or multinational
exercises or certification events. Live training in realistic environments is key to real-world success and
is
provided at our range complexes, test ranges, and operating areas. Effective training requires
sufficient sea and airspace to maneuver in tactically realistic scenarios with credible targets and
accurate instrumentation to objectively monitor and play back the events for efficient learning.
Some scenarios lead to new tactics and improved methods. In addition to training U.S. sailors in
real-world conditions, military readiness requires developing ships, aircraft, weapons, combat
systems, sensors, and other necessary equipment to support their missions and to give them a
technological edge over adversaries. The wide open spaces that we see from the shoreline are but
a very small portion of the ocean and coastal space that our Navy has relied upon for generations
to provide training grounds for victory at sea. The true missions of a ready and capable seagoing force are twofold.
First, the United States, through its Navy, must accomplish tasking that furthers national interests. With competing importance, the
nation’s companion duty is to give its sailors the greatest likelihood of returning home safely from battle. Each improvement
in training and testing builds capability, improves mission execution, and allows more efficient
comprehension, all of which promote successful operations and reduce loss.
Only high level of Naval readiness keeps SLOCs open
Robb 14
Doug Robb- degrees in security studies from Georgetown's School of Foreign Service and the
U.S. Naval War College, operations officer of the USS Kidd, A View From the High Seas: The
Navy is Now more Important than other services because it provides unfettered presence, Best
Defense, APRIL 3, 2014,
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/03/a_view_from_the_high_seas_the_navy_is_
now_more_important_than_other_services_becaus
The Navy is omnipresent in every major geographic area around the world. The very presence of naval ships
simultaneously deters military aggression and assures our allies, safeguards the sea lanes and
the commerce that flows through them, preserves territorial waterway boundaries and the right to
resources contained therein, and facilitates a response to natural disasters and other
catastrophes -- like the disappearance of MH370. In this case, showing up is well more than half the battle.¶
The U.S. Navy's resilience can only endure with the understanding that a firm commitment to
building and maintaining a first-rate Navy -- capable of being present where our national
interests lie -- is not only desirable, it is necessary. This commitment is a policy prerequisite if the
United States -- a maritime nation whose interests have been safeguarded by the Navy since the country's founding -- wants
to retain the ability to influence outcomes, create additional windows of diplomacy, and control
escalation.
SLOC closure would immediately collapse global growth- Alternate
sources of oil can’t solve
Komiss/Huntzinger ‘11
(William Komiss PhD, is a senior research scientist at CAN, and the Scientific Analyst for
Director, Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, US Navy. LaVar Huntzinger is military
and environmental analysis for CNA [“The Economic Implications of Disruptions to Maritime
Oil Chokepoints,” CNA (Center for Naval Analysis), March 2011.
Online@http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/the%20economic%20implications%2
0of%20disruptions%20to%20maritime%20oil%20chokepoints%20d0024669%20a1.pdf SM]
The free flow of oil is critical to world commerce and global economic prosperity . Oil trade requires
the use of maritime trade routes, which can span from hundreds to thousands of miles. Hence, oil tankers often travel
through straits and canals to reduce transport costs. These passageways – referred to as chokepoints – are narrow channels along
the most widely used global sea routes. This study evaluates how potential disruptions at critical chokepoints could
affect the U.S. economy and economies around the world. While our methods could be used to understand the
importance of any chokepoint, we focus on the strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Malacca, the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the
Turkish Straits, and the Panama Canal. At any of these chokepoints, the world’s oil supply is at risk of disruption, and the oil
transported through these chokepoints has great value. As much as 17 million barrels per day (bpd) flow
through the Strait of Hormuz alone. Additionally, chokepoints tend to be in proximity to poor
countries, which often lack institutions that can enable or provide maritime security. Threats to the
world’s chokepoints are numerous and diverse. The Strait of Hormuz is under a direct threat of closure by Iran. Somali pirates and
terrorists are a growing concern for traffic through the Bab el-Mndeb Strait and the Suez Canal. China may become involved in a
conflict over the Strait of Malacca as Asia’s demand for energy grows, and environmental catastrophes could grow in
scale and frequency in the Turkish Straits as tanker traffic increases . We must be prepared for a
disruption to the flow of oil – potentially through a maritime chokepoint. The value of the oil that is
at risk is high, and a large disruption is not implausible. One independent 2004 study estimated a 25-percent probability that
one substantial disruption would occur before 2014. (A substantial disruption is one involving 5 million bbd or more – equal to or
greater than that experienced after the 1990 Invasion of Kuwait). If a disruption occurs, countries could mitigate the gross loss to the
flow of oil in several ways. Oil could be transported through major pipelines, which have more than 5 million bbd in unused capacity.
In some cases, like the Strait of Malacca, oil tankers could travel along alternative trade routes. Certain oil importing countries
would have the option to draw down their strategic reserves, and certain oil exporting countries could provide more oil than they
otherwise would supply to the market. We account for potential mitigation in our economic theory of oil
supply disruptions. A disruption to the supply of oil transported through a chokepoint is assumed to cause a country’s supply
of oil to fall by an amount equal to the product of (1) the net number of barrels disrupted and (2) the probability that a barrel is en
route to that country given it is transported through that chokepoint. The country’s reduced supply of oil would
cause the level of total production to decline. Therefore, the country’s national , or total, income
would fall and its unemployment rate would rise . The oil supply disruption would cause an
eventual increase in the price of oil, and the rate of inflation – or growth rate of overall prices –
would rise. Our method for using this theory to estimate the economic impacts of oil supply disruptions is straightforward. We
draw on two techniques – Input-Output analysis and Keynesian analysis. These methods are often used by economists to measure
the effects of macroeconomic shocks and our calculations involve only simple algebra. We us data that are publicly available from
sources like the Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the CIA World Factbook. We find that a few of the world’s
industrialized countries would enter a sudden, steep recession if a major oil disruption occurs at
the Straight of Hormuz, and countries with large strategic reserves do not share them with the rest of the
world. Our findings for the economic disruptions on the United States are similar to the results of comparable
studies. However, where those studies focus solely on the U.S. economy, we examine the effects of oil supply disruptions on over 30
countries for which the required data are available.
Global economic collapse means nuclear war
Friedberg and Schenfeld, 8 (Aaron Friedberg-professor of politics and international relations at the
Woodrow Wilson School, and Gabriel Schoenfeld-visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute, 10/21/2008, The Dangers of a
Diminished America, The Wall Street Journal, p. HYPERLINK
"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1224550740
12352571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial
architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use
of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted
on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile,
traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been
extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly
down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now
tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our
continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could
all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance
ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by
the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the
risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at
our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost
certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the
Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven
down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment
and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a
country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this
is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal
travails with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations
are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past
dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical
power.
Naval power the most important internal link to hardpower, failure
crushes alliances
Eaglen, Research Fellow National Security at Heritage, ’11 (Mackenzie, May 16, “Thinking
About a Day Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy”
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/thinking-about-a-day-without-sea-powerimplications-for-us-defense-policy)
Global Implications. Under a scenario of dramatically reduced naval power, the United States would cease to
be active in any international alliances. While it is reasonable to assume that land and air forces would be similarly
reduced in this scenario, the lack of credible maritime capability to move their bulk and establish
forward bases would render these forces irrelevant, even if the Army and Air Force were
retained at today’s levels. In Iraq and Afghanistan today, 90 percent of material arrives by sea,
although material bound for Afghanistan must then make a laborious journey by land into theater.
In particular, the US must send clear signal on naval readiness key to
stop Senkaku war and collapse of allied cohesion
Spitzer ‘12
By Kirk Spitzer Sept. 14, 2012, Japan Frets over U.S. Support in China Dispute,
http://nation.time.com/2012/09/14/84857/
TOKYO – When the U.S. Defense Secretary arrives in Asia this weekend, his biggest challenge may not be convincing China that
America will give its full support to longtime ally Japan in the escalating dispute over islands in the
East China Sea. His biggest challenge may be convincing Japan.¶ ¶ “There is a perception in Japan that the U.S.
commitment is ambiguous,” says Yoichiro Sato, director of international strategic studies at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific
University in southern Japan. “If China thinks Japan will hesitate to respond or that America will
hesitate, that will embolden the Chinese. It’s better that America sends a clear, explicit message
now than have to respond to something worse later.”¶ ¶ On Friday, a group of six Chinese marine-surveillance
ships entered territorial waters around the remote Senkaku Islands, which are claimed and administered by Japan as sovereign
territory. It was the latest and most serious escalation in the dispute over the small but potentially valuable islands; they are also
claimed by China, where they are known as Diaoyu.¶ ¶ Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is scheduled to meet separately with Japan’s
Foreign and Defense ministers on Monday before continuing on to China and later New Zealand. It will be Panetta’s third trip to
Asia in 11 months as the U.S. looks to rebalance its forces in the region in response to China’s growing military power and
assertiveness.¶ ¶ The disagreement between Japan and China over ownership of Senkaku/Diaoyu, a group of tiny islets and rock
outcroppings near Taiwan, has grown increasingly bitter. Though surrounding seabeds are believed to hold large deposits of oil and
gas, the dispute hinges largely on issues related to Japan’s wartime and colonial period.¶ ¶ (PHOTOS: Anti-Japan Protests Hit
China’s Capital)¶ ¶ The lightly armed Chinese marine-surveillance ships’ entry into Senkaku/Diaoyu territorial waters was an
apparent display of Beijing’s displeasure at the purchase of the islands by Japan’s national government earlier this week. Though
Tokyo insists that the purchase — from private owners in Japan — was necessary to preserve the islands in their current state, China
views the transaction as illegal and an affront to its sovereign rights.¶ ¶ (Kyodo News reported Saturday that more than 60,000
Chinese citizens staged anti-Japan rallies in at least 24 cities to protest the purchase of the islands. These appeared to be the largest
anti-Japan demonstrations in China in terms of participants and cities involved since the two countries normalized diplomatic
relations in 1972. Some rallies turned violent, with protestors clashing with police and destroying Japanese-brand cars. The rallies
appeared to have the tacit approval of Chinese authorities amid a flood of anti-Japan reports and broadcasts by official Chinese
media.)¶ ¶ Officially, the U.S. takes no position on the Senkaku-Diaoyu dispute or the many other
conflicting territorial claims that are upsetting the region. Under
the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, the U.S. is
obligated to respond to any attack on Japan or its territory. Pressed to declare whether that
security umbrella includes Senkaku/Diaoyu, U.S. officials stated publicly that the treaty applies
to “all areas under Japanese administration” — a seemingly clear nod to Senkaku/Diaoyu.But Sato
says that’s not clear enough. The alliance also calls for Japan to take “primary responsibility” for territorial defense. That could give
the U.S. a loophole to avoid confronting its most important trading partner and leave Japan on its own, he says.¶ “If Japan loses
the islands and the U.S. doesn’t come to aid Japan, the credibility of not only the U.S. alliance with Japan but of all
U.S. alliances globally would be severely harmed,” Sato says.
Perception is key—weakness leads to Japan prolif
Schieffer in 08
(J. Thomas, US Ambassador to Japan, Vital Speeches of the Day; Mar2008, Vol. 74 Issue 3,115119)
Ever since the end of World War II America has believed that its security was inextricably tied to the security of Japan. Nothing has
occurred with the rise of China that should alter that view. When the US-Japan alliance is strong, a calm settles
over Asia. If, on the other hand, Japan lost faith in America or came to the conclusion that Japanese interest
would be sacrificed by us for the benefit of China--and I think Asia would immediately become more dangerous
- that need not happen but to avoid it we must understand one thing with greater clarity: Asia is not Europe. Since the
invention of the nation state, generations of Europeans grew up thinking about how to balance one nation's interests
against another's. This horizontal sharing of power became the mainstay of European foreign policy
and the center of gravity in the international quarter. British foreign policy was grounded on the notion that no
nation should be dominant on the continent of Europe. French and Russian foreign policy wanted the German states to contemplate
a two-front war as a means of moderating German ambitions. Germany, from the opposite perspective, wanted to avoid
encirclement. All looked to others as a means of enhancing their own positions inside Europe and throughout the world. Now, with
the advent of the European Union and the collapse of the Soviet Union all that has changed but the culture of balancing one nation's
interests against another's has not. America came of age as a great power seeing itself in a European mirror. Our foreign policy has
largely been Eurocentric. As a result we have often looked at the world in European terms, searching for balance in a European
fashion. Simply put, that is a very foreign concept to most Asians. Power has not been shared
horizontally in Asia. It has been thought of in vertical terms. Someone is above and someone is below. Europe
has been about balance; Asia about hierarchy. The strongest have been on top, the weakest in
descending order. Asia will need time to get comfortable with the notion that someone's advance
does not have to come at the expense of someone else's decline. I find it somewhat amusing but also
instructive that America's pop culture phrase of creating a "win-win situation" has caused problems for translators in China, Japan
and Korea because, I'm told, there are no words that can be literally translated in any of those languages to convey the thought
Americans are trying to spread. As a result, the English phrase "win-win" has found its way into all those languages. America, as it
moves forward, will best be served if it adopts a hybrid foreign policy that is more Eurasian than either European or Asian. One of
the things we can do to effectuate that is to talk to our allies and friends about the advantages of addressing problems in a
multilateral matter. In the post-war period, American foreign policy in Asia has largely been successful following a hub and spoke
model. We have had good bilateral relations with friends and allies that were not dependent on their multilateral cooperation with
each other. While such a policy has worked well in the past, it is time now to encourage more cooperation between American allies
and friends than we've had today.
Japan nuclearization collapses the NPT and sparks East Asian arms
races
Chanlett-Avery and Nikitin in 09
(Emma, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Mary Beth, Analyst in Nonproliferation at the CRS, 2009.
“Japan’s Nuclear Future: Policy Debate, Prospects, and U.S. Interests,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34487.pdf)
Today, Japanese officials and experts remain remarkably uniform in their consensus that Japan is unlikely to move
toward nuclear status in the short-to-medium term. However, as the security environment has shifted
significantly, the topic is no longer toxic and has been broached by several leading politicians. North Korea’s test of a
nuclear device in 2006 and China’s military modernization have altered the strategic dynamics in the region, and any signs of stress
in the U.S.-Japan alliance raises questions among some about the robustness of the U.S. security guarantee. An ascendant
hawkish, conservative movement—some of whom openly advocate for Japan to develop an
independent nuclear arsenal—has gained more traction in Japanese politics, moving from the margins
to a more influential position. In addition, previous security-related taboos have been overcome in the past few years: the dispatch of
Japanese military equipment and personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan, the elevation of the Japanese Defense Agency to a full scale
ministry, and Japanese co-development of a missile defense system with the United States. All of these factors together increase the
still unlikely possibility that Japan will reconsider its position on nuclear weapons. Any reconsideration and/or shift
of Japan’s policy of nuclear abstention would have significant implications for U.S. policy in
East Asia. In this report, an examination of the factors driving Japan’s decision-making—most
prominently, the strength of the U.S. security guarantee— analyzes how the nuclear debate in Japan affects
U.S. security interests in the region. Globally, Japan’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) would damage the world’s most durable international non-proliferation regime. Regionally, Japan “going nuclear”
could set off an arms race with China, South Korea, and Taiwan. India and/or Pakistan may then
feel compelled to further expand or modernize their own nuclear weapons capabilities. Bilaterally, assuming that Japan made the
decision without U.S. support, the move could indicate a lack of trust in the U.S. commitment to defend Japan. An erosion in
the U.S.-Japan alliance could upset the geopolitical balance in East Asia, a shift that could
strengthen China’s position as an emerging hegemonic power. All of these ramifications would likely be
deeply destabilizing for the security of the Asia Pacific region and beyond.
Impact of Asian arms race is nuclear war
Rosen in 05
(Stephen, Harvard College Professor and Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security
and Military Affairs at Harvard University, Foreign Affairs, “After Proliferation: What to Do If
More States Go Nuclear,” p. Lexis)
Historical evidence suggests that arms races sometimes precipitate wars because governments come to see
conflict as preferable to financial exhaustion or believe they can gain a temporary military advantage through war.
Arguably, a nuclear war would be so destructive that its prospect might well dissuade states
from escalating conflicts. But energetic arms races would still produce larger arsenals, making it
harder to prevent the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms races might
emerge in regions other than the Middle East as well. Asia features many countries with major territorial or
political disputes, including five with nuclear weapons (China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia).
Japan and Taiwan could join the list. Most of these countries would have the resources to increase the
size and quality of their nuclear arsenals indefinitely if they so chose. They also seem to be nationalist in a
way that western European countries no longer are: they are particularly mindful of their sovereignty, relatively uninterested
in international organizations, sensitive to slights, and wary about changes in the regional
balance of military power. Were the United States to stop serving as guarantor of the current
order, Asia might well be, in the words of the Princeton political science professor Aaron Friedberg, "ripe for rivalry" -including nuclear rivalry. In that case, the region would raise problems similar to those that would be posed by a nuclear
Middle East.
Collapse of the NPT also leads to nuclear war
Butler 8
(Declan, Senior Reporter – Nature, Nature Magazine, Nuclear war: the threat that never went away, by Declan Butler, 1/9/2008,
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/nuclear-war-threat-never-went-away-declan-butler
The NPT is now at a dangerous tipping point, say experts such as
Allison, who warn that unless rapid progress is made on
non-proliferation issues, there is a real risk of nuclear weapons
being used for the first time since the bombing of
Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. The issues will come to a head at an intergovernmental
meeting in 2010 in Vienna, Austria, of the NPT's 189 members. On
the
table are likely to be controversial proposals to end flouting of the
NPT by withdrawing the right that countries have enjoyed to develop
civil
uranium-enrichment technology - which can be diverted to
military ends. Low-enriched uranium fuel would instead be supplied via
multilaterally
controlled fuel banks and enrichment facilities, under
the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But
the NPT review
conference, which is held every five years, will above
all be a measure of the international community's resolve to generate
much-needed impetus for a
suite of wide-ranging related steps designed
to reinforce the NPT to deal with current threats.
Consensus
on tightening-up the
non-proliferation regime will be
impossible unless the five official nuclear-weapons states - the
United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - agree to take
concrete steps to remove nuclear weapons
from their security
doctrines, to not build new weapons, and to accelerate dismantlement
of existing arsenals.
The grand bargain
The original aim
of the NPT, which came into force in 1970, was to
restrict the weapons to the five countries that already openly
possessed them, all of which agreed to
take steps to disarm. As part
of the 'grand bargain', other states agreed not to develop nuclear
weapons, but were guaranteed an 'inalienable right' to
use nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes, dubbed atoms for peace.
Over the past decade, the nuclear-weapons states' reluctance to
embrace their
side of the NPT bargain has stalled non-proliferation
efforts and countries such as India and Pakistan have tested weapons.
Huge progress was made
at review conferences in 1995 and 2000,
including a package deal of 13 steps to further the NPT's twin goals
of non-proliferation and disarmament by
the existing nuclear-weapons
states, such as a commitment to a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty (CTBT) and a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty
to outlaw the
production of new weapons material.
The reaction to the 11 September terrorist attacks in 2001 stopped
progress, and the 2005
review conference ended with almost no
agreement. "The 13 steps have been rolled back or forgotten about,"
says Jean du Preez, an arms expert at the
Monterey Institute of
International Studies in California. Indeed, non-proliferation efforts
have if anything gone backwards. The United States and
China,
signatories to the CTBT, have failed to ratify it, and so prevented
the treaty entering into force. And the US 2002 Nuclear Posture
Review,
while making cuts to the country's weapons infrastructure,
flew in the face of its NPT commitments by increasing the role of
nuclear weapons in its
security doctrine and expanding the scenarios
in which they might be used to include attacks on countries with
biological or chemical weapons.
Nuclear arms-races
North
Korea's testing of a nuclear device in 2006, and Iran's possible
pursuit of
nuclear weapons also pose significant challenges to the
NPT. There is risk of a domino effect - if
Iran acquires nuclear
weapons, so will Saudi Arabia in response, launching a nuclear
arms-race
in the increasingly volatile Middle East.
Only US-Japan alliance is key to prevents North Korean War
Okimoto ‘2
Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of
the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002
[Yukio, “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance,” spring 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2,
http://www.twq.com/02spring/okamoto.pdf]
Despite its years of famine; its evaporating industrial and energy infrastructure; and its choking, inhumane
society, the DPRK government still refuses to retreat to its place on the ash heap of history. Despite
the poverty of the people, the North Korean military maintains an arsenal of thousands of
rocket launchers and pieces of artillery—some of which are possibly loaded with chemical
and biological warheads—awaiting the signal to wipe Seoul off the map. The DPRK’s immense
stock of weapons includes large numbers of Nodong missiles capable of striking Japan’s western coastal
regions and probably longer-range missiles capable of hitting every major Japanese city. The United States
has two combat aircraft wings in the ROK, in Osan and Kunsan. In addition, some 30,000 U.S. Army troops are
stationed near Seoul. Most military experts admit that the army troops serve a largely
symbolic function; if an actual war were to erupt, a massive North Korean artillery
bombardment could pin down both the U.S. Eighth Army and the ROK armed forces at the incipient
stage. The firepower the USFJ can bring to bear upon the Korean Peninsula within a matter
of hours makes the U.S.-Japan alliance the Damoclean sword hanging over the DPRK. The
DPRK leaders are masters of deception and manipulation, but they know that launching a
military strike against the ROK will expose them to a strong and final counterstrike from
U.S. forces in Japan.
DPRK war is extinction
Doyle 9
(Clare, Committee for a Workers' International, Nuclear sabre-rattling,
http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/06/0701.html)
In the past couple of weeks, three 'events' in the peninsula have hit the headlines. There was the renewed nuclear bomb
and missile testing in the north, accompanied by threats of resuming a war that is more than half a
century old. At about the same time there was the suicide of a former president in the south, followed by mass demonstrations of
grief and protest at the present right-wing government. Thirdly, came news that the ailing North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, had
named his successor. These events coming together have underlined the instability of the situation on the
peninsula. In particular, the question is raised of whether a war will take place – one that could
develop into a nuclear war threatening the very survival of the planet.
But a strong navy de-escalates all conflict and deters great power war,
solving disads
Roughead, 7 -- Admiral, US Navy, Chief of Naval Operations
[Gary, James Conway, General, US Marine Corps, and Thad Allen, Admiral, US Coast Guard, "A
Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower," Oct 2007,
www.navy.mil/maritime/Maritimestrategy.pdf, accessed 1-24-13, mss]
This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and ashore. The expeditionary character and versatility of
maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric advantage of enlarging or contracting its military
footprint in areas where access is denied or limited. Permanent or prolonged basing of our military forces overseas often has
unintended economic, social or political repercussions. The sea is a vast maneuver space, where the presence of
maritime forces can be adjusted as conditions dictate to enable flexible approaches to escalation, deescalation and deterrence of conflicts. The speed, flexibility, agility and scalability of
maritime forces provide joint or combined force commanders a range of options for responding to crises.
Additionally, integrated maritime operations, either within formal alliance structures (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or more
informal arrangements (such as the Global Maritime Partnership initiative), send powerful messages to would-be aggressors that we will act with
others to ensure collective security and prosperity. United States seapower will be globally postured to secure our homeland and citizens from direct
attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our security and prosperity are inextricably linked with those of others, U.S.
maritime
forces will be deployed to protect and sustain the peaceful global system comprised of interdependent
networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance. We will employ the global reach, persistent presence, and operational flexibility
inherent in U.S. seapower to accomplish six key tasks, or strategic imperatives. Where tensions are high or where we wish to demonstrate to our friends
and allies our commitment to security and stability, U.S.
maritime forces will be characterized by regionally concentrated,
forward-deployed task forces with the combat power to limit regional conflict , deter major power war ,
and should deterrence fail, win our Nation’s wars as part of a joint or combined campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces will
be globally distributed in order to contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain cooperative relationships with an expanding set of
international partners, and prevent or mitigate disruptions and crises. Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the Western Pacific and
the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our friends and allies of our continuing commitment to regional security, and deter
and dissuade potential adversaries and peer competitors. This combat
power can be selectively and rapidly
repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere. These forces will be sized and postured to
fulfill the following strategic imperatives: Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime power. Today regional conflict has
ramifications far beyond the area of conflict. Humanitarian
crises, violence spreading across borders,
pandemics, and the interruption of vital resources are all possible when regional crises erupt. While this strategy
advocates a wide dispersal of networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere, and we cannot act to mitigate all regional conflict. Where
conflict threatens the global system and our national interests, maritime forces will be ready to respond
alongside other elements of national and multi-national power, to give political leaders a range of options for
deterrence, escalation and de-escalation. Maritime forces that are persistently present and combat-ready
provide the Nation’s primary forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as they provide the means for this Nation to
respond quickly to other crises. Whether over the horizon or powerfully arrayed in plain sight, maritime forces can deter the ambitions of
regional aggressors, assure friends and allies, gain and maintain access, and protect our citizens while working to sustain the global order.
Critical to this notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleet—ships, aircraft, Marine forces, and shorebased fleet activities—capable of selectively controlling the seas, projecting power ashore, and protecting friendly forces and civilian
populations from attack. Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major powers.
Maintenance and extension of this Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key component of
deterring major power war . While war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects
demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of maritime forces—
our lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and
operational agility—provide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to
deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.
Naval power prevents Asian wars solving all China scenarios
Hultin and Blair 6 (Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Undersecretary for the Navy, Dennis Blair,
former President for the Institute of Defense Analysis and Admiral, US Navy, “Naval Power and
Globalization,” September, 2006
http://www.poly.edu/president/_doc/hultin%20naval%20power.pdf)
Even if the interaction of US and Chinese decisions in future avoids a global naval arms race centered in the Pacific, China will still have a
capable regional navy. World
events may put China and the United States on opposite sides of an issue
or crisis, leading to a maritime confrontation. The most likely location for this scenario is
Taiwan. Successful deterrence depends on the United States having strong naval capability
on station or quickly deployable so that there is no incentive to China or other adversaries to
initiate hostilities. The second Pacific area in which the United States must maintain a deterrent capability based on
naval power is around the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is a failing state, but so long as Kim Jong II and his successors
maintain their position of power, they will need to be deterred from military aggression. To maintain deterrence, American
naval strategy in the Pacific must preserve its alliance base, its forward deployed posture and its
ability to reinforce quickly to assert maritime superiority throughout any crisis situation.
Advantage Two. Environment
Offshore energy projects are increase ocean sprawl and destroying
ocean biodiversity—CSMP coordination solves
Forbes, “Ocean Sprawl: What Is It And What It Means for Business”, October 26, 2011,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericagies/2011/10/26/ocean-sprawl-what-is-it-and-what-does-itmean-for-business/
Industrial development is on the rise in ocean waters. So-called ocean spatial planning seeks to balance
development and ocean protection by using science to identify the most delicate ocean areas and
directing industry elsewhere.¶ But industrial activities in oceans can also harm ecosystems: oil
and gas extraction, sand and gravel mining, installation of underwater pipelines and utility
cables, commercial shipping, aquaculture. New activities are also popping up: offshore wind,
wave and tidal energy. When too many of these projects cluster in close proximity, it results in
industrial sprawl, putting further pressure on already distressed natural habitats .¶ Because the
oceans are governed by many different agencies and laws, balancing ecosystem protection and
economic development can be difficult.¶ According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:¶
“Coastal and marine spatial planning identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of
activities in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate
compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental,
security, and social objectives.”¶ In a global, interconnected ocean “commons,” the actions of one company or even an
entire sector are not enough to address cumulative impacts of growing ocean use by a diverse range of industries. There is
clearly a need for ocean industries to collaborate within and across sectors to address impacts,
reduce conflicts, develop proactive ocean sustainability leadership, and constructively engage
other stakeholders.¶ WOC promises member businesses reduced risk, a louder voice, and an improved image. Marine spatial
planning is also developing in Australia, Europe, and other areas.
Human over-usage is destroying coral reefs
NOAA 2012 (NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, December 2012,
“Hazards to Coral Reefs”, http://www.coris.noaa.gov/about/hazards/)
Coral reefs face numerous hazards and threats. As human populations and coastal pressures
increase, reef resources are more heavily exploited, and many coral habitats continue to decline.
Current estimates note that 10 percent of all coral reefs are degraded beyond recovery. Thirty
percent are in critical condition and may die within 10 to 20 years. Experts predict that if current pressures are allowed to continue
unabated, 60 percent of the world's coral reefs may die completely by 2050 (CRTF, 2000). Reef degradation occurs in
response to both natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) stresses. Threats to coral reefs can be also
classified as either local or global: local threats include overfishing, destructive fishing practices, nutrient runoff, sedimentation, and
coral disease while global threats include mass coral bleaching produced by rising sea surface temperature (worsened by climate
change), and ocean acidification. Together, these represent some of the greatest threats to coral reefs. ¶ Coral reef threats often do
not occur in isolation, but together, having cumulative effects on the reefs and decreasing its overall resiliency. Following
destructive natural events such as hurricanes, cyclones or disease outbreaks, reefs can be
damaged or weakened, but healthy ones generally are resilient and eventually recover. In many
cases, however, natural disturbances are exacerbated by anthropogenic stresses, such as
pollution, sedimentation and overfishing, which can further weaken coral systems and
compromise their ability to recover from disturbances. Conversely, a reef directly or indirectly
affected by anthropogenic stresses may be too weak to withstand a natural event. In addition,
many scientists believe that human activities intensify natural disturbances, subjecting coral
reefs to stronger, more frequent storms, disease outbreaks and other natural events.
Particularly, US coral reefs
Latzman 2014 (Phil Latzman, award-winning journalist for Miami Herald, June 26, 2014,
“Protecting coral reefs more important than extra $$$”, http://www.sunsentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-plcol-oped0626-20140626,0,7065185.column)
To dredge, or not to dredge. That is the question facing port cities in the US and beyond trying to stay on the manifest for the next
big shipment. But in Florida there's some extra delicate cargo under the sea that we must protect.
Our irreplaceable coral reefs.¶ As if they weren't already endangered, the state's sickly reefs are about to get stomped in a
vicious assault that is only just beginning. Like environmental serial killers with no conscience, dredging projects threaten to pour
poison into existing festering wounds on the ocean floor.¶ Florida has 15 deep water seaports frantically trying to
reconfigure to accommodate the trade commerce of the future, several of them in negotiations
for expansion, or already in progress to do so. Many of our leaders support such efforts.¶ Gov. Rick Scott has toured
the state's ports advocating for more federal help to complete the projects. His wish was granted last week as Congress passed a law
doing just that. U.S. Rep Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, lauded the bill's passage as necessary so that "South Florida economy does not
miss the boat — pun intended — on the Panama Canal expansion."¶ So, it's a bipartisan lot of Republicans and Democrats alike that
say the dredge projects are needed to keep Florida economically competitive in the game of international commerce. They claim
they'll will lead to thousands of additional jobs and billions of dollars in additional income and tariffs to the region. ¶ However,
when the consequences are weighed, no amount of money or jobs should be worth the risk of
accelerating the decline of our most precious natural resource.¶ Just look at what is happening at the state's
largest port. Miami's big dig may foreshadow coral doom ahead at Fort Lauderdale's Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach and
elsewhere.¶ Port Miami's $200 million-dollar-plus carving officially scraped bottom this month. The US Army Corps of Engineers'
project is designed to deepen Miami's shipping channel by ten feet to be compatible with the Panama Canal more than 1,000 miles
to the south. It's scheduled to be completed by mid-2015.¶ With only 12 days allowed between permits, marine researchers recently
made a mad dash to salvage some 900 species of reef as quickly as possible before excavators tear through and destroy it to make
room for the new channel compatible with the newly expanded Panama Canal.¶ Despite their desperate scramble, biologists at the
University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science estimate thousands of corals will be lost, along with a
countless amount of priceless marine life that currently lives in it and among it.¶ Reefs are also our first line of protection from storm
surge. Recent studies published in The Journal Nature Communications, show they can reduce wave energy hitting the coastline by
more than 95 percent. Removing them will simply make us more vulnerableto the inevitable hurricane.¶ The damaging dredgery is
imminent at Port Everglades. Fort Lauderdale's main port is asking the US Army Corps of Engineers to dig down to the 48 foot mark
— just two feet above Miami's. This project is expected to destroy 20 more acres of ancient reef. Port officials in Palm Beach want a
piece of the action as well, proposing a similar deepening project to accommodate the spillover caused by expansion in Miami and
Fort Lauderdale..¶ According to a United Nations report released this month, global warming is already causing trillions of dollars of
damage to our fragile undersea ecosystem. Anyone with scuba equipment has noticed the difference in the way these precious stalks
look to the naked eye due to rising sea temperatures.¶ It's disturbing to see reef once bursting with colors and fish, now faded,
bleached and devoid of life. It's a disturbing reality that our reefs are dying faster than nature can keep
up. And that would be without any help from mankind.¶ It was only a century ago that many of our leaders
thought draining the Florida Everglades would be an economic boon to the state. It turned out to be environmental disaster we are
now working against the clock to reverse.¶ Is purposely wrecking our fragile reefs Florida's next big man-made mistake? We simply
can't afford to find out, no matter how much commerce it brings.
Reefs are largest internal link to cumulative global biodiversity
NOS 2014 (National Ocean Service, April 17, 2014, “Healthy Coral Reefs are Valuable to
You”, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/oceans/corals/)
Did you know that, per unit area, coral reefs support more species than any other marine environment?
Reefs also rival rainforests in the amount of biodiversity they support. Thousands of creatures rely on coral
reefs for their survival. Hidden beneath the ocean waters, reefs are also some of the oldest ecosystems on the planet, reflecting
thousands of years of history. Although individual coral polyps are tiny, they create the largest living structures on earth—some reefs
are visible from space!¶ Did you know that approximately 500 million people worldwide depend upon reefs ?
In fact, 30
million are virtually totally dependent upon reefs. Coral ecosystems are a source of food
for millions; protect coastlines from storms and erosion; provide habitat, spawning and nursery
grounds for economically important fish species; provide jobs and income to local economies
from fishing, recreation, and tourism; are a source of new medicines, and are hotspots of marine
biodiversity. These values contribute approximately $29.8 billion to world economies each year. Continued decline of
reefs will have alarming consequences for people worldwide.
Ocean biodiversity key to survival
Craig 3 - Attorneys’ Title Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs at
Florida State University
(Robin Kundis Craig, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing
and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review, Winter 2003,
34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial
ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism
values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and
dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste
treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally,
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that
represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus,
and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense,
therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life .
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that,
in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly
dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef
ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity
of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine
environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that
many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and
restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem
services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine
disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.
However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of
ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a
recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United
States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but
we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every
problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to
admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence
should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States
has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.
Arctic oil spills are inevitable now—will destroy entire ecosystem
Sjøgren ‘14
Kristian. Even tiny oil spills may break Arctic food chain, January 30, 2014 - 06:10, Drilling for
oil in the Arctic may have catastrophic consequences, new study suggests.
http://sciencenordic.com/even-tiny-oil-spills-may-break-arctic-food-chain
New research shows that even tiny oil spills in the Arctic could mean that the entire food chain
collapses. (Photo: Shutterstock)¶ As the Arctic ice is melting, areas that used to be covered by a thick layer of ice become
accessible.¶ These areas contain great amounts of oil and are therefore of great interest to oil
companies.¶ However, according to a new study, drilling for oil in these areas can have disastrous
consequences if the increased ship traffic, and the possible oil spills, increase the amounts of oil
in the ecosystem.¶ One of the cornerstones of the Arctic food web – the copepod species Calanus
hyperboreus – responds particularly poorly to even the tiniest amounts of oil in the water, and
once these copepods run into problems, the entire food chain – with everything from fish to
humans in it – also runs into problems.¶ So says Professor Torkel Gissel Nielsen, of DTU Aqua at
the Technical University of Denmark, who co-authored the new study, published in the journal Ecotoxicology.¶
“There are huge oil reserves in the Arctic. When we start extracting them, there will inevitably be
spillage at some point,” he says.¶ The Calanus hyperboreus is one of 13,000 copepod species. (Photo: Russ Hopcroft)¶ “Our
research shows that it only takes tiny amounts of oil in the sea to significantly reduce copepod
egg hatching rates. If there are no copepods in the sea, there is no food for the fry. Even tiny oil
spills in the Arctic can end up breaking the food chain entirely.”
Arctic ecosystems are key to sustainability of entire global ecosystem
Gofman ‘6
Victoria Gofman is the Executive Director Bering Sea Sub-Network ¶ Implementation Workshop ¶ November 26, 2006 ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ Aleut
International Association ¶ 333 W. 4t h Avenue, Suite 301 ¶ Anchorage, AK 99501 ¶ 907-332-5388 ¶ email: aia@alaska.net,
http://www.aleut-international.org/files/Download/BSSN%20Report%2002.21.07.pdf
Mr. Gill provided information on the importance of preserving ¶ arctic biodiversity. The Arctic is home to diverse
indigenous ¶ cultures. It is the breeding ground for hundreds of migratory ¶ species that occupy
every part of the world with the exception of ¶ the interior of Antarctica. Species within the Arctic have a high
¶ genetic diversity and the Arctic biodiversity is critical to human ¶ well-being providing fuel, food,
fodder, nature tourism, fiber, ¶ pharmaceuticals and more. Some of the world’s few remaining ¶ pristine environments can be found
in the Arctic including vast ¶ wilderness areas. The Arctic plays a key role in the physical, ¶ chemical and
biological balance of the globe and represents an ¶ early warning system. By monitoring its changes, we
will provide ¶ knowledge that can be used elsewhere around the world. ¶ Arctic biodiversity is facing growing pressures from climate
change ¶ to the cumulative impacts of roads and pipelines, oil/gas ¶ development, urbanization, forestry, mining and agriculture.
Ecosystem collapse is the end of civilization
Agence France-Presse Wednesday, June 6, 2012 17:03 EDT
PARIS — Climate change, population growth and environmental destruction could cause a collapse of the ecosystem just a
few generations from now, scientists warned on Wednesday in the journal Nature.¶ The paper by 22 top researchers said a “tipping
point” by which the biosphere goes into swift and irreversible change, with potentially cataclysmic
impacts for humans, could occur as early as this century.¶ The warning contrasts with a mainstream view among scientists
that environmental collapse would be gradual and take centuries.¶ The study appears ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on
Sustainable Development, the 20-year followup to the Earth Summit that set down priorities for protecting the environment.¶ The
Nature paper, written by biologists, ecologists, geologists and palaeontologists from three continents,
compared the biological impact of past episodes of global change with what is happening today.¶
The factors in today’s equation include a world population that is set to rise from seven billion to around 9.3 billion by mid-century
and global warming that will outstrip the UN target of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).¶ The team determined that once
50-90 percent of small-scale ecosystems become altered, the entire eco-web tips over into a new state, characterised especially by
species extinctions.¶ Once the shift happens, it cannot be reversed.¶ To support today’s population, about 43 percent
of Earth’s ice-free land surface is being used for farming or habitation, according to the study.¶ On current trends, the 50 percent
mark will be reached by 2025, a point the scientists said is worryingly close to the tipping point.¶ If that happened, collapse
would entail a shocking disruption for the world’s food supply, with bread-basket regions
curtailed in their ability to grow corn, wheat, rice, fodder and other essential crops.¶ “It really will be a
new world, biologically, at that point,” said lead author Anthony Barnosky, a professor of integrative biology at the University of
California in Berkeley.¶ “The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe
impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries,
agriculture, forest products and clean water. This could happen within just a few generations.Ӧ The authors stressed it was unclear
when this feared tipover would happen, given blanks in knowledge about the phenomenon.¶ And they said there were plenty of
solutions — such as ending unsustainable patterns of growth and resource waste — that mean it is not inevitable.¶ “In a nutshell,
humans have not done anything really important to stave off the worst because the social structures for doing something just aren’t
there,” said Arne Mooers, a professor of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in Canada’s British Columbia.
Ecosystem collapse leads to escalating wars
Homer-Dixon ‘91
On The Threshold:¶ Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict¶ Part 1¶ Thomas F.
Homer-Dixon¶ Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto ¶
International Security, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Fall 1991), pp. 76-116
How might environmental change lead to acute conflict? Some experts propose that environmental
change may shift the balance of power between states either regionally or globally, producing
instabilities that could lead to war.3 Or, as global environmental damage increases the disparity between the North and
the South, poor nations may militarily confront the rich for a greater share of the world's wealth.4 Warmer temperatures could lead
to contention over new ice-free sea-lanes in the Arctic or more accessible resources in the Antarctic.5 Bulging populations and land
stress may produce waves of environmental refugees6 that spill across borders with destabilizing effects on the recipient's domestic
order and on international stability. Countries may fight over dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream pollution.7 In
developing countries, a sharp drop in food crop production could lead to internal strife across urban-rural and nomadic-sedentary
cleavages.8 If environmental degradation makes food supplies increasingly tight, exporters may be tempted to use food as a
weapon.9 Environmental change could ultimately cause the gradual impoverishment of societies in both the North and South, which
could aggravate class and ethnic cleavages, undermine liberal regimes, and spawn insurgencies.10 Finally, many scholars indicate
that environmental degradation will "ratchet up" the level of stress within national and
international society, thus increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflict and
impeding the development of cooperative solutions.11¶ Which of these scenarios are most plausible and why? In
the following pages, I review some reasons for the current salience of environmental issues, and I note several examples of good
research on links between environmental change and acute conflict. I then suggest a preliminary analytical framework that lays out a
research agenda for exploring the issue. Using this framework, and drawing on the literature of conflict theory, I suggest hypotheses
about the likely links between environmental change and acute conflict.¶ I propose that poor countries will in general be
more vulnerable to environmental change than rich ones; therefore, environmentally induced
conflicts are likely to arise first in the developing world. In these countries, a range of atmospheric, terrestrial,
and aquatic environmental pressures will in time probably produce, either singly or in combination, four main, causally interrelated
social effects: reduced agricultural production, economic decline, population displacement, and disruption of regular and legitimized
social relations. These social effects, in turn, may cause several specific types of acute conflict, including
scarcity disputes between countries, clashes between ethnic groups, and civil strife and
insurgency, each with potentially serious repercussions for the security interests of the
developed world.
CMSP mitigates the effects of climate change and existing stressors on
biodiversity
Craig 12 (Robin Kundis Craig is Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental
Programs, Florida State University College of Law, Tallahassee, FL.) published 05/18/12
“Marine Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Governance of ¶ the Oceans” Diversity 2012 ISSN
1424-2818 Volume 4: 224-238
Because climate change interacts synergistically with existing stressors to reduce marine ¶
biodiversity [55], one important climate change adaptation strategy is to reduce existing
stressors to ¶ marine ecosystems [59]. MSP and marine reserve designations can, themselves,
help to drive such ¶ attention to non-climate change stressors. For example, the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands are one of ¶ the last nearly pristine coral reef ecosystems in the world, leading
to their protection through U.S. law as the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument
[55]. The recognition of this system’s ¶ biological and cultural importance to Native Hawaiians
helped to inspire the phase-out of commercial ¶ fishing there and continuing efforts remove
plastic litter arriving from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, ¶ eliminate invasive species, and reintroduce native and endemic species to the various islands ¶ and atolls [55] (p. 127).
That solves impacts of climate change
CDFW ‘14
Reducing Existing Stressors: Invasive Species Management,
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/Climate_and_Energy/Climate_Change/Case_Studies/Invasive_Species
.aspx
Maintaining and restoring ecosystem function is a cornerstone of natural resource climate change
adaptation. CDFW is pursuing actions that will increase resistance to climate change, promote
resilience, enable ecosystem responses, and realign restoration and management activities to
better reflect changing conditions. Reducing non-climate stressors, such as habitat destruction and
fragmentation, pollution, and invasive species will help improve the ability of natural systems to withstand
or adapt to impacts associated with climate change.
Drilling and oil transport are inevitable but MSP solves the impact to
marine life
Hildreth et al 12 (Richard G. Hildreth – Professor of Law and Director of the Ocean and
Coastal Law Center and Lynne Nickol, “Implementing Regional Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning,” 2012,
http://cusli.org/2013Conference/SupportingArticles/tabid/205/FileId/604/Default.aspx)
While these recent changes indicate that the current Administration might favor a CMSP that is generous to oil
exploration and exploitation efforts, this does not necessar-ily mean that there is no middle
ground on a CMSP that could appease all parties. For example, the U .S. govern-ment will likely go
ahead with these drilling plans, regard-less of Canada’s potential disagreements. Were Canada to negotiate with the Unite
States, however, they could com-promise to make the drilling safer. This could be accom-plished
through something as simple as creating specific corridor for tankers to travel through that
limits exposure to risky conditions or large populations of marine animals. In the end, a CMSP may not be
able to eliminate drilling in the Arctic, but it might at least be able to make the pro-cess safer for the parties.
MSP can solve future oil spills in the OCS
Bondareff 11 (Joan M. Bondareff, focuses her practice on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues, “The Impact of Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning on Deepwater Drilling,” Fall, 2011,
https://www.blankrome.com/siteFiles/Publications/E1AC96F7CB418AE6E86C7E2D7C236F69
.pdf)
On January 11, 2011, the BP Commission, co-chaired by former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) and former EPA Admin- istrator
William Reilly, issued its Final Report. While the prin-cipal purpose of the report was to identify the root causes of the BP spill,
the BP Commission also adopted a series of policy recommendations, including one that
specifically endorsed the use of marine spatial planning as a way to manage future offshore
drilling. The Commission did not recommend that offshore or deepwater drilling be banned, but,
instead, stated that “ drilling in deepwater does not have to be abandoned. It can be done safely . That
is one of the central messages of this report.” (BP Commission Report, supra, at 293). BP Commission Recommendation E.7
provides:¶ The appropriate federal agencies, including EPA, Interior, and NOAA, and the Trustees for Natural Resources should better balance the myriad economic and environmental interests concentrated in the Gulf region going forward.
This would
include improved monitoring and increased use of sophisticated tools like coastal and marine spatial
planning . Many of these tools and capacities will also be important to manage areas of the OCS
outside the Gulf. BP Commission Report, supra, at 282 (emphasis added).¶ Elaborating on this
recommendation, the BP Commission en- couraged Congress to fund grants for the
development of regional planning bodies, at amounts requested by the president, and to site
within the plans marine protected areas that can be used as “mitigation banks” to help offset any
future harm to the marine environment and to help maintain robust fisheries in the Gulf.
Advantage Three. Overfishing
Ocean crowding crushes fisheries—CMSP solves
Medina et al. 14
Monica Medina- Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at the NOAA, Joel Smith - Research
Associate for the Energy, Environment and Security Program, Linda Sturgis-United States Coast
Guard Senior Military, National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing National Defense and
Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
Expanded use of the ocean also has an adverse impact on fisheries and marine mammals, and some
populations are already at risk. For instance, North Atlantic right whales are highly endangered, with
a population of fewer than 450.19 They migrate the length of the east coast twice a year, feeding¶
in heavily fished areas off New England in summer and calving off the ports of Savannah and
Charleston in winter. Measures have already been implemented to reduce the likelihood of
vessels colliding with the whales, including the establishment of areas to avoid, traffic separation schemes, recommended routes,
mandatory ship reporting areas, seasonal management areas and dynamic management areas.20 Still, NOAA and others high- light
the potential risk for extinction if shipping lanes are rerouted, underwater fixed structures are constructed and the
Navy continues to use sonar in or along the whales’ migration route.21¶ Fish stocks and other living marine resources
move freely though the coastal ocean and high seas and are managed through scientific study,
prescriptive fisheries regulations and fisheries management councils. In addition to federal regulations for
commercial fisheries management, certain species can only be recreationally fished during specific time frames. Incorporating publically
available data layers into a national coastal ocean map would promote sustainable fisheries,
annotate marine protected areas for all coastal ocean users and aid in ocean conservation to
protect living marine resources.¶
Fishery stocks are collapsing—now is the key time
Oatman ‘14
We're Fishing the Oceans Dry. It's Time to Reconsider Fish Farms.
Aquaculture has gotten much greener, with American innovators leading the way.
— Text by Maddie Oatman; video by Brett Brownell | Wed Jul. 2, 2014 6:00,
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/aquaculture-feed-algae-nuts-mcfarlandsprings-kenny-belov
For many consumers, aquaculture lost its appeal after unappetizing news spreadabout commercial fish farms—like fish feed's pressure on wild
resources, overflowing waste, toxic build-up in the water, and displacement of natural species. But consider this: Our appetite for seafood continues to
rise. Globally, we've hungered for 3.2 percent more seafood every year for the last five decades, double the rate of our population. Yet
more than
four fifths of the world's wild fisheries are overexploited or fully exploited (yielding the most fish possible
with no expected room for growth). Only 3 percent of stocks are considered "underexploited"—meaning they
have any significant room for expansion. If we continue to fish at the current pace, some
scientists predict we'll be facing oceans devoid of edible marine creatures by 2050.
Fish shortages cause food crunch and starvation—key to economy
Kourous and Nomura 5 (George Kourous is an Information Officer at Food and Agriculture
Organization Newsroom, interviewing Ichiro Nomura, who is the Assistant Director-General at the Food
and Agriculture Organization’s Fisheries and Aquaculture Department) “Many of the world's poorest
people depend on fish” 06/07/05 http://www.fao.org/NEWSROOM/en/news/2005/102911/index.html
Q. How are fishing and aquaculture important to development, food security, and poverty alleviation? ¶
Over 852 million people on this planet don't have enough to eat. That certainly doesn't promote
sustainable development. Millions of medium- and small-scale fishers and fish farmers, often very
poor, depend on fishing and aquaculture. For FAO, fishing and aquaculture are first and foremost
about people earning a living and putting food on their tables, and we do think it can be done sustainably .
¶ Fishing and fish farming contribute to food security in three main ways. They directly increase
people's food supplies, providing highly nutritious animal protein and important micronutrients while
doing so. Fish food also "fill in the gaps" during times when other food is scarce. Finally, fishing
and aquaculture provide jobs and income that people use to buy other foods ¶ Q. How much food
are we talking about? ¶ Just over 100 million tonnes of fish are eaten world-wide each year,
providing two and a half billion people with at least 20 percent of their average per capita
animal protein intake. ¶ This contribution is even more important in developing countries,
especially small island states and in coastal regions, where frequently over 50% of people's animal
protein comes from fish. In some of the most food-insecure places -- many parts of Asia and
Africa, for instance -- fish protein is absolutely essential, accounting for a large share of an
already-low level of animal protein consumption. ¶ Q. You also mentioned the livelihood aspect... ¶
Yes. By providing employment, fisheries and aquaculture alleviate poverty and help boost people's food
security. ¶ Remember, around 97 percent of fishers are in developing countries. Fishing is especially
important there. ¶ Also, in the absence of social security or unemployment schemes, fishing can be
an activity of last resort, a "safety net" provided by nature. Ironically, this characteristic of fisheries,
which gives it particular value, can also, unfortunately, lead to excessive fishing and depletion of the
resources. ¶ There is also the economic activity resulting indirectly from fisheries and aquaculture,
which supports around 200 million people, we estimate. International trade in fish is creating a
lot of jobs in related industries like processing or packing.
Loss of access to food kills billions
Pinstrup-Anderson, Director General, and Garrett, Special Assistant at the
International Food Policy Research Institute, 1996
(Per and James, Vision 2020, http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/number30.htm)
Rising prices can quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live
on a dollar a day or less. Many poor people in low-income countries spend more than half their income on
food, and food price increases are detrimental to their well-being. However, many of the poorest people in
low-income countries depend on agriculture--directly or indirectly--for their livelihoods, and rising crop prices may
actually increase their incomes. Public policies to deal with rising prices must not harm poor producers while helping
poor consumers.
Food scarcity causes resource wars
Brown 11 (Lester R Brown is president of the Earth Policy Institute and the author of Plan B
3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.) “World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and
Economic Collapse” http://www.earth-policy.org/books/wote/wotech5
Today there are three sources of growing demand for food: population growth; rising affluence and
the associated jump in meat, milk, and egg consumption; and the use of grain to produce fuel for cars. Population growth
is as old as agriculture itself. But the world is now adding close to 80 million people per year. Even worse, the
overwhelming majority of these people are being added in countries where cropland is scarce,
soils are eroding, and irrigation wells are going dry. 6¶ Even as we are multiplying in number, some 3 billion of us are
trying to move up the food chain, consuming more grain-intensive livestock products. As incomes rise, annual grain consumption per person climbs
from less than 400 pounds, as in India today, to roughly 1,600 pounds, as in the United States, where diets tend to be heavy with meat and dairy
products. 7¶ The third source of demand growth emerged when the United States attempted to reduce its oil insecurity by converting grain into ethanol.
The jump in U.S. gasoline prices to $3 per gallon that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005 made it highly profitable to invest in ethanol distilleries in
the United States. As a result, the growth in world grain demand, traditionally around 20 million tons per year, suddenly jumped to over 50 million
tons in 2007 and again in 2008 as a huge fleet of new ethanol distilleries came online. This massive ethanol distillery investment in the United States
launched an epic competition between cars and people for grain. 8 ¶ The conversion of grain to automotive fuel has continued to climb. Roughly 119
million tons of the 2009 U.S. grain harvest of 416 million tons went to ethanol distilleries, an amount that exceeds the grain harvests of Canada and
Australia combined. 9¶ Even as these three sources of demand combined to drive up world consumption, speculators entered the fray. By buying grain
futures and holding grain off the market, they further fueled the price rise. 10 ¶ On the supply side of the food equation, several trends discussed in
preceding chapters are making it more difficult to expand production rapidly enough to keep up with demand. These include soil erosion, aquifer
depletion, more frequent crop-shrinking heat waves, melting ice sheets, melting mountain glaciers, and the diversion of irrigation water to cities.¶
Farmers are also losing cropland to nonfarm uses. Cars compete with people not only for the grain supply but also for the cropland itself. The United
States, for example, has paved an area for cars larger than the state of Georgia. Every five cars added to the U.S. fleet means another acre of land will be
paved over—the equivalent of a football field. 11¶ The implications for China of this relationship between cars and cropland are startling. In 2009, for
the first time, more cars were sold in China than in the United States. If China were to reach the U.S. ownership rate of three cars for every four people,
it would have over a billion cars, more than the entire world has today. The land that would have to be paved to accommodate these cars would be two
thirds the area China currently has in rice. 12¶ This pressure on cropland worldwide is running up against increased demand for soybeans, which are
the key to expanding the production of meat, milk, and eggs. Adding soybean meal to livestock and poultry feed sharply boosts the efficiency with which
grain is converted into animal protein. This is why world soybean use climbed from 17 million tons in 1950 to 252 million tons in 2010, a 15-fold jump.
13¶ Nowhere is the soaring demand for soybeans more evident than in China, where the crop originated. As recently as 1995, China produced 14 million
tons of soybeans and consumed 14 million tons. In 2010, it still produced 14 million tons, but it consumed a staggering 64 million tons. In fact, over half
of the world’s soybean exports now go to China. 14¶ Demand is climbing, but since scientists have failed to increase yields rapidly, the world gets more
soybeans largely by planting more soybeans. The soybean is devouring land in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina, which together account for four
fifths of world soybean production and 90 percent of exports. The United States now has more land in soybeans than in wheat. In Brazil, there is more
land in soybeans than in corn, wheat, and rice combined. Argentina’s soybean area is now double that in all grains combined. It is a virtual soybean
monoculture. Soaring world demand for soybeans is thus driving deforestation in Brazil and the plowing of grasslands in Argentina. 15¶ The trends
generating food demand and restricting supply are converging to create a perfect storm in the world food economy, one that is generating a new politics
of food scarcity. Faced with potential domestic political instability as food prices soared, beginning in late 2007 Russia and Argentina limited or banned
exports of wheat in an attempt to check domestic food price rises. Viet Nam, the number two rice exporter, banned rice exports for several months.
While these moves reassured people living in the exporting countries, they created panic in the scores of countries that import grain. Governments of
importing countries suddenly realized that they could no longer rely on the world market for supplies. 16 ¶ In response, some countries tried to nail
down long-term bilateral trade agreements that would lock up future grain supplies. The Philippines, a leading rice importer, negotiated a three-year
deal with Viet Nam for a guaranteed 1.5 million tons of rice each year. A delegation from Yemen traveled to Australia with the hope of negotiating a
long-term wheat import deal. They failed. Other importing countries sought similar arrangements, but in a seller’s market, few were successful. 17¶ The
loss of confidence among importing countries has led the more affluent ones to buy or lease large blocks of land in other countries on which to produce
food for themselves. In the language of the diplomatic and investment communities, these are land acquisitions. In the language of the small farmers
displaced from their land and the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that work with them, they are land grabs. 18 ¶ As
food supplies
tighten, we are witnessing an unprecedented scramble for land that crosses national boundaries.
Initially driven by food insecurity at the national level, land acquisitions are now also seen as a lucrative investment opportunity. Fatou Mbaye of
ActionAid in Senegal observes, “Land is quickly becoming the new gold and right now the rush is on.” 19 ¶ Among the countries that are leading the
charge to buy or lease land abroad are Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and China. Saudi Arabia, which is fast losing its irrigation water, will soon be totally
dependent on imports or overseas projects for its grain. South Korea now imports over 70 percent of its grain. China, faced with aquifer depletion and
the heavy loss of cropland to nonfarm uses, is nervous. Although essentially self-sufficient in grain for over a decade, in 2010 it started to import wheat
from Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, and the United States. It also imported U.S. corn. 20 ¶ India, though not an affluent country, has also become a
major player in land acquisitions. With its irrigation wells starting to go dry and with growing climate instability, India too is worried about future food
security. Among the other countries jumping in to buy land abroad are Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. 21 ¶ The initial land
acquisitions typically began as negotiations by governments concerned about food security. It was an interesting combination of diplomacy and
business—with governments often negotiating side by side with corporations from their own countries, some formed precisely to produce food abroad.
Once the negotiations are completed, the corporations usually take over. Over time, the land acquisitions have also become investment opportunities
for agribusiness firms, investment banks, and sovereign wealth funds. 22¶ In Asia, the countries selling or leasing land include Indonesia, the
Philippines, and Papua New Guinea. In Latin America, it is mostly Brazil, but also Argentina and Paraguay. In Africa, where land values are low
compared with those in Asia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Mozambique are among the many countries recently targeted by investors. In Ethiopia, for example,
an acre of land can be leased for less than $1 per year, whereas in land-scarce Asia it could easily cost $100 or more. For land acquisitions, Africa is the
new frontier. 23¶ Thus the countries selling or leasing their land are often poor and, more often than not, those where hunger is chronic, such as
Ethiopia and Sudan. In January 2009 the Saudis celebrated the arrival of the first shipment of rice produced on land they had acquired in Ethiopia, a
country where the WFP is currently feeding 5 million people. And Sudan is the site of the WFP’s largest famine relief effort. 24¶ The purpose of land
acquisition varies. For some, it is to produce food grains—rice and wheat. For others, it is to produce livestock and poultry feed, principally corn. A third
factor driving land acquisitions is the demand for automotive fuel. The European Union’s goal of obtaining 10 percent of its transport energy from
renewable sources by 2020 is encouraging land grabbers to produce biofuels for the European market. 25 ¶ For sheer size of acquisitions, China stands
out. The Chinese reportedly picked up 7 million acres in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) to produce palm oil, which can be used for food
or fuel. Compare that with the 3 million acres used in the DRC to produce corn, the leading grain consumed by its 68 million people. Like Ethiopia and
Sudan, the DRC depends on a WFP lifeline. China is also negotiating for 5 million acres in Zambia to produce jatropha, an oilseed-bearing perennial.
Other countries where China has acquired land or is planning to do so include Australia, Russia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, and Mozambique. 26 ¶
South Korea, a leading importer of corn and wheat, is a major land investor in several countries. With deals signed for 1.7 million acres in Sudan for
growing wheat, South Korea is a leader in this food security push. For perspective, this is not much smaller than the 2.3 million acres South Korea uses
at home to produce rice, a crop in which it is self-sufficient. Saudi Arabia is acquiring land in Ethiopia, Sudan, Indonesia, and the Philippines, while
India’s early investments are concentrated in several African countries, although principally in Ethiopia. 27 ¶ One of the little noticed characteristics of
land acquisitions is that they are also water acquisitions. Whether the land is irrigated or rain-fed, it represents a claim on the water resources in the
host country. This means land acquisition agreements are an even more sensitive issue in water-stressed countries. Land acquisitions in Ethiopia,
where most of the Nile’s headwaters begin, or in Sudan, which taps water from the Nile downstream, may simply mean that Egypt will get less of the
river’s water—pushing its heavy dependence on imported grain even higher. 28 ¶ Another disturbing dimension of many land investments is that they
are taking place in countries like Indonesia, Brazil, and the DRC where expanding cropland often means clearing tropical rainforests that sequester
carbon. Land clearing here could markedly raise global carbon emissions, further increasing climate change’s disruptive effect on food security. 29¶
Bilateral land acquisitions raise many questions. To begin with, these agreements are almost always negotiated in secret. Typically only a few highranking officials are involved and the terms are often kept confidential, even though they deal with land, a public resource. Not only are key
stakeholders such as local farmers not at the negotiating table, they often do not even learn about the agreements until after the papers are signed. And
since there is rarely productive land sitting idle in the countries where the land is being acquired, the agreements mean that many local farmers and
herders will simply be displaced. Their land may be confiscated or it may be bought from them at a price over which they have little say, leading to the
public hostility that often arises in host countries.¶ In a landmark article on the African land grab in The Observer, John Vidal quotes an Ethiopian,
Nyikaw Ochalla, from the Gambella region: “The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for
centuries. There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming
with lots of tractors to invade their lands.” Referring to his own village, where an Indian corporation is taking over, Ochalla says, “Their land has been
compulsorily taken and they have been given no compensation. People cannot believe what is happening.” 30 ¶ Hostility of local people to land grabs is
the rule, not the exception. China, for example, signed an agreement with the Philippine government in 2007 to lease 2.5 million acres of land on which
to produce crops that would be shipped home. Once word leaked out, the public outcry—much of it from Filipino farmers—forced the government to
suspend the agreement. A similar situation developed in Madagascar, where a South Korean firm, Daewoo Logistics, had pursued rights to more than 3
million acres of land, an area half the size of Belgium. This helped stoke a political furor that led to a change in government and cancellation of the
agreement. 31¶ Investments by agribusiness firms and others to acquire land in low-income countries and to produce food exclusively for export are
almost certainly going to leave people in these countries less well off. Many will be left landless. At the national level, there will be less land to produce
food for local use.¶ If food prices are rising in the host country, will the investing country actually be able to remove the grain it
has produced on acquired land? Will the hungry people in these countries stand by and watch as grain is exported from land that was once theirs? Or
will the investors have to hire security forces to ensure that the harvests can be shipped home ?
Those acquiring land in hungry
countries are sowing what could become the seeds of conflict.¶ The central question associated with this massive
effort by importing countries to acquire land abroad is this: How will it affect world food production and overall food security? In a September 2010
report, the World Bank used press reports to identify 464 land acquisitions that were in various stages of development between October 2008 and
August 2009. The Bank claimed that production had begun on only one fifth of the announced projects, partly because many deals were made by land
speculators. The report offered several other reasons for the slow start, including “unrealistic objectives, price changes, and inadequate infrastructure,
technology, and institutions.” 32¶ The land area involved was clear for only 203 of these reported projects, yet it still came to some 115 million acres, an
area comparable to the U.S. land in corn and wheat combined. These agreements imply an investment of at least $50 billion. Particularly noteworthy is
that of the 405 projects for which commodity information was available, 21 percent are slated to produce biofuels—and another 21 percent industrial or
cash crops. Only 37 percent are slated to produce food crops. 33¶ How productive will the land be that actually ends up being farmed? Given the level of
agricultural skills and technologies likely to be used, in most cases relatively high yields can be expected. In Africa, for example, simply applying
fertilizer to its nutrient-depleted soils will often double grain yields. Taking everything into account, investors should be able to double or triple yields
in much of Africa. 34¶ While there will undoubtedly be some spectacular production gains in some countries with some crops, there will also be
occasional failures. Some projects will be abandoned because the economics simply do not work. Long-distance farming, with the transportation and
travel involved, and at a time when oil prices are likely to be rising, can be very costly. There almost certainly will be unforeseen outbreaks of plant
disease and insect infestations as new crops are introduced, particularly since so much land acquired is in tropical and subtropical regions. 35¶ Another
uncertainty is the timing. As the Bank study indicates, all of this land will not automatically come into production within a year or two. Although the
flurry of reports of large-scale land acquisitions began in 2008, as of 2010 there were only a few small harvests to point to. As noted, the Saudis
harvested their first rice crop in Ethiopia in late 2008. In 2009, South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries harvested some 4,500 tons of soybeans and
2,000 tons of corn on a 25,000-acre farm it took over from Russian owners, roughly 100 miles north of Vladivostok. Hyundai plans to expand this to
125,000 acres by 2012, and by 2015 it expects to produce 100,000 tons of soybeans and corn annually for the Korean market, less than 1 percent of
South Korea’s consumption of these two commodities. And an Indian firm has started harvesting corn in Ethiopia. 36 ¶ The public infrastructure to
support modern market-oriented agriculture does not yet exist in much of Africa. In some countries, it will take years to build the roads needed both to
bring in agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer, and to export the farm products. Modern agriculture requires its own infrastructure—machine sheds,
grain silos, fertilizer storage sheds, fuel storage facilities, and, in many situations, irrigation pumps and well-drilling equipment. Overall, land
development to date appears to be a slow, time-consuming process.¶ Even if some of these projects can dramatically boost land productivity, there is
also the question of whether local people will benefit. If virtually all the inputs—the farm equipment, the fertilizer, the pesticides, the seeds—are
brought in from abroad and if all the output is shipped out of the country, it will not contribute to the local economy or the local food supply. At best,
people from local communities may get work as farm laborers, but in highly mechanized operations, jobs will be few. At worst, countries will be left
with less land and water with which to feed their already hungry populations. ¶ One of the most difficult variables to evaluate is political stability. Once
opposition political parties are in office, they may cancel the agreements, arguing that they were secretly negotiated without public participation or
support. Land acquisitions in the DRC and Sudan, both among the top five failing states, are particularly risky. Few things are more likely to fuel
insurgencies than taking land away from people. Agricultural equipment is easily sabotaged. If ripe fields of grain are torched, they burn quickly. 37¶
The World Bank, working with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and other related agencies, has formulated a set of principles governing
land acquisitions. These guiding principles are well conceived, but there is no mechanism to enforce them. The Bank does not seem eager to challenge
the basic argument of those acquiring land, namely that it will benefit those who live in the host countries. 38 ¶ But the land acquisitions are being
fundamentally challenged by a coalition of more than 100 NGOs, some national and others international. These groups argue that what the world needs
is not large corporations bringing large-scale, highly mechanized, capital-intensive agriculture into these countries, but international support for
community-based farming, centered around labor-intensive family farms that produce for local and regional markets and that create desperately
needed jobs. 39¶ As
land and water become scarce, as the earth’s temperature rises, and as world food
security deteriorates, a dangerous geopolitics of food scarcity is emerging. The conditions giving
rise to this have been in the making for several decades, but the situation has come into sharp
focus only in the last few years. Land grabbing is an integral part of a global power struggle for
food security. Not only is it designed to benefit the rich, it will likely do so at the expense of the
poor.¶
Resource wars escalate and cause extinction
Woolridge 9 (Frosty, Former Officer – US Army Medical Service Corps, “America Galloping
Toward Its Greatest Crisis in the 21st Century”, The Examiner, 5-22,
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-3515-Denver-Political-Issues-Examiner~y2009m5d22America-galloping-toward-its-greatest-crisis-in-the-21st-century)
“It is clear that most politicians and most citizens do not recognize that returning to “more of the same” is a recipe for
promoting the first collapse of a global civilization . The required changes in energy technology, which would benefit
not only the environment but also national security, public health, and the economy, would demand a World War II type
mobilization -- and even that might not prevent a global climate disaster. Without transitioning away from use of fossil fuels,
humanity will move further into an era of resource wars (remember, Africom has been added to the Pentagon’s structure -- and
China has noticed), clearly with intent to protect US “interests” in petroleum reserves. The
consequences of more resource
wars, many likely triggered over water supplies stressed by climate disruption, are likely to include increased unrest in
poor nations, a proliferation of w eapons of m ass d estruction, widening inequity
and
in the worst (and not unlikely) case,
a nuclear war ending civilization .
within and between nations,
Marine Spatial Planning preserves fishing resources
WCL 2005 (Wildlife and Countryside Link, 14 September 05, EIE, IFAW, Plant Life,
National Trust, “MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING – QUESTION TIME:”,
http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/Link_Marine_Spatial_Planning_Question_Time_14Sept05.pdf)
Marine Spatial Planning should result in improved planning and management for industry and ¶
conservation and hence a win-win scenario for both, with a more level playing field for all. ¶ ¶ As
development and activities increase in the marine environment, the present sectoral ¶ approach
to managing activities is unwieldy and is no longer an option. It results in conflict ¶ between seausers and leaves us unable to assess how activities interact to impact upon our ¶ declining
marine biodiversity and cultural heritage. ¶ ¶ Example for the fishing industry ¶ While the vast
majority of our waters are important as fishing grounds for the fishing industry ¶ some sites are
of greater economic importance than others. So, for example, a sand bank ¶ which is important for fish feeding or
breeding or a rocky reef that is economically vital for ¶ local shellfishers may be of greater importance than other sites. MSP can
enable these sites ¶ to be taken into account at an early stage of the planning of developments such
as offshore ¶ wind farms. This will greatly reduce the likelihood of such developments being built
in areas ¶ of prime importance for the fishing industry. Unfortunately at the project stage, it is often too ¶ late to
move a proposed development and while compensation may be offered this may not ¶ be sufficient for some.
Advantage Four. Energy
Middle east oil dependence increasing now
Institute for Energy Research August 28, 2012 (Not-for-profit organization that
conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government
regulation of global energy markets, “Obama Policies Making US More Dependent on Persian
Gulf Oil”) http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/08/28/u-s-oil-imports-from-thepersian-gulf-and-saudi-arabia-grow-in-2012-and-administration-policies-may-be-to-blame/ KY
The Obama Administration is touting that our “dependence on foreign oil has gone down every year during the Obama
Administration, including a reduction in net oil imports by ten percent—or one million barrels a day—in the last year alone.”[i]
While good news, this trend is happening not because of policies or actions taken by the Obama administration, but because of 1) a
poor economy and high oil prices resulting in a lower demand for oil, 2) an increase in oil production on private and state lands (not
federal lands) due to less bureaucratic red tape in leasing and permitting on private and state lands, and 3) an increase in biofuel
(mainly ethanol) production due to the mandates from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.¶ The bad news is that
while we have reduced our dependence on imports, we are getting more dependent on oil
imports from the Persian Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia. During the first five months of this year, oil
imports from the Persian Gulf increased by 33 percent compared to the first five months of 2011.
This was mainly due to an increase of oil imports from Saudi Arabia of 29 percent. At the same time, our total oil
imports fell by 6 percent. Thus, the Persian Gulf’s share of U.S. oil imports is up 6 percentage points—
from 15 percent for the first 5 months of last year to 21 percent for the first 5 months of this year —
and the share of our oil imports from Saudi Arabia is up 4 percentage points, from 10 percent to 14 percent.[ii]¶ According to
data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States imported a daily
average of almost 1.5 million barrels of Saudi Arabian crude over the first five months of this
year, compared to a daily average of about 1.1 million barrels over the same period last year. The
corresponding numbers for oil imports from the Persian Gulf oil are an average of 2.2 million
barrels per day for the first 5 months of this year compared to 1.7 million barrels per day for the
first 5 months of last year.¶ The increase in oil exports from Saudi Arabia to the United States began slowly last summer
and has increased this year. Even though domestic oil production is increasing, the Obama
administration is finding it difficult to lower its dependence on Persian Gulf oil, especially the
heavy grades of crude oil that Saudi Arabia exports and that our refineries in the Gulf of Mexico
use. Some oil analysts indicate that this increasing dependency may only last a few years—until more Canadian and Gulf of Mexico
production comes on line. These are issues that have been caused by the Obama administration. First, their moratorium and
“permitorium” on offshore drilling after the Macondo accident resulted in 17 percent less oil production in offshore federal waters in
fiscal year 2011 than the year before. Then, their failure to permit the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring heavy crude oil from
Canada postponed new supplies from our Northern Ally.¶ David L. Goldwyn, former State Department coordinator for international
energy affairs in the Obama administration, stated “Until we have the ability to access more Canadian heavy oil through improved
infrastructure, the vulnerability will remain.”[iii] But, the Obama Administration is not worried because it can tap into the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve in the event of a self-defined crisis, it sees domestic oil production continuing to grow, and it believes Gulf area
refineries can adjust their equipment to use sweeter crude oil if need be. Most of our new domestic production comes from shale oil
fields in North Dakota and Texas that produce high-quality sweet grades of oil while refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast are
designed to refine the heavier oils that the United States traditionally imports from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela.¶ Refiners
are importing more oil from the Persian Gulf to replace the declining production and imports
from Mexico and Venezuela and the reduced production output from the Gulf of Mexico due to the
moratorium and de facto moratorium on drilling. There is also insufficient pipeline capacity from Canada to replace those losses
with Canadian crude, accentuating the need for the Keystone XL pipeline.¶ In recent years, U.S. oil imports have been declining due
to increased domestic production on private and state lands, production of shale oil using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling technology, increased production of corn-based ethanol and government mandates requiring its increased usage by
refineries, and lower oil demand due to high oil prices and a poor economy.¶ Before the Macondo accident in the Gulf of Mexico,
monthly oil production from the Gulf was as high as 1.71 million barrels a day and growing, but because of the moratorium on new
drilling, monthly oil production from the Gulf after the accident was as low as 1.09 million barrels per day with much of that lower
oil production being replaced by imports of Saudi crude oil. Oil production from the Gulf is not expected to regain its higher
production levels through 2013, according to EIA, whose forecast for offshore Gulf of Mexico oil production for this year and next is
averaging about 1.35 million barrels per day.
Shocks Coming Now: Supply Disruptions, Peak Oil, and Speculation
McKillop ‘11
Andrew_McKillop is a former in-house policy and programming expert, DG XVII Energy,
European Commission Oil Crisis In 2012 http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article32312.html
In fact, physical supply cuts are in 2012 more possible or rational than at any time for the last 15-20 years, and perhaps even since
1973. Taking only a 15-20 year horizon, but looking the other way, the next 15-20 years will massively change world oil supply, and
not for political reasons. Probably by 2017 if there is any recovery of the global economy, world
oil supply will certainly "Peak Out". Like physicists trying to find Higgs bosons we can't give an exact number
for the final and absolute peak: it might possibly be 95 million barrels a day, or about 6% - 7% above current production. Total's CEO
Christophe de Margerie has gone on record saying he thinks even sustaining 90 Mbd is not possible under the best of scenarios - no
supply cuts, no major stress in large producer countries, continued high investment in oil E&P at rates similar to the most recent
record year of 2007 when $400 billion was spent - and so on. Without recession, world oil demand would have easily hit 90 Mbd in
2012. Getting an idea on how prices might move even with "moderate only" economic recovery and no supply cuts, more than 3
months back (on Sept 15) Goldman Sachs set a price of $130 a barrel as likely in 2012, with the famous spread or premium for Brent
against WTI shrunk to almost nothing. The reason is this: Oil supply is short in both hemispheres. Any
large outage of supply will destroy the price mechanism and physical rationing will
be the only possible end result. Despite Libya coming back fast towards its pre-war
output of 1.5 million barrels a day, the Arab world outlook is sombre - the Jasmine
revolution and semi peaceful sit-ins were a long way back. Civil war is now the operating mode in the
Arab revolt, and this makes worst-case scenarios possible. Revolt in the Middle
East presently focusing Syria's civil war, the long simmering Iran nuclear crisis,
rising sunni-shia struggle in Iraq now that the US has quit, and the latent threats
to Saudi and other Gulf Arab producers are all able to impact oil supply security.
Even the rising threats to Putin's total power in his version of "democratic" Russia,
with fast rising potentials for long-winded internal power struggles, can affect
Russian gas and oil production, supply policies and pricing action.
Oil shocks have devastating effects on the U.S. economy and crush
allied cohesion and redirects money from major threats to
maintenance of supply
Kelley 6
Kelley (member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan, chairman of the
Energy Security Leadership Council), 2006 August 11, The Washington Post,
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001316_pf.html>
Could a mere 4 percent shortfall in daily oil supply propel the price of a barrel to more than $120 in a
matter of days? That's what some oil market experts are saying, and if they're correct, we face the very real possibility of
an oil shock wave that could send our economy reeling. Such a rapid rise in fuel costs would
have profound effects that could severely threaten the foundation of America's economic
prosperity The global oil trends now at work -- rising consumption, reduced spare production capacity and high levels of
instability in key oil-producing countries -- all increase the likelihood of a supply shock. But unfortunately energy debates in this
country often suggest a profound misunderstanding of these international economic dynamics. Calls for "energy independence"
notwithstanding, oil is a fungible global commodity, which means that events affecting supply or demand anywhere will affect oil
consumers everywhere. A country's exposure to world price shocks is thus a function of the amount of oil it consumes and is not
significantly affected by the ratio of domestic to imported petroleum. The magnitude of our dependence on oil puts
stress on our military, strengthens our strategic adversaries and undermines our efforts to
support democratic allies. Each year the United States expends enormous military resources
protecting the chronically vulnerable oil production and distribution network while also
preparing to guarantee international access to key oil-producing regions. This allocation of
forces and dollars diminishes the military's capability for dealing with the war on terrorism and
other defense priorities.
Shocks and Dependence collapse NATO and Leads to Iran Prolif
Scire. 2008.
Oil Dependency, National Security. National Security impacts of oil dependency. Nevada
Appeal. http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244
DoD's dependency on oil as a primary motor fuel makes military operations much more costly than if it had alternative fuels. Oil
dependency also requires that we dedicate military forces to the Persian Gulf area, reducing our
ability to use those forces in other places. Furthermore, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East
raises the potential for military conflicts with other importing nations as world demand
increases and supplies decrease. Our oil dependency also strains military alliances, such as
NATO, as members compete for oil. Witness the French and Germans working with the Iranians to increase oil
production and Pakistan building a port to import Iranian natural gas while we are trying to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Their
need for oil and gas trumps our need to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The last and perhaps most serious impact on
national security of our oil dependency is that the chronic weakening of the U.S. economic base will
inevitably weaken our military; we cannot sustain a strong military with a weak economy.
NATO solves war but collapse causes extinction
Duffield 94
(Duffield, John S. "NATO's functions after the Cold War." Political Science
Quarterly 109.n5 (Winter 1994): 763(25). Expanded Academic ASAP.)
Initial analyses of NATO's future prospects overlooked at least three important factors that have helped to ensure the alliance's
enduring relevance. First, they underestimated the extent to which external threats sufficient to help justify the preservation of the
alliance would continue to exist. In fact, NATO still serves to secure its members against a number of actual
or potential dangers emanating from outside their territory. These include not only the residual
threat posed by Russian military power, but also the relatively new concerns raised by conflicts
in neighboring regions. Second, the pessimists failed to consider NATO's capacity for institutional adaptation. Since the end
of the cold war, the alliance has begun to develop two important new functions. NATO is increasingly seen as having a
significant role to play in containing and controlling militarized conflicts in Central and Eastern
Europe. And, at a deeper level, it works to prevent such conflicts from arising at all by actively promoting stability within the
former Soviet bloc. Above all, NATO pessimists overlooked the valuable intra-alliance functions that the alliance has always
performed and that remain relevant after the cold war. Most importantly, NATO has helped stabilize Western
Europe, whose states had often been bitter rivals in the past. By damping the security dilemma and providing an institutional
mechanism for the development of common security policies, NATO has contributed to making the use of force in relations among
the countries of the region virtually inconceivable. In all these ways, NATO clearly serves the interests of its European members. But
even the United States has a significant stake in preserving a peaceful and prosperous Europe. In
addition to strong transatlantic historical and cultural ties, American economic interests in Europe - as a leading market for U.S.
products, as a source of valuable imports, and as the host for considerable direct foreign investment by American companies remain substantial. If history is any guide, moreover, the United States could easily be drawn into a
future major war in Europe, the consequences of which would likely be even more devastating
than those of the past, given the existence of nuclear weapons.
NATO is also key critical to effective response to civil wars and ethnic
conflicts
Ellsworth ‘3
Ellsworth, US Ambassador on Council of NATO, 2003 (Robert F., “NATO's Future”,
http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/themes/past_themes/nato/perspectives/Ellsworth.dot,
SP)
In peace operations, NATO cohesion is still important, but the issue of the Europeans' willingness to
deploy political, financial, and military muscle rises to a higher level. There are civil wars and human
disasters and atrocities in several parts of the world-Central America Sudan, Congo (the locus of Africa's
"first world war"), and Afghanistan. Those wars and disasters, or others like them, will be with us for a long time to come.
NATO could begin to reorient itself to deal with such matters, but that reorientation should not be at the expense of
the Alliance's guardian political-military posture. With the British planned acquisition of the C-17, the
Europeans are taking the necessary first steps toward an ability (already operational in the U.S. Air Force)
to land strategic loads around the globe-and to land them on tactical strips. The United States also
deploys sophisticated airfield control detachments that can anchor a strategic deployment at remote sites.
Unchecked ethnic conflicts cause global nuclear war
Crocker ‘99
Crocker, Chairman of the Board of the US Institute of Peace, 1999 (Chester, FPRI Wire,
http://fpri.org/fpriwire/0710.199909.crocker.howtothinkaboutethnicconflict.html “How To
Think About Ethnic Conflict”, September, SP)
The examination of ethnic conflict has several implications for American foreign policy. First, it might be useful if we would think
about the phenomenon we are dealing with-which is nothing less than the breakdown of empires, federations, and nation-statesbefore we act. We must think about how, in the present era, the breakdown of the old colonial and Cold War structures empowered
challengers to governments. Whether their challenges come through information technology, the erection of new standards of
governance, or new demands from donor clubs, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, a fundamental shift in
the balance of power on the ground has occurred. The disappearance of the old structures has , in short,
created strategic vacuums that will be filled, in one fashion or another, by a new set of actors or by older actors marching
under new flags. That is really what much ethnic conflict is all about . Secondly, we need to reflect on the stakes. As a
superpower which supposedly “doesn’t do windows,” we may be tempted to think that the stakes are low for the United States. But
what is at stake in Kosovo is not just the Albanians or Serbs, but (now that we have backed into this forest without a compass) what
is at stake is American leadership, the survival of NATO, and the danger that members of the U.N.
Security Council, including Russia and China, will acquire something of a veto over American policy-
including how we get out of the woods we have wandered into. Think, too, about the stakes involved for the people who become
victims of these conflicts. Waiting for a conflict to “ripen” will achieve nothing if the contesting leadership elites
are living off the conflict. When both sides in a conflict find the status quo preferable to any settlement, the situation will
never “ripen” and the humanitarian toll will mount. And the numbers of victims of these conflicts is huge: up to four
million in Sudan alone over the past forty years, and countless thousands in Sierra Leone, Liberia,
Indonesia, and the Balkans. Similar conflicts have raged in the South Asian subcontinent since the massive postcolonial
population transfers of the late 1940s, and now that nuclear weapons have been openly thrown into the mix, the
Indo-Pakistani worst-case scenario has gotten a lot worse. So the stakes are huge in moral as well as strategic terms.
Oil Dependence Leads to Iran War, Escalates to Nuclear Conflict
Glaser ‘11
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security Charles L.
Glaser cglaser@gwu.edu Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University August 2011,
epts.washington.edu/.../Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.doc
Energy dependence could draw the United States into a conflict in which a regional power was
interrupting, or threatening to interrupt, the flow of oil. The economic costs of a disruption would determine
whether the costs of fighting were justified. Similarly, the potential economic costs of a disruption would determine whether U.S.
foreign and military policy should be devoted to deterring states from interrupting the flow of oil; more precisely, these economic
costs would determine how much the United States should invest in the policies required for deterrence. Given the geographical
distribution of oil, such a conflict would likely occur in the Persian Gulf. The greatest danger is probably posed
by Iran—the Iraq War has greatly increased Iran’s power relative to Iraq, and Iran
is acquiring improved
missile capabilities and making progress toward having the capability to build
nuclear weapons. The most disruptive Iranian action would be closure of the Strait
of Hormuz, through which the vast majority of Persian Gulf oil must pass. Having
identified the danger posed by dependence on oil that transits this strait (as well as the Strait of Malacca), a recent Council on
Foreign Relations study concluded that the “United States should take the lead in building an infrastructure protection program that
would be based on practical steps by relevant countries and address critical infrastructures and transit routes. Initial efforts should
focus on joint planning, technical assistance, and military exercises, especially involving naval units operating near ports or along
critical sea-lanes.” Although difficult to estimate the probability that Iran would attempt to close the strait, analysts have offered
reasons for expecting the probability to be quite low: Iran would lose the oil revenue from its own exports; and Iran would likely be
deterred by the probable costs of U.S. intervention, which could include the destruction of key military bases and occupation of some
of its territory. Because so much oil flows through the strait, the United States would almost certainly respond to keep it open.
Nevertheless, there are plausible scenarios in which Iran blocks the strait, for example, as
retaliation for an attack against is nuclear weapons program or as a coercive measure if losing a conventional war. Careful analysis
suggests that the United States would prevail, but that a successful campaign could take many weeks or more, and that oil prices
would increase significantly during this period. Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would
increase the risk of this scenario in two basic ways. First, Iran might believe that the
possibility of escalation to nuclear weapons would deter the United States from
responding, making Iran more willing to interrupt tanker traffic. Although basic deterrence
logic says this calculation points in the correct direction, the United States might nevertheless intervene. The United
States would question Iran’s willingness to escalate to nuclear use because
America’s far larger and more capable nuclear forces would pose a formidable
retaliatory threat. In addition, the United States would have incentives to make clear that possession of a small number of
nuclear weapons by a much weaker state would not deter the United States from using conventional weapons in a limited war. Being
deterred by the Iranian nuclear force would suggest that small nuclear arsenals provide tremendous potential for launching
conventional aggression. As Barry Posen argued in a related context (the counterfactual case in which Iraq possessed nuclear
weapons before deciding to invade Kuwait), “If the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait is permitted to stand, nuclear weapons will come to be
viewed as a shield that protects conventional conquests from any challenger, including a great power heavily armed with its own
nuclear weapons.” Consequently, the United States would have incentives to respond to Iranian
aggression both to preserve its ability to deter conventional aggression by small
nuclear states and to support its nonproliferation policy. Second, once a
conventional conflict occurred, there would be the danger that U.S. conventional
operations could increase the probability nuclear war. A number of paths are possible. The U.S.
mine clearing operation required to open the strait would likely be accompanied by attacks against land-based Iranian targets. The
United States would want to destroy the land-based anti-ship cruise missiles that Iran could use to threaten U.S. mine clearing
ships; in addition, the United States would want to destroy Iranian air defenses that could be used to protect these missiles. These
U.S. strikes would require large numbers of carrier-based aircraft flying sorties over a period of a few weeks or more. If Iran
lacked confidence that U.S. aims were limited, it could feel compelled to put its
nuclear forces on alert to increase their survivability, which would increase the
probability of accidental or unauthorized nuclear attack. The United States could
then have incentives to attack Iran’s nuclear force, either preemptively because it believed
Iran was preparing to launch an attack or preventively because it faced a closing window
of opportunity after which Iran’s nuclear forces would be survivable. A more subtle danger is the
possibility of inadvertent nuclear escalation resulting from a situation in which
Iranian leaders decide to escalate because they believe, incorrectly, that the United
States has decided to destroy their nuclear force (or ability to launch it). U.S. conventional
operations could create this danger by destroying Iranian radars, and command
and control systems, leaving Iranian leaders unable to assess the U.S. conventional
campaign and fearing that the United States was preparing to launch a full-scale
invasion or a conventional attack against their nuclear forces.
Oil Dependence Makes Terrorism Likely
Glaser ‘11
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security Charles L.
Glaser cglaser@gwu.edu Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University August 2011,
epts.washington.edu/.../Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.doc
The previous mechanisms identified paths via which a state’s efforts to protect, deny and/or acquire oil resources could bring it into
conflict with other states. In addition, there is the possibility that the foreign and security policies that a
state adopts to protect its oil interests could fuel support for terrorist organizations. Most
obviously, this possibility comes to mind because al Qaeda attributes its attacks against the
United States and U.S. interests to America’s involvement in the Middle East, probably most
importantly its support for the Saudi regime and deployment of troops on Saudi soil. The extent
of this danger depends on assessments of the sources of terrorism and the magnitude of the
danger posed by terrorist groups, both of which are hotly debated.
Terrorism causes extinction
Speice 6
Speice, Patrick F., Jr. "Negligence and nuclear nonproliferation: eliminating the current liability
barrier to bilateral U.S.-Russian nonproliferation assistance programs." William and Mary Law
Review 47.4 (Feb 2006): 1427(59). Expanded Academic ASAP.
With the end of the Cold War in 1991, the states of the former Soviet Union were thrown into economic and political disarray."
Perhaps the greatest risk that accompanied this collapse was the threat of ‘loose nuclear weapons. 29 The end of the Cold War
largely eliminated the risk of global nuclear conflict between states, but the threat of terrorist attacks became the primary challenge
to the United States' national security, as demonstrated by a number of incidents during the last decade. 30 Although no
terrorist acts directed against the population or interests of the United States or other states
have been launched with nuclear weapons yet, this failure "must be assumed to be due to lack of
means rather than lack of motivation."'" Attempts by al-Qaeda to acquire nuclear material are
well documented,32 and several other attempted thefts of nuclear material indicates that there
is a demand for nuclear material among terrorist groups, many of which are hostile to the
United States. 33 The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically increased the risk that terrorist
organizations will succeed in acquiring fissile material from Russia for several reasons. First, the
end of the Soviet state marked the end of state control over every aspect of life in the Soviet
Union.34 One by-product of stringent centralized control was heavy regulation and intense security measures for military facilities
and nuclear installations. 5 Second, the economic decline that accompanied the transition to a
market economy" exacerbated the problem, as the fiscal situation in the former
Soviet states, most notably Russia, made security programs impossible to fund.37
Graham Allison summarizes the implications of post-Soviet disorder in Russia: The dramatic changes ... have produced political
uncertainty, economic distress, and social dislocation. For tens of millions of Russians, hardship and deprivation are inescapable
facts of life.... [H]arsh economic conditions can create incentives for nuclear theft and smuggling. For people who are poorly housed,
poorly fed, and poorly paid (when paid at all), there will be a temptation to do what they can to improve their lives and secure their
futures. Russia's nuclear custodians face these pressures as they preside over weapons and materials that are immensely valuable to
any state or group that covets nuclear weapons. It is not hard to imagine that people leading bleak, uncertain, and difficult lives
might find irresistible the prospect of wealth and security via the nuclear black market.... Organizations such as the Russian military
and Minatom are now operating in circumstances of great stress. Money is in short supply, paychecks are irregular, living conditions
unpleasant.... [D]isorder within Russia and the resulting strains within the military could easily cause a lapse or a breakdown in the
Russian military's guardianship of nuclear weapons." Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present
risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia
as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent
Soviet-era nuclear security measures."9 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear
weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the
stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by
such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that
had obtained it in one of these ways.'' 4 ' Equally threatening, however, is the risk
that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device
on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive
nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the
technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant.42
Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear
device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could
successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built.4 ' Accordingly, supply-side controls that
are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the
risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial
complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in
an economy that was collapsing.4 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there are still at least 20,000
former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to
retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell
their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist
organizations with nuclear ambitions.4" The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear
knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A
terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate
human and economic losses.49 Moreover, there would be immense political
pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with
nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially
triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict.' In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear
knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread
proliferation of nuclear weapons.5' This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by
hostile states,5 2 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of
nuclear weapons.53
Even if they are no shocks, Middle East oil dependence creates
entangling alliances that draw the US into major power wars in the
Caspian and with Russia
Glaser ‘11
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security Charles L.
Glaser cglaser@gwu.edu Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University August 2011,
epts.washington.edu/.../Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.doc
When a state’s economy depends heavily on oil, severe supply disruptions might
do sufficiently large economic damage that the state would use military force to
protect its prosperity. A state this suffers this vulnerability risks not only suffering the damage that could be inflicted by
a supply disruption, which might be the by-product of unrelated domestic or international events, but also risks being coerced by an
adversary. Consequently, states will want to be confident that their ability to import oil will
be uninterrupted and will pursue policies to ensure secure access. I am using access broadly,
to include at least three different features of secure oil supply: 1) uninterrupted transport, which is probably the most common
usage; 2) oil suppliers that are willing to sell oil at market prices; and 3) suppliers whose oil facilities are secure from crippling attack
by opposing states and local insurgents. Each type of access identifies different requirements and different
potential dangers; all of them suggest scenarios in which the United States could need to use
military force to protect the flow of oil. Concern about secure transport can take a variety of
forms—a state may need to protect its sea lanes of communication, to defend choke points that
make oil traffic relatively easy to disrupt, or to control territory across which oil is piped. For
example, China needs to worry about the vulnerability of its SLOCs from the Persian Gulf to northeast Asia; the United
States has to be prepared to protect the Strait of Hormuz, most likely from Iranian
attack; and numerous states have contested the location of pipelines in the
Caspian Sea region because they want to control the territory they cross. Potential
security dangers generated by concern about secure transport could also occur via less direct mechanisms. One important
possibility is energy-driven alliances. If the United States enters into an alliance
that is designed to protect access to oil and protecting that ally then draws the
United States into a war, this should be considered an energy-driven conflict, even
if the actual war is not fought over oil. As I sketch below, a current example here is
America’s interest in the Caspian Region and, more specifically, its desire to
include Georgia in NATO, a move that increases the risk of conflict with Russia.
Most likely scenario for a major power nuclear war
Blank in 2000
Steven J. Blank is the Douglas MacArthur Professor of Research at the U.S. Army War College
and has been an Associate Professor of Russia/Soviet Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institutes.
“US Military Engagement with Trancaucasia and Central Asia,” Strategic Studies Institute, June,
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usassi/welcome.htm.
Russia’s drive for hegemony over the Transcaucasus and Central Asia therefore led those states and interested foreign
powers to an equal and opposing reaction that has blunted the Russian drive. Baku, Erevan, Tashkent,
Astana, and Tbilisi, to a greater or lesser degree, are seeking a Western counterbalance to Moscow, which the West, especially
Ankara and Washington, are all too happy to provide.68 Central Asia has also turned to China, the United States, and Iran in
energy and economics, is exploring forms of regional cooperation, and has begun to build its own national militaries to escape from
Russia’s shadow. Apart from expanded trade and commercial relations and support for infrastructural projects beyond the energy
and pipeline business, Turkey trains Azerbaijani troops and provides economic-political assistance to Georgia and Azerbaijan. Other
Western powers, especially France and Great Britain, also display a rising regional profile. Washington’s burgeoning
military-political-economic involvement seeks, inter alia, to demonstrate the U.S. ability to project
military power even into this region or for that matter, into Ukraine where NATO recently held exercises
that clearly originated as an anti-Russian scenario. Secretary of Defense William Cohen has discussed strengthening U.S.Azerbaijani military cooperation and even training the Azerbaijani army, certainly alarming Armenia and Russia.69 And
Washington is also training Georgia’s new Coast Guard. 70 However, Washington’s well-known
ambivalence about committing force to Third World ethnopolitical conflicts suggests that U.S.
military power will not be
easily committed to saving its economic investment. But this ambivalence about committing
forces and the dangerous situation, where Turkey is allied to Azerbaijan and Armenia is bound to Russia, create the
potential for wider and more protracted regional conflicts among local forces. In that connection, Azerbaijan
and Georgia’s growing efforts to secure NATO’s lasting involvement in the region, coupled with Russia’s determination to exclude
other rivals, foster a polarization along very traditional lines.71 In 1993 Moscow even threatened World War III to
deter Turkish intervention on behalf of Azerbaijan. Yet the new Russo-Armenian Treaty and Azeri-Turkish treaty suggest
that Russia and Turkey could be dragged into a confrontation to rescue their allies from defeat. 72 Thus
many of the conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict in which third parties intervene are present in the
Transcaucasus. For example, many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great
potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their lesser proteges and proxies. One or
another big power may fail to grasp the other side’s stakes since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence
commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a client’s defeat are not as well
established or apparent. Clarity about the nature of the threat could prevent the kind of rapid and almost uncontrolled
escalation we saw in 1993 when Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan led Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear
war in that case. 73 Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally, Russian nuclear threats could trigger a potential
nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia’s declared nuclear strategies). The real threat of a
Russian nuclear strike against Turkey to defend Moscow’s interests and forces in the Transcaucasus makes the
danger of major war there higher than almost everywhere else. As Richard Betts has observed, The greatest
danger lies in areas where (1) the potential for serious instability is high; (2) both superpowers perceive vital interests; (3) neither
recognizes that the other’s perceived interest or commitment is as great as its own; (4) both have the capability to inject conventional
forces; and, (5) neither has willing proxies capable of settling the situation.74 Russian perceptions of the Transcaspian’s criticality to
its interests is tied to its continuing efforts to perpetuate and extend the vast disproportion in power it possesses relative to other CIS
states. This power and resource disproportion between Russia and the smaller states of the Transcaspian region means that no
natural equilibrium is possible there. Russia neither can be restrained nor will it accept restraint by any local
institution or power in
its pursuit of unilateral advantage and reintegration.
Plan solves the regulatory patchwork and lack of unified policy on
spatial management hindering ocean energy development
Ocean Conservancy ‘12 (“MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING: ORDER IN THE OCEAN,”
The Ocean Conservancy, http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-spatial-planning/)
Our country has never had a unified policy to guide the management and use of our coasts and
ocean intelligently, which would help both avoid and rapidly address disasters such as the BP Deepwater Horizon blowout.
Instead, we have had a piecemeal approach and lack of coordination among agencies. Currently,
more than 20 federal agencies and over 140 laws address the management of our coasts and
ocean, not to mention the state and local institutions, with their own requirements, that share in
this regulatory patchwork. Ocean Conservancy has led the effort advocating for a better way of managing our coasts and
ocean and will continue to do so.¶ Almost a year before the BP disaster, President Obama recognized the problem and established an
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force charged with drafting recommendations for a National Ocean Policy and
developing a framework for a coordinated, science and ecosystem-based form of ocean
governance known as coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP). In July 2010, President Obama signed
Executive Order 13547 adopting the Task Force's report, defining a National Ocean Policy that prioritizes the protection,
maintenance and restoration of ecosystem health and sustainable economic development of our coastal and ocean economies.
CMSP is the planning process established to achieve these goals and the National Ocean Council
and associated committees and regional planning bodies comprise the governance structure
created to ensure implementation.
New federal leadership on marine spatial planning vital to establish
regulatory certainty and boost energy development
Tierney 13 (Susan F. Tierney, PhD, With Stephen Carpenter, Analysis Group, Inc, June
2013, “Planning for Offshore Energy Development,”
http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/Planning_for_Ocean_Ener
gy_Development_Complete.pdf)
The current national debate on domestic energy development includes those who seek energy
independence, and for many of them, ocean-based oil and gas resources are critical to that
outcome. Others seek a different energy strategy with lower carbon emissions and see development of offshore wind as vital to
that goal. For either of these constituencies, such aspirations can only happen in the context of a very busy, crowded, and valuable
marine environment, with myriad other pressures and conditions besides energy development options. Ocean planning
provides a way to frame a discussion and decision-making process to consider how these options
unfold. Maintaining and furthering the goal of improving the efficiency of ocean and coastal
permitting sends a strong signal to many players: to federal agencies, to coordinate the use of
their increasingly limited resources; to the states, to participate through various means in the local and regional issues
that affect their state’s interests; to the energy development and investment community, to prepare their plans in the context of
strong scientific and technical information; to the NGOs, to give them the benefit of a seat at the table. Specifically, several
recommendations point to actions that could help unleash ocean planning to help lessen some
of the permitting and regulatory inefficiencies related to offshore energy development: Convene
stakeholders in the ocean energy development communities with those in ocean planning
communities to share information and educate each other on issues. Typically, those who
participate actively in offshore energy development (e.g., leasing, permitting, plan approval, site assessments)
are not familiar with the principles and practices of marine spatial planning, and vice versa. The
lack of experience often leads to suspicions, distrust, and resistance (on both sides). A concerted
effort by interested players (e.g., governors of coastal states interested in offshore energy
development, industry and/or environmental associations with a similar interest, a broad group
of diverse foundations) to create a neutral setting in which to educate players in this area could
produce greater understanding and willingness to experiment with new planning and permitting
approaches. Use ocean energy to pilot new ocean planning processes of the National Ocean
Council. The National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan points to aquaculture as a place to pilot the process. There might be
other rich opportunities to pilot ocean-planning initiatives in the energy area—either in regions with rich offshore wind resources or
fossil energy resources. Currently,
in many parts of the OCS, there are insufficient scientific and technical
data about such resources and the conditions of the ocean in which they are located. This does
not allow policymakers and other stakeholders to make informed decisions about development
and to equip developers with information on which to base commercial plans. Part of the ocean
planning process should be used to help build such a technical platform for future decisions. Use ocean planning as a
predicate to opening up areas of the OCS for offshore energy development, and as a critical
pathway for engaging stakeholders on the access issues. Given the many strongly- held views on allowing access
to energy resources in the OCS, ocean planning could be a vehicle for engaging interested parties in a constructive dialogue on the
value of potential benefits of opening up areas for energy developments. The federal government—perhaps though the
NOC—should consider piloting
an ocean planning exercise in an area where there is strong state
support, good information, and openness to use this process for exploring offshore energy
development options. It could examine the panoply of relevant issues, including what
information gaps need to be filled, a game plan for developing that information, and a set of
issues that need to be considered as part of the process. This process might result in narrowing the areas of
public concern, identifying areas where research could be most useful, and otherwise contributing to the baseline of scientific and
other technical information and value preferences that are needed to inform the public debate.
Resolving regulatory boosts domestic oil production but paves way
for transition to entire slate of offshore renewables
Griset ’11 (Todd J. Griset earned a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in
2002, and a Masters of Environmental Studies from the University of Pennsylvania in 2006.
“HARNESSING THE OCEAN'S POWER: OPPORTUNITIES IN RENEWABLE OCEAN ENERGY
RESOURCES,” 16 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 395)-mikee
IV. CONCLUSION: FURTHER STREAMLINING OF REGULATORY POLICIES WILL EMPOWER CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE OCEAN ENERGY
PROJECTS Whether renewable ocean energy development will occur in U.S. waters on a commercial scale remains to be seen. The potential environmental impact of individual
The [*432] slate of technologies
available for extracting usable energy from the sea is promising, but most--and particularly those with the greatest
potential--remain in an immature state. As interest in refining these technologies continues, mechanisms for converting the oceans' energy into usable
units remains largely unknown, let alone the impacts of build-out and development on a larger scale. n226
power are improving in efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Regulatory regimes applicable to renewable ocean energy continue to evolve as well. For example, the decision of the
Massachusetts DPU to approve Cape Wind's power purchase agreement with National Grid, and the FERC order approving the concept of a multi-tiered avoided cost rate
structure under which states may establish a higher avoided cost rate for mandated renewable power, both represent an evolution in the traditional regulation of public utilities.
regulatory policy has shifted to favor renewable energy production even though it may
initially bear a higher cost than production from fossil fuel-based resources. These shifts may
continue to bring renewable ocean energy closer to cost-competitiveness or cost-parity with
traditional resources. Time will tell whether the trend toward greater ocean energy development will rise and fall like the tides, as has the trends responsible for
In both cases,
the initial enactment of the OTEC Act, subsequent removal of NOAA's regulations, and the current resurgence of interest in OTEC, or whether these shifts represent definite
progress toward a new form of energy production. Furthermore,
clarification and simplification of the patchwork of regulatory
regimes governing renewable ocean energy projects will bring about additional reductions in
the cost of energy from the sea. As a general principle, uncertainty or inconsistency of regulation tends to
deter development and investment. n227 Unknown or shifting regulatory regimes add risk to the development of any given project. n228 Indeed,
in the context of ocean energy, regulatory uncertainty has been called "the most significant nontechnical obstacle to deployment of this new technology."
n229
Consistent government commitment
and the simplification of licensing and permitting procedures , rank among the [*433] hallmarks of
a well-planned system for developing ocean renewable energy. n230 Arguably, such a system has
not yet been fully realized. Some observers believe that the MOU between MMS and FERC has "resolved the uncertainty" over the jurisdictional question,
and by extension, over the question of which set of regulations a developer of a project on the OCS must follow. n231 On the other hand, the dual process
created by the MOU under which MMS/BOEMRE must first approve a site and issue a lease,
after which FERC may issue a license or exemption, may lead to delays in the development of
hydrokinetic energy resources on the OCS. n232 Nevertheless, the agencies have committed themselves to cooperate and have issued
guidance suggesting that where possible, the agencies will combine their National Environmental Policy Act processes. n233 At the same time, technologies such
as OTEC remain under the jurisdiction of NOAA. As noted above, a host of other federal agencies retain authority to regulate various
The nation's regulatory program for ocean energy projects thus lacks a
single "one-stop shop" approach for project licensure, site leasing, and other required
permitting. Project developers must not only obtain permits from a variety of federal and state entities, but moreover face uncertainty as to which permits may be
required. The net impact of this regulatory patchwork is to place a chilling effect on the
comprehensive development of the nation's renewable ocean energy resources. Moreover, few renewable
aspects of renewable ocean energy projects.
ocean energy projects have been fully permitted. Indeed, the Cape Wind project represents the first commercial-scale offshore wind project to complete its permitting and
licensing path. n234 Although each future project's details and regulatory [*434] path may be unique, the success of the first United States offshore wind project to go through
the public regulatory process provides subsequent developers with valuable insight into challenges, procedures, and provides an understanding of how to apportion permitting
and development costs with greater certainty. n235 However, because that path took nine years to navigate, and because many of the regulatory shifts described herein occurred
during that time, project developers today will face a different regulatory structure than that faced by Cape Wind. Moreover, depending on the technology involved, site-specific
issues, and the regulatory environment of each state, each project must in essence forge its own path forward toward complete regulatory approval. Congressional action could
Providing a stable structure for the
development of the oceans' renewable energy potential would reduce the capital cost required to
develop a given project. By providing a clear and consistent legal path for project developers to follow, such legislation would enable the best ocean energy
projects to become more cost-competitive. This in turn could provide benefits along the lines of those cited by the
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in approving the Cape Wind power purchase agreement: economic development, a diversified
further streamline the regulatory framework applicable to renewable ocean energy projects.
energy policy, greater energy independence, and reduced carbon emissions . The states' role in such a regulatory
framework should be respected. While renewable power benefits the region, the nation, and the world at large, most of the negative impacts of a given project are felt locally.
Establishing a clear regulatory framework including appropriate federal agencies as well as state authority could empower greater development of ocean energy resources
Our oceans hold vast promise.
The opportunity to transform that potential into usable energy is significant. Whether developing that potential
into commercial-scale energy production is a reasonable choice remains to be seen . If renewable ocean energy resources are to be
without sacrificing values such as navigational rights, fisheries and wildlife, aesthetic considerations, and states' rights.
developed, promoting regulatory certainty would do much to promote their cost-effective
development.
CMSP increases energy development in the OCS
Tierney 13 (Susan F. Tierney, June 2013, Ph.D. and M.A., regional planning, public policy,
Cornell University; B.A., “Planning for Offshore Energy Development”,
http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/Planning_for_Ocean_Ener
gy_Development_Complete.pdf)
In oil/gas, the opportunities for proactive planning also vary by geography: In the parts of the Gulf of ¶ Mexico where offshore
oil/gas development has co-existed with other uses for decades, there are ¶ relatively well-established relationships and locations for
activities (such as shipping lanes vis-à-vis ¶ offshore rigs). There is already a substantial body of information on the composition and
locations of ¶ natural resources, human uses, and impacts of different activities, with current efforts underway to ¶ amplify this
knowledge base (e.g., for coastal restoration and clean-up). But in other areas of the OCS, ¶ where moratoria have
made the ocean off-limits for energy development, ocean planning could provide a ¶ more
proactive approach. ¶ Provide enhanced integrity for high-level decisions about ocean energy
resource use: Ocean ¶ planning has the potential to build stronger support for agencies’
permitting decisions—or even for the ¶ integrity of the planning processes in which they decide
whether and, if so, how to open up (or close, or ¶ maintain restrictions on) areas of the OCS for energy
development. This has worked in practice to bring ¶ to the table stakeholders initially suspicious of what the process would
entail, but who ended up accepting ¶ the decisions of government as a result of having been part of the process and seeing more
closely the ¶ information and criteria the government used to make its decisions. ¶ Constructive pathways through which the federal
government could consider whether and, if so, ¶ how to open up particular areas of the OCS for energy development: In a state
where there is interest ¶ in considering offshore energy development, ocean planning could
provide a pathway—perhaps the best ¶ and only pathway—for the state, the federal government, and
interested parties to sit down and explore ¶ opportunities for development in the future.17 For the
areas of the OCS that are off-limits for either type ¶ of energy development, different stakeholders have historically held (and in
many cases still do hold) ¶ strong views about access. This is as true for renewable energy development as it
is
for development of ¶ traditional energy sources. Conversations about whether and, if so, how to
open up the OCS for energy ¶ development are typically charged with passion, and often suffer from a lack
of sound scientific and ¶ technical geospatial information, either about the energy resources
themselves, other activities in the ¶ ocean, or specific sensitive areas deserving special
protections. As a result, broader and less flexible ¶ action is often taken, where more surgical approaches might be
appropriate and could allow greater use ¶ without compromising environmental protection
standards.
Short term domestic offshore drilling reduces oil dependence
Gonzalez ‘12
Angel. Expanded Oil Drilling Helps U.S.Wean Itself From Mideast¶ Email¶ ¶ Print¶ ¶ 302
Comments¶ ¶ Facebook¶ ¶ Twitter¶ ¶ Google+¶ ¶ LinkedIn¶ smaller¶ ¶ Larger¶ ¶ By ÁNGEL GONZÁLEZ¶
Updated June 27, 2012 11:30 a.m. ET, WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304441404577480952719124264
HOUSTON—America will halve its reliance on Middle East oil by the end of this decade and could end it completely by 2035 due to
declining demand and the rapid growth of new petroleum sources in the Western Hemisphere, energy analysts now anticipate.¶
The U.S. will halve its reliance on Middle East oil by the end of this decade and could end it
completely by 2035 due to declining demand and growth of new petroleum sources, energy analysts say. Angel
Gonzalez has details on Markets Hub.¶ The shift, a result of technological advances that are unlocking new
sources of oil in shale-rock formations, oil sands and deep beneath the ocean floor, carries profound
consequences for the U.S. economy and energy security. A good portion of this surprising bounty comes from
the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a technique perfected during the last decade in U.S. fields previously deemed
not worth tampering with.¶ A Military Shift¶ ¶ China gets about half its oil from countries around the Persian Gulf. Add to that
China's strong belief in naval strength, and toss in U.S. eagerness to wind down military involvement in the Middle East, and you get
all the ingredients for a historic reshuffling of the security picture in the region. The question for Washington is deceptively simple:
Would that be good or bad?¶ By 2020, nearly half of the crude oil America consumes will be produced at
home, while 82% will come from this side of the Atlantic, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. By 2035, oil shipments from the Middle East to North America "could almost be
nonexistent," the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries recently predicted, partly because more efficient car engines
and a growing supply of renewable fuel will help curb demand.¶ The change achieves a long-sought goal of U.S.
policy-making: to draw more oil from nearby, stable sources and less from a volatile region half
a world away. "Whereas at one point there were real and serious concerns about the ability to
maintain sustainable access of supplies to the United States if there were disruptions in the
Middle East, that has changed," Carlos Pascual, the top energy official at the State Department, said in an interview.¶
Transition to renewables solves oil shocks and oil draw-in
Muro et al. 11 – (2011, Mark, senior fellow and director of policy for the Metropolitan Policy
Program at Brookings, Jonathan Rothwell, senior research associate and associate fellow at the
Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, Devashree Saha, senior policy analyst and associate
fellow at the MPP, “SIZING THE CLEAN ECONOMY A NATIONAL AND REGIONAL GREEN
JOBS ASSESSMENT,”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Series/resources/0713_clean_economy.pdf)
A sharpening need for resource security. The clean economy also matters for reasons of resource
security: It reflects new demands that this nation and others reduce their vulnerability to
resource supply shocks and related conflict.12Currently, the United States consumes nearly 19
million barrels of oil per day—half of it imported—to power its economy, move its people and products, and manufacture
its goods. 13 That leaves the entire U.S. economy vulnerable to geopolitical instability
and supply disruptions abroad. 14 For example, the high and volatile energy prices of 2008 warned of a new,
tighter, and more uncertain reality on the world market for fossil fuels, particularly oil. 15 Today, economic recovery, the return of oil
prices to over $100 per barrel, and the Arab Awakening’s uncertain course in the Middle East and North Africa have only sharpened
these concerns. And rightly so: Such uncertainty and price volatility has been shown to reduce
investment across the economy, increase business costs, disrupt household budgets, and so
depress domestic growth. 16However, the “green” and low-carbon goods, processes, and
services being developed by the clean economy represent an opportunity for the nation to
insulate itself from price and supply shocks and begin to disentangle itself from the
messy geopolitics of oil through efficiency advances and a diversification of the nation’s
energy-source portfolio. 17
Plan
The United States federal government should establish a national
coordinated coastal and marine spatial planning system for the
ocean.
Solvency
Effective CMSP key to increase energy development, solves
environment and speeds up construction
Tierney 2013 (Susan F. Tierney, June 2013, Ph.D. and M.A., regional planning, public
policy, Cornell University; B.A., “Planning for Offshore Energy Development”,
http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/Planning_for_Ocean_Ener
gy_Development_Complete.pdf)
Ocean planning could improve the efficiency of various aspects of the leasing and permitting
processes ¶ for offshore energy development, even under current regulatory frameworks. This
could occur through: ¶ Improved quality and quantity of location-specific technical information. ¶ Improved
coordination and leveraging of information collection and mapping efforts across ¶ federal agencies,
across states in regional contexts, and across federal/state efforts. ¶ Improved access to location-specific
information for federal and private-sector decision makers, ¶ and for other interested stakeholders (including
the states, other ocean industry groups, ¶ environmental organizations, and others). ¶
private participation in determining the disposition ¶ of ocean resources
by bringing parties together
early in the process and identifying issues that ¶ need to be addressed when determining
whether and how to allow energy development projects. ¶
expenditures devoted to information collection/analysis ¶ and project permitting, while reducing regulatory risk. ¶
state/federal cooperation on ocean resource development and protection objectives. ¶ More proactive and less
reactive government decision making. ¶
consider whether, and if so, ¶ how to open up particular areas of the OCS for energy development.
The US adoption of CSMP establishes a framework for global
coordination and solvency
Leslie and McLeod 7 (Heather M. Leslie is Sharpe assistant Professor of Environmental Studies
and Biology at Brown University. Karen L. McLeod is director of science ¶ for Communication Partnership
for ¶ Science and the Sea (COMPaSS) at ¶ Oregon State University. ) “Confronting the challenges of
implementing¶ marine ecosystem-based management”
http://media.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2008/FIL_000000000907/Leslie%20and%20McLeod%20
Frontiers%202007%20high%20res%20version.pdf
International efforts in this area could comprise a whole¶ series of papers (see Browman and
Stergiou [2005] for a¶ recent summary), but it is worth noting that both Canada¶ (via the Oceans Act)
and Australia (via the Oceans¶ Policy) have governance frameworks in place that mandate¶
integrated and comprehensive management of¶ human impacts on coastal and ocean
ecosystems. This is a¶ direction in which the US needs to move. Also at the¶ international level,
the United Nations Environment¶ Programme recently published a framework for assessing¶
progress toward ecosystem-based management in coastal¶ and river basin systems (UNEP/GPA
2006), which could¶ be used to develop monitoring programs for marine EBM¶ initiatives in the
US and elsewhere.¶
Federal action is key—states don’t have jurisdiction over the OCS
Environmental Law Institute ‘’11 (Environmental Law Institute, April 2011, “CoManaging the Arctic ¶ Ocean and Coasts”,
http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/eli_arctic_nop_cmsp_handbook.pdf)
State and local government manage most activities from 0-3 miles from shore. The State of
Alaska and Alaska's coastal boroughs {such as the North Slope Borough and the Northwest
Arctic Borough) manage development in coastal waters and on Alaska Native-owned lands.
Alaska Native Regional Corporations (such as the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation or NANA
Regional Corporation) manage the revenue from such development, The state, borough, and/or
tribal governments manage onshore uses and policies that affect the Arctic coast, such as land
use and economic policies on non-federal lands.The federal government manages ¶ activities on
the outer continental ¶ shelf, from 3–200 miles from shore¶ , including oil and gas ¶
development and commercial fishing. The federal gov¶ ernment also ¶ sets minimum ¶ water
quality and air quality standards and regulations, ¶ which apply in both state and federal waters,
and m¶ anages ¶ shipping ¶ and transportation¶ . In addition, the federal government has
ultimate ¶ authority for management of endangered, threatened, a¶ nd marine ¶ mammal
species in all ocean waters, whether federal ¶ or state.
And, no trade-offs, solves use conflicts
DOE 2012 (Department of Ecology, Washington State, May 2010, “Marine Spatial Planning”,
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1006010.pdf)
Marine spatial planning is a process for coordinating ¶ decisions for coastal and ocean activities
and environments in a ¶ comprehensive plan. ¶ ¶ Marine spatial planning uses data on the location of
important ¶ marine resources, human activities, and other key components ¶ to determine the most appropriate
locations for particular uses. ¶ The planning process often displays and analyzes this ¶
information using maps and other tools to inform the ¶ development of the plan. Marine Spatial
Planning can improve management of marine ¶ resources in several ways. Often, it is used to: ¶ • Reduce conflicts among
uses and promote compatible uses. ¶ • Reduce environmental impacts. ¶ • Align management
decisions across many government ¶ entities. ¶ • Address emerging issues and new uses of
marine resources ¶ like renewable energy.
Plan solves for market errors, environmental damage and resource
exhaustion
Ehler ‘9 (Charles Ehler, 2009, President of Ocean Visions Consulting a marine spatial
planning consultant to UNESCO, “Marine spatial planning A Step-by-Step Approach toward
Ecosystem-based Management”,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001865/186559e.pdf)
Marine areas or ecosystems are affected by human activities in terms of demands for the use of the
resources of the area to produce desired goods and services, eg, seafood, marine transportation, energy, and recreation (see Box 5). Marine
ecological services, such as storm protection, waste processing, and climate regulation, are also affected by human activities.Demands for
goods and services from a marine area usually exceed its capacity to meet all of the demands simultaneously.
Marine resources, e.g., fish and coral reefs, are often 'common property resources' with 'open' or 'free'
access to users Free access often, if not usually, leads to excessive use of the resource, eg, 0ver-fishing,
and degradation or exhaustion of the resource, eg, marine pollution and habitat degradation.
Because not all of the goods and services from marine ecosystems can be expressed in monetary
terms, free markets cannot perform the allocation tasks . Some public process must be used to decide
what mix of goods and services will be produced from the marine area . That process is marine
spatial planning .¶ Some areas of the ocean are more important than others—both ecologically and economically. Species, habitats, populations,
oil and gas deposits, sand and gravel deposits, and sustained winds, are all distributed in vari0us places and at various times. Successful
marine management needs planners and managers who understand how to work with the
spatial and temporal diversity of the sea. 3 Understanding these spatial and temporal distributions and mapping them
is an important part of MSP (see Step 5, Defining and analyzing existing conditions). Managing human activities to
enhance compatible uses and reduce conflicts among uses, as well as to reduce conflicts between human activities and
nature, are important outcomes of MSP. Examining how these distributions might change due to climate change and other long-term
pressures, e91 over fishing, on marine systems is another step of MSP (see Step 6, Defining and analyzing future conditions).
Extensions
Inherency
Upgrade Needed
Current management approaches are a bad model
NCGMT 2009 (The Nature Conservancy’s Global Marine Team, August 2009, “Best
Practices for Marine Spatial Planning”, file:///C:/Users/asus/Downloads/msp-advice-and-bestpractices.pdf)
The seas are no longer a wide-open frontier, and its spaces are broadly allocated and with ¶
extensive overlap by many management agencies. Many organizations and agencies are ¶
increasingly recognizing the need for proactive instead of piecemeal management of human ¶
activities that affect the health of the ocean. In the United States and around the world, now is a
¶ critical time to implement better management of ocean and coastal resources to meet multiple
¶ management objectives. ¶ ¶ On June 12, 2009, President Barack Obama released a
memorandum recognizing that “the ¶ United States needs to act within a unifying framework
under a clear national policy, including a ¶ comprehensive, ecosystem-based framework for the
long-term conservation and use of our ¶ resources.” In the memo, Obama established an
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to develop ¶ a national ocean policy with marine spatial
planning as a cornerstone. Obama instructed the Task ¶ Force to provide a marine spatial
planning framework that has a “comprehensive, integrated, ¶ ecosystem-based approach that
addresses conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and ¶ sustainable use”.
The US is in need of a marine spatial planning map
The White House Council On Environmental Quality 10
(“Final Recommendations¶ Of The¶ Interagency Ocean Policy ¶ Task Force July 19th, 2010,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf)
The Nation’s interests in the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes support a growing number
of significant and often competing uses and activities, including commercial, recreational,
cultural, energy, scientific, conservation, and homeland and national security activities.
Combined, these activities profoundly influence and benefit coastal, regional, and national
economies and cultures. However, human uses of our ocean, coasts, and the Great Lakes are
expanding at a rate that challenges our ability¶ to plan and manage them under the current
sector-by-sector approach. While many existing permitting processes include aspects of crosssectoral planning (through, for example, the process governed by the National Environmental
Policy Act), most focus solely on a limited range of management tools and outcomes (e.g., oil
and gas leases, fishery management plans, and marine protected areas). Missing from this
picture is¶ a more integrated, comprehensive, ecosystem based, flexible, and proactive approach
to planning and managing these uses and activities. This new approach would be national in
scope to address national interests, but also scalable and specific to regional and local needs.
Without such an improved approach, we risk an increase in user conflicts, continued planning
and regulatory inefficiencies with their associated costs and delays, and the potential loss of
critical economic, ecosystem, social, and cultural services for present and future generations.
New Ocean policy makes Marine Spatial planning necessary
Business Forum on Ocean Policy and Planning 2014
(“MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING,” 29-30 September 2014,
http://www.oceancouncil.org/site/planning.php)
MSP is developing rapidly in many areas, especially the EU, US and Australia. Engaging in
effective decision-making through an MSP process is a key need for the ocean business
community. The WOC developed an MSP Working Group (WG) and will ensure the planning
process includes both the systematic and comprehensive involvement of a diverse range of
ocean industries as well as the use of credible science and risk assessment. Proactive,
constructive and coordinated participation in MSP by an informed ocean business community is
critical to achieving its business value. The MSP Working Group is developing a work plan that
will include practical tools and resources for ocean industries to use during an MSP process. ¶ In
Europe, the WOC has been tracking the MSP process at the EU Maritime Policy level and
engaging with the relevant components. The MSP focus is now moving to the regional/sea basin
level, e.g. Baltic, North Sea. This is creating the need and opportunity for the ocean business
community to get organized at the regional scale. In regions where there is sufficient need and
interest from stakeholders, the WOC will organize regional ocean business MSP workshops. A
regional ocean business council may emerge from this process as an ongoing means for the
private sector to provide systemic, ongoing interaction with each other on marine planning and
the means to engage collectively in the overall MSP process. ¶ In the US, the need for the ocean
industries to better understand and engage in MSP has become urgent due to the US National
Policy and the National Ocean Council. Among other things, this has called for the development
and implementation of MSP through a series of nine regional (sub-national) planning bodies.
The government convened a major inter-agency conference in mid-2011 to advance its MSP
plans. WOC convened the first National Ocean Business Forum on MSP in July 2011 to ensure
that ocean industries are better understand MSP, are full informed of the government plans and
to develop constructive and coordinated participation by an informed ocean business
community as it advances. As the US MSP process rolls out at a regional level, WOC has
launched a MSP Initiative to reach out to the range of ocean sectors active in each region to
facilitate understanding and involvement in the newly mandated ocean planning process.
Outcomes of the MSP Initiative will include: 1) National ocean policy and planning in the US has
the coordinated, proactive involvement of a well-informed multi-industry leadership group; 2)
Each of the nine regions has a comprehensive understanding of the industry stakeholders in the
region and 3)A regional ocean business council is established in three regions.
Obama’s plan was a good first step but implementation of MSP still
needs to occur
Ocean Conservancy 2012 (Ocean Conservancy, not-for-profit organization , 2012,
“Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning — Order in the Ocean”,
http://tocdev.pub30.convio.net/our-work/marine-spatial-planning/)
Coastal and marine spatial planning is a way to bring order to the ocean and balance competing
interests. Like comprehensive land use planning on shore, CMSP offers a baseline assessment of
the coastal and marine environment, and can help to determine what uses are compatible (for
example, wind farms and fixed aquaculture facilities) or incompatible (for example, dredged
material disposal and critical fish habitat) and to define areas that are best suited for protection,
maintenance, restoration, or development. With CMSP, we can manage the ecosystem as a
whole—including both environmental and human components—and evaluate cumulative
impacts of the many uses of the ocean. When implemented properly, it is a highly transparent
and participatory process that provides comprehensive and proactive planning, long-term
environmental conservation, and sustainable economic development.¶ In signing the Executive
Order, President Obama recognized that there is an approach that can bring order to the ocean
and provide a way to balance competing interests. Coastal and marine spatial planning is being
used effectively by other countries—and by states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island—to do
just that. It puts a process in place to manage the ecosystem as a whole and to evaluate
cumulative impacts of the many uses of the ocean. Coastal and marine spatial planning allows us
to maximize the economic and social benefits the ocean provides, while protecting our marine
ecosystems.¶ When implemented properly, coastal and marine spatial planning provides
comprehensive and proactive planning, long-term environmental conservation, and sustainable
economic development. In Belgium, coastal and marine spatial planning has been implemented
as a tool for managing an area of the North Sea that is crowded with multiple, often conflicting
uses. Belgium has been able to develop a sustainable Master Plan to protect ecosystems and
avoid conflicts. The Executive Order was a good first step towards achieving better ocean
governance, but it is only the beginning of the process. Ocean Conservancy will continue to
advocate for ocean health through the implementation of CMSP and for legislative reform that
will ensure the durability of the process.¶ While there are many threats to our coastal and ocean
ecosystems—not only risks of oil and gas development, but land-based degradation of ocean
habitat, climate change, and ocean acidification—we have not yet made an adequate financial
commitment to protecting, maintaining, and restoring these ecosystems. This is an essential
element to improved ocean conservation and governance and a priority recommendation of the
Pew and US Ocean Commissions. Ocean Conservancy is taking a lead role in seeking a dedicated
funding source for ocean and coastal research, education, management, and conservation that
will allow the effective implementation of CMSP and the national ocean policy.
Progress offshore is inconsistent – creates tension in national
security
Medina, Smith, Sturgis 14
Monica Medina, Joel Smith and Linda Sturgis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans¶
and Atmosphere; Research Associate for the Energy, Environment and Security Program;
United States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow, “National Coastal Ocean Mapping Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation”, January 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.
pdf
White House Executive Order 13547 adopted the¶ final recommendations of the Interagency
Ocean¶ Policy Task Force and established the National¶ Ocean Council to implement an ocean
policy¶ to safeguard the country’s ocean interests. The¶ executive order requires the council to
work with¶ stakeholders across the country to develop coastal¶ and marine spatial planning.3 To
improve transparency¶ and coordination, nine “regional planning¶ bodies” were created to
manage the neighboring¶ coastal ocean and produce plans by 2015 for incorporation¶ into the
national ocean plan.4 Although¶ significant progress has been made on national¶ ocean
planning over the past four years, efforts¶ across the nation to improve information sharing¶
and coordination among ocean users are inconsistent.¶ Meanwhile, increased offshore activity
and¶ competition for space in the coastal ocean have created¶ tension among national security,
commercial¶ industry and ocean conservation communities.5¶ As a steward of the ocean, the
military expends significant¶ time and resources to comply with federal¶ environmental
requirements. However, military¶ users are often challenged by the environmental¶ conservation
community because of the potentially¶ harmful effects on ocean life as a result of certain¶ military
activities.
Current Ocean Policy is inconsistent
Medina, Smith, and Sturgis
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
The United States is a maritime nation¶ with an expansive coastal ocean that is¶ integral to
economic, environmental and national¶ security.1 The coastal ocean hosts a wide range¶ of users,
including the U.S. military, coastal¶ shipping companies, offshore energy producers,¶ commercial
and sport fishermen, recreational¶ users and conservation groups. As a primary¶ user of the
coastal ocean, the U.S. military¶ needs dedicated and charted offshore areas in¶ which to train
and conduct exercises to prepare¶ for war, thwart terrorist activities and prevent¶ other threats
against the United States. For the¶ Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps, operating¶ in the
coastal ocean is critical to maintaining¶ operational readiness.2 Although the ocean may¶ seem
vast, a unified effort is necessary to balance¶ increased offshore activity with the need to¶
maintain U.S. military proficiency and national¶ security and ensure the safety and
sustainability¶ of this vital resource.¶ White House Executive Order 13547 adopted the¶ final
recommendations of the Interagency Ocean¶ Policy Task Force and established the National¶
Ocean Council to implement an ocean policy¶ to safeguard the country’s ocean interests. The¶
executive order requires the council to work with¶ stakeholders across the country to develop
coastal¶ and marine spatial planning.3 To improve transparency¶ and coordination, nine
“regional planning¶ bodies” were created to manage the neighboring¶ coastal ocean and produce
plans by 2015 for incorporation¶ into the national ocean plan.4 Although¶ significant progress
has been made on national¶ ocean planning over the past four years, efforts¶ across the nation to
improve information sharing¶ and coordination among ocean users are inconsistent .¶
Ocean activity is increasing- conflicting views and rules for the oceans
creates conflicts
Medina, Smith, Sturgis 14
Monica Medina, Joel Smith and Linda Sturgis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans¶
and Atmosphere; Research Associate for the Energy, Environment and Security Program;
United States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow, “National Coastal Ocean Mapping Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation”, January 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.
pdf
The Growing Importance of the¶ Coastal Ocean¶ As the diversity and volume of activity in the¶
coastal ocean increases and numerous users vie for¶ improved access, the potential for conflict
rises. In¶ 2010, the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force recognized¶ that “[d]emands for energy
development,¶ shipping, aquaculture, emerging security requirements¶ and other new and
existing uses are expected¶ to grow. Overlapping uses and differing views about¶ which
activities should occur where can generate¶ conflicts and misunderstandings.”7¶
Current cooperation is not productive
Hennessey 2011 (Jennifer Hennessey, the State Ocean Caucus Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA, “Marine Spatial Planning in Washington”, January 2011,
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1006027.pdf)
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a management tool that is increasingly being used around the
country and world to coordinate decisions for coastal and ocean activities and environments in a
comprehensive plan MSP uses data on the location of important marine resources, human
activities, and other key components to determine the most appropriate locations for particular
uses to achieve ecological. economic and social objectives. The planning process often displays
and analyzes this information using maps and other tools to inform the development of the
plan.¶ A variety of local, state, tribal and federaljurisdictions already manage many different
aspects of marine uses and resources under a number of existing regulations and authorities in
Washington. However, this traditional approach to management does not always
comprehensively address¶ overall health of our resources and uses in a coordinated and
proactive manner. MSP is a process to improve and align decisions for marine waters in a
comprehensive plan with common goals and shared outcomes and, as a result, can increase
efficiency of decision-making across jurisdictions. It can also improve the ability for agencies to
consider impacts to the whole system, rather than deal with them at a project level in reaction to
particular proposals. A marine spatial plan can also integrate with existing management
activities and help fill gaps in management A plan will not, in itself. institute new regulations.
Rather, a marine spatial plan can be implemented using existing regulations and authorities of
agencies across local‘ state‘ tribal and federal jurisdictions
Solvency
Integrating Planning Solves MSP problems
Establishing an integrating ocean planning system is vital to resolve
major development obstacles
Medina et al. ‘14
Monica Medina previously served as a Special¶ Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a¶ Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans¶ and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and¶ Atmospheric Administration. Joel Smith is a¶ Research Associate for the
Energy, Environment and¶ Security Program at the Center for a New American¶ Security. Commander Linda Sturgis is the United¶
States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow at the¶ Center for a New American Security. National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
Management of the coastal ocean is fundamentally¶ an issue of governance. However, the diverse
group¶ of agencies with statutory obligations to manage¶ ocean resources or undertake activities
in these¶ areas creates challenges for effective governance in¶ the coastal ocean. For instance, the
Department of¶ the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management¶ leases rights to drill for oil and natural gas and¶ build wind
farms in the coastal ocean, while the¶ Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries¶ Service manages the number, type and
location of fish that can be caught and oversees the permitting¶ process for the Navy to use sonar in training areas.¶ In total, more
than 140 federal laws govern the¶ coastal ocean areas.26¶ The creation and empowerment of regional planning¶
bodies has been a central pillar of the national¶ ocean policy. The military, particularly the Coast¶ Guard
and Navy, play a key role in regional¶ planning efforts along with public and private¶ stakeholders.
Some regional planning bodies have¶ made significant progress to advance ocean planning.¶
Because of a lack of funding and centralized¶ oversight, efforts throughout the nation have been¶
inconsistent.¶ The Northeast Regional Ocean Council and the¶ Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean¶ (MARCO) are
widely recognized as leaders in¶ regional planning. MARCO has led the way¶ in transparency, cooperation and data sharing¶ through
the MARCO portal. If this level of effort¶ could be replicated across the nation and integrated¶ into an ocean plan, ocean users would
clearly¶ benefit.¶ Even for these relatively successful regional groups,¶ challenges persist. Participants in a MARCO¶ workshop in
April noted that “the fragmentation¶ of federal management was so strong that it would¶ be difficult
for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning¶ Body to overcome in any meaningful way” and¶ that “the
lack of dedicated funding in support of¶ regional ocean planning was considered a substantial¶
challenge.”27 For effective coastal and marine¶ spatial planning, the National Ocean Council
must¶ empower regional planning bodies to address the¶ competing uses in each region and
resolve conflicts.¶ Furthermore, there must be a national-level coordination¶ mechanism to ensure
consistency across¶ adjacent areas and nationally unified ocean governance.¶ Without sustained funding
for their efforts,¶ regional planning bodies will face challenges in¶ creating uniform plans by 2015, and conflicts¶ among users are
likely to persist. Numerous information technology programs map¶ ocean use, but no single program
comprehensively¶ captures all major coastal ocean activities. Perhaps¶ the most notable effort, the
ocean.data.gov website,¶ is designed to serve as the National Ocean¶ Council’s gateway for ocean use data. This
website¶ has many positive qualities and has the potential to¶ become a comprehensive resource for coastal ocean¶ mapping.
However, it is based on limited data¶ – almost exclusively from federal sources – and¶ therefore captures only a subset
of
coastal ocean¶ activity. Other publicly available geospatial applications,¶ such as the “Marine Cadastre” program, a¶ joint
venture between the NOAA and the Bureau of¶ Ocean Energy Management, are useful in certain¶ applictions, but are also limited by
funding and¶ scope of data.¶ Informed decisions require good data. To exemplify¶ the importance of transparency and data sharing,¶
the Coast Guard initiated the Atlantic Coast Port¶ Access Route Study to evaluate vessel routing from¶ Florida to Maine and assist
the Bureau of Ocean¶ Energy Management’s efforts to identify priority¶ areas for offshore wind energy development. Data¶ from
automatic identification systems to track vessel¶ movements were used to create a comprehensive¶ view of current shipping routes,
allowing analysts¶ to depict the concentration of vessel movements¶ and approaches to ports along the eastern seaboard.¶ The data
provide a useful starting point for discussions¶ about port access and vessel routing and¶ efforts to preserve navigational safety in
conjunction¶ with offshore energy development proposals.28 This is an era of “big data” and ever-increasing¶
amounts of publicly available information. Ocean¶ users should strive to foster information
sharing,¶ improved cooperation and conflict avoidance. As the¶ environmental compliance administrator, the
Council¶ on Environmental Quality should encourage government¶ agencies to use coastal ocean mapping to
ease the¶ administrative burden of complying with federal statutes¶ and regulations. A
comprehensive coastal ocean mapping¶ system – based either on an existing platform, such¶ as ocean.data.gov or
on entirely new software – should¶ compile, integrate and analyze the available data. Those¶ data need
to be collected in a holistic manner for all¶ major activities in the coastal ocean, and they should¶
include overlays describing such characteristics as water¶ depth, bottom type, currents, shipping
routes, marine¶ protected areas, commercial and recreational fishing¶ grounds, projected oil and
gas lease sales, and military¶ training areas. Using the standardized data collection¶ methods,
this system would produce region-specific¶ maps based on the unique characteristics of each
area.¶ A publicly accessible and user-friendly mapping system¶ could provide users and regional
planning bodies with¶ essential tools for national ocean planning.
CMSP is adaptable
MSP process adapts to conditions over time
UNESCO updated ‘14
Marine Spatial Planning Network, http://www.unesco-iocmarinesp.be/marine_spatial_planning_msp, Updated 6 may 2014.
Marine spatial planning is not a substitute for single-sector planning and management. Strategic and operational plans for
fisheries, transportation, energy, recreation, and conservation, for example, will continue even
when integrated MSP is put into practice. Integrated MSP can provide a guide to single-sector
management that should increase compatibilities and reduce conflicts across sectors, balance
development and conservation interests, increase institutional effectiveness and efficiency, and
address the cumulative effects of multiple human uses of the same marine space.¶ ¶ Marine spatial
planning is not a one-time plan. The context for planning is constantly changing. Science contributes new knowledge. Monitoring
and evaluation adds new information about the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of alternative management measures.
Technology improves. Social, economic, and political conditions change over time. Plans should be
updated periodically to reflect these changing conditions.¶ ¶ ¶
CMSP solves crowding
MSP in coastal areas solves space management conflicts
Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council 13
(“Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning,” January 17, 2013,
http://seagrant.noaa.gov/News/FeatureStories/TabId/268/ArtMID/715/ArticleID/8/Coastaland-Marine-Spatial-Planning.aspx)
Marine and coastal environments form complex interdependent webs of life where organisms of
all sizes interact according to intricate rules of survival. Humans are integral nodes in this web,
relying on marine and coastal systems for both livelihoods and recreation in a co-dependent
relationship that requires the environment to remain healthy and vibrant.¶ How can we manage
such complex ecosystems in a way that integrates ecological, social, and economic goals?
According to the National Ocean Policy, we need to use Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
(CMSP).¶ The National Ocean Policy defines CMSP as a “comprehensive, adaptive, integrated,
ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for
analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas.” By planning for
specific uses of these resources, we can ensure we have set aside the right areas for different uses
and thereby reduce user conflicts and environmental impacts. CMSP is geared to preserve
ecosystem functions so that economies, societies and the natural environment are balanced with
one another into the future.¶ CMSP is a natural fit for NOAA Sea Grant. Research support for
sound science, sustained facilitation and coordination, stakeholder communication and
education––all hallmarks of CMSP—are the strengths of Sea Grant.¶
Marine Spatial Planning can solve for conflicting interests
GEF 2012 (Global Environment Facility, November 13 – 15, 2012, “MARINE SPATIAL
PLANNING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVENTION
ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY”,
http://www.unep.org/dgef/Portals/43/news/GEFSTAP_C43Inf_05_MarineSPContextConvent
ion_on_BiologicalDiversity.pdf)
Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has the potential to transform the way the oceans are managed.
This ¶ report explores spatial management as a means to protect marine and coastal biodiversity
while at the ¶ same time addressing human needs across coasts, around estuaries and deltas, in
near shore ¶ environments, and on open oceans. It synthesises available information on the
scope of MSP activities ¶ around the world, the lessons learned about the utility of spatial
planning and management, processes ¶ and tools used, and criteria for success at various scales.
The report reviews conventional approaches, ¶ identifies innovative new tools, and discusses the
potential MSP has - as yet not fully realised - in ¶ aligning conservation and development
interests while protecting vital ecosystems, the valuable goods ¶ and services they deliver, and
the biodiversity they support.
MSP is key to properly allocate ocean spacing
Monroe ‘10 (Leila Monroe, Staff Attorney, Oceans Program, “National Ocean Policy and
Marine Spatial Planning Will Improve Planning, Disaster Prevention, and Ocean Protection,”
June 8, 2010,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lmonroe/national_ocean_policy_and_mari.html)
On World Oceans Day, it’s important to recognize that we can do better than this flawed approach to ocean management and
protection. We need a national ocean policy that, like the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act, will help coordinate the many existing
laws and authorities. From stormwater runoff to ocean acidification, a unifying national policy will provide the coordinated vision
we need to successfully tackle the day-to-day challenges our oceans and Great Lakes are facing.¶ We also need to do a better
job of planning the industrial activity in our seas so we can prevent the “ocean sprawl” we see
now. We demand a lot from our seas – from fishing, to shipping and energy development. By
planning ahead with a process called “marine spatial planning” – essentially land use planning in the oceans
– we can allow minimize the stress from human activities and better protect the oceans and life
within them. This process gives interested parties (all levels of government, business interests, fisheries managers and
conservation groups) a role in the decision-making process so they can reach a common understanding of the goals for managing the
seas and work together to achieve them. ¶ Marine spatial planning uses sound science to determine places
that are appropriate for the many human uses of the ocean, such as indentifying sensitive areas that should be
protected from industrial activity and areas that are right for the business and recreational activities that make our coasts and
oceans an essential engine of our economy. This reduces conflicts between ocean industries (i.e. drilling versus
fishing) and more effectively accounts for the cumulative impacts to the marine environment.¶ Last summer, just days after World
Oceans Day 2009, President Obama called for an Ocean Policy Task to develop recommendations for a national policy, including a
framework for marine spatial planning. The Task Force has submitted recommendations to the President that have gone through
extensive public review. The next step is for the President to act on the Task Force’s recommendations and make the National Ocean
Policy official. ¶ As we try and account for the huge human and environmental costs from the Gulf disaster, we also need to think
ahead about how we can do a better job planning at the outset for activities and accounting for all of their costs so we can avoid
catastrophes like this in the first place. A national ocean policy and marine spatial planning would be a
step in the right direction.
Effective MSP solves marine crowding
SeaPlan 2014 (SeaPlan is an independent, nonprofit ocean science and policy group
working toward vibrant economies sustained by healthy oceans through advancing sciencebased, stakeholder informed ocean management 2014, “A Leader in Ocean Planning”,
http://www.seaplan.org/overview/)
Based in Boston, SeaPlan excels in fostering better decision making through the use of pragmatic strategy, best available science and
effective stakeholder engagement. As a neutral provider of ocean planning services and tools, SeaPlan is an effective collaborator
with government, nongovernmental entities and the private sector.¶ APPROACH TO THE PLANNING PROCESS¶ The ocean is
a crowded place and getting busier by the day—there are dozens of competing traditional
activities like commercial fishing, shipping, pipeline construction and recreation that now
contend with important emerging uses such as renewable energy development, fish farms and
marine conservation initiatives. The routine, sector-by-sector, or individual resource approach
to ocean management is inadequate to handle the increasing demands on our ocean
ecosystems.¶ Coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) aims to distribute and accommodate
both traditional and emerging ocean activities to produce sustainable economic and social
benefits while minimizing spatial conflicts and environmental impacts. CMSP is an iterative
process that uses the best available science along with stakeholder input to support integrated,
adaptable, and forward-looking ocean management decision-making. SeaPlan has been actively engaged in
marine spatial planning since 2006, mostly as The Massachusetts Ocean Partnership. We’ve assembled representative stakeholders,
partnered with government and collaborated with teams of expert practitioners to advance this emergent process in support of MA
ocean planning.¶ Our experience has taught us that, while CMSP is an enormously complex and ambitious undertaking, it is also –at
a certain level– remarkably straightforward. The diagram below illustrates the relationship among key components of CMSP. The
information, tools, processes and lessons learned in MA are at once unique to our political and geographic context and at the same
time of value more broadly in northeast region and beyond.
CMSP solves use-conflicts
MSP solves use conflicts in the ocean, matches efficiency with
environmental and cultural protection
Ehler ‘9 (Charles Ehler, 2009, President of Ocean Visions Consulting a marine spatial
planning consultant to UNESCO, “Marine spatial planning A Step-by-Step Approach toward
Ecosystem-based Management”,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001865/186559e.pdf)
¶ When developed properly, marine spatial planning can have significant ¶ economic, social, and
environmental benefits. Table 2 below shows ¶ some of the most important benefits of marine spatial planning. ecological/ ¶
environmental ¶ Benefits¶ Identification of biological and ecological important areas ¶ Biodiversity
objectives incorporated into planned decision-making¶ Identification and reduction of conflicts
between human use and nature¶ Allocation of space for biodiversity and nature conservation¶ Establish context for
planning a network of marine protected areas ¶ Identification and reduction of the cumulative effects of human activities on marine
ecosystems¶ economics Benefits Greater certainty of access to desirable areas for new private sector investments, frequently
amortized over 20-30 years¶ Identification of compatible uses within the same area of development¶ Reduction of conflicts between
incompatible uses¶ Improved capacity to plan for new and changing human activities, including
emerging technologies and their associated effects¶ Better safety during operation of human activities¶
Promotion of the efficient use of resources and space¶ Streamlining and transparency in permit
and licensing procedures¶ Social Benefits Improved opportunities for community and citizen participation¶
Identification of impacts of decisions on the allocation of ocean space (e.g., closure areas for certain uses,
protected areas) for communities ¶ and economies onshore (e.g., employment, distribution of income)” ¶
Identification and improved protection of cultural heritage ¶ Identification and preservation of social and
spiritual values related to ocean use (e.g., the ocean as an open space)
CMSP solves problems in squo
Marine Institute 2014 (MARINE INSTITUTE SCHOOL OF FISHERIES, 8:30AM – 12
PM - Tuesday February 4th, 2014 , “COASTAL AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING – ¶
INCLUDING APPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT”,
http://neia.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Feb-4-Backgrounder-CMSP-InformationSession.pdf)
The increasingly complex array of coastal and ocean activities mark an evolution from historic ¶
predominance of fishing and shipping activities. The advent of sectors such as offshore oil and
gas, ¶ aquaculture, offshore renewable energy, submarine cables/communications and
coastal/near shore ¶ tourism and recreation has resulted in increased competition for coastal
and ocean space as well as ¶ potential conflict between user groups. The risk of cumulative ecosystem
impacts is also increased. ¶ Internationally, ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) is
being widely adopted as ¶ a means to proactively plan coastal and ocean activities in a manner
that will address user conflict and ¶ ecosystem impacts. For example, both the European Union and United
States have identified the ¶ implementation of CMSP as priorities under their respective marine/ocean policy. Other potential ¶
benefits of CMSP include improved planning and regulatory efficiencies, reduced costs and
delays, ¶ facilitating sector growth and optimizing the use of the sea.
CMSP key to solve use-conflicts (environmental)
MSP Solves Human Needs (fishing, energy) and ecosystem
Duffy 8 (ecologist and conservation biologist with expertise in marine biodiversity and its
importance to human society. Marine biodiversity and food security.
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154466/)
Threats to the ocean are multifaceted, and the solutions need to be as well. Effective ocean conservation and
management involve three R’s: Reserve unspoiled habitats where possible, Restore degraded ones,
and Reconcile the several, often competing, demands of human society with the need for long-term
sustainability of the natural infrastructure that feeds those demands. One promising approach
that begins to address all three of these goals is ocean zoning, that is, designation of certain areas for particular uses
and others that are partly or fully protected. Such zoning has been used routinely on land for many years. The growing network of
limited-access or no-take marine reserves helps address both the reservation of relatively untouched habitats and the restoration of
degraded ones. Marine protected areas (MPAs) allow fishes and other organisms to reach the high
abundances and large body sizes necessary to maintain stable reproductive populations, and can
help maintain both biodiversity and productive fisheries. Zoning for other uses such as
recreation, fishing, and energy generation can, if done properly, reconcile the various needs of
human society with effective preservation of ecosystem structure and services.
CMSP solves predictability
MSP key to regulatory predictability, solves crowding
NRDC 2013 (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2013, “SUMMARY OF APRIL, 2012
SURVEY OF U.S. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS”,
http://www.cmspadvancement.com/resources.html)
During April, 2012 an electronic Survey (the Survey) was developed for and distributed to the broader U.S. Coastal Management
Community. The Survey was sent by e-mail invitation to 566 regional coastal managers recommended by staff at Coastal States
Organization and by individual Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Advancement Training (CMSP-AT) Steering Committee
members. A public link to the Survey was made available at the CMSP-AT project website www.cmspadvancement.com while notice
of the Survey opening was made available in the April 20, 2012 Coastal States Organization electronic newsletter. The Survey was
undertaken to assist the CMSP-AT Project Team in their understanding – from the Coastal Manager’s perspective – of the current
state of CMSP efforts, where (regionally) they were most engaged in the CMSP process and which training materials they believed to
be were deficient or absent and which circumstances or conditions facilitated or impeded their CMSP implementation work. ¶ The
survey included 16 multiple choice questions each of which offered space for write in comments. The reporting and summary results
include answers grouped by subject matter: characterization of the population of respondents, reporting on the current “state of
CMSP efforts” and the list of desirable, additional training and tools.Comments are not included in the Summary results.¶ Right
now we are creating ocean sprawl, failing to protect important marine resources, and failing to
separate incompatible uses. Some of the core uses now computing with each other are shipping,
commercial fishing, oil and gas extraction, wind energy productions, recreational boating, and
military training. ‘Ocean Blueprint’ is about the need for the U.S. to promote, region by region,
the implementation of a comprehensive approach to coastal and marine spatial planning similar
to the best practices of thoughtful land use planning. Good marine spatial planning promotes a
rational, predictable planning environment for all ocean users.
Effective marine spatial planning solves regulatory uncertainty and
protects vulnerable ecosystems
Agardy 6/17/10
Tundi Spring Agardy is Director of the Forest Trends Marine Ecosystem Services (MARES) Program and an
internationally renowned expert in marine conservation, with extensive field and policy experience in Africa, Asia, the
Caribbean, the Mediterranean, North America, and the Pacific. Tundi specializes in coastal planning and assessment,
marine protected areas, fisheries management and ocean zoning, and has published widely in these fields. She has
served as Senior Scientist for WWF and began Conservation International’s Global Marine Program. She also led the
coastal portion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and is a contributing editor to the Marine Ecosystems and
Management (MEAM) newsletter. “Can Marine Markets & Ocean Zoning Help Save the Seas?”
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=7588&section=news_articles&eo
d=1
An important new development in marine policy is marine spatial planning and ocean zoning. ¶
Comprehensive ocean zoning – a form of spatial management that is a natural outgrowth of the
kind of zoning we practice on land the world over – allows managers to highlight ecologically
important areas as well as ecosystem vulnerabilities and sensitivities. Zoning can streamline
permitting and lessen confusion and uncertainties for businesses and venture capitalists. In
addition, zoning that clarifies use (and in some cases, property) rights in the marine environment
can create the foundation for true stewardship. Several countries in the Southeast Asia region are
embarking on zoning exercises – most notably Vietnam, which recently is serving served as a demonstration for
utilizing the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission’s guidelines on marine spatial planning. ¶ Ocean zoning
can and should be coupled to innovative financing mechanisms for coastal management, such as PES schemes.
There is much potential for ocean zoning to play a major role in the development of such
markets, for two important reasons:¶ zoning establishes clear rights and responsibilities, which is a
reassurance to business investors; and¶ zoning plans could include “trading zones” where
payments for ecosystem services transactions could be established.¶ In "trading zones", for example,
developers could potentially buy credits for wetlands protection from environmental groups or
private land owners, or the insurance industry could invest in barrier beach protection in order
to minimize their own risks.
Environment Adv
CMSP solves sustainability
Coastal development is the key internal link to oceans health,
pollution, and fishery collapse—effective MSP solves
Agardy 2009 (Tundi Agardy, Scientific American, “Is Ocean Zoning the Solution to Dying
Marine Ecosystems?” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-ocean-zoning-thesolution/)
By now the world is aware that the oceans are dying a silent death because of coastal
development, pollution, overfishing and climate change. Scientists know how to halt or reverse
the chronic threats, but in the political arena they have faced defeat after defeat in trying to
implement management that actually works. We need a radical shift away from the piecemeal
regulation of small areas that has resulted. We need comprehensive zoning of the world’s
oceans.¶ Across the globe, it is clear which marine areas are the most important to protect.
Estuaries, coastal wetlands, reefs, submarine mountains and food-rich water flows are among
the critical habitats that support wide swaths of the ocean’s ecology. But current governance
does not allow us to use management tools and policy instruments in a systematic, holistic way.
Zoning would.¶ Some countries have established a few isolated zones, mainly marine “protected
areas.” But these are mere dots on the vast ocean. Comprehensive zoning would address whole
ecosystems. It would also improve public understanding and reduce conflicts, by displaying in a
clear, graphic way which human actions are appropriate where.¶ Zoning is simple,
straightforward, systematic and strategic. It results in regional maps, in which every watery
space is categorized for a particular use or array of uses—from commercial activities to
recreational ones, including strictly protected areas that are virtually off-limits. The first step is
to identify ecologically vital areas with a high concentration of important processes, such as the
delivery of nutrients to plankton and algae that underlie the entire marine food chain. Then one
must assess threats to those services and impose zones that prohibit harmful activity while
permitting other uses at sustainable levels, such as recreational fishing, aquaculture or tourism.¶
Marine Spatial Management key solves ecological damage,
biodiversity and food resources
Scientific American 2009 (American Science Magazine that aims to present science
information to the general public, Is Ocean Zoning the Solution to Dying Marine Ecosystems?
Regulating activity across the seas could halt and reverse damage, 5/17/09,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-ocean-zoning-the-solution/)
Across the globe, it is clear which marine areas are the most important to protect. Estuaries, coastal wetlands, reefs, submarine
mountains and food-rich water flows are among the critical habitats that support wide swaths of the ocean’s ecology. But current
governance does not allow us to use management tools and policy instruments in a systematic,
holistic way. Zoning would.¶ Some countries have established a few isolated zones, mainly marine “protected areas.” But
these are mere dots on the vast ocean. Comprehensive zoning would address whole ecosystems. It would
also improve public understanding and reduce conflicts, by displaying in a clear, graphic way
which human actions are appropriate where.¶ Zoning is simple, straightforward, systematic and
strategic. It results in regional maps, in which every watery space is categorized for a particular use or array of uses—from
commercial activities to recreational ones, including strictly protected areas that are virtually off-limits. The first step is to
identify ecologically vital areas with a high concentration of important processes, such as the
delivery of nutrients to plankton and algae that underlie the entire marine food chain. Then one
must assess threats to those services and impose zones that prohibit harmful activity while
permitting other uses at sustainable levels, such as recreational fishing, aquaculture or tourism.¶
One example is the multiuse plan that my colleagues and I developed for Asinara, a small island near Sardinia in the Mediterranean
Sea. Another example is the recent declaration by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to close off to commercial fishing
all waters along the western and northern coasts of Alaska, stretching out for 200 nautical miles. Australia has established the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park, a large, multiple-use protected area. Comprehensive
ocean zoning would create a
coherent, global system that clarifies the rights and -responsibilities of governments and other
stakeholders.¶
Zoning is the best option for the biodiversity and the evaluation
process
Carlson Et Al 9 (Duke University Grad Student , The Application of Ocean Zoning
Management for Offshore Energy Development in North Carolina,
http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/965/Carlson_MP_Final_Versi
on.pdf?sequence=1)
There are numerous potential benefits and associated costs of an ocean zoning management ¶ approach. The
ocean zones are management areas based primarily on the natural environment rather ¶ than
political boundaries, which helps management design plans to meet the needs of that specific ¶
environment. Zoning plans may apply different scale zones to avoid having multiple biophysical
¶ environments with conflicting needs/priorities in a single zone. The Florida Keys National Marine ¶
Sanctuary Zoning Plan, discussed in the next section, employs different size zones to focus their ¶ resources on managing highly
sensitive areas. Complex marine environments could be subdivided at a ¶ fine scale to reduce the
occurrence of zones encompassing multiple environments. ¶ These benefits may require additional cost to
achieve. Current management plans are based on ¶ county, state, and federal boundaries and redrawing the boundaries around
biophysical zones would ¶ come at the cost of significant time investments and debating over how the zones should be defined and ¶
how the resources to manage those zones should be allocated. Such a redesign could take years to plan ¶ and organize and even
longer to implement to achieve more effective management. ¶ Other potential benefits of ocean zoning include a stream-
lined evaluation process for proposed ¶ activities. With activities in each zone being classified as
compatible, conditionally compatible, or ¶ incompatible, there would be fewer stakeholders to
address as well as fewer agencies to coordinate ¶ with on the approval process.
Zoning reverses the destruction of the oceans
Agardy 09
Tundi Agardy, Writer for Scientific American - 5/17/2009 – “Is Ocean Zoning the Solution to
Dying Marine Ecosystems?” - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-ocean-zoning-thesolution/ - Accessed 6/22/14 - JDD
By now the world is aware that the oceans are dying a silent death because of coastal
development, pollution, overfishing and climate change. Scientists know how to halt or reverse
the chronic threats, but in the political arena they have faced defeat after defeat in trying to
implement management that actually works. We need a radical shift away from the piecemeal
regulation of small areas that has resulted. We need comprehensive zoning of the world’s
oceans. Across the globe, it is clear which marine areas are the most important to protect.
Estuaries, coastal wetlands, reefs, submarine mountains and food-rich water flows are among
the critical habitats that support wide swaths of the ocean’s ecology. But current governance
does not allow us to use management tools and policy instruments in a systematic, holistic way.
Zoning would.
CMSP protects marine resources
Ehler and Douvere 09
5/2009 Charles Ehler, President of Ocean Visions Consulting, Marine Spatial planning consultant - Fanny Douvere,
Coordinator of the Marine Programme at UNESCO – “Marine Spatial Planning, a step-by-step approach” http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001865/186559e.pdf
Demands for goods and services from a marine area usually exceed its capacity to meet all of the demands simultaneously.
Marine resources, e.g., fish and coral reefs, are often “common property resources” with “open” or “free”
access to users. Free access often, if not usually, leads to excessive use of the resource, e.g., over-fishing,
and degradation or exhaustion of the resource, e.g., marine pollution and habitat degradation.
Because not all of the goods and services from marine ecosystems can be expressed in monetary terms, free markets cannot perform
Some public process must be used to decide what mix of goods and services will be
produced from the marine area. That process is marine spatial planning.
the allocation tasks.
Ocean management that is best equipped to protect ecosystems
Agardy 6/17/10
Tundi Spring Agardy is Director of the Forest Trends Marine Ecosystem Services (MARES) Program and an
internationally renowned expert in marine conservation, with extensive field and policy experience in Africa, Asia, the
Caribbean, the Mediterranean, North America, and the Pacific. Tundi specializes in coastal planning and assessment,
marine protected areas, fisheries management and ocean zoning, and has published widely in these fields. She has
served as Senior Scientist for WWF and began Conservation International’s Global Marine Program. She also led the
coastal portion of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and is a contributing editor to the Marine Ecosystems and
Management (MEAM) newsletter. “Can Marine Markets & Ocean Zoning Help Save the Seas?”
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/article.page.php?page_id=7588&section=news_articles&eo
d=1
Integrated management of watersheds, land use planning, and impact assessment are key to
protecting coastal sites. Complex problems require comprehensive solutions. For this reason,
tackling the issues of loss and degradation of marine areas by addressing single threats to these
environments will not be productive. Effective management of these crucial areas means
coordinated pollution controls, development restrictions, fisheries management, and scientific
research. To be truly holistic, integrated management of marine nursery areas also requires
complementary watershed management and land use planning to ensure that negative impacts
do not reach nursery areas from afar.¶ Using zoning in an integrated approach to management
allows decision makers to understand and quantify the trade-offs to be made when coastal
development, environmental degradation through waste discharge, or exploitation of marine
areas occurs. Zoning plans and the permitting procedures which go along with zoning help avoid
development that is potentially environmentally harmful or which puts at risk the ecosystem
processes and services that these areas provide.
Zoning is key to saving ecosystems
Agardy 09 Tundi Agardy is executive director of the policy organization Sound Seas in
Bethesda, May 17, 2009 “Is Ocean Zoning the Solution to Dying Marine Ecosystems?” "It’s Time
for Ocean Zoning." Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-oceanzoning-the-solution
By now the world is aware that the oceans are dying a silent death because of coastal
development, pollution, overfishing and climate change. Scientists know how to halt or reverse
the chronic threats, but in the political arena they have faced defeat after defeat in trying to
implement management that actually works. We need a radical shift away from the piecemeal
regulation of small areas that has resulted. We need comprehensive zoning of the world’s
oceans. Across the globe, it is clear which marine areas are the most important to protect.
Estuaries, coastal wetlands, reefs, submarine mountains and food-rich water flows are among
the critical habitats that support wide swaths of the ocean’s ecology. But current governance
does not allow us to use management tools and policy instruments in a systematic, holistic way.
Zoning would. Some countries have established a few isolated zones, mainly marine “protected
areas.” But these are mere dots on the vast ocean. Comprehensive zoning would address whole
ecosystems. It would also improve public understanding and reduce conflicts, by displaying in a
clear, graphic way which human actions are appropriate where. Zoning is simple,
straightforward, systematic and strategic. It results in regional maps, in which every watery
space is categorized for a particular use or array of uses—from commercial activities to
recreational ones, including strictly protected areas that are virtually off-limits. The first step is
to identify ecologically vital areas with a high concentration of important processes, such as the
delivery of nutrients to plankton and algae that underlie the entire marine food chain. Then one
must assess threats to those services and impose zones that prohibit harmful activity while
permitting other uses at sustainable levels, such as recreational fishing, aquaculture or tourism.
MSP Solves Coral Reefs
MSP will specifically solve the biodiversity in the Caribbean coral
reefs
Odgen 2010 (Ogden JC, Florida Institute of Oceanography, University of South Florida,
2010 Oct, “Marine spatial planning (MSP): a first step to ecosystem-based management (EBM)
in the Wider Caribbean”, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299097)
The rapid decline of coastal ecosystems of the Wider Caribbean is entering its fifth decade. Some
of the best science documenting this decline and its causes has been done by the laboratories of
the Association of Marine Laboratories of the Caribbean (AMLC). Alarmed at the trends,
Caribbean conservation pioneers established marine protected areas (MPAs) which spread
throughout the region. Unfortunately, many have little or no protection and are now known to
be too small to be effective in sustaining coastal ecosystems. Marine spatial planning (MSP)
holds much promise to encompass the large geographic scales of the ecological processes and
human impacts that influence coastal ecosystems and adjacent lands. The AMLC, through the
scientific expertise and the national political connections of its member institutions, is wellpositioned to help implement a pilot project. MSP a first step in ecosystem-based management
and has had considerable success elsewhere. It holds our best chance of sustaining human use
and conserving the coral reefs and associated ecosystems.
Spatial planning is the best option to save the Coral Reefs current
efforts ineffective
Argady 13 (executive director of Sound Seas in Bethesda, Maryland. America’s Coral Reefs:
Awash with Problems http://issues.org/20-2/agardy-2/)
Although the USCRTF has recognized the importance of MPAs in conserving reefs, it has not
given the government agencies that have responsibility for implementation guidance on how to
optimally design these protected areas. The action plan thus codifies a dangerous tendency to
use simplistic formulae for designing protected areas. The plan states these as its goals: “establish additional notake ecological reserves to provide needed protection to a balanced suite of representative U.S. coral reefs and associated habitats,
with a goal to protect at least 5% of all coral reefs . . . by 2002; at least 10% by 2005, and at least 20% by 2010.” By adopting a policy
of conserving 20 percent of reef areas within no-take reserves, without requiring planners to fully understand the threats to a
particular reef and without guiding planners to locate such protected areas in the most ecologically critical areas, the plan
pushes decisionmakers to implement ineffective MPAs, thus squandering opportunities for real
conservation. In some jurisdictions, these area targets have already been reached, with 20 percent of reef areas set aside as notake zones, but because these areas were chosen more for their ease of establishment and less for their ecological importance, little
conservation has been accomplished. In a true display of lack of ambition and creativity, the USCRTF and
its agencies have not considered using ocean zoning outside of MPAs to conserve reefs, and the
MPA directives remain an old-school, one-size-fits-all approach.
MSP boosts other ENV protection
MSP boosts all areas of ENV protection without damaging energy
production
MSPI 14
Marine Spatial Planning Initiative, “Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)”, May 6, 2014,
http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/marine_spatial_planning_msp
Marine spatial planning is not a substitute for single-sector planning and management. Strategic and operational plans
for fisheries, transportation, energy, recreation, and conservation, for example, will continue
even when integrated MSP is put into practice. Integrated MSP can provide a guide to singlesector management that should increase compatibilities and reduce conflicts across sectors,
balance development and conservation interests, increase institutional effectiveness and
efficiency, and address the cumulative effects of multiple human uses of the same marine space.¶
¶ Marine spatial planning is not a one-time plan. The context for planning is constantly
changing. Science contributes new knowledge. Monitoring and evaluation adds new information about the effectiveness,
efficiency, and equity of alternative management measures. Technology improves. Social, economic, and political conditions change
over time. Plans should be updated periodically to reflect these changing conditions.¶ ¶ ¶
Biodiversity key to shipping
Coastal biodiversity key to sustain shipping industry and port
maintenance
Gee ‘7 (Kira Gee, University of Liverpool, Civic Design, United Kingdom, Geography,
Qualitative Social Research and Quantitative Social Research October 2007, “Marine Spatial
Planning a Theoretical Overview”,
http://www.plancoast.eu/files/berlinConference/1stDay/PlanCoast_MSPKiraGee.pdf)
The previous paragraphs have shown that human well-being, a key objective of sustainable¶ development, is critically dependent on
the ability of ecosystems to provide certain essential¶ services. The services provided by¶ ecosystems can be classed into¶
provisioning services, such as the¶ provision of clean air, food and drinking¶ water, regulating services, such as¶ regulating climate or
disease control,¶ supporting processes, such as¶ supporting primary and secondary production, as well as cultural, e.g. aesthetic or
spiritual services17¶ . As shown above, different¶ types of service depend on one another, representing the basis for economic activity
and¶ development in a complex web of direct and¶ indirect interactions. Healthy ecosystems are¶ a direct
prerequisite for uses such as fishing¶ or mariculture, which in turn are¶ prerequisites for trade
and commerce.¶ Indirectly, healthy ecosystems are required¶ for uses such as tourism, which
again drives¶ economic growth and leads to the¶ development of vibrant coastal communities.¶
Other uses such as shipping are independent¶ of ecosystem quality in that shipping can take
place in pristine and heavily polluted waters, but port¶ facilities do depend on viable coastal
communities, which not only require job opportunities, but¶ also environmental quality as part
of overall quality of life. Coastal communities in turn place their¶ own demands on coastal ecosystems, for instance through
effluent or agricultural run-off, which, if¶ discharged into the sea, can affect fishing and therefore impact on associated industries.¶
Maintaining the health of coastal and marine ecosystems must therefore be a key objective in
any¶ form of coastal and marine resource management. This is not just for reasons of nature¶
conservation (although the intrinsic value of ecosystems cannot be disregarded), but also
because of¶ hard economic facts. This should not be taken to imply that change is impossible. New mixes of¶ resource use
can and need to be established. It does mean, however, that sustainable patterns of¶ resource use should
be built on the premise that ecosystems need to retain their capacity to provide¶ the services
outlined above. They should also retain their capacity to adapt to changing¶ circumstances, of
which climate change is an obvious example.
Biodiversity key to stop warming
Marine biodiversity is key to prevent warming
Chapin Et al 10
2/26/2010 - F. Stuart Chapin III, Rodolfo Dirzo, Thomas Kitzberger, Barbara Gemmill, Martin Zobel, Montserrat Vila`, Charles
Mitchell, Andrew Wilby, Gretchen C. Daily, Mauro Galetti, William F. Laurance, Jules Pretty, Rosamond Naylor, Alison Power, Drew
Harvell, Sandra Dı´az, David Tilman, Joseph Fargione, Simon Potts, Claire Kremen, Terry Griswold, Connal Eardley, - Writers for
Organization for Economic Co-operation and development, international economic organization to stimulate economic progress and
world trade – “Biodiversity Regulation of Ecosystem Services” http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.280.aspx.pdf
The major importance of marine biodiversity in climate regulation appears to be via its effect on
biogeochemical cycling and carbon sequestration. The ocean, through its sheer volume and links to the
terrestrial biosphere, plays a huge role in cycling of almost every material involved in biotic processes.
(See Chapter 12.) Of these, the anthropogenic effects on carbon and nitrogen cycling are especially prominent. Biodiversity
influences the effectiveness of the biological pump that moves carbon from the surface ocean and
sequesters it in deep waters and sediments (Berner et al.1983). Some of the carbon that is absorbed by
marine photosynthesis and transferred through food webs to grazers sinks to the deep ocean as fecal pellets
and dead cells. The efficiency of this trophic transfer and therefore the extent of carbon sequestration
is sensitive to the species richness and composition of the plankton community (Ducklow et al. 2001).
Some phytoplankton in the southern ocean, for example, are more palatable than others, so an increase in their abundance increases
grazing, the formation of fecal pellets, and the export of carbon to depth. (See Chapter 25.)
Deadzones destroys biodiversity
Dead zones destroy biodiversity
Solow 4 (Andrew Solow is Director of the Marine Policy Center and a Senior Scientist at
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He earned a bachelor’s degree in economics from
Harvard University and a doctorate in geostatistics from Stanford University. Solow focuses on
environmental and ecological statistics, with an emphasis on modeling the population effects of
environmental variability. He is a former member of the Commission on Geosciences,
Environment, and Resources for the National Academy of Sciences, and he currently serves as
chair of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel for
Boston Harbor. Since 2002, he has been a member of the Science Advisory Panel for the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy.) November 2004 “Red Tides and Dead Zones”
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/red-tides-and-dead-zones
When vertical mixing is weak or absent, oxygen-depleted bottom waters are not refreshed, resulting in a condition called hypoxia.
Hypoxic areas—popularly known as “dead zones”—can have a dramatic effect on marine life. In some
cases, oxygen depletion occurs so quickly that it cuts off escape routes and results in fish kills.¶
Even when animals simply avoid low-oxygen areas, as they usually do, the indirect effects of hypoxia
can be substantial. Suitable habitat is lost, putting pressure on populations. Hypoxic zones also
can interfere with the migratory behavior of shrimp, lobsters, and other species. More generally, by altering the
environment in which marine species thrive, hypoxia can lead to a decline in biological diversity.
Dead zones create losses in biodiversity
Carlisle 2k “ The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone and Red Tides”
http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/DeadZone.htm
As the fresh, nutrient-enriched water from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers spread across
the Gulf waters, favorable conditions are created for the production of massive phytoplankton
blooms. A bloom is defined as an “increased abundance of a species above background
numbers in a specific geographic region”. Incoming nutrients stimulate growth of
phytoplankton at the surface, providing food for unicellular animals. Planktonic remains and
fecal matter from these organisms fall to the ocean floor, where they are eaten by bacteria, which
consume excessive amounts of oxygen, creating eutrophic conditions. Hypoxic waters appear
normal on the surface, but on the bottom, they are covered with dead and distressed animal, and
in extreme cases, layers of stinking, sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, which cause the sediment in these
areas to turn black. These hypoxic conditions cause food chain alterations, loss of biodiversity,
and high aquatic species mortality.
We need ocean ecosystems to survive
(ROBIN KUNDIS Craig Friday, April 18, 2011 “Making Marine Zoning Climate-Change Adaptable”
https://www.law.northwestern.edu/researchfaculty/searlecenter/workingpapers/documents/Craig_MakingMarineZoningAdaptable.pdf Robin Kundis Craig is
the Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund Professor at Florida State University College of Law. She is a
leading environmental law scholar who has written important works on water and ocean and coastal issues. She
earned her law degree from Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. Professor Craig is the author of The Clean
Water Act and the Constitution (Environmental Law Institute 2004), Environmental Law in Context (West 2005) and
dozens of law review articles shorter works. Her articles address, among other issues, federalism in the regulation of
water in the U.S. and sustainability in ocean law and policy. She served as a member the U.S. National Research
Council's committee to assess the effects of the Clean Water Act’s regulation of the Mississippi River. Professor Craig
also served as a tenured professor at the Indiana University-Indianapolis School of Law.)
As the Ocean Policy Task Force recognized in July 2010, “The importance of ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes ecosystems cannot be overstated; simply put, we need them to survive.”34 Climate
change, however, both compounds existing threats to ocean resources and adds its own. As the
Task Force summarized: Climate change is impacting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great
Lakes. Increasing water temperatures are altering habitats, migratory patterns, and ecosystem
structure and function. Coastal communities are facing sea-level rise, inundation, increased
threats from storms, erosion, and significant loss of coastal wetlands. The ocean’s ability to
absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere buffers the impacts of climate change, but also
causes the ocean to become more acidic, threatening not only the survival of individual species
of marine life, but also entire marine ecosystems. The ocean buffers increased global
temperatures by absorbing heat, but increasing temperatures are causing sea levels to rise by
expanding seawater volume and melting land-based ice. Increased temperatures may eventually
reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Conversely, climate change is predicted to
lower the water levels of the Great Lakes, thereby altering water cycles, habitats, and economic
uses of the lakes.
Coral Reefs Collapsing Now
Coastal development and pollution destroys coral reefs
Shah 2013 (Anup Shah, editor of globalissues.org, March 3, 2013, “Coral Reefs”
http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs)
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is perhaps the best managed in the world. A 2009 report by the
Australian agency in charge of it (discussed further below) fears for the future and that
“catastrophic damage to the ecosystem may not be averted.”¶ But concerns about coral reefs have
been raised for many years around the world.¶ The Status of Coral Reefs Around the World,
2004 notes that:¶ 20% of the world’s coral reefs have been effectively destroyed and show no
immediate prospects of recovery;¶ Approximately 40% of the 16% of the world’s reefs that were
seriously damaged in 1998 are either recovering well or have recovered;¶ The report predicts that
24% of the world’s reefs are under imminent risk of collapse through human pressures; and a
further 26% are under a longer term threat of collapse;¶ — Clive Wilkinson, Status of Coral Reefs
of the World: 2004 [PDF format], World Wildlife Fund, p.7¶ A report from the World Resources
Institute (WRI) in 1998 suggested that as much as 60 percent of the earth’s coral reefs are
threatened by human activity.¶ Scientists have said that as much as 95 percent of Jamaica’s
reefs are dying or dead.¶ Back to top¶ Global Threats To Coral Reefs¶ All around the world, much
of the world’s marine biodiversity face threats from activities and events such as¶ Coastal
development;¶ Overfishing;¶ Inland pollution;¶ Global climate change.¶ Ocean acidification
caused by some of the excess carbon dioxide emissions being absorbed by the world’s oceans.
Humans are killing the coral reefs
Ocean Focus 2011 (Ocean Focus, 2011, “The Problem”, a charitable organization dedicated
to the promotion of the world’s oceans and marine life http://oceanfocus.org/focusareas/threatened-habitats/coral-reefs/)
For many years now, coral reefs have been degrading in size due to several problems; mostly
those caused by humans. One of the main problems noted with corals is bleaching. This is where
the coral loses its colour due to loss of the symbiotic algae or the pigments in the coral. Scientists
believe that this is linked to increases of sea temperature, but it is also thought to be due to other
factors, such as disease, shade, UV radiation, sedimentation, pollution and salinity changes. As
with most natural systems under stress, the coral could survive the bleaching process if the
cause was a temporary one and was removed after a short period of time. The zooxanthellae
algae would return to the coral and be able to photosynthesise if conditions returned to normal.
However, if the polluting continues, eventually the coral would die without the nutrients
provided by the algae. Pollution is also observed to be detrimental to coral reefs in other ways
than just bleaching alone, especially in the form of sewage, chemicals, fertilisers and pesticide
run-off from land. For example, if the water around the coral gains an increase of nutrients
(especially nitrates and phosphates from agricultural run-off) eutrophication will be stimulated.
This is where algae in the water benefits from the extra nutrients and undergoes rapid growth
creating algal blooms, causing little or no sunlight to reach the coral for the zooxanthellae to
photosynthesise.¶ Overfishing is an indirect factor that causes major problems for coral reefs.
Many fish eat algae or aquatic plants, of which many can be found amongst coral reefs. If an
area near coral is overfished, then this can lead to a reduction in herbivory and cause an increase
in algae and other species as they are not being predated upon, causing the problem of little or
no light reaching the coral. An example of this is the crown-of-thorns starfish which is a
ferocious carnivorous predator of coral polyps. Adult crown-of-thorns can consume up to 6
square metres (65 sq ft) of living coral reef per year. Reduced numbers of their natural predators
(puffer fish, triton and shrimp), due to over fishing, leads to population explosions, which
explains how outbreaks can cause damage to large reef areas in relatively short periods. In
addition, harmful fishing practices have been linked to coral decline, such as using poisons and
explosives to kill off fish, as well as bottom trawling which can be extremely damaging to the
coral.
Humans are destroying the coral reefs but there is still hope
Pennisi 2011 (Elizabeth Pennisi , master's degree in science writing from Boston University,
23 February 2011 , “Three-Quarters of Coral Reefs Threatened, Report Says”,
http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/02/three-quarters-coral-reefs-threatened-report-says)
It evaluated how the 275 million people who live close to reefs will fare if these predictions come true. It concluded that, given the
status quo, more than 90% of reefs will be at risk by 2030 and virtually all reefs will be threatened by 2050.
Haiti, Indonesia, and the Philippines are among the most vulnerable countries because local communities depend so heavily on reefs
for their food and livelihood.¶ To slow the decline of reefs, the report called for more effective marine
protected areas, particularly in populated areas. About 27% of reefs are in parks and reserves, but only 6% of those
are effective, it concluded. It also pointed out that when local threats from fishing, pollution, and so forth
diminish, reefs can rebound. But, noted Nancy Knowlton of the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural
History in Washington, D.C., "If we do want to have reefs around by 2050, we are going to have to do
something about carbon dioxide" to slow global warming and acidification.¶ Added Lubchenco: "We
have a chance to reverse the decline of coral reefs, but the window of opportunity is finite."
Reefs key to food supply
Loss of coral reefs would gut global food supplies, create resource
crunches
Skoloff 2010 (Brian Skoloff, AP, MARCH 26, 2010, “Death of coral reefs could devastate
nations”, http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0326/Death-of-coral-reefscould-devastate-nations)
WEST PALM BEACH (AP) — Coral reefs are dying, and scientists and governments around the world are contemplating what will
happen if they disappear altogether.¶ The idea positively scares them.¶ Coral reefs are part of the foundation of the
ocean food chain. Nearly half the fish the world eats make their homes around them. Hundreds
of millions of people worldwide — by some estimates, 1 billion across Asia alone — depend on
them for their food and their livelihoods. If the reefs vanished, experts say, hunger, poverty and
political instability could ensue.¶ "Whole nations will be threatened in terms of their existence,"
said Carl Gustaf Lundin of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. ¶ Numerous studies predict coral
reefs are headed for extinction worldwide, largely because of global warming, pollution and
coastal development, but also because of damage from bottom-dragging fishing boats and the
international trade in jewelry and souvenirs made of coral.¶ At least 19 percent of the world's
coral reefs are already gone, including some 50 percent of those in the Caribbean. An additional 15
percent could be dead within 20 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Old Dominion
University professor Kent Carpenter, director of a worldwide census of marine species, warned that if global warming continues
unchecked, all corals could be extinct within 100 years.¶ "You could argue that a complete collapse of the marine ecosystem would be
one of the consequences of losing corals," Carpenter said. "You're going to have a tremendous cascade effect for all life in the
oceans."¶ Exotic and colorful, coral reefs aren't lifeless rocks; they are made up of living creatures that excrete a hard calcium
carbonate exoskeleton. Once the animals die, the rocky structures erode, depriving fish of vital spawning and feeding grounds.¶
Experts say cutting back on carbon emissions to arrest rising sea temperatures and acidification of the water, declaring some reefs
off limits to fishing and diving, and controlling coastal development and pollution could help reverse, or at least stall, the tide.¶
Florida, for instance, has the largest unbroken "no-take" zone in the continental U.S. — about 140 square miles off limits to fishing in
and around Dry Tortugas National Park, a cluster of islands and reefs teeming with marine life about 70 miles off Key West.¶ Many
fishermen oppose such restrictions. And other environmental measures have run into resistance at the state, local, national and
international level. On Sunday, during a gathering of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, restrictions proposed by the U.S. and Sweden on the trade of some coral species were rejected.¶ If reefs were
to disappear, commonly consumed species of grouper and snapper could become just memories.
Oysters, clams and other creatures that are vital to many people's diets would also suffer. And
experts say commercial fisheries would fail miserably at meeting demand for seafood.¶ "Fish will
become a luxury good," said Cassandra deYoung of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. "You already have a
billion people who are facing hunger, and this is just going to aggravate the situation," she added. "We will not be able to maintain
food security around the world."¶ The economic damage could be enormous. Ocean fisheries provide
direct employment to at least 38 million people worldwide, with an additional 162 million
people indirectly involved in the industry, according to the U.N.¶ Coral reefs draw scuba divers,
snorkelers and other tourists to seaside resorts in Florida, Hawaii, Southeast Asia and the
Caribbean and help maintain some of the world's finest sandy beaches by absorbing energy from
waves. Without the reefs, hotels, restaurants and other businesses that cater to tourists could
suffer financially.¶ Many Caribbean countries get nearly half their gross national product from
visitors seeking tropical underwater experiences.¶ People all over the world could pay the price if reefs were to
disappear, since some types of coral and marine species that rely on reefs are being used by the pharmaceutical industry to develop
possible cures for cancer, arthritis and viruses.¶ "A world without coral reefs is unimaginable," said Jane Lubchenco, a marine
biologist who heads NOAA. "Reefs are precious sources of food, medicine and livelihoods for hundreds of thousands around the
world. They are also special places of renewal and recreation for thousands more. Their exotic beauty and diverse bounty are global
treasures."
Reefs key to biodiversity
Reefs destruction crushes global marine biodiversity—largest internal
link
Shah 2013 (Anup Shah, editor of globalissues.org, March 3, 2013, “Coral Reefs”
http://www.globalissues.org/article/173/coral-reefs)
Coral reefs benefit the environment and people in numerous ways. For example, they¶ Protect shores
from the impact of waves and from storms;¶ Provide benefits to humans in the form of food and
medicine;¶ Provide economic benefits to local communities from tourism.¶ The World Meteorological
Organization says that tropical coral reefs yield more than US$ 30 billion annually in global goods and services PDF formatted
document, such as coastline protection, tourism and food.¶ The US agency NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) puts the economic value even higher and says
that coral reefs provide economic services — jobs,
food and tourism — estimated to be worth as much as $375 billion each year.¶ In the past few years,
however, global threats to coral reefs have been increasing and in the context of the wider environment, the value of coral reefs may
be even greater:¶ Ecologically speaking the value of coral reefs is even greater [than these estimates]
because they are integral to the well being of the oceans as we know them. … picture [reefs] as the
undersea equivalent of rainforest trees. Tropical waters are naturally low in nutrients because the warm water limits nutrients
essential for life from welling up from the deep, which is why they are sometimes called a “marine desert”. Through the
photosynthesis carried out by their algae, coral serve as a vital input of food into the
tropical/sub-tropical marine food-chain, and assist in recycling the nutrients too. The reefs
provide home and shelter to over 25% of fish in the ocean and up to two million marine species .
They are also a nursery for the juvenile forms of many marine creatures.¶ I could go on, but the similarity with the rainforest should
now be clear. Eliminate the undersea “trees”, which mass coral bleaching is in the process of doing, and you’ll
eliminate everything that depends on it for survival.
Biodiversity impact
Oceans biodiversity to survival
Craig '03
(Robin Kundis Craig -- Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law – McGeorge Law Rev
– Winter – elipses in original)
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider
valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," 17
oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support
processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and
economic, for millions of people worldwide. 18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the
ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the
axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and
hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." 19 Ocean and coastal
ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. 20 In addition, many people
assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on
relatively intact to future generations.
Unchecked biodiversity loss creates all other impacts risks and
destroys civilization
Opposing Viewpoints in Context 13 (Opposing Viewpoints in Context is a resource
that brings together academic articles, audio, videos, opinion essays and primary sources about
contemporary controversies and hot topics.) “Global Biodiversity Losses Are Approaching
Tipping Points of No Return” g
We can no longer see the continued loss of and changes to biodiversity as an issue separate from
the core concerns of society: to tackle poverty, to improve the health, prosperity and security of
our populations, and to deal with climate change. Each of those objectives is undermined by
current trends in the state of our ecosystems, and each will be greatly strengthened if we
correctly value the role of biodiversity in supporting the shared priorities of the international
community. Achieving this will involve placing biodiversity in the mainstream of decisionmaking in government, the private sector, and other institutions from the local to international scales.¶ The action
taken over the next decade or two, and the direction charted under the Convention on Biological Diversity, will
determine whether the relatively stable environmental conditions on which human civilization
has depended for the past 10,000 years will continue beyond this century. If we fail to use this
opportunity, many ecosystems on the planet will move into new, unprecedented states in which
the capacity to provide for the needs of present and future generations is highly uncertain.
Biodiversity collapse risks extinction
Diner 1994
David JD Ohio State, Military Law Review, Winter
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse
systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist stress... [l]ike a
net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist
collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which is cut anywhere breaks
down as a whole." By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many
ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading
Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are
relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each
new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of
disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wing, mankind may
be edging closer to the abyss.
Plan  MPAs
Integrated MSP creates MPAs
UNESCO updated ‘14
Marine Spatial Planning Network, http://www.unesco-iocmarinesp.be/marine_spatial_planning_msp, Updated 6 may 2014.
Marine spatial planning is not a substitute for single-sector planning and management. Strategic and operational plans for fisheries,
transportation, energy, recreation, and conservation, for example, will continue even when integrated MSP is put into practice.
Integrated MSP can provide a guide to single-sector management that should increase
compatibilities and reduce conflicts across sectors, balance development and conservation
interests, increase institutional effectiveness and efficiency, and address the cumulative effects
of multiple human uses of the same marine space.Marine spatial planning is not a one-time plan. The context for
planning is constantly changing. Science contributes new knowledge. Monitoring and evaluation adds new information about the
effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of alternative management measures. Technology improves. Social, economic, and political
conditions change over time. Plans should be updated periodically to reflect these changing conditions. Marine spatial planning is
not only conservation planning. While a network of marine protected areas might be one outcome of MSP, it
seeks to balance economic development
goals of conservation or protection.
and environmental conservation, and not focus on only on the
MSP boosts MPA and fisheries protection
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 9 (“Marine Spatial Planning,
A step by step approach to ecosystem-based management”
http://www.belspo.be/belspo/northsea/publ/marine%20spatial%20planning.pdf)
These 10 steps are not simply a linear process that moves sequentially from step to step. Many feedback loops should be built into
the process For example, goals and objectives identified early in the planning process are likely to be
modified as costs and benefits of different management measures are identified later in the
planning process. Analyses of existing and future conditions will change as new information is identified and incorporated in
the planning process Stakeholder participation will change the planning process as it develops over time. Planning is a
dynamic process and planners have to be open to accommodating changes as the process
evolves overtime.
Comprehensive MSP provides an integrated framework for management that provides a guide
for, but does not replace, single-sector planning. For example, MSP can provide important
contextual information for marine protected area management or for fisheries management, but
does not intent to replace them.
Arctic Spill Inevitable
Arctic spills inevitable – crowded waters cause spills
Gramling 14 (Carolyn Gramling, Staff writer for Science Magazine, Panel Says U.S. Not
Ready for Inevitable Arctic Oil Spill, 23 April 2014,
http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/04/panel-says-u.s.-not-ready-inevitable-arctic-oilspill)
As eagerness to explore the Arctic’s oil and gas resources grows, the threat of a major Arctic oil
spill looms ever larger—and the United States has a lot of work to do to prepare for that
inevitability, a panel convened by the National Research Council (NRC) declares in a report
released today. The committee, made up of members of academia and industry, recommended
beefing up forecasting systems for ocean and ice conditions, infrastructure for supply chains for
people and equipment to respond, field research on the behavior of oil in the Arctic
environment, and other strategies to prepare for a significant spill in the harsh conditions of the
Arctic.¶ The report “identifies the different pieces that need to come together” to have a chance at
an effective oil spill response, says Martha Grabowski, a researcher in information systems at Le
Moyne College in Syracuse, New York, and chair of the NRC committee.¶ Even in the absence of
oil and gas exploration, the Arctic’s rapidly intensifying traffic—whether from barges, research
ships, oil tankers, or passenger cruises—makes oil spills increasingly likely. So “the committee
felt some urgency” about the issue, says geologist Mark Myers, vice chancellor for research at the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks. The report, sponsored by 10 organizations ranging from the
American Petroleum Institute to the Marine Mammal Commission, focused primarily on the
United States’ territorial waters north of the Bering Strait, including the Chukchi and Beaufort
seas.¶ Cleaning up oil in the Arctic is particularly tricky for a number of reasons, the committee
notes. The extreme weather conditions are one problem. The lack of many kinds of data—highresolution topography and bathymetry along the coasts; measurements of ice cover and
thickness; distributions in space and time of the region’s fish, birds, and marine mammals—is
another. And if an emergency happens, there’s no infrastructure in place—no consistent U.S.
Coast Guard presence and no reliable supply chains to support a rapid response.
US Arctic spills inevitable
Oceans North 10 (“Oil Spills,” http://www.oceansnorth.org/oil-spills)
Documents supporting the U.S. government’s 2007-2012 offshore oil and gas leasing program
assume that one large oil spill would likely occur in Bristol Bay in the southeast Bering Sea and two
large oil spills would occur in U.S. Arctic waters as a result of exploration and drilling activities.
The threat is amplified because no adequate technology or infrastructure to clean up oil in
broken sea ice has been proven to work in the Arctic. Spill response could be delayed for weeks at a time due to the
often hazardous conditions, especially during the winter.¶ Oil persists in Arctic environments longer than
anywhere else. It can become trapped under sea ice. It also evaporates at a slower rate in cold temperatures. The environmental
conditions that characterize the Arctic – sea ice, subzero temperatures, high winds and seas and poor visibility – influence the
effectiveness of clean up strategies and how much oil is recovered.¶ The longer the oil remains in the environment,
the higher the probability that marine mammals will come in contact with it. Oil can affect wildlife in
three major ways:¶ An inability to keep warm if oil on feathers or fur reduces thermal properties.¶ Toxic contamination from
ingesting, inhaling or absorbing toxins found in oil.¶ Reduction in food if prey or other resources become unavailable or
inaccessible.¶ Arctic animals have evolved over 800,000 years to survive in year-round ice but these adaptations could be
compromised by oil in the environment. Sea birds and marine mammals are especially sensitive. Oil contamination could reduce
their insulating capacity leaving the animals susceptible to hypothermia and death
Arctic oil spill is inevitable
McCauley 13 (Lauren McCauley, staff writer for Common Dreams, “Expert's Warning
Affirms Arctic 30's Clarion Call: Oil Spill 'Inevitable,'” November 19, 2013,
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/19-4)
Validating the environmentalists' warning that gas and oil drilling in Arctic waters is a clear
threat to the pristine wilderness, an oil spill expert told the Guardian Tuesday that should drilling continue there, a
major spill is "inevitable" and would cause untold damage to the ecosystem.¶ ¶ "It is inevitable
you will get a spill – a dead cert," Simon Boxall, an oil spill expert from the University of
Southampton, told the paper. "I would expect to see a major spill in the not too distant future. I
would be astonished if you did not see a major spill from this."¶ ¶ As Boxall explains, compounding any
spill are the frigid temperatures, which prevent the oil from naturally breaking down as it does
in more temperate waters where bacteria help digest the oil. "In the Arctic the oil does not break down in this
way – it can take decades before it breaks down," he warns. "Nature will not help us." ¶ ¶ Further, Boxall notes, the drilling industry is
one fraught with mistakes. "Corners are cut, money is saved in small ways. Then it can go wrong and end up costing a huge amount
of money, like in the Gulf of Mexico," he adds.¶ ¶ Boxall's warning confirms the message of the 28 Greenpeace activists and 2
journalists who defied Russian authorities in September when they boarded a Gazprom oil platform in an act of civil disobedience
against Arctic drilling.
Arctic Spills Kill Ecosystem
C. hyperboreus is a keystone species—oil spill wipes out entire arctic
ecosystem
Sjøgren ‘14
Kristian. Even tiny oil spills may break Arctic food chain, January 30, 2014 - 06:10, Drilling for
oil in the Arctic may have catastrophic consequences, new study suggests.
http://sciencenordic.com/even-tiny-oil-spills-may-break-arctic-food-chain
Oil prevents eggs from hatching¶ The problem with the C. hyperboreus is that its eggs are much
more susceptible to oil exposure than eggs from other species.¶ Most copepods have hard eggshells, but C.
hyperboreus eggs are only covered by a thin membrane. This membrane is permeable to organic substances such as oil, which can
penetrate the egg and kill it.¶ “An oil spill can therefore have the consequence that an entire generation
of C. hyperboreus is wiped out. This will result in an entire generation of fry also losing a key
food source, as they have no fatty copepods to feed on when preparing for the cold winter,” says the professor.¶ Oil enters
the food chain¶ In their studies, the researchers exposed the copepods to very small and realistic amounts of oil in the
laboratory. The oil concentrations corresponded to the amount of oil that can be expected from a small oil spill.¶ An oil spill can
therefore have the consequence that an entire generation of C. hyperboreus is wiped out. This will result in an entire generation of
fry also losing a key food source, as they have no fatty copepods to feed on when preparing for the cold winter,” says the
professor.Torkel Gissel Nielsen¶ The oil turned out to cause a sharp reduction in the number of hatched eggs. The oil also affected
the female copepods which, although they did not die, became less active and ate less.¶ However, the apparent fact that the
copepods survive the small doses of oil is a problem:¶ ”It means that the oil enters the food
chain, and that means it may affect other animals whose response to the oil we still do not know.
This is another problem caused by oil spills in the Arctic.”
Oil spills kill C. hyperboreus is a keystone species—wipes out entire
arctic ecosystem
Sjøgren ‘14
Kristian. Even tiny oil spills may break Arctic food chain, January 30, 2014 - 06:10, Drilling for
oil in the Arctic may have catastrophic consequences, new study suggests.
http://sciencenordic.com/even-tiny-oil-spills-may-break-arctic-food-chain
Fatty copepods are most important¶ In their study, the researchers specifically looked at the C. hyperboreus, as
this is the fattest one of the Arctic copepods and thus also the most important one in this contex t.¶
In the Arctic, fat is key to survival, and without the fatty copepods, there is less fat being
transported from algae up through the food chain, first to copepods, then to fish and birds, and
lastly to whales, seals, polar bears and humans.¶ Our research shows that it only takes tiny amounts of
oil in the sea to significantly reduce copepod egg hatching rates. If there are no copepods in the
sea, there is no food for the fry. Even tiny oil spills in the Arctic can end up breaking the food
chain entirely.Torkel Gissel Nielsen¶ “If the number of these fatty copepods is reduced as a result of oil spills in the ocean, it is
possible that they will be replaced by other species,” says Nielsen.¶ “However, for animals that feed on the copepods, this would
be similar to changing from a diet of bacon to one of rice crackers and still being able to stay
warm through the Arctic winters. That is not possible, and many species will be experiencing
great problems.”
Energy Adv
Crowding Stopping Energy Development
Status quo ocean sprawl and discoordination is crushing
McMurray 9 ( Capt. John McMurray, Director of Grants Programs at theNorcross Wildlife
Foundation, December 28, 2009, “OBAMA’S “OCEAN POLICY TASK FORCE””
http://www.reel-time.com/articles/conservation/what%E2%80%99s-up-with-the%E2%80%9Cocean-policy-task-force%E2%80%9D/)
Let’s start with what I see as one of the main directives of the Task Force: developing recommendations for ocean “spatial planning”.
What is spatial planning? Essentially, it’s a process to help plan ahead by allocating spaces in the ocean for its various uses. To
reference the full Lubchenco quote “Coastal and marine spatial planning may sound like the stuff of policy wonks, but
it is actually vital to anyone who works or plays on the oceans. In fact, coastal and marine spatial
planning is an essential tool for anyone who depends on the oceans for sustainable jobs, healthy seafood,
clean energy, recreation, or vibrant coastal communities.” ¶ I agree… with all of the encroaching uses such as
natural gas platforms, offshore drilling, aquaculture, wind power, etc., there is great potential
for “ocean sprawl.” As demand on ocean space grows, so do the conflicts between traditional
uses like fishing, and new or emerging uses, such as the siting of renewable energy facilities or
aquaculture projects.¶ Planning ahead by identifying places where industrial use is appropriate and areas that should be set
off limits to such industry certainly makes sense, as long as it’s guided sound scientific assessment. Such a commitment to
marine spatial planning is particularly critical as the country moves forward in developing the
clean, renewable energy off the coast (think wind-farms in Cape Cod). ¶ Furthermore, marine spatial planning could be
a tool for implementing the much talked about but rarely implemented “ecosystem-based management”. Traditional management of
ocean activities has focused on individual species, resources, areas, or actions with limited consideration for how the management
practices of one might impact the sustainability of another. Marine spatial planning makes it possible to
consider the cumulative impacts of different sectors rather than focusing on a single species,
sector, activity or concern.¶ Spatial planning that fully incorporates the principles of ecosystem-based management could
provide a means to objectively and transparently guide and balance allocation decisions for use of ocean resources. It could allow for
the reduction of cumulative impacts from human uses on the marine environment, provide greater certainty for the public and
private sector in planning new investments, and reduce conflicts among uses.
No Predictability Crushing Energy
Lack of regulatory certainty is crushing LNG and renewable
development
Crowder et al 6 (L. B. Crowder,¶ * G. Osherenko, O. R. Young, S. Airamé, E. A. Norse, N.
Baron, J. C. Day, ¶ F. Douvere, C. N. Ehler, B. S. Halpern, S. J. Langdon, K. L. McLeod, J. C.
Ogden, ¶ R. E. Peach, A. A. Rosenberg, J. A. Wilson, “Resolving Mismatches in U.S. Ocean
Governance,” POLICY FORUM,
http://media.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2010/FIL_000000001507/MSP_Science_Article.
pdf)
That the oceans are in serious trou-ble is no longer news. Fisheries are declining, formerly
abundant species are now rare, food webs are altered, and coastal ecosystems are pol-luted and
degraded. Invasive species and diseases are proliferating and the oceans are warming (1). Because these changes are
largely due to failures of governance, reversing them will require new, more effective governance
systems. Historically, ocean management has focused on individual sectors. In the United
States, at least 20 federal agencies implement over 140 federal ocean-related statutes. This is like a
scenario in which a number of specialist physicians, who are not communicating well, treat a patient with multiple medical
problems. The combined treatment can exacerbate rather than solve problems. Separate regimes for fisheries,
aquaculture, marine mammal conservation, shipping, oil and gas, and mining are designed to
resolve conflicts within sectors, but not across sectors. Decision-making is often ad hoc, and no
one has clear authority to resolve conflicts across sectors or to deal with cumulative effects. Many
scientists are now convinced that the solution can be found in ecosystem-based management (2). Ecosystem-based manage-ment
focuses on managing the suite of human activities that affect particular places. This is a marked departure from the current
approach. The time has come to consider a more holistic approach to place-based man-agement of
marine ecosystems, comprehen-sive ocean zoning (3). Management regimes for individual sec-tors operate
under different legal mandates and reflect the interests of different stake- holders, so governance is riddled with gaps
and overlaps (4). Fishing has a larger impact on biological diversity than any other human activity (5), but the Magnuson-
Stevens Act,¶ which governs fisheries, contains no mandate to maintain biodiversity. Ecosystem-based fisheries management (6) is
only a partial solution—it does not account for impacts on nontarget species or manage other activities that degrade fisheries, such
as pollution or wetlands loss (7). The problem of fragmented governance is growing, as new place-based
activities in the sea [e.g., aquaculture, wind farms, liquefied natural gas (LNG) termi-nals] are
increasing the potential range and severity of conflicts across sectors.
MSP Key to LNG
Effective MSP paves way for LNG by resolving environmental barriers
PS 12
Pacific Standard, “How Marine Spatial Planning Calms Choppy Waters”, March 5, 2012,
http://www.psmag.com/environment/how-marine-spatial-planning-calms-choppy-waters40245/
In 2007, the state of Massachusetts mandated marine spatial planning for all projects 300 meters or more
offshore, whether windmills, fish farms, or LNG terminals.¶ Against that background, White, Halpern, and
Kappel say their research shows that it makes eminent economic sense to do it in a marine environment,
something that hadn’t been done before. Last year, for example, Halpern was running a workshop on marine spatial
planning to a group of managers, “and their No. 1 request was to make the business case for it,” he recalls.¶ But Halpern sees
spatial planning, divorced from politics, as a positive for making the best case for any interest —
business, ecological, recreational. “It may take extra effort to coordinate all the interests, but in
the end you get so much more value out of the ocean.”¶ “It’s a planning tool, not a prescription,” says Halpern.
“All the outcomes are optimally good [in the efficiency frontier], but different . Science doesn’t tell you
which one to take — that’s a personal decision, a political decision.”
MSP key to Regulatory Predictability
MSP reduces uncertainty for oil drilling
Environmental Law Institute Ocean Program 11
(“COASTAL AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING,” April 29, 2011, Environmental Law
Institute, http://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/cmsp_sap_eli_comments.pdf)
ELI is not alone in recognizing the opportunity to build from the new national ocean policy structures, ¶ plans, and information.
There has been high‐ level recognition of the value of implementing the Ocean ¶ Policy EO and Task Force recommendations to
achieve statutory obligations. For example, in the wake of ¶ the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, the National Commission on the
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill ¶ and Offshore Drilling called for integration of the five‐ year leasing
¶
program with coastal and marine ¶ spatial planning. Specifically, the Commission stated that ¶ ¶
Integrating five‐ year leasing plans and associated leasing decisions with the coastal and ¶
marine spatial planning process will be an important step toward assuring the ¶ sustainable use
of ocean and coastal ecosystems. It could also reduce uncertainty for ¶ industry and provide
greater predictability for potential users of different areas.16 ¶ ¶ Thus, the Commission
recommended that “[t]he Department of the Interior should reduce risk to the ¶ environment
from OCS oil and gas activities by strengthening science and interagency consultations in ¶ the
OCS oil and gas decision‐ making process.”17 ¶ ¶ As part of the OCSLA obligations, and including the OCS Oil and
Gas Program for 2012–2017, DOI has the ¶ opportunity to satisfy the Ocean Policy EO obligations while at the same time satisfying
its NEPA and ¶ OCSLA requirements. The remainder of this section briefly summarizes how the Coastal and Marine ¶ Spatial Plans
(CMS Plans) can be integrated into and support planning and decision‐ making under NEPA ¶ and OCSLA. ¶ ¶ Table 4. Three Ways
to Integrate CMSP and OCSLA
MSP allows safer drilling with more predictable framework to drill
more effectively
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling 11 (“The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling” Report
to the president, January 2011, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPOOILCOMMISSION/pdf/GPO-OILCOMMISSION.pdf)
2. The Need for Greater Interagency Consultation¶ Under OCSLA, it is up to the Secretary of the Interior to choose
the proper balance between ¶ environmental protection and resource development. In making leasing
decisions, the ¶ Secretary is required to solicit and consider suggestions from any interested agency, but ¶ he or she is not required to
respond to the comments or accord them any particular ¶ weight. Similar issues arise at the individual lease sale stage and at the
development and ¶ production plan stage. As a result, NOAA—the nation’s ocean agency with the most ¶
expertise in marine science and the management of living marine resources—effectively has ¶ the
same limited role as the general public in the decisions on selecting where and when ¶ to lease
portions of the OCS. A more robust and formal interagency consultation process ¶ is needed—with the goal of identifying
precise areas that should be excluded from lease ¶ sales because of their high ecological importance or sensitivity. In addition to
NOAA, other ¶ federal agencies that should be involved include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and EPA.¶ Strengthened
interagency coordination on offshore oil and gas activities will also be ¶ important in
implementing the final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy ¶ Task Force. These
recommendations, adopted by President Obama by Executive Order on ¶ July 19, 2010, mandate a new national ocean policy that
includes a framework for coastal and marine spatial planning, as well as a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, transparent,
ecosystem- and science-based process for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas.11
Coastal and marine spatial planning applies a multi- sector approach in an effort to
simultaneously reduce user conflicts and environmental impacts associated with ocean and
coastal activities. Integrating five-year leasing plans and associated leasing decisions with the coastal and marine spatial
planning process will be an important step toward assuring the sustainable use of ocean and coastal ecosystems. It could also
reduce uncertainty for industry and provide greater predictability for potential users of different
areas.¶ To ensure that offshore oil and gas development and production proceed in ways that
minimize adverse impacts to the natural and human environment, decisions about these
activities must be grounded in strong science. With respect to funding the necessary science, the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act requires Interior to study the “assessment and management of environmental impacts on the outer Continental
Shelf and coastal areas that might be affected by oil and gas or other mineral developments. . . .”12 Initiated in 1973, funding for the
Environmental Studies Program at Interior peaked in 1976 at roughly $55 million, but had fallen to less than $20 million during
most of the 1990s and 2000s. It was only recently increased to approximately $30 million.13
CMSP boosts energy production
Federal ocean planning improves regulatory stability, predictability
and cross-level coordination to boost energy production
Tierney 13
Susan F. Tierney, PhD and Stephen Carpenter, “Planning for Offshore Energy Development:
How Marine Spatial Planning Could Improve the Leasing/Permitting Processes for Offshore
Wind and Offshore Oil/Natural Gas Development”, June 2013,
http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/Planning_for_Ocean_Ener
gy_Development_Complete.pdf
Connecting the Dots between Ocean Planning and Offshore Energy Development¶ Ocean planning could improve the
efficiency of various aspects of the leasing and permitting processes for offshore energy
development, even under current regulatory frameworks. This could occur through:¶ Improved quality and
quantity of location-specific technical information.¶
information collection and mapping efforts across federal agencies, across states in regional
contexts, and across federal/state efforts.¶
-specific information
for federal and private-sector decision makers, and for other interested stakeholders (including
the states, other ocean industry groups, environmental organizations, and others).¶
quality and quantity of public and private participation in determining the disposition of ocean
resources by bringing parties together early in the process and identifying issues that need to be addressed when determining
whether and how to allow energy development projects.¶ Improved efficiency of public and private
expenditures devoted to information collection/analysis and project permitting, while reducing
regulatory risk.¶
hanced state/federal cooperation on ocean resource development and
protection objectives.¶
CMSP key to renewable energy
CMSP solves development of renewable energy
Bondareff 11 (Joan M. Bondareff, focuses her practice on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues, “The Impact of Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning on Deepwater Drilling,” Fall, 2011,
https://www.blankrome.com/siteFiles/Publications/E1AC96F7CB418AE6E86C7E2D7C236F69
.pdf)
Along the Atlantic Coast, where offshore wind may soon become a reality, the Departments of the Interior and
Energy have already established task forces with state representatives to identify areas for
offshore wind. These discussions have led to a number of Requests for Information (RFIs) and Calls for Nominations off
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North ¶ Carolina, and one is about to be issued for the Common- wealth of Virginia. Eight
companies have already responded to the Maryland RFI. These task force discussions can become the basis
for
future marine spatial planning to include other offshore uses besides renewable energy. Along
the West Coast, where states have not wanted offshore drilling since the famed 1969 Santa Barbara blowout, there may be
a stronger interest in new forms of renewable energy, such as energy from wind, tides, and
waves. It would be overly optimistic to gainsay that investing in the develop- ment of a CMSP will facilitate new offshore drilling
adjacent to the California coast—but who knows? The Pacific Coast of the United States also could be a target
for offshore wind. Developing a marine spatial plan for renewable energy com- bined with
protections of marine resources may expedite the development of those resources. In the Bering Sea,
with the warming of the Arctic, Native Alaskans and other stakeholders will be able to focus on the critical issues of offshore drilling,
marine mammal protection, and fisheries protections if they meet to develop a CMSP. Along the Gulf of Alaska, there
are increasing opportunities for geothermal resource development. Getting interested fed- eral,
state, and local agencies to the table to discuss how best to bring these resources online while
continuing to protect the marine mammal and fisheries resources of the adjacent seas will lead
to a transparent plan that can be updated as new resources are identified and new priorities
come forward. Even- tually this kind of planning process will have to be brought to the Arctic and its increasingly open waters,
but in that case, the United States will not be the only nation at the table. There are already numerous competing uses of the waters
between and among the Hawaiian Islands that are part of the Pacific Region. To date, offshore wind proposals have been met with
local opposition. Each use, whether offshore wind, transportation, fisheries, or whales, has its own place in the pecking order and
own statutory authority and agencies. But, there is no single group that can look at the ocean and its re- sources as a whole.
Developing a CMSP can achieve what no individual statute, agency, or industry group can accomplish on its own—
a roadmap to future siting and future permits. ¶
MSP creates a new framework and uniform standards that are key to
renewable energy development
Marriott and Oram 10
Chad T. Marriott and Cherise M. Oram, Stoel Rives LLP (Law), “Environmental & Land Use
Law: Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning for Offshore Renewable Energy Development on the
West Coast”, May 2010, http://www.stoel.com/files/ELULN_May2010.pdf
As developers continue to build renewable energy¶ projects on land under
relatively well-defined siting and¶ permitting schemes, the regulatory regime for
offshore¶ wind and hydrokinetic projects (i.e., wave, tidal, and¶ ocean current)1 is a
work in progress as agencies strive to¶ promote certainty for investors and
developers. Recent¶ memoranda of understanding signed between the Federal¶ Energy Regulatory Commission and the
Department of the¶ Interior (“DOI”),2 the State of Washington,3 and the State¶ of Oregon4 demonstrate federal and state
commitments to¶ develop offshore renewable energy resources. Successfully¶ navigating the offshore
regulatory environment requires¶ close attention to regulatory authorities
governing uses of¶ the ocean space and impacts one use may have others.¶ One reason
special care is required is that the ocean¶ and adjacent coastal areas generally are not zoned to allow¶ (or restrict) particular uses in
particular locations to¶ the exclusion of others. Consider these interests and uses,¶ for example:
commercial and sport fishing, aquaculture,¶ recreation, shipping, mining, oil and
gas exploration and¶ development, renewable energy development, undersea¶ fiber
optic cables, national defense, coastal private property,¶ tribal treaty rights,
cultural heritage sites, national¶ parks, national marine sanctuaries, and protected
and¶ endangered species.¶ While individual sectors of the marine economy are¶
subject to regulations such as limits on take, designated¶ shipping lanes, and lease
requirements, those regulations¶ generally do not affect other uses. For example, the
existence¶ of a shipping lane in Puget Sound does not prevent¶ a recreational sailor from crossing that lane. Likewise, a¶ renewable
energy lease on the Outer Continental Shelf¶ (the “OCS”) will not prevent commercial fishing or other¶ uses in the lease area.
Although this may not seem like a¶ big deal (after all, the energy industry has been dealing¶ with conflicting uses on the nation’s
public lands for a long¶ time), the number of regulations and regulatory entities¶ governing
the use of marine waters that require consultation¶ and cooperation between state
and federal agencies is¶ greater than that confronting most land-based renewable¶
energy projects. As existing and new user groups seek to¶ make use of the states’ territorial seas5 and the OCS,6 some¶
argue that a more comprehensive, integrated, ecosystembased¶ management
framework is needed to deal with the¶ statutory and regulatory complexity
inherent in balancing¶ so many interests.
MSP is the only way to increase the development of renewable energy
WWF 11
World Wildlife Foundation, " The Future of the Arctic”, 2011,
http://dontbeabuckethead.org/witness/the-future-of-the-arctic-2/
And all of this activity – offshore oil drilling and every one of these ships – only increases the
noise beneath the Ocean’s surface, potentially destroying lives and ways of life.¶ ¶ It is time to
rethink what the ocean means to all life on the planet and launch a systematic Marine Spatial
Planning effort that addresses the long term needs of the creatures who live in the sea and
considers the multiple users of the ocean – including energy, industry, government,
conservation and recreation – to make informed and coordinated decisions about how to use
marine resources in a sustainable way. The devastating effects of underwater noise pollution
should to be at the forefront of this effort.¶ ¶ Underwater noise pollution and climate change are
linked together by the relentless use and need for fossil fuels. The more fuel we burn, the more
we need to extract. It is a vicious cycle that must be broken by developing and using renewable
sources of power. The time to Act is now.¶
Effective MSP key to offshore renewable energy by increasing
regulatory and compliance efficiency
Marriott et al 10 (Chad T. Marriott - member of Stoel's Energy Development team, and
Cherise M. Oram - partner in the Environment, Land Use and Natural Resources practice group,
“Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning for Offshore Renewable Energy Development on the West
Coast,” May 2010, http://www.stoel.com/Files/ELULN_May2010.pdf)
Using CMSP to Advance Offshore Renewable Energy CMSP is to be “based on sound science.”35 However, ¶ relatively little is
known about how offshore renewable ¶ energy projects will impact the ocean environment, and ¶
some of what is known is proprietary. Because the offshore ¶ renewable energy industry is still in
its nascent stages of ¶ development, and because companies are not incentivized ¶ to share data
gathered through their own R&D efforts, the ¶ West Coast Plan should establish a mechanism for funding ¶ ongoing R&D in the
region.36 One idea is for the western states to fund research projects focused on regional issues through the Northwest National
Marine Renewable Energy Center. Another pos- sibility is for the West Coast Planning Body to work with legislators to propose R&D
programs that can be carried out by other public universities and colleges. At the federal level, the Ocean Renewable Energy
Coalition has negotiated Senate Bill 1462, a bill “that would establish an Adaptive Management Fund which developers can
use to underwrite environmental studies and ongoing post-deployment monitoring requested by
state and federal resource agen- cies, including NOAA, for demonstration and early-stage commercial
projects.”37 The concept articulated in Senate Bill 1462 is sound and the Planners can use it as a model for state legislation in the
region. Ultimately, increasing
access to baseline data on the surface and subsurface environments will
be critical to rapid growth in the industry. Better information will lead to more concise and
efficient mitigation strategies, and better mitigation will lead to fewer disputes
MSP key to offshore energy and overcrowding
Williams 2012 (Andrew Williams, staff writer on economy ecology and environment,
March 26th, 2012, “Marine Spatial Planning: Key to Informed Offshore Wind, Renewable Energy
Planning and Decision-Making”, http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/26/marine-spatialplanning-key-to-informed-offshore-wind-renewable-energy-planning-and-decision-making/)
Informing planners, other decision-makers and a broad array of stakeholders regarding the development of ocean
renewable energy resources, offshore wind energy in particular, is “a major driver of current MSP
(Marine Spatial Planning) efforts in the mid-Atlantic,” the report authors note, where offshore winds hold an
estimated 1,000 gigawatts (GW) of power.¶ In addition to the sheer magnitude of offshore wind energy potential, other
attributes add to the attractiveness of developing oceanic renewable energy resources . Regarding
offshore wind energy, “the resource is close to large, densely populated areas where electricity rates are high, demand for power is
growing steadily, and where land-based wind development is constrained,” the authors point out.¶ Though many may not realize,
think about or look into it much, if at all, there’s a lot of human activity going on in US coastal zones and
open ocean waters. That’s in addition to all the life and physical processes associated with the
diversity of marine life forms and environments. Marine life habitat and population
conservation, commercial shipping and fishing activity, recreational fishing, boating and
shoreline activities, military and defense uses, waste streams and disposal, and now oceanic
renewable energy all figure into the mix.¶ Just coming to grips with the amount of data that
needs to be gathered and organized, then adequately processed and analyzed to yield an
adequate understanding of not only the individual activities but how they interrelate across and
within the marine ecosystem and biome is a daunting challenge. Added to that is the need to
balance the often conflicting wants and needs of all the stakeholders in the planning and
decision-making processes that determine how our society will make use of its marine and
coastal zones.
Marine spatial planning key bridge to offshore alternative energy
development.
Boehnert 12 (John M. Boehnert, attorney, writer and speaker in real estate, land use and
environmental law, “Marine Spatial Planning, Ocean Zoning, and the Oceans’ 12 Conference
(Rhode Island Property Law),” November 19, 2012, http://www.thecre.com/zoningnews/?p=5892)
The MSP process can identify areas most suitable for specified activities, whether fisheries,
mineral extraction, ship transport, etc. When this information is translated into a regulatory
framework, which is often referred to as “ocean zoning”, it can reduce user conflicts and
environmental impacts and preserve critical habitats and ecosystems while fostering specified
uses to meet specific objectives.¶ For example, marine spatial planning and ocean zoning has been
seen as important to fostering alternative energy development. Witness Rhode Island’s Ocean Special
Area Management Plan, also known as the Ocean SAMP, a new regulatory ocean zoning program which was the first of its
kind in the nation approved by federal regulators as part of a state coastal management plan. Rhode Island’s Ocean SAMP was in
large part designed to foster utility scale offshore wind energy development by using marine spatial
planning to identify the areas best suited to such development in a cost-effective manner while
protecting sensitive habitat and marine life and avoiding user conflicts.¶
Creation of a mapping system solves economic and energy
developments
Medina et al 2014 (Authors for Center of New American Security, Monica Medina, joel
Smith and linda Sturgis, “National Coastal Ocean Mapping
Advancing National Defense and Ocean Conservation,”
file:///C:/Users/Alex/Documents/Camp%202014/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf)
The offshore energy industry is a vital contributor to the nation’s energy needs. Operations in
the Gulf of Mexico alone account for 23 percent of total U.S. crude oil production and 7 percent
of total U.S. dry natural gas production.15 The migration of sophisti- cated technology to offshore
reserves has accounted for major increases in subsea production and may enable the extraction
of additional untapped reserves. Renewable energy has also emerged as a growing offshore
industry. 2013 was the first year in which ¶ the U.S. government auctioned offshore area leases for wind energy projects.16
Meanwhile, wave energy projects have raised concerns in the maritime com- munity, with
offshore development coming into conflict with coastal fisheries management in the Pacific
Northwest.17 Other coastal ocean users have expressed concern that new energy projects often require the rerouting of
established shipping routes. This type of activity can interfere with efficient transportation of goods, disrupt commercial and
recreational fishing grounds and disturb defense readiness through the induction of electromagnetic fields near offshore military
training areas.18 ¶ livinG Marine resources Expanded use of the ocean also has an adverse impact on
fisheries and marine mammals, and some populations are already at risk. For instance, North Atlantic
right whales are highly endangered, with a population of fewer than 450.19 They migrate the length of the east coast twice a year,
feeding in heavily fished areas off New England in sum- mer and calving off the ports of Savannah and Charleston in winter.
Measures have already been implemented to reduce the likelihood of vessels colliding with the whales, including the establish- ment
of areas to avoid, traffic separation schemes, recommended routes, mandatory ship reporting areas, seasonal management areas and
dynamic management areas.20 Still, NOAA and others high- light the potential risk for extinction if
shipping lanes are rerouted, underwater fixed structures are constructed and the Navy continues
to use sonar in or along the whales’ migration route.
MSP is key to renewable energy development and solving impacts of
space conflicts
NRDC 13 (National Resource Defense Council, “Ocean Blueprint stopping ocean sprawl with
smart coastal and marine spatial planning,” 7/23/2013, http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/cmsp.asp)
We demand a lot from our oceans -- from fishing and tourism, to shipping and energy development. But our seas are already under
siege from problems like pollution, overfishing, and ocean acidification. Increased ocean activities, if not carried out
wisely, will cause "ocean sprawl," further stressing these valuable resources and jeopardizing the food, jobs and
recreation we need our oceans to provide. Coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) is a common sense process
that allocates space in the oceans for various uses, identifying areas in which different uses make sense and other
areas where ocean habitat needs protection. This effort is particularly important as offshore wind and other
renewable energy projects, which will play a critical role in moving America toward a clean
energy economy, start to occur off our coasts. Smart ocean planning will help us ensure that
offshore renewable energy is located in the right places with minimal impacts on ocean and
coastal ecosystems. It can reduce conflicts between new and existing ocean activities from the
get-go, while easing the pressure on our already-stressed seas.¶ In July 2010, President Obama issued Executive Order No. 13547
establishing the nation's first-ever National Ocean Policy. We finally have a bedrock environmental policy for our oceans. This is a
huge victory for everyone who treasures the wonder of the seas, who values ocean life, who flocks to the beach, who loves seafood,
and who makes a living on or from the water. A National Ocean Council of existing federal agencies was created to implement the
policy. Part of this Council's work will be to help regions design coastal and marine spatial plans, with input from all levels of
government, businesses, fisheries managers, and conservation groups.¶ NRDC is working to ensure that state,
regional and federal efforts to map out and use our ocean waters are based on protecting ocean
ecosystem health so that we can continue to enjoy all of the services we rely on the ocean to
provide.
MSP reduces investor uncertainty – helps solve for offshore wind
Maritime Alliance 14
Maritime Alliance, “Marine Spatial Planning in San Diego & Stakeholder Overview”, March
2014,
http://themaritimealliance.org/pdf/SanDiegoMSP_StakeholderReport_FINAL_March2014.pd
f
Comprehensive MSP is likely to increase investment in ocean industries. First, the availability of detailed
geospatial information should reduce the risk for companies to make ill-informed decisions about
potential investment likely leading to more bidders on projects as well as reduce uncertainty of
regulator and other decision makers as to the most appropriate spots for projects. Second,
streamlining the permitting process and reducing the risk of future ocean conflicts increases
investors’ ability to more accurately predict potential return-on-investment. Third, MSP has in
some instances been motivated by and accompanied by federal agency actions intended to
promote investment in key sectors that benefit the country at large. For instance, under the President’s “Smart
from the Start” program, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is helping identify best
suited locations for offshore wind energy.
CMSP k/t hydrokinetic energy
Marine spatial planning key to implement Marine Hydrokinetic
energy
Cada et al 11 (Glenn F. Cada - Senior Research Staff Member at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory Environmental Sciences Division, Andrea E. Copping- Marine Sciences Laboratory,
and Jesse Roberts, 04/01/2011, “Ocean/Tidal/Stream Power: Identifying How Marine and
Hydrokinetic Devices Affect Aquatic Environments,”
http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/print/volume-30/issue-3/articles/ocean-tidal-streampower-identifying-how-marine-and-hydrokinetic-devices-affect-aquatic-environments.html)
¶ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is working to incorporate siting of MHK projects
into NOAA's coastal and marine spatial planning efforts under way around the country and
providing regulatory assistance to MHK developers. PNNL also is developing risk assessments to
determine the highest-risk encounters between aquatic animals/habitats and individual MHK
project components.¶ On the international scene, DOE is leading the Annex IV project under the International Energy
Agency's Ocean Energy Systems Implementing Agreement. One of the primary goals of Annex IV is to ensure
that existing data on environmental monitoring (and, to the extent possible, practices for environmental
mitigation) of ocean energy systems are more widely accessible to the industry, governments, and
the public.¶ Data collected under Annex IV will be housed in a searchable database called the Knowledge Management System,
being developed by PNNL. Operation of the annex is shared with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and BOEMRE, and
many countries are participating in Annex IV
Offshore energy solves energy demand
Offshore wind solves energy independence
NWF, 13
(National Wildlife Federation, “Offshore Wind Power”, October 16, 2013,
http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-and-Climate/Renewable-Energy/OffshoreWind.aspx)
Offshore wind energy has great potential to help America forge a clean, independent energy
future. There are currently nearly 2,000 offshore wind turbines spinning in Europe but not a
single one can be found here in America, despite the immense potential for clean energy
generation right off our shores. The Atlantic Ocean is one of the best attainable renewable
energy resources in the United States with the potential to create local jobs while reducing
global warming pollution. ¶ America has some of the best offshore wind resources in the world,
particularly along the Atlantic coast where over 1,300 GW of energy generation potential has
been identified. Harnessing just a fraction of our offshore wind resource—52 GW—could power
about 14 million U.S. homes with local, pollution-free energy while creating over $200 billion in
new economic activity along the coast. New analysis shows that a robust offshore wind industry
could create 300,000 jobs here in America.¶ By tapping the power of offshore wind, America can
help ensure energy security, price stability, and decreased pollution, while decreasing the use of
fossil fuels that pose the biggest threat to our wildlife and ocean resources.
Offshore energy could meet total US energy capacity
Cheeseman 14
(Gina-Marie Cheeseman, Enviornmental and social justice journalist who writes for epochtimes,
justnews, triplepundit and more, “Cape Wind Offshore Energy Project Wins Important Legal
Victory”, 3/19/14, http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/03/cape-wind-offshore-energy-projectwins-important-legal-victory/)
Cape Wind is an offshore wind energy project in Nantucket Sound which will consist of 130 wind
turbines producing up to 420 megawatts of energy. The first of its kind in the U.S., it has been in
development for more than 10 years. Cape Wind could provide enough energy to meet 75
percent of the electricity demand on Cape Cod and the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and
Nantucket. The offshore wind farm is projected to create 600 to 1,000 jobs in Massachusetts. It
would also be one of the largest greenhouse gas reduction initiatives in the U.S — reducing
carbon dioxide emissions from conventional power plants by 700,000 tons a year, which is
equivalent to removing 175,000 cars from the road for a year.¶ The U.S. has tremendous offshore
potential. The Department of Energy estimates that the U.S. offshore wind energy potential
along the coasts and Great Lakes could provide 900,000 MW of electricity, which is almost
equal to the nation’s current total installed capacity. There are more than a dozen other offshore
wind projects being developed in the U.S. Cape Wind President Jim Gordon said that the
judgment in favor of the project represents an “incredibly important legal victories for Cape
Wind” and helps “pave the way for other coastal regions to utilize this clean energy resource for
energy independence, a healthier environment and new jobs.”
Offshore wind creates energy independence
Menendez 14
(Office of US senator Robert Menendez, “New Jersey Offshore Wind Energy Project to Receive DOE Support”, May 8
2014, http://www.ahherald.com/newsbrief/monmouth-news/17515-new-jersey-offshore-wind-energy-project-toreceive-doe-support)
“Offshore wind offers a large, untapped energy resource for the United States that can create
thousands of manufacturing, construction and supply chain jobs across the country and drive
billions of dollars in local economic investment,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “The
Energy Department is working with public and private partners to harness this untapped resource in a
sustainable and economic manner. The offshore wind projects announced today further this commitment -bringing more clean, renewable energy to our homes and businesses, diversifying our energy portfolio,
and reducing costs through innovation.” “New Jersey is at the forefront of innovative wind technology, and this award will
help continue to propel this project forward,” said Senator Cory Booker. “Offshore wind has enormous potential to
establish energy independence while creating thousands of jobs from research and manufacturing to
installation. I look forward to working with DOE, Fishermen’s Energy and the community to make this project a reality. This publicprivate project has the potential to establish New Jersey as a leader in the domestic production of clean energy.”
Offshore energy solves energy needs
Hudson 13 (Audrey Hudson, Investigative journalist, 2/15/2013, HIGHER ENERGY COSTS
DON’T REDUCE DEPENDENCE, Human Events,
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/02/15/higher-energy-costs-dont-reduce-dependence/)
Offshore energy resources should be further developed and the fees paid for by commercial
enterprises distributed to the coastal states in a revenue sharing system.¶ “Think about some of
the trends we’re already seeing,” Murkowski said. “For decades, our energy policies have been
crafted on the premise of increasing scarcity, yet today we have increasing supply. Instead of
absence, we find ourselves on the verge of abundance. There may never have been a time when
we have had more potential for energy abundance. There may never have been a time when we
have had more potential for energy production.Ӧ Climate change should be addressed by
funding basic research, lowering the cost of financing for promising new technology, and
reducing regulatory burdens to move products quickly into the marketplace, Murkowski said.¶
“As we rethink our nation’s energy policy, it is also important to face questions about the
inherent risks of energy and resource development, including questions about climate change.
We must discuss these questions openly and find common ground on prudent steps to take in
the face of uncertainty,” Murkowski said.¶ At a Capitol Hill news conference following her
speech, Murkowski said the blueprint does not include “cap and trade,” a scheme to cap
emissions then let companies buy and sell allowances for how much pollution each emits. Nor
does the paper support carbon taxes, which Murkowski said would only increase the consumer’s
cost of energy.¶ The blueprint does support the continued use of coal, natural gas, hydropower
and nuclear power and suggests solar and wind power could be more cost effective if the energy
storage capabilities were further researched and developed.¶ “No energy policy will ever be a
perfect vision,” Murkowski said. “But with the year 2020 fast approaching, I believe it is time to
re-evaluate the policies we have in place—to think about what can and should come next—and to
set realistic goals that we can achieve by the end of this decade.”
CMSP key to investment in tech
Effective marine planning key to regulatory predictability and
investment in ocean technologies
Whitlock 14 (Jared Whitlock, Staff Reporter at The Coast News Group, “Marine planning
could benefit ‘blue’ industries, report says,” Mar 28, 2014,
https://thecoastnews.com/2014/03/marine-planning-could-benefit-blue-industries-reportsays/)
The ship, which was sunk on purpose in 2000 to draw recreational divers, generates an estimated $5.7 million for San Diego’s diving
and hospitality economy every year.¶ To bring more divers to the region, the nonprofit group California Ships to Reef would like to
submerge more ships. A new process called marine spatial would help them identify the best spots to do so.¶ “You want to find a
place that’s relatively barren, close to a major port and won’t interfere with a fishery,” said Eleanore Rewerts, the executive director
of the nonprofit.¶ “You take all of these things into consideration, and this is why marine spatial planning is so important, so you
know the ideal location for a ship,” Rewerts added.¶ Marine spatial planning would enlist stakeholders to
determine the best use of the ocean, on the surface of the water and deep below. A new report authored
by graduate students at UC San Diego states a variety of “blue” industries could benefit from the approach.¶
Some of those businesses include aquaculture farms, desalination plants and maritime
construction, according to the report.¶ With more competing for ocean space, it’s necessary to identify
ideal spots for ocean businesses and activities through a science-based process. In many ways, it’s
similar to how land is divvied up for different uses, according to the report.¶ Currently, businesses like the Carlsbad Aquafarm,
which raises and sells seafood to local vendors and restaurants, contribute to the $14 billion annual marine economy. But there’s
room for much more growth, the report states.¶ “Effective planning could increase the gross product
of ocean and water-related industries in San Diego dramatically — billions of dollars annually,” the report
states. “By establishing needed rules and regulations and pre-approving sites, that would
encourage investment and industry growth.”¶ There’s a lot of money in the ocean, even in small
patches.¶ In just one-square mile, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute estimates a business could farm 150,000 metric tons of
white seabass annually using the latest open-cage technology, generating up to $900 million in economic activity, according to the
report.¶ Marine agriculture, a new technique that involves growing land and sea plants on a
floating platform, is another area with big potential, the report states. The price of building a one-acre floating
platform is $20,000, along with other costs to grow the produce. Yet that same platform could create up to $200,000 in revenue a
year.¶ Desalination plants, like the one that’s being constructed in Carlsbad, also represent an opportunity for the blue economy,
according to the report.¶ “Having reliable, drought-proof water supplies could represent a major competitive advantage to San Diego
in the decades to come,” the report says.¶ Michael Jones, president of the San Diego-based Maritime Alliance, has headed efforts to
promote marine planning and advised the report. He noted it’s costly to import water, leading more to turn to the ocean as a
drinking source.¶ And marine planning would help sort out the best spots for desalination plants, Jones added.¶ “If you’re not by the
ocean, you don’t have desalination potential and fortunately San Diego does,” Jones said, adding that San Diego has more economic
opportunities than landlocked places.¶ He said it’s still too early to say what the marine planning process will look like. San Diego is
one of the first places to consider the idea, and it’s gaining traction among local leaders, Jones added.¶ Elisa Chang, one of the
report’s authors, noted the researchers interviewed a host of marine-technology business leaders and sustainability experts as part of
the report. Most expressed that marine planning could result in a significant economic boon, with
the potential to increase environmental sustainability.¶ “They said it could balance everyone’s needs
and desires,” Chang said.¶
MSP boosts offshore drilling
CMSP boosts offshore drillings permits and more oil development
Bondareff 11 (Joan M. Bondareff, focuses her practice on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues, “The Impact of Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning on Deepwater Drilling,” Fall, 2011,
https://www.blankrome.com/siteFiles/Publications/E1AC96F7CB418AE6E86C7E2D7C236F69
.pdf)
Unless Congress provides the necessary seed funding for the development of CMSPs, we will not be able to determine how effective
the plans can be to meet the expectations of the Task Force and the BP Commission. However, if states and federal
agencies can begin to meet and discuss how to approach ma- rine spatial planning and how to
identify which uses should be located where, the process may yet prove to be fruitful. There are
existing examples of federal-state discussions on uses of the ocean that may be the seeds of this discussion. In the Gulf of Mexico, for
example, interested stakeholders can help identify areas for deepwater drilling that will not im-
pact fisheries, shipping lanes, and marine protected areas. This may help accelerate the
permitting process for offshore drilling while allaying the fears of fishermen at the same time.
Combin- ing offshore drilling with a marine protected area and a scheme for sharing revenue
could expedite the permitting process.
CMSP key to Arctic drilling
Effective CMSP key to safe drilling and energy development in the
Arctic
Bondareff 11 (Joan M. Bondareff, focuses her practice on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues, “The Impact of Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning on Deepwater Drilling,” Fall, 2011,
https://www.blankrome.com/siteFiles/Publications/E1AC96F7CB418AE6E86C7E2D7C236F69
.pdf)
In the Bering Sea, with the warming of the Arctic, Native Alaskans and other stakeholders will be able to focus
on the critical issues of offshore drilling, marine mammal protection, and fisheries protections if
they meet to develop a CMSP. Along the Gulf of Alaska, there are increasing opportunities for
geothermal resource development. Getting interested fed-eral, state, and local agencies to the table to discuss how best
to bring these resources online while continuing to protect the marine mammal and fisheries resources of the adjacent seas will lead
to a transparent plan that can be updated as new resources are identified and new priorities come forward. Even-tually this
kind of planning process will have to be brought to the Arctic and its increasingly open waters,
but in that case, the United States will not be the only nation at the table.
Energy Key to Stop US-China War
Foreign oil dependency and lack of alternative energy creates USChina competition
Reynolds 10 (Lewis, energy consultant and author of “America the Prisoner: The
Implications of Foreign Oil Addiction and a Realistic Plan to End It”, “Seven Dangerous Side
Effects of the U.S. Dependency on Foreign Oil”, 8-8-10, http://peakoil.com/production/sevendangerous-side-effects-of-the-u-s-dependency-on-foreign-oil/)
It creates strained foreign relations and sets the stage for an unstable future. The entire U.S.-Middle East foreign
policy has been structured around the obvious importance of the region for the world’s oil
supply. Policy makers don’t like to discuss it openly, but oil is always the elephant in the room when it comes to U.S. foreign
relations—even with nations outside the Middle East. One of the great questions in the context of geopolitical
struggle for oil is whether the great oil consuming nations—which will soon include the U.S.,
China, Russia—will view one another as allies, competitors, or some combination of both. The U.S. has
love-hate relationships with both countries. There is historic rivalry between the U.S. and Russia leading back
generations. The relationship with China is murky at best. Events are already in motion that could set the stage
for a U.S.-Chinese confrontation. Oil consumption continues to grow modestly in the U.S., but
in China it is exploding. On a global scale, oil consumption will certainly continue to grow into
the foreseeable future, yet there are considerable questions as to whether global production can
be increased much beyond current levels if at all. With both the U.S. and China needing oil,
competition is inevitable. Responsibility lies with both sides to take actions to avoid the long progression toward a conflict.
A Sino-American energy war is far too likely if both countries continue on their present courses
without developing substantial alternative energy sources.
Oil Dependence Impact: List
Oil Dependence Leads Crushes International Leverage, Leads Oil
Shocks, Economic Collapse, and Draw In—Empirical Evidence
Bettinger ‘10
Mark Bettinger is Director of Sierra Club’s Federal and International Climate Campaign. Dr.
Bernard Finel is Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the American Security Project. Ann
Mesnikoff is the Director of Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign. Jesse Prentice-Dunn
is a Washington Representative with Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign. Lindsey
Ross is a research associate for climate security at ASP. Ending our Dependence on Oil A M E R
I C A N S E C U R I T Y P R O J E C T S I E R R A C L U B. M A Y 2 7 , 2010,
http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ending-our-Dependence-onOil.pdf
Our national security is affected by oil consumption on a number of fronts. First, many
countries which supply the United States with petroleum are politically unstable,
leaving the American people particularly vulnerable to shocks in oil supply
resulting from domestic or regional conflicts. Second, and related, is the strategic
challenge presented by our dependence. Our reliance on countries whose actions
do not best align with our interests impedes our leverage in the international
arena. And third, there are risks to oil infrastructure, including the shipment of
petroleum via waterways and the pipelines and facilities which funnel it around
the globe.While our largest single provider of petroleum, Canada, is a stable and friendly neighbor, the same cannot be said of
the other countries responsible for our oil supply. 4 Even Saudi Arabia, an ally and our fourth largest
supplier of petroleum products, 5 is rated as having a “high risk” for instability
according to the Economist’s Political Instability Index. 6 Of the petroleum Americans consume, 57
percent is imported, and of this, 68 percent is supplied by countries at “high risk”
or “very high risk” for instability. 7 In 2008, we received nearly 5 percent of our crude oil and products imports
from Angola, a country with a corrupt, quasi-democracy still reeling from a lengthy civil war. 8 Nigeria, providing just under 9
percent, has a long history of government corruption, military rule and social unrest. The same is true of Algeria, another top
supplier whose brutal 11-year civil war ended in the last decade and a country which continues to be a breeding ground for militants
and insurgents. Even Mexico, a country with which we have good relations, suffers from social unrest and rampant crime. It, too, has
a “high risk” of instability. An eruption of violence, government upheaval, or the like in any
of these countries could lead to a spike in the global price of petroleum, as occurred in the
1970s following the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution in 1979. In both cases significant
recessions followed. The cumulative cost of those recessions is on the order of
several trillion dollars – a direct consequence of oil dependence. U.S. military
involvement in such events may also become necessary to restore regional
stability. Saddam Hussein’s threat to seize Kuwait’s oil reserves embroiled the
United States in a cycle of conflict with Iraq that continues to this day and has cost
thousands of American lives and three quarters of a trillion dollars.
Middle East Oil Impact—China War
Oil dependency creates US-China competition- war inevitable without
alternative energy
Reynolds 10
Lewis, energy consultant and author of “America the Prisoner: The Implications of Foreign Oil
Addiction and a Realistic Plan to End It”, “Seven Dangerous Side Effects of the U.S. Dependency
on Foreign Oil”, 8-8-10, http://peakoil.com/production/seven-dangerous-side-effects-of-the-us-dependency-on-foreign-oil/
It creates strained foreign relations and sets the stage for an unstable future. The entire U.S.-Middle
East foreign policy has been structured around the obvious importance of the region for the world’s oil
supply. Policy makers don’t like to discuss it openly, but oil is always the elephant in the room when it
comes to U.S. foreign relations—even with nations outside the Middle East. One of the great questions
in the context of geopolitical struggle for oil is whether the great oil consuming nations—which will
soon include the U.S., China, Russia—will view one another as allies, competitors, or some
combination of both. The U.S. has love-hate relationships with both countries. There is historic rivalry between
the U.S. and Russia leading back generations. The relationship with China is murky at best. Events are already
in motion that could set the stage for a U.S.-Chinese confrontation. Oil consumption continues to grow
modestly in the U.S., but in China it is exploding. On a global scale, oil consumption will certainly continue
to grow into the foreseeable future, yet there are considerable questions as to whether global production can be
increased much beyond current levels if at all. With both the U.S. and China needing oil, competition is
inevitable. Responsibility lies with both sides to take actions to avoid the long progression toward a
conflict. A Sino-American energy war is far too likely if both countries continue on their present
courses without developing substantial alternative energy sources.
Sending Oil Through SLOCS Leads Security Complexes that Create
Escalation of China-Japan Conflicts and US Draw In to Major Power
War
Glaser ‘11
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security Charles L.
Glaser cglaser@gwu.edu Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University August 2011,
epts.washington.edu/.../Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.doc
Energy dependence might be most dangerous if it brings the United States into conflict with
another major power. A key path along which this could occur is an energy-driven security
dilemma between China and the United States. As noted above, U.S. oil supplies are not vulnerable
to interruption by China, but China’s are vulnerable to the U.S. navy. Consequently, China faces
this type of security dilemma, which has the potential to generate a variety of peacetime and
crisis dangers. China began importing oil in the early 1990s and its imports have grown
significantly since then. Chinese oil consumption doubled from 1995-2005 and is expected to
double again by 2020. During this period Chinese domestic production is expected to remain
flat; the amount of oil that it imports will grow rapidly, making up somewhere between 60 and
80 percent of Chinese demand. The vast majority of this imported oil—more than 85%
—will cross the Indian Ocean and pass through the Strait of Malacca. The problem
that China faces is that its sea lanes of communication for transporting this oil are
dominated by the U.S. navy. Chinese experts are well aware of the potential implications of
this vulnerability. The following statement by a Chinese scholar succinctly captures the
situation: China cannot have control over development goals without corresponding control
over the resources to fuel the economy. The simple fact is that China does not possess that
control. More than half of U.S. oil imports are shipped via the sea lanes. The crucial difference is
that China is almost helpless to protect its overseas oil import routes. This is an
Achilles heel to contemporary China, as it has forced China to entrust its fate (stable markets
and access to resources) to others. Therefore, it is imperative that China, as a nation, pay
attention to its maritime security and the means to defend its interests through sea power (a
critical capability in which China currently lags behind). In fact, the key danger facing China is
likely not during peacetime, but instead during a severe crisis or war. Another Chinese scholar
observes, “In the scenario of war across the Taiwan Straits, there is no guarantee that the United
States would not enlist the assistance of its principal ally in northeast Asia (Japan) and other
lesser allies (Singapore, the Philippines, and South Korea) to participate in another oil blockade
against China.” Although China has been modernizing its navy for a couple of decades, it not
only remains quite far from having the ability to challenge U.S. control of the SLOCs from the
Persian Gulf to the Strait of Malacca, but the programs it could build in the medium term (10-15
years) would still leave this mission beyond reach. The near-term focus and top priorities for
China’s naval modernization have been improving its ability to blockade Taiwan, and to deny
and deter U.S. intervention in a Taiwan conflict. Beyond these top priorities, acquiring the
ability to protect its SLOCs to the Persian Gulf is among the rationales for China’s naval
modernization. However, apparently China’s leaders are still deciding whether to devote
massive resources to this mission. There is the possibility that China could start to
challenge U.S. dominance in the Indian Ocean by developing a string of land-based
capabilities from which it could both launch attacks and base naval forces; China
has started to develop the type of base structure required for these capabilities. In
addition, China could try to weaken U.S. naval dominance by deploying sea-based
assets that threaten, but do not match, U.S. forces—for example, a large attack
submarine force. In any event, well before China’s navy can reach effectively into
the Indian Ocean, its efforts to protect Taiwan and its territorial claims in the East
China and South China Seas will pose a threat to U.S. allies, including Japan.Increased
value of territory and alliance entrapment—Japan-China conflict in the East China Sea The combination of the increased value of
territory and alliance commitments could draw the United States into a conflict between Japan and China. In this case, energy’s
effect is indirect—energy is not the rationale for the U.S.-Japan alliance, but could contribute to the outbreak of war between China
and Japan. China and Japan have an ongoing dispute over their maritime boundary in
the East China Sea and, related, over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. The East China Sea contains potentially large oil and
gas reserves; estimates of their size vary substantially, with the high end around 100 billion barrels. China and Japan’s divergent
views on their maritime boundary, which reflect self-serving interpretations of ambiguities in the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea, significantly influence how much of the East China Sea falls under their control and, more specifically, which petroleum
reserves they own. One particular oil and gas field—Chunxiao—has been the focus of much controversy, among other reasons
because China is drilling close to the line that Japan claims divides this field and Japan worries that China’s operations could siphon
resources from its side of the divide. The maritime boundary dispute is intertwined with the countries’ dispute over the
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, which are located in the South China Sea. This dispute is important not only because there may be
substantial amounts of oil near the islands, but also because Japan’s territorial claim significantly influences the location of the line
that it believes divides the South China Sea and increases the size of its exclusive economic zone. Energy has played a central role in
fueling controversy in the East China Sea. Neither Japan nor China focused much attention on their claims to the Senkaku/Diaoyu
islands until a 1968 UN survey found there could be significant amounts of petroleum near them. The related dispute over the
maritime border is long standing, but did not become the focus of intense political disputes and military interactions until Japan
reacted to China’s growing oil and gas exploration in areas that Japan maintains are contested. In 2008 China and Japan reached
an agreement on joint development of East China Sea petroleum resources, but since then have failed to work out specific issues
required for its implementation. Over the past couple of decades, low-level confrontations between China and Japan have resulted
over both the island and maritime border disputes, with some increase in their frequency in recent years. Although the stakes do not
appear to justify the risk of a large war, experts believe that these disputes are the most likely flash point
between Japan and China and warn about the possibility of conflict. A conflict in
the South China Sea war could draw in the United States. Although the United States does not take
a position on these competing sovereignty claims, the U.S.-Japan security treaty commits it to Japan’s
defense if conflict breaks out over these islands, because they are under Japanese administration and are therefore
covered by the treaty. The United States reiterated this position in the fall of 2010, as controversy raged following the collision of
Chinese and Japanese boats in the vicinity of the Senkaku/Diaoyo Islands. Others’ oil dependence decreases U.S. foreign policy
leverage: China’s reluctance to sanction Iran A country’s oil dependence could reduce its willingness to adopt policies that would
increase U.S. security, because those policies would damage the country’s energy interests. The clearest example may be the
disagreement between the United States and China over sanctions targeted at stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program. China has
invested in large energy deals with Iran and now relies heavily on Iran for oil, which may be reducing its willingness to support
sanctions. The United States favors harsh sanctions to convince Iran to shut down programs that will enable it to build nuclear
weapons. China has consistently required that U.N. sanctions against Iran be significantly less severe than favored by the United
States and its European allies. In addition, China has criticized unilateral U.S. sanctions that go beyond the most recent round of
U.N. sanctions. Energy interests are not China’s only reason for opposing severe sanctions—others include the priority it places on
respecting states’ sovereignty and possibly the lower priority that China places on nonproliferation, reflecting its lack of global power
projection capabilities. But energy interests appear to be a key factor. A significant and growing fraction of China’s imported oil
comes from Iran and Chinese oil companies have demonstrated a continuing interest in investing in Iran’s oil and natural gas
industries. China worries that support for sanctions will reduce its access to Iran’s energy resources and, therefore, has worked to
moderate the severity of U.N. sanctions. Of course, this raises the question of why China does not entirely oppose sanctions. A
number of factors push China toward supporting them, including the increasing importance it places on stability in the Middle East,
which could be jeopardized by nuclear proliferation, and the importance of preserving good relations with the United States, with
which it shares much larger economic stakes. The result of these countervailing factors is China’s seemingly reluctant support for
relatively modest sanctions. The security cost to the United States of China’s limited support for sanctions depends on two further
debates that I merely flag here. First, there is an on-going debate about the effectiveness of economic sanctions: if sanctions are
generally ineffective, or if they tend to be ineffective when the stakes for the state being coerced are very high, as is the case with
Iran, then the limits that China’s has imposed on U.N. sanctions are less costly, because even more severe sanctions would have been
unlikely to succeed. Second, there is the whole debate over the danger posed by nuclear proliferation: if proliferation in general is
not dangerous, or if proliferation to Iran in particular is not very dangerous, then China’s obstructionism poses smaller security costs
to the United States. NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS AND POLICY CHALLENGES The preceding sections have laid out a
variety of ways in which oil dependence could require the United States to use large-scale force to protect its interests. Oil’s influence
can be direct—force is used to protect access to oil—but can also be indirect—concern about oil influences the formation of alliances,
stains political relations, and constrains states’ foreign policies in ways that bring the United States into conflicts that are not over
oil. These oil-fueled wars could be against a major power or a regional power. The final sections consider how oil-generated risks
have changed over time and identify some key policy challenges. What is new and different? Because the United States has been
concerned about energy security since at least the 1970s, we can gain some perspective by comparing current security dangers
produced by oil dependence to earlier ones. Although identifying and exploring potential dangers is easier than estimating their
magnitude, the preceding analysis does offer some useful comparisons. At least until the Arab Spring, the probability of U.S.
involvement in energy-driven conflict in the Persian Gulf was arguably lower than over the past few decades. The clearest case for
U.S. intervention would involve a cutoff of Saudi oil. A Saudi decision to embargo oil appears no more likely than in recent decades
and less likely than in the 1970s; a key external threat—Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—has been eliminated; and Iran’s missile capabilities
are as of yet incapable of crippling the Saudi oil complex. In addition, U.S. capabilities for intervening in a Persian Gulf conflict have
grown, which should contribute to deterrence; and the U.S. need to intervene for all but the most severe oil interruptions has been
reduced by enlargement of its strategic petroleum reserve and by its increased energy efficiency. Cutting in the other direction,
increased demand for oil, largely reflecting economic growth in the developing world, is likely to outpace increasing supply, driving
oil prices higher. Combined with reduced slack in the oil production system, the result could be greater price sensitivity to supply
disruptions, which would increase U.S. incentives to intervene to restore the flow of oil. Given these countervailing trends, which do
not clearly indicate a greater probability of severe disruptions, increased U.S. concern over the fast few years about energy security
appears to reflect the higher price of oil and not an increased probability of conflict; that is, the fear here is more clearly about U.S.
prosperity than U.S. national security. One exception to this otherwise positive assessment of the Persian Gulf reflects the future
implications of Iranian nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would likely be more willing to use force to close the Strait of Hormuz and
there are plausible scenarios in which this action leads to conventional, and possibly nuclear, conflict between the United States and
Iran. This future possibility, however, has played virtually no role in the increased U.S. concern about energy security. The other key
exception is the increased concern about the stability of the Saudi regime, which reflects the political upheaval that has swept across
the Middle East. It seems clearer that the probability of energy-generated conflict has increased in Northeast Asia. China’s shift over
the past two decades from oil exporter to substantial oil importer, combined with the vulnerability its SLOCs, creates the possibility
of a security dilemma. China’s efforts to protect its sea lanes and/or to offset its new vulnerability by further increasing its ability to
confront the United States in a Taiwan scenario could fuel negative political spirals that reduce both countries’ security. A very
different logic could make conflict more likely between China and its neighbors. The
growing value of oil and gas, combined with China’s increasing military
capabilities and its increasing need for secure access to these energy resources,
could make China more willing to use force to resolve island disputes in the East
China Sea. The United States could get drawn into this conflict via its alliance
commitment and concern for its credibility for protecting allies.
Middle East Oil Impact—Iran War
Oil dependency causes war with Iran
Reynolds 10
Lewis, energy consultant and author of “America the Prisoner: The Implications of Foreign Oil
Addiction and a Realistic Plan to End It”, “Seven Dangerous Side Effects of the U.S. Dependency
on Foreign Oil”, 8-8-10, http://peakoil.com/production/seven-dangerous-side-effects-of-the-us-dependency-on-foreign-oil/
It gets us into wars. Oil has been at the center of many (indeed most) major military conflicts in the
world, particularly those involving the West. From providing the impetus for Hitler’s invasion of the
Soviet Union and Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, the resulting Gulf
War, and, most would admit, the U.S. return to Iraq in 2003, oil has bred a century of conflict. To be sure, America has made some bad
choices to guarantee the uninterrupted flow of oil, often acting in ways very much in conflict with our national
identity. Although the costs of the wars we have fought, both in terms of blood and treasure, have been great, the compromise of
American values is perhaps even more disturbing. It might be best to look at the war issue in the
context of a war that hasn’t happened…yet. Take the U.S. relationship with Iran. For most of the 20th century,
the U.S. and British governments supported dictators and manipulated the domestic political situation in Iran to ensure the continued flow of
cheap oil, often at the expense of the nation’s people. Those policies backfired when the harsh rule of the U.S.-backed Shah was overthrown
by a popular revolution. The Iranian population was left angry with the U.S., and the door was opened for the
anti-American Islamic theocracy that followed. The path to power for the Iranian regime was laid, in
no small part, by mistakes made by previous U.S. Administrations.
U.S. Oil Demands Funds Iranian Nucearization
Bettinger ‘10
Mark Bettinger is Director of Sierra Club’s Federal and International Climate Campaign. Dr.
Bernard Finel is Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the American Security Project. Ann
Mesnikoff is the Director of Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign. Jesse Prentice-Dunn
is a Washington Representative with Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign. Lindsey
Ross is a research associate for climate security at ASP. Ending our Dependence on Oil A M E R
I C A N S E C U R I T Y P R O J E C T S I E R R A C L U B. M A Y 2 7 , 2010,
http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ending-our-Dependence-onOil.pdf
Instability is not the only risk. Our dollars also undermine our efforts to support
democratization and promote human rights around the world. Instead, in many instances, our
oil imports fund governments actively hostile to our interests. Oftentimes, our oil purchases
finance authoritarian regimes, strengthening and cushioning their power grab despite a lack of
popular consent in their home country. Oil money furthers regional conflict and arms races. 10
Among the direct recipients of our petrodollars is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Chavez
has steadily chipped away the democracy of Venezuela, and he has actively sought to spread
anti-American sentiment throughout the hemisphere. Venezuela is third only to Canada and
Mexico in providing petroleum and crude oil products to the United States. 11 Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pursuing nuclear weapons and funds international terrorism. While
Iran does not supply significant quantities of oil to the United States, our purchases keep prices
high and increase funds for that regime.
Oil Dependence Leads to Iran War, Escalates to Nuclear Conflict
Glaser ‘11
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security Charles L.
Glaser cglaser@gwu.edu Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University August 2011,
epts.washington.edu/.../Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.doc
Energy dependence could draw the United States into a conflict in which a regional
power was interrupting, or threatening to interrupt, the flow of oil. The economic
costs of a disruption would determine whether the costs of fighting were justified. Similarly, the
potential economic costs of a disruption would determine whether U.S. foreign and military
policy should be devoted to deterring states from interrupting the flow of oil; more precisely,
these economic costs would determine how much the United States should invest in the policies
required for deterrence. Given the geographical distribution of oil, such a conflict would likely
occur in the Persian Gulf. The greatest danger is probably posed by Iran—the Iraq War has
greatly increased Iran’s power relative to Iraq, and Iran is acquiring improved missile
capabilities and making progress toward having the capability to build nuclear weapons. The
most disruptive Iranian action would be closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which the vast
majority of Persian Gulf oil must pass. Having identified the danger posed by dependence on oil that transits this strait (as well as the Strait of
Malacca), a recent Council on Foreign Relations study concluded that the “United States should take the lead in building an infrastructure protection program that would be
based on practical steps by relevant countries and address critical infrastructures and transit routes. Initial efforts should focus on joint planning, technical assistance, and
military exercises, especially involving naval units operating near ports or along critical sea-lanes.” Although difficult to estimate the probability that Iran would attempt to close
the strait, analysts have offered reasons for expecting the probability to be quite low: Iran would lose the oil revenue from its own exports; and Iran would likely be deterred by
the probable costs of U.S. intervention, which could include the destruction of key military bases and occupation of some of its territory. Because so much oil flows through the
there are plausible scenarios in which Iran
blocks the strait, for example, as retaliation for an attack against is nuclear weapons program or
as a coercive measure if losing a conventional war. Careful analysis suggests that the United
States would prevail, but that a successful campaign could take many weeks or more, and that
oil prices would increase significantly during this period. Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons
would increase the risk of this scenario in two basic ways. First, Iran might believe that the
possibility of escalation to nuclear weapons would deter the United States from responding,
strait, the United States would almost certainly respond to keep it open. Nevertheless,
making Iran more willing to interrupt tanker traffic. Although basic deterrence logic says this
calculation points in the correct direction, the United States might nevertheless intervene. The
United States would question Iran’s willingness to escalate to nuclear use because America’s far
larger and more capable nuclear forces would pose a formidable retaliatory threat. In addition,
the United States would have incentives to make clear that possession of a small number of
nuclear weapons by a much weaker state would not deter the United States from using
conventional weapons in a limited war. Being deterred by the Iranian nuclear force would
suggest that small nuclear arsenals provide tremendous potential for launching conventional
aggression. As Barry Posen argued in a related context (the counterfactual case in which Iraq
possessed nuclear weapons before deciding to invade Kuwait), “If the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait is
permitted to stand, nuclear weapons will come to be viewed as a shield that protects
conventional conquests from any challenger, including a great power heavily armed with its own
nuclear weapons.” Consequently, the United States would have incentives to respond to Iranian
aggression both to preserve its ability to deter conventional aggression by small nuclear states
and to support its nonproliferation policy. Second, once a conventional conflict occurred, there
would be the danger that U.S. conventional operations could increase the probability nuclear
war. A number of paths are possible. The U.S. mine clearing operation required to open the
strait would likely be accompanied by attacks against land-based Iranian targets. The United
States would want to destroy the land-based anti-ship cruise missiles that Iran could use to
threaten U.S. mine clearing ships; in addition, the United States would want to destroy Iranian
air defenses that could be used to protect these missiles. These U.S. strikes would require large
numbers of carrier-based aircraft flying sorties over a period of a few weeks or more. If Iran
lacked confidence that U.S. aims were limited, it could feel compelled to put its nuclear forces on
alert to increase their survivability, which would increase the probability of accidental or
unauthorized nuclear attack. The United States could then have incentives to attack Iran’s
nuclear force, either preemptively because it believed Iran was preparing to launch an attack or
preventively because it faced a closing window of opportunity after which Iran’s nuclear forces
would be survivable. A more subtle danger is the possibility of inadvertent nuclear escalation
resulting from a situation in which Iranian leaders decide to escalate because they believe,
incorrectly, that the United States has decided to destroy their nuclear force (or ability to launch
it). U.S. conventional operations could create this danger by destroying Iranian radars, and
command and control systems, leaving Iranian leaders unable to assess the U.S. conventional
campaign and fearing that the United States was preparing to launch a full-scale invasion or a
conventional attack against their nuclear forces.
Oil Impact—Terrorism
Oil Dependence Leads to Foreign Policy Choices that Fuel
International Terrorism
Glaser ‘11
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security Charles L.
Glaser cglaser@gwu.edu Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University August 2011,
epts.washington.edu/.../Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.doc
A commonly voiced concern is that U.S. policies for maintaining a reliable flow of oil increase the
terrorist threat facing the United States. Whether U.S. oil policy in fact plays a significant role in fueling
these threats depends on a central debate about the causes of terrorism and, specifically, about al Qaeda’s
objectives. And whether the United States can avoid these dangers while continuing to protect the flow of oil
depends on a major debate over U.S. grand strategy. Likely the most significant debate over al
Qaeda is captured in the overly stark question “why do they hate us?” One answer
is that the al Qaeda is reacting to U.S. policy in the Middle East—including
deployment of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, unwavering support for Israel,
cooperation with corrupt regimes, control over the region’s oil resources, and
invasion and occupation of Iraq. A related and more specific argument is that
foreign occupation is the driving force behind suicide terrorism, and more
specifically that U.S. forces deployed in the Persian Gulf are the driving force
behind the al Qaeda threat to the United States. Robert Pape finds that “national
resistance to foreign occupation, a democratic political system in the occupying
power, and a religious difference between the occupied and occupying societies
are the main causal factors leading to the rise of suicide terrorist campaigns.”
Oil Impact—Escalation
New Term Supply Crunch—Military Draw In and Huge War
Bettinger ‘10
Mark Bettinger is Director of Sierra Club’s Federal and International Climate Campaign. Dr.
Bernard Finel is Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the American Security Project. Ann
Mesnikoff is the Director of Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign. Jesse Prentice-Dunn
is a Washington Representative with Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign. Lindsey
Ross is a research associate for climate security at ASP. Ending our Dependence on Oil A M E R
I C A N S E C U R I T Y P R O J E C T S I E R R A C L U B. M A Y 2 7 , 2010,
http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ending-our-Dependence-onOil.pdf
Economic disruptions have a variety of sources. In 1973 and 1979, energy prices spiked as a
result of events in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. American economic growth during this
time suffered by trillions of dollars. 29 Increasing demand worldwide will also result in
price increases – and other, more serious issues. Our economic vulnerabilities as they
concern the Persian Gulf have been especially exploited during the last couple of decades. War
in 1991 in the Persian Gulf was waged to prevent Saddam Hussein from controlling
Kuwait’s oil reserves, which would have brought what today constitutes approximately 30
percent of the world’s proven oil reserves under his control. 30 Nearly two decades
and another war in the region later, we are still fighting to bring stability to Iraq and
spending billions to do so. Today, over 21 percent of our imports arrive from this region. 31 Skyrocketing oil prices in 2007 and 2008 provide another example of our
vulnerability to shocks in the oil market. Increasing global demand, particularly in
developing nations, will affect global oil prices and the American consumer significantly.
Current projections suggest that prices will likely continue to rise, easily surpassing the 2008
highs in coming years, though these projections vary based on assumptions about the value of
the dollar, annual interest, inflation and unemployment rates. 32 The U.S. military has also
expressed concern over our oil dependence. Global energy demand, the military
projects, will increase by 50 percent by the 2030s. Fossil fuels, at 80 percent, will
constitute a majority of the energy supply – barring, of course, significant investment in
alternative sources before this time. Sixty percent of fossil fuel usage, the Joint Operating
Environment 2010 Report predicts, will be in the form of gas and oil. Supply, however, is
unlikely to keep pace with demand – but not for the reasons one might suspect. Even
with conservative growth estimates, if we continue business as usual, insufficient
refining capacity, as well as a shortage of drilling platforms and engineers – not a
lack of petroleum reserves – will make it impossible to meet worldwide demand.
Oil Impact—Caspian/Russia War
Oil Dependence Leads to Entanglement of NATO in the Caspian and
Escalating Conflicts with Russia
Glaser ‘11
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security Charles L.
Glaser cglaser@gwu.edu Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University August 2011,
epts.washington.edu/.../Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.doc
An alliance formed to protect access to energy can draw a state into a conflict that it would
otherwise have avoided. Expanding NATO to include Georgia runs this risk, including increasing
the probability of a conflict between NATO and Russia. The United States’ interest in including
Georgia partially reflects its desire to maintain secure access to oil and gas resources that need
to transit the Caspian Sea region. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United
States initially showed little interest in the Caspian region, but started to pay greater attention as
the extent of the region’s energy resources became clearer. Relatively quickly, the United States
came to see the Caspian region playing an important role in helping diversify the sources of U.S.
energy, reducing western reliance on the Persian Gulf. A key component of U.S. strategy focused
on development of pipelines that could transport oil and gas from the region’s landlocked
countries, while not crossing Russian territory. The United States became the leading proponent
of a pipeline that ran from Baku to the Turkish city of Ceyhan by way of the Georgian capital,
Tbilisi. The United States did not invest directly in these energy projects, but did devote
diplomatic and institutional financial resources to help accomplish them. In addition, the
United States made broader investments in the stability and security of the region, providing
economic and military assistance, with Georgia being the largest recipient of these forms of U.S.
aid. As a continuation of these policies, energy considerations have influenced what is likely to
be among the most potentially consequential decision the United States is going to make
concerning the security of the region—including Georgia in NATO. The debate over NATO
expansion has been divisive from the outset and proponents have advanced a variety of
arguments, including the value of spreading democracy, contributing to domestic stability and
hedging against a resurgent Russia. In addition, however, energy considerations are a significant
factor in the case that is now being made for bringing Georgia into the alliance, as evidenced by
the following quote from Ronald Asmus, who has been an influential and long-standing
supporter of NATO expansion: many Europeans do not feel the same historical or moral
commitment to them or see a compelling strategic need to integrate them. Thus, in addition to
moral and political arguments, the United States and Europe need to articulate a strong
strategic rationale for anchoring them to the West. That argument is straightforward. The
challenge of securing Europe's eastern border from the Baltics to the Black Sea has been
replaced by the need to extend peace and stability along the southern rim of the Euro-Atlantic
community -- from the Balkans across the Black Sea and further into Eurasia, a region that
connects Europe, Russia, and the Middle East and involves core security interests, including a
critical energy corridor. Working to consolidate democratic change and build stability in this
area is as important for Western security today as consolidating democracy in central and
eastern Europe was in the 1990s. NATO agreed in 2008 that Georgia would become a
member of the alliance and reconfirmed this decision 2010. Without entering into the
entire debate over NATO expansion, a strong case can be made that including Georgia in
NATO would likely increase the probability of war between the United States and
Russia. Russia and Georgia fought a short war in August of 2008, Russia has
recognized the separatist Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as
independent states, and Russia continues to play an active role in these provinces.
Including Georgia in NATO would likely contribute to deterring Russia from
launching another war against part of Georgia. At the same time, however, if deterrence
fails, NATO’s security commitment would greatly increase the probability of its
actually fighting against Russia. Among other factors, the prospects for deterrence
are reduced by the complications created by Russia’s recognition of the provinces
and the West’s rejection of this new status.
Future efforts to Secure our oil supply will leads to a russia-us war.
Klare 2008
(Micheal T. Klare, The Nation’s defense correspondent, is professor of peace and world security
studies at Hampshire College. “The New Geopolitics of Energy” The Nation. New York: May 19,
2008. Vol. 286, Iss. 19; pg. 18)
The great risk is that this struggle will someday breach the boundaries of economic and
diplomatic competition and enter the military realm. This will not be because any of the states
involved make a deliberate decision to provoke a conflict with a competitor--the leaders of all
these countries know that the price of violence is far too high to pay for any conceivable return.
The problem, instead, is that all are engaging in behaviors that make the outbreak of inadvertent
escalation ever more likely. These include, for example, the deployment of growing numbers of
American, Russian and Chinese military instructors and advisers in areas of instability where
there is every risk that these outsiders will someday be caught up in local conflicts on opposite
sides. The danger, of course, is that the great powers will be sucked into these internal conflicts.
This is not a far-fetched scenario; the United States, Russia and China are already providing
arms and military-support services to factions in many of these disputes. The United States is
arming government forces in Nigeria and Angola, China is aiding government forces in Sudan
and Zimbabwe, and so on. An even more dangerous situation prevails in Georgia, where the
United States is backing the pro-Western government of President Mikhail Saakashvili with
arms and military support while Russia is backing the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. Georgia plays an important strategic role for both countries because it harbors the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, a US-backed conduit carrying Caspian Sea oil to markets in
the West. There are US and Russian military advisers/instructors in both areas, in some cases
within visual range of each other. It is not difficult, therefore, to conjure up scenarios in which a
future blow-up between Georgian and separatist forces could lead, willy-nilly, to a clash between
American and Russian soldiers, sparking a much greater crisis.
Russia War Outweighs
Russia-US war outweighs everything else
Bostrom 2
Nick, PhD, Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March 2002,
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the
USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with
consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There
was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a
nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently
destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be
used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may
one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and
Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s
potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted.
Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we
will encounter in the 21st century.
Oil Impact: Saudi Invasion
Oil Dependence Means the U.S. Would Invade Saudi Arabia To Secure
Supply
Glaser ‘11
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security Charles L.
Glaser cglaser@gwu.edu Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University August 2011,
epts.washington.edu/.../Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.doc
Regarding the willingness and capability of suppliers, the United States could need
to use force to protect major suppliers from invasion, especially if the invader
could gain a dominant role in the oil market; from attacks against their oil
facilities; and from domestic upheaval that could cripple their ability to sell oil.
The 1991 Gulf War is probably the clearest historical example. The U.S. decision to
eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait was intended largely to insure that Iraq did not extend its
offensive into Saudi Arabia. The fear was that Iraqi control of Saudi oil would provide
Iraq with such a large fraction of Persian Gulf oil that it could manipulate oil
markets, severely damaging the U.S. economy. A key future scenario in which the
United States might need to use force to protect the flow of oil involves a collapse
of the Saudi regime.
Oil Dependence: Up Now
US dependence on Middle Eastern oil increasing to record levels
HNRC 13(house committee on natural rousources 2/28/13)
http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=321607
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) yesterday released disturbing new data¶ that shows the
United States has been increasing its dependence on oil from one of the ¶ most unstable regions
in the world. Middle Eastern oil now accounts for more than 25 ¶ percent of American oil
imports—a nine year high that has come at the same time as record ¶ gasoline prices. ¶ No
wonder gasoline prices have increased from $1.84 per gallon to as high as $4 per gallon ¶ under
President Obama’s failed leadership. The United States cannot expect stable gasoline ¶ prices when we
significantly increase our dependence on unstable Middle Eastern oil.
Middle East oil dependence is at a nine year high
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources
February 23 ‘13 (“U.S. Dependence on Middle East Oil Increases Under President Obama
While Federal Oil and Natural Gas Production Decline”)
http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=321607 -KY
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) yesterday released disturbing new data that shows the United States has
been increasing its dependence on oil from one of the most unstable regions in the world.
Middle Eastern oil now accounts for more than 25 percent of American oil imports—a nine year
high that has come at the same time as record gasoline prices.¶ No wonder gasoline prices have increased from $1.84 per gallon to
as high as $4 per gallon under President Obama’s failed leadership. The United States cannot expect stable
gasoline prices when we significantly increase our dependence on unstable Middle Eastern oil.
Developing our nation’s own energy resources insulates us from the price shocks brought upon by instability in the Middle East.¶
President Obama likes to talk about the increased oil production coming from state and private lands that his Administration
serendipitously stumbled into and has no control over. However, the President never mentions the decline in federal oil and natural
gas production that has come on his watch and that he is responsible to administer.¶ EIA data shows that under President Obama
failed energy leadership, oil and natural gas production of federal lands has declined 14 and 11 percent, respectively. Total federal
energy production is down 7 percent since 2003. This is a direct result of President Obama’s anti-energy policies including taking on
average 30 percent longer for approval of an onshore energy permits and offering the least number of offshore leases in the history
of America’s offshore drilling program.
Middle Eastern oil dependence has continued and will continue to
rise
Middle East Online May 1, 2013 (Middle Eastern reporting agency, quotes Saudi oil
minister Ali al-Naimi, “Is US dependence on Saudi oil coming to an end?”) http://www.middleeast-online.com/english/?id=58460 -KY
WASHINGTON - Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi on Tuesday called the US push for energy
independence "naive," saying the country will continue to need Middle Eastern oil long into the
future.¶ Naimi said he welcomed the surge in US domestic energy production from shale oil and
gas fields, which he said will add depth and stability to global oil markets.¶ "Newly commercial reserves
of shale or tight oil are transforming the energy industry in America -- and that's great news," he told an audience of policy makers
and academics at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.¶ "It is helping to sustain the US economy and
create jobs at a difficult time."¶ "I welcome these new supplies into the global oil market." he added.¶ On the other hand, he
said,
it was not realistic to believe this would help the United States eliminate imports of oil, a goal
the domestic
production gains, US imports of Middle East oil in the second half of 2012 were higher than any
time since the 1990s, Naimi said.¶ The United States "will continue to meet domestic demand by
utilizing a range of different sources, including from the Middle East. This is simply sound economics."¶ "I believe this talk
of some Americans who argue energy independence is crucial for the country's security.¶ Despite
of ending reliance is a naive, rather simplistic view."¶
We are dependent on middle east oil, domestic oil does not solve
Schroeder July 9, 2013 (Joanna Schroeder, director of communications at ethanol
promotion and information council growth energy expert)
http://domesticfuel.com/2013/06/27/biofuel-industry-responds-to-rfs-hearing/
“This idea that we have somehow kicked our addiction to foreign oil is not based on fact,” said Coleman.
“Last year’s 14 percent increase in domestic oil production is good for energy security, but it’s a
drop in the bucket when it comes to foreign oil dependence. The United States provides about 8
percent of the world’s oil, we are again on pace to spend more than $400 billion on foreign oil in
2013, imports from the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia were up (not down) in 2012, and this
supposed oil renaissance has done nothing to reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline for
American consumers or the U.S. economy as a whole,” added Coleman.¶ The AEC also pointed to the fact that current
trends are not predicted to continue in the long term. “Tight oil reserves in places like the Bakken are simply not
robust enough to fundamentally change our situation. The estimated 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable tight oil from the
Bakken, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, is less than one year’s worth of crude oil consumption by U.S. refineries. That’s why U.S.
foreign oil dependence is expected to start increasing again within 3-5 years,” said Coleman.
Oil Dependence = SLOC Threats
Oil choke points are critical to the US due to oil dependence
US EIA August 22, 2012 (United States Energy Information Administration, “WORLD OIL
TRANSIT CHOKEPOINTS”) http://www.eia.gov/countries/regionstopics.cfm?fips=wotc&trk=p3 -KY
Chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes, some so narrow that restrictions are
placed on the size of the vessel that can navigate through them. They are a critical part of global energy security
due to the high volume of oil traded through their narrow straits.¶ In 2011, total world oil production
amounted to approximately 87 million barrels per day (bbl/d), and over one-half was moved by tankers on fixed maritime routes. By
volume of oil transit, the Strait of Hormuz, leading out of the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Malacca, linking the Indian and Pacific
Oceans, are two of the world's most strategic chokepoints.¶ The international energy market is dependent upon
reliable transport. The blockage of a chokepoint, even temporarily, can lead to substantial
increases in total energy costs. In addition, chokepoints leave oil tankers vulnerable to theft from pirates, terrorist
attacks, and political unrest in the form of wars or hostilities as well as shipping accidents that can lead to disastrous oil spills. The
seven straits highlighted in this brief serve as major trade routes for global oil transportation, and disruptions to shipments would
affect oil prices and add thousands of miles of transit in an alternative direction, if even available.
Offshore drilling key to oil production
Offshore drilling key to US oil production
Monica Medina, joel Smith and linda Sturgis 2014 January 2014 National Coastal
Ocean Mapping Advancing National Defense and Ocean Conservation
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
The offshore energy industry is a vital contributor to the nation’s energy needs. Operations in
the Gulf of Mexico alone account for 23 percent of total U.S. crude oil production and 7 percent
of total U.S. dry natural gas production.15 The migration of sophisti- cated technology to
offshore reserves has accounted for major increases in subsea production and may enable the
extraction of additional untapped reserves. Renewable energy has also emerged as a growing
offshore industry. 2013 was the first year in which the U.S. government auctioned offshore area
leases for wind energy projects.16 Meanwhile, wave energy projects have raised concerns in the
maritime com- munity, with offshore development coming into conflict with coastal fisheries
management in the Pacific Northwest.17
Offshore Renewables Solve Dependence
Marine renewables could supply power to almost 75% of the public by
2025
Schaumberg and Grace-Tardy ’10 Peter J. Schaumberg, counsel and Ami M.
Grace-Tardy, Winter 2010, associate, both with Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., “The Dawn of
Federal Marine Renewable Energy Development,” Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 24,
No. 3,
http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/2010%20The%20Dawn%20of%20Federal%20
Marine%20
Renewable%20Energy%20Development%20NRE%20P%20Schaumberg%20and%20A.%20Gra
ce-Tardy.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014
Marine renewable energy could provide more than 10 percent of U.S. energy demand (based on
2004 levels). This estimate is especially encouraging because marine renewable energy would be
produced where the United States is experiencing its most rapid population growth—our coasts.
Electric Power Research Institute, Primer: Power from Ocean Wave and Tides (2007), available
at www.aidea.org/aea/PDF%20files/OceanRiverEnergy/6-22-2007EPRIprimer.pdf. By 2025, it
is expected that 75 percent of the U.S. population will live near the coast. Marine energy,
therefore, could help power these high population centers without the need for extensive, new
transmission systems. Marine renewable energy is also often more aesthetically pleasing than its
onshore solar or wind counterparts. The visual impacts of marine energy can be minimal or
nonexistent because, after construction, the devices may have a low profile, be completely
submerged, or be over the horizon.
Expanding offshore renewables is key to meet our energy needs in the
interim
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, June ‘13, “Charting the Course: Securing the
Future of America’s Oceans. Ocean priorities for the Obama administration and congress,”
http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/joint-ocean-commission-initiative-2013.pdf, Accessed
4/9/2014
The Obama Administration supports an “all of the above” approach to energy independence that
includes many forms of energy exploration and production, both on land and offshore. Our
oceans and coasts—with their vast reserves of oil and gas and promising opportunities for wind,
wave, tidal, and thermal energy production—are a significant current and potential source of
domestic energy, both traditional and renewable. In the long run, the United States needs a
comprehensive national energy policy that includes ocean-based energy resources. In the
meantime, the development, exploration, and siting of ocean energy sources will continue to be
important for meeting U.S. energy needs and should be carried out in a safe, environmentally
responsible, and economically balanced manner.
We can harness four times current electricity capacity with ocean
renewables
José Zayas, January ‘14, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, U.S.
Department of Energy, “Advancing Ocean Renewable Energy In the United States,” Sea
Technology Magazine, http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2014/0114/1.php, Accessed
4/11/2014
With more than 4,000 gigawatts (GW) gross energy resources (four times the nation’s installed
electricity capacity) within 50 miles of U.S. coasts, offshore wind has the potential to become a
major source of clean energy if only a small portion of that resource is actually tapped for
electricity production. Tidal and wave energy are renewable resources that can be harnessed
wherever changing tides, waves or currents move a significant volume of water. The
Department’s nationwide wave and tidal energy resource assessments from 2012 identify a
technical resource potential of up to 1,400 terawatt-hours of generation per year. For context, 1
terawatt-hour of electricity is enough to power 85,000 homes. Nearly 80 percent of the U.S.
electrical demand comes from coastal and Great Lake states, with many of them having major
U.S. cities with access to domestic clean energy resources.
Offshore Renewables Solve Warming
Marine renewables are fundamental to mitigating climate change.
Oceana, ‘13, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation,
“Feature: Marine Renewable Energy,”
http://oceana.org/en/eu/media-reports/features/marine-renewable-energy, Accessed
4/28/2014
Marine renewable energy plays a fundamental role in reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In
order to mitigate the effects of the climate change, it is essential to promote and develop this
energy. Currently, only offshore wind energy has reached an acceptable level of development to
be considered competitive. However, there are other less developed technologies that obtain
energy from the seas and oceans, including wave and tidal energy, energy from currents, ocean
thermal energy and salinity gradient energy.
Renewables Solve Warming
Renewable energy solves
Wasserman 4/17
Harvey Wasserman (writer for EcoWatch, MA from the University of Chicago and a BA from the University of Michigan, both in
history, and has authored or co-written a dozen books and countless articles, essays, op eds, etc.), 4/17/2014, “IPCC: Renewables,
Not Nuclear Power, Can Solve Climate Crisis”, http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/17/ipcc-renewables-not-nuclear-solve-climate/,
6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
The authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has left zero doubt that we
humans are wrecking our
climate.¶ It also effectively says the problem can be solved, and that renewable energy is the way
to do it, and that nuclear power is not. The United Nations’ IPCC is the world’s most respected authority on climate.¶ This IPCC
report was four years in the making. It embraces several hundred climate scientists and more than a thousand
computerized scenarios of what might be happening to global weather patterns.¶ Photo courtesy of
Shutterstock¶ Photo courtesy of Shutterstock¶ The panel’s work has definitively discredited the corporate contention that human-made carbon
emissions are not affecting climate change. To avoid total catastrophe, says the IPCC, we must reduce the industrial spew of global warming gasses by
40-70 percent of 2010 levels.¶ Though
the warning is dire, the report offers three pieces of good news.¶
First, we have about 15 years to slash these emissions.¶ Second, renewable technologies are
available to do the job.¶ And third, the cost is manageable.¶ Though 2030 might seem a tight deadline for a definitive
transition to Solartopia, green power technologies have become far simpler and quicker to install than
their competitors, especially atomic reactors. They are also far cheaper, and we have the capital
to do it.¶ The fossil fuel industry has long scorned the idea that its emissions are disrupting our Earth’s weather. The oil companies and atomic
reactor backers have dismissed the ability of renewables to provide humankind’s energy needs. ¶ But the IPCC confirms that green technologies,
including efficiency and conservation, can in fact handle the job—at a manageable price.¶ “It
doesn’t cost the world to save the
planet,” says Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist who led the IPCC team.¶ The IPCC report cites nuclear power as a possible means of
lowering industrial carbon emissions. But it also underscores considerable barriers involving finance and public opposition. Joined with widespread
concerns about ecological impacts, length of implementation, production uncertainties and unsolved waste issues, the report’s positive emphasis on
renewables virtually guarantees nuclear’s irrelevance. ¶ Some climate scientists have recently advocated atomic energy as a solution to global warming.
But their most prominent spokesman, Dr. James Hansen, also expresses serious doubts about the current generation of reactors, including Fukushima,
which he calls “that old technology.”¶ Instead Hansen advocates a new generation of reactors.¶ But the designs are untested, with implementation
schedules stretching out for decades. Financing is a major obstacle as is waste disposal and widespread public opposition, now certain to escalate with
the IPCC’s confirmation that renewables can provide the power so much cheaper and faster. ¶ With its 15-year deadline for massive carbon reductions,
the IPCC has effectively timed out any chance a new generation of reactors could help. ¶ And with its clear endorsement of green power as a tangible,
doable, affordable solution for the climate crisis, the pro-nuke case has clearly suffered a multiple meltdown.¶ With
green power, says IPCC
renewable solution is at hand. “It’s actually affordable to do it and
people are not going to have to sacrifice their aspirations about improved standards of living .”
co-chair Jim Skea, a British professor, a
Renewables solve warming
Wilson 7
Kelpie Wilson (freelance writer covering energy and environmental issues), 2/11/2007, “Renewables Can Turn the Tide on Global
Warming”, http://www.alternet.org/story/47654/renewables_can_turn_the_tide_on_global_warming, 6/25/2014,
#TheNextPKen
The American Solar Energy Association (ASES), with the backing of several U.S. representatives
and a senator, released its new nuts and bolts approach to reducing carbon emissions with a
combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.¶ The report comes at an opportune
time: the release of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest climate change report is
expected to finally clear up any lingering uncertainty about the role fossil fuel burning and other human activities have in changing
the Earth's climate. As the deniers and obstructionists lose all credibility, the debate now turns to solutions.¶ The ASES report, titled
"Tackling Climate Change in the US -- Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions From Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by
2030," makes this extraordinary claim: "Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies have the
potential to provide most, if not all, of the US carbon emissions reductions that will be needed to
help limit the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to 450 to 500 ppm."¶ The ASES report was
presented at a press briefing in the Capitol with the support of Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chair of the Senate Energy and Resources
Committee, Representative Henry Waxman, Representative Chris Shays, Sierra Club president Carl Pope, and NASA's chief climate
change scientist, Dr. James Hansen.¶ Hansen's backing is especially important because the report is aimed at meeting a
target for emissions reductions that he and other scientists agree is the minimum necessary to
preserve a habitable planet. The target is to keep the global average temperature from rising by
more than one degree Celsius, and to do that, it will be necessary to limit atmospheric CO2
levels to 450 to 500 ppm. That means reducing U.S. emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by
mid-century.¶ Over the past several years, as the dimensions of the energy and climate crisis have
unfolded, the press, the public and politicians have embraced various "silver bullet" solutions
one after another according to the fad of the day: at one moment it's hydrogen, then ethanol,
then nuclear power, then wind. Today there is a growing recognition that no single energy
technology can replace fossil fuels, but there is still no recipe that tells us how to combine energy
technologies into a healthful brew that can save our planet and our civilization.¶ The ASES report takes
a unique approach. Instead of turning to the systems analysts who normally tackle such problems, ASES asked the experts in each
technology to estimate how much carbon-emitting energy their technologies could displace. Each technology is conceived of as a "
wedge" in a stack of wedges that add up to a replacement for fossil fuels. The report consists of separate papers on each technology,
including energy efficiency, concentrating solar power, photovoltaics, windpower, biofuels and geothermal.¶ Each paper was written
by experts in the technology, presumably giving the most realistic possible assessment of the capabilities of the technology. And each
technology was evaluated in terms of its current capabilities without relying on any major new technical breakthroughs, although
some research and development to increase efficiency and reduce costs was assumed. The papers took economic factors into account
and real world constraints like the silicon supply shortage that has hampered photovoltaic productions.¶ Despite its conservative
assumptions, the ASES report concludes that renewables and efficiency alone can meet the goal of a 60 to 80
percent emissions reduction by mid-century while the economy continues to grow. Energy
efficiency accounts for 57 percent of the reductions, and the renewable energy technologies
provide the other 43 percent.¶ While the report does not estimate a total cost for the deployment of the technologies, it
does assume that some government support for R&D and production tax credits will be available. At the press briefing, James
Hansen also said that while much could be accomplished without a carbon tax, attaching some kind of economic cost to carbon
emissions would be essential to keep the effort on track.
Renewable energies solve warming- Stanfort project
Scott 3/8
Cameron Scott (Cameron received degrees in Comparative Literature from Princeton and Cornell universities. He has worked at
Mother Jones, SFGate and IDG News Service and been published in California Lawyer and SF Weekly. He lives, predictably, in SF.”,
3/8/2014, “100% RENEWABLE ENERGY IS FEASIBLE AND AFFORDABLE, ACCORDING TO STANFORD PROPOSAL”,
http://singularityhub.com/2014/03/08/100-renewable-energy-is-feasible-and-affordable-stanford-proposal-says/, 6/25/2014,
#TheNextPKen
One of the greatest promises of the high-tech future, whether made explicitly or implicitly through shiny clean
concept sketches, is
that we will have efficient energy that doesn’t churn pollutants into the air and
onto the streets.¶ But here in the present, politicians and even many clean energy advocates maintain that a world run on
hydrogen and wind, water and solar power is not yet possible due to technical challenges like energy storage and cost.¶ Yet
Stanford University researchers led by civil engineer Mark Jacobson have developed detailed
plans for each state in the union that to move to 100 percent wind, water and solar power by
2050 using only technology that’s already available. The plan, presented recently at the AAAS conference in
Chicago, also forms the basis for The Solutions Project nonprofit.¶ “The conclusion is that it’s technically and
economically feasible,” Jacobson told Singularity Hub.¶ The plan doesn’t rely, like many others, on dramatic energy
efficiency regimes. Nor does it include biofuels or nuclear power, whose green credentials are the source of much debate. ¶ vehiclesWWSThe proposal is straightforward: eliminate combustion as a source of energy, because it’s dirty and inefficient. All vehicles
would be powered by electric batteries or by hydrogen, where the hydrogen is produced through electrolysis rather than natural gas.
High-temperature industrial processes would also use electricity or hydrogen combustion.¶ The rest would simply be a question of
allowing existing fossil-fuel plants to age out and using renewable sources to power any new plants that come online. The energy
sources in the road map include geothermal energy, concentrating solar power, off-shore and on-land wind turbines and some and
tidal energy. All but tidal energy collectors are already commercially available.¶ “The greatest barriers to a conversion are neither
technical nor economic. They are social and political,” the AAAS paper concludes.¶ Common political wisdom has it that, while clean
energy is a nice idea, powering our economy with wind, water and solar power would require an enormous amount of land allotted
to production and would push energy prices up beyond the reach of average consumers.¶ But according to Jacobson and his
colleagues, the reverse is true. Less than 2 percent of United States’ land mass would support all of the
wind, solar and hydroelectric power generation required to meet energy demand. That includes
the space between concentrating solar arrays or wind turbines.¶ Clean energy would save an
average American consumer $3,400 per year than the current fossil fuel regime by 2050, the
study lays out. That’s because the price of fossil fuel rises regularly, but with clean energy — where raw materials are free —
once the infrastructure is built, prices would fall.¶ off-shore-wind-turbinesFor example, in California, the researchers found that it’s
already possible to use wind, water and solar energy to meet demand 99.8 percent of the time. Similarly, in other states, it’s only the
final percentages or fractions of percentages that would require technologies that are not yet mass produced, such as, in Louisiana,
wave “mills” that turn the ocean’s power into electricity.¶ With the mercurial climate already causing major damage around the
world, the plan claims it would save the U.S. economy $730 billion a year in climate-related costs. It would also avert roughly 59,000
lives deaths from air pollution every year and save $166 – 980 billion a year in health care costs.¶ Jacobson has previously mapped
out a similar proposal for the global energy market, including China. A related plan with a greater emphasis on efficiency was
recently released by the World Wildlife Fund.¶ Both domestically and internationally, transmission lines carrying energy between
states or countries prove one of the greatest challenges. With natural energy sources, electricity needs to be more mobile in order to
make sure that even when there’s no sun or wind, a city or country can import energy from somewhere were there is.¶ The biggest
problem is who should pay to build and maintain the lines.¶ “I’m pretty sure the proposal will be adopted,” Jacobson said. “I’m just
not sure it’ll be adopted by 2050. It has to be adopted in the sense that fossil fuels are limited and they’ll eventually run out, so what
are the other options?”
Clean tech Solves Econ
Clean tech is a key driver of future economic growth globally
Muro et al. 11 – (2011, Mark, senior fellow and director of policy for the Metropolitan Policy
Program at Brookings, Jonathan Rothwell, senior research associate and associate fellow at the
Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, Devashree Saha, senior policy analyst and associate
fellow at the MPP, “SIZING THE CLEAN ECONOMY A NATIONAL AND REGIONAL GREEN
JOBS ASSESSMENT,”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Series/resources/0713_clean_economy.pdf)
*VC = Venture Capital
A world-wide aspiration toward economic transformation. Finally, there
remains a third increasingly ascendant
factor behind the clean economy’s significance: the prospect of industrial transformation. The
clean economy matters, in short, because it interacts with nearly every aspect of the rest of
the economy and is emerging as a site of rapid technological and process innovation worldwide. Innovation, after all, remains a crucial driver of economic growth, and so clean economy
innovation—motivated by the unprecedented environmental and resource challenge outlined
above—appears a likely source of future economic development as firms of all kinds seek to
invent new, environmentally friendly ways to decrease the world’s carbon and resource intensity. 23 In fact, the likelihood
of transformation is already attracting investment. Some $1 trillion in investment capital
globally flowed into clean energy segments alone between 2004 and 2010, as yearly
investment levels nearly quintupled from $52 billion to $243 billion. 24 Looking forward, a recent survey by
Ernst & Young found that threequarters of major global corporations plan to increase their “cleantech”
budgets from 2012 to 2014 and that 40 percent of that spending will flow into R&D. 25 Turning to
water, the prospect of innovation is also attracting increased investor attention. Most notably, venture capital (VC) fi rms poured
nearly $1.25 billion into the historically staid sector between 2005 and 2010 through close to 250 separate deals. 26 In this regard,
one of the most important heralds of both present and future innovation potential and economic
transformation may be VC investment. VC backed firms are roughly three to four times more
innovative (as measured by their patent production) than their counterparts that receive other forms of
private investments and as it happens clean economy companies are increasingly in the sights of
VCs. 27 Between 1995 and 2010, the share of U.S. VC dollars fl owing to clean economy concerns increased from 2 percent in 1995
to 16 percent in 2010. 28 Looking forward, analysts predict increasing shares of global and U.S. VC investment to fl ow into clean
economy technologies. 29 Even now the pace of innovation has picked up in many clean economy
sectors, and with it the possibility that the clean economy will create future jobs as well as
new climate-friendly goods, services, and processes. On this front, patenting tells the story.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), patent applications fi led at the European
Patent Offi ce (EPO) related to the clean economy rose from 4.6 percent of all patents in 1987 to 7.4 percent in 2007, such that by
2007, over 9,000 clean economy patent applications were being fi led annually, just at the EPO. Some 17 percent of these patents
originated with U.S. inventors. 30 In short, the clean economy increasingly looks like a promising location
for the emergence of significant new technologies, processes, and industries that will shape the
next economy and generate new jobs. That dozens of the world’s nations ranging from Brazil and China to
South Korea and Turkey are investing heavily in such development both reinforces the emerging consensus and underscores that the
“race to clean” has become an urgent competition among states for the resource productivity, jobs, and exportoriented
manufacturing that will come with it. 31
Trade Adv
CMSP solves Shipping Congestion
MSP solves shipping lane congestion by divvying up area roles
Andrew 12 (writing on economics, technology, ecology/environment and society for five
years, “Marine Spatial Planning: Key to Informed Offshore Wind, Renewable Energy Planning
and Decision-Making,” March 26th, 2012, http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/26/marinespatial-planning-key-to-informed-offshore-wind-renewable-energy-planning-and-decisionmaking/)
¶ One of nine National Ocean Policy priority objectives, CMSP will be the basis “for analyzing current and
anticipated ocean uses and identifying areas most suitable for various types of classes of
activities,” across nine proposed planning areas across the US, the report authors explain.¶ Key Enabler: Coastal and Marine
Spatial Planning¶ MSP is also the enabling methodology and toolkit serving as the fifth priority area identified in the Mid-Atlantic
Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Conservation (MARCO) that the governors of New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland and
Virginia signed in 2011. MSP is essentially the means by which goals set in the other four priority
areas– ocean habitat protection, climate change adaptation, offshore renewable energy and
water quality improvement– will be attained.¶ “Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) represents a powerful method for
reconciling diverse and often seemingly overlapping needs of ocean users,” the report’s authors explain. “It aspires to be futureoriented rather than reactionary, making it an effective means for implementing ecosystem-based management that provides
guidance in determining appropriate sites for future uses. Carrying out their preliminary analysis, UD-CCPI researchers
found that “some ocean space conflicts will exist, especially closer to shore where human uses
have been established and represent significant commercial interests.” Among these the report lists
designated commercial shipping lanes, anchorage areas, sections of the seafloor known to contain unexploded ordinances,
designated sand borrow sites, artificial reefs, dump sites, shipwrecks, and residual mine areas.¶ The authors also recommend
establishing limited buffer zones around military installations, and a scenic buffer zone around the Assateague Island National
Seashore if the erection of wind turbines would significantly and adversely “affect public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment.”¶ In
addition, the authors recommend that known essential fish habitat and biodiversity hotspots “need to be considered and potentially
avoided.” Finally, marine and coastal zone planners should consider excluding offshore wind farm
construction from dense areas of high commercial ship traffic.
Marine Spatial planning ensures efficient and safe shipping routes
BSH, 13
(German Federal Agency for Maritime Navigation and Hydrography, “Spatial Plan for the
German Exclusive Economic Zone in
the North Sea”, September 24, 2013,
http://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Spatial_Planning_in_the_German_EEZ/documents2/Sp
atial_Plan_North_Sea.pdf)
The width of the designated areas was based on the basic requirement for spatial planning to
secure a routeing network for shipping. Nautical considerations were one important concern.
The priority areas represent the framework that must be kept free of all incompatible uses, highrise structures in particular. Reservation areas are also designated alongside as a supplemental
measure in which the needs of shipping are given special consideration when taking into
account the various requirements, in particular with respect to the construction of stationary
facilities.¶ Since shipping in the EEZ enjoys guaranteed freedom under Art. 58 UNCLOS, the
designation of priority areas in particular with respect to the traffic separation schemes involves
an additional spatial planning”g assurance of the needs of shipping. Art. 60 para. 7 UNCLOS
states that artificial islands, installations and structures, and the safety¶ 6¶ zones surrounding
them may not be established where they may hinder the use of recognised sea lanes that are
essential to international navigation. By designating priority areas for the main shipping routes
outside the traffic separation schemes, it is ensured that these areas are kept free of uses –
especially structures - that are incompatible with shipping, so that the effect of Art. 60 para. 7
UNCLOS is achieved here as well. Reference is made to the establishment of 500 m security
zones around marine facilities in accordance with § 7 SeeAnlV, guaranteeing security of shipping
as well as of marine facilities.¶ The safety and efficiency of navigation thus will also be secured
for the future on a spatial planning level, which means that navigation will continue to be
possible on all regularly used shipping lanes and that any disturbances will be largely avoided.
Because of the described pre-eminence of shipping based on UNCLOS and the designation of
areas taking into account existing uses, the regulations of the Spatial Plan will not cause any new
conflicts with military uses.
MSP relieves sea lane traffic density and increases safety
Patraiko et al 13
(David Patraiko, Director of projects at the Nautical Institute, Paul Holthus, president of the
World Ocean Council, “THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY AND MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING”,
November 8 2013, http://www.nautinst.org/en/Media/press/index.cfm/marine-spatialpanning-guide)
¶ When considering the rerouteing of shipping lanes or the placement of MSP limitations on sea space
i.e. aquaculture, off shore energy installations, the manoeuvring characteristics of vessels must be considered both
for normal and abnormal conditions. The following issues should be considered, for the most difficult to
manoeuvre ships anticipated in the area: Adequate sea room to avoid collision and comply with COLREGS.
Route planners should take into consideration anticipated traffic densities, reduced visibility and the
presence of leisure craft and increased traffic from craft supporting the offshore installations ;¶ Ship
characteristics such as transfer and squat will also need to be taken into¶ account when addressing sea
room and under keel clearances (UKC). Adequate sea room for large vessels to make a round turn or hove to;
Heavy weather: ships may need to find shelter
from a lee shore or need access to a safe anchorage; Heavy weather
also reduces
visibility making navigation and
the ability to spot other vessels or navigation aids either visually or
with radar more difficult. Interference on radar displays created by wind farms; Deviation from
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
¶
course:
ships can also be expected to make unplanned deviations from course
or track due to
unforeseen circumstances, in addition to weather, these might include malfunctions, emergencies, search and
rescue operations or evacuations;¶ Allowance must be made for vessels constrained by their draft, vessels
limited in their ability to manoeuvre, manoeuvring to pick up or drop off a pilot, or vessels involved in ship
to ship (STS) transfer. Non mariners often consider that offshore sea lanes do not need much more ‘corridor width’
than in-port channels, which may be measured in hundreds of metres. They fail to take into account that service and
support levels in port differ to those offshore, as do navigational accuracy and visual references.
¶
Congestion damages environment
Congestion hurts the environment- Gov. funding doesn’t solve
USCE ‘7
(United States Corps of Engineers, NETS- Navigation, Economic, Technologies). [“Review of
Previous Studies on Container Shipping: Infrastructure, Projections and Constraints Towards a
Global Forecast of Container Flows Container Model and Analysis: Longer Term Analysis fo
Infrastructure Demands and Risks,” USCE NETS, 12/31/2007 SM]
Kaufmann discusses congestion impacts on ocean container shipping. He argues that congestion
problems at North American west coast ports are tied to freight operations. This results in
environmental degradation which is the focus of new fees and taxes by many government
entities. He argues that SPB ports are least impacted by new fees and taxes, but this phenomena
is driving interest in the development of Mexican Ports and Prince Rupert. He cautions that if
governments try to reduce congestion and environmental degradation by increasing fees and
taxes above the port costs at Mexican Ports or Prince Rupert, ocean liners will divert to Mexico
or Canada.
Congestion Damaging Shipping
Oceanic Energy Projects Disrupts Established Shipping Routes
Medina, Smith, and Sturgis 14
Monica Medina- Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at the NOAA, Joel Smith - Research
Associate for the Energy, Environment and Security Program, Linda Sturgis-United States Coast
Guard Senior Military, National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing National Defense and
Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
Meanwhile, wave energy projects have raised concerns in the maritime com- munity, with
offshore development coming into conflict with coastal fisheries management in the Pacific
Northwest. Other coastal ocean users have expressed concern that new energy projects often
require the rerouting of established shipping routes. This type of activity can interfere with
efficient transportation of goods, disrupt commercial and recreational fishing grounds and
disturb defense readiness through the induction of electromagnetic fields near offshore military
training areas.18¶ livinG Marine resources¶
Congestion hurts the economy
Preventing near-shore shipping congestion is the critical internal link
to the economy
Medina et al. ‘14
Monica Medina previously served as a Special¶ Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a¶ Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans¶ and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and¶ Atmospheric Administration. Joel Smith is a¶ Research Associate for the
Energy, Environment and¶ Security Program at the Center for a New American¶ Security. Commander Linda Sturgis is the United¶
States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow at the¶ Center for a New American Security. National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
The U.S. economy is dependent on the uninterrupted¶ flow of waterborne commerce. A 2009¶
analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric¶ Administration (NOAA) – the most recent data¶ available – concluded that the
oceans and the Great¶ Lakes support 2.6 million jobs and contribute $223¶ billion to the U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP).11¶ The U.S. population is also largely concentrated¶ within 50 miles of the coastline, and coastal
communities¶ are home to 44 million jobs that generate¶ 41 percent of GDP.12¶ Transporting goods by ship is
very efficient, and¶ the demand for waterborne transport of goods¶ continues to increase. The American Association¶
of Port Authorities reports that more than 65,000¶ vessels arrive at U.S. ports annually to move more¶ than 2 billion tons of cargo,
and the American¶ Waterways Operators reports that over 27,000¶ tugs with barges move more than 800 million tons¶ of domestic
cargo annually.13 According to the¶ Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the total value¶ of marine freight is estimated to increase by
43¶ percent domestically and 67 percent internationally¶ between 2010 and 2020.14 Traffic from cruise ships,¶ small
passenger vessels, excursion vessels and recreational¶ boats is also anticipated to increase,
further¶ congesting the coastal ocean.
US economy is dependent on efficient maritime trade
Naval Studies Board, 8
(Naval Studies Board and National Resource Council, “Maritime Security Partnerships”,
December 19, 2008, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12029&page=161)
Globalization in the 21st century has forced into keen focus the absolute imperative for an ability to assure free and peaceful access
to the sea. The U.S. economy—in fact, all economies of all developed and developing nations and multinational corporations—
are more reliant than ever before on global trade for their prosperity. The exchange of raw
materials, product components, and finished goods by sea conveyance has paralleled the
expanding global economy. But this exchange requires free and uninterrupted use of the seas, which
has seen a largely peaceful environment for the past 50 years due in large part to the maritime dominance of the United States and
its allies and friends. In stable regions of the world, where maritime trade is mature and follows established
routes, commodities, and even schedules, evolving technologies have been applied to optimize the generation of
data that immediately highlight any disruption to normal commerce.
Shipping is key to the economy
Shipping is key to the global economy
David Patraiko and Paul Holthus 12 (Patraiko is the Director of Projects to the Nautical
Institute, Holthus is the Executive Director of the World Ocean Council) “The MSP Guide to
Shipping Issues” September 2012,
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22marine+spatial+planning%22+improve+better+shippi
ng+economy&espv=2&ei=e2urU7mSPIOWqAa0vILADQ&start=50&sa=N&biw=1280&bih=699
#
Around 90% of world trade is carried by the ¶ international shipping industry. Without shipping
¶ the import and export of goods on the scale necessary ¶ for the modern world would not be
possible. ¶ Seaborne trade continues to expand, bringing ¶ benefits for consumers across the
world through ¶ competitive freight costs. Thanks to the growing ¶ efficiency of shipping as a
mode of transport and ¶ increased economic liberalisation, the prospects for ¶ the industry’s
further growth continue to be strong. ¶ There are over 100,000 merchant ships trading ¶
internationally, transporting every kind of cargo. ¶ The world fleet is registered in over 150
nations, and ¶ manned by over a million seafarers of virtually every ¶ nationality. The anticipated
growth in the world ¶ economy (eventually) is expected to see up to three ¶ times the number of
ship movements in certain areas, ¶ all in decreasing sea space.¶ We live in a global society which
is supported by ¶ a global economy – and that economy simply could ¶ not function if it were not
for ships and the shipping ¶ industry. Without shipping, intercontinental trade, ¶ the bulk
transport of raw materials and the import/¶ export of affordable food and manufactured goods ¶
would simply not be possible.
The coastal economy is key to the global economy
Svensson et al 14 (Lisa Emelia Svensson, Linwood Pendleton, “Transitioning to a New
Blue Economy: Proceedings of the December 2013 Economics of the Ocean Summit,” Nicholas
Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Conference Proceedings, April 2014)
A Blue Economy Is a Sustainable Economy ¶ Investing in the long-term health of
coastal and marine resources is vital to the sustainability of the global ¶
economy. The ocean provides economic wealth from minerals, fisheries,
transport, and numerous other ¶ uses. But many of its habitats are
deteriorating, species are threatened with extinction, and the chemical ¶
nature of oceans is changing due to pollution and ocean acidification.
Moreover, much of the value of ¶ ocean and coastal ecosystems has been lost due to poor
management and overuse. ¶ Fisheries provide a particularly stark example of how the potential
economic wealth of ocean ecosystems ¶ has been squandered. In 2009, more than 80 million
tons of fish were harvested globally with an ¶ estimated value exceeding $100 billion dollars
(FAO 2010). However, overfished stocks mean that ¶ fisheries are producing far less value than
they could. A World Bank study estimated that overfishing ¶ results in a lost
economic value of $50 billion each year (World Bank 2009). Better
management and a ¶ more ecologically sound approach to ocean fisheries
would help ensure their long-term profit and ¶ viability. Marine Market Values of
Ocean Ecosystems ¶ The ocean and estuaries provide a suite of resources that are traded directly
in markets. Ocean ecosystems ¶ contribute to tourism revenues, the value of
real estate, and through goods sold on the market such as ¶ seafood,
seaweed, and wood products from mangroves. The market value of these
contributions is ¶ substantial. Worldwide, travel and tourism generate 9
percent of global GDP. Coastal and marine areas ¶ are a popular destination (UNEP 2011).
In 2003, nearly 60 million recreational anglers spent $40 billion ¶ on their sport (CisnerosMontemayor and Sumaila 2010). Some 10 million recreational divers and 40 million snorkelers
are estimated to spend more than $5.5billion on their sports each year (Cisneros-Montemayor
and Samaila 2010). Other sectors, such as fishing, contribute billions of dollars
each year to ¶ the global market. At the local scale, many developing countries also are
heavily dependent on the sustainable productivity of ocean ecosystem services.¶ Non-Market
Marine Values¶ The market does not capture many of the services provided by ocean ecosystems,
including those from which people cannot be excluded and thus for which fees cannot be
charged (e.g., recreation and views). Non-marketed ocean ecosystem services include natural
processes that balance nutrients and provide coastal protection from storms and that support
species and functions that create value rooted in cultural and indigenous practices and
preferences. Many economists have attempted to capture the economic value of these nonmarketed resources (Naber, Lange, and Hatziolos 2008; TEEB 2010; UNEP-WC MC 201 I), and
markets are being created to capture some of previously “non-marketed" goods and services
through payments for ecosystem services.¶ Transitioning to a Blue Economy: Thoughts from
Thinkers and Doers¶ Government’s role in ocean environmental policy is often
viewed as an economic cost to business rather than a boost to the economic
value of the sea. But new evidence shows that the new blue economy can
improve environmental quality in the ocean while generating new business
opportunities. Furthermore, government has a key role to play in making, creating, and
catalyzing this new blue economy. In December 20l3, the Swedish government and Duke
University hosted a meeting at the House of Sweden in Washington D.C. to discuss how
innovative policy making and new business approaches together can
improve the value and sustainability of the natural capital in our seas and
estuaries. Decision makers, "big thinkers,“ and practitioners came together for two days to
share ideas and to catalyze discussion with a focus on the experiences of the United States and
Sweden, two maritime countries that are forging new ocean economies. The essays that follow
capture many of the key ideas presented there.¶
Navy Adv
Readiness down now: Training
Lack of training is destroying naval readiness
“Sequestration already biting Navy, Marines readiness”, Jared Serbu, DoD Reporter, Federal News Radio, 2013,
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/412/3307125/Sequestration-already-biting-Navy-Marines-readiness¶
Defense Department leaders spent months warning Congress that military readiness would
begin to erode if sequestration went into effect on March 1. The Navy and Marine Corps are telling lawmakers that it's now
happening and that things will only get worse from here.¶ Across government, agencies say the impact of sequestration will be
somewhat insidious. But in the case of DoD's two sea services, they're already feeling it, officials told the House Armed Services
Subcommittee on Readiness. "Due to reduced training and maintenance, almost all of our non-deployed
ships and aviation squadrons are soon going to be less than fully mission capable and not
certified for major combat operations. That's about two-thirds of the fleet," said Vice Adm.
William Burke, the deputy chief of naval operations for warfare systems.¶ Two months into sequestration,
the Marine Corps told a similar story. Lt. Gen. William Tryon, the deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations, said more
than half of all non-deployed Marine units are currently at "unacceptable" levels of readiness.¶
"And our crisis response mission is incompatible with tiered readiness," he said. " Marines don't start to get ready
when a crisis occurs. We must be ready, we must be forward deployed and we must be prepared
to respond immediately." Both services say they have not yet been put in a position in which they've been forced to deploy
forces and equipment without the requisite training and preparation.¶ Sailors and marines who are currently deployed or who are
next in line to deploy have had their training funded. But to accomplish that in the context of severely constricted operating and
maintenance budgets, the services say they've had to virtually eliminate training for service members in line behind them. ¶ "The
ones that are not next to deploy are not doing very much," Burke said. "What we usually call that is surge capacity, the ability to
quickly send ships and planes forward, and we've significantly reduced that capability. Because of sequestration and the late passage
of a 2013 budget, the Navy says it's already seeing a dramatic increase in "cross-decking" — the sharing of either sailors or
equipment between multiple ships because there's not enough gear or talent to go around. That's
one of the indicators officials say they'll be watching in order to determine whether readiness has degraded to dangerous levels.¶
Tryon said the Marine Corps has several other indicators on its watch list.¶ "We're going to know it's happened when we're unable to
meet the requirements of our global combatant commanders. We're going to know when there's an increase in safety mishaps, and
when there's a degradation in quality of life at our installations and bases," he said. "I would predict at this point that with
sequestration, we'll be at a level that's far unacceptable, severely unacceptable, in fiscal 2014." ¶ Vice Adm. Philip Cullom,
the deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics, forecasted that the Navy
likewise would see the ratio of units that do not meet readiness standards increase from twothirds this year to 80 percent by next year
Inability to train to spatial and regulatory conflicts guts Naval
readiness
National Defense 01
Environmental Regulations Limit Training of U.S. Troops, National Defense, July 2001,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2001/July/Pages/Environmental6997.aspx
The U.S. military services–among the nation’s largest landowners–are struggling to work
around a growing array of environmental policy restrictions that officials say are posing severe
limitations to their use of training installations, firing ranges and other facilities.
¶ Such factors as urban sprawl, endangered species and regulatory restrictions on live-fire training are beginning
to interfere with military readiness, Pentagon officials told the 27th Environmental Symposium and
Exhibition, held recently in Austin, Texas. The event was sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association.¶ ¶ "Range
encroachment is a significant challenge in the United States today," said Curtis M. Bowling, assistant deputy
undersecretary of defense for force protection. "It cuts across all elements of the Defense Department. The causes are many and
complex, and the impact is broad."¶ ¶ The issue is attracting growing attention on Capitol Hill. "Defense Department training ranges
here and overseas are under siege," said Rep. Dan Burton, R.-Ind., chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. The
situation is "affecting the ability of our forces to fight, and this administration needs to tackle
this problem before it gets out of control."¶ ¶ In all, the Defense Department owns 519 fixed installations, located on
18 million acres of land in more than 140 countries, making the department the federal government’s third-largest property owner,
after the Interior and Agriculture Departments. Among the Pentagon’s holdings are literally thousands of firing ranges, where
generations of U.S. troops have learned to use their weapons before going to war. They vary from small facilities for pistol practice–
found on nearly every major base–to Nevada’s 3 million-acre Nellis Air Force Range, where combat pilots receive advanced
training.¶ ¶ The Navy maintains ranges at San Clemente, Calif.; Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, and Farallon De Medinilla, near Guam.
They are the only U.S.-owned locations on the east and west coasts and in the Western Pacific Ocean where Navy ships can conduct
live-fire training before being deployed, said Rear Adm. Larry C. Baucom, director of environmental protection, safety and
occupational health for the Navy Department.¶ ¶ This live-fire training, however, is coming under increasing public attack. After a
civilian security guard was killed by an errant bomb at Vieques, in 1999, protesters occupied the site, and Puerto Rico’s governor
called for an immediate halt to live fire.¶ ¶ The practice is a danger not only to the 9,300 human residents of Vieques,
opponents said, but also to sea turtles, which nest on the island’s beaches and are protected by the
Endangered Species Act.¶ ¶ Navy officials respond that live fire is not a threat to humans outside of the range, which is
located more than eight miles from the nearest town. As for the range’s sea turtles, they are being managed carefully, Vice Adm.
James F. Amerault, deputy chief of naval operations, told a recent Senate hearing.¶ ¶ "The Navy’s practice has been to relocate turtle
eggs during amphibious landings and other military exercises," Amerault said. A decade ago, the Navy built a sea-turtle hatchery on
Vieques. Since then, more than 17,000 turtles have been hatched and successfully introduced into the environment.¶ ¶ The Navy
has been conducting training at Vieques since 1941, and it wants to continue to do so. "Vieques is
a superb training range, the best in the entire Atlantic," according to Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. Craig
Quigley. It is "absolutely essential" to the readiness of U.S. forces preparing to deploy, he said.¶ ¶ To
settle the dispute, island voters are scheduled to vote in a referendum on Nov. 6, 2001, to decide whether to end all
training and have the Navy leave the island by May 1, 2003. Meanwhile, the Navy is looking for alternative training
sites in the Atlantic region, thus far without success. The Navy has agreed to provide $40 million in economic aid to Vieques and
promises another $50 million if islanders will permit the resumption of live-fire training.¶ ¶ Until the vote is taken,
training continues on Vieques, but without live fire. In April of this year, sailors and Marines from the USS
Enterprise carrier battle group–on their way to the Arabian Gulf–conducted a short exercise there, using inert bombs and shells.
More than 100 demonstrators tried unsuccessfully to block the exercise.¶
Live fire drills are the most important element of readiness—
outweigh other factors
Spear 02
Kevin Spear-Sentinel Staff Writer, Environmental Rules Hurt U.S. Security Official Says,
September 4, 2002, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2002-0904/news/0209040095_1_dubois-exemptions-defense
Protecting the United States from terror is hampered by laws that safeguard land, water and
wildlife, a top military authority for the environment said Tuesday.¶ "There needs to be a balance
between the needs of environmental stewards and the needs of military training," said Raymond F.
DuBois Jr., a deputy undersecretary of defense, who said special consideration should be given to the unique
role of armed forces. "Nobody else in the country is authorized to drop bombs and fire howitzers," said DuBois, a Vietnam
War veteran and Pentagon civilian with long involvement in military affairs.¶ ¶ DuBois made his comments in an interview at a south
Orange County hotel where he later spoke at a conference for experts in the field of removing land mines and unexploded bombs.¶ ¶
Environmental groups across the country have watched the Department of Defense with growing alarm, fearing that the agency is
taking advantage of the nation's heightened concerns about terror attacks.¶ ¶ "This really isn't a matter of national security," said
Michael Jasny, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Los Angeles. "This is an attempt to grab very
broad exemptions to a broad array of popular laws that protect the environment and the health of Americans." ¶ ¶ DuBois said
defense officials had growing concerns about environmental restrictions before the Sept. 11 attacks.¶ ¶ "Did 9-11 make it happen?" he
said. "Nope."¶ ¶ However, he conceded that political climate and public opinion in the past year have become more supportive of
military preparedness. "Mr. and Mrs. America are a little bit more aware of the powers the president executes for combat and how he
prepares for combat operations," DuBois said.¶ ¶ Military officials have protested that environmental
regulations too often work against using live ammunition at training bases and bombing ranges
and that applying for special permissions is too much of a burden.¶ ¶ The Department of Defense recently
has pushed for what potentially could bring major exemptions in the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act
and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.¶ ¶ In particular, Congress is debating two provisions pushed by the Department of Defense that
would lessen some protections for birds and wildlife habitat when military requirements are at stake.¶ ¶ "We think they are asking
for exemptions far beyond what they need," said Beth Lowell, a Washington, D.C., policy analyst for the Endangered Species
Coalition. "Let them do it on a case-by-case basis."¶ ¶ DuBois said that in some respects, armed forces are confronting a national or
even global sort of Vieques, a small island off mainland Puerto Rico that the Navy uses for bombing practice. Political and
environmental opposition brought the White House to announce last year that use of the range will halt in 2003. ¶ ¶ DuBois said
other bases and ranges haven't yet triggered the high-intensity emotion that surrounded Vieques, where a civilian security guard was
killed by an errant bomb in 1999.¶ ¶ But he said other bases are vulnerable to lawsuits filed by environmental
groups and to encroachment by newly built suburbs that fill with residents who may not favor training exercises.¶ ¶ "There is
no more important training than live-ammunition training," DuBois said.
Readiness Down Now: Arctic Training
US Naval Readiness in Arctic Low Now
Gray et al 11
CDR Christopher Gray, Prof. Leif Bergey, Prof. Walter A. Berbrick, Fleet Arctic Operations
Game, US Naval War College, November 14, 2011,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/Research---Gaming/WarGaming/Documents/Publications/Game-Reports/FAOG-Game-Report-Final.pdf
All players agreed that the U.S. Navy lacks the experience and knowledge base to currently ¶
operate forces in the Arctic on a year-round basis. Arctic missions require specialized skill sets ¶ which
are not currently available in U.S. Navy training pipelines. Specifically cited was a lack of ¶
awareness of how to detect the percentage of ice, fog and wind and how these factors created an
¶ impact on platforms and systems. Another shortfall was the ability to navigate in Arctic waters ¶
and, in particular in austere ports. “U.S. naval officers must have sufficient skill and training to ¶ con their
vessels independently of assistance from tugs to enter and leave Arctic ports.” In ¶ general, a lack
of sufficient training for operating in the Arctic and, in particular, Arctic-unique ¶ operations was noted. “Our
expectation is that the USN is going to the Arctic to do something ¶ other than sit below decks and shoot missiles (most likely some
kind of sea-basing). This means ¶ people are going to have to operate small craft and aircraft in extreme cold weather conditions ¶
and those connectors present the highest risk and most vulnerable points of failure.” Other ¶ training deficiencies were
identified in the areas of the operation of ship-to-shore connectors, the ¶ movement of heavy
equipment and the loading and unloading of cargo during operations in the Arctic.
Congesion is Damaging Readiness
Crowding is crushing US Naval readiness
Medina et al. ‘14
Monica Medina previously served as a Special¶ Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a¶ Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans¶ and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and¶ Atmospheric Administration. Joel Smith is a¶ Research Associate for the
Energy, Environment and¶ Security Program at the Center for a New American¶ Security. Commander Linda Sturgis is the United¶
States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow at the¶ Center for a New American Security. National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
As the diversity and volume of activity in the¶ coastal ocean increases and numerous users vie
for¶ improved access, the potential for conflict rises. In¶ 2010, the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
recognized¶ that “[d]emands for energy development,¶ shipping, aquaculture, emerging security
requirements¶ and other new and existing uses are expected¶ to grow. Overlapping uses and
differing views about¶ which activities should occur where can generate¶ conflicts and
misunderstandings.”7¶ Military Activities¶ The ocean functions as a geographic barrier for the¶ United
States, as well as a highway for U.S. military¶ forces to deploy around the world. In order to¶ be
prepared for national defense, the Navy, Coast¶ Guard and Marine Corps require large areas of
the¶ coastal ocean for training and long-range weapons¶ testing. To maximize situational
awareness and¶ ensure safety and operational effectiveness, the¶ military places significant value on the collection¶ and
analysis of data.8¶ To operate in the coastal ocean, federal agencies¶ – including the military – must
undergo an expansive permitting process to comply with the¶ National Environmental
Protection Act. The law¶ requires federal agencies to “make achieving environmental¶ justice part of its mission by identifying¶
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately¶ high and adverse human health of its programs,¶ policies, and activities.”9
Military users must also¶ comply with a host of other marine-based environmental¶ protection laws, such
as the Endangered¶ Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act,¶ the Coastal Zone
Management Act and the Clean¶ Water Act, as well as state environmental protection¶ laws.¶ To
plan and chart operation areas for defense exercises¶ in the coastal ocean, the military is required¶ to craft detailed environmental
impact statements¶ indicating compliance with existing federal regulatory¶ statutes. The process to obtain the
necessary¶ permits is arduous and requires significant time¶ and resources. For example, the Navy
has spent¶ nearly five years attempting to obtain the necessary¶ permits for a training exercise
that begins¶ in January 2014. Because the permits expire after¶ five years, the Navy will need to start the permitting¶ process over
again once the exercise is over to¶ secure mission-critical offshore training space.10
Lack of planning means offshore drilling activities damage US fleet
readiness
Weinstein, 10 -- Mother Jones' national security reporter
[Adam, "DOD: We Hate Offshore Drilling, Too," Mother Jones, 5-21-10,
www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/military-we-hate-offshore-drilling-too-navy-norfolk-bpvirginia, accessed 1-31-13, mss]
How about if it's discovered that outer continental shelf drilling is also anti-national-security? That's exactly what the
Department of Defense appears to have done in a leaked portion of its new report (PDF), appropriately titled "Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS): Military Activities and Future Oil & Gas Development." You see, the new conservative Virginia governor and shadow
commander in chief, Bob McDonnell, longs to penetrate Virginia's sea plain with hard probes for profit. His plan was to make 4,500
square miles of ocean available to oil drillers by 2010. But! According to the Washington Post: The Defense Department
report, concluded in March but released in part Tuesday by Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a drilling opponent, indicates that
drilling would interfere with military activities...in 72 percent of the 3 million acres covered by the lease sale and
that it could be allowed only with restrictions in 6 percent of the area. As a former sailor who's operated out of Norfolk, Virginia—the
sea lanes are rather critical to effective military
activities . Ships need to move through quickly and safely when deploying, and that process gets
harder when additional surface contacts and navigational hazards are thrown into the brew.
(Submarines, which also operate extensively in the area, face a special three-dimensional, lifeworld's largest naval installation—I can attest that its
or-death challenge with undersea drilling infrastructures.) Fleet training exercises, tactical
readiness exams, sea trials of new ships, and many other classified but important endeavors begin off
the Tidewater coast.
Space competition in coastal areas is crushing US airpower and fleet
readiness
Jackson, 12 -- Emerald Coast Magazine writer
[Scott, "Is Offshore Drilling Affecting National Security?" Exploring Emerald Coast, 11-17-2012,
atd.agranite.com/emerald-coast/living/national-security-affected-by-offshore-platforms/,
accessed 1-31-13, mss]
Beyond the wondrous vista of the shimmering and pristine coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico reside two of our nation’s most precious resources – the
oil and gas reserves below and the airspace above. While
the value of further oil and gas exploration to the nation’s security is
commonly known, the value of the airspace is not. The traditional pillars of economic growth normally incorporate land,
labor and capital. But in Northwest Florida, there is another pillar that is equally valuable – airspace. It allows not only the flow of commercial
aviation for business and tourism but military training and testing. Supersonic dogfights, training missions
and weapons testing are conducted by F-15 Eagle and F-22 Raptor fighter jets, as well as other military aircraft, in specified blocks
of airspace. Such exercises occur at carefully scheduled times to allow pilots unfettered concentration to scream through
the air and hone their combat skills in a deliriously swirling amalgamation of blue skies, white clouds and emerald waters. Without undue
interference, their mindset is rechanneled to the challenge – kill or be killed. But the waters below this airspace are
also coveted for their rich oil and gas reserves by a country seeking energy independence. Eglin Air Force Base’s Air Armament Center conducts
test and evaluation missions of new weapons involving full-size target drone aircraft in the skies over the 130,000square-mile test and training range in the eastern Gulf – an area larger than the state of New Mexico.
Between Oct. 1, 2007, and Sept. 30, 2008, more than 3,400 test missions were flown in this airspace. Any civilian encroachment
on this training area could reduce the military value of Eglin’s mission to test and evaluate new
weapon systems. It isn’t the type of testing that can be efficiently performed anywhere
else in the continental United States. “The Eglin Water Test Range has more airspace
available for testing new and legacy weapons than the combined airspace of all U.S.
land ranges,” said Bob Arnold, chief of Eglin’s Mission Enhancement Committee. “This is important due to the
increasing safety footprint size of our new fighter aircraft conducting air-to-air missile tests and training missions. The
increased speed of these aircraft, coupled with the added range of the missiles, requires larger ‘clear
areas’ for target debris resulting from our testing.” This range provides training areas for military pilots sharpening their
combat skills from Air Force runways at Eglin, Tyndall Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field. And the future addition of the new F-35 Lightning II, a stateof-the-art supersonic fighter scheduled to arrive at Eglin in 2010, will demand even more use of the airspace. The
Naval Surface Warfare
Center at Panama City also uses the Gulf waters for testing and evaluation in the areas of mine warfare,
special warfare, diving and life support. The combined economic impact of these four installations is $8.9 billion for Okaloosa
and Bay counties, according to the Florida Defense Fact Book published by the University of West Florida’s Haas Business Center. Oil and gas drilling
operations in the waters of the range cannot co-exist with ongoing Air Force testing without coordination and a firm understanding between them.
These behemoth rigs cost upwards of $1 billion and incorporate a logistics lifeline to the mainland. “Our concern over oil/gas activity is related to the
possible damage to oil/gas platforms associated with permanent production activity,” Arnold said. Moreover, the additional boat and helicopter
support activity would require safe passage, and the
radio emissions from the oil and gas platforms could interfere
with military missions. As part of Eglin’s test and evaluation mission, a fleet of 50 Vietnam-era QF-4 fighter jets are used as remotely
piloted, full-sized target drones, along with smaller drones for missile training and evaluation by the 82nd Aerial Targets Group operating from Tyndall
Air Force Base. “Above-surface oil/gas platforms are incompatible with our military operations in areas of the
Gulf of Mexico where we shoot down things like unmanned drone aircraft,” Arnold said. “Debris from these types of operations pose a serious safety
hazard for the platforms and personnel who operate them, so obviously, this is not a situation we can allow to occur.” According to Arnold, the downing
of a 25-ton QF-4 can produce tens of thousands of pieces of debris, with the wreckage hitting the water with the force of a minivan collision at 45 mph.
Spatial conflicts means oil Ddilling interferes with navy readiness
Gryboski 10
5/20/10 - Michael Gryboski, reporter for examiner – “Oil-drilling would 'interfere' with Naval
operations, writes Moran” - http://www.examiner.com/article/oil-drilling-would-interferewith-naval-operations-writes-moran
In a letter written by Representative Jim Moran to Governor Bob McDonnell, the Eighth Congressional District Congressman urged
the Governor to reconsider off shore drilling for Virginia. This is in response to a recent report by the Department of
Defense which stated that the proposed areas for off-shore drilling for Virginia would overlap with
areas used by the Navy, known as the “Virginia Capes.” “Specifically, the area proposed for Lease Sale 220 and
sections of the Virginia Capes overlap extensively and would either interfere or prohibit the Navy from
conducting live ordnance tests, aircraft carrier qualifications, sensitive undersea and surface
operations, shipboard qualification tests and other equipment testing and evaluation,” wrote Moran.
Mapping is Key to Readiness
MSP key to US Navy’s ability to maintain global stability (security)
Moriarty 09
Tracey Moriarty, Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness Division, Navy Supports
the President's Ocean Policy Task Force, 10/6/2009,
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=48774
.¶ Rear Adm. Herman Shelanski, director of the environmental readiness division, recently supported two of the task force public
hearings held in San Francisco and Providence.¶ "The U.S. Navy is committed to being responsible stewards
of the environment. As such, we understand the importance of developing a new national ocean
policy - one that includes ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial planning and
management in the United States," said Shelanski.¶ "We also believe such management should be
balanced to maintain and enhance multiple ocean uses, including those that contribute to our
nation's security and global stability," Shelanski added.¶ Rear Adm. Michael Giorgione, Pacific Fleet civil
engineer and commander of Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific, participated in the public hearing held in Honolulu. He
also endorsed the ocean policy task force efforts and highlighted the Navy's need for at-sea training.¶ "We need to maintain
geographic flexibility in our training. This training must be continuous and realistic in order to
maintain an effective fighting force and protect the safety of our deployed Sailors and Marines,"
said Giorgione.¶ The task force, established by President Obama via presidential memorandum on June 12, is charged with
developing a recommendation for a national policy that ensures protection, maintenance, and restoration of oceans, our coasts and
the Great Lakes. It will also recommend a framework for improved stewardship, and effective coastal and marine spatial planning. ¶
The task force will provide a final report with all of its recommendations later this year. ¶ "We look forward to continuing our work
with CEQ, NOAA and the other federal agencies and departments of the task force to develop a comprehensive and balanced
national ocean policy," Shelanski commented.
MSP solves Navy readiness
Quinn 11 ( John P. Quinn, Deputy Director, Chief of Naval Operations, Energy &
Environmental Readiness Division, “The U.S. Navy’s Sustainability Imperative,” November 26,
2011, http://livebettermagazine.com/article/the-u-s-navys-sustainability-imperative/)
While supporting the nation’s need to develop new energy sources as a means of improving its
energy and economic security, in some instances these priorities have created tension between
renewable energy development and robust military testing and training. Offshore oil and gas
development, and future wind energy projects, could potentially obstruct existing military
training areas and/or create interference with radar systems used for testing and training as well
as homeland defense. Ashore, solar towers constructed in proximity to air corridors could create
obstructions and/or reflection issues, which could degrade air navigation. Additionally, new
wind turbines – some reaching 600 or more feet into the air – could create obstruction and
interference challenges for military training and testing at existing bases and range areas.¶ The
challenge is to find solutions that will enable the nation’s development of needed energy and
other infrastructure while enabling the Navy to carry out its national defense mission through
continuous training and testing at sea, ashore and in the air. Towards these objectives, as
discussed below, a number of initiatives are underway at the national level within the
Department of Defense (DoD) and within the Department of the Navy (DON). The Navy’s active
participation in these initiatives, and forward-leaning approach to its own energy requirements,
will help ensure a sustainable future for the Navy and the nation. Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning¶ In July 2010 the President issued Executive Order 13547, entitled “Stewardship of the
Ocean, Our Coasts and the Great Lakes.” The Order adopted the recommendations of an
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, established the previous year, which worked diligently to
develop a consensus statement of U.S. national policy regarding ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
waters. The Task Force also worked to identify national priority objectives for the management
and sustainment of these areas. Among these priorities is the use of ecosystem-based
management rather than management focused on protecting a single species or reducing a
specific kind of pollution. Another key priority is the synthesis of all existing ocean information
collection systems into a national system, thereby enabling better informed decision making
about ocean issues. The adoption of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) is yet another
key priority and one that bears directly upon the sustainability of Navy and many other interests
at sea. The objectives of CMSP are to support sustainable, secure, efficient and productive uses
of the nation’s oceans, coasts and Great Lakes, thus taking into account current and future
requirements of economy, commerce, recreation, conservation, homeland and national security,
safety and welfare. Nine Regional Planning Bodies (RPB) have been established, which cover the
United States exclusive economic zone, coastal areas and the Great Lakes. Each RPB has a
Federal and a non-Federal co-chairperson. Members of the RPB are interested Federal and state
agencies, and representatives of federally recognized tribes. The RPBs will function so that other
interested parties, such as industry, academia and NGOs, can provide input to the process.¶
Once constituted, the RPBs will set to work developing Coastal and Marine Spatial (CMS) Plans.
Drawing upon all available information, these plans will seek to harmonize human use of the
oceans, coastal areas and the Great Lakes. The RPBs will also develop environmental impact
analysis documentation for the plan. Completed plans will be sent to the National Oceans
Council (NOC) for approval. Once approved, the plans will guide future Federal agency activities
in the respective areas. Existing Federal and state legal requirements, however, will remain
unchanged.¶
Better Mapping resolves military-conservationist conflicts- The
military would comply with environmental laws
Medina, Smith, Sturgis 14
Monica Medina, Joel Smith and Linda Sturgis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans¶
and Atmosphere; Research Associate for the Energy, Environment and Security Program;
United States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow, “National Coastal Ocean Mapping Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation”, January 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.
pdf
Meanwhile, increased offshore activity and¶ competition for space in the coastal ocean have
created¶ tension among national security, commercial¶ industry and ocean conservation
communities.5¶ As a steward of the ocean, the military expends significant¶ time and resources to
comply with federal¶ environmental requirements. However, military¶ users are often challenged
by the environmental¶ conservation community because of the potentially¶ harmful effects on
ocean life as a result of certain¶ military activities.6 The development of a national¶ coastal ocean
mapping system that integrates¶ geospatial data from all coastal ocean users (federal agencies,
the military, local and state regulators and¶ law enforcement, industry and private individuals)¶
would be an integral step toward balancing¶ the offshore training needs of the military with the¶
needs of ocean conservation groups and privatesector¶ communities. Such a mapping system
would¶ also help integrate federal, military and regional¶ planning efforts to manage these areas
more¶ effectively. Ultimately, it would increase transparency¶ and awareness of the burgeoning
activity¶ along America’s coasts. The military, in particular,¶ would benefit from a mapping
system, which would¶ inform operational planning efforts and help it¶ comply with applicable
environmental laws and¶ statutes.¶
Ocean Zoning key for effective coast guard
Conathan 11
Michael Conathan, Director of ocean policy at American progress – American progress, independent public policy think tank –
10/26/11 – “National Ocean Policy: A Path to America’s Ocean Future” -
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/report/2011/10/26/10451/national-ocean-policy-a-path-to-americas-oceanfuture/
Finally, leadership at the highest levels of our nation’s ocean security forces is united in their support for the
National Ocean Policy and Comprehensive Ocean
planning. In 2009 Adm. Thad Allen, then-commandant of the U.S.
new national
ocean policy, especially as it creates a unified framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning, is
critical to the nation and to the ability of the Coast Guard to execute its mission.” He went on to emphasize that
planning would “better address the ‘gaps’ in current ocean management regimes and better manage ocean uses. This will allow
the Coast Guard to more effectively execute its many missions in support of safety, security, and
stewardship in our ocean and coastal waters.”
Coast Guard testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that “A
Ocean waters key to development of navy and military.
Medina Smith and Sturgis 2014
Monica Medina previously served as a Special¶ Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a¶ Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans¶ and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and¶ Atmospheric
Administration. Joel Smith is a¶ Research Associate for the Energy, Environment and¶ Security
Program at the Center for a New American¶ Security. Commander Linda Sturgis is the United¶ States
Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow at the¶ Center for a New American Security.
As the diversity and volume of activity in the¶ coastal ocean increases and numerous users vie for¶
improved access, the potential for conflict rises. In¶ 2010, the Interagency Ocean Policy Task
Force recognized¶ that “[d]emands for energy development,¶ shipping, aquaculture, emerging
security requirements¶ and other new and existing uses are expected¶ to grow. Overlapping uses
and differing views about¶ which activities should occur where can generate¶ conflicts and
misunderstandings.” The ocean functions as a geographic barrier for the¶ United States, as well as a
highway for U.S. military¶ forces to deploy around the world. In order to¶ be prepared for national
defense, the Navy, Coast¶ Guard and Marine Corps require large areas of the¶ coastal ocean for
training and long-range weapons¶ testing. To maximize situational awareness and¶ ensure
safety and operational effectiveness, the¶ military places significant value on the collection¶ and
analysis of data.8¶ To operate in the coastal ocean, federal agencies¶ – including the military – must
undergo an¶ expansive permitting process to comply with the¶ National Environmental Protection
Act. The law¶ requires federal agencies to “make achieving environmental¶ justice part of its mission
by identifying¶ and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately¶ high and adverse human health
of its programs,¶ policies, and activities.”9 Military users must also¶ comply with a host of other
marine-based environmental¶ protection laws, such as the Endangered¶ Species Act, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act,¶ the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Clean¶ Water Act, as well as
state environmental protection¶ laws.¶ To plan and chart operation areas for defense exercises¶ in
the coastal ocean, the military is required¶ to craft detailed environmental impact statements¶
indicating compliance with existing federal regulatory¶ statutes. The process to obtain the
necessary¶ permits is arduous and requires significant time¶ and resources. For example, the Navy
has spent¶ nearly five years attempting to obtain the necessary¶ permits for a training exercise that
begins¶ in January 2014. Because the permits expire after¶ five years, the Navy will need to start the
permitting¶ process over again once the exercise is over to¶ secure mission-critical offshore training
space. The U.S. economy is dependent on the uninterrupted¶ flow of waterborne commerce. A 2009¶
analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric¶ Administration (NOAA) – the most recent data¶
available – concluded that the oceans and the Great¶ Lakes support 2.6 million jobs and contribute
$223¶ billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).11¶ The U.S. population is also largely
concentrated¶ within 50 miles of the coastline, and coastal communities¶ are home to 44 million jobs
that generate¶ 41 percent of GDP.12¶ Transporting goods by ship is very efficient, and¶ the demand for
waterborne transport of goods¶ continues to increase. The American Association¶ of Port
Authorities reports that more than 65,000¶ vessels arrive at U.S. ports annually to move more¶ than
2 billion tons of cargo, and the American¶ Waterways Operators reports that over 27,000¶ tugs with
barges move more than 800 million tons¶ of domestic cargo annually.13 According to the¶ Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, the total value¶ of marine freight is estimated to increase by 43¶ percent
domestically and 67 percent internationally¶ between 2010 and 2020.14 Traffic from cruise ships,¶
small passenger vessels, excursion vessels and recreational¶ boats is also anticipated to increase,
further¶ congesting the coastal ocean.¶
Navy supports MSP—Wants training space
Moriarty 9 (Tracey Moriarty, Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness Division,
“Navy Supports the President's Ocean Policy Task Force,” 10/6/2009,
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=48774)
The U.S. Navy has joined other federal agencies in a task force led by the White House Council
on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, to develop the nation's first unified ocean policy and marine
spatial planning framework. The ocean policy task force is led by CEQ chair Nancy Sutley and
supported by senior-level officials from 24 executive departments and agencies across the
federal government, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency,
Department of Interior, Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Navy. Navy representation to the task
force includes the under secretary of the Navy, as well as staff from the Navy's environmental readiness division;
information, plans and security division; and the office of the oceanographer of the Navy. The task force has been engaging
stakeholders and the public through roundtable sessions at CEQ headquarters and regional public hearings. To date, public hearings
have been held in Anchorage (August 21), San Francisco (September 17), Providence, Rhode Island (September 24), and Honolulu
(September 29). The final two public hearings will be held in New Orleans and Cleveland in October. Rear Adm. Herman Shelanski,
director of the environmental readiness division, recently supported two of the task force public hearings held in San Francisco and
Providence. "The U.S. Navy is committed to being responsible stewards of the environment. As such, we understand
the importance of developing a new national ocean policy - one that includes ecosystem-based coastal
and marine spatial planning and management in the United States," said Shelanski. "We also believe
such management should be balanced to maintain and enhance multiple ocean uses, including
those that contribute to our nation's security and global stability," Shelanski added. Rear Adm. Michael
Giorgione, Pacific Fleet civil engineer and commander of Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific, participated in the public
hearing held in Honolulu. He also endorsed the ocean policy task force efforts and highlighted the
Navy's need for at-sea training. "We need to maintain geographic flexibility in our training. This
training must be continuous and realistic in order to maintain an effective fighting force and
protect the safety of our deployed Sailors and Marines," said Giorgione. The task force, established by President
Obama via presidential memorandum on June 12, is charged with developing a recommendation for a national policy that ensures
protection, maintenance, and restoration of oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes. It will also recommend a framework for
improved stewardship, and effective coastal and marine spatial planning. The task force will provide a final report with all of its
recommendations later this year. "We look forward to continuing our work with CEQ, NOAA and the other federal agencies and
departments of the task force to develop a comprehensive and balanced national ocean policy," Shelanski commented.
Naval exercises key to readiness
Ocean Military Drill Key to Military readiness, to prevent war
Medina Et Al 14
Medina Et Al – Center for new American Security writer – “National Coastal Ocean Mapping
Advancing National Defense and Ocean Conservation” – 1/14 http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf The United States is a maritime nation with an expansive coastal ocean that is integral to
economic, environmental and national security.1 the coastal ocean hosts a wide range of users,
including the U.S. military, coastal shipping companies, offshore energy producers, commercial
and sport fishermen, recreational users and conservation groups. As a primary user of the
coastal ocean, the U.S. military needs dedicated and charted offshore areas in which to train and
conduct exercises to prepare for war, thwart terrorist activities and prevent other threats against
the United States. For the Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps, operating in the coastal ocean
is critical to maintaining operational readiness.2 Although the ocean may seem vast, a unified
effort is necessary to balance increased offshore activity with the need to maintain U.S. military
proficiency and national security and ensure the safety and sustainability of this vital resource.
Naval readiness key to airpower
Navy Key to Air Power and force projection
Galdorisi 11
GEORGE GALDORISI, U.S. Navy Aviation Today, Defense Media Network, JULY 26, 2011,
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-navy-aviation-today/
Naval aviation is a critical component of the Nation’s ability to carry out full-spectrum
operations in the 21st century – from delivering humanitarian assistance and disaster relief at
home and overseas … to maritime security operations to ensure safe passage of commercial
vessels … to high-intensity sea control and power projection in a major contingency. Helicopters
and fixed-wing aircraft operating from nuclear aircraft carriers, large deck amphibious ships
and shore stations, and helicopters operating from cruisers and destroyers – complemented by
advanced unmanned aerial vehicles – are key contributors to the capabilities of the U.S. Navy
and Marine Corps."
Naval readiness key to Senakaku
US Naval weakness emboldens Chinese aggression in Senkaku
Fisher 13
5/28/13 - Richard D Fisher Jr, Senior Fellow on Asian Military affairs at StrategyCenter – “Weakening U.S. presence encourages
Chinese aggression” - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/28/weakening-us-presence-encourages-chineseaggressio/
As the Obama administration descends into a long summer of scandal investigations, its domestic weakness could
serve to exacerbate long-standing Asian political fault lines that heretofore were calmed by the
assurance of American strength. Such assurance of overwhelming U.S. naval and nuclear power has
meant that Japan need not build offensive military power and that South Korea could forgo its own nuclear
force to deter a North Korea that was building nuclear weapons. American military dominance on the Taiwan Strait made workable
the morally and strategically deficient “One-China Policy” — in which commerce is allowed, but sovereign recognition is denied to
the democracy on Taiwan — whiale most states other than the United States maintain timorous neutrality regarding China’s longstanding threat to destroy Taiwan. Furthermore, most Asian states could forgo individual means sufficient to deter China from
enforcing its expansive claims to territory in the East and South China seas as long as the U.S. was there in strength.
Overwhelming American power also compensated for the lack of Asian collective-security
mechanisms, akin to NATO. This is now a growing problem for Washington, however, as China’s pursuit of regional
military dominance increasingly requires better regional military coordination among U.S. allies and
friends that could allow for greater efficiencies and even encourage mechanisms for America’s friends to build
confidence and better resolve their own differences. One case where this requirement has come to fore was in a May 9 incident
in which a Philippine coast guard ship fired on a Taiwanese fishing ship in a disputed area, an overlapping Economic Exclusion
Zone, killing one Taiwanese fisherman. This sparked a real crisis in relations between two democracies that otherwise should long
have had in place cooperative mechanisms to prevent such tragedies. Taiwanese outrage is compounded by real security fears of
China, plus its long-standing diplomatic isolation illustrated by Manila’s refusal to pursue a “joint” incident investigation, justified in
part as a violation of its One-China Policy. Instead of encouraging a humane resolution, China seeks to manipulate and divide.
Chinese state media cheer on Taiwanese outrage, while Chinese navy ships are now intimidating Philippine islands in the South
China Sea that Manila cannot defend, as Beijing balks at long-standing proposals for a South China Sea “Code of Conduct.” Because
Washington and Taipei conceal from their publics the extent of military cooperation under the aegis of the 1979 Taiwan Relations
Act (a U.S. deference to its One-China Policy), this current crisis with Manila ironically has caused some rise in Taiwanese
perceptions that China is their protector. China can be expected to further exploit Asian fears and divisions to
burnish an image of American weakness. China can now manage multiple small military
engagements in the East China Sea targeting Japan’s Senkaku Islands , plus Philippine and Vietnamese islands in the
South China Sea. Even a small-scale action could undermine the credibility of American alliance commitments to Japan and the
Philippines, especially if Washington limited its response to avoid a larger Chinese action. However, recent suggestions by Chinese
academics and military officers that Beijing should re-examine Japan’s sovereignty over Okinawa — the location of strategic
Japanese facilities for U.S. military forces — point to even greater future Asian instability as China builds nuclear and powerprojection capabilities that could rival or exceed U.S. power in East Asia by the 2020s.
¶
Senkaku Brinks
High risk of China invasion of Senkaku
Ryall 14
2/21/14 - Julian Ryall, Reporter for the Telegraph – “China training for 'short, sharp war'
against Japan” - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10653183/Chinatraining-for-short-sharp-war-against-Japan.html
China is stepping up its training for a "short, sharp war" designed to seize the disputed Senkaku islands
from Japan, according to the head of US naval intelligence in the Pacific. Addressing a conference
sponsored by the US Naval Institute in San Diego, California, Captain James Fannell said the recent Missing Action 2013 exercises
were training for the invasion of the uninhabited archipelago, which China claims as its sovereign territory and refers to as the
Diaoyutai Islands. "We concluded that the [People's Liberation Army] has been given the new task to be
able to conduct a short, sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea, following with what
can only be expected as the seizure of the Senkakus or even a southern Ryukyu island," said Capt. Fannell,
director of intelligence for the US Pacific Fleet.
Brink of war over Senkaku now—US allied re-assurance is vital
Axtell ‘14
Security expert: Russia, China pose threat to U.S. allies¶ By Nathaniel Axtell¶ Times-News Staff
Writer¶ Published: Thursday, June 26, 2014 at 11:30 a.m.
http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20140626/ARTICLES/140629923?p=2&tc=pg&tc=ar
Meanwhile, China has been pursuing what Kugler called “a dual track foreign policy” that on the one hand strives for economic
cooperation and on the other “menacing conflict in the security and defense sphere.”¶ The latter
posturing includes a mounting force of air and navy power designed to prevent the U.S. from
reaching the region with reinforcements to aid Japan or Taiwan, he said.¶ As China has built up its annual
defense budget to $140 billion and counting, its armed forces have sought to establish control over new
territories in the East and South China Seas, Kugler said. Tension is building between Japan and
China over control of the Senkaku Islands, an uninhabited chain of rocky islands in the East China Sea.¶ “Military
forces from both countries have been increasingly tangling and maneuvering against each other,
almost on a daily basis, around these islands,” he said. “No shots have been fired, but we've come very, very
close to incidents that could erupt into an outright conflict and could escalate into a war.” ¶ If
tensions between the countries mount, the U.S. has an obligation under a mutual security treaty
to help defend Japan's claims of sovereignty.¶ “So this is a dangerous situation,” Kugler said.¶ For the past two or
three years, the U.S. has been pivoting its forces toward Asia, keeping up to 60 percent of its Navy fleet in the
Pacific, turning Guam into a major military base and re-establishing a military hub in the Philippines' Subic Bay. Kugler said that
“pivoting” should continue to protect key U.S. allies and trade interests in the western Pacific,
while simultaneously shoring up defenses in eastern Europe.
Naval readiness solves piracy
U.S. Navy leads international anti-piracy force
AP 09
U.S. Navy to lead anti-piracy force, USA Today, 1/8/2009,
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-01-08-us-piracy_N.htm
¶ A new international naval force under American command will soon begin patrols to confront
escalating attacks by Somali pirates after more than 100 ships came under siege in the past year, the U.S. Navy said
Thursday.¶ But the mission — expected to begin operations next week — appears more of an attempt to sharpen
the military focus against piracy rather than a signal of expanded offensives across one of the world's most crucial
shipping lanes.¶ ¶ The force will carry no wider authority to strike at pirate vessels at sea or specific mandates to move against havens
on shore — which some maritime experts believe is necessary to weaken the pirate gangs that have taken control of dozens of cargo
vessels and an oil tanker.¶ ¶ Pentagon officials described it as a first step to create a dedicated
international structure — combining military force, intelligence sharing and coordinated patrols
— to battle piracy from lawless Somalia.¶ ¶ The sharp spike in pirate attacks caused a "situation where there were competing
priorities" between counterterrorism missions in the region and protecting merchant ships, said Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a
Pentagon spokesman in Washington.¶ ¶ There currently are more than a dozen warships in the vast expanse off the coast of Somalia,
from naval giants such as the U.S., Britain and Russia, emerging powers such as China and India and regional forces such as Iran.¶ ¶
The announcement on the new mission — issued by the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain — said more than 20 nations are expected to take
part and it will be headed by U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Terence McKnight.¶ ¶ U.S. Navy officials declined to list the nations, but
suggested it would likely comprise many of those already in the region.¶ ¶ It's highly unlikely, however, that nations such as Iran
would agree to operate under U.S. command. But Lt. Stephanie Murdock, a 5th Fleet spokeswoman, said the new force would "work
with any nation that wants to join."¶ ¶ Defense Department press Secretary Geoff Morrell told a Pentagon news conference in
Washington that anti-piracy efforts have been strengthened recently and some militaries cooperating in an anti-piracy task force
already in the region have been using "more aggressive tactics ... to thwart would-be hijackings."¶ ¶ The new force underscores the
urgency to act after a stunning rise in pirate assaults off the Horn of Africa last year: At least 111 ships targeted and 42 of them
commandeered, including a Ukrainian cargo shop loaded with tanks and heavy weapons and a Saudi oil tanker with $100 million
worth of crude.¶ ¶ At two more ships have been hijacked this month, leaving about 15 vessels and about 300 crewmembers in pirate
hands, according to the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center.¶ ¶ Most of the attacks have occurred in the Gulf of
Aden, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.¶ ¶ The waters have increasingly become scenes for showdowns between welloutfitted merchant ships and pirates swarming the hulls on skiffs and armed with light weapons and grappling hooks — and often
asking for millions in ransom from owners if they manage to take control.¶ ¶ On Christmas, a German military helicopter responded
to a distress call from an Egyptian cargo vessel under siege from pirates, who fled when the chopper arrived.¶ ¶ New Year's Day saw
pirates seize another Egyptian cargo vessel with 28 crew, while a Malaysian military helicopter saved an Indian tanker from being
hijacked and a French warship thwarted an attack on a Panamanian cargo ship and captured several pirates.¶ ¶ Just a day later,
crewmen on a Greek-flagged oil tanker used high pressure water cannons to fight off a pirate ambush.¶ ¶ The U.S. Navy and other
nations have international authority to battle pirates in the open seas and come to the aid of vessels under attack. But forces have
been stymied on how to respond to ships under pirate control, fearing an all-out assault could endanger the crewmembers held
hostage.¶ ¶ "This task force does not does have any greater rules of engagement," said Cmdr. Jane Campbell, a 5th Fleet
spokeswoman. "It does, however, bring a greater focus to counter-piracy operations under one
command."¶ ¶ But it also carries the suggestion that it could one day take stronger measures. The
U.S. contribution to the force is expected to include cruisers and destroyers , many carrying H-60
helicopters, said Campbell. The flagship, the USS San Antonio, is an amphibious ship capable of bringing hundreds of Marines
ashore.¶ ¶ This is the type of action needed to truly rattle the pirates, said Noel Choong, head of the
International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center.¶ ¶ "Right now there is no major deterrent," he said. "The military maybe
chases away the pirates, but they regroup and come back for another attack on another ship. Piracy will continue until
their networks and bases are hit."¶ ¶ On Thursday, the new president of a breakaway Somali region of Puntland,
Abdirahman Mohamed Farole, promised to crackdown on piracy. Puntland is a pirate hub, where local authorities have been
accused of helping them and taking a cut of the huge ransoms.
The Navy is key to stop piracy
Shanker 12
Thom Shanker-Pentagon Correspondent, U.S. Reports That Piracy Off Africa Has Plunged, The
New York Times, 8/28/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/world/africa/piracy-aroundhorn-of-africa-has-plunged-us-says.html?_r=0
Acts of piracy in the treacherous waters around the Horn of Africa have fallen sharply in 2012,
according to statistics released by the United States Navy. The Navy credits aggressive patrolling
by international forces and
increased vigilance by the commercial shipping industry for the decrease.¶ Related¶ Data
Navy last week showed 46 pirate attacks in the area this year, compared with 222 in
all of last year and 239 in 2010. Nine of the piracy attempts this year have been successful,
according to the data, compared with 34 successful attacks in all of 2011 and 68 in 2010.¶ Even
so, senior Navy officers have been careful not to declare victory.¶ “The pirates are very adaptable,
and they are very flexible,” said Vice Adm. Mark I. Fox, the Navy’s deputy chief for operations, plans and strategy. “We are
released by the
watching carefully.Ӧ The prospect of renewed political turmoil in the region, especially in Somalia and Yemen, may again drive up
attempts at the lucrative business of piracy, since lawless areas in these countries provide havens for pirates to launch their raids and
to hold captured vessels and hostages. Further economic collapse may prompt more farmers and fisherman to choose piracy.¶ But
the statistics so far this year are encouraging. As of last week, the last successful pirate attack in waters off East Africa had occurred
on May 10, and the most recent attempted attack had occurred on June 27. The gap since that last raid represents the longest break
in pirate activity in the area in five years.¶ Navy officers note the seasonal ebb and flow of piracy attacks in the region, influenced by
the twice-yearly monsoons, and they warn that in October and November the waters and winds tend to be calmer and that pirate
raids increase. But the statistics for 2012 are far below what could be explained by weather alone.¶ The decrease in attacks
appears to be a result of increased security measures taken by commercial vessels and of
sustained antipiracy patrols by the navies of more than a dozen nations, including the United
States.¶ Admiral Fox said the shipping industry “can take a great deal of credit” for the trend. More commercial vessels are
carrying “embarked security teams” of armed guards, he said, and no vessel with such a team on board has been hijacked. ¶
Commercial ship captains are also following recommendations that they sail in international
transit corridors that the navies patrol. More ships are taking measures to make it difficult for pirates to climb aboard
from the waterline.¶
Naval readiness solves war
Naval readiness is key to deter conflicts and all US military readiness
Katz, 13 -- retired vice admiral, former commander of the Fifth Fleet
[Doublas, "A Strong Navy," The Hill, 1-3-13, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-abudget/275395-a-strong-navy, accessed 1-24-13, mss]
On the other hand, even with the increasingly austere fiscal climate unfolding, the nation seems
to be entering a new naval era that emphasizes the renewed importance of U.S. sea power.
Add to that the ever turbulent Middle East and Southeast Asian regions demanding rapid
response capabilities, it is now more imperative than ever that civilian decision makers
wisely plan for an adequate future size and composition of the our Fleet. In times of conflict, our
Navy is called upon to control the seas, deny their use to the enemy, and to protect and sustain
power ashore, indispensible in successful military operations. A strong Navy is a recognized
United States commitment to the world. Our Navy is unique among all others in that the Fleet is
not garrisoned in U.S. home ports but is spread across the globe. In fact, we presently have
approximately 110 of those 287 ships deployed at any one time with every expectation that
that number will rise as our naval commitments increase. Such recognized presence is a key
element of the U.S. global defense posture. That presence is there to cooperate and defend
partners and allies. It signals our national intent, prevents and deters aggression, promotes
regional security and responds quickly to crises, to include humanitarian, no matter where they
flare up.
High Naval readiness solves great power war, key to allies
Conway ‘8 (“A COOPERATIVE STRATEGY FOR 21ST CENTURY SEAPOWER” James T
Conway, Et al. Naval War College Review. Washington: Winter 2008. Vol. 61, Iss. 1; pg. 6, 14
pgs)
States seapower will be globally postured to secure our homeland and citizens from direct
attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our security and prosperity are
inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime forces will be deployed to protect and
sustain the peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance,
information, law, people and governance. We will employ the global reach, persistent
presence, and operational flexibility inherent in U.S. seapower to accomplish six key tasks,
or strategic imperatives. Where tensions are high or where we wish to demonstrate to our
friends and allies our commitment to security and stability, U.S. maritime forces will be
characterized by regionally concentrated, forward-deployed task forces with the combat
power to limit regional conflict, deter major power war, and should deterrence
fail, win our Nation’s wars as part of a joint or combined campaign. In addition,
persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces will be globally distributed in order to
contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain cooperative relationships
with an expanding set of international partners, and prevent or mitigate
disruptions and crises. a cooporative strategy for a 21st century seapower
7
Regionally Concentrated, Credible Combat Power Credible combat power will be
continuously postured in the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect
our vital interests, assure our friends and allies of our continuing commitment to regional
security, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries and peer competitors. This combat
power can be selectively and rapidly repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise
elsewhere. These forces will be sized and postured to fulfill the following strategic
imperatives: Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime power. Today
regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the area of conflict. Humanitarian crises,
violence spreading across borders, pandemics, and the interruption of vital resources are all
possible when regional crises erupt. While this strategy advocates a wide dispersal of
networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere, and we cannot act to mitigate all
regional conflict. Where conflict threatens the global system and our national interests,
maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of national and multinational power, to give political leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation
and de-escalation. Maritime forces that are persistently present and combat-ready
provide the Nation’s primary forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as
they provide the means for this Nation to respond quickly to other crises. Whether over the
horizon or powerfully arrayed in plain sight, maritime forces can deter the ambitions
of regional aggressors, assure friends and allies, gain and maintain access, and
protect our citizens while working to sustain the global order. Critical to this
notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleet—ships, aircraft, Marine forces, and
shore-based fleet activities—capable of selectively controlling the seas, projecting power
ashore, and protecting friendly forces and civilian populations from attack. Deter major
power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among
major powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nation’s comparative
seapower advantage is a key component of deterring major power war. While
war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous
effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national power. The
expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality, global reach, speed, endurance,
ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational agility—provide the joint commander
with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a
credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally,
unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.
Inability to train Naval forces are a threat to US military readiness,
spur global conflict
Dyer ‘14
Jennifer Dyer is a retired US Naval intelligence officer who served around the world, afloat and
ashore, from 1983 to 2004. My last operations in the Navy were Iraqi Freedom and Enduring
Freedom in 2003. http://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/defense-cutsand-the-fragile-undefended-bubble-we-now-live-in/
An especially important point here is that the converse is true. The conditions for major war develop much more
easily when the U.S. is too weak. They are developing as we speak.¶ The gathering storm¶ The collapse
of order in the Arab nations in 2011 was the first significant stage of the process. The perception
that the United States would do nothing about a Hezbollah coup in Lebanon was tested in January of that year. The
perception proved to be true, and when protests erupted in Tunisia and Egypt, for causes both natural and manufactured, a set of
radical Islamist actors – the “establishment” Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni jihadists, Iran – saw an opportunity. The establishment
Muslim Brotherhood has largely won out in Tunisia, but the battle still rages among these radical actors for Egypt, Syria, and now
Iraq. Lebanon is being incrementally sucked into the maelstrom as well.¶ In multiple venues, Russia has watched the U.S.
and the West effectively back Islamists in Russia’s “near abroad”: in Turkey (with support for the now
struggling Erdogan government); in the Balkans, especially Bosnia and Kosovo; and in Syria. This assessment
doesn’t by any means excuse the atrocities committed by Russia’s clients, but it does explain Russia’s concern about the trend of
regional events.¶ There was a time when the implicit determination of the U.S. to enforce the “Pax Americana”
order – the post-World War II alignments of the region – held Russia in check. The Russians still derived some security
benefit from that order, after all, and trying to breach it was costly, as with the invasion of Georgia in 2008. It appears to me,
however, that 2014 will be the year in which it becomes clear that, according to Russians’
perception, they no longer benefit from the old order. If we’re not going to enforce it, Russia will do what she
thinks she has to.¶ In fact, Moscow’s pushback against the plan for Ukraine to affiliate with the EU constitutes just such a blow for
perceived Russian interests. It is of supreme importance for Westerners to not misread the recent developments. The EU and the
U.S. did back down when Russia pushed hard last fall. The only ones who didn’t back down were the Ukrainian opposition. I predict
Vladimir Putin will try to handle the opposition factions cleverly, as much as he can, and avoid a pitched battle with them if possible.
He respects what they are willing to do. But he has no reason to respect Brussels or Washington.¶ And that means he has more
latitude, not less, for going after the regional props to the old order, one by one. As always, Russia’s inevitable competition with
China is a major driver, along with Russia’s concern about Islamism on her southern border. The whole Great Crossroads –
Southwest Asia, Southeast Europe, Northeast Africa, the waterways that snake through the region – is, if not up for grabs, at least in
ferment. Look wherever you like: there are almost no nations where there is not a very present menace
from radicalism, or where governments and even borders are not gravely imperiled by internal
dissent. Israel is the chief standout for politically sustainable stability and continuity. Romania and Turkey seem likely to at least
retain their constitutional order in the foreseeable future, but Turkey’s geopolitical orientation, in particular, is less certain. Greece
and Kosovo – even Bosnia – have serious internal problems. Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia all remain
in crisis at various levels. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are relatively stable, and the Arab Persian Gulf states relatively so as well. But
their neighborhood is going downhill fast. Iran is riding a wave of radical confidence, and the Taliban are
resurgent in Afghanistan.¶ In this tumultuous region, it’s actually a little funny that Pakistan looks stable and staid
compared to Iran, Afghanistan, and neighbors west. We can hope that Islamabad’s perceived need to maintain a symmetrical stance
against India will keep Pakistan’s loose federation of intransigents federated, and the nukes under central control. But as we move
across South Asia, we near another boiling pot. Thailand – long an American ally and pillar of stability in the
region – has been rocked in recent months by national unrest of a kind not seen in Southeast Asia for decades.
Islamist radicalism is a growing threat in Indonesia, and an unpacified one in the Philippines, after more than
a decade of U.S.-Philippines collaboration in fighting it.¶ And, of course, China is making real, transformative moves
against regional security with her proclamations about air space and maritime rights off her southeast coast. This
disruptive process, like the battles for many of the Arab nations, is already underway. We’re not waiting for something
to happen; it’s started.¶ China assumes, quite correctly, that there will be no effective pushback from the
United States. But two other nations with power and means will regard it as intolerable for
China to dictate conditions in Southeast Asia: Japan and Russia. The dance of realignment among these
nations has implications for everyone in Central Asia and the Far East. The day may be on the horizon sooner than we think when
maintaining a divided Korea no longer makes sense to at least one of the major players. The day is already here when Chinese
activities in Central Asia are alarming the whole neighborhood, just as Chinese actions are in the South China Sea. ¶ I’ve written
before about long-running maritime disputes, like the competing claims in the South China Sea, heating up as the Pax Americana
fades. It’s no accident that as radical leftism creeps across Central America (falsely laying claim to a noble “Bolivarian” political
mantle), the maritime dispute between Nicaragua and American ally Colombia heats up – and Russia shows up to back Nicaragua
and Venezuela – and so does Iran – and unrest turns into shooting and government brutality and violence in Venezuela – and
Hezbollah shows up there to openly support the radical, repressive Maduro government. Now Iran has a naval supply ship headed
for Central America, very possibly with a cargo of arms that are not only prohibited by UN sanction, but capable of reaching the
United States if launched from a Central American nation or Cuba.¶ We’re not still waiting for the shocks to start to the old
order. They’ve already started. I haven’t surveyed even the half of what there is to talk about – there’s more than Central
America that we need to worry about, and more than North Africa – but what we’ve covered is enough.¶ Giving up on deterrence¶
This is the world in which the United States plans to reduce our army to its lowest level since before World War II, and eliminate or
put in storage much of its capabilities for heavy operations abroad (e.g., getting rid of the A-10 Warthogs, moving Blackhawk
helicopters into the National Guard). It’s in this world that DOD proposes to cease operating half of our Navy cruisers, while
delaying delivery of the carrier-based F-35 strike-fighter to the Navy and Marine Corps. These cutbacks come on top of
cuts already made to training and maintenance expenditures in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air
Force that will affect unit readiness for years to come. There will be no new infantry fighting vehicle for the
Army, moreover (or expeditionary fighting vehicle for the Marine Corps).¶ These and other procurement and manning decisions
mean that in the future, it will cost more in blood and time to win the same battles. The latest round of cuts will move us backward
from the combat-effectiveness trend the American people have considered the norm since 1991.¶ By cutting back on defense so
drastically, America is deciding, in essence, to “fight fair”: to give whatever opponents emerge more of a chance to kill our soldiers,
damage our interests, and drag out conflicts. The calculus resulting from this decision is a simple one. It means our threats of force
will have less of a deterrent effect. Opponents will calculate correctly that in most cases, America won’t be willing to pay the price we
have sentenced ourselves to pay to guard our interests.¶ To a meaningful extent, the significant increase we’ve seen in unrest around
the globe since 2010 has been made possible, and inevitable, by the retraction of American power. Even where we still have power in
place, it has become increasingly obvious that we aren’t going to use it. Now we’ve decided to further limit our capabilities to use
power in politically relevant ways. The result will be even more global unrest: more conflict, more
shooting, more blood, more extortion and political thuggery menacing civil life in the world’s poorer and more vulnerable
nations.¶ These unpleasant trends will spill over into civil life in the wealthier nations soon enough – Ukraine,
Thailand, and Venezuela have been disquieting downpayments in that respect – whether directly or through
second-order consequences. The sources of conflict – discontent, opportunism, the urge to power – are always there; we just do a
better job at some times than at others of holding them in check. Peace and freedom have to be tended constantly; they are not the
natural state of geopolitical indiscipline, but its antithesis.¶ Following a false beacon¶
Naval power solves wars with Russia and China
Green 97 (Kevin, Rear Admiral, Commander – United States Navy, NTC, Great Lakes, "What the
Best Damn Navy in the World Is For", Vital Speeches of the Day, 7-15, Ebsco)
And the list of troubles wouldn't be complete without mentioning that by the year 2000, nine developing countries could have
nuclear or biological weapons, thirty countries might have chemical weapons; these are "weapons of mass destruction," capable of
killing millions of people. Border disputes have often led to armed conflict between nations. Professor Aaron
Friedberg of Princeton University recently just listed the ones in the Pacific Rim, border disputes alone. I'll have to take a breath
here. "Japan against Russia, Russia against China, China against India, Japan against South
Korea, Laos against China, China against Burma, India against Pakistan, Cambodia against Vietnam, China against Vietnam,
China against Taiwan, Indonesia against Timor, Malaysia against the Philippines, and in the case of the Spratly Islands
in the South China Sea, which may hold a bonanza of oil, we have seen war before over oil, China
against Vietnam, against the Philippines, against Malaysia, against Taiwan." Those are just the border disputes. But they are
between some of the most advanced and fastest growing economies in the world. And most of these
disputes are in countries that border the most heavily-traveled sea lanes in the world, the
western Pacific rim. Nobody knows if any will lead to armed conflict. Or even, if they do, that the United
States will take a role. But we certainly have to be prepared to do so, if we have to. Bottom line, we have
to maintain our readiness. Because when the call comes, if it comes and it always comes,
eventually, we' 11 have to move quickly. Some Americans, though, would like to make further, deeper cuts in national
security. One of them quoted former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, who said, "I would be very surprised if another Iraq
occurred." The writer forgot to mention that we were all, including General Powell, very surprised the first time. "This, too, shall
pass." Other surprises, perhaps quite unpleasant surprises, are virtually certain. America has to be
ready for them, the Navy-Marine corps team has to be ready for them.
Naval Readiness solves Taiwan war
Naval power prevents us-china war over taiwan
Hultin and Blair 6
(Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Undersecretary for the Navy, Dennis Blair, former President for the
Institute of Defense Analysis and Admiral, US Navy, “Naval Power and Globalization,”
September, 2006 http://www.poly.edu/president/_doc/hultin%20naval%20power.pdf)
Even if the interaction of US and Chinese decisions in future avoids a global naval arms race centered in the Pacific, China will still have a
capable regional navy. World events may put China and the United States on opposite sides of an issue
or crisis, leading to a maritime confrontation. The most likely location for this scenario is
Taiwan. Successful deterrence depends on the United States having strong naval capability on station
orquickly deployable so that there is no incentive to China or other adversaries to initiate hostilities. The
second Pacific area in which the United States must maintain a deterrent capability based on naval power is around the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea is a failing state, but so long as Kim Jong II and his successors maintain their position of power, they will need to be deterred
from military aggression. To maintain deterrence, American naval strategy in the Pacific must preserve its alliance
base, its forward deployed posture and its
crisis situation.
ability to reinforce quickly to assert maritime superiority throughout any
Loss of Allied Cohesion = Prolif
Loss of allied security credibility causes fast proliferation in multiple
hotspots
Campbell and Einhorn 4
Kurt, PhD, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of the Center for a New American Security
and Robert, senior adviser in the CSIS International Security Program, The Nuclear Tipping
Point, pg. 321
Given the unprecedented power and influence of the United States today, what it says and does will have a
significant impact on the nuclear behavior of individual countries . For example, although a severe new security
threat (especially a new nuclear threat) would strongly motivate a country to reconsider its nuclear renunciation,
such a threat probably would not be sufficient to elicit this reaction if the country has an American security
guarantee that is not perceived to be weakening. Thus as long as the U.S. nuclear umbrella remains credible
and U.S. relations with Japan and South Korea remain strong, even a nuclear-armed North Korea would not necessarily
lead these two countries to decide to acquire nuclear capabilities of their own. The case studies suggest that the
perceived reliability of U.S. security assurances will be a critical factor, if not the critical factor, in whether
such countries as Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey reconsider their nuclear options. It
is noteworthy that both Taiwan and South Korea became most interested in pursuing nuclear weapons
programs in the mid-to-late 1970s, a time when the United States appeared to have adopted a policy of
security disengagement or detachment from East Asia following the huml1iation of the Vietnam War. (Germany, which
currently does not face a serious threat to its security, has the lux- ury of having both a U.S. nuclear guarantee and dose ties with other
nuclear weapons states through NATO and the EU.)
Loss of Allied Cohesion = GPW
The impact is the only scenario for great power war – US security
assurances ensure a draw-in and escalation
Millot 94
Marc Dean, Senior Social Scientist @ RAND, Facing the Emerging Reality of Regional Nuclear
Adversaries”, Washington Quarterly, Lexis
If the allies of the United States come to believe that it no longer shares their view of regional security , is no
longer automatically committed to their defense, can no longer be counted as prudent, and may suffer from a paralytic fear of
nuclear conflict, the burden of proof in any debate over national security in any allied capital will shift to those
who argue for continuing to rely on U.S. security guarantees. Decisions to pursue national nuclear weapons
programs may not be far behind.
The Disintegration of U.S. Alliances Will Exacerbate Regional Military
Instability
The lack of credible security assurances will push allies of the United States toward nuclear
arsenals of their own to restore the military equilibrium upset by their local nuclear adversaries or by more general regional nuclear
instabilities. These allies may well see a realization of their virtual nuclear arsenal as the only alternative to losing all influence over their
own national security. This development, however, would lead down a worrisome path, with dangerous
implications for regional stability and ultimately for the security of the United States itself. One lesson U.S. defense decision makers
should take from the growing understanding of U.S.-Soviet crises is that nuclear stability is not automatic. By the end of the Cold
War nuclear stability was practically an institution; in the beginning it was barely a concept. As historians report their findings on such
events as the Cuban missile crisis, it is becoming apparent that the superpowers learned to create stability on the basis of trial and error.
n62 Reading the results of this research it is difficult not conclude that, particularly in the early days of U.S.-Soviet competition, luck played
an uncomfortably significant role in avoidance of nuclear war. It is possible that the new nuclear powers will learn from the history of U.S.Soviet nuclear crises, just as they have learned to take advantage of U.S. technological innovations in the development of their own nuclear
weapons programs. Perhaps the relatively rapid development of a stable regional nuclear balance is feasible. On the other hand, U.S.
leaders should be concerned that nations with widely varying values, thought processes, and cultures may go
through the learning experience without their own good fortune. It is hard to know where any nuclear war
might end, or what lessons onlookers will take away from it. It is doubtful that anyone is eager to run a real world experiment on the
universality of the superpowers' nuclear logic. Indeed the vision of experimental failure on a massive scale has probably influenced U.S.
decision makers to give prevention its privileged role in the national response to the proliferation threat. But now that regional adversaries
of the United States are going nuclear, the experiment will begin if U.S. allies follow suit. As perhaps several of these experiments
play themselves out, the odds increase that one will lead to nuclear war. When U.S. leaders come to recognize that
these experiments are out of their hands, they will face the question of what to do with the remaining forward presence of their forces on
allied territories. If they stay, the United States runs the risk of being sucked into nuclear wars
that are not of its
making against its will. If they leave, the United States will lose any hope of regional influence, but may
at the same time precipitate a crisis that may itself increase the risk of nuclear conflict. Neither choice is
appealing; both hold grave risks for U.S. national security. Preventing the need of future leaders to confront that choice
should be the goal of U.S. policy. National security decision makers must recognize that the United States
and its allies will face several regional nuclear adversaries in the next decade. They must focus on the need to
reassure regional allies that the best counter to this threat lies in defense arrangements with the United
States, rather than in pursuing their own nuclear options. To succeed, U.S. leaders must back up their security
assurances by giving regional nuclear conflict the highest priority in defense planning . Countering the consequences
of proliferation should replace nonproliferation, and particularly the ideal of prevention, as the focus of U.S. policy to deal with the new
nuclear threat.
Allied Cohesion: Ethic Wars Impact
Allied cohesion in NATO is critical to effective, multilateral response
to civil wars and ethnic conflicts
Ellsworth ‘3
Ellsworth, US Ambassador on Council of NATO, 2003 (Robert F., “NATO's Future”,
http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/themes/past_themes/nato/perspectives/Ellsworth.dot,
SP)
In peace operations, NATO cohesion is still important, but the issue of the Europeans' willingness to
deploy political, financial, and military muscle rises to a higher level. There are civil wars and human
disasters and atrocities in several parts of the world-Central America Sudan, Congo (the locus of Africa's
"first world war"), and Afghanistan. Those wars and disasters, or others like them, will be with us for a long time to come.
NATO could begin to reorient itself to deal with such matters, but that reorientation should not be at the expense of
the Alliance's guardian political-military posture. With the British planned acquisition of the C-17, the
Europeans are taking the necessary first steps toward an ability (already operational in the U.S. Air Force)
to land strategic loads around the globe-and to land them on tactical strips. The United States also
deploys sophisticated airfield control detachments that can anchor a strategic deployment at remote sites.
Unchecked ethnic conflicts cause global nuclear war
Crocker ‘99
Crocker, Chairman of the Board of the US Institute of Peace, 1999 (Chester, FPRI Wire,
http://fpri.org/fpriwire/0710.199909.crocker.howtothinkaboutethnicconflict.html “How To
Think About Ethnic Conflict”, September, SP)
The examination of ethnic conflict has several implications for American foreign policy. First, it might be useful if we would think
about the phenomenon we are dealing with-which is nothing less than the breakdown of empires, federations, and nation-statesbefore we act. We must think about how, in the present era, the breakdown of the old colonial and Cold War structures empowered
challengers to governments. Whether their challenges come through information technology, the erection of new standards of
governance, or new demands from donor clubs, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, a fundamental shift in
the balance of power on the ground has occurred. The disappearance of the old structures has , in short,
created strategic vacuums that will be filled, in one fashion or another, by a new set of actors or by older actors marching
under new flags. That is really what much ethnic conflict is all about. Secondly, we need to reflect on the stakes. As a
superpower which supposedly “doesn’t do windows,” we may be tempted to think that the stakes are low for the United States. But
what is at stake in Kosovo is not just the Albanians or Serbs, but (now that we have backed into this forest without a compass) what
is at stake is American leadership, the survival of NATO, and the danger that members of the U.N.
Security Council, including Russia and China, will acquire something of a veto over American policy-
including how we get out of the woods we have wandered into. Think, too, about the stakes involved for the people who become
victims of these conflicts. Waiting for a conflict to “ripen” will achieve nothing if the contesting leadership elites
are living off the conflict. When both sides in a conflict find the status quo preferable to any settlement, the situation will
never “ripen” and the humanitarian toll will mount. And the numbers of victims of these conflicts is huge: up to four
million in Sudan alone over the past forty years, and countless thousands in Sierra Leone, Liberia,
Indonesia, and the Balkans. Similar conflicts have raged in the South Asian subcontinent since the massive postcolonial
population transfers of the late 1940s, and now that nuclear weapons have been openly thrown into the mix, the
Indo-Pakistani worst-case scenario has gotten a lot worse. So the stakes are huge in moral as well as strategic terms.
Saudi Prolif
Iran won’t cause proliferation as long as US guarantees are viewed as
credible
Amlin 8
Kate, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), Will Saudi Arabia Acquire
Nuclear Weapons?, Monterrey Institute for Int’l Studies,
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_40a.html
Another potential motivation for Saudi proliferation is the souring of U.S.-Saudi relations,
especially when such a scenario is combined with Iran’s development of a nuclear arsenal. Saudi
Arabia has long been a critical U.S. ally in the Middle East, and the countries share an interest in containing
militant Middle Eastern regimes such as Iran and maintaining the export of Saudi oil supplies to the rest of the world.[33] The
Saudis currently rely on the United States for security assurances, and would expect the United
States to defend them from a regional aggressor. Yet, Riyadh has reservations about the nature
of U.S. support, and worries that a divergence in national interests would prevent the United
States from fully protecting Saudi Arabia in a future crisis.[34] In a notable example of this concern, U.S.
President Jimmy Carter sent F-15 fighter aircraft to the Persian Gulf to protect the Saudis when war broke out between Iran and Iraq
in 1980. However, Carter demonstrated that U.S. support for the Saudi kingdom had its limits when he announced that the aircraft
were sent to the Gulf unarmed.[35] More recently, in 2003, the U.S. government reduced the number of forces that it had stationed
in Saudi Arabia from 5,000 to 400 troops.[36] Worry that the United States would provide similarly weak
support for their Kingdom in a future crisis, for instance if Iran invaded, may drive Saudi Arabia
to build a nuclear arsenal to deter aggression autonomously. This scenario would become more
likely in the future if Iran demonstrates a desire to build nuclear weapons, as Saudi Arabia
would be vulnerable to an aggressive, stronger neighbor without the assurance of U.S. support.
Link Booster – Credibility Key
The US is the key player in Asian security – constant reassurance and
credible commitment to Japan is necessary to prevent their isolation
Schieffer in 08
(J. Thomas, US Ambassador to Japan, Vital Speeches of the Day; Mar2008, Vol. 74 Issue 3,
p115-119)
We must continue to help stabilize so it can sort itself out in a peaceful and prosperous way and at the same time we must nurture
the values that will allow Asia to do it. The United States is indispensable to Asia's future success. We are
the thread that runs through the stability of the region. Asia without an American presence
would be a much more dangerous place, especially northeast Asia. For a variety of reasons, most northeast Asians
have come to depend on the United States to keep peace in the neighborhood. South Korea and Japan depend on us
to check North Korean aggression. Taiwan looks to us to keep the lid on China. China looks to us
to keep the lid on Taiwan. China and South Korea are more comfortable with a Japan allied with
the United States than with a Japan going it alone, isolated from the rest of the world. On the other hand, Japan
feels immeasurably more secure as an ally of the United States when facing both North Korea and a rising China. Japan also believes
a South Korea in alliance with America is less a threat to Japan than a South Korea going it alone. The theme that runs through all of
these relationships is the same. When America is engaged in Asia there is peace in the region. But America
can provide so much more than just stability to Asia. We
can nurture the kind of universal values that will make a difference in
regional order that
promotes cooperation more than confrontation. Right now Asia, particularly northeast Asia, is in a state
of transition. The old order is changing and no one is quite sure how they will fit in when it is over. There has never before
been a time when China and Japan have been great powers at the same time and neither is fully
comfortable with the notion that such a time can work to their mutual benefit. Both view each other with suspicion and
sometimes even fear. The United States can play an enormously beneficial role in reducing those suspicions and intentions if we
individual lives, the values that allow hope to win out over hate and we can help Asians shape a
understand what is causing them. No one wants to see a China or a Japan isolated from the mainstream of the international
community. On the contrary, we recognize the valuable contributions each can make to a peaceful world but we must be careful in
how we pursue both relationships. In my home state of Texas we have an old saying: never trade an old friend for a new friend or
you'll wind up with no friend. If there is a great deal of angst and anxiety in Japan today out of fear that
we might trade that old friendship with Japan for a new friendship with China - I don't think that's
going to happen but we must continually reassure the Japanese that we are friends who understand
the strategic importance of Japan to America.
US-Japan Impact: Middle East War
US-Japan alliance is key to preventing war in the Middle East
Okimoto ‘2
Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of
the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002
[Yukio, “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance,” spring 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2,
http://www.twq.com/02spring/okamoto.pdf]
Recent events have focused international attention on relations between the United States
and Islamic countries, which, with a few exceptions, are strained. Some have suggested that Japan
can become a potential intermediary between the United States and the Muslim world
because of Japan’s close relations with Arab governments, Muslim oil-producing states,
and the nations of Central Asia; its relatively more flexible stance on human rights policies; and the
absence of a strong tie to Israel. Japan can contribute to a U.S.-Islamic dialogue by asserting
its view that vast disparities in income and an inconsistent U.S. commitment to human
rights are impediments to the U.S. goal of stemming the rise of terrorism in the Islamic
world. In recent years, the United States has drifted away from the consensus prevalent in most of the
industrialized world that extreme poverty is a primary driver of terrorism and political violence. The United
States also needs to explain its reluctance to confront the regimes of its friends in the Middle East with the
same human rights standards as those applied to Myanmar, China, or Indonesia.
US-Japan Impact: Spratly Islands
US-Japan alliance is key to prevent war over the Spratly Islands.
Okimoto ‘2
Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of
the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002
[Yukio, “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance,” spring 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2,
http://www.twq.com/02spring/okamoto.pdf]
The Japan-U.S. alliance also probably serves as a deterrent against any one nation seizing
control of the Spratly Islands and, by extension, the sea lanes and resources of the South
China Sea. Formally, the area is outside the Far East region that the United States and Japan agree is
covered by Article 6 of the security treaty. For the countries vying for control of the sea, however, the
proximity of two of the world’s great maritime forces must at least urge them to use
caution as they pursue their competition.
Spratly Conflict goes nuclear
Nikkei 1995
[The Nikkei weekly, Developing Asian nations should be allowed a grace period to allow their
economies to grow before being subjected to trade liberalization demands, says Malaysian Prime
Minister Mahathir Mohamad, July 3, 1995, lexis]
Developing Asian nations should be allowed a grace period to allow their economies to grow before being
subjected to trade liberalization demands, says Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. He
dismisses an argument put forward by some industrialized countries that fair trade can be realized when
trading conditions are the same for all countries. It is not fair when small developing countries are obliged to
compete with Japan and the U.S. under the same conditions, the outspoken champion of Asian interests
insists. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum originated as a loose discussion platform. But it
has become an institution, and agendas are prepared ahead of meetings. However, Mahathir is dissatisfied
with its management, because, he says, group policy is decided by a handful of leading nations. He is also
resentful of some countries' opposition to the Malaysian-proposed East-Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC),
aimed at promoting economic cooperation in the region. The EAEC, which the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) defines as a part of APEC, doesn't stand in opposition to APEC, he says. "The EAEC and APEC
can coexist," he says. The EAEC is just a conference, not a trade bloc like the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAF-TA), he adds. Mahathir has gone to some lengths to bring Japan on board. Without the
world's No. 2 economy, the EAEC will not be taken seriously by the international community, he says. Some
have suggested also sending out invitations to Australia and New Zealand. But in order to join the EAEC, those
two nations should not only just call themselves Asian countries, he says. They should also share values and
culture with their Asian partners, he stresses, because the caucus is a group of Asian countries. Mahathir
strongly opposes the use of weapons to settle international disputes. The prime minister hails the ASEAN
Regional Forum as a means for civilized nations of achieving negotiated settlement of disputes. Many
members of the forum, including Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand, have problems with their
neighbors, but they are trying to solve them through continued dialogue, he adds. Three scenarios Mahathir
sees Asia developing in three possible ways in future. In his worst-case scenario, Asian countries
would go to war against each other, possibly over disputes such as their conflicting claims
on the Spratly Islands. China might then declare war on the U.S., leading to full-scale, even
nuclear, war.
US-Japan Impact: China-Taiwan War
US-Japan alliance is key to preventing China Taiwan war
Okimoto ‘2
Okimoto President of Okamoto Associates and Special Adviser to the Cabinet and Chairman of
the Japanese prime minister's Task Force on Foreign Relations 2002
[Yukio, “Japan and the United States: The Essential Alliance,” spring 2002, Vol. 25, No. 2,
http://www.twq.com/02spring/okamoto.pdf]
Regardless of whether China’s development takes the bright path or the fearful one,
however, reason for concern exists on one issue: the resolution of the status of Taiwan.
Chinese citizens from all walks of life have an attachment to the reunification of Taiwan
and the mainland that transcends reason. The U.S.-Japan alliance represents a significant
hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan problem. Both Japan and the United States
have clearly stated that they oppose reunification by force . When China conducted provocative
missile tests in the waters around Taiwan in 1996, the United States sent two aircraft carrier groups into
nearby waters as a sign of its disapproval of China’s belligerent act. Japan seconded the U.S. action, raising in
Chinese minds the possibility that Japan might offer logistical and other support to its ally in the event of
hostilities. Even though intervention is only a possibility, a strong and close tie between
Japanese and U.S. security interests guarantees that the Chinese leadership cannot afford
to miscalculate the consequences of an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. The alliance backs
up Japan’s basic stance that the two sides need to come to a negotiated solution.
US-Japan Impact: Prolif Internals
US security credibility is vital to prevent alliance collapse and
proliferation
Campbell and Sunohara 4
Kurt, PhD, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of the Center for a New American Security,
Tsuyoshi, Senior Fellow at the International Security Program of the Center for Strategic &
International Studies, The Nuclear Tipping Point, pg. 236
Although the credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrence guarantee has never been tested (in the form of actual nuclear use) in the
case of Japan, or any other country, it continues to lie at the heart of the security rela- tionship between
the United States and Japan. Indeed, the guarantee, and the japanese-American security alliance
in which it is embedded, pro- vides the most important reason why Japan has not sought to
develop an independent nuclear weapons capacity. Thanks to their continued faith in American
foreign and security policy, Successive Japanese administra- tions have refrained from fully
developing the military potential corn- monly associated with a "normal" state (that is, having
the potential to wage war for both offensive and defensive purposes).
Collapse of US security credibility leads to Japanese prolif
Campbell and Sunohara 4
Kurt, PhD, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder of the Center for a New American Security,
Tsuyoshi, Senior Fellow at the International Security Program of the Center for Strategic &
International Studies, The Nuclear Tipping Point, pg. 238
Some of Japan's most able and influential diplomats will privately complain that they have been
treated like a second-class nation in the international arena, mainly because japan does nor have an "ultimate
power" (that is, nuclear weapons). Some Ministry of Foreign Affairs offi- cials confess they experience this treatment most
strongly when U.S. offi- cials exclude them from important decislonmaking processes. While
most officials inside the ministry strongly uphold the importance of the U.S.-japan alliance,
some diplomats fear that the day will come when Japan can no longer rely on the United States,
and they want japan to be prepared to defend its interests in that eventuality. The arguments of certain
advocates of an independent japanese nuclear weapons capacity resemble those employed by some
West Europeans during the cold war, After the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear weapons
and the means to deliver them against the American homeland, many European strategists came
to doubt the credibility of the U.S. extended nuclear deterrence guarantee that lay at the foundation of the
NATO alliance. They feared that the only way to avert a "decou- piing" of America's and Europe's defense was for Western European
countries to develop an independent nuclear capacity. These concerns played an important role in prompting Britain and later
France to develop their own independent nuclear arsenals and induced U.S. leaders to take measures to enhance NATO's
involvement in America's nuclear weapons policies. They also prompted the United States to deploy American inter- mediate-range
nuclear forces in West Germany, Britain, and Italy. For reasons similar to those of their European
counterparts, some Japanese have doubted the United States would risk New York for Tokyo.
Kumao Kaneko, former director of the Nuclear Energy Division of the Foreign Ministry, has written that the "United States would
be highly unlikely to use its nuclear arms to defend Japan unless American forces in Japan were exposed to extreme danger."
Naval readiness key to Ukraine crisis
US Navy exercises key to maintaining stability
Howard 13
Jason Howard-Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class, Exercise Sea Breeze 2013 Begins in
Ukraine, 7/9/2013, http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=75275
Exercise Sea Breeze, the largest multinational maritime exercise in the Black Sea, began July 8, as representatives from the 16
participating and observing nations gathered together for the exercise's opening ceremony. ¶ Air, land and naval forces from
participating countries will work together both ashore and at sea from July 8-20 in order to strengthen
interoperability and improve maritime security. ¶ Leaders from the Ukraine and U.S., who are
co-hosting the exercise for what will be a 16th iteration, shared sentiments about the progress of both the
exercise and maritime security in the Black Sea that have occurred since the exercise's
inception.¶ "Peace and stability in this region is highly important to us, and increasing
cooperation between the nations involved is the key to maintaining peace and stability," said Rear
Adm. Dennis Berezovsky, Ukrainian deputy director, in remarks at the opening ceremony.¶ Much of the exercise will focus on
maritime interdiction operations as a primary means to enhance maritime security. The other key component is utilizing sea-basing
to conduct a range of operations ashore such as non-combatant evacuation to humanitarian assistance/disaster relief.¶ The aim of
the exercise, as expressed by those at the opening ceremony, is that by practicing these necessary skill sets, it will bring navies
operating in the Black Sea closer together and ultimately increase stability in the region. ¶ "Our
partnership and collaboration has led to increased interoperability and enhanced security," said
U.S. Navy Capt. James Aiken, deputy exercise director, who spoke alongside his Ukraine counterparts at the opening ceremony. "As
we build upon lessons learned in past exercises, Sea Breeze has developed a robust and challenging agenda that will develop strong
relationships to enhance maritime security and stability."¶ This year's participants include Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, Georgia,
Germany, Italy, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine and U.S., along with France, Germany, Libya, Lithuania, Qatar, and United Arab
Emirates, as observers.¶ Sea Breeze 2013, an annual multinational exercise in the Black Sea, is a combined
air, land and maritime exercise designed
to improve maritime safety, security and stability in the Black
Sea by enhancing the capabilities of Partnership for Peace and Black Sea regional maritime
security forces.
Naval readiness key to SLOCs
US Naval Readiness key to protecting sea lanes/SLOCs
Titley and Freeman 12
David Titley- Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance, Robert S.
Freeman-works for the Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy, MAR 23 2012, http://www.eir.info/2012/03/23/the-u-s-navy-navigating-through-a-changing-climate/
As a globally-distributed force, the U.S. Navy may be the first military service to fully experience the impacts of climate change.
Despite the decade-long focus on terrorism, the requirement for a global naval presence has never gone away. The security,
prosperity, and vital interests of all nations are best served by fostering a peaceful global system of networked trade, finance,
information, law, and governance. Protecting the intersection of sea lanes, resources and vital U.S.
interests is one of the U.S. Navy’s core responsibilities. Over 90 percent (by volume) of global
trade and two thirds of the world’s petroleum supply is conveyed by sea[3], and the U.S. Navy is
committed to ensuring the sea lanes remain open for commerce. In conjunction with our
international partners, we strive to protect the maritime freedom that is the basis of global
prosperity. Seapower protects our way of life.
leadership in determining what investments will be needed to meet future mission requirements," Titley explained.
Naval readiness key to SLOC protection and dampens conflicts
Sweijis et al 10
Tim Sweijs, Willem Cleven, Mira Levi, Joelle Tabak, Zinzi Speear, Jeroen de Jonge, The
Maritime Future of the Indian Ocean, The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, 2010,
http://www.hcss.nl/reports/the-maritime-future-of-the-indian-ocean-putting-the-g-back-intogreat-power-politics/4/
Maritime Ambitions¶ The maritime strategies of the major players form an important starting point ¶ for predicting the future
presence of maritime assets in the Indian Ocean, as ¶ they explicitly state each country’s ambitions and intentions with regard to its
maritime capabilities. Of the three major players, India is the most vocal in its ¶ ambitions. In its maritime strategy, India
states explicitly that it will strive to ¶ ensure the safety of the Ocean’s SLOCs:¶ ‘Our strategy
recognizes that the sea lines of communication passing through our ¶ region are critical for our
economic growth and to the global community. Smaller ¶ nations in our neighbourhood as well as nations that
depend on the waters of the ¶ Indian Ocean for their trade and energy supplies have come to expect that the Indian ¶ Navy will
ensure a measure of stability and tranquility in the waters around our ¶ shores.’40 ¶ The US demonstrates a similar
commitment to the protection of SLOCs and ¶ strategic interests. The US maritime strategy A
Cooperative Strategy for 21st ¶ Century Seapower of 2007 emphasizes naval cooperation with regional partners.
¶ It describes the US Navy as ‘a force for good, protecting this Nation’s vital ¶ interests even as it
joins with others to promote security and prosperity across ¶ the globe.’41 It also plans to
maintain a forward force, however, specifically ¶ designed to dissuade potential challengers to
the US and its allies:¶ ‘Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the Western Pacific and the ¶ Arabian
Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our friends and allies ¶ of our continuing commitment to regional security,
and deter and dissuade potential ¶ adversaries and peer competitors.’
Arctic Readiness Key
US Naval Readiness Key to Taking Advantage of Increasing Arctic
Opportunities
Freeman ‘9
Bob Freeman- Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy, Navy Releases Roadmap for Future
Arctic Operations, America’s Navy, 11/24/2009
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=49725
The vice chief of naval operations has released a new roadmap that will guide Navy policy, strategy and investments related to a
changing Arctic. ¶ The Arctic roadmap was developed by the Navy's Task Force Climate Change, a matrixed organization that
includes representatives from various staff and program offices and the operational fleet, with the collaboration of the U.S. Coast
Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.¶ "As the Arctic Ocean continues to show a long-
term trend in sea ice decline, the potential for increased human access and activity in the region
will some day likely require a greater Navy presence there to protect national interests ," said Rear
Adm. Dave Titley, oceanographer of the Navy, who is leading the task force. ¶ Although the Arctic remains a challenging
environment, the potential for resource extraction, like oil, gas, and minerals, and the attraction of significantly shorter shipping
routes, will likely attract commercial interests.¶ With more than a thousand miles of coastline and potential sovereign rights to
several hundred thousand square miles of ocean area in the Arctic, the U.S. has a strong national security and homeland defense
interest in the region. A presidential memorandum signed by in January 2009 tasks the Department of Defense to "project a
sovereign maritime presence" in the Arctic.¶ The goal of the roadmap is to ensure naval readiness and
capability and promote maritime security in the Arctic region. Key elements of the plan include
increasing operational experience, promoting cooperative partnerships and improving
environmental understanding. ¶ Recommendations from the roadmap include an assessment of
Navy readiness for operating under harsh Arctic conditions, with a methodical review of current
capabilities and gaps; the continuation of Arctic and sub-Arctic training exercises, including
joint search and rescue, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercises with the Coast
Guard; and investments in sensors and platforms to expand awareness of the Arctic maritime
domain, including more robust environmental sensors to support enhanced modeling that will
lead to better predictive capabilities.¶ "We are using a timeline based on the best science available to assist Navy
SLOCs Brinks
High risk of SLOC closure
Komiss/Huntzinger ‘11
(William Komiss PhD, is a senior research scientist at CAN, and the Scientific Analyst for
Director, Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, US Navy. LaVar Huntzinger is military
and environmental analysis for CNA [“The Economic Implications of Disruptions to Maritime
Oil Chokepoints,” CNA (Center for Naval Analysis), March 2011.
Online@http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/the%20economic%20implications%2
0of%20disruptions%20to%20maritime%20oil%20chokepoints%20d0024669%20a1.pdf SM]
This section describes the six chokepoints that are most important to world oil trade. Our key findings are described below: • Due
to the volume of oil that passes through them, the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca are
by far the most crucial chokepoints to world oil trade. They are, therefore, subject to risk from
instability. • All six oil chokepoints are in close proximity to countries that economists regard as
developing, rather than developed. In this section, we highlight current threats to oil chokepoints. These include the following: •
The Strait of Hormuz is the only chokepoint under a direct threat of closure by a nation within the chokepoint’s
region.
SLOCs: Hormuz Oil Shocks
Oil Market Stretched Thin Now—Hormuz Shutdown Create Massive
Shocks
The Economist ‘12
The new grease? How to assess the risks of a 2012 oil shock Mar 10th 2012
http://www.economist.com/node/21549949
But slightly rosier growth prospects are only part of the story. A more important driver of
dearer oil has been disruptions in supply. All told, the oil market has probably lost
more than 1m barrels a day (b/d) of supply in recent months. A variety of nonIranian troubles, from a pipeline dispute with South Sudan to mechanical problems
in the North Sea, have knocked some 700,000 b/d off supply. Another 500,000 b/d
or so of Iranian oil is temporarily off the market thanks both to the effects of European
sanctions and a payment dispute with China. The cushion of spare supply is thin. Oil stocks
in rich countries are at a five-year low. The extent of OPEC’s spare capacity is uncertain.
Saudi Arabia is pumping some 10m b/d, a near-record high (see chart 1). And there is the
threat of far bigger supply disruptions if Iran were ever to carry out its threat to
close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 17m barrels of oil pass every day, some
20% of global supply. Even a temporary closure would imply a disruption to dwarf
any previous oil shock. The 1973 Arab oil embargo, for instance, involved less than 5m b/d.
SLOC closure: Natural disasters
Natural disasters and piracy threaten middle eastern sea-lines
Henry et al 12
[Ryan is a senior fellow for RAND specializing in defense policy, Christine Osowski is a strategy
analyst for the US navy, Peter Chalk is a senior political scientist at RAND, and James Bartis is a
senior policy analyst specializing in energy for RAND. “Promoting International ¶ Energy
Security¶ Volume 3, Sea-Lanes to Asia” The RAND Corporation. 2012.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1144z3.pdf]
RLY
The most basic type of nonstate threat to energy flows is the disruption caused by natural ¶ events,
such as volcanic and seismic activity, tsunamis, and cyclones, all of which are prevalent ¶ in the Indian Ocean and
Southeast Asia. The Bay of Bengal, similar to other regional seas, experiences cyclones as often as two to four times per year
(Khurana, 2006, p. 98). Earthquakes are also common and particularly dangerous because they can set off tsunamis, as ¶ occurred in the
Indian Ocean on December 26, 2004, when an earthquake and tsunami killed ¶ over 225,000 people.¶
Natural events are most
likely to disrupt the transfer of energy at port terminals and operations at coastal refineries but are
less of a problem for energy tankers at sea during the event. ¶ While natural disasters can seriously damage coastal
infrastructure, the effects of these events ¶ on regional energy flows is limited by the availability of alternative facilities.¶ Piracy¶ Piracy
is endemic and a growing problem across the Indian Ocean from the coast of Somalia ¶ through the
Malacca Strait. In Southeast Asia, the main trouble spots are the waters around ¶ the Indonesian archipelago and
the South China Sea. Activity in the Malacca Strait, for many ¶ years the most active piracy corridor, has declined markedly in the
past, primarily as a result ¶ of increasingly frequent and effective joint and aerial patrols in the region. In 2009, a total of ¶ 45 actual and
attempted attacks were recorded in Southeast Asia, with Indonesia accounting ¶ for one-third of these incidents; in contrast, only two
incidents occurred in the Malacca Strait ¶ (International Maritime Bureau, 2010, p. 5). Table 2.1 lays out the typical types and settings ¶ for
attacks. Most
acts of robbery and piracy in Southeast Asia take the form of port thefts or ¶ the
ransacking of vessels (either in territorial waters or on the high seas). Attacks tend to have ¶ elements of violence associated with
them, including on the high seas, with crew members ¶ known to be shot or thrown overboard. In such instances, ships are usually left to
drift, which ¶ has significant implications for the safety of maritime navigation in heavily congested sea-lanes ¶ (Chalk, 2008, pp. 5–6).1
SLOC closure: Terrorism
Terrorism affects shipping through the Indian Ocean
Henry et al 12
[Ryan is a senior fellow for RAND specializing in defense policy, Christine Osowski is a strategy
analyst for the US navy, Peter Chalk is a senior political scientist at RAND, and James Bartis is a
senior policy analyst specializing in energy for RAND. “Promoting International ¶ Energy
Security¶ Volume 3, Sea-Lanes to Asia” The RAND Corporation. 2012.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1144z3.pdf]
RLY
Another nonstate threat to energy security is terrorism (see also Chalk, 2010). Terrorists could ¶ be
drawn to tankers and energy infrastructure both for their symbolic value and for the potential for the
disruption to have a negative global economic effect (in the form of higher oil ¶ prices).¶ The Indian
Ocean and contiguous waters have witnessed several actual or attempted acts ¶ of terrorism in the
since 2000. Prominent examples include the suicide bombing of the very ¶ large crude carrier MV
Limburg (2002), attacks on the Khor al-Amaya and al-Basra oil terminals in Iraq (2004), the planned
strikes on underwater gas lines running between Israel and ¶ Egypt (2009), and a plot to target
Western ships transiting the Suez Canal (2009).5¶ In May ¶ 2009, al-Qaeda issued a global
communiqué exhorting jihadists to attack oil production and ¶ processing sites as part of a wider
economic war against the West (International Institute for ¶ Counter-Terrorism, 2009, p. 8). This call
to arms was seen to be particularly relevant to the ¶ Indian Ocean, given its importance as an
international maritime corridor carrying over onefifth of the world’s energy supplies (Laipson, 2009).
Most recently, in July 2010, a Japanese owned oil tanker was damaged in the Hormuz Strait in what is
believed to have been a terrorist ¶ attack; the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, a group affiliated with alQaeda, claimed responsibility ¶ (Watkins, 2010).
SLOC closure: Rogue states
Failed and rogue states will close SLOCs
Henry et al 12
[Ryan is a senior fellow for RAND specializing in defense policy, Christine Osowski is a strategy
analyst for the US navy, Peter Chalk is a senior political scientist at RAND, and James Bartis is a
senior policy analyst specializing in energy for RAND. “Promoting International ¶ Energy
Security¶ Volume 3, Sea-Lanes to Asia” The RAND Corporation. 2012.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1144z3.pdf]
RLY
Tier II threats involve many of the same tactics nonstate actors use. The existence of failed ¶ states increases the
opportunity for piracy and terrorism, while rogue states may attempt to use ¶ these and other
methods to disrupt energy distribution for their own objectives. While neither ¶ failed nor rogue states currently
exist within the region of interest, the potential for various ¶ states to transition to rogue status cannot be ignored. Within the region,
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Thailand have all experienced unrest recently and are not yet free of
the ¶ risk of further destabilization. Both Pakistan and Burma have also been referred to as being ¶ among “the
least stable countries in the world” (Kaplan, 2010a, p. 180).¶ Failed states and their attendant ungoverned
spaces can serve as safe havens and operational bases for criminals and terrorists. A RAND conference on
piracy highlighted the roles ¶ governance and society play in enabling piracy. Chalk, Smallman, and Burger, 2009, p. xi, ¶ cites three main
enabling factors:¶ • governance—to include that of the coastal society and maritime domain¶ • economics—how financial considerations,
costs, and possibly profit affect the use of the ¶ sea and the coastal societies¶ • society—the extent to which a perturbed coastal society
allows exploitation of disorder ¶ to its immediate maritime domain.¶ The same conditions also make a country a more attractive to
terrorists. Somalia
is a prime ¶ example of how a failed state can challenge sea-lane security by being
used as a base for criminal operations. As long as there is no effective government in Somalia, the ability to counter ¶ the
menagerie of gangs that currently plough the seas off the Horn of Africa will be minimal. ¶ Further, the availability of enabling technologies
and the target-rich environment the commerce of a globalized world present act as accelerants to the pirates’ desire to establish havens.¶
A state in the process of failing may also pose a threat to sea-lanes. For example, in a ¶ country that is
unstable because of a civil conflict, a separatist group could use small boats ¶ to disrupt trade or
harass ships in an effort to pressure the government in power to meet its ¶ demands.¶ Rogue states,
which do not subscribe to international laws and norms, can also endanger sea-lanes. Throughout history, there have
been instances of state-sanctioned piracy, with ¶ the Barbary pirates perhaps being the most notable example. Just as such countries as
states could similarly sponsor
terrorist activity at sea. Rogue states could also employ conventional military power to disrupt shipping. Such actions could be
Iran ¶ and Syria have supported such groups as Hezbollah to advance their own political objectives, ¶
used in an effort to influence ¶ developments in the region or as a way of imposing penalties against a block of states working ¶ against the
rogue. Iran’s
war games in April 2010 highlight the type of tactical threat rogue ¶ regimes could pose to
international shipping. Held in the Persian Gulf and Hormuz Strait, the ¶ “Great Prophet 5 Naval Maneuvers” included having small,
high-speed boats of the forces of ¶ the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps swarm, seize, and destroy a hypothetical enemy warship ¶ (“IRGS
Conducts Drills . . . ,” 2010).
Oil Shocks Coming Now—SLOC Attacks
Bettinger ‘10
Mark Bettinger is Director of Sierra Club’s Federal and International Climate Campaign. Dr.
Bernard Finel is Director of Research and Senior Fellow at the American Security Project. Ann
Mesnikoff is the Director of Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign. Jesse Prentice-Dunn
is a Washington Representative with Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign. Lindsey
Ross is a research associate for climate security at ASP. Ending our Dependence on Oil A M E R
I C A N S E C U R I T Y P R O J E C T S I E R R A C L U B. M A Y 2 7 , 2010,
http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ending-our-Dependence-onOil.pdf
There are a variety of choke points though which vessels must travel, providing
many countries with the opportunity to attack, and have the capacity to harm our
ships. More than 50 states possess large stockpiles of anti-ship missiles. 14
Lebanon’s Hezbollah, a terrorist group, employed such weapons against Israel in 2006. 15
Iranian missiles threaten nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil transit vessels which
travel through the 21 mile-wide Strait of Hormuz. 16 The same percentage of petroleum
travels the 1.7 milewide Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia. The Strait of Malacca
is not only under a constant threat from militants and pirates, but many ships fall victim to poor
visibility causing numerous collisions and near misses that threaten environmentally disastrous
spills. 17 Terrorists are also suspected of targeting the Turkish Straits, Bad El-Mandeb, and the
Panama Canal. Bad El-Mandeb, a narrow strait between Yemen and the Horn of Africa, has
been the site of successful attacks on oil freight both against the Americans and French in the
recent past
SLOC Closure: Hormuz
High risk Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, leading to war
Flynn 12
(Phil Flynn is senior energy analyst at The PRICE Futures Group and a Fox Business Network
contributor. He is one of the world's leading market analysts, providing individual investors,
professional traders, and institutions with up-to-the-minute investment and risk management
insight into global petroleum, gasoline, and energy markets.)
http://www.futuresmag.com/2012/02/23/oil-supply-risks-rise-with-middle-east-instability
We can point to many reasons oil may have rallied over recent weeks, but none so compelling and disturbing as the possible path to
war. Now some may call this “speculation,” but the reality is the risk of war is rising and the risk of losing oil
supply is too. This is not just a fear play, though there is fear involved with Europe declaring an
oil embargo on Iran and Iran putting an embargo on exports to France and the United Kingdom.
The main reason oil is preparing for war is Iran's refusal to talk about its nuclear weapons
program, so the odds of conflict continue to rise. Countries across the globe, mainly in Europe and Asia, are
making purchases of oil to put away for the day that oil from Iran may no longer flow.¶ There is fear that Iran, with the
help of perhaps another twisted regime, may try to close the Strait of Hormuz that is located between
Oman and Iran, as almost everyone now knows. If you do not, the Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman
and the Arabian Sea. Hormuz, according to the U.S. government, is the world's most important oil chokepoint
due to its daily oil flow of almost 17 million barrels in 2011, up from between 15.5-16.0 million
barrels per day in 2009-2010. Flows through the Strait in 2011 were roughly 35% of all seaborne
traded oil, or almost 20% of oil traded worldwide.
Hormuz Shutdown Create Massive Shocks
The Economist ‘12
The new grease? How to assess the risks of a 2012 oil shock Mar 10th 2012
http://www.economist.com/node/21549949
But slightly rosier growth prospects are only part of the story. A more important driver of dearer
oil has been disruptions in supply. All told, the oil market has probably lost more than
1m barrels a day (b/d) of supply in recent months. A variety of non-Iranian troubles,
from a pipeline dispute with South Sudan to mechanical problems in the North
Sea, have knocked some 700,000 b/d off supply. Another 500,000 b/d or so of
Iranian oil is temporarily off the market thanks both to the effects of European sanctions
and a payment dispute with China. The cushion of spare supply is thin. Oil stocks in rich
countries are at a five-year low. The extent of OPEC’s spare capacity is uncertain. Saudi
Arabia is pumping some 10m b/d, a near-record high (see chart 1). And there is the threat of
far bigger supply disruptions if Iran were ever to carry out its threat to close the
Strait of Hormuz, through which 17m barrels of oil pass every day, some 20% of
global supply. Even a temporary closure would imply a disruption to dwarf any
previous oil shock. The 1973 Arab oil embargo, for instance, involved less than 5m b/d.
SLOC Shock  War
Oil dependence forces US intervention when Middle Eastern conflicts
block oil transport and that goes nuclear
Charles Glaser 2011 (Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School
of International Affairs The George Washington University, “Reframing Energy Security: How
Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security”)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CF8QFjAA&url
=http%3A%2F%2Fdepts.washington.edu%2Fpolsadvc%2FBlog%2520Links%2FGlaser__EnergySecurity-AUGUST2011.docx&ei=Wf0qUPXYGIrc9ASht4GYDQ&usg=AFQjCNHTus7nNaD7coupoSU7c3LGSu7tg&sig2=Xt_iWePfWtNRvDmeYR1Hlw&cad=rja
Energy dependence could draw the United States into a conflict in which a regional power was
interrupting, or threatening to interrupt, the flow of oil. The economic costs of a disruption would determine
whether the costs of fighting were justified. Similarly, the potential economic costs of a disruption would determine whether U.S.
foreign and military policy should be devoted to deterring states from interrupting the flow of oil; more precisely, these economic
costs would determine how much the United States should invest in the policies required for deterrence. ¶ Given the geographical
distribution of oil, such a conflict would likely occur in the Persian Gulf. The greatest danger is
probably posed by Iran—the Iraq War has greatly increased Iran’s power relative to Iraq, and Iran is acquiring
improved missile capabilities and making progress toward having the capability to build nuclear
weapons. The most disruptive Iranian action would be closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through
which the vast majority of Persian Gulf oil must pass. Having identified the danger posed by
dependence on oil that transits this strait (as well as the Strait of Malacca), a recent Council on Foreign
Relations study concluded that the “United States should take the lead in building an
infrastructure protection program that would be based on practical steps by relevant countries
and address critical infrastructures and transit routes. Initial efforts should focus on joint planning, technical
assistance, and military exercises, especially involving naval units operating near ports or along critical sea-lanes.” ¶ Although
difficult to estimate the probability that Iran would attempt to close the strait, analysts have offered reasons for expecting the
probability to be quite low: Iran would lose the oil revenue from its own exports; and Iran would likely be deterred by the probable
costs of U.S. intervention, which could include the destruction of key military bases and occupation of some of its territory. Because
so much oil flows through the strait, the United States would almost certainly respond to keep it open. ¶ Nevertheless, there are
plausible scenarios in which Iran blocks the strait, for example, as retaliation for an attack against is
nuclear weapons program or as a coercive measure if losing a conventional war. Careful analysis
suggests that the United States would prevail, but that a successful campaign could take many weeks or more,
and that oil prices would increase significantly during this period. ¶ Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons
would increase the risk of this scenario in two basic ways. First, Iran might believe that the
possibility of escalation to nuclear weapons would deter the United States from responding,
making Iran more willing to interrupt tanker traffic. Although basic deterrence logic says this calculation points in the correct
direction, the United States might nevertheless intervene. The United States would question Iran’s willingness to
escalate to nuclear use because America’s far larger and more capable nuclear forces would pose a formidable retaliatory threat. In
addition, the United States would have incentives to make clear that possession of a small number of nuclear weapons by a much
weaker state would not deter the United States from using conventional weapons in a limited war. Being deterred by the Iranian
nuclear force would suggest that small nuclear arsenals provide tremendous potential for launching conventional aggression. As
Barry Posen argued in a related context (the counterfactual case in which Iraq possessed nuclear weapons before deciding to invade
Kuwait), “If the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait is permitted to stand, nuclear weapons will come to be viewed as a shield that protects
conventional conquests from any challenger, including a great power heavily armed with its own nuclear weapons.” Consequently,
the United States would have incentives to respond to Iranian aggression both to preserve its ability to deter conventional aggression
by small nuclear states and to support its nonproliferation policy. ¶ Second, once a conventional conflict occurred,
there would be the danger that U.S. conventional operations could increase the probability
nuclear war. A number of paths are possible. The U.S. mine clearing operation required to open the strait would likely be
accompanied by attacks against land-based Iranian targets. The United States would want to destroy the land-based anti-ship cruise
missiles that Iran could use to threaten U.S. mine clearing ships; in addition, the United States would want to destroy Iranian air
defenses that could be used to protect these missiles. These U.S. strikes would require large numbers of carrier-based aircraft flying
sorties over a period of a few weeks or more. If Iran lacked confidence that U.S. aims were limited, it could feel compelled to put its
nuclear forces on alert to increase their survivability, which would increase the probability of accidental or unauthorized nuclear
attack. The United States could then have incentives to attack Iran’s nuclear force, either preemptively because it believed Iran was
preparing to launch an attack or preventively because it faced a closing window of opportunity after which Iran’s nuclear forces
would be survivable. A more subtle danger is the possibility of inadvertent nuclear escalation resulting from
a situation in which Iranian leaders decide to escalate because they believe, incorrectly, that the
United States has decided to destroy their nuclear force (or ability to launch it). U.S. conventional operations
could create this danger by destroying Iranian radars, and command and control systems, leaving Iranian leaders unable to assess
the U.S. conventional campaign and fearing that the United States was preparing to launch a full-scale invasion or a conventional
attack against their nuclear forces.
Airpower: Dampens Conflicts
U.S. air power k2 maintaining peace
Jonathan Adam Rice, Dissertation at FSU, 2010,
http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4454&context=etd
U.S. air forces have played a vital role in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions since the end
of World War II. These operations subsequently surged following the collapse of the Soviet Union. From simple airlifts
to complex satellite reconnaissance, the technologically sophisticated U.S. air and space assets
responded rapidly to deliver humanitarian aid, monitor potential crises, and prevent them from
escalating. How does the United States use its unique airpower strength to fulfill its peacekeeping mission? Peacekeeping and
humanitarian aid operations can only be broadly defined. Indeed, the very nature of humanitarian aid changed after the Cold War.
Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, many humanitarian missions were often conducted explicitly to prevent Communist
expansion. Though the need to prevent such expansion waned following the end of the Cold War, the efforts to maintain peace did
not; in fact, they increased. Thus although the nature of the operations themselves remained the same, their purpose changed
drastically. The notion that the terms “peacekeeping” and “humanitarian aid” carry with them a hint of altruism complicates their
analysis. Of course, this is not the case; no nation offers support to another without at least a modicum of self-interest. This was
especially true following the end of the Cold War, when both the Clinton and Bush administrations
realized the national security implications inherent in supporting UN peacekeeping efforts.
Despite inherent complications, airpower is making vital contributions to these increasingly important operations. U.S.
contributions to peace operations are based more on technology in the skies than on boots on
the ground. As historian Rachel Utley has noted, “The American predilection for seeking swift military outcomes seemed at odds
with the UN penchant for negotiation and seeking consensus.” With the U.S. contributing a significant amount of intelligence,
transport, logistics, and support, and with other nations providing the majority of the ground forces, America did not need to—as
former advisor to the George W. Bush campaign John Hillens describes it—”do windows”: Only one NATO ally has the
stealth technology, precision munitions, large aircraft carriers, strategic airlift, satellites, largescale deployable logistics packages, etc. Yet, at the same time, there are many nations with
experienced peacekeepers, paramilitary police, civilian reconstruction experts and the like. Why
dull the one true sword by using it along with the other ploughs? History supports this rather brutal honesty. For example,
peacekeeping operations represent just nine percent of all USAF military operations other than war during 1989 but consumed 90
percent of the USAF sorties flown in such operations. In short, ¶ when the USAF participates in these operations, it commits heavily.
As Air Force Lt. ¶ Col. Brooks Bash notes, there is an ulterior motive to this type of commitment: “the ¶ commitment of
airpower acts as a political statement that signals a higher level of U.S. ¶ commitment to the
world community, adds credibility to UN peacekeeping, and has the ¶ added benefit of
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of peacekeeping ¶ operations.” Still, as much as the UN needs
the United States and its valuable ¶ technology, the U.S. needs the UN as its “proxy, its collaborator, and its mantle of ¶ legitimacy.”
Readiness key to terrorism
US Naval Readiness key to Global War on Terror
Webb No Date
Brandon Webb, Navy SEALs, SOFREP (Special Operations Forces Situation Report),
http://sofrep.com/navy-seals/
Naval Special Warfare has played a significant role in Operation Iraqi Freedom, employing the
largest number of SEALs and SWCC in its history. NSW forces were instrumental in numerous
special reconnaissance and direct action missions, including the securing of the southern oil infrastructures of the
Al Faw peninsula and the off-shore gas and oil terminals, the clearing of the Khawr Abd Allah and Khawr Az Zubayr waterways that
enabled humanitarian aid to be delivered to the vital port city of Umm Qasr, reconnaissance of the Shat Al Arab waterway, capture of
high value targets, raids on suspected chemical, biological and radiological sites, and the first POW rescue since WWII. Additionally,
NSW is also fighting the war on terrorism in other global hot spots including the Philippines and
the Horn of Africa. NSW is committed to combating the global terrorist threats. In addition to
being experts in special reconnaissance and direct action missions, the skill sets needed to
combat terrorism, NSW is postured to fight a dispersed enemy on their turf. NSW forces can
operate from forward-deployed Navy ships, submarines and aviation mobility platforms, as well
as overseas bases and its own overseas units.
US Navy Key to Counter-Terrorism Activities- bin Laden and Global
Maritime Partnership
O’Rourke 14
Ronald O'Rourke- Specialist in Naval Affairs, Navy Irregular Warfare and Counterterrorism
Operations: Background and Issues for Congress, June 5, 2014
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fSrkFvRw_9EJ:www.hsdl.org/%3Fvie
w%26did%3D754462+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The Navy for several years has carried out a variety of irregular warfare (IW) and counterterrorism (CT)
activities. Among the most readily visible of the Navy’s recent IW operations have been those carried out by Navy sailors serving
ashore in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of the Navy’s contributions to IW operations around the world are made by Navy individual
augmentees (IAs)—individual Navy sailors assigned to various Department of Defense(DOD) operations. The May 1-2, 2011, U.S.
military operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Osama bin Laden reportedly was carried
out by a team of 23 Navy special operations forces, known as SEALs (an acronym standing for Sea, Air, and Land). The
SEALs reportedly belonged to an elite unit known unofficially as Seal Team 6 and officially as the Naval Special Warfare
Development Group(DEVGRU). The Navy established the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) informally in
October2005 and formally in January 2006. NECC consolidated and facilitated the expansion of a number of Navy organizations
that have a role in IW operations. The Navy established the Navy Irregular Warfare Office in July 2008, published a vision statement
for irregular warfare in January 2010, and established “a community of interest” to develop and advance ideas, collaboration, and
advocacy related to IW in December 2010.The Navy’s riverine force is intended to supplement the riverine capabilities of the Navy’s
SEALs and relieve Marines who had been conducting maritime security operations in ports and waterways in Iraq. The Global
Maritime Partnership is a U.S. Navy initiative to achieve an enhanced degree of cooperation
between the U.S. Navy and foreign navies, coast guards, and maritime police forces, for the
purpose of ensuring global maritime security against common threats.
Navy key to force projection
Naval power key internal link to US power projection capabilities
England et al, Former Secretary of Navy, ’11 (Gordon England, James Jones- Former
Commandant Marine
Corps, and Vern Clark- Former Chief of Navy Operations, July 11, “The Necessity of U.S. Naval
Power” http://gcaptain.com/necessity-u-s-naval-power?27784)
The future security environment underscores two broad security trends. First, international political realities and the
internationally ¶ agreed-to sovereign rights of nations will increasingly limit the sustained involvement of American ¶
permanent land-based, heavy forces to the more extreme crises. This will make offshore options for
deterrence ¶ and power projection ever more paramount in support of our national interests. Second, the
naval ¶ dimensions of American power will re-emerge as the primary means for assuring our
allies and ¶ partners, ensuring prosperity in times of peace, and countering anti-access, area-denial efforts in ¶ times of crisis.
We do not believe these trends will require the dismantling of land-based forces, as these forces will remain essential reservoirs of
power. As the United States has ¶ learned time and again, once a crisis becomes a conflict, it is impossible to predict with certainty its
depth, duration and cost. That said, the U.S. has been shrinking ¶ its overseas land-based installations, so
the ability to project power globally will make the forward ¶ presence of naval forces an even
more essential dimension of American influence. What we do believe is that ¶ uniquely responsive NavyMarine Corps capabilities provide the basis on which our most vital ¶ overseas interests are
safeguarded. Forward presence and engagement is what allows the U.S. to ¶ maintain awareness, to deter
aggression, and to quickly respond to threats as they arise. Though we clearly must ¶ be prepared for the high-end
threats, such preparation should be made in balance with the means necessary to avoid escalation to the high end in the first place.
The versatility ¶ of maritime forces provides a truly unmatched advantage. The sea remains a
vast space that provides ¶ nearly unlimited freedom of maneuver.
Naval readiness vital to hegemony and solves great power war
England et al, Former Secretary of Navy, ’11 (Gordon England, James Jones- Former
Commandant Marine
Corps, and Vern Clark- Former Chief of Navy Operations, July 11, “The Necessity of U.S. Naval
Power” http://gcaptain.com/necessity-u-s-naval-power?27784)
Command of the sea allows for the presence of our naval ¶ forces, supported from a network of shore
facilities, to be adjusted and scaled with little external ¶ restraint. It permits reliance on proven capabilities such
as prepositioned ships. Maritime capabilities ¶ encourage and enable cooperation with other nations to
solve common sea-based problems such as ¶ piracy, illegal trafficking, proliferation of W.M.D.,
and a host of other ills, which if unchecked can harm ¶ our friends and interests abroad, and our own citizenry at home.
The flexibility and responsiveness of ¶ naval forces provide our country with a general strategic
deterrent in a potentially violent and ¶ unstable world. Most importantly, our naval forces project and sustain
power at sea and ashore at the time, ¶ place, duration, and intensity of our choosing. Given these enduring qualities, tough
choices must clearly be made, especially in light of expected tight ¶ defense budgets. The administration and the Congress need to
balance the resources allocated to missions such as strategic deterrence, ballistic missile defense, and cyber warfare with the ¶ more
traditional ones of sea control and power projection. The maritime capability and capacity vital to the flexible
projection of ¶ U.S. power and influence around the globe must surely be preserved, especially in
light of available ¶ technology. Capabilities such as the Joint Strike Fighter will provide strategic deterrence, in addition to
tactical long-range strike, especially when operating from forward-deployed ¶ naval vessels. Postured to respond quickly,
the Navy-Marine Corps team integrates sea, air, and land power ¶ into adaptive force packages
spanning the entire spectrum of operations, from everyday cooperative ¶ security activities to
unwelcome — but not impossible — wars between major powers. This is exactly what we ¶ will
need to meet the challenges of the future.
Hegemony Good
Hegemony solves nuke war, extinction, lays the groundwork for peace
and all progressive rights
Barnett, Professor Warfare Analysis at Center for Naval Warfare Studies, ’11 (Thomas, March
7, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts US, and Globalization, at Crossroads” World
Politics Review, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadershipfatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads
It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the
global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its relative and
absolute lack of mass violence. That is something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in
Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent larger-scale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will
not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American
"empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of system-administering activity that has marked our
stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As the
guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world has
ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the
mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no
identifiable human civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the
world did not keep sliding down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering
inour now-perpetual great-power peace. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization
and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of
democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life
expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a profound and persistent
reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivered. Please
remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global
disorder instead of its cure. With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is
anything but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Arab world. While we might
imagine ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. As for the sheer "evil"
that is our military-industrial complex, again, let's examine what the world looked like before that
establishment reared its ugly head. The last great period of global structural change was the first half of the 20th
century, a period that saw a death toll of about 100 million across two world wars. That comes to an average of 2
million deaths a year in a world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with far more comprehensive worldwide reporting,
researchers report an average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world fast approaching 7
billion people. Though admittedly crude, these calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop and a 99 percent relative
drop in deaths due to war. We are clearly headed for a world order characterized by
multipolarity, something the American-birthed system was designed to both encourage and
accommodate. But given how things turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure, we would do
well to keep U.S. power, in all of its forms, deeply embedded in the geometry to come. To continue the
historical survey, after salvaging Western Europe from its half-century of civil war, the U.S. emerged as theprogenitor of a new, far
more just form of globalization -- one based on actual free trade rather than colonialism. America then successfully replicated
globalization further in East Asia over the second half of the 20th century, setting the stage for the Pacific Century now unfolding.
Solves global conflict
Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser to Carter, 2-1-’12 (Zbigniew, “Global stability depends on America not collapsing”
Washington Post, http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/global-stability-depends-on-america-not-collapsing-1.974027)
Not so long ago, a high-ranking Chinese official, who obviously had concluded that America's decline and China's rise were both
inevitable, noted in a burst of candour to a senior US official: "But, please, let America not decline too quickly." Although the
inevitability of the Chinese leader's expectation is still far from certain, he was right to be cautious when looking forward to
America's demise. For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent
successor — not even China. International uncertainty, increased tension among global competitors,
and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While a sudden, massive crisis of the American
system — for instance, another financial crisis — would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global political and
economic disorder, a
steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening
warfare with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power
will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the US to play: the leader
of a new, globally cooperative world order. The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and
some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of a US decline on their respective national interests. The
Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in
India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China rises. Russia,
while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have
its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union. Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely
be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure
Central Europe in favour of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while
preserving its special relationship with a declining US. Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own
regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of
these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and military power even to
consider inheriting America's leading role. China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive
imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience. China prudently accepts the existing international system,
even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognises that success depends not on the system's dramatic
collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China is not yet
ready to assume in full America's role in the world. At the same time, the security of a number of
weaker states located geographically next to major regional powers also depends on the international status
quo reinforced by America's global pre-eminence — and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to
America's decline. A faltering US could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy.
America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the
challenges posed by such sensitive neighbourhood issues as economic dependence, immigration,
and the narcotics trade. A waning US would likely be more nationalistic. The worsening of relations between a declining
America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major
issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents.
Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative management of the global commons —
shared interests such as sea lanes, space, cyberspace, and the environment, whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth
of the global economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In almost every case, the potential absence of a
constructive and influential US role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the
global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates order where
there would normally be conflict. Nor is the concern that America's decline would generate global insecurity, endanger
some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighbourhood an argument for US global supremacy. In fact,
the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today
of America's collapse would probably come to regret it. And as the world after America would be
increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the US pursue a new, timely strategic
vision for its foreign policy — or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.
Hegemony stops great power wars and creates global stability, solves
poverty
Kagan, Senior Fellow at Brookings, 3-14-’12 (Robert, “America has made the world freer, safer and wealthier”
CNN, http://us.cnn.com/2012/03/14/opinion/kagan-world-america-made/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
We take a lot for granted about the way the world looks today -- the widespread freedom,
the unprecedented
global prosperity (even ¶ despite the current economic crisis), and the absence of war among great powers. In
1941 there were only a dozen democracies in the world. Today ¶ there are more than 100. For four centuries prior to 1950, global
GDP rose by less than 1 percent a year. Since 1950 it has risen by an average of 4 percent a year, and billions of people have
¶ been lifted out of poverty. The first half of the 20th century saw the two most destructive wars in the history of mankind,
and in prior centuries war among great powers was almost constant. ¶ But for the past 60 years no great powers have
gone to war. This is the world America made when it ¶ assumed global leadership after World War II.
Would this world order survive if America declined as a ¶ great power? Some American intellectuals
insist that a "Post-American" world need not look very different from ¶ the American world and that all we need to do is
"manage" American decline. But that is wishful thinking. If the balance of power shifts in the direction
of other powers, the world order will inevitably ¶ change to suit their interests and preferences. Take the issue of
democracy. For several decades, the balance of power in the world has favored ¶ democratic governments. In a genuinely post-
American world, the
balance would shift toward the great power ¶ autocracies. Both China and
Russia already protect dictators like Syria's Bashar al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence in the ¶ future, we will
see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to power. What about the free ¶ market, free trade
economic order? People assume China and other rising powers that have benefited so much from the present system would
have a stake in preserving it. They wouldn't kill ¶ the goose that lays the golden eggs. But China's form of capitalism is heavily
dominated by the state, with the ultimate goal being preservation of the ruling party. Although the ¶ Chinese have been beneficiaries
of an open international economic order, they could end up ¶ undermining it simply because, as an autocratic
society, their priority is to preserve the state's control of wealth ¶ and the power it brings. They might kill the
goose because they can't figure out how to keep both it and themselves alive. Finally, what about the long peace that has
held ¶ among the great powers for the better part of six decades? Many people imagine that American
predominance will be replaced ¶ by some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have
historically been neither stable nor ¶ peaceful. War among the great powers was a common, if not
constant, occurrence in the long periods ¶ of multipolarity in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. The 19th century was notable for
two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four ¶ decades each, punctuated, however, by major wars among great powers and
culminating in World War I, the most destructive and deadly war mankind had known up to that point.
The ¶ era of American
predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace
than ¶ certainty about who holds the upper hand. Many people view the present international order as the ¶
inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy,
strengthening international ¶ institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior, and the gradual but inevitable triumph of
liberal democracy over other forms of government -- forces of change that transcend the ¶ actions of men and nations. But there
was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II. ¶ International
order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over ¶ others -- in America's case,
the domination of liberal free market principles of economics, democratic ¶ principles of politics, and a
peaceful international system that supports these, over other visions that ¶ other nations and peoples may have. The
present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to
defend it. ¶ If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms American power has
supported will ¶ decline, too. Or they may collapse altogether as we transition into another kind of world order, or
into ¶ disorder. We may discover then that the United States was essential to keeping the present world ¶ order together
and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and ¶ catastrophe -- which was
what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.¶
Fisheries
Crowding destroys fisheries
Ocean crowding crushes fisheries
Medina, Smith, and Sturgis 14
Monica Medina- Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at the NOAA, Joel Smith - Research
Associate for the Energy, Environment and Security Program, Linda Sturgis-United States Coast
Guard Senior Military, National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing National Defense and
Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
Expanded use of the ocean also has an adverse impact on fisheries and marine mammals, and some
populations are already at risk. For instance, North Atlantic right whales are highly endangered,
with a population of fewer than 450.19 They migrate the length of the east coast twice a year,
feeding¶ in heavily fished areas off New England in summer and calving off the ports of
Savannah and Charleston in winter. Measures have already been implemented to reduce the
likelihood of vessels colliding with the whales, including the establishment of areas to avoid, traffic separation
schemes, recommended routes, mandatory ship reporting areas, seasonal management areas and dynamic management areas.20
Still, NOAA and others high- light the potential risk for extinction if shipping lanes are rerouted ,
underwater fixed structures are constructed and the Navy continues to use sonar in or along the whales’ migration route.21 ¶ Fish
stocks and other living marine resources move freely though the coastal ocean and high seas and
are managed through scientific study, prescriptive fisheries regulations and fisheries
management councils. In addition to federal regulations for commercial fisheries management, certain species can only be
recreationally fished during specific time frames. Incorporating publically available data layers into a national
coastal ocean map would promote sustainable fisheries, annotate marine protected areas for all
coastal ocean users and aid in ocean conservation to protect living marine resources.¶
CMSP solves Overfishing
Effective spatial planning key to solve fisheries depletion
Medina et al. ‘14
Monica Medina previously served as a Special¶ Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a¶ Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Oceans¶ and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and¶ Atmospheric Administration. Joel Smith is a¶ Research Associate for the
Energy, Environment and¶ Security Program at the Center for a New American¶ Security. Commander Linda Sturgis is the United¶
States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow at the¶ Center for a New American Security. National Coastal Ocean Mapping: Advancing
National Defense and Ocean Conservation, Center for a New American Security, Jan 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf
livinG Marine resources Expanded use of the ocean also has an adverse impact on fisheries and marine
mammals, and some populations are already at risk. For instance, North Atlantic right whales are highly endangered, with a
population of fewer than 450.19 They migrate the length of the east coast twice a year, feeding in heavily fished areas off New
England in sum- mer and calving off the ports of Savannah and Charleston in winter. Measures have already been implemented to
reduce the likelihood of vessels colliding with the whales, including the establish- ment of areas to avoid, traffic separation schemes,
recommended routes, mandatory ship reporting areas, seasonal management areas and dynamic management areas.20 Still, NOAA
and others high- light the potential risk for extinction if shipping lanes are rerouted, underwater fixed structures are constructed and
the Navy continues to use sonar in or along the whales’ migration route.21 Fish stocks and other living marine
resources move freely though the coastal ocean and high seas and are managed through
scientific study, prescriptive fisheries regulations and fisheries management councils. In
addition to federal regulations for commercial fisheries management, certain species can only be
recreationally fished during specific time frames. Incorporating publically available data layers
into a national coastal ocean map would promote sustainable fisheries, annotate marine
protected areas for all coastal ocean users and aid in ocean conservation to protect living marine
resources. ¶
Food Supply Impacts
Food shortages kill billions and spark global wars
Julian Cribb, principal of JCA, fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering, 2010, The Coming Famine: The Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to
Avoid It,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tv0zXxbQ7toC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+coming+fam
ine&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RR_mT7OYFKeq2gXP5tHZCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=th
e%20coming%20famine&f=false
The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990S, more wars have been triggered by disputes
over food, land, and water than over mere political or ethnic differences. This should not
surprise US: people have fought over the means of survival for most of history. But in the
abbreviated reports on the nightly media, and even in the rarefied realms of government policy, the focus is almost invariably on the players—the
warring national, ethnic, or religious factions—rather than on the play, the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite conflict. Caught
up
in these are groups of ordinary, desperate people fearful that there is no longer
sufficient food, land, and water to feed their children—and believing that they
must fight ‘the others” to secure them. At the same time, the number of refugees in the world doubled, many of them
escaping from conflicts and famines precipitated by food and resource shortages. Governments in troubled regions tottered and fell. The
coming famine is planetary because it involves both the immediate effects of
hunger on directly affected populations in heavily populated regions of the world
in the next forty years—and also the impacts of war, government failure, refugee
crises, shortages, and food price spikes that will affect all human beings, no matter
who they are or where they live. It is an emergency because unless it is solved,
billions will experience great hardship, and not only in the poorer regions. Mike Murphy,
one of the world’s most progressive dairy farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and South America, succinctly summed it all up:
“Global warming gets all the publicity but the real imminent threat to the human race is starvation on a massive scale. Taking a 10—30 year view, I
believe that food
shortages, famine and huge social unrest are probably the greatest
threat the human race has ever faced. I believe future food shortages are a far bigger world threat than global
warming.”2° The coming famine is also complex, because it is driven not by one or two, or even a half dozen, factors but rather by the confluence of
many large and profoundly intractable causes that tend to amplify one another. This means that it cannot easily be remedied by “silver bullets” in the
form of technology, subsidies, or single-country policy changes, because of the synergetic character of the things that power it.
Ecosystem collapse leads to escalating wars
Homer-Dixon ‘91
On The Threshold:¶ Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict¶ Part 1¶ Thomas F.
Homer-Dixon¶ Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto ¶
International Security, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Fall 1991), pp. 76-116
How might environmental change lead to acute conflict? Some experts propose that environmental change
may shift the balance of power between states either regionally or globally, producing
instabilities that could lead to war.3 Or, as global environmental damage increases the disparity between the North and the South,
poor nations may militarily confront the rich for a greater share of the world's wealth.4 Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over new icefree sea-lanes in the Arctic or more accessible resources in the Antarctic.5 Bulging populations and land stress may produce waves of environmental
refugees6 that spill across borders with destabilizing effects on the recipient's domestic order and on international stability. Countries may fight over
dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream pollution.7 In
developing countries, a sharp drop in food crop
production could lead to internal strife across urban-rural and nomadic-sedentary cleavages.8 If
environmental degradation makes food supplies increasingly tight, exporters may be tempted to
use food as a weapon.9 Environmental change could ultimately cause the gradual
impoverishment of societies in both the North and South, which could aggravate class and
ethnic cleavages, undermine liberal regimes, and spawn insurgencies.10 Finally, many scholars indicate that
environmental degradation will "ratchet up" the level of stress within national and international
society, thus increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of conflict and impeding the
development of cooperative solutions.11¶ Which of these scenarios are most plausible and why? In the following pages, I review
some reasons for the current salience of environmental issues, and I note several examples of good research on links between environmental change
and acute conflict. I then suggest a preliminary analytical framework that lays out a research agenda for exploring the issue. Using this framework, and
drawing on the literature of conflict theory, I suggest hypotheses about the likely links between environmental change and acute conflict.¶ I propose
that poor countries will in general be more vulnerable to environmental change than rich ones; therefore, environmentally induced conflicts are likely
to arise first in the developing world. In these countries, a range of atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic environmental pressures will in time probably
produce, either singly or in combination, four main, causally interrelated social effects: reduced agricultural production, economic decline, population
displacement, and disruption of regular and legitimized social relations. These social effects, in turn, may cause several specific types of acute conflict,
including scarcity disputes between countries, clashes between ethnic groups, and civil strife and insurgency, each with
repercussions for the security interests of the developed world.
potentially serious
AT: DAs
GOP wants plan
GOP wants plan because it expedites drilling permits
Cama 7/1/14 (Timothy Cama, Staff writer at The Hill “Internal report finds BLM can speed
oil, gas permitting,” 7/1/14, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/211077-internalreport-finds-blm-can-speed-oil-gas-permitting)
The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) said it recommended six actions that could help speed up the B ureau of Land
Management’s (BLM) considerations of oil and gas drilling on federal and Indian land, a process that
often takes more than a year currently. OIG researchers found that the BLM’s 33 offices that consider drilling applications do not
hold officials accountable for timely processing, do not have timelines or performance goals and are understaffed to handle the United States’ recent
energy boom. That results in delays that deprive the federal and Indian governments of royalties while holding back energy development, the OIG said
Monday.¶ “DOI faces many challenges in processing the large volume of APDs in a timely manner, the OIG concluded. “Nevertheless, we believe the
bureaus have many opportunities to expedite permit processing.” The report recommended that the BLM set performance standards and timelines,
appoint an official in each office to take charge of drilling application timeliness and adopt some of the best practices from individual offices throughout
the agency.¶ The
OIG’s findings came as Republicans are more loudly criticizing the Obama
administration’s handling of oil and gas development on federal lands and offshore. A report
from the Congressional Research Service released in April found that oil production dropped 9
percent on federal property between 2009 and 2013, and gas production fell 28 percent in the
same time period.
CP Responses
State CP Perms
Perm do both (states CP)
Burger 11 (Michael Burger, Associate Professor Roger Williams University School of Law,
“Consistency Conflicts and Federalism Choice: Marine Spatial Planning Beyond the States’
Territorial Seas,” Environmental Law Institute, http://www.law.pace.edu/school-oflaw/sites/pace.edu.school-oflaw/files/PELR/Consistency_Conflicts_and_Federalism_Choice.pdf)
What the Barack Obama Administration’s promotion of a “clean energy economy" and a new
federal permitting scheme in place private developers and state and Federal agencies are making
increased efforts to site, permit, and build offshore wind farms and other marine renewable
energy facilities. Yet, a number of technical, political, and legal hurdles to achieving industrialscale renewable energy production remains. In particular, the means to achieve political
accommodation and regulatory integration of private, local, state, and federal interests under
existing law has yet to be fully articulated.¶ Two proposed offshore wind projects off the coast of
Rhode Island, and the marine spatial planning process the state’s coastal resources agency
undertook no site them, exemplify some of the challenges that remain. Marine spatial planning
(MSP) is a public process in which decision makers and stakeholders analyze and allocate the
spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in ocean and coastal a reas to achieve
politically determined environmental, social, and economic goals. To identify appropriate areas
for wind farms, Rhode Island employed MSP to create the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area
Management Plan (RI O-SAMP). The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) authorizes states
to create SAMP to achieve specific policy goals within a particular geographic area; in the past,
SAMPs have been directed toward improving water quality and protecting habitat in individual
watersheds and estuaries, and coordinating waterfront development and revitalization plans in
specific coastal communities. The RI O-SAMP, however, is innovative in at least two respects.
First, it utilizes marine spatial planning and the SAMP process together to coordinate the
development of offshore wind with existing uses and management regimes. Second, it pushes
beyond the three-mile line that marks the boundary between state and federal waters; that is. it
stakes a regulatory claim to federal waters.¶ The scholarship to date on offshore wind and
marine renewables has focused on the need to integrate ecosystem-based management into
ocean governance through MSP,7 and the benefits of scaling up to the regional level.“ These twin
principles—MSP-informed ecosystem-based management and regional ocean governance—are
incorporated into the design of the National Ocean Council, established by President Obama in
July 2010" to oversee the creation of regional “coastal and marine spatial plans.” (importantly,
these plans will lack the force of law) The emphasis in the scholarly literature has largely been
on federal decisionmaking, or on how information and power move from the Federal
government to the states. The RI O-SAMP's innovations, however, present something of a
countercurrent, with information and power moving from the states to the federal government.¶
This Article argues that there are sound theoretical and pragmatic rationales that weigh in favor
of encouraging states to follow the RI O-SAMP model for proactive ocean planning in federal
waters. Part I explains how federal law divides jurisdiction and regulatory authority inside,
across, and beyond the three mile line. Part II surveys the current state of offshore wind
development in the United States and describes the RI O-SAMP in more detail. It then examines
how the RI O-SAMP might be treated by state governments, federal agencies, and courts under
the CZMA.¶ Part III steps back to look at the broader question of what the O-SAMP model
reveals about how to balance federal, state, and local interests in siting offshore renewable
energy facilities, conceiving of the question as one of what I am calling “federalism choice.” A
robust dialog on this topic has evolved in recent years offering a number of variations on the
theme of cooperative federalism. Those perspectives are important and informative for the
purposes of this Article—indeed, the RI O-SAMP model is precisely the kind of experiment in
regulatory adaptation and intergovernmental coordination that cooperative federalism seeks to
achieve. Yet, this literature does not, by itself, answer the questions posed by offshore
renewables. This part works with the complex context defined by historical offshore dynamics
and the evolving structures of ocean governance to undertake a federalism choice analysis. It
argues that the CZMA gives states and federal agencies a place to negotiate interjurisdictional
MSP arrangements, while the National Ocean Council’s aspiration toward regional planning
offers the possibility that these arrangements might eventually trickle up into even more
coordinated governance. Part IV briefly concludes.
Perm—Do both. Plan is the permutation because it coordinates
federal and state data efforts
Tierney 13 (Susan F. Tierney, June 2013, Ph.D. and M.A., regional planning, public policy,
Cornell University; B.A., “Planning for Offshore Energy Development”,
http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/Planning_for_Ocean_Ener
gy_Development_Complete.pdf)
¶ Enhanced state/federal cooperation on ocean resource development and protection objectives:
¶ Ocean planning has already proven to strengthen state/federal cooperation. As one observer
put it, “a state ¶ that has its act together can use ocean planning as a way to influence things in
federal waters.” A prime ¶ example is Rhode Island’s Ocean SAMP—an ocean plan borne out of
the state’s interest in better ¶ managing competing uses of its ocean and for facilitating the siting
of offshore wind energy projects. The ¶ state’s plan stands on its own statutory authorities,
extends its reach through a SAMP approach under a ¶ Coastal Zone Management (CZM) plan
that has been approved by NOAA, and then provides a platform ¶ through which the state has a
stronger voice in actions taking place in federal waters some 30 miles off ¶ the shore of the state.
AT: States CP
States don’t have jurisdiction in the outer continental shelf
US legal ND (“Outer Continental Shelf Land Act Law & Legal Definition,”
http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/outer-continental-shelf-lands-act/)
The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is the part of the internationally recognized continental shelf
of the United States which does not fall under the jurisdictions of the individual U.S. states. The
outer continental shelf is submerged lands that are in US territorial waters but not within any
individual state's territorial waters. Oil, gas and other important minerals can be found on the
outer continental shelf. The Secretary of Interior is responsible for mineral exploration and
development of the outer continental shelf. The United States OCS has been divided into four
leasing regions which include the Gulf of Mexico Region, Atlantic Region, Pacific Region and
Alaska Region
USFG Key
Lack of federal coordination guts solvency
Rasmussen 14 (Jayni Rasmussen is a Program Assistant for the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
(CMSP) team in Washington, D.C.) “Effective Ocean Planning Needs to Be Coast-to-Coast, Not Beach-to-Beach”
March 19, 2014 http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/author/jrasmussen/
Over the last week, I’ve been discussing what coastal and marine spatial planning (“smart ocean
planning”) is, what we would need to do to make smart ocean planning work, and what regions of our country have
already started the process of making smart ocean planning a reality. In this last installment of our video series, I
want to discuss the National Ocean Policy and what’s happening in the United States at the federal level.¶ Smart
ocean planning is a bottom-up process, but it still needs federal support. Coastal
states and the federal government each have jurisdiction over their own
individual portions of the ocean, and the rules as you move across
jurisdictions can both vary greatly and conflict with each other. Because of
this, increasing coordination between state governments, the federal
government and the stakeholders using the ocean is essential. Without a
collaborative process that brings all the relevant players to the table, our
decision-making will be disjointed and ineffective in ensuring a healthy
ocean for our children and grandchildren.
The federal government will work with other levels of government but
they should create the MSP framework
Agardy ‘10
Tundi Agardy has a Ph.D in Biological Sciences, he Executive Director of Sound Seas, a marine conservation policy group. Ocean
Zoning Making Marine Management More Effective 2010 (159-160)
The task force developed a draft policy for public comment by mid 2009 (even more ambitiously than the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, the administration gave a scant six months for developing a draft policy. On 12 June, President Barack Obama
established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force to develop recommendations for a national policy for US oceans, coasts and the
Great Lakes, a framework for improved federal policy coordination and an implementation strategy
to meet the objectives of a national ocean policy within 90 days). The interim policy, released in December 2009, embodies an
entirely new approach to federal resource planning for oceans, coasts and the Great Lakes, outlining the process through
which the federal government will work with states, tribes, local governments and communities
to decrease conflicts among competing users. It recommends the formation of a National Ocean Council to track the
condition of the oceans and work with the White House to develop more effective marine management. According to a Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) press release, the process is intended to improve planning and regulatory
efficiencies, decrease their associated costs and delays, and preserve critical ecosystem function
and services (CEQ, 2009).
Comprehensive federal action is key
Ehler ‘14
Charles N. Ehler is a
Senior Consultant, Marine Spatial Planning Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of
UNESCO E. Tedsen et al. (eds.), Arctic Marine Governance. Pan-Arctic Marine Spatial Planning: An Idea Whose Time Has Come
2014 (208)
The principal output of MSP is a comprehensive spatial plan for a marine area or ecosystem. The
plan moves the whole marine system toward a ‘vision for the future’. It sets out priorities for the area and—
more importantly—defines what these priorities mean in time and space. Typically, a comprehensive spatial management plan has a
10–20-year horizon and reflects political and social priorities for the area. The comprehensive marine spatial plan is
often implemented through a zoning map, zoning regulations, and/or a permit system similar to
a comprehensive regional plan on land. Individual permit decisions made within individual sectors
(for example, the fisheries, oil and gas, or tourism sectors) should then be based on the zoning
maps and regulations. A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) or programmatic environmental impact
statement (PEIS) is usually required before a marine spatial plan is approved by government (see
Chap. 8). MSP does not replace single-sector planning and decision making. Instead it aims to
provide guidance for a range of decision makers responsible for particular sectors, activities, or
concerns so that they have the means to make decisions confidently in a more comprehensive,
integrated, and complementary way.
AT: Status Quo
Status quo doesn’t solve—lack of coordination
McMurray 9 ( Capt. John McMurray, Director of Grants Programs at theNorcross Wildlife
Foundation, December 28, 2009, “OBAMA’S “OCEAN POLICY TASK FORCE””
http://www.reel-time.com/articles/conservation/what%E2%80%99s-up-with-the%E2%80%9Cocean-policy-task-force%E2%80%9D/
Furthermore, marine spatial planning could be a tool for implementing the much talked about but
rarely implemented “ecosystem-based management”. Traditional management of ocean
activities has focused on individual species, resources, areas, or actions with limited
consideration for how the management practices of one might impact the sustainability of
another. Marine spatial planning makes it possible to consider the cumulative impacts of
different sectors rather than focusing on a single species, sector, activity or concern.¶ Spatial
planning that fully incorporates the principles of ecosystem-based management could provide a
means to objectively and transparently guide and balance allocation decisions for use of ocean
resources. It could allow for the reduction of cumulative impacts from human uses on the
marine environment, provide greater certainty for the public and private sector in planning new
investments, and reduce conflicts among uses.
AT: Counterplans
CP Cannot Solve
Only effective at the National Level
Agardy 8 (Executive Director of Sound Seas, A Separate Peace¶ Move toward wholesale
zoning of the oceans—rather than piecemeal protection schemes,
http://conservationmagazine.org/2008/07/10-solutions-to-save-the-ocean/)
Most marine conservation is ad hoc, coming together bit by bit as individuals, communities, and
institutions respond to a particular need at a particular site—restricting access to a threatened
reef tract, for example, or regulating harvest of a depleted fish stock. Although well-intentioned,
such responses are usually far too focused to address the multiple threats that simultaneously
degrade most of the world’s nearshore ecosystems.¶ We need a radical shift in our management
schemes, away from piecemeal regulations and small-scale protected areas toward wholesale
zoning of the oceans. That means managing each large geographic region—the Gulf of Maine,
say, which covers 275,000 square kilometers from the inland limits of all its watersheds out to
the edge of the continental shelf—as a single unit. The result is a regional map in which every
space is zoned for a particular use or array of uses—from commercial activities to recreational
ones, with strictly protected areas that allow little or no use at all.¶ As on land, ocean zoning
would reduce conflicts among various users by separating incompatible activities; shipping
would not occur in designated whale-watching areas, for example. To achieve conservation
goals, a zoning plan would also stipulate what levels of use are allowed. Ecologically critical
areas—nursery grounds for fisheries and riparian wetland buffers, for instance—would merit the
strictest protection. Degraded or relatively unimportant tracts could be “sacrificed” to industrial
uses such as ports, wind farms, or oil extraction.¶ What makes ocean zoning different from and
potentially more successful than current conservation efforts is that practitioners wanting to
mitigate threats to a given portion of the marine realm can cast a wider net. For instance, if an
estuarine nursery habitat is being degraded by diversion of freshwater flowing to that estuary,
then a regional zoning plan could influence behavior at upstream farms and hydroelectric
plants. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, one of the world’s largest marine protected
areas, has not been as successful as its international reputation suggests, primarily because the
original planning did not address high inputs of sediment and agricultural runoff from coastal
watersheds.
Plan cards
Plan uses only USFG
Plan uses the federal government to coordinate information and
regulations, not dictate state action
NOAA ‘13
http://www.cmsp.noaa.gov/, 2013.
Coastal and marine spatial planning—or marine planning—is a science-based tool that regions can use to
address specific ocean management challenges and advance their goals for economic
development and conservation. Just as federal agencies work with states, tribes, local governments, and others to manage
forests, grasslands, and other areas, they also can use marine planning to coordinate activities among all
coastal and ocean interests and provide the opportunity to share information. This process is designed
to decrease user conflict, improve planning and regulatory efficiencies, decrease associated costs and delays, engage affected
communities and stakeholders, and preserve critical ecosystem functions and services.Put simply, marine planning is
a
process developed from the bottom up to improve collaboration and coordination among all
coastal and ocean interests, and to better inform and guide decision-making that affects their
economic, environmental, security, and social and cultural interests.
Plan = OCS
Only the US can solve Outer Continental Shelf
Legal Information Institute ND (Cornell University Law school, 43 U.S. Code § 1331
– Definitions, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1331)
(a) The term “outer Continental Shelf” means all submerged lands lying seaward and outside of
the area of lands beneath navigable waters as defined in section 1301 of this title, and of which
the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States and are subject to its jurisdiction and
control;