Military CP—Wave 1
Neg
Notes
The counterplan can be done by either the Navy of the Department of Defense. Remember that any Navy
specific evidence can also be read with the DOD CP because the Navy is a division of the DoD.
There are several versions of the CP
1. Have the US DOD do the plan
2. Have the US Navy do the plan
3. Have the DOD upgrade specific parts of its satellites
a. This Counterplan is specific to mapping affs. DoD satellites solve best because they have
polar orbit, whereas US civilian satellites are geostationary. Geostationary orbits circle
Earth at the same rate as the Earth spins so the satellites can only monitor low latitudes.
Geostationary satellites also offer significantly lower spatial resolution because they are
farther away from Earth. Polar satellites can see all of Earth at higher resolutions. That
makes them better for measuring ozone concentrations or measuring temperatures in the
atmosphere.
1NC DoD
Text: The United States Department of Defense should <<Insert Plan>>
<<Insert solvency evidence>>
1NC Navy
Text: The United States Navy should <<Insert Plan>>
<<Insert solvency evidence>>
1NC Satellites
Text: The United States Department of Defense should substantially increase its
investment in Weather Satellite Follow-On satellites by upgrading visual/infrared
imager, microwave imager/sounder and space environment sensor technology.
DoD has satellites in the squo but CP is necessary to continue coverage of critical
performance parameters
Bennett 12 (Michael, Congressional Budget Office, September 2012, "Options for Modernizing
Military Weather Satellites ", http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/09-20WeatherSatellites.pdf)
CBO anticipates that the satellites in Option I would be capable of measuring a total of 37 quantities of
interest (referred to as Environmental Data Records, or EDRs), including all six EDRs that the NPOESS
program had designated as Key Performance Parameters, or KPPs (imagery, soil moisture, the speed and
direction of sea surface winds, atmospheric vertical moisture profiles, atmospheric vertical temperature
profiles, and sea surface temperature). Each of those satellites would cost about SI.2 billion to
manufacture. CBO estimates, and the total program acquisition cost (which comprises two satellites, the
supporting data handling and processing infrastructure, systems engineering, and program management
costs) would be about S4.2 billion. (All costs discussed in this paper arc given in inflation-adjusted fiscal
year 2013 dollars.) If the cost for launch, launch support, satellite storage, and on-orbit operations through
2037 arc included, the total program cost for Option I would be about 56.1 billion. CBO estimates. The
satellites in Option 2 would have less capability, measuring a total of 30 EDRs. including all six KPPs.
They would cost about S700 million each to produce: the total program acquisition cost would be about
S3.2 billion: and the total program cost including operations through 2037. would be about $4.9 billion,
CBO estimates. The option with the lowest cost and capability. Option 3. would measure 25 EDRs,
including four of the six KPPs: the unit production cost would be about $400 million: the total program
acquisition cost would be about S2.7 billion: and the total program cost including operations through
2037. would be about $4.4 billion. CBO estimates. CBO's assessments of the cost of the three main
satellite options reflect the assumption that DoD will continue with its new plans for fielding the last two
DMSP satellites and will choose to build new WSF satellites to take the place of DMSP satellites when
they reach the end of their operational lives. CBO also assumed that DoD will attempt to minimize the
risk of gaps in satellite coverage by starting WSF development around 2014. with the goal of having a
new WSF satellite ready as a backup when the last DMSP is launched around 2020.
Competition
AT: PDB
1. Links to both net benefits because <<insert ptx and tradeoff DA link story>>
2. CP is an opportunity cost—federal budget allotment is zero-sum
Law Track 14 (Law magazine, May 23 2014, "The Role of Defense Spending in American Economic
Theory", http://lawtrack.com/the-role-of-defense-spending-in-american-economic-theory.html)
One of the most frequently debated topics in the academic world is the role played by defense spending in
boosting or depressing growth and progress in the economic marketplace. Obviously, a certain degree of
military might is necessary to ensure the safety of any country and to promote its interests effectively at
home and overseas. However, the zero-sum game of federal budget allotments means that any funds
dedicated to military spending cannot be used for other equally important activities. Determining the
effects of defense expenditures on economic growth can provide valuable support for decisions made
during the federal budgeting process.
Congress sees defense and civilian spending as zero-sum
Major General Curry 13 (Major General Jerry Curry, December 18 2013, "Ret. Major General Jerry
Curry: Congressional betrayal of America’s Armed Forces", http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/18/retmajor-general-jerry-curry-congressional-betrayal-of-americas-armed-forces/)
America’s armed forces are grappling with the question of how to maintain a strong military in the face of a congressionally mandated and ever
shrinking Pentagon budget. Congress needs to learn that appropriating funds for national defense is not a zero
sum budgetary diversion. Congress should base the size of the nation’s military appropriations on
national defense needs, not on how much money is left over after all other political and non-defense
needs, such as entitlements, are satisfied.
AT: AFF Is Military
Non-military means not in the military
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Clay County No Date
(http://clerk.co.clay.fl.us/forms/CivilLaw/AFFIDAVIT_OF_NON-MILITARY_SERVICE.pdf)//BB
An Affidavit of Non-Military is a sworn statement stating that to the best of your knowledge, you know that the defendant(s) are not
currently in the military service. Without the non-military affidavit, the Judge will not accept the default. You may not enter a default
against a person in the military. If a defendant is in the military you are required to motion to the courts asking the Judge to appoint an Attorney
Ad-Litem. This is an attorney who will appear on behalf of the person who is in the military. If not in the military, you will need to state where
the defendant is employed or what type of work they perform.
“Civilian” must not be part of military organization and not taking military actions
International Committee of the Red Cross No Date
(Quotes the 1995 US Naval Handbook, http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule5)//BB
The US Naval Handbook (1995) refers first to the notion of non-combatants as primarily applying to “those
individuals who do not form part of the armed forces and who otherwise refrain from the commission or
direct support of hostile acts. In this context, noncombatants and, generally, the civilian population, are synonymous.”
The manual further specifies: “The civilian population consists of all persons not serving in the armed forces,
militia, or paramilitary forces and not otherwise taking a direct part in the hostilities.”
AT: DoD is civilian
DOD and NOAA mapping programs are distinct
Bennett 12 (Michael, Congressional Budget Office, September 2012, "Options for Modernizing
Military Weather Satellites ", http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/09-20WeatherSatellites.pdf)
In 2010, after about 15 years of development and several program restructurings, the NPOESS program
was terminated and replaced by separate NOAA and DoD programs. NOAA, partnering with NASA,
established the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program, while DoD formed the Defense Weather
Satellite System (DWSS).
AT: Coast Guard is civilian
Coast Guard is a military organization
Coast Guard 14 (United States Coast Guard, March 20 2014, "About Us",
http://www.uscg.mil/top/about/)
The U.S. Coast Guard is one of the five armed forces of the United States and the only military
organization within the Department of Homeland Security. Since 1790 the Coast Guard has safeguarded
our Nation's maritime interests and environment around the world. The Coast Guard is an adaptable,
responsive military force of maritime professionals whose broad legal authorities, capable assets,
geographic diversity and expansive partnerships provide a persistent presence along our rivers, in the
ports, littoral regions and on the high seas. Coast Guard presence and impact is local, regional, national
and international. These attributes make the Coast Guard a unique instrument of maritime safety, security
and environmental stewardship.
Civilian=Non-Military
Civilian means non-military
Collins English Dictionary No Date
(http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/civilian)//BB
In a military situation, civilian is used to describe people or things
population.sɪˈvɪljən ADJECTIVE
that are not military....the country's civilian
Civilian is non-military
Institute of International Law 69
(Institute of International Law is an organization devoted to the study and development of international law, whose membership comprises the
world's leading public international lawyers. In 1904 the Institute received the Nobel Peace Prize, “The Distinction between Military Objectives
and Non-Military Objectives in General and Particularly the Problems Associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Edinburgh, 9 September
1969. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1969a.htm)//BB
3. Neither the civilian population nor any of the objects expressly protected by conventions or agreements can be
considered as military objectives, nor yet (a) under whatsoever circumstances the means indispensable for the survival of the civilian
population,
DOD Contracting
If contractors are contracted by the DOD, it’s still military
Congressional Research Service 13
(Moshe Schwartz Specialist in Defense Acquisition Jennifer Church U.S. Department of Army Fellow, “Department of Defense’s Use of
Contractors to Support Military Operations: Background, Analysis, and Issues for Congress,” May 17, 2013,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R43074.pdf)//BB
Throughout its history, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
relied on contractors to support a wide range of military
operations. Operations over the last thirty years have highlighted the critical role that contractors play in supporting U.S. troops—both in terms of the number of
contractors and the type of work being performed. Over the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before that, in the Balkans, contractors accounted for 50% or
more of the total military force. Regardless of whether future operations are similar to−or significantly different from− those of the past decade most analysts and
defense officials believe that contractors will continue to play a central role in overseas military operations. Consequently, these observers
believe that DOD should be prepared to effectively award and manage contracts at a moment's notice, anywhere in the world, in unknown environments, and on a
Contractors provide a wide range of services, from
transportation, construction, and base support, to intelligence analysis and private security. The benefits of using contractors include freeing up
uniformed personnel to conduct combat operations; providing expertise in specialized fields, such as linguistics or weapon systems
scale that may exceed the total contract obligations of any other federal agency.
maintenance; and providing a surge capability, quickly delivering critical support capabilities tailored to specific military needs. Because contractors can be hired
when a particular need arises and released when their services are no longer needed, contractors can be less expensive in the long run than maintaining a permanent inhouse capability.
NOAA
NOAA is non-military
US Commission on Ocean Policy 4
(Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.) Chairman and President Emeritus, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, Washington,
D.C. Robert Ballard, Ph.D. Professor of Oceanography, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island Ted A. Beattie President
and Chief Executive Officer, John G. Shedd Aquarium, Illinois Lillian Borrone Former Assistant Executive Director, Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey James M. Coleman, Ph.D. Boyd Professor, Coastal Studies Institute, Louisiana State University Ann D’Amato Chief of
Staff, Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, California Lawrence Dickerson President and Chief Operating Officer, Diamond Offshore
Drilling, Inc., Texas Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.) President, Monmouth University, New Jersey Marc J. Hershman Professor,
School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington Paul L. Kelly Senior Vice President, Rowan Companies, Inc., Texas Christopher Koch
President and Chief Executive Officer, World Shipping Council, Washington, D.C. Frank Muller-Karger, Ph.D. Professor, College of Marine
Science, University of South Florida Edward B. Rasmuson Chairman of the Board of Directors, Wells Fargo Bank, Alaska Andrew A.
Rosenberg, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Natural Resources and Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New
Hampshire William D. Ruckelshaus Strategic Director, Madrona Venture Group, Seattle, Washington Paul A. Sandifer, Ph.D. Senior Scientist,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, South Carolina Executive Director Thomas Kitsos, Ph.D. US Commission on Ocean Policy.
“AN OCEAN BLUEPRINT FOR THE 21st CENTURY,” http://jointoceancommission.org/documents/USCOP_report.pdf)//BB
A Strengthened and Streamlined Federal Agency Structure. Chapter 7 proposes strengthening, and eventually reorganizing, the federal agency
structure for ocean and coastal issues. As the nation’s civilian ocean agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) should be strengthened and reconfigured to improve the agency’s ability to carry out its responsibilities.
Subsequently, and where necessary and appropriate, related ocean and coastal programs in other agencies should be consolidated. In the long
term, more dramatic changes to the federal agency structure are needed that acknowledge the inextricable connections among the sea, land, and
air and all of Earth’s living creatures.
Key to Limits
Our definition of “civilian” is critical to limits
Ottawa Citizen 12
(“Killing Civilians,” January 13, 2012, Lexis)//BB
Defenders of the assassinations might question whether the scientists can be considered civilians, if
they're working to advance the regime's nuclear ambitions. That dangerously convenient argument can
be used to justify almost any violence, since so many people in any country work to advance the state's
goals in some capacity. The bomb blast that killed chemist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan this week seemed to be designed to limit the
scope of the damage, unlike most terrorist attacks. But it did nonetheless kill his driver and wound a third person, which
shows how easily an overly flexible definition of "civilian" can stretch to reprehensible lengths.
Commercialization/Spillover
Innovation/Spillover
Military programs lead to innovations which are the most likely to spillover to the
private sector, and the CP is shielded from politics—empirics
Appelbaum 12
(BINYAMIN APPELBAUM, New York Times reporter who on a Gerald Loeb Award, a George Polk Award and was a finalist for the Pulitzer
Prize, internally cites multiple professors of economics, “A Shrinking Military Budget May Take Neighbors With It,” January 6, 2012, New York
Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/a-hidden-cost-of-military-cuts-could-be-invention-and-its-industries.html?pagewanted=all)//BB
The wellspring of this prosperity is not just the Defense Department’s vast payroll, nor just the fat profit margins of its contractors. It
is also the
Pentagon’s unmatched record in developing technologies with broad public benefits — like the
Internet, jet engines and satellite navigation — and then encouraging private companies to reap the
rewards. And as the Pentagon confronts the prospect of cutting its budget by about 10 percent over the next decade, even some people who do
not count themselves among its traditional allies warn that the potential impact on scientific innovation is being overlooked. Spending less on
military research, they say, could reduce the economy’s long-term growth. “If catalyzing innovation is going to be an important part of our
economic strategy, then we better be careful how we handle” the military budget, said Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science,
Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. “I’d like to see a lot less weapons and a lot less focus on them, but it’s not all about that.” In
the political debate over Pentagon cuts, the potential effect on innovation has been largely ignored. Pentagon officials and their allies have instead
warned that a sharply smaller military budget would expose the nation to harm, and that such cuts would result in a large and immediate rise in
unemployment. Independent economists and analysts say that concern about the short-term economic impact is largely misplaced. While
reducing the Pentagon’s budget would cause considerable economic pain — some workers would lose their jobs; some contractors would lose
their most important customer — research suggests it would be less painful than cutting other kinds of government spending, like education or
transportation. A significant portion of the military budget, including the wages of armed forces personnel, is spent abroad. And military spending
in this country, like building a new runway at a domestic Air Force base, tends to bring fewer spillover benefits than many other forms of
government spending, like a new runway at a commercial airport. “As a source of job creation, military spending is not particularly good,” said
Robert Pollin, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. “You can argue for the benefits in geopolitical terms, but if we’re
talking about jobs and the economy, it doesn’t make sense.” The one exception may be Pentagon spending on research and development. The
Pentagon spends about 12 percent of its budget in that area, about $81.4 billion during the most recent fiscal year. That is roughly 55 percent of
all federal spending on research and development. Administration officials, members of Congress and Pentagon planners could choose to spare
the research budget when making cuts. Historically, however, significant reductions to the Pentagon’s budget have led to reductions in research
spending, too. Through both flush and lean times for the Pentagon, research spending has accounted for a roughly similar share — between 9 and
13 percent — of the overall budget. It is a pot of money with a remarkable record of success. The Navy, which started budgeting for research
in 1946, counts
59 eventual Nobel laureates among the recipients of its financing, including Charles H. Townes,
The other armed
forces claim similar numbers of laureates, albeit with considerable overlap. The results of this research played a key
role in the blossoming of high technology as a driver of the nation’s economic growth. In northern Virginia, many of the largest
whose pioneering work in the development of lasers laid the groundwork for compact discs and laser eye surgery.
companies continued to work for the Pentagon while also pursuing private contracts. Companies with names like the Science Applications
International Corporation, Computer Sciences Corporation and CACI International built large campuses employing thousands of workers, mostly
around the growing Tysons Corner crossroads. Other local technology companies with roots in military research focused
on the broader market and became household names, including famous flameouts like AOL and MCI. Other clusters
of technology companies grew up around universities that have been large recipients of military research
money, creating Silicon Valley in California, the Route 128 corridor around Boston and the Research Triangle in North
Carolina, where the Army opened its Research Office in 1958. Professor Sarewitz, who studies the government’s role in promoting innovation,
said that the Defense Department had been more successful than other federal agencies because it is the main user of the innovations that it
finances. The Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, which also finance large volumes
of research, are not major consumers of energy or healthcare. The Pentagon, which spends billions each
year on weapons, equipment and technology, has an unusually direct stake in the outcome of its research
and development projects. “The central thing that distinguishes them from other agencies is that they are the customer,”
Professor Sarewitz said. “You can’t pull the wool over their eyes.” Another factor is the Pentagon’s relative
insulation from politics, which has allowed it to sustain a long-term research agenda in controversial
areas. No matter which party is in power, the Pentagon has continued to invest in clean-energy
technology, for example, in an effort to find ways to reduce one of its largest budget items, energy costs.
Military projects are the lynchpin of innovation—they spill down to the private
sector
Forbes 13
(Bruce Upbin, cites Mariana Mazzucato, professor of economics at the University of Sussex, “Debunking The Narrative Of Silicon Valley's
Innovation Might,” 6/13/2013, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/06/13/debunking-the-narrative-of-silicon-valleysinnovation-might/)//BB
This is going to sound completely heretical to everything Forbes has stood for over 96 years (and The Economist for a few decades longer than
that) but here goes: The real innovation engine in the global economy is not the entrepreneurial class blazing
capitalist trails through the thicket of government red tape and taxation. No. The real engine of
innovation is government . That’s crazy, you say. One Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs is worth ten suits in D.C. or Brussels. If we left
investment and risk capital to the state, all we’d get are bad bets such as Solyndra, Fisker Automotive and the Concorde. Wrong, says economist
Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex. In her new book The Entrepreneurial State (adapted into a rousing
TED talk delivered this week in Edinburgh), Mazzucato argues that long-term, patient government funding is an absolute
prerequisite for breakthrough innovation. There is something seriously wrong, she says, with a system that asks taxpayers to take
all the risk while the private sector takes all the rewards (shades of what happened in the financial crisis and ensuing bailout). “By constantly
painting the government as a big bad leviathan we’re stunting the growth and opportunities before us,” she writes. “If we’re funding all the risks
where are the rewards for the state?” Her case study for myth-debunking is the iPhone, that icon of American corporate innovation. Each of
its core
technologies–capacitive sensors, solid-state memory, the click wheel, GPS, internet, cellular
communications, Siri, microchips, touchscreen—came from research efforts and funding support of the
U.S. government and military. Did the public see an iPhone dividend? Not really. The “stay foolish, stay hungry” geniuses ran away with the
gains, says Mazzucato, and now the company is under fire for not paying enough taxes or creating enough high-wage jobs in the U.S. Apple’s
five-year R&D spending as a percentage of sales has hovered around 2% to 3%, while companies such as Nokia and Samsung Electronics spend
9% and 8%, respectively. Steve Jobs’ real genius was not in developing new technology but integrating technologies invented somewhere else,
often backed by tax dollars. Mazzucato calls the pharmaceutical industry onto the carpet. The National Institutes of Health funds 75% of all
revolutionary new drugs, while Big Pharma spends most of its time and money developing me-too drugs and buying back their shares. She also
debunks the myth of the swashbuckling venture capitalist. In her view they’re free riders, waiting for the government to underwrite the most
expensive and risky projects and then, once the uncertainty is gone, they swoop in and skim all the profits. She blames short-term VC thinking,
not government incompetence, for the Solyndra debacle. The VCs pulled their funding and tanked the government’s loan guarantees just as the
company was preparing a plan to deal with the dramatic price declines of solar panels made in China. As it stands, says Mazzucato, the antigovernment narrators are winning. The U.S. and Europe are slashing budgets for basic and applied science and research while developing nations
such as China and Brazil are spending more than $1 trillion for the same. This puts the U.S. and Europe at risk of falling behind in key growth
sectors such as renewable energy, nanotech and space exploration. So, rather than bash and slash federal research funding and outsource it to the
private sector, Mazzucato argues we need to restore funds to programs such as DARPA (the Defense Department’s Advanced
Research Projects Agency) and its Department of Energy equivalent ARPA-e. We need reforms that create royalty streams to the public for
successful bets, more transparency and measurement of state-operated investment vehicles and more income-contingent loans (like some student
loans) and opportunities for direct equity in companies backed by the state. This is fairly common practice in Finland, where the state agency
SITRA retained equity from its investment in Nokia and made a bunch of money to reinvest in more companies. In 2012 the German state
investment bank KfW reported $3 billion in profit. Brazil’s state development bank BNDES has been actively investing in clean tech and biotech
and in 2010 made a 21% return on equity.
Military investment leads to tech spin-off and private sector development
Pool and Erickson 12
(By Sean Pool and Jennifer Erickson, Sean Pool is an Assistant Editor at American Progress, Jennifer Erickson is the Director of Competitiveness
and Economic Growth at American Progress, she served as special adviser to the First Minister of Scotland, “The High Return on Investment for
Publicly Funded Research,” December 10, 2012, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology/report/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/)//BB
Investing in innovation pays off. The World Economic Forum, an international nongovernmental organization that assesses global
business and socioeconomic policy, classified the United States in the 21st century as an “innovation-driven economy.” This means that the
creation of new wealth depends not just on traditional inputs like natural resources, land, or labor—or on increasing the efficiency of existing
capabilities. Rather, new wealth in an innovation-driven economy requires the discovery and development of new ideas to solve old problems; the
seizing of new opportunities with technology and ingenuity. But the importance of innovation is not measured simply in new inventions.
Innovation also requires dissemination through market adoption and public acceptance. While the private sector
has a key role to play in making innovation happen, government
must provide three key public-good inputs that allow
innovation to blossom: investments in human capital, infrastructure, and research. January will bring deep budget
cuts to all three of these critical innovation investments if President Barack Obama and Washington lawmakers don’t avert the automatic
spending cuts in the so-called fiscal showdown debate over how to reduce the deficit. To be sure, deficit reduction is an important national
priority, but as President Obama said in 2011, “Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an
overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make you feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you feel the
impact.” The Center for American Progress has previously highlighted how investments in all three areas are critical to our competitiveness.
Today we’ll take a closer look at one of these key innovation ingredients: research. Government research provides a high return
on investment To continue leading the world in innovation and welcoming the businesses and industries of the future, the United States
must continue its long history of robust investments in research and development in the increasingly interconnected fields of physical sciences,
computational sciences, life sciences, social sciences, and engineering. The value of these investments is borne out by history. According to
economists Charles Jones and John Williams of Stanford University, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Federal Reserve Bank
of San Francisco, the return on investment for publicly funded scientific research and development is somewhere between 30 percent and 100
percent, or more. Consider just a few of the breakthrough innovations that have stemmed from government investments in research: Department
of Energy labs: 1943–present Founded in 1943 to address the need to mobilize our nation’s scientific assets to support the war effort—including
the Manhattan Project and development of radar—and then afterward to consolidate and repurpose our national investments in military research.
What we invested: A few million dollars in the early 1940s, growing to about $5 billion, or 0.03 percent of GDP, in 2012. (Note: The Department
of Energy labs also receive funding from other government agencies outside the department, bringing the total spending of the system closer to
$10 billion.) What we got: The optical digital recording technology behind all music, video, and data storage; fluorescent lights; communications
and observation satellites; advanced batteries now used in electric cars; modern water-purification techniques that make drinking water safe for
millions; supercomputers used by government, industry, and consumers every day; more resilient passenger jets; better cancer therapies; and the
confirmation that it was an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. National Science Foundation: 1950–present Championed by
Sen. Harley Kilgore of West Virginia, a New Deal politician and small-business man with a deep distrust of the laissez-faire attitude toward
science and of large monopolies that at the time controlled much of the country’s scientific enterprise. In response to these issues, the National
Science Foundation was founded “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the
national defense.” What we invested: Just $3.5 million for its first full year of operation in 1952 (roughly $29 million in 2012 dollars), growing to
$7 billion, or 0.05 percent of GDP, in 2012. What we got: Google, which was started by a couple of students working on a research project
supported by the National Science Foundation, is today worth an estimated $250 billion and employs 54,000 people. This alone would pay for
nearly all the program’s costs reaching back to its inception, but funding has also been instrumental in the development of new technologies and
companies in nearly every major industry, including advanced electronics, computing, digital communications, environmental resource
management, lasers, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and higher education. Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, or DARPA: 1958–present Founded in response to the launch of Sputnik to ensure the United States had cutting-edge military
technology, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency now operates as a small R&D team within the Department of Defense,
delivering world-leading technology both on the battlefield (think stealth fighter jets) and off (think the Internet). Describing
itself today as “one hundred geniuses connected by a travel agent,” the agency continues to work with universities and teams across the country to
push scientific boundaries, working on projects like a human exoskeleton and mobile robots capable of performing medical operations. What we
invested: $246 million in the first appropriation in 1962. In 2011 dollars: $1.6 billion. Investment has continued, reaching nearly $3 billion, or
0.02 percent of GDP, in 2012. What we got: The team that would go on to pioneer technologies that brought us the Internet, the Global
Positioning System, and Siri. The Apollo Space Program: 1961–1969 Two months after the Soviet Union put the first man in orbit, President
John F. Kennedy announced the Apollo Space Program to a joint session of Congress, telling the nation, “No single space
project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult
or expensive to accomplish.” He was right. In fixing a national ambition and rallying resources behind it, the United States went from never
having put a man in orbit to landing a team on the moon in less than a decade. At the height of Apollo’s efforts, it employed 400,000 Americans
and worked with 20,000 partnering institutions. What we invested: $24 billion. In 2011 dollars: $150 billion. What we got: Massive
technological advancement and the start of huge opportunities for technology transfer, leading to more
than 1,500 successful spinoffs related to areas as disparate as heart monitors, solar panels, and cordless innovation. More recently,
we’ve seen a fledgling private-sector American space industry with real growth potential, which in 2012
completed its first cargo delivery to the international space station.
Navy Biofuels Spillover
Navy biofuels spill down to private sector
Harder 13
(Amy Harder, “Navy’s Use of Biofuels Could Trigger Private-Sector Adoption,” August 15, 2013, National Journal,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/navy-s-use-of-biofuels-could-trigger-private-sector-adoption-20130815)//BB
The Navy's use of advanced biofuels could help spur private-sector investment, said Dennis McGinn, President
Obama's newly confirmed assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations, and environment. "The private-sector
benefits are
the military's ability to do some pretty good analysis, to manage risk, and to introduce innovative
materials and innovative processes," said McGinn, who was confirmed by the Senate earlier this month before the congressional
recess. "It significantly lowers the barrier of entry to new industries and new technologies ." From medical devices
to space technology, the Pentagon has often been an incubator for the private sector. McGinn said he's going to work to make sure it's the same in
the renewable-energy sphere, and especially for biofuels. "It can have a catalytic effect for large consumers of transportation," said McGinn, who
stepped down recently from his post as president of the American Council on Renewable Energy when the Obama administration courted him for
this position. SHARE THIS STORY Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, the Pentagon's de facto advocate for the military's adoption of renewable
energy over oil, has set a goal of getting half of the Navy's fuel from alternative sources by 2020 and sailing a "Green Fleet" that runs on nuclear
power and biofuels. McGinn, a retired vice admiral of 35 years, said he hopes to take the debate over this program, which Republicans have
criticized for its cost as the Pentagon faces budget cuts, beyond sound bites. "There have been a lot of sound bites attributed to various folks on
both sides of the Defense Department's biofuels program," McGinn said. "I'm hoping to take it beyond that to really some objective cost-benefit
risk analysis." He said when doing that for the biofuels program, the cost will be competitive.
Wave Energy—Commercially Viable
Sufficient capability to power cities—PowerBuoys are ready and Navy is developing
other commercial scale devices
Casey 12 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, June 24 2012, "Utility-Scale Wave Power,
Thanks to U.S. Navy", http://cleantechnica.com/2012/06/24/navy-helps-develop-wave-power/)
Ocean waves could soon be powering thousands of homes and businesses in the Reedsport, Oregon area,
and a good part of the credit will be due to the U.S. Navy. The Ocean Power Technologies technology,
called PowerBuoy®, underwent two years of development at the Navy’s wave power test facility in
Hawaii, and this is just the beginning. The Navy recently announced that it will be upgrading and
expanding the site to provide more opportunities for innovators to test commercial-scale wave power
devices. Ocean Power calls its utility-scale version of the PowerBuoy the PB150. As the buoy bobs up
and down on offshore waves, it produces a mechanical stroking motion. That movement is transferred to a
“power take-off” unit that drives an on-board generator. The resulting electrical power gets transmitted to
shore by cable. In this latest step along the way to deployment, Ocean Power has completed factory
testing off the take-off unit, and it is being installed into the buoy. The take-off unit represents a step up
from the company’s initial efforts. It is scaled up from earlier versions, and its direct drive system has
greater efficiency compared to a hydraulic drive that was used in the first PowerBuoy designs. When
Ocean Power began testing the PowerBuoy a couple of years ago, the device served as the country’s first
grid-connected wave energy system. It provided electricity to Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Oahu.
Wave tech can be commercialized—it’s low cost and can power civilian energy grids
OPT 12 (Ocean Power Technologies, Wave Energy Conversion Company that primarily supplies and is
funded by the US Navy, 2013, "Ocean Power Technologies: Capturing Wave Energy for the U.S. Navy and
the Grid", http://www.acore.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ocean-Power-Technologies-CaseStudy.pdf)
Over the next few years, OPT continued to develop its utility- scale wave power technology, and in 2007,
the company achieved a few important steps along the commercialization pathway. During that year,
OPT's Undersea Substation Pod, the underwater system used to interconnect PowerBuoys to the grid,
received an independent certification that it complied with national and international standards. Another
focus was scaling the buoys themselves, and the company signed agree- ments to manufacture and install
its new and larger 150 kW buoys for testing in Reedsport, Oregon, and in Scotland. The goal for the
Reedsport project is to ultimately install 10 of these units, which will provide 1.5 megawatts (MW) of
electricity to the grid. The company also filed for permits from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERQ to build two utility-scale power generation projects, one of 50 MW and the other of
100 MW, off the coast of Oregon. Wave power projects of this size had not been attempted previously in
the United States. It turned out that 2007 was also an important year in other ways for OPT. Early in the
year, the company raised S90 mil- lion in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the NASDAQ ex- change.4
Development work on PowerBuoys for remote-sens- ing applications also took a step forward as OPT
began new SBIR work. The objective for this effort was to test a buoy off the coast of New Jersey to see
if it could serve as a power source for the Navy's Deep Water Active Detection System, an ocean datagathering and communications program. million power take-off cycles and 4,400 hours of operation, the
40 kW PowerBuoy in Hawaii was interconnected to the electrical grid for the first time at the Marine
Corps Base Hawaii.*1 In that same month, the U.S. Department of Energy chose OPT from a field of
competitors to test and ultimately manufacture larger buoys (500 kW) with the goal of developing a buoy
o" s-J'icie:-: scale for commercially competitive power generation* In the spring of 2011, the 150 kW unit
built in Scotland began ocean tri- als. Construction of the first 150 kW unit in Oregon is likely to be
completed in mid-2012. Meanwhile, OPT also has plans for wave power stations to be installed in
Australia, England and Spain.
Navy projects aim to develop tech with commercial scale capacity that can be
decommissioned—that attracts contractors
Casey 12 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, April 11th 2012, "U.S. Na--vy Looks to the Seas
for Clean Energy", http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/04/navy-enlists-companies-to-develop-wavepower-technology/)
The current phase, which the Navy is funding from the Department of Energy grants, involves selecting
contractors that will deploy buoys designed to capture energy from the motion of ocean waves and
convert it to electricity. A brief history of federal funding for ocean energy Though the Navy’s alternative energy programs under
President Obama are encountering criticism from certain legislators, the Kaneohe Bay facility is a bipartisan operation that
predates the Obama Administration. It was constructed by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC) in 2003, back when President Bush was Commander-in-Chief. By June 2004, a demonstration-scale wave energy buoy was
deployed at the Wave Energy Test Site under an ongoing research project cosponsored by the Navy and the University of Hawaii’s National
Marine Renewable Energy Center. The buoy, developed by the company Ocean Power Technologies, is a 40 kilowatt device situated in waters
about 100 feet deep. It operates by the up-and-down motion of waves, which drives an onboard generator. The electricity is transmitted to shore
by cable. Expanding the Navy’s ocean energy research The new project aims to develop wave energy buoys with a
commercial scale capacity in the range of 300 to 500 kilowatts. These larger buoys will be positioned at greater depths
and will require a new permitting process, as well as re-equipping the test center with new moorings and cables. At a recent NAVFAC conference
introducing new ocean energy technology from dozens of contractors that are vying for inclusion in the
project, NAVFAC Pacific Vice Commander Capt. Pete Lynch explained: The Navy is committed to reducing our
dependence on fossil fuels and is leading the way on the development of viable, renewable energy
sources. NAVFAC Pacific is working on ways to make the Navy’s shore infrastructure more energy
independent and strengthen our energy security position. The ocean is an untapped resource and possible source of
renewable energy. Contractors selected for the project will have to arrange their own financing for the buoys,
but it is still attracting a high level of interest from the private sector due to the potential for future
Department of Defense contracts for Navy bases worldwide. Participating contractors will also be spared
the expense of having to build or lease their own test facility. The test facility is already grid-connected, and the new cables
and moorings are expected to be in place by the end of 2012. The goal is to supply renewable wave energy to a nearby U.S. Marine Corps base by
2014. Hawaii as test case for alternative energy transition Due to its lack of fossil fuel resources and the expense of transporting fuels over long
distances, Hawaii suffers from chronically high energy prices and it is emerging as sort of national canary in the coal mine for the consequences
of over-dependence on fossil fuels. On the plus side, Hawaii is rapidly becoming a premier showcase for new alternative energy and energy
efficiency technologies through its Clean Energy Initiative, which launched in partnership with the Department of Energy in the final year of the
Bush Administration. The Department of Defense, which is the single largest consumer of energy in Hawaii, has contributed to the effort with a
number of projects that include a large rooftop solar array at the Navy base in Pearl Harbor and a new hydrogen fuel cell demonstration fleet in
partnership with GM.
Renewables—Commercialization
Military investment is K2 scale up production, ramp down productions and yield
commercial breakthroughs <<Republicans are also OK with temporary higher
spending>>
Davenport 12 (Coral, Energy and Environment Correspondent, National Journal, February 10 2012,
"White House Budget to Expand Clean-Energy Programs Through Pentagon",
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-budget/white-house-budget-to-expand-clean-energy-programsthrough-pentagon-20120210)
Increasing renewable-energy initiatives at the Pentagon can also help Obama advance his broader, national goals for
transitioning the U.S. economy from fossil fuels to alternative sources. As the largest industrial consumer
of energy in the world, the U.S. military can have a significant impact on energy markets – if it demands
significant amounts of energy from alternative sources, it could help scale up production and ramp down prices for clean
energy on the commercial market. Obama acknowledged those impacts in a speech last month at the Buckley Air Force Base in
Colorado. “The Navy is going to purchase enough clean-energy capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year. And it won’t cost
taxpayers a dime,” Obama said. “What does it mean? It means that the world’s largest consumer of energy – the Department of Defense – is
making one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history,” the president added. “That will grow this market, it will strengthen our energy
security.” Experts also hope that Pentagon engagement in clean-energy technology could help yield
breakthroughs with commercial applications. Kingston acknowledged that the upfront costs for alternative fuels are higher than
for conventional oil and gasoline. For example, the Air Force has pursued contracts to purchase biofuels made from algae and camelina, a grasslike plant, but those fuels can cost up to $150 a barrel, compared to oil, which is lately going for around $100 a barrel. Fuel-efficient hybrid tanks
can cost $1 million more than conventional tanks – although in the long run they can help lessen the military’s oil dependence, Kingston said
Republicans recognize that the up-front cost can yield a payoff later. “It wouldn’t be dead on arrival. But
we’d need to see a two- to three-year payoff on the investment,” Kingston said.
Wave energy--commercially viable
Sufficient capability to power cities—PowerBuoys are ready and Navy is developing
other commercial scale devices
Casey 12 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, June 24 2012, "Utility-Scale Wave Power,
Thanks to U.S. Navy", http://cleantechnica.com/2012/06/24/navy-helps-develop-wave-power/)
Ocean waves could soon be powering thousands of homes and businesses in the Reedsport, Oregon area,
and a good part of the credit will be due to the U.S. Navy. The Ocean Power Technologies technology,
called PowerBuoy®, underwent two years of development at the Navy’s wave power test facility in
Hawaii, and this is just the beginning. The Navy recently announced that it will be upgrading and
expanding the site to provide more opportunities for innovators to test commercial-scale wave power
devices. Ocean Power calls its utility-scale version of the PowerBuoy the PB150. As the buoy bobs up
and down on offshore waves, it produces a mechanical stroking motion. That movement is transferred to a
“power take-off” unit that drives an on-board generator. The resulting electrical power gets transmitted to
shore by cable. In this latest step along the way to deployment, Ocean Power has completed factory
testing off the take-off unit, and it is being installed into the buoy. The take-off unit represents a step up
from the company’s initial efforts. It is scaled up from earlier versions, and its direct drive system has
greater efficiency compared to a hydraulic drive that was used in the first PowerBuoy designs. When
Ocean Power began testing the PowerBuoy a couple of years ago, the device served as the country’s first
grid-connected wave energy system. It provided electricity to Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Oahu.
Wave tech can be commercialized—it’s low cost and can power civilian energy grids
OPT 12 (Ocean Power Technologies, Wave Energy Conversion Company that primarily supplies and is
funded by the US Navy, 2013, "Ocean Power Technologies: Capturing Wave Energy for the U.S. Navy and
the Grid", http://www.acore.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ocean-Power-Technologies-CaseStudy.pdf)
Over the next few years, OPT continued to develop its utility- scale wave power technology, and in 2007,
the company achieved a few important steps along the commercialization pathway. During that year,
OPT's Undersea Substation Pod, the underwater system used to interconnect PowerBuoys to the grid,
received an independent certification that it complied with national and international standards. Another
focus was scaling the buoys themselves, and the company signed agree- ments to manufacture and install
its new and larger 150 kW buoys for testing in Reedsport, Oregon, and in Scotland. The goal for the
Reedsport project is to ultimately install 10 of these units, which will provide 1.5 megawatts (MW) of
electricity to the grid. The company also filed for permits from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERQ to build two utility-scale power generation projects, one of 50 MW and the other of
100 MW, off the coast of Oregon. Wave power projects of this size had not been attempted previously in
the United States. It turned out that 2007 was also an important year in other ways for OPT. Early in the
year, the company raised S90 mil- lion in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the NASDAQ ex- change.4
Development work on PowerBuoys for remote-sens- ing applications also took a step forward as OPT
began new SBIR work. The objective for this effort was to test a buoy off the coast of New Jersey to see
if it could serve as a power source for the Navy's Deep Water Active Detection System, an ocean datagathering and communications program. million power take-off cycles and 4,400 hours of operation, the
40 kW PowerBuoy in Hawaii was interconnected to the electrical grid for the first time at the Marine
Corps Base Hawaii.*1 In that same month, the U.S. Department of Energy chose OPT from a field of
competitors to test and ultimately manufacture larger buoys (500 kW) with the goal of developing a buoy
o" s-J'icie:-: scale for commercially competitive power generation* In the spring of 2011, the 150 kW unit
built in Scotland began ocean tri- als. Construction of the first 150 kW unit in Oregon is likely to be
completed in mid-2012. Meanwhile, OPT also has plans for wave power stations to be installed in
Australia, England and Spain.
Navy projects aim to develop tech with commercial scale capacity that can be
decommissioned—that attracts contractors
Casey 12 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, April 11th 2012, "U.S. Na--vy Looks to the Seas
for Clean Energy", http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/04/navy-enlists-companies-to-develop-wavepower-technology/)
The current phase, which the Navy is funding from the Department of Energy grants, involves selecting
contractors that will deploy buoys designed to capture energy from the motion of ocean waves and
convert it to electricity. A brief history of federal funding for ocean energy Though the Navy’s alternative energy programs under
President Obama are encountering criticism from certain legislators, the Kaneohe Bay facility is a bipartisan operation that
predates the Obama Administration. It was constructed by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(NAVFAC) in 2003, back when President Bush was Commander-in-Chief. By June 2004, a demonstration-scale wave energy buoy was
deployed at the Wave Energy Test Site under an ongoing research project cosponsored by the Navy and the University of Hawaii’s National
Marine Renewable Energy Center. The buoy, developed by the company Ocean Power Technologies, is a 40 kilowatt device situated in waters
about 100 feet deep. It operates by the up-and-down motion of waves, which drives an onboard generator. The electricity is transmitted to shore
by cable. Expanding the Navy’s ocean energy research The new project aims to develop wave energy buoys with a
commercial scale capacity in the range of 300 to 500 kilowatts. These larger buoys will be positioned at greater depths
and will require a new permitting process, as well as re-equipping the test center with new moorings and cables. At a recent NAVFAC conference
introducing new ocean energy technology from dozens of contractors that are vying for inclusion in the
project, NAVFAC Pacific Vice Commander Capt. Pete Lynch explained: The Navy is committed to reducing our
dependence on fossil fuels and is leading the way on the development of viable, renewable energy
sources. NAVFAC Pacific is working on ways to make the Navy’s shore infrastructure more energy
independent and strengthen our energy security position. The ocean is an untapped resource and possible source of
renewable energy. Contractors selected for the project will have to arrange their own financing for the buoys,
but it is still attracting a high level of interest from the private sector due to the potential for future
Department of Defense contracts for Navy bases worldwide. Participating contractors will also be spared
the expense of having to build or lease their own test facility. The test facility is already grid-connected, and the new cables
and moorings are expected to be in place by the end of 2012. The goal is to supply renewable wave energy to a nearby U.S. Marine Corps base by
2014. Hawaii as test case for alternative energy transition Due to its lack of fossil fuel resources and the expense of transporting fuels over long
distances, Hawaii suffers from chronically high energy prices and it is emerging as sort of national canary in the coal mine for the consequences
of over-dependence on fossil fuels. On the plus side, Hawaii is rapidly becoming a premier showcase for new alternative energy and energy
efficiency technologies through its Clean Energy Initiative, which launched in partnership with the Department of Energy in the final year of the
Bush Administration. The Department of Defense, which is the single largest consumer of energy in Hawaii, has contributed to the effort with a
number of projects that include a large rooftop solar array at the Navy base in Pearl Harbor and a new hydrogen fuel cell demonstration fleet in
partnership with GM.
Renewables—Commercialization
Military investment is K2 scale up production, ramp down productions and yield
commercial breakthroughs <<Republicans are also OK with temporary higher
spending>>
Davenport 12 (Coral, Energy and Environment Correspondent, National Journal, February 10 2012,
"White House Budget to Expand Clean-Energy Programs Through Pentagon",
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-budget/white-house-budget-to-expand-clean-energy-programsthrough-pentagon-20120210)
Increasing renewable-energy initiatives at the Pentagon can also help Obama advance his broader, national goals for
transitioning the U.S. economy from fossil fuels to alternative sources. As the largest industrial consumer
of energy in the world, the U.S. military can have a significant impact on energy markets – if it demands
significant amounts of energy from alternative sources, it could help scale up production and ramp down prices for clean
energy on the commercial market. Obama acknowledged those impacts in a speech last month at the Buckley Air Force Base in
Colorado. “The Navy is going to purchase enough clean-energy capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year. And it won’t cost
taxpayers a dime,” Obama said. “What does it mean? It means that the world’s largest consumer of energy – the Department of Defense – is
making one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history,” the president added. “That will grow this market, it will strengthen our energy
security.” Experts also hope that Pentagon engagement in clean-energy technology could help yield
breakthroughs with commercial applications. Kingston acknowledged that the upfront costs for alternative fuels are higher than
for conventional oil and gasoline. For example, the Air Force has pursued contracts to purchase biofuels made from algae and camelina, a grasslike plant, but those fuels can cost up to $150 a barrel, compared to oil, which is lately going for around $100 a barrel. Fuel-efficient hybrid tanks
can cost $1 million more than conventional tanks – although in the long run they can help lessen the military’s oil dependence, Kingston said
Republicans recognize that the up-front cost can yield a payoff later. “It wouldn’t be dead on arrival. But
we’d need to see a two- to three-year payoff on the investment,” Kingston said.
AT: Aff Doesn’t Do R&D
The CP triggers R&D funding, even if the aff doesn’t directly fund R&D—new
program
Weisgerber 6/14
(MARCUS WEISGERBER, Pentagon Correspondent at Defense News, “Pentagon To Create 'Technology Offsets,' Encourage R&D Spending,”
Jun. 14, 2014, DefenseNews, http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140614/DEFREG02/306140019/Pentagon-Create-Technology-OffsetsEncourage-R-D-Spending)//BB
WASHINGTON — Newly installed US Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work has launched a major push to
encourage industry to invest in capabilities the Pentagon believes will give it the edge on the battlefield,
Pentagon sources said. Work has already started sharing his vision for what he is calling “technology offsets” both inside the
Pentagon and in meetings with defense industry executives. He is expected to articulate his vision in the coming weeks and months, sources said.
The deputy secretary’s focus is making sure the US military keeps its strategic advantage, even as the defense
budget contracts, those with knowledge of the plan said. He is also pushing for the Defense Department to gain a greater understanding of the
capabilities possessed by potential adversaries. During a May 22 meeting with the defense industry CEOs organized by the Aerospace Industries
Association in Williamsburg, Virginia, Work spoke of two major technology offsets that have allowed the US to remain an uncontested
superpower since World War II: the development of nuclear weapons and networked, precision-guided munitions. Now, he is focusing on the
next game-changing capability. As part of technology emphasis, DoD is looking to introduce more innovation into
acquisition plans and practices for its Better Buying Power — procurement improvement — initiatives,
Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, said in a June 11 note to investors. “That might be good for some firms that embrace
change and risk but not so good for those who don’t, or can’t manage it,” Callan wrote. Work — a retired Marine Corps colonel and former Navy
undersecretary who became deputy secretary on May 5 — began exploring these tech offsets last year when he was CEO of the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS) in Washington. The think tank just completed a review of the global defense industry led by Bill Lynn — CEO of
Finmeccanica North America and a former deputy defense secretary under Robert Gates and Leon Panetta — and retired Adm. James Stavridis,
dean of Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Work’s technological offset initiative will serve as
guidance to the defense industry, which has been pressured by Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for acquisition,
technology and logistics, for nearly a year to invest more in research-and-development (R&D) projects. Companies
have argued that DoD has needed to better articulate its long-term technology strategy so R&D investments are not made in vain. “It’s really
hard for industry to invest right now when they don’t know what the future holds,” one industry source said.
“What great things are out there for companies to invest in and can they depend on those programs being
there in five years after they’ve invested millions of their own dollars ... on developing the technologies?”
As defense business shrank in recent years, many firms have reduced their internal R&D work. With uncertainty
looming indefinitely over federal spending levels, companies argued DoD needs to better articulate its
future needs, so they know where to tailor investments. Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin’s chairman, CEO and president, said on June 9
that her firm plans to boost its internal R&D spending by more than $30 million this year from the $700 million it spent last year. But despite the
increase, the company’s investment in these types of projects is still lower than the $822 million it spent in 1999. Companies are encouraged that
Work, so early in his tenure, took the time to come speak to with them about his tech offset plan, the industry source said. But, Lynn and Stavridis
argue in the CNAS report that the defense industry is moving too slowly to adjust to trends in technology and security. Global defense
companies should import and adapt more commercial technology into military weapons of the future , Lynn
said at a June 11 CNAS conference. “To maintain our technological edge, what you’re going to have to see is the defense sector is going to have
to become more an importer [of commercial technology] than we have in the past,” Lynn said. “The balance has been more toward export.”
Historically, defense companies have developed military systems — such as GPS and the Internet — which were then made available
commercially. “The model was to develop things internally and then put them out [commercially],” Lynn said. “We still need to do that in some
cases, but in many more cases we’re going to have to pull commercial technologies in and militarize them and operationalize them,” he said. The
Pentagon is more often using these types of technologies, such as 3-D printing and IT systems, allowing troops to use smartphones to view realtime reconnaissance information. In the past five years, Lynn said the commercial content in defense acquisitions has risen from about 10 percent
to about 30 percent. While the jury is still out on what types of technologies will give DoD the advantage in the
future, experts say cyber tools will certainly be on the Pentagon’s wish list of future capabilities.
Military funded better
Huge Funding
Chinese belligerence makes funding an easy sell
Freedberg Jr 14 (Sydney J, Deputy Editor of online defense magazine Breaking Defense , January 6
2014, "The Navy’s 2014: Subs, Cyber, & Cheap Support Ships",
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1380)
The Navy, is, hands down, the service in the best shape for 2014. Every act of belligerent idiocy from
Beijing – and there’ve been a lot of them lately – makes the Navy budget an easier sell. In stark contrast
to the Army, the Navy has the central role in the new Pacific-focused strategy, a high-tech threat
justifying high-cost programs, a highly visible role in peacetime engagement around the world, and,
perhaps most crucial, a clear set of missions.
More sustainable
Use of third party financing and the private sector guarantee sufficient funding
during projects
Erwin 14 (Sandra I, Editor of National Defense, magazine of National Defense Industrial Association,
January 16 2014, "Renewable Energy Boom Underway at U.S. Military Bases",
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1380)
Pew analysts said the Pentagon’s clean energy initiatives are gathering momentum, due in part to its
significant reliance on the private sector and third-party financing. “In the coming months and years, the
department’s energy consumption will decline, renewable energy capacity will grow, and deployment of microgrids
will expand,” said the Pew study, titled “Power Surge: How the Department of Defense Leverages Private Resources to Enhance Energy
Security and Save Money on U.S. Military Bases.” Honeywell Corp, for instance, has a 20-year energy savings performance contract at Tinker
Air Force Base, Okla., that will save $170 million. SunPower has a 20-year power purchase agreement at Navy Air Weapons Station China Lake,
Calif., that will be the Navy’s largest solar system. The Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Ga., is saving $1.3 million annually by using
landfill gas and is an Environmental Protection Agency Energy Star Award winner, the study noted. Sun Edison, through a 25-year partnership, is
building a 14-megawatt solar array at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona that is estimated to save $500,000 annually. Tooele Army Depot
in Utah installed a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine in 2010 that reportedly saves more than $200,000 per year in energy costs. Turning over
these projects to the private sector guarantees that there will be enough energy cost savings to pay for the
project over the term of the contract, the report said. The value of energy saving performance contracts across the armed forces has
increased from $277 million in fiscal year 2010 to over $411 million in 2012. Overall, third-party financing for energy
efficiency projects totaled $459 million in fiscal year 2012.
DoD will be more fiscally responsible--previous budget cuts has forced it to rely on
low-budget means
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_Arctic_Strategy.pdf
Fiscal constraints may delay or deny needed investment in Arctic capabilities, and may curtail Arctic
training and operations. As the Department downsizes to meet budgetary targets, it will have to prioritize
engagements for the resulting smaller force. There is also a risk that desired investments in Arctic
capabilities may not compete successfully against other requirements in the Department’s budgetary
priorities. Where possible, DoD will mitigate this risk by developing innovative ways to employ existing
capabilities in coordination with other departments and agencies and international partners, and by
enhancing scientific, research, and development partnerships. CDRUSNORTHCOM plays a key role
in mitigating this risk as the Arctic capability advocate within the Department’s planning and
programming activities. Commander, U.S. European Command (CDRUSEUCOM) and Commander,
U.S. Pacific Command (CDRUSPACOM) also play a role by fostering collaborative working
relationships with regional partners.
Politics
Biofuels
Navy can circumvent partisan opposition—Hawaii investment proves
Casey 12 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, April 11th 2012, "U.S. Na--vy Looks to the Seas
for Clean Energy", http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/04/navy-enlists-companies-to-develop-wavepower-technology/)
The company was recently recognized by the US EPA for its innovative algae biofuel and industrial
carbon capture system, but we’re more interested in the idea that the Kuehnle investment represents yet
another end-run by the Navy around partisan opposition to its biofuel initiatives, particularly
algae biofuel. Though key federal legislators including Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Randy
Forbes (R-VA) have repeatedly attempted to torpedo the Navy’s biofuel initiatives, so far the Obama
Administration has managed to deploy its executive authority to keep the programs humming along.
Energy Projects
Doesn’t need to request money from Congress—up-front appropriations and
alternative-financing mechanisms solve
GAO 12 (US Government Accountability Office, April 4 2012, "RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT
FINANCING: Improved Guidance and Information Sharing Needed for DOD Project-Level Officials ",
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-401)
To finance renewable energy projects, the military services use up-front appropriations, such as operation
and maintenance funds, and alternative-financing approaches that generally rely on private capital, such
as arranging financing and implementing a project with a private developer or utility. The military
services have funded about 85 percent of nearly 600 projects that were in design, under construction, or
operating in fiscal year 2011 with up-front appropriations, but financed 8 of the 9 large-scale projects and
19 of the 57 medium-scale projects with alternative financing. Several factors affect the military services’
use of financing approaches, including perceived benefits and drawbacks such as how long it takes to
obtain funding.
Military alternative energy is popular with Republicans—it’s a question of energy
security
Davenport 12 (Coral, Energy and Environment Correspondent, National Journal, February 10 2012,
"White House Budget to Expand Clean-Energy Programs Through Pentagon",
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-budget/white-house-budget-to-expand-clean-energy-programsthrough-pentagon-20120210)
The White House believes it has figured out how to get more money for clean-energy programs touted by
President Obama without having it become political roadkill in the wake of the Solyndra controversy: Put it in the
Pentagon . While details are thin on the ground, lawmakers who work on both energy- and defense-spending policy
believe the fiscal 2013 budget request to be delivered to Congress on Monday probably won’t include big
increases for wind and solar power through the Energy Department, a major target for Republicans since solar-panel
maker Solyndra defaulted last year on a $535 million loan guarantee. But they do expect to see increases in spending on
alternative energy in the Defense Department, such as programs to replace traditional jet fuel with
biofuels, supply troops on the front lines with solar-powered electronic equipment, build hybrid-engine tanks and
aircraft carriers, and increase renewable-energy use on military bases. While Republicans will instantly shoot down
requests for fresh spending on Energy Department programs that could be likened to the one that funded Solyndra, many support
alternative-energy programs for the military. “I do expect to see the spending,” said Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a member of the
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, when asked about increased investment in alternative-energy programs at the Pentagon. “I think in
the past three to five years this has been going on, but that it has grown as a culture and a practice – and it’s a good thing.” “If Israel attacks
Iran, and we have to go to war – and the Straits of Hormuz are closed for a week or a month and the price
of fuel is going to be high,” Kingston said, “the question is, in the military, what do you replace it with?
It’s not something you just do for the ozone. It’s strategic.” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who sits on both the Senate
Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said, “I don’t see what they’re doing in DOD as being Solyndra.”
“We’re not talking about putting $500 million into a goofy idea,” Graham told National Journal. “We’re talking about taking applications of
technologies that work and expanding them. I wouldn’t be for DOD having a bunch of money to play around with renewable technologies that
have no hope. But from what I understand, there are renewables out there that already work.”
Lobbies Solve
No PC loss from military spending—lobbyists push and are massively powerful
Bloomberg 13
(Jonathan D. Salant and Terry Atlas, Bloomberg reporters, “Defense Fights Sequestration Eisenhower Couldn’t Predict”, Oct 29, 2013
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20131031/NEWS02/710319913)//BB
WASHINGTON -- Defense industry lobbyists are bearing down on members of Congress in a bid to avert $52 billion in
automatic spending cuts, part of a series of reductions that threaten to reshape military programs and contractors' profits for years. U.S.
lawmakers have been barraged with phone calls, letters and visits in the biggest lobbying campaign by military
contractors in recent history, as a special congressional committee begins meeting today in an effort to produce a budget accord replacing cuts
approved in 2011, known as sequestration. For the defense industry, this is a potentially transformational moment in its relationship with
Congress, where defense spending long was accorded special status as a matter of national security and
hometown jobs - reinforced by campaign contributions. John McCain of Arizona, a leading Senate voice on defense, said
military spending is no longer sacrosanct, even among fellow Republicans. "It's a new generation of conservatives that may not have the same
concern for national security as previously," McCain said Tuesday. "A lot of them have never served, many of them are new in the Congress and
many of them campaigned committed to cutting spending." The Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group that counts
top contractors Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. as members, said it is waging its largest
campaign in years against sequestration. The mandated defense spending cuts will take about $52 billion from the Pentagon's request of
$526.6 billion, excluding war costs, for the current fiscal year. A key deadline is Dec. 13, when congressional negotiators are to propose a budget
before a temporary spending bill expires a month later. While the contractors want to avoid the next round of cuts, they also want to avoid a "new
normal where lower defense spending is acceptable," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University in New
Jersey. Defense programs would be reduced by about $500 billion over nine years from planned levels if sequestration stays in place. "They
want to counteract the perception that lower spending won't actually endanger the nation," Zelizer said.
Shields the link—funding circumvents Congress
Multiple financing mechanisms that don’t go through Congress—DOD funding and
third party contracts
Pew 14 (Pew Charitable Trust, January 16 2014, "Power Surge: Energy Security and the Department of
Defense", http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Imported-andLegacy/uploadedfiles/peg/publications/report/PEWDoDReport2013KS10020314pdf.pdf)
Until recently, the Office of the Secretary of Defense awarded these allocations, with each service branch
receiving funds. More recently, the program has been revised to encourage open competition in projects across
the military branches, and it is focusing less on small projects and more on initiatives that can leverage the investment for larger projects.11 With
appropriated dollars, DOD typically uses either fixed-price contracts for goods and services delivered according to
specifications and on a timeline, or multiple-award task order contracts, which can be awarded to several contractors for an
"indefinite quantity" of goods and services delivered over an undefined period. These contracts are often called ID/IQ, or umbrella contracts.To
fund these efficiency programs, the Department of Defense has turned to private, third-party contracts that leverage
private-sector expertise and resources. Contractors design, finance, build, operate, and maintain a project;
they are paid from savings that occur over the term of the contract, thereby requiring little or no upfront
capital from DOD. When the contract ends, all savings revert to the base. The department has used these third- party
contracts extensively, awarding more than $5 billion worth between 1999 and 2011." There are two types
of third-party financing mechanisms used to advance energy-efficiency measures: Energy saving
performance contracts: Under these agreements, companies or utilities identify and finance energy-efficiency opportunities on bases at
little or no upfront cost to the military and without congressional appropriations. Companies guarantee that the improvements
will generate enough cost savings to pay for the project over the term of the contract. After the contract ends,
additional cost savings accrue to the agency. The savings must be guaranteed, and federal agencies may enter into a multiyear contract for a
period not to exceed 25 years. The military has used these contracts for several decades, and they make sense when appropriated funding is
unavailable. But energy saving performance contracts also involve complicated agreements and certain financial costs, such as interest payments,
that are not incurred with directly funded projects. The value of these contracts across the armed forces has risen from $277 million in fiscal 2010
to just over $411 million in 2012. a 49 percent increase. Utility energy service contracts: This financing mechanism is
essentially a performance contract undertaken directly with a utility. Under these agreements, the utility is the contractor
that initiates energy saving measures and is paid from the resulting savings. As utilities become more involved in demand-side
management, they are more active in pursuing these contracts with the military and better able to offer
expertise in serving energy- efficiency goals. Use of utility energy service contracts has increased almost 3 percent, from $46
million in fiscal 2010 to $47.2 million in 2012.
Shields the link—election year
Cost cutting unpopular with either party during election year
Defense Industry News 14 (Defense program acquisition news, budget data, market briefings, June
26 2014, "FY15 US Defense Budget Finally Complete with War Funding",
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fy2015-dod-budget-attempts-to-steer-congress-towardssequestration-fy16-relief-021966/)
May 23/14: SASC NDAA. The Senate Committee on Armed Services completed external link its markup
for the FY15 NDAA bill (S2410 external link) and approved it 25-1. Like their House counterparts they
tinker with many of the Administration’s attempted cuts (A-10s, C-130 AMP and so forth), as per the
committee highlights external link [PDF]. Cost cutting looks unlikely to receive much Congressional
support during an election year, especially as forecasters say Democrats are far from guaranteed to keep
their Senate majority while Republicans are safe in the House (update: though which Republicans those
will be seems a more open question after Eric Cantor’s unexpected primary loss on June 10).
Popular in Congress
Congress loves military spending—even voted to fund programs the DOD wanted to
ax
Brownlee 5/23
(Phillip Brownlee, Wichita Eagle, May 23, 2014, “Congress hates to cut military spending,” http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2014/05/congresshates-to-cut-military-spending/#storylink=cpy)//BB
Members of Congress come and go, but one thing never seems to change: Lawmakers hate to cut spending on
military programs, weapons and equipment, no matter how outdated or ineffective. That’s particularly true if the
spending is connected to their home districts. The House, including many tea party members and all four
Kansas delegation members, defied the wishes of the Pentagon – and circumvented its own budget caps – by
voting to maintain funding for the Cold War-era U-2 spy plane and the A-10 Warthog plane, to keep open several
military bases, and to keep 11 Navy cruisers and an aircraft carrier in service. “Congress simply undid all of the
department’s cost-saving measures and slashed readiness accounts without offering alternatives ,” said Rep.
Adam Smith, D-Wash., ranking minority member on the House Armed Services Committee.
Republicans approve military efforts to strengthen energy security
Davenport 12 (Coral, Energy and Environment Correspondent, National Journal, February 10 2012,
"White House Budget to Expand Clean-Energy Programs Through Pentagon",
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2013-budget/white-house-budget-to-expand-clean-energy-programsthrough-pentagon-20120210)
Last June, the DOD rolled out its first department-wide energy policy to coalesce alternative and energyefficient initiatives across the military services. In January, the department announced that a study of
military installations in the western United States found four California desert bases suitable to produce
enough solar energy – 7,000 megawatts – to match seven nuclear power plants. And so far, those moves
have met with approval from congressional Republicans.
Popular with Public
Military spending is popular—perceived as key to security
ABC News 13
(By Greg Holyk, “Most Back Cuts Overall – But Not to the Military,” Mar 6, 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/most-backcuts-overall-but-not-to-the-military/)//BB
The public by nearly 2-1, 61-33 percent, supports cutting the overall budget along the lines of the sequester that took effect last
Friday. But by nearly an identical margin, Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose an eight percent acrossthe-board cut in military spending. See PDF with full results, charts and tables here. These views come before the $85 billion in cuts this year have
taken hold, leaving open the question of how the public will respond once the reductions hit home. Nonetheless, the results suggest that warnings about
the nation’s military readiness have resonated , while the public is more skeptical about the damage the sequester poses to federal
programs more generally. Support for a five percent reduction in federal spending crosses party lines in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates; it
includes 57 percent of Democrats, six in 10 independents and three-quarters of Republicans. Shaving eight percent off the
military budget, on the other
opposed by 73 percent of Republicans and 63 percent of independents, with Democrats split down
the middle. Strength of sentiment also lands squarely in favor of overall budget cuts, and against those to the military. Strong support for overall cuts outpaces
hand, is
strong opposition by 15 percentage points, while it’s the opposite, by 25 points, when it comes to military spending. Republicans feel more strongly about reducing
overall spending, with 55 percent strongly in favor, 19 and 34 points greater than strong sentiment among independents and Democrats, respectively. Republicans and
independents more strongly defend the defense budget compared with Democrats, by 25 and 16 points, respectively. CUTS – The public’s willingness to cut federal
spending overall likely reflects continued concerns about the deficit, as well as frustration with Washington’s ongoing budget wrangles. In an ABC/Post poll in
January nearly nine in 10 Americans rated reducing federal spending as a high priority for the president and Congress, in the mix with other top issues such as
majorities
didn’t want to cut military spending in order to reach a budget agreement. (Most also opposed cutting Medicare, which also
restoring the economy and restructuring the tax system. However, a December ABC/Post poll during the “fiscal cliff” negotiations found that
is hit by sequestration, and Medicaid and Social Security, which are spared the sequestration cuts.) ABC/Post polling also has found a continued preference for a mix
of tax increases and spending cuts to reduce the deficit, as well as greater approval for Obama vs. the Republicans in Congress on handling federal spending, as
reported in an ABC/Post poll last week. That suggests risk for both sides, but particularly the GOP, if the mood over sequestration cuts turns sour. It’s worth noting,
too, that support for budget cuts in general may be easier to express than support for cuts in particular programs – again raising the question of the direction of public
attitudes as specific cuts take hold. There have been different estimates of the extent of sequestration cuts this year; the figures of five percent in total, and eight
percent of military spending, were reported by The New York Times on Feb. 21. GROUPS – In addition to partisan divisions, there are differences on views of the
cuts among ideological and other groups. Liberals divide on both kinds of across-the-board spending cuts, while nearly six in 10 moderates and just more than seven
in 10 conservatives support overall cuts and oppose military cuts. Among those who say they’re “very” conservative, almost two-thirds strongly favor overall cuts and
strongly oppose those to defense. Among other groups, men are 16 points more apt than women to support reducing the federal budget overall, and support for cuts
generally also is higher among whites vs. nonwhites and college graduates vs. those with less education. There’s also an interesting dynamic among income brackets.
People earning less than $50,000 a year are less supportive of overall budget cuts, compared with better-off adults. But on military spending, views differ – support for
cuts peaks among wealthier Americans, those with incomes of $100,000 or more. Finally, this poll finds support for overall cuts 9 points higher when the question
comes after asking about military cuts (66 vs. 57 percent) – majorities in both cases, but suggesting more acceptance of overall cuts if the military takes a hit, too. On
the other hand, views
on military cuts are similar regardless of question order.
Colonization Solvency
Colonization Generic--DOD
Jurisdiction over multiple domains bolsters solvency
DoD 13 (US Department of Defense, September 2013, "Arctic Strategy",
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_Arctic_Strategy.pdf)
Engage public and private sector partners to improve all domain awareness in the Arctic. Although NSPD-66/HSPD-25 focuses on maritime
domain awareness, the Department has responsibilities for awareness across all domains: air, land, maritime,
space, and cyberspace. Adequate domain awareness is an essential component of protecting maritime
commerce, critical infrastructure, and key resources. In the near-term, the Department will work through the North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to maintain air tracking capabilities in the Arctic. As the maritime domain becomes
increasingly accessible, the Department will seek to improve its maritime detection and tracking in
coordination with DHS and other departments and agencies as well as through public/private partnerships .
The Department of the Navy, in its role as DoD Executive Agent for Maritime Domain Awareness, will lead DoD coordination on maritime
detection and tracking. Where possible, DoD will also collaborate with international partners to employ, acquire,
share, or develop the means required to improve sensing, data collection and fusion, analysis, and
information-sharing to enhance domain awareness appropriately in the Arctic.
Best agency for tech innovation and R and D
CATF 12 (Clean Air Task Force, Climate Change and Air Quality Protection NGO, March 2012, "ENERGY
INNOVATION at the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE ASSESSING THE OPPORTUNITIES",
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Energy_Innovation_at_DoD.pdf)
DoD integrates into the pursuit of its mission the full panoply of R&D functions found in the private
sector (box 1.1). Other agencies such as the Department of Energy aim to catalyze private sector
innovation, but since the accomplishment of their mission does not usually require them to purchase the
products of the research they support, they often must make decisions without benefit of the guidance that
DoD managers take from planning and foresight exercises that go on constantly within the services. DoD
is also unique among agencies in the degree to which its technology spending flows to private firms rather
than to its own laboratories or to universities and other nonprofits. The sums are large—some $235 billion
for R&D and procurement in fiscal 2011—and by other measures, too, DoD commands greater innovative
capacity than the rest of government. The Army, Navy, and Air Force, for example, employ nearly
100,000 engineers and scientists between them. Most of the people, and most of the money, support
acquisition of systems and equipment from fi rms in the extended defense industry (which is perhaps best
thought of as a virtual industry). Eugene Gholz's white paper. The Dynamics of Military Innovation and
the Prospects for Defense- Led Energy Innovation,"discusses the relationships between DoD and its
contractors.
Energy Solvency
Advantage—Warming--DoD
DOD action on warming spills over globally
Casey 13
(Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater
issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters and Scientific American, “Department Of Defense Launches Attack On Climate
Change,” February 23rd, 2013, Clean Technica, http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/23/climate-change-and-national-security-addressed-in-newreport/)//BB
Given that DoD does not exist in a vacuum, you can expect the agency’s plans to ripple out and affect other
sectors, potentially including the global fossil fuel marketplace. new DoD report outlines impact of climate change on
national securityClimate Change and National Security For a bit of background, in 2009 President Obama issued Executive Order 13514,
which directed all federal agencies to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities. It also directed agencies to start
developing plans for dealing with those impacts. DoD incorporated those findings in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review, which is a big deal because that document is the mechanism for translating strategy into action. In other
words, the QDR results in real-life, potentially dramatic shifts in the way DoD forces and resources are
allocated. So, when the 2010 QDR asserted that climate change has become a significant national security
threat, that wasn’t just DoD yelling into the wind, that was DoD putting the wheels of action in motion. The Climate Change Adaptation
Roadmap (CCAR) Fast-forward to 2013, and now we have the next step, an actual blueprint for action in the form of CCAR. The direct impacts
that CCAR outlines include operational hardships and reduced training opportunities due to increased heat and extreme weather events, reduced
access by ground vehicles (due to flooding or melting permafrost, for example), infrastructure degradation leading to increased costs for
maintaining roads, runways and utilities, increased energy costs and risks to facilities from wildfires, coastal flooding and other exreme events.
CCAR inventories many more indirect impacts, too. All this is by way of hammering home the main point, which is to acknowledge the reality of
the situation and deal with it. The Department of Defense, in Defense of Science CCAR basically describes how DoD decision-making
will pivot around climate science and related fields, by fully integrating “climate change considerations into its extant
policies, planning, practices and programs.” The first step is to designate an advisory committee that will ensure a direct, nimble
exchange of climate related information between DoD and other relevant agencies and authorities. This reality-based approach is clearly stated in
the advisory committee’s first set of goals, which include stressing “the importance of the science-policy interface.” The emphasis on science
continues throughout CCAR, particularly in regard to ensuring that the “best available science” is available to DoD decision-makers. For the
record, let’s also note that DoD hasn’t exactly standing still while working on its blueprint for action. Since 2009, DoD has been
transitioning to sustainable energy on practically innumerable fronts. The initiatives include solar power
(both stationary and portable solar power), biofuels, alternative fuel vehicles, smart microgrids and EV-to-grid
systems. Many of these initiatives can easily apply to civilian use and some projects, like the new SPIDERS microgrid, are being developed
specifically with widespread adoption by the civilian sector in mind. DoD and the Keystone XL Pipeline CCAR also outlines the need for
international as well as domestic partnerships, so it has some interesting implications for the fossil fuel industry, including the export market. In
describing how DoD will continue to collaborate with the State Department (and foreign militaries) on climate
assessment, CCAR also describes climate change as this: “…a unique opportunity to work collaboratively
in multilateral forums, promoting a balanced approach that will improve human and environmental
security in the region.” That appears to make the case that DoD’s climate-related concerns will interact with State
Department policymaking in new and important ways. In particular, CCAR seems to put another roadblock in
front of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring tar sands oil from fields in Canada down
through the U.S. midwest, to the Gulf Coast for export.
Biofuels—DOD
Defense department only source of investment for biofuels—oil and gas lobbies in
Congress prevent any funding <<also politics link card?>>
Erwin 14 (Sandra I, Editor of National Defense, magazine of National Defense Industrial Association,
January 1 2014, "Navy to Stay the Course With Biofuels", https://asunews.asu.edu/20140527-navyvisits-asu-algae-test-bed)
Biofuel producers certainly hope so. The Defense Department emerged in 2009 as a champion of biofuels in the wake
of steep oil price hikes that cost the Pentagon billions of dollars in unforeseen expenses. But in just the past four years, the
industry has seen the political and economic climate deteriorate. Oil and gas production is booming in
the United States, making biofuels less appealing. The Environmental Protection Agency dealt the industry a major
blow last year when it recommended reducing the amount of ethanol in the nation’s fuel supply. Suppliers
now see the Navy as a slim ray of hope in a cloudy future . “We are encouraged by what the Navy is
doing,” says Hugh C. Welsh, president of DSM North America, a materials and chemicals multinational corporation that is
investing heavily in biofuels. “The Navy sees the tactical and strategic advantages of drop-in biofuels,” Welsh says in
an interview. “I am happy to see that they are continuing with their program. They seem less hamstrung by all the political nonsense that is going
on. They see these fuels as aligned with their strategic objectives.” Biofuel producers worry about a changing political
climate in which the U.S. oil and gas industry are gaining strength as domestic production makes the
nation less dependent on foreign suppliers. The oil and gas lobbies, Welsh says, have waged a year-long
campaign to undermine the development of advanced biofuels and the renewable-fuel standard. The RFS
requires oil companies to blend ethanol and biodiesel into their gasoline. Welsh says the EPA's recommendation to weaken the RFS will dampen
innovation and private investment. Corn-based or sugar-based ethanol is a low-density fuel that is mixed with gasoline. The advanced
biofuels sought by the Defense Department demand additional industry investment. They must be drop-in
substitutes for conventional diesel, jet fuel or gasoline. They also must be made from low-carbon, sustainable feedstocks
rather than food product sources. Advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol use biomass, including corncobs, leaves, husk and
stalks for its raw material. “Our company spent $150 million building a commercial scale cellulosic biofuel plant,” says Welsh. While the
industry is discouraged by the administration’s decision on the RFS, “We are working to get the support from Washington
that was promised,” he says. The military market presents an opportunity. “We'll continue to develop applications for
drop-in for jet fuel,” says Welsh. Although the Pentagon only accounts for 1.5 percent of the nation’s fuel
consumption, biofuel investors have looked at the Defense Department as the preferred catalyst for a
massive expansion of production in the United States.
Biofuels—Navy
Navy has the jurisdiction and is interested in investing in biofuels—it’s already
working on decreasing biofuels prices but still needs to develop tech
ASU 14 (Arizona State University, May 27 2014, "US Navy supports ASU's development of algae-based
biofuels", https://asunews.asu.edu/20140527-navy-visits-asu-algae-test-bed)
The similarities between the U.S. Navy and civilian cities and industry may not be readily apparent, said
Dennis McGinn, U.S. Navy Assistant Secretary for Energy, Installations and Environment, but in the
realm of energy use and reliability, there are often parallel problems to be solved. Where there are
overlapping issues, such as cost, sustainability, efficiency and energy security, McGinn said the Navy is
interested in working with research institutions and industry to improve the energy outlook for all. “We
are thinking about energy in three different ways: first in technology terms; biofuels, wind and solar
energy storage, power grid systems and more,” McGinn said during a visit to Arizona State University.
“But it takes two other critical elements to achieve our energy goals: partnerships and culture. This is why
we’re interested in forging and strengthening relationships with outstanding organizations like ASU.”
While the Department of the Navy broadly funds energy research, another key aspect is its considerable
influence in setting purchasing standards for their operations. The Navy is using its authority under the
Defense Production Act, which allows the Navy, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to invest in industries that are determined
critical to national security; in this case, biofuels. McGinn said that the Navy has already invested
millions in projects with the DOE and USDA in order to bring down the cost of producing biofuel. “The
Navy wants to buy anywhere between 10 and 50 percent biofuel blends for our ships,” he said. “We want
it to be a cost-competitive program. We are working specifically with the USDA to bring down biofuel
costs to $3.50 a gallon or less at the commercial scale of 170 million gallons a year by 2016.”
Navy solves best—contract flexibility, stable funding, and gradual phasing out of
subsidies so companies can develop commercial capabilities
Lane 13 (Jim, Editor & publisher of Biofuels Digest, December 16 2013, "Navy to Stay the Course With
Biofuels", http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/12/usda-us-navy-unveilfarm-to-fleet-program-navy-open-for-business-as-shift-to-biofuels-blends-begins?page=3)
More importantly, it has established a dual track program to Assure supply (call that Plan A), and obtain
Best prices (call that Plan B). In this latest “Plan B” component, it has found a conservative, realistic path
to changing fuels gradually over time, while ensuring that it is on track to meeting its stated 2020
transition goals — and leaving itself open to achieving its goals far faster than 2020 should the markets
provide sufficient biofuels at competitive prices with conventional fuel. In the end, this is a matrix
opportunity for fuel developers. Each will be able to determine, based on their individual production
capacities, which yearly contracts to bid for, and how much of a biofuels component to add. For example,
a company with a production capacity to make 10 million gallons of biofuels, at a $0.50 premium over the
cost of conventional fuels, could construct a bid for up to 100 million gallons of a 10-percent biofuels
blend at a nickel premium to conventional fuels. If this is a winning bid based on the competitive
solicitation by DLA Energy, the USDA funds would be available to “buy down” the $5 million
differential for the first three years of the Navy’s program. In future years, the bid would have to match
conventional fuel prices without reliance on USDA support. In this way, the industry can scale up
gradually, as the Navy scales its fuel demand gradually, while providing a consistent market signal and
assuring the Navy that it pays only the going rate for fuels during the transition period. Another
interesting feature of the program? Since these are fuel blends, there could be a variety of scenarios in
terms of the identity of the bidder. It could be that biofuels producers make bids directly, and source
conventional fuels to make blends. It could be that conventional fuel producers, or middlemen, make buys
from biofuels producers and create their own bids. Some may critique the fact that DLA Energy is buying
in one-year contracts — biofuels producers have long noted that long-term contracts are essential to
financing biofuels at scale. Presumably, the Digest notes, those firms that needed to access Navy contracts
because of capital concerns would have robustly competed for DPA Title II funding. Those, on the other
hand, that are looking for financeable offtake contracts from, well, the most credit-worthy customer out
there — here’s the opportunity. Without a question, the Navy has given itself an assurance of supply —
and with this program, will be unleashing market forces to ensure that it can access fuels from the wide
variety of companies now reaching commercial scale, or on the cusp of doing so.
Navy third-generation biofuels more effective—compactness gives it the same
energy density as petrol
Matsunaga 14 (Mark, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs, July 3 2014, "News: Navy looks to
biofuels to sail the Great Green Fleet in 2016", http://www.dvidshub.net/news/135284/navy-looksbiofuels-sail-great-green-fleet-2016#.U7dFGvldXD8)
The “drop-in biofuel” the Defense Department wants is not the same as the familiar ethanol and biodiesel,
first- and second-generation biofuels, that are used in cars and trucks. What the Defense Department is
pursuing is third-generation biofuel “drop-in” replacements for diesel and jet fuels that are used in aircraft
and ships. These biofuels are much more advanced, have far less oxygen than ethanol and biodiesel, and
contain the same energy density as their petroleum-based counterparts. Chris Tindal, director for
operational energy in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, said that in
RIMPAC 2012 the Navy successfully demonstrated the Great Green Fleet, operating a carrier strike
group’s surface ships and aircraft with a biofuel blend without incident. In fact, the Great Green Fleet
2012 demonstration was a significant milestone of the Navy’s testing and certification program for “dropin” biofuels derived from used cooking oils and algae. The next milestone, Tindal said, is 2016, when the
Navy intends to “sail the Great Green Fleet 2016.” Rather than one group of ships, he said, the Navy
plans for biofuels to comprise up to 50 percent of the fuel used by deploying ships and aircraft throughout
the fleet in calendar year 2016. Procurement has already begun for advanced drop-in biofuels.
Higher energy densities than petrol and ready for industrial use
NAWCDWD 14 (Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, June 11 2014, "NAWCWD leads the way
for alternative energy solutions", http://www.doncio.navy.mil/CHIPS/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=5193)
NAWCWD’s biofuel patents enable the processing of readily available bio-n-butanol into a number of
chemicals that can serve as jet and diesel fuels, lubricants and basic components of industrial chemical
processes. Additionally, NAWCWD has engineered renewable high density fuels that have energy
densities up to 20 percent higher than conventional military jet fuels. These fuels have the potential to
improve the performance of military jets, ground vehicles, missiles, and unmanned air systems.
Export Terminals--DoD
Military solves port modernization/export terminals
*SM 21=Strategic Mobility 21
Carson and Sovacool 7
(George S. Carson GSC Associates, Ed Savacool Enterprise Management Systems, LLC, 2007, “Collaboration in Regional Civilian and Military
Transportation Planning ,” http://www.dodccrp.org/events/12th_ICCRTS/CD/html/papers/067.pdf)//BB
In its early stages, the SM 21 Program realized that the program itself needed to make the case for the use of the ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach for surge deployment and sustainment. In addition, the program needs to make the case
for the build-out of additional transportation and logistics infrastructure within the Southern California area, notably in
the Victorville area as well as between the ports and Victorville. The most convincing justification for building new
infrastructure is achieving higher container throughput through the ports. Secondary justifications include
the reduction of the impact of container shipments on the region. Providing the US military assured access to the ports
would not by itself justify the construction of a JPPSP in Victorville or any of the infrastructures needed to support commercial uses. There are
many potential solutions to regional problems. The effects of choices for individual aspects of solution often are confounded and are challenging
to visualize and understand. We concluded that better collaborative tools should support such regional planning. In fact, within the SM21 project
itself, many different integrated product teams were at work on various elements of the project. This led to a similar
need to coordinate this work, enabling those on different teams to understand the work of others, to understand how information created by other
tasks affects their tasks, and for displaying, visualizing, interacting with, and understanding the results of various simulation, modeling, and
analysis efforts.
Generic Energy—DOD
Best agency for tech innovation and R and D
CATF 12 (Clean Air Task Force, Climate Change and Air Quality Protection NGO, March 2012, "ENERGY
INNOVATION at the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE ASSESSING THE OPPORTUNITIES",
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Energy_Innovation_at_DoD.pdf)
DoD integrates into the pursuit of its mission the full panoply of R&D functions found in the private
sector (box 1.1). Other agencies such as the Department of Energy aim to catalyze private sector
innovation, but since the accomplishment of their mission does not usually require them to purchase the
products of the research they support, they often must make decisions without benefit of the guidance that
DoD managers take from planning and foresight exercises that go on constantly within the services. DoD
is also unique among agencies in the degree to which its technology spending flows to private firms rather
than to its own laboratories or to universities and other nonprofits. The sums are large—some $235 billion
for R&D and procurement in fiscal 2011—and by other measures, too, DoD commands greater innovative
capacity than the rest of government. The Army, Navy, and Air Force, for example, employ nearly
100,000 engineers and scientists between them. Most of the people, and most of the money, support
acquisition of systems and equipment from fi rms in the extended defense industry (which is perhaps best
thought of as a virtual industry). Eugene Gholz's white paper. The Dynamics of Military Innovation and
the Prospects for Defense- Led Energy Innovation,"discusses the relationships between DoD and its
contractors.
Geothermal--DOD
Military has consortium of companies and 7 billion dollar budget—best tech and
capacity
Richter 13 (Alexander, Director - Board of Directors, International Geothermal Association (IGA) at
International Geothermal Association, January 23rd 2014, "US Army awards geothermal and solar
contract", http://thinkgeoenergy.com/archives/17769)
New Generation Power, Inc. has been awarded a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) by the
US Army to develop geothermal and solar power generation projects for Department of Defense
installations. The Chicago-based small business will join a pool of other qualified geothermal and solar
contractors eligible to bid on future individual geothermal and solar technology project task orders from
the Energy Initiatives Task Force (EITF) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). NGP, along
with their consortium members: Eaton Corporation, Martifer Solar USA, Golder Associates, POWER
Engineers, Lockheed Martin and Veolia Energy, will combine their expertise and advanced technological
capabilities to contribute valuable renewable energy projects for the DoD. “We have an experienced
consortium and are well-positioned to respond to future Task Orders. We look forward to working with
the US Army Corps of Engineers at Huntsville and the EITF and applaud the DoD for their foresight and
commitment to renewable and alternative energy,” said Yeye Zhang, Executive Vice President at NGP.
“This award brings NGP and our industry leading team one step closer to our goal of bidding on task
orders,” said Beatrice Quach, Capture Manager at NGP. The DoD has allocated $7 billion through the
MATOC program for the development of renewable energy projects in four technologies: geothermal,
solar, wind and biomass.
DoD is looking to increase geothermal installations and has tech to increase
capacity—largest military project is geothermal
Earthlinked Technologies 14 (Renewable Energy Company, June 11 2014, "Department of Defense
and geothermal energy", http://earthlinked.com/news/solar-energy/department-of-defense-andgeothermal-energy/)
The U.S. Department of Defense is exploring renewable energy possibilities. The focus on sustainability
is coming from the desire to decrease dependence on foreign energy resources, increasing energy security
and decreasing operational expenses. The Federal Times reported that since 1987 the Naval Air Weapons
Station China Lake, California, has been using geothermal wells to produce about 270 megawatts of
energy annually. This has allows the base to produce energy for 180,000 homes and make it the largest
renewable energy project within the agency. According to the news source, the Department of Defense
has been working on increasing the number of renewable installations it has. So far, the agency has
increased the number of projects from 489 in 2009 to 679 in 2012. So far, nine of these projects are
geothermal energy installations. In 2011, geothermal energy use made up about 74 percent of all
renewable energy used by the department’s installations. The agency is focusing more and more time and
money investing in renewable energy installations like geothermal.
Offshore Wind--DOD
Wind contracts in giant renewables budget and swaths of coastline to develop
Casey 14 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, June 1 2014, "2 Big Hints That US Offshore
Wind Power Will Dominate", http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/01/us-offshore-wind-power-willdominate/)
The Department of Defense, for one, has a massive amount of land at its disposal for potential wind
power development, but until recently concerns over radar interference have stymied all but a few modest
projects, for example at a Coast Guard station on Cape Cod and at Fort Huachuca in Arizona. That’s set
to change in a big way as new technology for distinguishing wind turbines from aircraft makes its way
into the market. As just one indicator of the wave to come, the US Army has included wind contracts in
its massive $7 billion renewable energy buy.
Operation interference hurdle has been cleared—no other obstacles
Casey 14 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, June 11 2013, "Air Force research enhances
ability to mitigate renewable energy siting impacts",
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123362756)
Two reports from the AFRL--APTO focused on the operational impacts and potential mitigation techniques for wind
turbines and other energy technologies. These reports were used to support the Administration in identifying operational impacts caused by
renewables, as well as pave the way for further development of mitigation tools. AFRL - APTO enhanced existing tools and developed new,
advanced tools for tracking, reviewing, and evaluating proposed energy developments to support the Air Force, Operations - Bases and Ranges
and Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Energy Siting Clearinghouse. These efforts consisted of: Mission Capability Assessment Tool
(MCAT) Enhancement Radar Toolbox Wind Farm Impact Tool Development Experimental Data Collection and Validation MCAT is a research
and tracking tool, enforcing information uniformity through logging and tracking siting proposals, and notifying impacted installations. AFRL APTO modified MCAT for Air Force-specific and OSD clearinghouse needs. MCAT tracks the OSD process, allowing installation and Major
Command (MAJCOM) assessments to be logged and viewed. This creates a central record of all proposed energy projects and a history of action
taken with regard to each proposal. Radar Toolbox is performance analysis software currently used to determine Probability of Detection (PD),
Reinforcement Rate, False Track and other criteria. Under this effort, AFRL - APTO added a Wind Impact Tool, allowing
users to simulate proposed wind farms of up to 100 turbines, estimating the effect the proposed wind farm
would have on radar performance. This predictive analysis capability helps develop and defend potential mission impact decisions.
Experimental data collection involved military aircraft flying charted sorties through three Pennsylvania wind farms, using a Black Hawk
helicopter and a C-130 cargo aircraft. Data from these flight trials was used to quantify the effects of existing wind farms on radar performance
under varying flight and weather conditions, and assess the effectiveness of mitigation techniques. Analysis showed that PD within the wind farm
fell below the baseline by 6-25 percent. False Tracks originating from the wind farm were in the 20-25 per scan range for each set of flight trials.
Using the software's plot eligibility filter, these were limited to less than two per scan. This shows that
effective mitigation techniques are available that, if employed, are able to drastically limit False Tracks
within a wind farm.
Oil--DoD
The military has oil potential to lease—California proves
PICS 13
(PICS is the industry leader in safety and supply chain management, develops software, “Will the U.S. Air Force Lease Land to Oil Companies?”
quoting the LA Times article, “U.S. Air Force to study drilling for oil off California coast,” July 17, 2013,
http://www.picsauditing.com/blog/2013/07/will-the-u-s-air-force-lease-land-to-oil-companies/)//BB
The central California coast may become the newest place for private companies to extract offshore oil and gas. According to a new proposal,
the U.S. Air Force is now considering leasing their land on the Vandenberg Air Force Base, which is located
approximately 9.2 miles northwest of Lompoc, California, to
oil companies. The proposal would allow onshore
equipment to access deposits several miles offshore. Over the next several months, the military will see if the new type of
drilling is “economically, environmentally and politically feasible,” said the Air Force in a statement. Master Sgt. Kevin Williams, a spokesman
for Air Force Space Command, stated that “Initial information obtained by the Air Force indicates there may be potential for new
technology slant drilling capable of targeting oil deposits off Vandenberg Air Force Base’s coastline from
locations with minimal or mitigable mission/environmental impacts.” Current U.S. law allows the military to
lease land for oil development. Vandenberg presently has five active oil wells.
OTEC—Navy
Navy bases are the best testing sites—immediate grid connection and incremental
increases in capacity
OTEC News 13 (Otecnews.org brings the latest news, project developments, and events around
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and related subjects, March 19 2013, "100 kilowatt turbinegenerator for Kona test facility", http://www.otecnews.org/2013/03/100-kilowatt-turbine-generatorfor-kona-test-facility/)
Today, Makai Ocean Engineering issued a press release announcing two endeavors in assisting the Navy
to reach its alternative energy goals. The first is the design, planning and procurement of a 100-kilowatt
turbine-generator for the Hawai’i Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Test Facility. The second
project includes the installation and operation of this turbine-generator, as well as the design and testing
of two new OTEC heat exchangers. “Makai Ocean Engineering is committed to developing alternative
energy solutions that are impactful and ahead of the curve,” said Billy Pieper, Vice President, Makai
Ocean Engineering. “Due to our partnership with the Navy, I believe Makai will help achieve a more
sustainable future with the solutions we are pursuing.” The first endeavor, which will result in a turbinegenerator delivered to the site, will be completed by February 2014. The projected funding requirements
are approximately $1.0 million. During the second phase, Makai will install the turbine and begin
operation testing. Michael Eldred, project manager of the OTEC Test Facility, says that the technical
benefits of having a turbine are huge. “Besides the obvious benefit of once again including OTEC power
on the grid, it will also validate the results from our OTEC models and allow us to fine-tune our control
systems,” says Eldred. The new generator would result in the world’s only operational OTEC plant
since 1998 and is likely to create a steppingstone to commercial-size renewable energy supplies for Navy
and DoD bases in Hawai’i and Guam.
Stable and heavy funding for naval OTEC—costs are set to decrease anyways
OTEC News 13 (Otecnews.org brings the latest news, project developments, and events around
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and related subjects, March 19 2013, "100 kilowatt turbinegenerator for Kona test facility", http://www.otecnews.org/2013/03/100-kilowatt-turbine-generatorfor-kona-test-facility/)
Included in the second phase effort are the development of two new OTEC-optimized heat exchangers
and the continuation of corrosion testing, now in its fourth year. Due to their enormous size, heat
exchangers are one of the most expensive components in an OTEC power plant. A small increase in
efficiency therefore dramatically drives down cost. Makai’s focus is to optimize the heat exchanger
design by reducing material and fabrication costs, improving thermal efficiency and maximizing its life in
the corrosive seawater environment. An estimated $3.6 million is slated for the project. Over the past
three years, Makai Ocean Engineering, Inc. has received Office of Naval Research (ONR) funding to
conduct research in key areas of OTEC heat exchanger development at the OTEC Test Facility site at the
Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai’i Authority (NELHA). The overall goal is to determine a baseline
heat exchanger design for a future large-scale OTEC power plant useful for both US Navy
andcommercial application. The stated goal of the Navy Energy Vision is that half of the Navy’s total
energy consumption ashore will come from alternative sources by 2020. At present, the Navy is
approximately 700 megawatts short of meeting this goal. OTEC is a technically and economically
plausible way for private industry to furnish 200-300 megawatts of baseload, renewable electricity to
USN and USMC bases for Oahu and Guam.
Access to the largest research facility and closed-cycle plant vital to gain operational
knowledge do design future utility-scale plants
Haun 13 (Eric, Web Editor at Maritime Reporter, November 7 2013, "Makai Continues Energy Research
in Hawaii", http://www.marinelink.com/news/continues-research-energy360705.aspx)
Makai Ocean Engineering has received a $3.6 million contract from the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
and the Office of Naval Research for research and design on the marine renewable energy known as Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion (OTEC). Makai will perform this work at their Ocean Energy Research Center, located in Kona,
Hawaii, which is the largest OTEC research facility in the world. OTEC holds great promise because the tropical
ocean is earth’s largest solar collector. According to Dr. Joseph Huang, a senior scientist at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, “If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more
than 100 to 1,000 times more than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other renewable energy
that can compare with OTEC.” OTEC is unique among renewables because it can provide large quantities of base load (constant) electricity.
France, Korea, Japan, and China also have active OTEC development programs. Makai will work on two initiatives to serve the ultimate goal of
making commercial OTEC a reality, designing, manufacturing and testing an improved heat exchanger for OTEC, and connecting power from its
OTEC plant to the electric grid on the Island of Hawaii. Because heat exchangers make up about one-third of the cost of an OTEC plant, Makai
will develop designs for an OTEC heat exchanger that is high-performance, low-cost and corrosion-resistant. The goal is a product that
is essential to developers of OTEC and valuable for other industries that use marine heat exchangers. In
addition, Makai will install a 100-kilowatt turbine at the Ocean Energy Research Center to generate OTEC
power onto the local grid in mid-2014. This turbine will make Makai’s Ocean Energy Research Center the
largest operational OTEC plant in the world, and the first closed-cycle OTEC plant ever connected
to a U.S. electrical grid. By operating the OTEC plant, Makai will gain operational knowledge that will aid in the
design of future utility-scale power plants
OTEC—DOD
Cooperation with experts, companies and universities to create best, low-cost
solution
OTEC 13 (Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation, September 7 2013, "Dr. Ted Johnson Senior Vice
President and Head of OTEC Programs", http://www.otecnews.org/2013/03/100-kilowatt-turbinegenerator-for-kona-test-facility/)
Among the pioneering work that the Lockheed Oceans Systems Group achieved in renewable ocean
energy, was to build and successfully test the world’s first successful floating OTEC plant, Mini-OTEC,
off of the Hawaiian Islands. Dr. Johnson advanced the technology of OTEC and its commercialization
potential from the initial days of OTEC Research and Development to the present day and in 2009 he
received the Ocean Energy Council Pioneer Award for his OTEC achievements. Recently, he assembled a
team of OTEC experts, companies, and universities leading to US Department of Defense and
Department of Energy OTEC contracts while he as at the Lockheed Corporation, including OTEC
contracts with numerous international customers.
Plans to sign multiple contracts—MoUs now
OTEC 13 (Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation, September 23rd 2013, "Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation Announces $7,650,000 Equity Offering Under The New JOBS Act",
http://www.otecorporation.com/ocean-thermal-energy-corporation-announces-7650000-equityoffering-under-the-new-jobs-act/)
Jeremy P. Feakins, Group Executive Chairman commented: “OTE has the technologies today to solve many of the world’s energy and water
problems. We also have a robust pipeline of OTEC and SDC projects to make OTE a growing international company with enormous reach and
positive impact for millions of people across the globe. Though in today’s economy, growth funding for sustainable
companies such as ours is challenging, OTE’s compelling story and immense business potential has already generated, steadfast
investment support provided from the JPF Venture Fund (www.jpfeakins.com), our engineering partner DCO Energy, LLC
(www.dcoenergy.com) and our 300+ individual shareholders, all of whom passionately support OTE’s mission. Taking our funding to the next
level will allow OTE to spread its global game-changing technology around the world. This is a prime example of why the JOBS ACT bipartisan
effort in expanding access to capital for young companies is so crucial. In addition to its Energy Services Agreement to build, own and operate
the world’s largest deep ocean SDC system, OTE has concluded that other SDC and OTEC contracts are likely to follow in
various locations such as the US Virgin Islands, the Caribbean, East Africa, the Pacific Rim and US
Department of Defense bases , the latter of which are mandated to reach a 25% renewable energy goal by
2025. Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) have been signed for at least four projects.
Renewables—DOD
Increasing alternative energy use is DoD’s primary goal—huge market ensures
eager contractors
Lammers 13 (Heather, Media Relations Team Lead at National Renewable Energy Laboratory, April 19
2013, "NREL Teams with Navy to Cut Energy Use",
http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/feature_detail.cfm/feature_id=2178)
"NREL is uniquely positioned to support DoD's mission to reduce energy costs, decrease reliance on foreign oil, and ensure energy security,"
NREL's Director Dan Arvizu said. "Our experience in demonstrating and validating innovative energy technologies is critical to their mission
success." DoD accounts for 80% of federal energy use, and it spent $19.4 billion on energy in 2011 . NREL is
currently focused on helping slash the 21% of DoD energy costs that are spent to operate DoD installations around the world .
"DoD is the
biggest energy user in the United States. NREL and DoD's missions are not the same, but they do complement one another," DoD
Energy Program Director Steve Gorin said. "The military's mission is operational excellence, and the cost of energy
has been a huge variable that they can't predict. Anytime the price of oil goes up or anytime there is a grid
outage, it impacts how they accomplish their mission. In the case of NREL, our mission is to innovate and to work with
others to get technologies out there and transform the energy economy. Put the two together, and you have an early adopter
with a huge market working alongside an energy innovator ." To put into perspective how large a facilities energy
consumer DoD is, consider that it has: 507 permanent installations More than 300,000 buildings and 200,000 other structures More than 2.2
billion square feet of facilities space. DoD realizes that relying on a singular national energy grid puts its facilities
and critical infrastructure at risk. So the Navy and NREL are looking for solutions to meet the Navy's
ambitious energy goals, which include: evaluating energy efficiency and use when awarding Navy contracts for
systems and buildings; increasing alternative energy use on shore by producing at least 50% of shore-based energy from alternative
sources; ensuring that 50% of Navy and Marine Corps installations will be net-zero energy. "Energy security is a key priority for
the Department of Navy [DoN] and the way we conduct future operations for our warfighter and for our
fleet," said Tom Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for energy. "We look forward to our partnership with NREL as it helps us meet
our energy goals."
DoD is ahead of the game—it’s shift to renewables is a key catalyst for private
sector expansion
Lehner 13 (Peter, Executive director of National Resources Defense Council, November 27 2013,
"Military Continues to Move Forward on Clean Energy",
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/military_continues_to_move_for.html)
Renewable energy installations on military-controlled lands are expected to generate 3,000 megawatts of
energy by 2025. That’s 50 percent more energy than the Hoover Dam, and enough to power 750,000
homes. To help ensure that the push to develop renewable energy moves forward smoothly, NRDC and
the DOD just released a primer for renewable energy developers. Large-scale renewable energy projects
are often sited on or near land used by the military for training and testing. These same lands often hold
immense environmental value as well, supporting critical natural resources and rare and threatened
wildlife. For a renewable energy project to get off the ground successfully, military and environmental
concerns need to be considered up front. The primer provides guidance for developers on how to screen
wind and solar projects for potential conflicts. In order to scale up the renewable energy we all want and
need, these projects need to be smart from the start. The DOD is already seeing positive results from its
clean energy shift. In Afghanistan last year, energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements,
including the use of solar energy at combat outposts, saved roughly 20 million gallons of fuel. Improving
energy efficiency and using renewable energy in military operations not only saves money—it also saves
lives. The Army estimates that 170 soldiers died protecting fuel convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007
alone. The DOD’s work to scale up its use of clean, renewable energy use has impacts that ripple beyond
the military theater. As the nation’s largest purchaser of energy, the DOD has the potential to drive
changes in the clean energy market. By increasing demand for clean, renewable energy in order to meet
its goals of military readiness and protecting national security, the DOD can help boost the expansion of
clean energy in the private sector as well. And the cleaner our energy system gets, the more we reduce the
risks we all face from climate change.
Renewables—Navy
Best tech and expertise—cooperation with numerous countries, institutions and
industry partners
Smalley 13 (David, Office of Naval Research, September 26 2013, "US Navy Program 'Excelerates'
Alternative Energy", http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/09/navy-programexcelerates-alternative-energy)
The Energy Excelerator program provides seed money to companies looking to provide technological
capability that can better integrate power from renewable energy sources like solar and wind; energy
storage breakthroughs like smaller and more efficient batteries; transportation advances; and more. The
program is accepting applications online here until Sept. 27, 2013. "The Energy Excelerator helps startups
succeed, starting in Hawaii — one of the best early markets for energy innovation," said Dawn Lippert,
the project's senior manager. "We are excited to see ONR supporting companies that have the potential to
make a really big impact in solving global energy problems." ONR provides the science and technology
necessary to maintain the Navy and Marine Corps' technological advantage. Through its affiliates, ONR
is a leader in science and technology with engagement in 50 states, 70 countries, 1,035 institutions of
higher learning and 914 industry partners. ONR employs approximately 1,400 people, comprising
uniformed, civilian and contract personnel, with additional employees at the Naval Research Lab in
Washington, D.C.
Navy is testing microgrids—that’s K2 stabilize power sources and integrate
additional capacit
Sustainable Business News 13 (Sustainable Business News, September 4 2013, "First-of-a-kind
project links 3 Navy microgrids", http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/09/04/first-kind-project-links-3navy-microgrids)
Individual microgrids are gaining credibility as a source of alternate power during times of utility grid
stress -- allowing mission-critical operations to stay up and running. So, imagine the positive impact that
could be felt by linking several of them together across a region. That's what the U.S. Navy is doing in
San Diego, where it is creating what is being billed as the military's first secure, centrally managed
microgrid. Specifically, the Navy is investing in software from Power Analytics Corp. to connect and
manage three separate installations: at the hospital at Naval Base San Diego, a data center at Naval Base
Coronado and at Naval Base Point Loma. It hasn't revealed the size of the contract, but one news report
values it at $2 million over the next three years. All three sites are equipped with onsite solar generation
technology, energy storage and grid controls. The software will allow each facility to be controlled from
the Naval Base San Diego Utility and Energy Operations Center. It will stabilize the power sources and
make it easier to integrate additional clean energy capacity in the future, says Power Analytics. "We're
excited to help the Navy maximize the effectiveness of its existing power system and easily integrate
more renewable energy sources," says Karen Cronin, vice president for Power Analytics. "Through this
project, Power Analytics will provide the capability to share power resources across the bases, allowing
them to have both a more reliable power system and reduced energy costs."
Solar--Army
Army seeking to increase solar capacity, access to private-sector expertise and
resources solves
Phillips 14 (Ari, reporter for ClimateProgress.org, April 15 2014, "Department Of Defense Undertakes
Largest Solar Project To Date", http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426876/militarys-largestever-solar-project-announced/)
The Army is committed to deploying one gigawatt of renewable energy by 2025, with solar playing a
leading role. According to a recent study called “Power Surge” from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the
number of energy saving and efficiency projects at military installations more than doubled from 2010 to
2012, going from 630 to 1,339, with the number of renewable energy projects going from 454 to 700
during the same period. “The military’s clean energy installation initiatives are gathering momentum,
enhancing base energy security,” Phyllis Cuttino, who directs Pew’s project on national security, energy,
and climate, said when the study was released in January. “These improvements are possible even as the
Pentagon’s budget is shrinking because the armed services are harnessing private-sector expertise and
resources. This is a win-win-win proposition: The military gets better energy infrastructure, taxpayer
dollars are saved, and the clean energy industry is finding new market opportunities.”
SMR--DOD
DoD investment is a key source of domestic business and also opens opportunities
overseas
CSIS 12 (Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2012, "Restoring U.S. Leadership in
Nuclear Energy",
http://csis.org/files/publication/130614_Wallace_RestoringUSLeadershipNuclearEnergy_WEB.pdf)
To improve prospects for deployment, one option is to allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to
participate directly in funding the development and demonstration of SMRs, perhaps through DOE, with
the project meeting civil nuclear requirements for licensing and regulation. In recent years, DOD has
investigated the potential application of SMRs to provide electricity to deployed troops and to reduce
reliance on the domestic electrical grid.126 A DOE/DOD SMR development and demonstration program
would not only create domestic opportunities, it would also provide a pathway for U.S. firms to
demonstrate the readiness of SMR technology for deployment overseas.
DoD investment is necessary to drive down costs and support the industry
Cunningham 12 (Nick, Adjunct Fellow for the American Security Project, September 2012, "Small
Modular Reactors: A Possible Path Forward for Nuclear Power",
http://www.uxc.com/smr/Library%5CUS%20National%20Programs/2012%20-%20SMRsA%20Possible%20Path%20Forward%20for%20Nuclear%20Power.pdf)
Also, the NRC and other agencies can devise ways to support the first wave of demonstration projects.
For example, the Department of Defense, with its large procurement budget, can purchase SMRs for its
military installations. Government entities can establish long-term power purchasing agreements (PPAs)
to provide a minimum level of demand for SMRs. This will allow the industry to book early orders, prove
the concept and bring down costs. Finally, Congress can provide either supply side (tax incentives) or
demand side (clean energy standards) to support the nascent SMR industry
Wave Energy—DoD
DOD can develop offshore renewables and connect them to the grid
Kunko 12
(Damian Kunko has been working in government relations for over eleven years, primarily in the fields of technology and renewable energy, vice
president of Systems and Methods Inc, “ADVANCED OCEAN ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,”
http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/FY13-White-Paper-Navy-Adv.-Ocean-Energy-RD-Final-2.24.pdf)//BB
Overview: There is an increasing need for diverse, reliable, non-polluting sources of low-cost electrical power throughout the world and strong
public support to reduce U.S. dependence on other countries for its energy needs. Since 2006, the federal government is required to purchase at
least 2.5% of its electricity from renewable sources, which will incrementally increase to at least 7.5% by 2013. DOD is required to
procure 25% of its energy from renewable sources by 2025. Moreover, the Secretary of the Navy’s Program
Objective Memo for FY12 supports efforts to: “seek facilities, ships, aircraft, and ground combat systems that operate more
efficiently, consume less energy per measured output, and rely on alternate, renewable energy sources .”
Ocean energy systems include marine hydrokinetic (MHK) devices that capture energy from waves, tides
and currents and convert it into electricity, providing an infinite source of renewable energy. Problem: The Department of Defense
is in need of low cost, efficient, readily available and deployable electric power at remote military
facilities around the world. In addition to reducing the cost of energy, decreased fossil fuel requirements
will also limit vulnerability in times of conflict or fuel shortage. To achieve this, the U.S. Navy has been working
since 1995 to demonstrate that the world’s largest untapped energy resource, ocean energy, can provide low-cost, easily
deployable and readily available electric power generation for multiple uses, including autonomous
maritime surveillance, security and communications systems as well as coastal DOD facilities. Significant
Congressional support and direction is needed to advance the Navy’s ocean energy research and development efforts. Goal: Integration and
demonstration of advanced ocean energy technologies to power maritime systems, expand deployment opportunities at coastal naval facilities,
and reduce the cost of energy. Ocean energy can be a significant source of large-scale, renewable energy for the
U.S. Navy and general electrical grid. Comprehensive ocean energy statistics and satellite photography
enable accurate and reliable prediction of ocean energy, thereby making it a predictable and dependable
source of renewable energy. In addition, ocean energy is a source with no exhaust gases, no noise, minimal visibility from shore, and is
safe for sea life. Ocean power is easily fed into the electric grid and provides a load factor of 30-45% versus solar and wind load
factors of 10%-35%. The Department of Energy has conservatively estimated that 15% of all U.S. electricity could be generated by all water
power, including MHK systems.
Wave Energy—Navy
Naval wave energy can power grids and avoids politics
Casey 12 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, October 5 2010, "U.S. Navy and Marine Corps
Get First Ever Grid-Connected Wave Energy", http://cleantechnica.com/2010/10/05/u-s-navy-andmarine-corps-get-first-ever-grid-connected-wave-energy/)
The nation’s first ever grid-connected wave energy system went online this week, at Marine Corps Base
Hawaii, in Oahu. As Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus aptly put it in a Navy press release, “This project
demonstrates the Navy and Marine Corps commitment to lead the country toward a new energy future.”
Mabus made it clear that it’s full speed ahead for the Navy’s goal of 50% alternative energy by 2020,
which presents a stark contrast to the situation in the civilian world, where certain groups are hell bent on
opposing legislative action that promotes alternative energy. Hey, whatever happened to supporting our
troops? The Navy has been testing a small (3-4 kilowatts) wave power device called the PB40
PowerBuoy, which was built by Ocean Power Technologies. Other wave power generators are being
tested or are in operation in the U.S., but this is the first one to be connected to a grid, namely the grid
at Marine Corps Base Hawaii. The system is still undergoing evaluation but according to the base’s
Commanding Officer, Col. Robert Rice, the goal is for the base to be entirely energy self-sufficient in five
years. If that sounds a little ambitious, Col. Rice has plenty of company. Tooele Army Depot in Utah is
testing wind power as a step toward going entirely off-grid, and other U.S. military bases may have
similar plans.
Best tech—investment on low-cost wave energy conversion now—Powerbuoys are
durable and can endure harsh ocean conditions—recent developments mean they
can even power land grids and utiltities
OPT 12 (Ocean Power Technologies, Wave Energy Conversion Company that primarily supplies and is
funded by the US Navy, 2013, "Ocean Power Technologies: Capturing Wave Energy for the U.S. Navy and
the Grid", http://www.acore.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ocean-Power-Technologies-CaseStudy.pdf)
Wave energy conversion encompasses a range of technologies that are distinguished primarily by how
they capture wave energy. OFTs PowerBuoy is one in a class of technologies called point absorbers. The
principal behind the PowerBuoy is simple enough - a floating buoy is tethered to the seat loor and the rise
and fall of the waves causes the floating portion of the buoy to move up and down. Beneath the floating
section is a heavier segment that resists the movement of the waves. The relative motion between the two
sections is converted via a "power take-off" device to drive an electrical generator. Sensors continuously
monitor the performance of the various subsystems and surrounding ocean environment to optimize
performance. Though based on simple concepts, wave energy conversion devices require robust designs
and sophisticated controls to optimize performance and ensure reliability and survivability in the harsh
ocean environment. When OPT was awarded Phase I of the SBIR (primarily a paper study to determine
the viability of the technology to ad- dress the Navy's problem statement) it signaled the beginning of a
fruitful partnership between the company and the U.S. Navy that continues to this day. With the
successful comple- tion of Phase I, the Navy awarded a larger contract under Phase II to develop and test
prototypes to meet the objectives of the SBIR. By 1997. after ramping up trials of several de- signs of its
PowerBuoy and testing them in the Navy's wave tank facility and in the Atlantic Ocean. OPT
demonstrated success against two important benchmarks: the buoy could operate for an extended
period of time at sea (11 months) and it could endure harsh ocean conditions, including large waves,
major storms and salt water. Encouraged by the performance and survivability exhibited by the buoys
during the Phase II program, in 2001, the Navy wanted to see if their electrical output could be increased
sufficiently for utility power applications. Thus, the third and final phase of this particular SBIR program
would enable OPT to put its initial vision—grid-connected PowerBuoys—to the test. Beginning in
September 2001, OPT entered into a series of contracts with the Navy for the development and eventual
deployment of additional wave power systems at the Marine Corps Base in Oahu, Hawaii,2 an ideal
proving ground for wave power generation because of the high cost of utility power in the area. Three
years after signing the first of these contracts with the Navy, OPT installed its first buoy—a unit with a
peak production rating of 40 kilowatts (kWf of electrical power—in 100 feet of water, one mile off the
coast of Oahu. This buoy met performance expectations and scored well in a rigorous environmental
impact assessment that was necessary to proceed with the deployment of the buoy in Hawaii's Kaneohe
Bay. Thus, the pieces appeared to be falling into place for producing utility-grade power from wave
energy. "The Navy is pleased to see a technology that addresses a Department of Defense need also have
such tremendous commercial poten- tial. That's one of the main purposes of the SBIR program," remarked Vincent Schaper, who was the Program Manager at the Office of Naval Research in 2004.3 Over
the next few years, OPT continued to develop its utility- scale wave power technology, and in 2007, the
company achieved a few important steps along the commercialization pathway. During that year, OPT's
Undersea Substation Pod, the underwater system used to interconnect PowerBuoys to the grid, received
an independent certification that it complied with national and international standards. Another focus was
scaling the buoys themselves, and the company signed agree- ments to manufacture and install its new
and larger 150 kW buoys for testing in Reedsport, Oregon, and in Scotland. The goal for the Reedsport
project is to ultimately install 10 of these units, which will provide 1.5 megawatts (MW) of electricity to
the grid. The company also filed for permits from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERQ to build two utility-scale power generation projects, one of 50 MW and the other of 100 MW, off
the coast of Oregon. Wave power projects of this size had not been attempted previously in the United
States. It turned out that 2007 was also an important year in other ways for OPT. Early in the year, the
company raised S90 mil- lion in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the NASDAQ ex- change.4
Development work on PowerBuoys for remote-sens- ing applications also took a step forward as OPT
began new SBIR work. The objective for this effort was to test a buoy off the coast of New Jersey to see
if it could serve as a power source for the Navy's Deep Water Active Detection System, an ocean datagathering and communications program. million power take-off cycles and 4,400 hours of operation, the
40 kW PowerBuoy in Hawaii was interconnected to the electrical grid for the first time at the Marine
Corps Base Hawaii.*1 In that same month, the U.S. Department of Energy chose OPT from a field of
competitors to test and ultimately manufacture larger buoys (500 kW) with the goal of developing a buoy
o" s-J'icie:-: scale for commercially competitive power generation* In the spring of 2011, the 150 kW unit
built in Scotland began ocean tri- als. Construction of the first 150 kW unit in Oregon is likely to be
completed in mid-2012. Meanwhile, OPT also has plans for wave power stations to be installed in
Australia, England and Spain.
They’re continually looking for new contractors to cut costs and enhance
performance—new competition proves <<AND CONTRACTORS SAY YES>>
Casey 14 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, March 12 2014, "Navy Gets A $24 Million Pool,
We Get Low Cost Wave Power", http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/12/navy-partners-in-low-cost-wavepower-competition/)
The new $6.5 million competition is formally titled the Wave Energy Converter (WEC) Prize. The idea is
to spur private sector and academic partners to develop a device that brings down the cost of wave power,
as described in the competition’s mission statement: The Program envisions that this competition will
achieve game-changing performance enhancements to WEC devices, establishing a pathway to sweeping
cost reductions at a commercial scale. The initial goal is a levelized cost of energy of 15 cents per
kilowatt hour, though that could change during the development phase of the competition. The goal of 15
cents seems pretty modest compared to solar power, which is already a few cents below that mark and
poised to go lower. However, regional and environmental considerations could make wave power a
winner in some markets. The winning device will also score points for durability, ease of operation and
maintenance, environmental friendliness, and capability of scaling up to the commercial energy market.
There is a way to go before any of these devices get their turn in the Navy’s “Indoor Ocean,” as some are
calling it. The parameters of the competition are still in development and the Energy Department is
seeking a partner to launch it. There is also a sister competition with a prize of $3.5 million for marine
hydrokinetic power, so stay tuned for that. Developers of the winning wave power device are also going
to have to demonstrate their ability to promote their technology and engage the public in supporting wave
power development. That’s a key consideration given the flood of misinformation directed at the solar
and wind power industries, aimed at undercutting public support for new energy technologies. Just last
month, for example, the Wind Energy Association had to fire back at a string of “canned attacks” by a
former Koch Industries lobbyist. The Koch brothers have a long history of anti-renewable and pro-fossil
lobbying and it’s only a matter of time before they turn their attention to wave power. Wave power has a
bit of a running start, though. The Navy already has a newly upgraded open air wave power test bed up
and running in Hawaii and the Energy Department is determined to tap into a potential 1400 terawatt
hours of electricity in marine energy.
Environment Solvency
Overfishing—Coast Guard
Coast Guard is the primary agency for sea fisheries enforcement
Coast Guard 14 (United States Coast Guard, March 20 2014, "Missions",
http://www.uscg.mil/top/missions/MaritimeStewardship.asp)
As the exploitation of the Nation’s valuable marine resources— whales, fur bearing animals, and fish—
increased, we were given the duty to protect those resources as well. Today, U.S. waters support
commercial and recreational fisheries worth more than $30 billion annually, and we serve as the primary
agency for at- sea fisheries enforcement. The Coast Guard, in coordination with other federal and state
agencies, enforces marine resource management and protection regimes to preserve healthy stocks of fish
and other living marine resources. In 1976, Congress passed what is now known as the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. By creating an EEZ, this legislation extended our
exclusive rights out to 200 nautical miles for fisheries and other natural resources. The Coast Guard
patrols these areas to uphold U.S. sovereignty and protect precious resources. Today, international
fisheries agreements have extended U.S. jurisdiction to waters beyond the EEZ. Our stewardship role has
expanded to include enforcing laws intended to protect the environment for the common good. As a
result, we safeguard sensitive marine habitats, mammals, and endangered species. We enforce laws
protecting our waters from the discharge of oil, hazardous substances, and non-indigenous invasive
species. To do all this, the Coast Guard conducts a wide range of activities. These include education and
prevention; law enforcement; emergency response and containment; and disaster recovery. We also
provide mission critical command and control support for forces responding to environmental disasters in
the maritime domain.
Advantage Solvency
Science Diplomacy--Navy
Navy has infrastructure and history of supporting science diplomacy
Buderi 13
(Robert Buderi, former editor-in-chief of MIT's Technology Review, Research Fellow in MIT's Center for International Studies from 2005-2007,
“Naval Innovation for the 21st Century: The Office of Naval Research Since the End of the Cold War,” November 15, 2013, pg. 115-116)//BB
Since its creation in 1946 ONR has been keenly aware of the need to cultivate ties to scientists around the world.
Indeed, its first overseas liaison office was founded in London in 1946, not long after the organization itself was formed. Now ONR's
London office is the central hub of a worldwide organization with representatives at major Navy and
Marine commands and field offices in Tokyo, Singapore (the new headquarters), Canberra, Australia, and Santiago, Chile. These groups sponsor scientific research, travel programs, and hundreds of conferences and
collaborative efforts in scores of countries. The London office took root as an outgrowth of the close cooperation between U.S.
and British scientists during World War II. A Navy captain who reports directly to the Chief of Naval Research has typically headed the of- fice.
A technical director oversees the scientific program. This was the job Jim DeCorpo took in 2004, not long after he left Ballston Towers. Staff
mix, titles, and areas of responsibility have changed over the years. But working under the tech nical director in the current era are associate
directors, usually a mix of European university professors and scientists dispatched from ONR and other U.S. government agencies. Normally
they serve a two- or three-year appointment while on sabbatical from their home institutions, acting as talent scouts who sponsor projects in their
fields and keep up with local develop- ments—as welt as supporting conferences and providing travel stipends to facilitate exchanges between
U.S. scientists and their European counterparts. Staffing in the London branch peaked around sixty people in the late 1960s. This number was
sharply reduced in leaner times and has never re- covered. Even in 2006 the office was home to only about fifteen associate directors and eleven
additional support or administrative staffers. The entire group operates on a budget of roughly $12 million a year, a little over half of which is
overhead. The associate directors dole out the remaining $5 million- plus, always to universities and private industry and not to foreign
government organizations. These funds are split almost equally between the 6.1 and 6.2 budget categories, with a small amount of advanced
technology development 6.3 monies. To leverage their tiny pot, the associate directors often work in cooperation with the Army and Air Force
R&D offices, which are housed in the same building. The first expansion of ON R's overseas presence took place in 1974,
when the organization established an office in Japan, which was fast becoming a technological powerhouse. With the end of the Cold War, the
London orga-nizalion
also broadened its horizons and began cultivating ties with Russian, Czech, and
Hungarian scientists as well as those in otfier eastern European countries. To symbolize this wider reach, the office changed its name to
Office of Naval Research-Europe. By the early 1 990s it further extended its outreach to the Middle East and Africa
while the Tokyo office began covering a wider swatch of Asia along with India, Australia, and New
Zealand. All this set the stage for a bigger, more unified organization. In 1997 the London and Tokyo offices, which had essentially existed
separately, were merged to form the ONR International Field Office, headquartered in London. A Singapore branch set up shop in 2000. This was
followed by ONR Aus- tralia in 2001, and ONR Latin America, which opened in the U.S. embassy the following year. Except for Tokyo, which
was staffed by three scientific and technical people and an officer in charge, all these branch offices consisted of just one or two representatives.
The most recent expansion of the organization's scope—and apparently its most controversial—came in 2003, when CNR Jay Cohen ordered the
In- ternational Field Office to merge with two other groups to form ONR Global. The other parties in the merger were the International Liaison
Office and the Naval Fleet/Forces Technology Office, both based at Ballston Towers. The for- mer was a small organization actually created to
manage and coordinate the branches set up in Chile, Australia, and Singapore. The Naval Fleet/Forces Technology Office included some
twenty-five scientific advisors assigned to the major numbered fleets and Marine Corps commands around the world. Their job was to serve
as
the interface between the commands and the scientific and technical communities but they were usually
looking for advances that might be rapidly adopted by the Fleet. Cohen saw several major benefits to the move. The
International Field Office, he explains, consisted of scientists and engineers knowledgeable in their
domains and with certain geographic responsibilities. The Fleet/Force science advisors, meanwhile, had only broad scientific
knowledge but had great knowledge of what was needed by the military. "So it occurred to me if I combined the science advisors and the ILO, I
would get tremendous synergy." A single organization also greatly reduced overhead.
South China Sea—Navy
Navy solves SCS surveillance—avoids confrontational tactics
Financial Times 7/10
(By Geoff Dyer and Richard McGregor, reporters on Asian political issues, “Pentagon plans new tactics to deter China in South China Sea,” July
10, 2014, Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/83c0b88e-0732-11e4-81c6-00144feab7de.html#axzz374s8c1TP)//BB
The US is developing new military tactics to deter China’s slow but steady territorial advances in the South
China Sea, including more aggressive use of surveillance aircraft and naval operations near contested
areas. The rethink comes in the wake of the series of low-level incursions China has used to shift the status quo in one of the vital waterways of
the global economy. The challenge for the US military is to find tactics to deter these small-scale Chinese
moves without escalating particular disputes into a broader military conflict. Every year, $5,300bn of goods cross the
South China Sea by ship. “Our efforts to deter China [in the South China Sea] have clearly not worked,” said a senior US official. The growing
tensions in the South China Sea, which include disputes between China and Vietnam and the Philippines, cast a shadow over the annual meeting
between senior US and Chinese officials, known as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which started in Beijing on Wednesday. The US
delegation, led by secretary of state John Kerry and Treasury secretary Jack Lew, face the delicate task of trying to shore up an increasingly
fragile relationship with Beijing, while laying out American concerns about Chinese maritime expansionism and cyber theft. For their part, the
Chinese are irked by US moves to prosecute Chinese military officials over alleged cyber-hacking and by American alliances in Asia which
Beijing views as a form of containment. One element of the emerging US strategy was evident in March when the US flew P-8A
surveillance planes over the Second Thomas Shoal, an uninhabited atoll in the South China Sea. Chinese
ships there were trying to prevent the Philippines from supplying marines who were trying to get essential supplies to
a ship that in 1999 was deliberately run aground on a land-feature claimed by both countries. The US planes flew at low altitude to
make sure they were visible to the Chinese. “This is a new dynamic,” said a former Pentagon official familiar with the operation.
“The message is, ‘we know what you are doing, your actions will have consequences and that we have the
capacity and the will and we are here’.” A spokesman for the US military’s Pacific Command said that “we do routine operations in these
waters and airspace on a regular basis”. More extensive use of surveillance aircraft in the region could be coupled
with a greater willingness to publicise images or videos of Chinese maritime activity. Some US officials
believe the Chinese might be given pause for thought if images of their vessels harassing Vietnamese or Filipino
fishermen were to be broadcast. The US military’s Hawaii-based Pacific command has also been asked to co-ordinate the development
of a regional system of maritime information, which would allow governments in the western Pacific detailed information about the location of
vessels in the region. Several governments say they have been caught unawares by the surprise appearance of Chinese ships. The US has supplied
the Philippines, Japan and other countries in the region with improved radar equipment and other monitoring systems and is now looking for
ways to build this information into a broader regional network that shares the data. The Pentagon has also been working on plans for calculated
shows of force, such as the flight of B-52s over the East China Sea last year after China declared an exclusive air defence zone over the area. The
potential options involve sending naval vessels close to disputed areas. US officials say that there is little
appetite within the administration for some of the more confrontational ideas that have been proposed as a means of
deterring China. These include deploying the US coast guard to the South China Sea to counter the activities of Chinese civilian vessels and
using US-led convoys to escort fisherman from the Philippines and other nations into areas where they have been expelled by the Chinese.
Asia-Pacific--DoD
US military commitment solves the aff
Chang 13
(Felix K. Chang is an FPRI Senior Fellow; he served as a senior planner and an intelligence officer in the U.S. Department of Defense, “More is
Not Enough: Arms Buildups, Innovation, and Stability in the Asia-Pacific,” November 2013, Foreign Policy Research Institute,
http://www.fpri.org/articles/2013/11/more-not-enough-arms-buildups-innovation-and-stability-asia-pacific)//BB
the region is rearming. That is because of changes in the geopolitical environment that have been
brought on by China’s rapid military modernization, its more assertive behavior, and the region’s
festering doubts about long-term American commitment. But rather than being a “competitive” increase in armaments, the arms buildup across the
Nonetheless,
Asia-Pacific bears more resemblance to an arms catch-up, in which regional countries have come to realize that their military forces are inadequate to ensure their safety in the new environment.
But since no one country or set of countries, at the moment, is attempting to match the pace of China’s military modernization or cause China to fear for its safety, there has been no real
competition. Moreover, not all arms buildups are the same. Geography (or the lack thereof) can help differentiate. In some parts of the world where countries struggle over land, calculations of
military power must take into account not only combat systems, but also the conditions under which they would operate—terrain, fortifications, and even operational concepts (like envelopment),
In today’s Asia-Pacific, countries largely vie for control over maritime
spaces. Since the specks of land that exist within these spaces have little intrinsic military value, they are
strategically less important than the skies above and the seas around them. That means that, in the Asia-Pacific, combat systems are more likely to
dominate military power calculations. Since the effectiveness and survivability of such arms on the modern battlefield increasingly relies on a
high level of technical sophistication, there is little doubt that technology will play an outsized role in
determining the ultimate balance of power in the Asia-Pacific. ARMS RACES AND INNOVATION Even so, the study of arms races can
none of which have a direct corollary in the air or at sea.[2]
inform how the Asia-Pacific’s arms buildup could contribute to greater stability, rather than less of it, in the regional balance of power. That is because there are different kinds of arms races. One
sort focuses on increasing the quantity of arms. In that case, a country would seek to increase the numerical strength of its existing combat systems to improve its military power. For instance,
Japan could simply acquire more of its current-generation fighter aircraft. The other sort concentrates on increasing the quality of arms. In that case, a country would seek to replace its existing
combat systems with more capable ones to improve its military power. Returning to Japan, one can see this in Tokyo’s decision to replace its existing fleet of F-4 fighters with next-generation F35 Joint Strike Fighters. Of course, both quantitative and qualitative features are present in most arms buildups. But one is often still favored over the other. That can have meaningful
consequences for the outcome of an arms race. In a quantitative race, the country that can develop a numerical superiority in its military forces is likely to maintain it in the long run, since its
rival would have to redouble its efforts just to catch up. Indeed, the country that wins a quantitative race is frequently the one with greater determination and resources. Hence, it is believed that
quantitative races naturally lead to an inequality in the balance of power. Given that, such an arms race is more likely to produce a situation in which the country holding a military advantage
chooses to use it against its rival to achieve its goals. On the other hand, a qualitative arms race tends toward equality in the balance of power. Rather than a single long race, it looks like a series
of shorter ones. If a country that is at a numerical disadvantage in a particular combat system introduces a new and vastly more effective one, it could quickly neutralize the numerical advantage
of its rival. Thus, each new and innovative combat system can narrow the military power gap between two rival countries. That was certainly a motivation behind America’s ceaseless investment
in technology for its military throughout the Cold War—so that it could confront the Soviet Union’s numerically superior conventional forces on more equal terms. As the theory goes, the larger
the innovative leap, the faster a lagging country can approach parity with its rival. Inasmuch as an inequality in the balance of power may increase the likelihood of aggression and conflict, a
greater equality in that balance may well decrease their prospects. Of course, some may argue that the attainment of technological superiority could have the same effect as the achievement of
numerical superiority. In that view, a country with a technological superiority might be tempted to use it before its rival can match its achievement. But that has rarely occurred. Certainly new
combat systems developed during wartime have been immediately put to use. For example, during World War II Germany made its Me 262 jet fighter and Vergeltungswaffen (retribution
weapons)—the V-1 buzz bomb and the V-2 ballistic missile—fully operational soon after they were developed.[3] The United States did the same for the atomic bomb. But in the years
immediately after World War II, the United States held a clear qualitative superiority over the Soviet Union in atomic arms, but did not use them. In the decades that followed, the two countries
sought qualitative superiority in many technologies, but again neither side employed them against the other. Rather, it was when a country possessed an unchallenged qualitative superiority
relative to its rival did it resort to military force. The Soviet Union used it against Afghanistan (1979-1989) and the United States in several cases, from North Korea (1950-1953) to Iraq (1991
and 2003). Thus, military innovation, at least, offers the possibility of a less destabilizing arms race than one purely based on numerical superiority. One could say the same of arms buildups.
Countries that embark on arms buildups that focus on innovation may be able to reach military parity with their rivals faster and thus achieve greater equality in the balance of military power
(and ultimately regional stability). Of course, using the current generation of military technology in innovative ways may also produce similar benefits. But to maximize those benefits, countries
must eventually adopt new military technologies. LESSONS OF HISTORY The classic example of qualitative arms races occurred in the competition for naval supremacy between the 1840s and
1910s. During that time a series of innovations occurred that revolutionized naval warfare. Among the most significant were: steam propulsion and screw propellers (replacing the sail); iron and
steel-hulled ships (replacing wooden ones); and progressively more powerful breach-loading guns (replacing muzzle-loading cannons). While the British Royal Navy maintained its dominant
position throughout this time, it did so in spite of serious challengers. The first was the French Navy. In response to Anglo-French tensions over Spain and Syria, French Emperor Napoleon III
sought a stronger navy and, specifically, one equipped with steam-powered warships. Steam offered naval commanders far better control over an engagement than wind ever could. When France
launched the steam-powered Napoléon in 1850, it immediately outclassed every warship in the Royal Navy. But Britain quickly responded with its steam-powered Agamemnon-class ship of the
line two years later. By 1858, France still lagged Britain in sail-powered ships of the line 10 to 35, but already reached parity in steam-powered ships of the line 29 to 29. A few years on, greater
British determination and resources enabled the Royal Navy to regain its supremacy. But by then France introduced the ironclad. With cannons still dominating maritime arsenals, iron offered far
better protection from cannon fire than timber. By the start of the American Civil War (and the famous Monitor vs. Merrimack engagement), the French Navy had 15 ironclads built or under
construction. The Royal Navy had only seven. But after a crash shipbuilding program in the early 1860s, Britain restored the Royal Navy’s preeminence. Nevertheless, by the late 1880s, new
countries with as much determination and resources as Britain had emerged, most notably Germany.[4] At the same time, powerful breach-loading guns firing high-velocity shells, which could
penetrate iron and steel, had begun to replace muzzle-loading cannons and their traditional shot. Until then, British naval policy had been to never introduce any technology that would outdate its
existing warships, but to undertake a rapid shipbuilding program if another country were to do so. But with Germany’s fast rise, Britain decided to introduce the first “all big gun ship,” the
Dreadnought-class battleship, in 1906. However, doing so reduced the value of the Royal Navy’s existing fleet and gave Germany a chance to catch up. Thus, two years later, despite the Royal
Navy’s great advantage over its German rival in pre-Dreadnought battleships, 63 to 26, its lead in Dreadnought battleships under construction was slim, only 12 to 9. Still, Britain’s early start and
continuous investment allowed it to build on its advantage through the start of World War I. At each turn, one can see how innovation helped a country with inferior military power quickly catch
up to its rival. Only Britain’s embrace of innovation allowed it to stay ahead. More recently, a similar story has played out in the Pacific. After two U.S. aircraft carrier battlegroups were sent to
challenge China’s attempt to intimidate Taiwan with ballistic missile tests off its coast in 1995 and 1996, China has sought ways to even the balance of power between it and the United States.
Before the end of the decade, it beefed up its anti-air campaign strategy to counter the threat from American aircraft carriers. But rather than reflexively build its own aircraft carriers, it sought to
capitalize on a gap in American fleet defenses. While the U.S. Navy had focused on improving its defenses against sea-skimming cruise missiles since the 1970s, it had not fully developed its
defenses against ballistic missiles from above. Fortunately for China, its ballistic missile program was one of its few weapons programs that escaped the turbulence of the Cultural Revolution.[5]
By the early 2000s, China’s ballistic missile technology had advanced to the point at which Chinese military leaders could seriously contemplate using ballistic missiles armed with maneuverable
conventional warheads to hit (or at least damage) a large ship, like an aircraft carrier, at sea. In 2004 China’s military revised its doctrine to include the possible use of anti-ship ballistic missile
salvos against aircraft carriers off its coast. At the time, American observers dwelled on the “asymmetric” nature of the threat. But more fundamentally, it was a threat born from innovation.
China still lacks the oceanic surveillance system that it
needs to properly detect, track, and target an aircraft carrier , the presence of such missiles has narrowed the gap in military power
China began to deploy DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles sometime in 2012. Though
between China and the United States.[6] However, the United States has not stood still. It also innovated. Advances in its ballistic missile defense program allowed the United States to set up a
X-band radar in northern Japan in 2006 to track ballistic missile launches in the Pacific. A second is now under discussion for southern Japan. These radars could also support the targeting of
SM-3 surface-to-air missile interceptors aboard U.S. warships at sea. And that is not the end. In 2014 the U.S. Navy will deploy its first-generation laser weapon system to counter small craft in
the Persian Gulf. It is not hard to imagine that in the coming decades, higher-powered laser weapon systems could be used to deflect or defeat anti-ship cruise missiles or even ballistic missile
warheads.[7] That is not to say that all military innovations are revolutionary or even transformative. However, in conjunction with proper military organization and doctrinal employment,
military innovations can help quickly correct inequalities in the balance of power without triggering a
more destabilizing quantitative arms buildup.
Data/Satellites
Data Collection—best tech--Navy
Navy geospatial data is feasible—it’s fast, easy-to-use interface and is already
available for civilian groups
NAVOCEANO 10 (Naval Oceanographic Office is the largest subordinate command within the Naval
Meteorology and Oceanography Command, is responsible for providing oceanographic products and
services to all elements of the Department of Defense, January 15 2010, "Naval Oceanographic Office
Launches Enterprise Geospatial Data Services: Geospatial Technology Delivers Oceanographic
Information to Warfighters and Civilians",
https://www.esri.com/~/media/Files/Pdfs/industries/defense/pdfs/navo-flr.pdf)
NAVOCEANO contracted with Radiance Technologies. Inc., an Esri partner headquartered in Huntsville,
Alabama, to develop NAVOCEANO Geospatial Data Services (NGDS). The geospatial technology-based
enterprise SOA serves oceanographic data, models, and products quickly and provides an easy-to-use
interface for finding information and requesting advanced analysis. The geospatial technology used was
Esri's ArcGIS* Server. The NGDS also manages workflow processes, enforces DoD metadata standards,
and stores data in a centralized geodatabase. NAVOCEANO can now provide US Navy coastal ocean
models (NCOMs) on demand through a customized web interface that accesses Open Geospatial
Consortium, Inc.* (OGC •). Web Map Services (WMS). These services now replace the generation of
15,000 soft-copy regional NCOM maps daily. This saves valuable high-performance computing time,
allowing NAVOCEANO to run its complex ocean models more often. Using these web services and
interfaces, DoD warfighters, researchers, and customers can customize the ocean model output display by
defining their area of interest, selecting the desired ocean properties by depth and time period, and
generating a product image. Using this interface, they can also download the image in various formats,
including .png, .gif, animated .gif, or .kml. The final output of ocean current direction vector arrows
overlaid on a surface temperature model image can then be incorporated into briefing presentations or
GIS technologies. Using the NGDS secure web-based system, warfighters and others can find and retrieve
this environmental data using OGC WMS, Web Feature Services (WFS), and Web Coverage Services
(WCS) clients such as Esri's ArcGIS Explorer. The Results The ArcGIS Server software-based NGDS is
hosted on both unclassified and classified networks. It delivers oceanographic information to
NAVOCEANO production centers and authorized organizations through the use of OGC web services.
This gives NAVOCEANO staff the ability to create, manage, and distribute GIS services over the web to
support desktop, mobile, and web mapping applications, something they previously could not do. An
added benefit of implementing an SOA based on ArcGIS Server is that authorized users can obtain
NAVOCEANO oceanographic data from the National Geospatial-lntelligence Agency's (NGA)
Geospatial Visualization Services (GVS).
Specifically, recently launched HICO has best mapping ability –its cheap and
adaptable to many environments
Ryan et al 12 (John, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Curtiss O. Davis and Nicholas B.
Tufillaro, College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, October 2012,
"Application of the Hyperspectral Imager for the Coastal Ocean to Phytoplankton Ecology Studies in
Monterey Bay, CA, USA", http://oceandatacenter.ucsc.edu/home/Publications/remotesensing-0601007-1.pdf)
The Hyperspectral Imager for the Coastal Ocean (HICO) is the first spaceborne imaging spectrometer
designed for coastal ocean research [1,2]. Sponsored by the Office of Naval Research as an Innovative
Naval Prototype, HICO was developed to demonstrate improved coastal remote sensing products
including bathymetry, bottom types, water optical properties, and on-shore vegetation maps. Enhanced
products are supported by HICO’s spatial resolution (<100 × 100 m), spectral resolution (400 to 900 nm
sampled at 5.7 nm) and signal-to-noise ratio (>200:1 for a 5% albedo scene). Based on the Portable
Hyperspectral Imager for Low-Light Spectroscopy (PHILLS) airborne imaging spectrometers [3], HICO
demonstrates innovative ways to reduce the cost and schedule of a space mission, by adapting proven
aircraft imager architecture and using commercial off-the-shelf components. HICO was installed on the
International Space Station (ISS) on 23 September 2009 and collected its first images the following day.
HICO observations have since been targeted for a wide variety of environments. Here we focus on the
application of HICO capabilities to the measurement of water optical properties and characterization of
phytoplankton in a highly productive coastal system.
Navy data and simulation models better—already being used by experts
Lockheed Martin Mission Systems & Sensors 12 (Lockheed Martin is a global security and
aerospace company that is the primary supplier of Naval marine energy equipment, October 2012,
"OCEAN THERMAL EXTRACTABLE ENERGY VISUALIZATION",
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/1055457.pdf)
HYCOM, the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (e.g., Chassignet et al., 2003; 2009), is the latest
generation of atmosphere/ocean simulation tools in a family of numerical models based on using density
(or, in the atmosphere, potential temperature) as the vertical coordinate. These derive from work on isentropic models
in the atmosphere (e.g., Bleck, 1978); the HYCOM concept was first discussed by Bleck (2002) following many years of work on a pure
isopycnic-coordinate model (MICOM, the Miami Isopycnic Coordinate Model – Bleck and Boudra, 1986; Bleck and Smith, 1990) and simplified
approaches to overcoming MICOM’s limitations (Bleck et al., 1989). The rationale for using this approach to solving the equations of motion in
finite-difference form lies in the nature of the deep oceans’ adiabatic flow field. Below the surface photic zone and mixed layer,
where mechanical mixing and thermodynamic processes can dominate, the oceans conserve temperature
andsalinity, and therefore density. The dynamics are well described by potential-vorticity conserving
layers – for which density is the “natural” coordinate system. Because thermodynamic processes at the
surface, however, can alter the density of upper-ocean seawater, it is necessary to use a more traditional
formulation (such as depth or pressure coordinates) there – hence the “hybrid coordinate” designation.
Complexities associated with matching the two coordinate systems at their interface have been the subject of intensive research over the past 15
years, and the current formulation of HYCOM conserves appropriate state variables and is numerically
stable. HYCOM has matured into a community effort, and the simulations to be used in OTEEV are those
from the NRL using the Navy Coupled Ocean Data Assimilation (NCODA – see Cummings, 2005) multivariate
technique. The assimilation includes use of satellite altimetry data (for sea-surface height) and multi-channel seasurface temperature and salinity as well as all available in situ temperature and salinity profiles from
bathythermograph profiling floats and sea ice concentrations. The surface data are projected downward
using the Navy’s Modular Ocean Data Assimilation System (Fox et al., 2002). Atmospheric forcing is taken from the
Navy’s operational Naval Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (Hogan and Rosemond, 1991) and includes wind stress and speed,
heat fluxes (including evaporation) and precipitation. In this way, both the model’s dynamics and thermodynamics are forced realistically and
steered toward the observations as the model steps forward in time. In essence, for the time period of the integration, the model results include all
observations pertinent to OTEEV placed into the context of a physically and dynamically consistent interpolation scheme that produces veryhigh-resolution results. It thus presents a useful platform from which to assemble the dataset needed to further
refine the global assessment of the OTEC resource. All climatological investigations of this nature
involve balancing data coverage and fidelity against dataset homogeneity and climatological stationarity.
For example, combining expendable bathythermograph deep temperatures from the 1980s with satellite-derived surface temperatures from the
1990s, for example, would be fraught with potential error. Purely observational datasets such as the WOA (NOAA, 2001)
or the Navy’s Generalized Digital Environmental Model (Teague et al., 1990) of both TS and TD are
neither homogeneous nor, given the present warming trend in ocean surface temperatures, stationary (IPCC,
2007; Xue et al., 2010). Ocean current datasets, required to estimate transport rates for the practical assessment here, are far less homogeneous
and stationary. On the other hand, because they are derived from a global, full-physics circulation model, the
HYCOM+NCODA results provide full data coverage. And because they include global data
assimilation, their fidelity is also quite good, although some of the early HYCOM+NCODA simulations include a deep-water
temperature bias.3 While this is small and generally confined to depths below 1000 m, using results without this bias ensure that the TD values in
the analysis are as accurate as possible. For this reason, the OTEEV analysis will be based on the results from simulations 90.6 and 90.8, which
cover the period September 2008 to the present and are continually updated. Thus, the methods developed in this project can
easily be applied to maintain a near-real-time OTEEV resource assessment in the future.
Navy has lots of mapping data of American and international waters—classified
information can be released
NSTC Committee 13 (Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability OF THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, September 2013, "Biennial Report to Congress:
PROGRESS MADE IN IMPLEMENTING THE OCEAN AND COASTAL MAPPING INTEGRATION ACT: 2009 2010 ", http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/200910_nstc_oceanmapping.pdf)
United States Navy – The U.S. Navy collects high resolution global bathymetric data in support of
operational U.S., allied, and coalition military forces. The primary data collection effort involves data
from foreign littorals, including the territorial sea and EEZ of other nations. Data from foreign territorial
seas are collected under agreements that stipulate that the data cannot be released without the permission
of the host nation. Data are collected in foreign EEZs by the Navy from military surveys, and are used
only for military purposes. While much of the Navy-collected mapping and charting data cannot be
released, the Navy continues to dispense as much ocean data available as possible. The Navy collected
multibeam bathymetric data in the U.S. EEZ from offshore of the New England coast to Florida in 2004
and 2006 in support of efforts to determine the limits of the U.S continental shelf. That bathymetric data
has been declassified by the Navy. In June 2006, the Navy agreed to release Arctic Ocean bathymetric
data collected by submarines from 1993-2000 within the designated Ice Exercise area in the Arctic Ocean.
The Navy also agreed to consider future releases of additional Arctic submarine data collected in that area
approximately every five years thereafter. In 2008, the Navy worked with NOAA and the Governor of
Washington State to remove a 1985 restriction imposed by the Deputy National Security Advisor on
NOAA prohibiting public release of some bathymetric data and products from U.S. waters by NOAA
without the prior approval of the Department of Defense. That restriction was lifted in December 2008.
Data--oceanographic weather--Navy
Solves undersea warfare better—current data models already integrated into navy
and boost vital undersea capabilities
Metzger et al 13 (Alan J. Wallcraft1, Prasad G. Thoppil1, James A. Cummings1, Ole Martin
Smedstad2, Deborah S. Franklin2, and Harley E. Hurlburt3, Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space
Center, MS QinetiQ North America, Stennis Space Center, MS Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL,
September 11 2013, "A Next-generation Operational Global Ocean Nowcast/Forecast System at the
Naval Oceanographic Office", http://www.navydsrc.hpc.mil/news/GOFS.html)
Future capabilities: New capabilities are also under development to improve ocean and ice forecast skill.
In the near future (FY14), the 1/12° global system will implement a new ice model, the Community Ice
CodE (CICE) (Hunke and Lipscomb, 2008), which has improved ice dynamics and thermodynamics. This
will lead to a more realistic ice environment near the poles in both hemispheres. Most of our development
efforts are now focused on increasing the horizontal resolution to 1/25° (~4.5 km at the equator), with a
scheduled transition to NAVOCEANO by the end of FY15. This version will also incorporate tidal
forcing, which is important because of their interaction with currents, the potential for enhanced vertical
mixing, their effect on acoustic propagation and their impact on submarine safety. Impacts: A next
generation ocean nowcasting/forecasting system based on 1/12° global HYCOM is operational at the
Navy DSRC. It can accurately depict and forecast such features as western boundary currents and sharp
ocean fronts, thus providing improved environmental awareness to the Fleet. Other naval applications
include optimum track ship routing, search and rescue, anti-submarine warfare and surveillance,
tactical planning, and providing boundary conditions for regional and coastal nested model. HPC
resources have played a major role in making this state-of-the-art system feasible, beginning with the
preliminary development of HYCOM and continuing all the way through its transition to an operational
product.
Geospatial Intelligence--DoD
DOD investment can fund geospatial intelligence
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency No Date
(“Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR),”
https://www1.nga.mil/PARTNERS/RESEARCHANDGRANTS/SMALLBUSINESSINNOVATIONRESEARCH/Pages/default.aspx)//BB
The goal of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is to improve geospatial intelligence
capabilities and tradecraft through advanced R&D solutions offered by small innovative companies.
DoD's SBIR program funds early-stage R&D projects at small technology companies — projects which
serve a DoD need and have the potential for commercialization in private sector and/or military markets. As part
of its SBIR program, the DoD issues an SBIR solicitation three times a year, describing its R&D needs and inviting R&D proposals from small
companies -- firms organized for profit with 500 or fewer employees, including all affiliated firms. Companies apply first for a six-month to ninemonth Phase I award of $70,000 to $150,000 to test the scientific, technical, and commercial merit and feasibility of a particular concept. If Phase
I proves successful, the company may be invited to apply for a two-year Phase II award of $500,000 to $1,000,000 to further develop the concept,
usually to the prototype stage. Proposals are judged competitively on the basis of scientific, technical, and
commercial merit. Following completion of Phase II, small companies are expected to obtain funding from the private sector and/or nonSBIR government sources (in "Phase III") to develop the concept into a product for sale in private sector and/or military markets.
Satellites—DOD
The CP speeds up DoD satellite innovation which increases coverage and saves A
TON of money
Bennett 12 (Michael, Congressional Budget Office, September 2012, "Options for Modernizing
Military Weather Satellites ", http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/09-20WeatherSatellites.pdf)
DoD is currently evaluating various concepts for the WSF satellites with a focus on affordable, mature
technology and plans to use $125 million appropriated by the Congress to continue to assess current
technologies. DoD’s decision to launch DMSP-20 into the AM orbit has given DoD more time to develop
the WSF satellites. How long the development of the WSF satellite can be put off depends on how much
risk of a potential gap in coverage that DoD is willing to accept. Determining the start date for new
development involves two main issues: when the new satellite needs to be available for launch and how
long it will take to produce the satellite. Each of those issues has some risk associated with it (see the
Appendix for further discussion of those risks). In addition to the operational impact of leaving the midAM orbit six years earlier than previously planned, the decision to use DMSP-20 in the AM orbit also
affects DoD’s budget. In the long run, the move essentially swaps DMSP-20 for what would have been a
new satellite in the AM orbit after DMSP- 19, so that one fewer of the new generation of satellites needs
to be purchased. In the near term, however, delaying the launch of DMSP-20 means that the satellite will
need to be stored longer; currently, DoD spends about $90 million per year to support the unlaunched
DMSP satellites, including maintaining a level of readiness that would allow the satellites to be launched
in about nine months if an on-orbit satellite should falter.
Aging civilian satellites will be retired—new ones are unlikely to be approved and
won’t be ready until 2020.
Tucker 14 (Patrick, technology editor for Defense One. He’s also the author of The Naked Future:
What Happens in a World That Anticipates Your Every Move?, March 14 2014, "Navy Submarine Drones
Will Predict the Weather Months In Advance", http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/03/navysubmarine-drones-will-predict-weather-months-advance/80542/)
Today, we know that the weather is too chaotic a system to be predicted with the sort of precision that von Neumann envisioned. But, thanks to
better simulations, we can create a much clearer picture of the weather and, more importantly, how the weather is evolving on a minute-byminute basis. The Navy now uses massive super computers to run data to allow for rapidly updating forecasts and projections. Exponentially
increasing computer power at decreasing cost is another reason weather prediction will get much better in the next decade, Jacobs said. Despite
all this progress, weather data is a strategic advantage that we’re on the verge of losing, and not because of
the machines in the water, but the ones in space. Six of NASA’s 13 earth-monitoring satellites will no
longer be in operation by 2016. This will likely result in a gap of earth-monitoring capability that could
persist through 2017 or even beyond. President Barack Obama’s FY15 budget requests $2 billion for NOAA
satellites. But satellite spending is hardly safe. The budget request cuts spending for Navy satellite communications to
$41,829,000 from $66,196,000 and the Navy Satellite Control Network $20,806,000 from $35,657,000. The 2015 Air Force budget
requests money to begin research on polar weather satellites to replace the current aging system. But the new
satellites likely would not be ready until 2020. So we’ll have more drones but fewer satellites, at least in the near
term. A 2011 Government Accountability Office report warned that without improvements to our earth-monitoring
capabilities, we “will not be able to provide key environmental data that are important for sustaining
climate and space weather measurements.” The GAO updated the report last year and found a lot of improvement, but also
further cause for alarm, stating: “Potential gaps in environmental satellite data beginning as early as 2014 and
lasting as long as 53 months have led to concerns that future weather forecasts and warnings—including
warnings of extreme events such as hurricanes, storm surges, and floods—will be less accurate and
timely.”
DoD Satellites better--DoD
New orbits increase data recency and enhance visual imagery—solves military
planning
Bennett 12 (Michael, Congressional Budget Office, September 2012, "Options for Modernizing
Military Weather Satellites ", http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/09-20WeatherSatellites.pdf)
Retaining satellite coverage in the AM and mid-AM orbits would have the greatest effect on military
operational planners, for whom having the most recent local observations, particularly visual imagery, is
important. Early morning imagery from the AM satellite is well-timed for planning daytime operations,
whereas evening imagery from the mid-AM satellite—which is usually taken after dark—is well-timed
for planning nighttime operations. Metop satellites carry the AVHRR imager (the same instrument
included in Options 2 and 3), which has some spatial distortion that makes its imagery less than ideal for
visual interpretation, and it does not have the high-sensitivity day-night band that is available on DMSP.
Further, DMSP satellites broadcast data directly to users in the field, both on land and onboard ships. That
capability is not currently available with Metop. Should DoD determine that a more capable imager, like
the VIIRS instrument that was planned for the DWSS program and is included in Option 1, is necessary
in the AM orbit, it may also determine that the increased performance is also needed in the mid-AM for
planning night operations. If two mid-AM orbit satellites were added to Option 1 to retain the current
two-orbit DoD coverage, CBO estimates that it would require an additional $3.2 billion to procure and
launch those satellites, not counting any additional storage costs.
Only the DoD would launch mid-AM satellites—that’s K2 high visual resolution and
complete global coverage—alternative sources fail
Bennett 12 (Michael, Congressional Budget Office, September 2012, "Options for Modernizing
Military Weather Satellites ", http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/09-20WeatherSatellites.pdf)
Foregoing the mid-AM orbit, as described above, would mean relying on an imager that is less suited for
nighttime observations and visual interpretation than is currently carried on DMSP satellites. However, no
other U.S. or international polar-orbiting satellites operate in the AM orbit, so if DoD chose to stop
fielding satellites in that orbit, planners would need to rely on less recent polar satellite observations or,
more likely, other sources for imagery and other measurements. Other potential sources of data exist,
including local sensors, geostationary satellites, and other low-earth- orbit satellites. Local sensors, such
as ground-based weather stations, can measure local conditions and provide useful input for local weather
forecasts if enough sensors are available. However, military operations often occur in remote areas where
local sensors are not available. Geostationary weather satellites also provide visual/infrared imagery and
other measurements. They can view a large, fixed region of the earth at all times, so that in many cases
they may provide more recent observations than polar-orbiting satellites. NOAA's Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) and the Europeans' Meteosat are such satellites. Other, less
conventional geostationary sources include observations from the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS),
which is designed to provide early warning of ballistic missile launches but could possibly be used to
support a limited number of weather missions as well. In general, though, geostationary satellites provide
measurements with lower spatial resolution than polar satellites because of their greater distance from the
earth. Further, geostationary satellites cannot view areas at high latitudes because of the earth's curvature.
AT: Data can’t be used by civilians
NAVOCEANO has global reach and converts data into variety of tailored
services—it’s highly adaptable and is being used by civilian customers now
NAVOCEANO 10 (Naval Oceanographic Office is the largest subordinate command within the Naval
Meteorology and Oceanography Command, is responsible for providing oceanographic products and
services to all elements of the Department of Defense, January 15 2010, "Naval Oceanographic Office
Launches Enterprise Geospatial Data Services: Geospatial Technology Delivers Oceanographic
Information to Warfighters and Civilians",
https://www.esri.com/~/media/Files/Pdfs/industries/defense/pdfs/navo-flr.pdf)
The Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), based at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, continually collects
oceanographic data around the globe. NAVOCEANO uses that data to produce a wide variety of
oceanographic products and services for the United States Department of Defense (DoD), along with
other US government and international customers including civilian organizations. NAVOCEANO's top priority,
however, is to provide the best available oceanographic, coastal, and shoreline information to US warfighters. Oceanographers, cartographers, and
geographic information system (GIS) professionals collect and analyze data from commercial and US
government remote-sensing satellites and NAVOCEANO's fleet of ships, seaborne buoys, gliders, and
lidar-equipped aircraft. They then turn the data into tailored oceanographic, hydrographic, bathymetric,
geophysical, and acoustic products and services. These include bathymetric data for navigation; ocean
measurements; and forecast properties such as tides, salinity, temperatures, wave height, swell periods, current direction and speed, optical visibility,
mine detection, and acoustics. Warfighters, researchers, homeland security organizations such as the US Coast Guard, and many others, greatly depend on these
products and data to safely navigate vessels through ports and the open ocean and effectively plan their strategic, operational, tactical, and humanitarian missions. The
Challenge Facing a rising tide of data and a growing demand for dynamic, time-sensitive information about specific areas of the world, NAVOCEANO decided it
needed a modern service-oriented architecture (SOA)-based system to speed delivery of data and products to mariners and give them the best tools to build custom
products themselves. Examples
of NAVOCEANO's various products and services include nautical charts, ocean
temperature forecasts, ocean drift and surf forecasts, port approach maps, and advanced geophysical and
acoustic analyses. The organization realized that traditional methods of delivering products and services using HTML-based web pages either took too long
or did not dynamically generate data detailed enough for a small area.
Navy is preparing to provide information to the public—NOAA partnership is a
step in the right direction
NRL Press Release 14 (US Naval Research Laboratory, March 5 2014, "Navy Transitions Global Ocean
Forecast System for Public", http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/navy-transitionsglobal-ocean-forecast-system-for-public-use)
The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) within
the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have entered into a formal agreement that results in
NCEP using Navy developed global ocean forecast model technology to make environmental ocean
forecasts for public use. Navy Global Ocean Forecast "Development of an advanced global ocean prediction system has been a longterm Navy interest," said Dr. Gregg Jacobs, head, NRL Ocean Dynamics and Prediction Branch. "This use of Navy developed
systems for global ocean forecasting represents dual use technology that will benefit civilian interests and
is an excellent example of the cutting edge research that is enabled through Navy sponsored investments."
The ability to operationally predict the ocean environment and provide this critical information had been developed within the Navy through the
Office of Naval Research (ONR) and NRL research and development (R&D) investments along with Oceanographer of the Navy investments
resulting in the transition of systems to the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO). The Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command
that oversees NAVOCEANO is responsible for providing ocean environment forecasts utilizing meteorology and oceanography, satellite and in
situ monitoring systems and geospatial information and services to enable the Navy to leverage the environment and make successful strategic,
tactical, and operational battle space utilization around the globe at any time. The Navy has had requirements for predicting the ocean
environment for its purposes including estimating acoustic propagation, placement of sonar arrays, determining currents for mine drift and burial,
drift for search and rescue, and safety of operations on and under the ocean surface. NRL has enabled Navy operational ocean prediction of
tactically relevant information. To accomplish this task, Jacobs says three critical components are necessary to predict the
open ocean environment. "The first is access to satellite observations that measure precise sea surface height,
sea surface temperature, and ice concentration with in situ observations from public sources and Navy
ships; second, numerical models representing the dynamical processes capable of understanding the physics of the
ocean and numerical methods for efficiently representing those physics; and lastly, the third critical component is the
technology to correct the numerical models using the observations through data assimilation." These
components have been implemented at the Naval Oceanographic Office for daily global ocean prediction. Within NCEP, the
observational components from satellite and from NOAA buoys around U.S. coasts are available publicly.
For the dynamical model, NCEP has adopted the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM) numerical model system developed through the
National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP) that NAVOCEANO runs to construct seven-day forecasts each day of the year. The third
critical piece provided to NCEP through the new agreement enables application of Navy technology to
the civilian sector. NOAA's NCEP has a mission to provide environment forecasts to the U.S. public and has provided meteorological
information for many years. The new agreement will allow NCEP to use software developed by NRL to
assimilate data necessary to maintain daily forecast accuracy that enables safe, at-sea operations, hazard
mitigation, resource management, and emergency response. "This is an example of complementary
missions across agencies that, through coordinated application, leads to protecting our service personnel,
who ensure the high seas are safe, and protecting our resources and citizens at home." Jacobs said.
AT: Civilian satellites do the same thing
Undersea data is essential for simulation models to be successful—only submarine
drones can provide that
Tucker 14 (Patrick, technology editor for Defense One. He’s also the author of The Naked Future:
What Happens in a World That Anticipates Your Every Move?, March 14 2014, "Navy Submarine Drones
Will Predict the Weather Months In Advance", http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/03/navysubmarine-drones-will-predict-weather-months-advance/80542/)
In the next decade, Navy scientists will be able to predict the weather as far as 90 days into the future with the help of mathematical models,
satellites, and submarine drones. The mathematical models are the most important element in the ocean and weather
prediction cocktail. But making those models perform at a level where they can be reliable so far into the future
requires data from everywhere, including more places under the sea. That’s where the submarine drones
make the difference. Improved data from drones is one of the key elements of making naval
environmental forecasting significantly better in the years ahead, Navy Research Lab scientist Gregg Jacobs said.
Today, the Slocum glider is the most recognizable drone that the Navy and others use in research. These 5 foot-long sea robots collect data
on their environment every few seconds and can descend to depths of 4,000 feet. The Navy plans to increase the number of
those drones from 65 to 150 by 2015. Submarine drones like the Slocum collect data on salinity and
temperature at various spots in the ocean. For the Navy, that’s key to figuring out where to park submarines
since temperature and salinity can determine how fast sound can travel. Finding the right spot can make a parked
submarine much more difficult to detect. But the bigger value of the undersea drones is all the data they’ll contribute
to ocean models and our ability to predict future weather.
AT: Data Can’t Be Used by Civilians
NAVOCEANO has global reach and converts data into variety of tailored
services—it’s highly adaptable and is being used by civilian customers now
NAVOCEANO 10 (Naval Oceanographic Office is the largest subordinate command within the Naval
Meteorology and Oceanography Command, is responsible for providing oceanographic products and
services to all elements of the Department of Defense, January 15 2010, "Naval Oceanographic Office
Launches Enterprise Geospatial Data Services: Geospatial Technology Delivers Oceanographic
Information to Warfighters and Civilians",
https://www.esri.com/~/media/Files/Pdfs/industries/defense/pdfs/navo-flr.pdf)
The Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO), based at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, continually collects
oceanographic data around the globe. NAVOCEANO uses that data to produce a wide variety of
oceanographic products and services for the United States Department of Defense (DoD), along with
other US government and international customers including civilian organizations. NAVOCEANO's top priority,
however, is to provide the best available oceanographic, coastal, and shoreline information to US warfighters. Oceanographers, cartographers, and
geographic information system (GIS) professionals collect and analyze data from commercial and US
government remote-sensing satellites and NAVOCEANO's fleet of ships, seaborne buoys, gliders, and
lidar-equipped aircraft. They then turn the data into tailored oceanographic, hydrographic, bathymetric,
geophysical, and acoustic products and services. These include bathymetric data for navigation; ocean
measurements; and forecast properties such as tides, salinity, temperatures, wave height, swell periods, current direction and speed, optical visibility,
mine detection, and acoustics. Warfighters, researchers, homeland security organizations such as the US Coast Guard, and many others, greatly depend on these
products and data to safely navigate vessels through ports and the open ocean and effectively plan their strategic, operational, tactical, and humanitarian missions. The
Challenge Facing a rising tide of data and a growing demand for dynamic, time-sensitive information about specific areas of the world, NAVOCEANO decided it
needed a modern service-oriented architecture (SOA)-based system to speed delivery of data and products to mariners and give them the best tools to build custom
products themselves. Examples
of NAVOCEANO's various products and services include nautical charts, ocean
temperature forecasts, ocean drift and surf forecasts, port approach maps, and advanced geophysical and
acoustic analyses. The organization realized that traditional methods of delivering products and services using HTML-based web pages either took too long
or did not dynamically generate data detailed enough for a small area.
Navy is preparing to provide information to the public—NOAA partnership is a
step in the right direction
NRL Press Release 14 (US Naval Research Laboratory, March 5 2014, "Navy Transitions Global Ocean
Forecast System for Public", http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/navy-transitionsglobal-ocean-forecast-system-for-public-use)
The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and the National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) within
the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have entered into a formal agreement that results in
NCEP using Navy developed global ocean forecast model technology to make environmental ocean
forecasts for public use. Navy Global Ocean Forecast "Development of an advanced global ocean prediction system has been a longterm Navy interest," said Dr. Gregg Jacobs, head, NRL Ocean Dynamics and Prediction Branch. "This use of Navy developed
systems for global ocean forecasting represents dual use technology that will benefit civilian interests and
is an excellent example of the cutting edge research that is enabled through Navy sponsored investments."
The ability to operationally predict the ocean environment and provide this critical information had been developed within the Navy through the
Office of Naval Research (ONR) and NRL research and development (R&D) investments along with Oceanographer of the Navy investments
resulting in the transition of systems to the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO). The Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command
that oversees NAVOCEANO is responsible for providing ocean environment forecasts utilizing meteorology and oceanography, satellite and in
situ monitoring systems and geospatial information and services to enable the Navy to leverage the environment and make successful strategic,
tactical, and operational battle space utilization around the globe at any time. The Navy has had requirements for predicting the ocean
environment for its purposes including estimating acoustic propagation, placement of sonar arrays, determining currents for mine drift and burial,
drift for search and rescue, and safety of operations on and under the ocean surface. NRL has enabled Navy operational ocean prediction of
tactically relevant information. To accomplish this task, Jacobs says three critical components are necessary to predict the
open ocean environment. "The first is access to satellite observations that measure precise sea surface height,
sea surface temperature, and ice concentration with in situ observations from public sources and Navy
ships; second, numerical models representing the dynamical processes capable of understanding the physics of the
ocean and numerical methods for efficiently representing those physics; and lastly, the third critical component is the
technology to correct the numerical models using the observations through data assimilation." These
components have been implemented at the Naval Oceanographic Office for daily global ocean prediction. Within NCEP, the
observational components from satellite and from NOAA buoys around U.S. coasts are available publicly.
For the dynamical model, NCEP has adopted the Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM) numerical model system developed through the
National Ocean Partnership Program (NOPP) that NAVOCEANO runs to construct seven-day forecasts each day of the year. The third
critical piece provided to NCEP through the new agreement enables application of Navy technology to
the civilian sector. NOAA's NCEP has a mission to provide environment forecasts to the U.S. public and has provided meteorological
information for many years. The new agreement will allow NCEP to use software developed by NRL to
assimilate data necessary to maintain daily forecast accuracy that enables safe, at-sea operations, hazard
mitigation, resource management, and emergency response. "This is an example of complementary
missions across agencies that, through coordinated application, leads to protecting our service personnel,
who ensure the high seas are safe, and protecting our resources and citizens at home." Jacobs said.
Disease
Disease Research—Army
Access to world class facilities and best workforce—they’ve already spearheaded
key medical solutions and have great rels with industry partners and federal
agencies
Edgar 13 (Erin P, Colonel, Medical Corps Commanding, July 30 2013, "USAMRIID: Biodefense Solutions
to Protect our Nation", http://www.usamriid.army.mil/)
Since its inception in 1969, USAMRIID has spearheaded research to develop medical solutions—
vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, and information—to protect our military service members from biological
threats. Our specialized capabilities include Biosafety Level 3 and Level 4 laboratories, world-class
expertise in the generation of biological aerosols for testing candidate vaccines and therapeutics, and fully
accredited animal research facilities. The outstanding national reputation of USAMRIID has been built
over the years by numerous scientists and technical staff working to protect both military personnel and
civilians from the threat of infectious diseases. We participate in support of emerging disease
investigations, working alongside colleagues from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
World Health Organization. As a reference laboratory for the Department of Defense, we set the standard
for identification of biological agents. Our customers in the Army and the Department of Defense know
us as a "tech base" organization that has produced some 20 candidate medical products over the past
decade. Still others recognize the impressive scientific credentials of our workforce, which represents
some of the top infectious disease and biological defense experts in the Nation—indeed, in the world. As
the United States continues a new era of civilian biodefense research, it is also clear that USAMRIID
plays a critical role in the status of our country's preparedness for biological terrorism and biological
warfare. While our primary mission is to protect the warfighter, our research benefits civilians as well.
USAMRIID is looking forward to continued collaborations with industry partners and with other federal
agencies—including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland
Security—to develop medical countermeasures that will protect all of our citizens, both military and
civilian. I'm excited about our future and confident that together, we can accomplish great things.
Disease Research--DOD
DoD studies play a key role in US global health efforts—it’s collaborating with a
bunch of NGOs, federal agencies and academic partners, funding will never be
slates because disease could devastate force readiness
Moss and Michaud 13 (Kellie Moss is a Policy Analyst with the Global Health Policy team at the
Kaiser Family Foundation, Josh Michaud is an Associate Director with the Global Health Policy team at
the Kaiser Family Foundation, where he directs a variety of research projects, October 22 2013, "The
U.S. Department of Defense and Global Health: Infectious Disease Efforts", http://kff.org/global-healthpolicy/report/the-u-s-department-of-defense-and-global-health-infectious-disease-efforts/)
Given the breadth and depth of DoD's engagement in infectious disease efforts as well as the intersection
of these activities with other USG global health efforts, understanding the extent and nature of DoD
engagement is important when examining the U.S. government's contributions to fighting infectious
diseases overall. This report provided an overview of the range of DoD's infectious disease activities,
outlined the organization of these efforts and the ways in which they are coordinated with other actors;
and identified the DoD funding streams that support them. It also described DoD's global HIV/AIDS and
malaria activities in-depth, including elucidating DoD and other USG funding streams for each. As it
shows: DoD's engagement with various activities related to infectious diseases is long-standing and
driven primarily by force health protection and readiness, though partnership engagement is an area of
significant and growing activity. DoD investments in this area play an important role in many areas, such
as: advancing medical research and development related to these diseases, developing innovative
strategies and tools for prevention and control, and protecting the health of U.S. military personnel89 and
civilians at home and abroad. DoD's work in this area has a global reach, working to improve local health
capabilities and capacity in many developing countries. DoD infectious disease programs are coordinated
across sendees to some degree.90 Many of these efforts are carried out in collaboration with other USG
agencies, including CDC, NIH, the State Department, and USAID; non-governmental organizations; and
a range of other bilateral, multilateral, private sector, and academic partners. Indeed, today DoD's
infectious disease efforts are part of broader U.S. global health efforts that address infectious diseases like
HIV, malaria, neglected tropical diseases, and influenza. As with other DoD global health engagement
efforts, identifying and tracking funding streams remains challenging, though some efforts have been
made to centralize some infectious disease funding flows, as through MIDRP. Addressing infectious
diseases is likely to continue to be a key part of DoD's portfolio of global health-related activities, given
the continuing threat that infectious diseases pose to the health of DoD personnel as well as national
security and their potential impact on force readiness.
DoD has most advanced disease prediction model and best workforce that continue
to innovate—solves their impact’s betters
McKinney 14 (Donna, US Navy Deputy Public Affairs Officer, March 13 2014, "NRL Team Works with
DTRA to Better Predict Deadly Diseases - See more at: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/newsreleases/2014/nrl-team-works-with-dtra-to-better-predict-deadly-diseases#sthash.xD3MNAXc.dpuf",
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/nrl-team-works-with-dtra-to-better-predictdeadly-diseases)
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) scientists have spent the past two years helping the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) better predict pending epidemics and regional disease outbreaks. This
objective is at the heart of two linked programs at DTRA. First, the 24 Month Challenge is a multi-agency
program to identify and develop the diagnostic devices needed to make such biosurveillance a reality. In
parallel, another DTRA program is developing a cloud database that analyzes the incoming data. "The 24
Month Challenge is a model of government program management efficiency," says Dr. Bradley Ringeisen
the Lead Science and Technology Manager at DTRA for the 24 Month Challenge. "We were asked by
ASD (Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs) Andrew
Weber and his office to screen the commercial sector for the best technology, develop new assays, and
perform extensive analytical testing on the devices so that they could be further tested on real patients in a
clinical research demonstration, all in two years!" The NRL team consists of Shawn Mulvaney, Lisa
Fitzgerald, Leila Hamdan and Barry Spargo, from the Chemistry Division, and Nova Research, Inc.
contractors Jaimee Compton, Nina Long, and Emily Petersen. Within the 24 Month Challenge, the NRL
team has validated and verified the capabilities of multiple diagnostic devices to best select technologies
for deployment across the globe. "DTRA decided early on that utilizing a DoD laboratory like NRL was
the right way to go," added Ringeisen. "NRL has the expertise to screen the technology space, contract to
the best performers and then work with the company to develop and test the best product for the
government dollar. In every facet, NRL exceeded our expectations and delivered tested diagnostic devices
on time that will now be shipped to Naval Medical Research Units on four continents for clinical testing."
Exploration
Generic Exploration—DOD
Jurisdiction over multiple domains bolsters solvency
DoD 13 (US Department of Defense, September 2013, "Arctic Strategy",
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_Arctic_Strategy.pdf)
Engage public and private sector partners to improve all domain awareness in the Arctic. Although NSPD-66/HSPD-25 focuses on maritime
domain awareness, the Department has responsibilities for awareness across all domains: air, land, maritime,
space, and cyberspace. Adequate domain awareness is an essential component of protecting maritime
commerce, critical infrastructure, and key resources. In the near-term, the Department will work through the North American
Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to maintain air tracking capabilities in the Arctic. As the maritime domain becomes
increasingly accessible, the Department will seek to improve its maritime detection and tracking in
coordination with DHS and other departments and agencies as well as through public/private partnerships .
The Department of the Navy, in its role as DoD Executive Agent for Maritime Domain Awareness, will lead DoD coordination on maritime
detection and tracking. Where possible, DoD will also collaborate with international partners to employ, acquire,
share, or develop the means required to improve sensing, data collection and fusion, analysis, and
information-sharing to enhance domain awareness appropriately in the Arctic.
Best agency for tech innovation and R and D
CATF 12 (Clean Air Task Force, Climate Change and Air Quality Protection NGO, March 2012, "ENERGY
INNOVATION at the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE ASSESSING THE OPPORTUNITIES",
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Energy_Innovation_at_DoD.pdf)
DoD integrates into the pursuit of its mission the full panoply of R&D functions found in the private
sector (box 1.1). Other agencies such as the Department of Energy aim to catalyze private sector
innovation, but since the accomplishment of their mission does not usually require them to purchase the
products of the research they support, they often must make decisions without benefit of the guidance that
DoD managers take from planning and foresight exercises that go on constantly within the services. DoD
is also unique among agencies in the degree to which its technology spending flows to private firms rather
than to its own laboratories or to universities and other nonprofits. The sums are large—some $235 billion
for R&D and procurement in fiscal 2011—and by other measures, too, DoD commands greater innovative
capacity than the rest of government. The Army, Navy, and Air Force, for example, employ nearly
100,000 engineers and scientists between them. Most of the people, and most of the money, support
acquisition of systems and equipment from fi rms in the extended defense industry (which is perhaps best
thought of as a virtual industry). Eugene Gholz's white paper. The Dynamics of Military Innovation and
the Prospects for Defense- Led Energy Innovation,"discusses the relationships between DoD and its
contractors.
Generic Exploration—Navy
Navy is increasing it’s capacity and it’s forward presence makes it best-suited to
cultivate partnerships
Roulo 13 (Claudette, Staff writer for Christian Science Monitor, March 29 2014, "Navy Secretary: Naval
Forces Support Nation’s Global Mission", http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0329/MalaysiaAirlines-Flight-MH370-US-Navy-deploys-deep-sea-drone-to-aid-search)
Under the budget plan proposed by the Defense Department, the Navy is on course to return the fleet to
300 ships, the secretary said. The Navy continues to look for ways to spend smarter and more efficiently,
Mabus said, an effort that has driven down costs through competition, multiyear buys and “driving harder
bargains for taxpayer dollars.” Ensuring that ships, vehicles and aircraft have adequate fuel is a national
security issue, he said, noting that fuel price increases threaten to degrade operations and training and
could affect the number of platforms the nation can afford. “Having more varied, stably priced,
American-produced sources of energy makes us better warfighters,” Mabus said. “From sail to coal to oil
to nuclear, and now to alternative fuels, the Navy has led in energy innovation.” Since the end of World
War II, the security and stability provided by the forward presence of U.S. naval forces has helped
maintain the foundation of the world economy, he said. Today, partnerships with other nations continue
to increase in importance, the secretary told committee members. By virtue of their forward presence, the
Navy and Marine Corps are well-suited to develop these relationships, Mabus said, “particularly in the
innovative, small-footprint ways that are required.” With the fiscal year 2015 budget submission, the
Navy is seeking to provide sailors and Marines with the equipment, training and other tools they need to
carry out the missions that the nation needs and expects from them, he said.
Search for Flight 370--Navy
Navy already co-operating other governments to find flight 370—specific deep sea
tracking equipment has been historically successful
Swan 13 (Noelle, Staff writer for Christian Science Monitor, March 29 2014, "USA Malaysia Airlines
Flight MH370: US Navy deploys deep sea drone to aid search",
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0329/Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-MH370-US-Navy-deploys-deepsea-drone-to-aid-search)
The Australian Royal Navy and the Malaysian government have called all hands on deck in the search for
the missing airliner, which was headed to Beijing. The US Navy has answered the call and drafted some of
its most advanced deep-sea technology, including anti-submarine aircraft, floating black box locators, and
the Bluefin-21. The 25-ft-long, 21-inch diameter Bluefin-21 resembles a pontoon. Its bright yellow shell – the same shade as the head and
hands of a Lego man – comes apart into three sections making it ideal for air transport. The sub has no fins and is instead steered by an articulated
propeller on its tail cone. Bluefin’s director of marine operations Will O’Halloran demonstrates how the modular components fit together on a
smaller, 9-inch diameter model. He points to an oil-filled bladder that seals the components and protects the communication systems, guidance
controls, removable data storage compartment, and payload from the extreme pressures of the deep sea. The Navy will be using two
different payloads for this mission, a side-scan sonar and an optical camera, Mr. O’Halloran explains. The drone
“flies” 50 meters above the sea floor scanning for anything that may look out of place. Crews above the
surface can monitor the sub’s position from the deck of a ship. When the craft returns to the surface, it sends the crew an
email announcing, “I am here,” Mr. O’Halloran says. The crew can swap out the data compartment, “basically a big
USB thumb drive,” and the battery before sending it off to continue the search. If the sonar data reveals
anything of interest, the crew can swap out the sonar with an optical camera and strobe light in order to
get a better view of what’s down there. Despite the sophistication of the Bluefin-21, the task is enormously daunting, says Bluefin
CEO David Kelly. “We have to search an area the size of Texas that’s 2 ½ miles below the sea surface,” Mr. Kelly says. “ It’s pitch black
down there” and the pressure at that depth “is equivalent to a Cadillac Escalade balanced on your
thumbnail.” That’s where the Navy’s anti-submarine aircraft and black box detection systems come in. Two
different models of American-made and operated planes designed to detect enemy submarines have been patrolling
the skies above the Indian Ocean, Lockheed Martin's P-3 Orion and Boeing's P-8 Poseidon, the Navy’s most advanced
maritime surveillance. The all-weather planes are equipped with a variety of sensors, radar equipment, and
both electro-optical and infrared cameras that can scan the surface of the sea in search of floating debris.
During combat missions, these planes typically carry bombs, missiles, and torpedoes. However, for this mission, the planes are equipped
instead with sonobuoys, small flotation devices attached to underwater microphones known as
hydrophones that “listen” for the ping of MH370’s black box. This week, as officials have started to narrow the search
field, the Navy sent another black box retrieval system known as a Towed Pinger Locator . The so-called TPL25 can be tethered to the back of a boat and towed along the sea surface with a line connected to a hydrophone
dangling up to 20,000 feet beneath the waves. “The ship just kind of goes back and forth in a search area at about 3 knots [roughly 3.5 miles per
hour],” Navy spokesman Chris Johnson says. “We can do about 150 square miles a day that way and listen for that ping. If we get close enough
to that ping we should be able to detect it. We’ve got to be within a mile of it, but we should be able to pick it up as long as it’s actually
transmitting correctly.” The Navy has been using variations of the TPL-25 for about 20 years to find the black
boxes of both military and commercial aircraft, Mr. Johnson says. A similar device successfully recovered the
black box from TWA flight 800 that exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on July 17, 1996
killing 230 people. It was deployed again in 2009 in search of Air France flight 447, but was not able to recover the black box because it was not
transmitting any signals, he says.
Most sophisticated equipment and best technical know-how are from the US navy
Armstrong 14 (Paul, Editor, News and Programming, CNN.com Asia-Pacific at CNN, March 25 2014,
"Search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: the technology",
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/asia/indian-ocean-search-for-mh370-hardware/)
A new addition to the U.S. Navy's arsenal, the P-8A from Boeing is arguably the world's most sophisticated antisubmarine and anti-surface warfare aircraft. It is being phased in as the replacement for the P-3 Orion in the U.S. Navy. Built on
the reliable Boeing 737 airframe, the Poseidon has a maximum speed of 490 knots, can fly up to 41,000 feet (12,496 meters) and can cover more
than 1,200 nautical miles in four hours, according to the U.S. Navy. For the MH370 search, the P-8 will typically fly at 5,000
feet (1,524 meters), dipping to 1,000 feet to get a closer visual look at objects, the U.S. Navy said. They will
typically fly at a speed of 250-270 knots, with a search time of eight to nine hours depending on the distance to the search area. According to the
U.S. Navy, the P-8's advanced radar capabilities allow its crew to recognize and investigate small contacts on
the water's surface. The crew can also use an onboard camera system, as well as a multitude of sensors, to
investigate contacts. The Chinese Air Force has deployed two Russian-made Il-76 aircraft to join the search. The four-engine, mediumrange giant can be used as a commercial freighter or military transporter, able to carry heavy payloads such as vehicles and other outsized cargo
via its ramp. It has a maximum speed of 458 knots and a ceiling of 39,370 feet (12,000 meters). The II-76 also has an Aerial-Delivery System
(ADS) for dropping cargo and other equipment while in flight -- something that may be useful if a crash site is found. A Chinese icebreaker -which was involved in the rescue of a Russian research vessel stuck in the Antarctic ice earlier this year -- has now changed course and is
steaming towards the location where the latest debris has been spotted in the southern Indian Ocean. The helicopter-carrying Xuelong -- or Snow
Dragon -- is expected to arrive in the search area on Tuesday, and has a "good knowledge" of the area, Qin Weijia, deputy director of the State
Oceanic Administration's polar expedition office, told China's state-run Xinhua news agency. Britain's Royal Navy has also dispatched a coastal
survey ship, HMS Echo, to join the search. Launched in 2002, Echo was designed to carry out a wide range of survey work, including support to
submarine and amphibious operations, through the collection of oceanographic and bathymetric --analysis of the ocean, its salinity and sound
profile -- data, according to the Royal Navy. The U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet has been a major contributor to the search
from the get-go, providing ships, aircraft and considerable technical know-how. In addition to air
operations, the fleet has deployed surface ships equipped with sophisticated search capabilities. As a
precautionary measure in case a debris field is located, the fleet is moving a "black box" locator into the
region -- which would provide a significant advantage in locating the missing aircraft's own flight data recorder, according to Commander
William J. Marks, spokesperson for the 7th Fleet.
Malaysian government wants help from the US Navy
Buncombe 14 (Andrew, The Independent's Asia Correspondent, March 14 2014, "Missing Malaysia
Airlines Flight MH370: US pushes search towards vast expanse of the Indian Ocean",
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-us-pushessearch-towards-vast-expanse-of-the-indian-ocean-9191774.html)
Ships and aircraft are now combing an area of more than 27,000 square miles that had already been
widened to cover both sides of the Malay Peninsula and the Andaman Sea. The US Navy is sending an
advanced P-8A Poseidon plane to help search the Strait of Malacca, separating the Malay Peninsula from
the Indonesian island of Sumatra. It had already deployed a Navy P-3 Orion aircraft to those waters. US
officials told Reuters that the US Navy guided-missile destroyer, USS Kidd, was heading to the Strait of
Malacca, answering a request from the Malaysian government. The Kidd had been searching the
areas south of the Gulf of Thailand, along with the destroyer USS Pinckney.
Submarines--Navy
Plans to expand fleet but CP funding is key
Osborn 13 (Kris, Associate Editor/Defense Reporter at Military.com, August 28 2013, "Navy Wants to
Grow Virginia-Class Sub Fleet", http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/08/28/navy-wants-to-growvirginia-class-sub-fleet.html)
The U.S. Navy wants to expand the size of its planned fleet of Virginia-class submarines by 21 ships,
service officials said. The Navy's fleet of fast attack Virginia-class submarines, designed to replace the
now-retiring Los Angeles class of submarines, is currently listed in the Pentagon's Acquisition Program
Baseline, or APB, as a 30-ship program. However, the Navy's Fiscal Year 2014 30-Year Shipbuilding
Plan calls for continued construction of the Virginia-class attack submarines out to 2033, leading to a total
fleet size of 51 ships, said Capt. David Goggins, the Navy's program manager for Virginia-class
submarines. "We are working with the Pentagon to update the APB to increase the size of the class from
30 to 51 or another number," Goggins said. Merging the program's baseline numbers with what's
specified in the Navy's shipbuilding plan is an effort that has been underway for months, Navy officials
explained. Cost overruns pushed back the Navy's goal of building two Virginia-class submarines per year
by a decade. Virginia-class submarines are fast-attack submarines armed with Tomahawk missiles,
torpedoes and other weapons designed to allow the vessel to execute a range of missions. Goggins
explained that the Virginia-class will provide a significant upgrade in littoral warfare compared to the Los
Angeles-class.
Huge funding and best tech
Freedberg Jr 14 (Sydney J, Deputy Editor of online defense magazine Breaking Defense , January 6
2014, "The Navy’s 2014: Subs, Cyber, & Cheap Support Ships",
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=1380)
The Navy, is, hands down, the service in the best shape for 2014. Every act of belligerent idiocy from
Beijing – and there’ve been a lot of them lately – makes the Navy budget an easier sell. In stark contrast
to the Army, the Navy has the central role in the new Pacific-focused strategy, a high-tech threat
justifying high-cost programs, a highly visible role in peacetime engagement around the world, and,
perhaps most crucial, a clear set of missions. Submarines are the spearhead of the Navy’s Pacific vision,
but that’s not surprising given that the Chief of Naval Operations is a submariner. What’s less expected is
how intensely Adm. Jonathan Greenert has gotten religion on electronic warfare and cyber, two things
submariners historically don’t have to deal with. (Of course, the Navy boasts a redoubtable history as a
service on the cutting edge of intelligence, which puts them squarely in the park for cyber operations.)
Greenert sees those as two sides of the same shield, a way for aircraft and surface ships to hide using the
electromagnetic spectrum just as submarines have long hidden beneath the waves and under thermoclines.
The third point of Greenert’s trident is something unexpected not just for a submariner but for the Navy,
which is traditionally obsessed with big, costly and highly capable combatants – battleships before 1941,
aircraft carriers thereafter – at the expense of less exciting vessels. But Greenert is pushing for larger
numbers of cheaper ships, ships he admits are less battle-worthy, to handle the low-threat regions of the
world and thus free up the submarines, destroyers, and other high-end combatants to concentrate on the
Chinese dragon.
Undersea Drones--Navy
Navy development key to undersea observing drones
Herkewitz 13
(William Herkewitz, science journalist, “How Scientific Sea Drones Are Becoming the Eyes of the Navy,” December 11, 2013,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/robots/how-scientific-sea-drones-became-the-eyes-of-the-navy-16258311)//BB
Last fall Rutgers University ocean researcher Oscar Schofield headed a collaborative experiment called Gliderpalooza, which
coordinated 15 aquatic, submersible research drones to sample the deep waters off the coastal Atlantic.
About 5 feet long and shaped like tomahawk missiles, the gliders beam home their data every time they surface. The propellerless drones, jampacked with scientific instruments, swim by changing their buoyancy—taking on and expelling a soda can's worth of water to sink and float. And
they navigate under the waves by themselves. "The gliders are autonomous, so you just throw them in the water and
off they go," Schofield says, though they can also take directions from operators when they surface. With this robotic flotilla—part of the
new wave of ocean-going drones—Schofield and his colleagues could gather a detailed picture of the ocean's
temperature, currents, wildlife, and water quality at depths up to 650 feet. But even as ocean researchers use
these gliders to track fish and help predict storms, the drones have attracted another admirer—the U.S.
Navy. "Right now the Navy is at the forefront of this technology," Schofield says, "and the Office of Naval
Research really funded and developed these gliders in the first place ." The Navy currently owns 65 of the same
kind of gliders Schofield operates, with plans to expand to 150 by 2015. But the Navy's interest isn't exactly in science. The fleet of gliders is
helping the Navy gain a tactical advantage in the ocean's future war zones. Operational Planning " As the Navy plans for operations,
they have to look into the future," says Frank Bub, the lead ocean modeler at the Naval Oceanographic Office. In other words: As the
Navy maps out anything from a SEAL team silently breaching onto shore to a subsurface naval exercise, it must predict how the movement of the
seas will affect its plans. "The Navy relies on ocean models not just to forecast future conditions but to fill in the
gaps where data may never have been collected," Bub says. This is where the gliders come in. By sending a scientific
drone through or near an area of interest, the "gliders provide us real-time ocean data, and that has two major
applications," Bub says. The Navy can use that data not only to check the accuracy of its models, but to adjust or correct them.
Deep Sea Exploration--Navy
Office of Naval research can explore the deep ocean and share the results
Beidel 13
(Eric Beidel, Office of Naval Research, “Website Offers Viewers Unprecedented Access to Deep-Sea Explorations,” June 20, 2013,
http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2013/Exploration-Now-Ballard-Nautilus-Newsroom.aspx)//BB
ARLINGTON, Va.—A long-standing partnership between the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and one of the country’s foremost
the launch of a 24-hour “newsroom” to track scientists’ activity
aboard research ships and in the field and broadcast their findings to students and teachers around the
world. ONR and Dr. Robert Ballard—best known for discovering the wreck of the Titanic—have teamed up for
Exploration Now, an initiative that uses telepresence technologies to provide students, educators and others with live-stream video of
research activities and opportunities to interact directly with scientists aboard different vessels in real time. “It’s a ‘situation room’ for
ocean exploration,” said Cmdr. Joseph Cohn, ONR’s deputy director of research for science, technology, engineering and mathematics
oceanographers will culminate on June 21 with
(STEM). “The ability to tune in and interact with the crews of U.S. research vessels, no matter where they are, will give an unprecedented
number of students and teachers an insider’s view of the important work these scientists are doing.” A shore-based production team at Ballard’s
Center for Ocean Exploration at the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography will provide mission control by coordinating
feeds, creating highlight videos, arranging crew interviews and interpreting findings for audiences. Designed in part to inspire students to pursue
careers in STEM fields, the program kicks off as Exploration Vessel Nautilus begins a six-month expedition in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
Sea, where, among other activities, researchers will investigate active undersea volcanoes and study the impact of
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The crew will use a new hull-mounted multi-beam sonar system to explore the seafloor and
dispatch remotely operated vehicles to take high-definition video and collect geological and biological samples. Over the course of the expedition
season on board Nautilus there will be more than 150 rotating explorers—collectively referred to as the Corps of
Exploration—including ONR-sponsored Navy personnel, educators and students. “ONR’s support of our Corps of
Exploration has led to numerous masters and doctorate degrees, as well as the creation of important scientific, engineering and naval role
models,” Ballard said. “Exploration Now will help us advance a new paradigm of telepresence that not only will influence the oceanographic
community but also future Navy operations.” ONR has invested in Ballard’s research since the late 1960s,
contributing to numerous ancient shipwreck discoveries and breakthroughs in deep-dive engineering and the study of
plate tectonics. In 1985, Ballard helped lead an expedition that ended with the discovery of the wreck of the Titanic. His discoveries also include
the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown and German battleship Bismarck. In 2010, the Ballard-founded Ocean Exploration Trust in partnership with
the Sea Research Foundation launched the Nautilus Live website, which has attracted nearly 200,000 viewers from 173 countries. Exploration
Now will link Nautilus with other U.S. research vessels undertaking ocean exploration and eventually include live feeds from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Okeanos Explorer and ONR-owned research vessels Atlantis and Thomas G.
Thompson, which have telepresence capabilities supported by the National Science Foundation.
Naval funding is key to deep-sea exploration
Martini 12
(Dr. Kim Martini is a physical oceanographer at the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington in
Seattle, where she studies internal waves and turbulence. “Losing Deep-Sea Science in the United States,” March 15, 2012,
http://deepseanews.com/2012/03/losing-deep-sea-science-in-the-united-states/)//BB
And because the lack of assets and funding, what I observe around me is diminishing number of younger
generations filling the positions of deep-sea researchers. Our prominent rank as leading country in deep-sea science, first to
discover high deep-sea diversity and hydrothermal vents, will be lost. In the past decade U.S. government funding of deepsea science dwindled. During my career, the first to go was the Office of Naval Research followed by the Department of
Energy, both moving away from funding basic deep-sea science. Another blow is imminent. John R. Smith, the Science
Director at the Hawai‘i Undersea Research Laboratory, sent an email out notifying the community that NOAA has zeroed out funding for the
Undersea Research Program (NURP) for FY13 beginning Oct 1, 2012, and put all the centers on life support funding (or less) for the current
year. Many other NOAA programs, mostly extramural ones, have been cut to some level, though it appears only NURP and another have had
their funding zeroed out completely Striking is that within the FY13 NOAA Budget the Office of Ocean Exploration, the division that contains
NURP, took the second biggest cut of all programs (-16.5%). Sadly, the biggest cut came to education programs (-55.1%). NOAA’s National
Under Research Program (NURP) is one of the last programs in the United States, outside of the National Science Foundation, to support deepsea science. NURP’s annual budget is around $4 million which supports 3 centers and a habitat covering the entire Pacific, West Coast & Polar
Regions, east Coast & Gulf of Mexico, and an underwater habitat in the Florida Keys. I am unclear what these other funding sources are. Please
somebody let me know! NSF’s Biological Oceanography program does fund deep-sea research, along with everything else in marine biology and
biological oceanography, but funding rates of proposals hover between 5-10%, similar to other programs at NSF. The tragedy at hand, in
addition to NURP being an agency that still funds basic deep-sea science and exploration, is
the potential loss of a vital asset.
Resource Extraction Solvency
Arctic—DOD
Sufficient infrastructure and capabilities and coop with Arctic nations now
Weisgerber 13 (Marcus, Pentagon Correspondent at Gannett Government Media Corporation,
November 22 2013, "New DoD arctic strategy seeks naval equipment, infrastructure",
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131122/NEWS05/311220035/New-DoD-arctic-strategy-seeksnaval-equipment-infrastructure)
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke about the strategy at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada. “We are beginning to think about
and plan for how our naval fleet and other capabilities and assets will need to adapt to the evolving shifts and requirements in the region,” Hagel
said. The Defense Department must carefully evolve its Arctic infrastructure and capabilities “at a pace
consistent with changing conditions,” Hagel said. The military’s existing “infrastructure and capabilities are
pretty adequate,” but will be monitored over the long term, a senior defense official said before the speech. DoD also
wants to participate in multilateral training with Arctic nations, including Russia, to enhance its coldweather operational experience. The White House in May released a national strategy for the Arctic region that set priorities for the
region. The approach “complements our core objectives to ensure security, support safety and promote defense cooperation in the region as a part
of what the larger U.S. government is doing in the region,” the senior defense official said. “The defense strategy is really in support of the
president’s strategy to further define exactly what DoD should be thinking about and looking at in that region,” the official said. “Primarily, the
DoD strategy and DoD as a department sees these changes in the Arctic really as largely representing opportunities to
continue to work collaboratively with allies and partners in the region to keep it safe secure and stable,
particularly where U.S. interests are safeguarded and of course protecting the U.S. homeland.” The U.S. sees
major changes in the Arctic region occurring over decades, the official said. “DoD’s challenge really is to balance making sure we’re prepared in
case something should emerge, having the appropriate capabilities and capacity, but also making sure in the meantime that we are largely
pressing on whatever collaborative opportunities we see in the region to keep the region as peaceful as it already is,” the official said. DoD’s
strategy focuses on deterrence, better understanding of the Arctic environment, preserving freedom of
navigation, meeting shared security challenges, responding to man-made and natural disasters and
protecting the environmental integrity. As Arctic ice melts, new transpolar sea routes are opening. Sea traffic is expected to
increase tenfold this year compared with last year, Hagel noted in his speech. This could mean an increased risk for accidents as there is more
commercial shipping and tourism. Working with seven other Arctic nations — Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, Russia and Sweden — is the “cornerstone” of DoD’s strategy, Hagel said. DoD also supports the
development of the Arctic Council and other international institutions that promote regional cooperation
and the rule of law, Hagel said.
Arctic—Navy
Navy already has detailed plan and knowledge of the Arctic—just a question of
implementation
RT 14 (Russia Times global, news channel, February 28 2014, "US Navy admits it needs massive
investment to fight for Arctic seaways control", http://rt.com/usa/us-navy-arctic-plans-146/)
In anticipation of international military drills in the Arctic this year, the US Navy has developed a detailed plan to establish
a massive presence in the region. The road map says urgent investments are required to avoid higher future costs. The road map
acknowledges that by 2020 the Bering Strait will have ice-free conditions for about 160 days a year, whereas by 2025 the now-hypothetic
Transpolar transit sea route through the central part of the Arctic Ocean might become open for up to 45 days annually. The document
specifies a large number of detailed tasks and deadlines the US must meet to compete on equal footing
with other Arctic nations, already lining up for tough competition for natural resources under the Arctic
seabed. For example, total deposits of hydrocarbons in the Arctic have been valued at over $1 trillion. The plan includes deep
research into the Arctic’s environment, including into ice conditions, sea levels and weather forecasting.
“The Arctic is all about operating forward and being ready. We don't think we're going to have to do war-fighting up there, but we have to be
ready,” the US Navy's top oceanographer and navigator Rear Admiral Jonathan White told Reuters. Evaluation of the already
existing infrastructure, such as ports, airfields and service structures, as well as estimates of hardware
needed, such as communication satellites and icebreakers, has also been included. “We don't want to have a
demand for the Navy to operate up there, and have to say, ‘Sorry, we can't go,’” said White, who also heads the US Navy's climate change task
force. But the document does not specify how much money implementing the plan will require. The US needs Arctic-class ice-
breakers, port infrastructure, satellite communication systems specialized for the polar region and much
more. For example the US Coast Guard needs a modern powerful icebreaker, construction of which is estimated $1 billion. This is far less than
the cost of the newest supercarrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, but the money has not been allocated so far. “We're trying to use this road map to
really be able to answer that question,” White said, warning that it was better to invest as soon as possible to avoid “bigger bills in the future.”
White said that the Office of Naval Research and the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency are already funding numerous Arctic-focused projects, predicting more public-private projects
would come in the next few years, despite the growing pressure on the US military budget. “As far as I'm
concerned, the Navy and Coast Guard's area of responsibility is growing,” White said. “We're growing a new ocean, so our
budget should be growing in line with that.”
Bioprospecting—DoD
Military solves bioprospecting
Pan 6
(Peter Pan (!), Researcher at the Legislative Reference Bureau of Hawaii, “BIOPROSPECTING: ISSUES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS,”
January 2006, http://lrbhawaii.info/lrbrpts/05/biocon.pdf)//BB
Another reason why Hawaii has been targeted is its biodiversity. Corporations, scientists, researchers and the U.S. military have all cast a
covetous eye on Hawaii's land based and marine life forms with the intent of obtaining specimens for
research, development, and commercialization and for military applications. Bioprospecting is the
removal or use of biological and genetic resources of any organism, mineral or other organic substance
for scientific research or commercial development. When bioprospecting is pursued without the knowledge and free prior consent
of the owners of the resources and without benefit sharing – it is called biopiracy. In Hawaii biopiracy is occurring with the assistance of the
University of Hawaii and the very state agencies that should be protecting the bioresources and genetic resources of the public trust. It is ironic
that UH's Office of Technology Transfer and Economic Development (OTTED) is assisting with the transfer of biodiversity
to corporations and research groups outside Hawaii rather than protecting Hawaii's pristine biodiversity,
securing research opportunities for Hawaii' students and faculty and ensuring that real benefits and revenues from commercialization and research
and development inure to our state and native peoples.
Desal—Navy
Navy unit opens desal on a mass scale—it’s also more efficient
Casey 09 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, October 5 2009, "U.S. Navy Has the Solution to
Rising Sea Levels: Drink It", http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/05/us-navy-has-the-solution-to-risingsea-levels-drink-it/)
Called the EUWP (Expeditionary Unit Water Purification Program) Gen 2, the new unit also offers a significant secondary benefit that
applies to land operations. By providing an on-site source for potable water, it eliminates the need to run convoys of tanker trucks. The generators
that power the EUWP units still use conventional fuel, but that could change. If they could be adapted to run cost-effectively on
solar power and other sustainable energy, the door is open to desalination on a mass scale. The U.S. Navy has
long relied on reverse osmosis systems to provide drinkable water for its ships. That equipment chews through precious supplies of shipboard fuel
because it runs off the same generators that power the ship’s other systems. Finding a more fuel efficient way to deliver water became an official
Navy research priority in 2004. On top of that, Navy
strategists foresaw the need for improved technology that could
effectively desalinate littoral (delta/marshland) and coastal waters, which contain more sediments and other
contaminants than the open ocean. In short order the EUWP Gen 1 was developed, and by 2005 it was deployed to the Gulf Coast
after hurricane Katrina. Each day it supplied 100,000 gallons of water daily to a Biloxi hospital, keeping 18 tanker trucks off the road. The
EUWP Gen 2 uses a high efficiency pump and an energy recovery system to achieve much of its fuel
savings. Using an experimental reverse osmosis system, it can produce about twice as much usable water as
conventional systems, while not requiring any more space; the unit is about 40% smaller and lighter compared to
conventional naval desalination systems, an extremely important factor on cramped ships. It was also designed with crew efficiency in mind.
One operator can start it up in less than five minutes and it runs automatically after that, and the low maintenance microfiltration
step involves no need to replace filters. The Office of Naval Research estimates that the entire unit
requires 75% less maintenance than a conventional unit.
Only ones with new tech that removes salt from water
Curran 13 (Patrick Curran, CEO and founder, Atlantis Technologies, August 21 2013, "A New Way To
Desalinate — Government Tested, Real-World Approved", http://www.wateronline.com/doc/a-newway-to-desalinate-government-tested-real-world-approved-0001)
Developed by the Department of Defense, capacitive deionization (CDI) removes salt from water, while
conventional methods remove water from salt. What is easier, removing 96.5 parts of something from 3.5
parts of something else or removing 3.5 parts of something from 96.5 parts of something else? All else
being equal, of course it is easier to remove the lesser component from the larger. But that is not how
most water desalination technologies work today. Reverse osmosis (RO) and vacuum distillation (VD) all
work by removing the water from the salt water. So, how can you remove salt from water? Removing
ions from solution with an electric field is a well-known method to desalinate water, and electrodialysis is
a popular example. Because ions are disassociated in solution (Na+ separate from Cl-), they can move
independently of one another and can be pulled towards an oppositely charged plate. Removing ions from
solution as it is done with electrodialysis (ED) can be a much easier way to desalinate water versus the
standard reverse osmosis or brine concentrator method of removing water from the salt water.
Gas/Oil Spills—DOD/Navy
AUVs can find seeps in energy pipelines—cheaper than using sonar
Ungerleider 13 (Neil, covers science and technology for Fast Company, August 6 2013, "Why Energy
Companies And The Military Want Underwater Drones", http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682715/whyenergy-companies-and-the-military-want-underwater-drones)
While the Fifth Fleet used AUVs to find wargaming mines in the murk of the ocean and distinguish them
from waste on the ocean floor, the sea drones have other uses. A team led by National Geographic used
two Remus 6000s to map the Titanic wreck site. The drones can dive up to 6000 meters underwater, and
mapped a massive three-by-five square mile area underwater for further investigations. Remus drones
were also used to survey the wreckage of Air France Flight 447. But for Hydroid and other AUV
manufacturers, the real cash cow potential of unmanned submarines is in the ever-lucrative energy
sector. Von Alt told me that the sonar functionality on AUVs can be used to find seeps in underwater
pipelines, and that isn’t the only potential use. As the cost of AUVs decreases, they are being used to
inspect energy pipelines. Boat-towed sonar tools called towfish are the preferred method of patrolling
underwater pipelines, but there is an obvious cash appeal in switching to automated, self-propelled
submarines instead. As Von Alt puts it, “being able to take a robot, throw it off a boat … and then have it
go five miles below the surface and take pictures? It’s really something.”
Generic Resource Extraction—DOD
Best agency for tech innovation and R and D
CATF 12 (Clean Air Task Force, Climate Change and Air Quality Protection NGO, March 2012, "ENERGY
INNOVATION at the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE ASSESSING THE OPPORTUNITIES",
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Energy_Innovation_at_DoD.pdf)
DoD integrates into the pursuit of its mission the full panoply of R&D functions found in the private
sector (box 1.1). Other agencies such as the Department of Energy aim to catalyze private sector
innovation, but since the accomplishment of their mission does not usually require them to purchase the
products of the research they support, they often must make decisions without benefit of the guidance that
DoD managers take from planning and foresight exercises that go on constantly within the services. DoD
is also unique among agencies in the degree to which its technology spending flows to private firms rather
than to its own laboratories or to universities and other nonprofits. The sums are large—some $235 billion
for R&D and procurement in fiscal 2011—and by other measures, too, DoD commands greater innovative
capacity than the rest of government. The Army, Navy, and Air Force, for example, employ nearly
100,000 engineers and scientists between them. Most of the people, and most of the money, support
acquisition of systems and equipment from fi rms in the extended defense industry (which is perhaps best
thought of as a virtual industry). Eugene Gholz's white paper. The Dynamics of Military Innovation and
the Prospects for Defense- Led Energy Innovation,"discusses the relationships between DoD and its
contractors.
Methane--Navy
Naval investment solves methane hydrate development
Masutani et al. 2k
(Stephen M. Masutani is a researcher and former professor at Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Richard B. Coffin researches chemical
oceanography and the Naval Research Institute, Patrick K. Takahashi Is Emeritus Director of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, “AN
INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP IN SEABED METHANE HYDRATES R&D,” http://www.orbit6.com/futurism/clath.htm)//BB
胤atural gas (methane) hydrates represent an enormous hydrocarbon resource that could potentially satisfy the energy needs of the world for
centuries. The primary known repositories of methane hydrates are arctic permafrost zones and undersea basins on the continental margins.
Major R&D programs to investigate methane hydrates have been initiated in Japan, India, and recently in the U.S.
The University of Hawaii and the
Naval Research Laboratory are pursuing an international partnership on seabed methane hydrates
activity. As conceived, the
partnership will offer extensive cross-discipline technical resources and expertise that will be applied to determine
methane hydrate resource distribution and availability; develop viable recovery technologies; establish
safety procedures for offshore commercial and military installations in hydrate sediment zones ; and evaluate
with scientists and engineers from the U.S., Japan, Korea, and Norway. This paper summarizes the plans for this
the impact of methane hydrates on climatic change. 1. BACKGROUND According to recent assessments, natural gas hydrates (hereinafter
referred to interchangeably as methane hydrates, since methane is the most abundant hydrate-forming component of natural gas) represent an
enormous untapped hydrocarbon resource. Methane hydrates are crystalline solids comprising water molecules linked by hydrogen bonds in a
tight polyhedral cage structure. Guest molecules, including various hydrocarbons found in natural gas mixtures, reside in the interstices of this
lattice. The ratio of water molecules to guest molecules in methane hydrates is estimated to be 6.2 with small variations (Uchida et al ., 2000). At
these proportions, a cubic meter of hydrate yields about 160 standard cubic meters of methane and 0.9 m3 of liquid water on decomposition (Max
& Cruickshank, 1999). Methane hydrates form when natural gas components and water come in contact at elevated pressures and low
temperatures. For example, at 0蚓, a hydrate phase exists at pressures above 26 atmospheres in mixtures of water and pure methane. At 25蚓, this
minimum pressure increases to about 440 atmospheres (Sloan, 1990). Ethane and propane, which are often present at significant levels in natural
gas, form hydrates at lower pressures than methane below about 5蚓 and 17蚓, respectively. The primary known repositories of methane hydrates
are arctic permafrost zones and undersea basins on the continental margins where temperatures and pressures are conducive to hydrate formation
and stability (Kvenvolden, 1988; Makogan, 1988; Gornitz and Fung, 1994). Sediment layers in deep ocean basins also may contain large deposits
of hydrates. Estimates of the total volume of hydrocarbons locked in hydrate deposits worldwide range widely from about 10 5 trillion standard
cubic feet (TCF) to 2.7 x 10 8 TCF (i.e., 2.8 x 10 15 to 7.6 x 10 17 cubic meters). Even at the lower end of this range, this resource could
potentially satisfy the energy needs of the world for centuries, provided that practicable recovery techniques can be devised. During the first half
of the 20th century, hydrate blockage of natural gas pipelines posed a serious problem and research was undertaken to develop solutions (Sloan,
1990). Once solutions were identified and implemented, interest waned. Naturally-occurring methane hydrates for many decades remained
largely a curiosity, with limited practical significance. Several issues have sparked renewed interest in methane hydrates. While offering
tremendous opportunities as a future primary energy resource, marine hydrate deposits also represent an immediate and formidable nuisance to
offshore oil and gas operations (Max & Cruickshank, 1999; Cruickshank & Masutani, 1999). This problem has become more critical as these
commercial activities move into increasingly deeper waters. From a defense perspective, there is a need to characterize the
geoacoustic properties of hydrate sediments and to assess their potential as an in situ offshore energy
source, since this information is relevant to Naval operations. Finally, methane hydrates may exercise a profound effect on
global climate if carbon sequestered in these solids is released into the environment by commercial exploitation of the fuel or through
destabilization and outgassing induced by ocean warming (MacDonald, 1990). 2. INTERNATIONAL PARTNERING The commercial,
environmental, and military implications of methane hydrates have led to new national research initiatives in Japan and India and the
development of a Methane Hydrates Program Plan by the Department of Energy and other U.S. Government agencies (Office of Fossil Energy,
1998 & 1999). This plan constitutes the basis for the Methane Research Development Act of 1999 that was introduced as U.S. House Bill HR
1753 and U.S. Senate Bill S330. 2.1 National R&D Programs The Government of Japan established the first large-scale national exploratory
hydrate research program in 1995. In 1998, the Japan National Oil Corporation sponsored drilling tests of known hydrate deposits in the
McKenzie Delta in Canada (Dallimore et al. , 1999). A second five year R&D plan was authorized last year which will be overseen by the New
Energy & Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), a government-industry partnership whose operating budget largely is
provided by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. The goal of the Japanese program is to commence commercial production of natural
gas from undersea hydrates by 2010. In 1996, India became the second nation to establish a hydrate research program. The Oil Industry
Development Board of India earmarked $56 million for an effort to be carried out under the auspices of the Gas Authority of India, Ltd. Industry
cooperation is paramount in this initiative and low energy prices have reduced incentives and hampered progress. In addition to these R&D
activities in Japan and India, the U.S., Canada, and the European Union have begun assessments of deep water hydrocarbons, including methane
hydrates. 2.2 U.S. R&D Program In April 2000, the U.S. Senate authorized an appropriation of $47.5 million over five years to the Department of
Energy (DOE) for methane hydrates R&D. The House of Representatives passed this bill earlier and it has been sent to the President, who is
expected to sign it. Until fiscal year 2000, U.S. federal funds for research in this area were limited; for example, between 1982 and 1992, the
DOE coordinated a multi-agency methane hydrates program that had an annual budget of less than $1 million. The current U.S. Methane
Hydrates Program Plan devised by DOE identifies four primary R&D goals: (1) determination of the locations and extent of the worldwide
methane hydrate resource; (2) development of recovery technologies for commercial production of methane by 2015; (3) assessment of the role
of methane hydrates in the global carbon cycle and climatic change; and (4) eliminating or minimizing risks to offshore commercial operations
associated with sediment hydrate mass movement or outgassing events. 2.3 Rationale for International Cooperation Although national interests
must be protected in certain areas of development, it is proposed that international collaboration is a logical and effective means to pursue the
basic science and engineering of methane hydrates. As an energy resource, there is evidence that substantial deposits of methane hydrates exist in
coastal regions, within national Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). This suggests that disputes over recovery rights should be limited and
resolvable and that individual nations stand to benefit directly from timely exploitation of their offshore hydrate reserves. It is therefore in the
general best interests to pool resources and work cooperatively to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the global methane hydrate resource
and to develop practicable recovery processes and safety procedures. Fuel production from methane hydrates will profoundly restructure the
world economy. Furthermore, global climate may be affected as carbon sequestered in these hydrates is released into the environment as a result
of this resource exploitation or inadvertently through destabilization and outgassing induced by ocean warming. The international community will
share the associated burdens and benefits. This common interest supports an international approach to address key research issues. 2.4 Overview
Since the beginning of 1999, the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (HNEI) of the UH and the Naval Research Laboratory have
been working together to organize an international research partnership that will collaborate on studies of
methane hydrate science and technology. To date, several groups from the U.S., Japan, Korea, and Norway have agreed to
participate in this partnership. Cooperative agreements and memoranda of understanding are being negotiated with the Hokkaido National
Industrial Research Institute of the Agency of Industrial Science & Technology of the Government of Japan, the Korea Research Institute of
Chemical Technology, and Inha University (Korea). Commitments have been obtained from researchers at the Norwegian Institute for Water
Research (NIVA) and the University of Bergen (Norway). Discussions are ongoing with other National Laboratories and universities in Japan and
Korea, and organizations in India, Canada, and Russia.
The navy is already skilled in arctic methane exploration—either the Squo solves or
the CP does
Coffin 10
(Dr. Richard B. Coffin is the Marine Biogeochemistry Section Head at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC. “5.4 NAVAL
Research Laboratory Research Focus in the Arctic Ocean,” http://www.jhuapl.edu/ClimateAndEnergy/Book/Author/Coffin,%20Richard.pdf)//BB
Conditions in the Arctic are changing so fast that the Navy needs to know how that can affect operations
there. Accordingly, we are out at sea, we are looking at gas fluxes and shallow sedi- ments, we are looking at gas
fluxes in the water column. We are looking at Arctic tundra carbon input that can affect water color, acoustics, and satellite imaging.
Bubble fluxes have a strong influ- ence on some Navy sensor systems. We need to have a thorough
dataset that includes gas fluxes all the way up in the atmosphere. We can get some of that from satellite imaging. Once
we have that, we can see how it will affect operations. See Figure 6 for a collaborative field plan. Four nations and many
different universities were involved in our operation in the Beaufort Sea. On the U.S. side, we had funding from the Navy and the
Department of Energy. We were working out in Camden Bay. We took fiber-core, piston-core, gravity-core, and multi-core measurements
through the whole expedition. These sites had very shallow gas fluxes. The fluxes in the near- shore permafrost were about the same. We then
moved westward into a region where there were heavy gas fluxes. We obtained definite confirmation based on geophysical and geochemical data
that there is a big hydrate bed down off the slope. This is one of the first confirmed findings in this region and we are eager to start putting this
together. We have reams of data on carbon isotopes and microbial ecology and all kinds of other things. We are looking off shore to near shore.
We are doing a carbon mass balance. To model this, we have to go beyond carbon concentrations and look into what are
termed "energetic concentrations" because of all the diversity in the methane cycle. Now, let me just step back.
One of the major tasks associ- ated with any of these efforts is public outreach (Figure 7). As the chief scientist on our Beaufort Sea project, I
flew up to Nuiqsut, Alaska, to describe what we were doing. They asked me a mil- lion questions about whale migration and 1-year versus multiyear ice. Because climate change is affecting their ability to kill whales, they are very focused on what is happening. I think that this public
outreach is important; in fact, I am going to be back in Nuiqsut giving a description of what we were doing there. In the future, we may be able to
send some graduate students there to do additional research. Our next expedition will be up in the Kara Sea. We hope to be leaving out of
Murmansk in mid-July or early August, although I am still trying to get the Russian team to set specific dates. We are going to compare this shelf
to the Beaufort Sea, and I think we are going to see a strong difference between the two. Another part of the Navy program is being led by
Dr. Ruth Preller. Her team is
trying to develop historical data on ice changes in order to make predictions
regarding the nature and extent of Arctic sea ice. The statistics calculated from historical data do not match the Arctic climate
change now, so they definitely need to be updated. See Figure 8. As part of that. Dr. Preller's team hopes to determine how fast the
databases tend to change so they can understand how fre- quently they need to do calibration measurements. As we have seen, the Navy is
quite interested in changing ice conditions in the Arctic. In conjunction with that, NRL is work- ing hard to understand the
changing Arctic environment, with a particular focus on ice volume changes (Figure 9). Their first task is to make ground truth measurements to
support model forecasting.
Rare Earths—DOD
DoD has capacity to mine rare earth elements—best research team now
Halkyard 14 (John, Pentagon President at Deep Reach Technology, Inc. Member of the Board of
Directors at International Petroleum Technology Institute of ASME, June 20 2014, "Deep Reach
Technology, Inc. awarded $0.9M US Department of Defense Project for Research of Ocean Recovery of
Rare Earth Elements and other Strategic Minerals",
http://www.deepreachtech.com/Ocean%20Recovery%20of%20REE%20Research%20Awarded%20to%2
0Deep%20Reach%20Technology.htm)
A team led by Deep Reach Technology, Inc. (DRT) has been awarded $0.9M in funding from the US Army
Research Laboratory (ARL), part of the US Department of Defense (DOD), via a subaward agreement with Worcester Polytechnic
Institute. This cooperative research project, involving eight companies, will investigate the recovery of
critical rare earth elements (REEs) and other strategic minerals from resources in the deep ocean, including
polymetallic nodules, seafloor sediments, crusts and seafloor phosphorite deposits. The successful execution of this research
could contribute substantially to establishing a secure supply chain for the heavy rare earth elements
ultimately ensuring that these raw materials are available for critical DOD applications, green-energy
technologies, and high tech consumer products. REEs are vital ingredients in many high-tech components used in defense, industrial and greenenergy applications. In recent years the REE sector has been dominated by China, which provides approximately 90% of global supply. The
heavy REEs dysprosium and yttrium were recently mandated for inclusion in the DOD's National
Defense Stockpile, despite not presently being produced in the USA, from US-based sources. There are a multitude of terrestrial rare earth
element deposits under development throughout the world. However, they all face commercialization challenges including
complex metallurgy required to extract and process the desired elements from the host ore body and concern
over environmental impacts. Several deep sea resources exist which offer the potential for greatly simplified metallurgical processing due to their
simple mineralogy. Geochemical studies of various seafloor materials show that REEs are trapped during initial deposition of the material and
that in some cases, the REEs continue to accumulate over time. The technology has already been demonstrated for
recovering several valuable minerals from some deep sea resources, particularly nickel, copper, cobalt and manganese from
nodules. The ARL research seeks to determine if the simplified mineralogy can provide for the economic
recovery of the strategically important heavy rare earth elements and any other critical minerals. Other
potential advantages of the seafloor resources include: high metal grades compared to many terrestrial deposits, their occurrence with many other
valuable minerals and potentially reduced environmental impact. The assembled team has been selected to capture the broad range and depth of
experience needed to evaluate the complex ocean mining and recovery process for REEs. Several team members have participated in
large scale ocean mining and other deep sea projects in the past, particularly for recovery of nodules and seafloor massive
sulfides, and ocean renewable energy projects.
DoD is scouting possible mines now
McKenzie 12 (Jim, President and CEO of Ucore Rare Metals, October 1 2012, "US Department of
Defense Contracts With Ucore for Metallurgical & SPE", http://ucore.com/us-department-of-defensecontracts-with-ucore-for-metallurgical-spe-studies)
October 1, 2012 – Halifax, Nova Scotia – Ucore Rare Metals Inc. (TSX-V:UCU) (OTCQX:UURAF)
(“Ucore” or “the Company”) is pleased to announce that the United States Department of Defense (DOD)
has contracted with Ucore via the Company’s US operating subsidiary Landmark Alaska L.P. to conduct
a mineralogical and metallurgical study on the Company’s Bokan Mountain heavy REE property in
Southeast Alaska. The program, to be managed by DOD under the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) will
focus on possible development of Bokan Mountain, America’s largest NI 43-101 compliant heavy rare
earth resource, to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense for an ongoing supply of critical
heavy REE’s. Under the agreement, Ucore will provide DOD with the most up-to-date data on the Bokan
project’s mineralogy and proprietary bench and pilot scale Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) nanotechnology
research.
Aff
Non-Military T
DOD
The DOD is not automatically military—they employ civilians
DOD No Date
(US Department of Defense, “About the Department of Defense (DOD),” http://www.defense.gov/about/)//BB
The Department of Defense is America's oldest and largest government agency. With our military tracing its roots back to preRevolutionary times, the Department of Defense has grown and evolved with our nation. Today, the Department, headed by Secretary of Defense
Chuck Hagel, is not only in charge of the military, but it also employs a civilian force of thousands . With over 1.4
million men and women on active duty, and 718,000 civilian personnel, we are the nation's largest employer. Another 1.1 million serve in the
National Guard and Reserve forces. More than 2 million military retirees and their family members receive benefits.
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers is civilian
US Army Corps of Engineers No Date
(Frequently Asked Question, http://www.usace.army.mil/About/FAQ.aspx)//BB
All civilian job opportunities available with the Federal government, including USACE, are posted on
USAJobs at http://www.usajobs.gov. USAJobs is the Federal Government's Official Job Site. One must apply for Federal jobs using the tools
available (including a resume/resume builder).
Politics
Biofuels Link
Republicans hate biofuels—it’s expensive and defense budget is already tight
Casey 12 (Tina, career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, April 11th 2012, "U.S. Na--vy Looks to the Seas
for Clean Energy", http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/04/navy-enlists-companies-to-develop-wavepower-technology/)
But the pilot voyage of the Navy's "great green fleet" came with a troubling aspect: price. The fleet's
green fuel costs $26 a gallon, several times more than conventional diesel and jet fuel. And the costly
experiment came just as the military moved into an era of deep budget cuts. Republicans in Congress
have howled over the price tag, and they're not alone. Some independent energy experts doubt the
military's projections that spending on pioneering technology will yield sufficient benefits.
Link to Agenda Politics
Military spending costs massive PC—Cantor defeat
Military Times 6/11
(News organization covering military issues, “Cantor's stunning defeat removes 'only leader' on defense in GOP's top ranks,” 6/11/14,
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140611/NEWS05/306110070/Cantor-s-stunning-defeat-removes-only-leader-defense-GOP-s-topranks)//BB
WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor’s
stunning primary defeat is a huge blow to the defense sector,
and could allow an up-and-coming GOP deficit hawk to replace Cantor, or even become House speaker,
sources say. Cantor announced he would resign as House majority leader July 31. Republican sources and Washington insiders say the Virginia
Republican’s lopsided loss will remove a major defense-sector ally from the ranks of the House
Republican leadership team. What’s more, they agreed there are few immediate scenarios under which another
friend of the military-congressional-industrial complex fills Cantor’s spot. “From a defense perspective,
this is certainly not a good thing. Cantor was really the only leader for the defense community in the House,”
said one GOP source with ties to the defense sector. “He’s the only one in leadership who advocated for defense. And he’s the only one who had dedicated staff on
defense issues in the leadership team.” The pro-defense Cantor was long considered the frontrunner to take the speaker’s gavel in January. Experts expected his real
challenge from the right wing of the GOP would come during his speakership campaign. The tea party, it turns out, did not wait for that inside-the-Beltway race.
Instead, a tea party-affiliated Randolph-Macon College economics professor, Dave Brat, defeated Cantor with 55.5 percent of the vote to the incumbent’s 44.5 percent
in the commonwealth’s 7th Congressional District. “Electing
more people like Brat” and tea party candidate Chris McDaniel, who is in a runoff
more people in Congress who just want to cut
spending, including for defense,” the GOP defense source said. “They just want to shut the government down. They don’t want to
govern and they will not compromise.” Loren Thompson, COO of the Lexington Institute and a defense-sector consultant, told CongressWatch
with Senate Appropriations Ranking Member Sen. Thad Cochran in Mississippi, “ means
Cantor’s “departure will be a setback for the military — continuing a long-term trend that has seen staunch supporters of the Pentagon … depart the public stage.”
Cantor’s stunning defeat has changed the calculus inside Republican circles on Capitol Hill over who should hold the
speaker’s gavel when the new Congress is seated in January. It also has shaken up Washington’s political scene. On Wednesday morning’s “Daily Rundown” on
MSNBC, host Chuck Todd, a veteran political observer, called Cantor’s defeat a “history making shocker.” And on Tuesday evening, The Hill newspaper reported
Cantor’s defeat already has “upended” the race to replace Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, as House speaker. Suddenly, there is talk that Boehner might seek to remain as
speaker next year. “I really think there’s a strong chance Boehner stays on as speaker,” said Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official and longtime Washington
political observer. “Whatever Boehner was thinking before last night, I don’t think he’ll step down now,” Korb said. “I think he’s more likely to stay and see what
happens in 2016. If Democrats win big [and potentially control the House, Senate and White House], I could see him retiring then.” Texas takeover? But the other
name topping most early post-Cantor lists to take possession of the speaker’s gavel should Boehner step aside is Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, the current Financial
Services Committee chairman. Hensarling’s interest in becoming the House’s leader has been an open secret on the Hill for months. But, less than 24 hours after
Cantor’s unexpected defeat, Hensarling is playing coy. “Eric Cantor is a friend and ally on many fronts. He was, is, and will continue to be a good leader and servant
for his district and our nation, and I am grateful for his service,” Hensarling said in a statement prepared for CongressWatch. “While one chapter will ultimately close
for him, I know that Eric will continue to work to advance the cause of freedom. “I am humbled by the many people who have approached me about serving our
Republican Conference in a different capacity in the future,” Hensarling said. “There are many ways to advance the causes of freedom and free enterprise, and I am
prayerfully considering the best way I can serve in those efforts.” And even if Boehner again seeks the top post and wins enough votes to continue his embattled run
succeeds Cantor as majority leader — putting a deficit hawk
where an advocate for protecting defense spending once sat. The GOP defense source said he believes Speaker Hensarling
would be “mostly a bad thing for defense” because “he’s aligned with a wing of the party that doesn’t want to restore any of the sequestration
cuts.” Thompson said that shows how “ the tea party has turned everything upside down in the House GOP.” “Members like Jeb
Hensarling, who should have a strong home-state interest in defense, seem more interested in shrinking
government, while people like [Wisconsin Republican] Paul Ryan, with little home-state stake in the defense budget, favor robust military spending,”
as speaker, sources say there is a strong chance Hensarling
Thompson said. “This is not the way politics used to work on Capitol Hill.” Hensarling's record A review of Hensarling’s voting record conducted by CongressWatch
suggests the Texan has some pro-defense leanings. For instance, he has supported annual Pentagon policy and spending measures on the House floor. And, at times,
he has railed against across-the-board defense spending cuts. In late May 2012, he called the Pentagon’s portion of sequestration “dangerous and arbitrary defense
cuts.” He endorsed a Republican plan to replace them with what he dubbed “common sense spending reductions that begin the process of ensuring we live within our
means.” Of course, the GOP plan was pronounced DOA in the Democratic-controlled Senate shortly after it was unveiled. He chaired the so-called “supercommittee”
— known formally as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — which was charged with heading off the sequestration cuts by fashioning a massive federal
deficit-reduction package both parties in both chambers and the Obama White House would support. Like the Democratic members of that House-Senate panel,
Hensarling and his GOP colleagues held firm to ideology and principle. The “supercommittee” ultimately failed to reach a deal. Sequestration kicked in several
months later, sending panic across the defense sector as annual cuts of around $45 billion to non-exempt accounts were triggered. In fact, Hensarling voted in favor of
the 2011 Budget Control Act, which established that joint panel and also created the across-the-board defense and domestic sequestration cuts. 'Spending-driven debt'
While Hensarling has staked out some pro-defense stances, he has been more vehement in his rhetoric and actions on deficit-reduction. And some sources say if the
GOP takes control of the Senate in January, the party is poised to again charge hard after a major debt-reduction package that would include additional — and sizeable
— federal spending cuts. To that end, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told CongressWatch on Tuesday that if Republicans control both chambers next year, it should force
Democrats and President Barack Obama to adhere to more GOP demands in negotiations over such a deal. And, if Hensarling is speaker, he would be heavily
involved in those high-level talks. It would be an early test that would make him choose between agreeing to some level of defense cuts — likely smaller than
sequestration’s scheduled cuts — and other debt-cutting items like higher tax rates or entitlement cuts. Republicans like Corker believe they can get more domestic
entitlement program cuts and guard against Democratic-supported tax hikes if they control both chambers. But, even with a small Senate majority, they would still
need to secure 60 votes to pass a deficit-paring bill. That’s where defense cuts could come into play, to attract the handful of Democrats
to get to 60 votes. In the House, GOP leaders and the White House might want more than a party line vote, meaning defense cuts could help attract some Democrats to
make the vote tally seem more bipartisan. Sources on Wednesday said Hensarling seems more inclined to cut spending, from wherever it can be accomplished. “As
the father of a 10-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter, I am … painfully aware of the impact our nation’s growing debt will have on future generations if we
don’t address it, and address it soon,” Hensarling said in December. “There is no issue I have worked harder on than attempting to deal with our spending-driven debt.
It is unsustainable, unconscionable and immoral,” Hensarling said. “As a conservative, I will never stop fighting to reform our entitlements, cut spending, balance the
budget, or lower taxes for hardworking Americans.” Hensarling late last year voted for a bipartisan budget deal that lessened the defense sequestration cuts for 2014
and 2015. But he made clear it was a reluctant “yay” vote. “A bipartisan budget agreement is, almost by definition, both modest and disappointing, and this one is no
different,” Hensarling said. “Though — after great thought and reflection, considering the merits of arguments made both for and against — I ultimately decided that
this agreement was worthy of my support, but was a close call.” Hensarling made clear then that his reluctance was due to concerns the bipartisan deal failed to trim
deficits and cut spending to his liking. In
Washington, experts often measure influence in terms of campaign
contributions. This appears to be bad news for the defense sector, which, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, did
not rank in the top 20 of industries that gave to Hensarling in the 2010 or 2012 election cycles. The same is true of the 2014 cycle.
What’s more, no U.S. weapons manufacturer ranks among the top companies that donated to the would-be
House speaker or majority leader in any of those years.
Links to Elections
CP is hugely unpopular with the American people
ThinkProgress 12
(ELI CLIFTON, “Poll: Americans Support Cuts To Military Spending,” MAY 10, 2012,
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/10/482180/public-supports-cutting-military-spending/)//BB
While House Republicans and the Romney campaign are eager to preserve, if not expand, the Pentagon’s budget, new polling
data shows
that Americans underestimate the size of the defense budget and, after seeing information on the size of
defense spending, endorse defense spending cuts. The poll, conducted by the Center for Public integrity, the Program for Public
Consultation (PPC) and the Stimson Center finds that when shown the discretionary budget for national defense alongside the discretionary
budgets for education, veterans’ benefits, homeland security and various other spending areas, 65 percent of respondents found Defense
spending to be more than what they had expected. Overall, respondents would cut the budget by 18 percent. Republicans cut an
average of 12 percent and Democrats 22 percent. The respondents’ high support for cutting the defense budget might be explained by the
presentation of discretionary defense spending alongside other budget items. “This suggests that Americans generally underestimate
the size of the defense budget and that when they receive balanced information about its size they are more likely to cut it to reduce
the deficit,” said Steven Kull, director of PPC. By a large percentage, the poll showed that Americans favored cutting the budget for nuclear
weapons (27 percent) but the budget for existing ground forces was picked by respondents for the biggest cuts in dollar terms, $36.2 billion in
average cuts or 23 percent. While the Romney campaign and the GOP-controlled House Armed Services Committee appear intent on protecting
existing military spending and introducing new projects for funding — whether the Pentagon asks for it or not — the U.S. public is
firmly opposed to the current defense spending levels.
AT: No link—Lobbyists
Defense lobbyists fail
Sorcher 14
(Sara Sorcher, National Security Correspondent at National Journal, “How the Defense Lobby Became Irrelevant,” Jan. 1, 2014,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/how-the-defense-lobby-became-irrelevant-20140101)//BB
The defense lobby was once both behemoth and bogeyman. It was the muscle behind the military-
industrial complex, the puppeteer liberals blamed for moving money from food stamps to fighter jets.
Above all, it was the Beltway powerhouse that made Congress cower. Nobody is afraid of defense lobbyists now. Congress
has defied them twice in two years, first by failing to undo the first round of defense cuts under
sequestration, and again this week by floating a budget deal that would only partly pare back the next
round. The fact that industry accepts this deal, a far cry from the grand bargain it demanded last year, shows just how far
expectations have plummeted. What laid low the once-mighty lobby? Hyperbole, and some hubris. In the waning days of 2012, the
industry promised Armageddon unless Congress spared it from the sequester's spending cuts. The Aerospace Industries Association doled out
clocks that ticked off the days, hours, minutes, and seconds—a panic-inducing "countdown to disaster," when more than a million defense jobs
would be gouged. But when the lobbying blitz failed and the sequester guillotine fell, the industry was forced into an embarrassing position: It
had cried wolf. Long after AIA's ticking clocks ran down, employers had not sent the tens of thousands of layoff notices; major defense
companies remained profitable; and the U.S. military—though far from unscathed—remained a global juggernaut. Now, with another
round of sequester cuts looming, the lobby is again sounding the alarm, but its past hyperbole has
defanged its warning. "When they went full bore saying the sky is falling January 2, and then later on March 1, they were
betting it would never actually come to pass—so no one would be able to say they were overhyping this or exaggerating the immediacy of the
impact," says Todd Harrison, a defense-budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "They miscalculated.
Now the defense industry is left with its credibility damaged." SHARE THIS STORY The situation is all the more painful
for defense lobbyists because this time around—perceptions aside—they would have had a much stronger case to make. If the proposed budget
deal founders, the Pentagon could lose $52 billion from its 2014 request; if the deal passes, congressional appropriators must still find a way to
cut $31 billion. Last year, the Pentagon used a cushion of unobligated funds to pay down some losses, and it delayed weapons programs and
testing to avoid cancellations. But this coming year, that cash has evaporated. More cuts mean the Pentagon can no longer mask the pain and
must make tough decisions on weapons programs. Preserving pay and benefits for troops means further raiding funds for research and
development. Warning of disaster—while still lacking specific cuts to make a strong case—is a losing proposition. Even the lobbyists
acknowledge the impotence of their message now. "All the screaming to high heavens" about how sequester would raise the unemployment rate
came too soon, says one from a major company. "Whether it's the voting public or elected officials, I think there is legitimate reason for them to
question the industry's estimations of significant job losses." Still, lobbyists can point to some visible signs of military distress: The Army says
that only two of its 43 active-duty brigades are fully ready for combat. The Navy canceled the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the Persian
Gulf. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were furloughed, and the services say more long-term cuts will force them to downsize people and
equipment. But the signals are confusing. Despite warnings that sequestration would harm operations, the U.S. deployed warships for high-profile
relief efforts in the Philippines, and President Obama floated the possibility of military action in Syria. And although some layoffs have come—
Lockheed Martin cut about 4,000 jobs last month—major defense firms appear to be doing just fine: Defense giants, including Lockheed and
Raytheon, reported third-quarter profit increases. "There have definitely been people who have accused us of crying wolf," AIA spokesman Dan
Stohr says. The group, he says, did not anticipate that the Pentagon could minimize the sequester's pain. "We were taking our best shot at trying
to estimate the effects, with the information we had at the time." This year, AIA is no longer commissioning unemployment studies—"been
there, done that," Stohr says—but is focusing instead on "messages that resonate." Perhaps in tacit acknowledgment that defense
is not the center of the political universe right now, AIA this year partnered with domestic sectors, including education, to talk
about the sequester's broader effects on the nation's workforce. Complicating the picture is a schism in the Republican Party that had long held
defense spending sacred. After the sequester, the gulf between defense hawks and deficit hawks widened. The defense
industry has little influence with this latter group. One lobbyist described recent strategy sessions with major defense companies whose
officials complained about failed (and acrimonious) meetings with young tea-party members, including Reps. Mick
Mulvaney and Justin Amash. The lobbyist said they gave up on the meetings altogether, tired of "junior members of Congress who are lecturing
us on how screwed up we are."
Solvency
DARPA Fails
DARPA faces massive challenges—can’t solve
Bonvillian and Van Atta 12
*CELS= complex established legacy sector= well established industry
(William B. Bonvillian is Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Washington, D.C. Office. He is a professor of science and
technology policy at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins SAIS and MIT. Richard Van Atta is Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for Defense
Analyses. He is a professor of national security and political science. “ENERGY INNOVATION at the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE
ASSESSING the Opportunities,” Bipartisan Policy Center, March 2012
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Energy%20Innovation%20at%20DoD.pdf)//BB
Both DARPA and ARPA-E face a profound challenge in technology implementation. For DARPA, the Cold War
era of major defense acquisition budgets is long gone, and defense
"recapitalization"— replacement of the existing
generation of aircraft, ships, and land vehicles with new defense platforms—is evolving at a glacial pace. Finding
homes for its evolving technologies, therefore, has increasingly become a difficult task for DARPA. Because
technology transition was once a relatively straightforward task for DARPA, it has not yet fully faced up to the implications
of how complex it has now become. ARPA-E faces a technology transfer problem of the first magnitude: the U.S. has a very
limited history of moving technology advances into and transforming CELS, including in energy. Although
ARPA-E faces a long list of challenges, the problem of technology implementation is perhaps the most profound.
This is because of the difficulty new energy technologies face, not only with the problem of the Valley of Death in moving from
research to late-stage development, but the problem endemic to CELS of market launch—implementing technology at scale. ARPAE has worked imaginatively to structure new elements into its model to address this problem. The models of the Strategic Environmental R&D
Program (SERDP) and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) from DoD, where the R&D entity directly hands off
to the test bed, provides an interesting new model in the energy area for ARPA-E to consider as it focuses on technology implementation.
Collaboration with these programs, which ARPA-E is actively working on, may orovide a crucial new tool set. ARPA-E is not alone in facing
this implementation problem; the applied agencies at DOE, led by EERE, face a similar problem, and the SERDP/ESTCP combined model of
R&D-test bed-deployment offers an interesting new a pproach. DARPA, too, despite remarkable past successes, is not immune, as suggested
above, from the implementation problem, which appears to be growing. It, too, might learn lessons and make further uses of the SERDP/ESTCP
approach. in summary, implementation presents a major challenge for both agencies. DARPA needs to consider its existing portfolio of
implementation support, and consider better connection to available tools (SLCh as the Mantech and the Defense Production Act. for example)
for its manufacturing initiatives. ARPA-E has worked imaginatively on its implementation capabilities, but the com- plexity
of its task requires it to consider additional mechanisms.
Biofuels Destroys Navy
Switch to biofuels destroys navy capability—it’s expensive, no international
infrastructure, shortened ship lifespans
Slattery and Dodge 14 (Brian is Research Assistant at Defense Studies Douglas and Sarah Allison
Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, Michaela is Policy Analyst, Defense and Strategic Policy
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, September 24 2014, "Biofuel
Blunder: Navy Should Prioritize Fleet Modernization over Political Initiatives",
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/navy-s-green-fleet-a-biofuel-blunder)
Supporters claim that instability in the fossil fuel market justifies paying more for unproven technologies,
but this initiative will in effect cause fiscal instability in an already unstable Department of Defense
budget. Most Capable Fleet, Not Green Fleet While the Navy is officially embracing biofuel use as a tool
to decrease its dependence on fuels from the volatile Middle East, there are good reasons why the Navy
should keep relying on conventional fuels. Diesel Will Be Plentiful. The American petroleum sector is
currently undergoing a booming revival, and new sources of fuel such as shale will decrease demand for
diesel elsewhere in the U.S. economy. This will help secure sources of diesel to be readily available to the
U.S. military. No Established International Infrastructure. That could cause considerable challenges given
the Navy’s global reach. It might be difficult or even impossible to refuel a “green” ship in foreign waters,
because a foreign biofuel infrastructure capable of meeting the Navy’s needs is almost non-existent. Even
if the U.S. builds its own supply chain for the Navy, it would still have to rely on diesel if refueling in
foreign ports. Increased Corrosion. Studies have shown that biofuels are more corrosive than regular
diesel and can therefore increase maintenance costs within the Navy’s fleet.[1] This would only worsen
the current fleet’s dire situation, since inspection failures are already occurring at an alarming rate within
the fleet.[2] Increasing average age of U.S. fleet; delayed, deferred, and underfunded modernization; and
use of fuels with potentially harmful consequences is a recipe for a fleet readiness crisis. Increased
Expenses. Biofuels are disproportionately more expensive than conventional fuels. A gallon of biofuel
costs $26, whereas the Department of Defense purchases diesel at about $3.60 per gallon. Many argue
that this rate will decrease over time as biofuel production increases, but in the interim, the Navy’s
readiness would be further damaged by wasting precious resources on biofuels that are seven times more
expensive than the Navy’s conventional fuels—not including the increased maintenance costs. An
Already Unstable Funding Environment. Even in a fiscally robust environment, biofuels are not a wise
allocation of the Pentagon’s funds. The U.S. military is currently facing serious funding reductions due to
sequestration, which was mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011. Under these cuts, the Navy will
be unable to sustain its current shipbuilding rate, which has already been below the necessary level for a
number of years. As defense spending is projected to keep decreasing into the future, the Navy’s budget
becomes even more fragile. Naval Surface Warfare Director Rear Admiral Tom Rowden projected that
the fleet could fall to 257 ships—around 50 less than the Navy’s requirement—by 2020.[3] Yet the Navy
will still be required to replace the aging ballistic missile submarine fleet and maintain 10 carrier air
wings, as both are the key elements of U.S. strategic posture.[4] Biofuels currently do not consume much
of the Pentagon’s topline budget; however, it is essential that the organization scrutinizes any and all
programs, no matter how small or large. Fleet readiness is of utmost importance to the Navy and the
security of this nation. Programs jeopardizing readiness in order to support unproven science with
questionable results should be eliminated
AT: Spills Over to Private Sector
Squo solves R&D and Appelbaum is wrong—most R&D money isn’t going to the
innovative projects he talks about
Alterman 12
(Senior Fellow at American Progress, where he writes the “Think Again” column. He is a distinguished professor of English at Brooklyn College,
City University of New York, and professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, internally cites Subrata Ghoshroy, a
research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Think Again: Is Defense R&D Spending Effective?” January 13, 2012,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/media/news/2012/01/13/11001/think-again-is-defense-rd-spending-effective/)//BB
First, it’s important to keep in mind issues of scale. “In 2011,” Ghoshroy writes, “the United States spent $76 billion annually
on defense research and development, an amount that exceeds the total defense outlays—not just for R&D, but
for all defense purposes—of every other country in the world except China.” That top-line number includes basic R&D, which
is by far the smallest component of the Defense Department’s R&D budget even though it is arguably the most important of the long haul, as well
as the much larger applied and developmental R&D numbers. (Here is a handy breakdown of the federal R&D budget by Science Progress; the
American Association for the Advancement of Science has a more detailed breakdown of Defense Department R&D spending here.) Second,
Ghoshroy argues that it’s far from clear to what degree this spending goes to protecting American soldiers,
much less the nation at large. “Most of the U.S. casualties in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been caused by improvised
explosive devices, which require little in the way of technology beyond the mobile phones used to detonate them,” he writes. “The United States’
high-technology, high-price, and high-maintenance weaponry is of relatively little value in such conflicts.” Whenever the issue comes up for
debate—as when spending levels turn out to be unsustainable, as they are today, or when a number of weapons systems turn out to be total
turkeys, as so many are today—the discussion of cuts, Ghoshroy notes, “routinely results in push-back from the top universities and defense
contractors, accompanied by a barrage of negative press coverage. No one, it seems, wants to be seen as opposing scientific research to bolster
the ‘technological edge’ that gave America its military superiority over the Soviet Union and continues to provide enormous advantages.” Like
clockwork, during the first week of this year, The New York Times came through with a front-page story that worried about the economic and
commercial effects of reduced defense spending. The story, “A Shrinking Military Budget May Take Neighbors With It,” written by Binyamin
Appelbaum, was reprinted 2,500 times, according to my Google search. Though more sophisticated than is often the case, Appelbaum’s
story nevertheless reflects the mainstream press “take” we so frequently see on this subject. He worried in the
opening paragraph that “the Pentagon’s unmatched record in developing technologies with broad public benefits —like the Internet, jet engines
and satellite navigation—and then encouraging private companies to reap the rewards.” He then went on to note that “even some people who do
not count themselves among its traditional allies warn that the potential impact on scientific innovation is being overlooked. Spending less on
military research, they say, could reduce the economy’s long-term growth.” And who would those people be? “If catalyzing innovation is going
to be an important part of our economic strategy, then we better be careful how we handle the military budget,” said Daniel Sarewitz, director of
the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. But isn’t that exactly the kind of person Ghoshroy described as the
type who always objects to the cutting of such spending? To be fair, Sarewitz was probably talking about basic research funded by the Defense
Department, but Applebaum conflates all R&D spending into one lump category. He turns next to economist Robert
Pollin, who explains that “as a source of job creation, military spending is not particularly good. … you can argue for the benefits in geopolitical
terms, but if we’re talking about jobs and the economy, it doesn’t make sense." Good point, but Appelbaum then adds that “the one exception
may be Pentagon spending on research and development,” again failing break out the different kinds of R&D spending. Going back to 1946, he
notes that the U.S. Navy, “which started budgeting for research in 1946, counts 59 eventual Nobel laureates among the recipients of its
financing, including Charles H. Townes, whose pioneering work in the development of lasers laid the groundwork for compact discs and laser
eye surgery. The other armed forces claim similar numbers of laureates, albeit with considerable overlap.” Appelbaum also added stories about
the funding of research with important commercial implications of what became the key regional innovation clusters along Route 128 in
Massachusetts and in Silicon Valley in Northern California. These are important points—ones driven home coincidentally when I had
dinner Saturday evening with the former executive editor of one of America’s great newspapers. When this issue arose, the question he asked—
referring to the role of Pentagon research in the transmission of digital information—was: “Can you put a price on the value of the Internet?” But
again, these are the fruits of basic research, not the kind of boondoggle R&D spending the Pentagon
engages in at the applied and developmental level. Indeed, Ghoshroy also advised, “much of what transpires in the name of
military research and development is not research in the sense that it produces scientific and technical knowledge widely applicable inside and
outside the Defense Department. A large part of defense R&D activity revolves around building very expensive
gadgets that are often based on unsound technology and frequently fail to perform as required.” That’s also
true. Witness pretty much every single nickel of the $150 billion or so spent so far on President Ronald Reagan’s “Star
Wars” pipe dream, which so far has failed to produce any of the myriad scientific breakthroughs
necessary for the system to perform even remotely as has been continually promised. Of course, there is a great deal of flat-out
failure to be expected in research and development, especially in basic research, but some of these failures at the applied and development
stages of R&D are protected by the Pentagon’s remarkable ability to call it “success.” Ghoshroy notes the example of
when, in 1997, the $100 million test of a ground-based missile defense system failed, and its contractors
termed it successful because no benchmarks had yet been established. Not much pushback ensued, Ghoshroy observed,
because “congressional military committees have for years grossly abused the Defense R&D budget, using it
to channel money to contractors in their districts via the earmarking process.” These kinds of
shenanigans are obviously not the responsibility of those engaged in Pentagon-funded basic
research , but it’s exactly this kind of fiddling with the test results that corrupts the process of what gets funded and for how much. In fact, as
lead op-ed in The Economist recently argued, while much of the technology that citizens and corporations today rely on was originally created for
military use, civilian technological R&D in recent years has more often benefited the Pentagon rather than the other way around. Today, for
instance, The Economist reports, the U.S. Air Force is using Sony PlayStation 3 video game consoles for its newest supercomputer project. U.S.
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan take advantage of their “iPods and iPhones to run translation software and calculate bullet trajectories. Xbox
video-game controllers have been modified to control reconnaissance robots and drone aircraft. Graphics chips that power PC video-cards are
being used by defence firms to run simulations.” The reason for this is the strength of capitalism. Electronics firms have to move faster than the
Pentagon to meet consumer demand and to keep up with their competitors. With more than 1 billion mobile phones sold each year, these firms
can afford the kind of targeted research that makes Pentagon R&D irrelevant to their need. What’s more, as The Economist also points out, “the
emergence of open standards and open-source software makes it easier to repurpose off-the-shelf technologies or combine them in novel ways.”
In many respects, the relationship between military-funded R&D mirrors the relationship between defense spending and non-defense spending in
the overall economy. As Applebaum’s report notes (because he believes defense R&D to be the exception to this rule), defense spending is
deeply inefficient as an economic stimulus. He quotes the economist Robert “Pollin, who calculates that “$1 billion in spending on health care
produced an economic benefit about 14 percent larger than spending on defense. The impact of spending on transportation, education and energy
were even larger.” This is consistent with another such study of federal spending since World War II by Alan Auerbach and Yuriy
Gorodnichenko of the University of California, Berkeley, who “found that the economic benefits from nonmilitary spending were at least 50
percent larger than those from defense spending during periods of normal growth.” The overall picture one finds, as The Washington Post’s Ezra
Klein blogged recently, “ overspending
on the military in the hopes that some of the money will run into
R&D is a very inefficient way to support R&D ,” as well as “an inefficient way to fund nonmilitary
innovations,” even when one allows for the necessary inefficiency that is built into funding basic research in the first place. True, it’s
“politically efficient,” Klein admits. “It would be better to fund R&D directly, but the only politically sustainable form of innovation funding is
military spending. That is depressing, but it might be true.”
No spill down—the military innovates more slowly the private sector
Economist 9
(International newsmagazine that covers everything from politics to science, “The military-consumer complex,” Dec 10th 2009,
http://www.economist.com/node/15065709)//BB
THE earliest computers were used to crack codes and simulate nuclear explosions. The internet grew out
of a
military research project. In-car navigation systems rely on satellites that were put into orbit to guide ships, troops and missiles. The
Boeing 747, with its raised cockpit, was designed as a military transporter. In each case a technology created for military use has gone on to
become widely used by civilians. That this happens so often is not surprising: the military is, after all, a deep-pocketed customer prepared to fund
the development of expensive new technologies. As gizmos become smaller and cheaper—and they invariably do—they are then able to
percolate from the soldier on the battlefield to the man in the street. But lately some kinds of technology have been moving in the
other direction, too. The United States Air Force has just placed an order for 2,200 Sony PlayStation 3 video-game
consoles, which will be the building-blocks of a supercomputer (see article). Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are using Apple
iPods and iPhones to run translation software and calculate bullet trajectories. Xbox video-game controllers have
been modified to control reconnaissance robots and drone aircraft. Graphics chips that power PC video-cards are being used by defence firms to
run simulations. What has caused this shift? Global defence spending, at about $1.5 trillion a year, far exceeds sales of consumerelectronics, at around $700 billion a year. But only
a small fraction of defence spending is devoted to developing
electronics. The consumer-electronics industry can therefore outspend the military in research and development,
and spread out those costs over a far larger market: more than a billion mobile phones are sold every year, for example.
Electronics firms also move much faster than the slow, multi-year grind of military procurement
programmes, with few products remaining on the market for more than a year before being replaced by
something better or cheaper. And the emergence of open standards and open-source software makes it easier to repurpose off-the-shelf
technologies or combine them in novel ways. (All those PlayStation 3s will have a customised version of Linux, an open-source operating
system, installed on them and will be wired up using Gigabit Ethernet, the networking technology commonly used in offices.)