Offshore Wind AFF
Inherency
1AC
Lack of fed incentives and siting prevents the aff from happening
Room ‘12
(Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom
Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." In 2009, Rolling Stone put
Romm #88 on its list of 100 "people who are reinventing America." Time named him a "Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s
most influential climate-change blogger." Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy
in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at
American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. “Offshore Wind Energy: The Benefits and the Barriers” JUNE 1, 2011 AT
9:59 AM, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/01/232901/offshore-wind-energy/)
Unfortunately, in the United States, lack of a clear regulatory structure, inconsistent messages
from other ocean stakeholders, congressional budget battles, opposition to specific project siting, and
instability in financial markets have all played a role in preventing domestic offshore wind
from becoming a reality. No permitting process existed when America’s first offshore wind developer, Cape Wind, began
efforts to build a wind farm off the New England coast. It was 2005 before Congress acted to define a clear permitting process for
offshore wind facilities and to extend key financial incentives to help the industry develop. Then it was nearly six more years—over a
decade in total—until Cape Wind at last received the final green light from the Department of Interior to begin construction. That
decision was announced on April 19, perhaps not so coincidentally just one day before the first anniversary of the BP oil disaster. Yet,
in a move achingly typical of the three-steps-forward-two-steps-back cycle that has plagued U.S. offshore wind development, the
Department of Energy stepped in less than a month after getting the Interior Department’s green light to say that the project’s
application for a key piece of financial
assistance would be put on hold, potentially stalling the
project yet again. This brief will provide an overview of offshore wind permitting and financing in the United States, update
the status of a few key projects, and ultimately make recommendations on how to clear a few of the remaining hurdles to promoting
offshore wind development: Increase government investment in offshore wind to make it more financially palatable Shape
transmission rules to allow for a robust offshore grid Ensure the federal “Smart from the Start” program, which is designed to expedite
offshore wind, is smart through the finish Engage stakeholders early in the process of identifying wind energy areas in “Smart from
the Start” These
recommendations will allow America to catch up to other nations currently at
the vanguard of technological development. These countries are reaping the economic and
employment rewards of creating a new industry while simultaneously reducing their carbon
footprint and making great strides toward a clean, renewable energy future
Grid ADV
1AC
Windpower solves blackouts
Pr Newswire 3
(“Wind Power Can Help Prevent the Next Blackout” August 21, Lexis)
As more than 50 million Americans and Canadians recover from the Blackout of 2003, conversations turn to the future and how to
avoid this kind of disaster from happening again. At the Renewable Energy for Wyoming Conference beginning today in Douglas,
Wyoming, discussions will undoubtedly focus on how wind
power and other sustainable energy sources can play a larger
role in the prevention of future catastrophic blackouts.¶ According to New York-based developer Arcadia
Windpower, Ltd. and its Wyoming partner, HTH Wind Energy, Inc., a featured conference participant, wind power can help
solve some of the problems that contributed to the blackout and can help reduce the
likelihood of future blackouts.¶ "This first ever renewable energy conference in the state of Wyoming comes at a time of
rising fossil fuel prices and concern about grid reliability. Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal deserves credit for his focus on
renewables and their benefits to his state," said Dan Leach, CEO of HTH Wind Energy, Inc. "With 140 megawatts of wind electricity
generators spinning, wind in Wyoming will
stimulate economic development, help stabilize electricity
prices, and provide fuel diversity in the state's generation mix."¶ According to Peter D. Mandelstam,
founder and president of Arcadia Windpower, "Wind power, which is naturally clean, safe, and renewable,
is also perfectly suited to strengthening the grid, which is what's important after a blackout like
the one we had last week. Wind power needs to be part of the short-term solution and long-term
reliability of the grid."¶ Grid stability can be achieved through distributed generation -- placing
generating facilities throughout the region's grid so that when one section of the grid goes
down, the distribution facilities are able to keep the rest of the grid in operation. Wind farms are
particularly suitable for this strategy because they are scalable in nature and therefore can be sized according to local energy needs.
Fossil fuel plants, on the other hand, can work only as large-scale power plants.¶ Additionally, wind
farms, which can be
plugged directly into a metropolitan area like New York City or a local pocket such as Long
Island, can also ease transmission bottlenecks. The transmission bottlenecks north of New York City that likely
contributed to the Blackout of 2003 could have been reduced had a wind farm in close proximity been in place and operating -- such
as the off-shore project currently proposed for the south shore of Long Island.¶ "One
of the most attractive features
of wind power and off-shore wind, in particular, is the ability to site a plant close to where the
electricity will be used," said Tom Gray, Deputy Executive Director of the American Wind Energy Association. "The
recent blackout makes a compelling case for a wind plant off of Long Island that can deliver
electricity directly to neighboring communities and the region."¶ Another benefit of wind
power in a blackout situation is that as long as the grid is operating, a wind power facility can
begin generating electricity almost immediately. In contrast, nuclear and fossil fuel plants
must go through long restart and warm-up procedures of up to 48 hours. Time is also reduced in the
development of wind power generating facilities, which can be built in just six to nine months. A conventional power plant generally
cannot be completed from design to operation in less than two years.
Grid shutdown causes meltdowns – reactor fuel rods couldn’t be contained
Stein 12
Matthew Stein is a design engineer, green builder and author. “Why a Likely Natural Event Could Cause Nuclear Reactors to Melt
Down and Our Grid to Crash” January 20, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/environment/153833/why_a_likely_natural_event_could_cause_nuclear_reactors_to_melt_down_and_ou
r_grid_to_crash?page=entire
So what do extended grid blackouts have to do with potential nuclear catastrophes? Nuclear
power plants are designed
to disconnect automatically from the grid in the event of a local power failure or major grid anomaly,
and once disconnected they begin the process of shutting down the reactor's core. In the event
of the loss of coolant flow to an active nuclear reactor's core, the reactor will start to melt down and
fail catastrophically within a matter of a few hours at most. It was a short-term cooling system failure
that caused the partial reactor core meltdown in March 1979 at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania. Similarly,
according to Japanese authorities it was not direct damage from Japan's 9.0 magnitude Tohoku earthquake on March
11, 2011 that caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor disaster, but the loss of electric power to the reactor's
cooling system pumps when the reactor's backup batteries and diesel generators were wiped out by
the ensuing tsunami. In the hours and days after the tsunami shuttered the cooling systems, the cores of reactors number 1, 2 and 3
were in full meltdown and released hydrogen gas, fueling explosions which breached several reactor containment vessels and blew
the roof off the building housing the spent fuel storage pond of reactor number 4. Of even greater danger and concern than the reactor
cores themselves are the spent fuel rods stored in on-site cooling ponds. Lacking a permanent spent nuclear fuel storage facility, so-
nuclear fuel containment ponds are features common to nearly all nuclear reactor
facilities. They typically contain the accumulated spent fuel from 10 or more decommissioned reactor cores. Due to lack of a
permanent repository, most of these fuel containment ponds are greatly overloaded and tightly
packed beyond original design. They are generally surrounded by common light industrial buildings, with concrete walls and
called "temporary"
corrugated steel roofs. Unlike the active reactor cores, which are encased inside massive "containment vessels" with thick walls of
the buildings surrounding spent fuel rod storage ponds would do practically
nothing to contain radioactive contaminants in the event of prolonged cooling system failures.
Since spent fuel ponds typically hold far greater quantities of highly radioactive material then the active nuclear reactors,
they present far greater potential for the catastrophic spread of highly radioactive contaminants
over huge swaths of land, polluting the environment for hundreds of years. A study by the NRC
determined that the "boil-down time" for spent fuel rod containment ponds runs from between
four and 22 days after loss of cooling system power before degenerating into a Fukushima-like situation,
depending upon the type of nuclear reactor and how recently its latest batch of fuel rods had been decommissioned. Reactor fuel
rods have a protective zirconium cladding, which if superheated while exposed to air will burn
with intense self-generating heat, much like a magnesium fire, releasing highly radioactive aerosols and
smoke. According to Arnie Gundersen -- former senior vice-president for Nuclear Engineering Services Corporation, now turned
nuclear whistleblower -- once a zirconium fire has started, due to its extreme temperatures and high degree of reactivity, contact
with water will result in the water dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen gases, which will
almost certainly lead to violent explosions. Gundersen says that once a zirconium fuel rod fire has started, the worst
concrete and steel,
thing you could do is to try to quench the fire with water streams. Gundersen believes the massive explosion that blew the roof off
the spent fuel pond at Fukushima was caused by zirconium-induced hydrogen dissociation. Had
it not been for heroic efforts
on the part of Japan's nuclear workers to replenish waters in the spent fuel pool at Fukushima, those
spent fuel rods would have melted down and ignited their zirconium cladding, which most likely
would have released far more radioactive contamination than what came from the three reactor core
meltdowns. Japanese officials estimate that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has already released into the local environment
just over half the total radioactive contamination as was released by Chernobyl, but other sources estimate it could be significantly
more.
Meltdown leads to extinction
Wasserman 1
October 2001 (Harvey – senior editor of the Free Press, America’s Terrorist Nuclear Threat to Itself,
p.http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2001/10/00_wasserman_nuclear-threat.htm)
One or more
could be wiped out with a wide range of easily deployed small aircraft, ground-based weapons,
truck bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the operating work force. Dozens of US reactors
have repeatedly failed even modest security tests over the years. Even heightened wartime
standards cannot guarantee protection of the vast, supremely sensitive controls required for
reactor safety. Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive
rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into
super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and,
The assault would not require a large jet. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible.
ultimately, the Hudson. Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three
infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking
water they
would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds
from the north and west might initially drive these clouds of mass death downriver into New
York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds ultimately
shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery torrent. At
Indian Point,
thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds
ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. In nearby
communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly die en
masse. Virtually all pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to
horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin
of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea
and incontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of
thousands if not millions. A
terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New
Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by the fliers who dropped the atomic
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada,
and by victims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of
cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to
be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description. Indeed, those who survived the
initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not. Evacuation would be impossible, but
thousands would die trying. Bridges and highways would become killing fields for those attempting to
escape to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts to quench the fires would be
futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian Point, such missions would
be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be doubtful as the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing
ever more devastation into the eco-sphere. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in
a futile attempt to clean it up. They are dying in droves. Who would now volunteer for such an American task force? The radioactive
cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast Ukraine and Belarus landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, surging
through the west coast of the United States within ten days, carrying across our northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back
The radioactive clouds from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey, New
England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around
the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and expensive
again.
square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. The World Trade
Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet crash at Indian Point than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All
real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital
would be forever lost. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where
soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural eco-systems on which human and all other life
depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed, Spiritually, psychologically,
financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New
York City on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential
Bombs of the Apocalypse now operating in the United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity, just 8% of our total
energy. As with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact
on life in New York. Already an extremely expensive source of electricity, the cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put
nuclear energy even further off the competitive scale. Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most
efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually with
increased efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect. Yet, as the bombs fall and the terror
escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point from liability in case
of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass destruction, and
then shielding from liability the companies that insist on continuing to operate them? Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed
to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life
and of all future generations must be shut down.
Blackouts cause chemical plant explosion- equivalent of an atomic bomb
Latynina ’03
Yulia Latynina, journalist for Novaya Gazeta~World Press Review (VOL. 50, No. 11)
www.worldpress.org/Americas/1579.cfm ~
The scariest thing about the cascading power outages was not spoiled groceries in the fridge, or elevators
getting stuck, or even, however cynical it may sound, sick patients left to their own devices without electricity-powered medical
equipment.¶ The
scariest thing of all was chemical plants and refineries with 24-hour operations,
which, if interrupted, can result in consequences even more disastrous and on a larger scale
than those of an atomic bomb explosion. So it is safe to say that Americans got lucky this time.¶ Several hours after
the disaster, no one could know for certain whether the power outage was caused by an accident or someone’s evil design. In fact,
the disaster on the East Coast illustrates just one thing: A modern city is in itself a bomb,
regardless of whether someone sets off the detonator intentionally or by accident.
AT Backup Generators
Refinery backup generation fails – no diesel resupply
INSS ’11
Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, October 4-5, 2011
"Tabletop Exercise: Secure Grid ’11" coordinated by Dr. Dr. Richard B. Andres Energy Security
Chair, Institute for National Strategic Studies Professor of National Security Strategy, National
War College
It is unknown how much backup generation refineries and other large customers have.
Although¶ many companies have hardened their systems to varying levels in recent years, this
practice has¶ not been widespread. Many have purchased or leased generators for use in emergencies.¶ Hospitals
have backup generation but only a few days of fuel. The fuel re‐supply problem would¶ apply across the
board for such backup generation.
Ext Grid Shutdown -> Meltdown
A power grid shut down would cause nuclear meltdowns – it happens within
hours
Cappiello 11
Dina - National environmental reporter for the Associated Press, a finalist for the Edward J. Meeman award in environmental
reporting and won first-place for investigative reporting from the Society of Environmental Journalists. Cappiello earned master’s
degrees in earth and environmental science and journalism from Columbia University. She graduated in 1995 with a B.S. in biology
from Georgetown.Dina 03/29/11 Long Blackouts Pose Risk To U.S. Nuclear Reactors
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/blackout-risk-us-nuclear-reactors_n_841869.html
In one nightmare simulation presented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2009, it
would take less than a day for
radiation to escape from a reactor at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant after an earthquake, flood or fire knocked
out all electrical power and there was no way to keep the reactors cool after backup battery
power ran out. That plant, the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station outside Lancaster, has reactors of the same older make and
model as those releasing radiation at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, which is using other means to try to cool the reactors. And like
Fukushima Dai-ichi, the Peach Bottom plant has enough battery power on site to power emergency cooling systems for eight hours.
In Japan, that wasn't enough time for power to be restored. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear
Energy Institute trade association, three of the six reactors at the plant still can't get power to operate the emergency cooling systems.
Two were shut down at the time. In the sixth, the fuel was removed completely and put in the spent fuel pool when it was shut down
for maintenance at the time of the disaster. A week after the March 11 earthquake, diesel generators started supplying power to two
other two reactors, Units 5 and 6, the groups said. The
risk of a blackout leading to core damage, while extremely
remote, exists at all U.S. nuclear power plants, and some are more susceptible than others, according to an Associated
Press investigation. While regulators say they have confidence that measures adopted in the U.S. will prevent or significantly delay a
core from melting and threatening a radioactive release, the events in Japan raise questions about whether U.S.
power plants are as prepared as they could and should be. "We didn't address a tsunami and an earthquake,
but clearly we have known for some time that one of the weak links that makes accidents a little more likely is losing power," said Alan
Kolaczkowski, a retired nuclear engineer who worked on a federal risk analysis of Peach Bottom released in 1990 and is familiar with
the updated risk analysis. Risk analyses conducted by the plants in 1991-94 and published by the commission in 2003 show that the
chances of such an event striking a U.S. power plant are remote, even at the plant where the risk is the highest, the Beaver Valley
Power Station in Pennsylvania. These long odds are among the reasons why the United States since the late 1980s has
only
required nuclear power plants to cope with blackouts for four or eight hours, depending on the risk.
That's about how much time batteries would last. After that, it is assumed that power would be restored. And so far, that's been the
case. Equipment put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could buy more time. Otherwise, the reactor's radioactive core
could begin to melt unless alternative cooling methods were employed. In Japan, the utility has tried using portable generators and
dumped tons of seawater, among other things, on the reactors in an attempt to keep them cool. A 2003 federal analysis looking at
how to estimate the risk of containment failure said that should power be knocked out by an earthquake or tornado it "would be
unlikely that power will be recovered in the time frame to prevent core meltdown." In Japan, it was
a one-two punch: first the earthquake, then the tsunami. Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled plant, found other
ways to cool the reactor core and so far avert a full-scale meltdown without electricity. "Clearly the
coping duration is an
issue on the table now," said Biff Bradley, director of risk assessment for the Nuclear Energy Institute.
"The industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have to go back in light of what we just observed and rethink station
blackout duration." David Lochbaum, a former plant engineer and nuclear safety director at the advocacy group Union of Concerned
Scientists, put it another way: "Japan shows what happens when you play beat-the-clock and lose." Lochbaum plans to use the Japan
disaster to press lawmakers and the nuclear power industry to do more when it comes to coping with prolonged blackouts, such as
having temporary generators on site that can recharge batteries. A complete loss of electrical power, generally speaking,
poses a major problem for a nuclear power plant because the reactor core must be kept cool,
and back-up cooling systems – mostly pumps that replenish the core with water_ require
massive amounts of power to work. Without the electrical grid, or diesel generators, batteries can be
used for a time, but they will not last long with the power demands. And when the batteries die, the systems
that control and monitor the plant can also go dark, making it difficult to ascertain water levels
and the condition of the core.
Power grid shutdown would cause nuclear meltdowns
Caldicott 5,
5/18/2005 (Helen – president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, Nuclear-war threat still very real, p. lexis)
103 nuclear power plants across the United States. They all rely on external electricity
supply that powers their water-coolant systems. If these were all knocked out, you would run
the risk of more than 100 Chernobyl-scale nuclear core meltdowns across the United States. All
the power plants have their own back-up generators, of course, but they would all need time crank up and too often
their testing and maintenance has been neglected because they so seldom, if ever, have had to
be used in the past, and some of them don't work when they're supposed to. Therefore there would indeed
There are
be a real risk of many Chernobyls all over the place.
Economy Impact
Blackouts collapse the econ - $30 billion is lost every day
Bryan ’03
[Jay, The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), August 19, SECTION: Business; Opinion on the Blackout; Pg. B1, HEADLINE: Power grids vital in
information age: "Just a few days could theoretically take economic growth ... right down to zero" l/n]
This worsened the already-anemic state of a U.S. economy that had been hammered by a massive stock-market
meltdown and a series of confidencesapping corporate scandals. It hurt Canada, too, weakening our biggest market.
So now, just when there are signs of healthy growth in both countries, is the last time you'd want to see a large part of the continent's
electric-power network collapse. We can be grateful that the
immediate impacts look modest. David Rosenberg,
chief North American economist with Merrill Lynch, estimates that the U.S. impact could amount to as
much as $30 billion for each day of interrupted activity. That's roughly one percentage point of
quarterly economic growth, which means that just a few days could theoretically take economic
growth in the third quarter right down to zero. But this is just the first step in his analysis. In reality, most activity
was returning to something close to normal by yesterday. More important, Rosenberg says, any losses in August are likely to be
recouped in September, much as economic activity rebounds to wipe out most losses after a severe winter storm. But even if we do
look back on the great blackout of '03 as a mere hiccup for the economy, there will be little reason for complacency. As Royal Bank
economist John Anania notes, the reliability of the
power grid is absolutely indispensable in an information-age
economy.
Blackouts collapse the econ
Horrock 3
NICHOLAS M. HORROCK, UPI Chief White House Correspondent United Press International, 8/18/03 Analysis: Bush to sell energy bill
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2003/08/18/Analysis-Bush-to-sell-energy-bill/UPI-26841061239675/
In the end, Bush would learn it was the largest electric blackout ever. Though apparently not caused by terrorism, in the span of
just nine seconds 50 million people in New York City and state, New England, Detroit, Cleveland,
Ottawa and Toronto would lose electric power, placing them in the hot, often waterless
darkness. Thousands would have to walk home; thousands would be trapped underground in subways, suspended in inoperable
elevators, or at schools and theaters. But very quickly in the past two days Bush and his energy team found that some very tricky
issues were posed by the blackout that will not be easily answered. The crisis over power in the United
States may not be temporarily as devastating as Baghdad's, but in the long run the very nature of U.S. economic and
social survival may rely upon correcting the difficulties.
Biodiversity Adv
1AC
Offshore wind farms will create artificial coral reefs which boost biodiversity
and the benefits of outweigh the risk of wind farms
Wilson 07
(Jennifer Claire, Msc Estuarine and Coastal science and management, “Offshore wind farms: Their impacts, and
potential habitat gains as artificial reefs in particular of fish,” 09/07,)
From the previous discussion of ways in which the negative environmental impacts of an offshore wind farm development could be
reduced, and potentially even be made positive, the following answers to the original questions in this study can be produced: •
The construction and operation of offshore wind farms do have some environmental impact,
such as disruption of the seabed and noise pollution, but many of these impacts are to a lesser
extent than originally predicted. In particular, the potential risk to nearby avian populations has
been shown to be much less than feared and publicised by certain groups. Furthermore, those
impacts which do still exist may be reduced through good planning. • Despite the loss of the
existing seabed habitat to make way for the installation of the turbines, this loss is relatively
small when compared to the remaining undisturbed habitat surrounding the wind farm. •
Through careful design of the required scour protection, new habitats can actually be created, which may be
beneficial not only to the surrounding ecosystems and environment, but also potentially to
local fishermen. These new habitats may act as artificial reefs, with the ability to enhance what
would previously have been a relatively bare open ocean seabed. This careful design has many aspects,
but the main factors which should make the greatest difference in terms of habitat creation
and environmental benefit include: • A range of scour protection methods to be used within
any individual offshore wind farm, including synthetic fronds, gravel and large boulders. This
will mimic a broader range of natural habitats and increase habitat heterogeneity, which has
been proven to aid increased biodiversity and abundance. • Ensure that a large range of
hydrodynamic niches are created for a wider range of species. This will allow both fast-flowing
current and shelter preferring species to find habitats within the scour protection. •
Maximisation of surface area to allow maximum levels of colonisation of benthic organisms,
which will then allow the development of a food web, leading up to supporting a diverse
species community. Ensuring diversity within this could further increase colonisation, for example
a range of smooth and pitted surfaces. 72• The use of specially designed materials, such as reef balls, to
maximise habitats and abundance. • The matching of dominant scour protection methods to
the existing local ecosystems and communities. • Good planning in terms of timing, to ensure
that the turbine foundations are in place to capture plankton and allow development of the
earliest stages of the desired food webs. The combination of all these factors should ensure
that the construction of offshore wind farms need not necessarily have a detrimental impact
on their surrounding environments, and actually have the potential to contribute to the
environment. Their application could also potentially make the development of future, larger
offshore wind farms easier to gain consent for, as their environmental argument would be
strengthened.
Coral reef going extinct now- threatens the oceans and food supplies
RO 10
(Red Orbit Online News Agency, Dr. Kent Carpenter, PhD Zoology University of Hawaii, Professor
of Zoology at Old Dominion university “Coral Reef effect would have devastating effect,” 3/10,
http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2010
2011+%E2%80%94+Bellaire+%28TX%29+%E2%80%94+Brendan+Chou+%26+Xin+Xin+Xu)
Coral reefs are slowly becoming extinct and could disappear entirely within the next century — which could
have disastrous results all over the world, experts claim. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) statistics published in a March 25 Associated Press (AP) article, roughly 19-percent of the Earth’s coral
reefs have already disappeared, and an additional 15-percent could be gone within the next two
decades. Furthermore, Dr. Kent Carpenter, a professor at Old Dominion University, believes that global climate change could result
in the extinction of the species in no more than 100 years unless more is done to combat global warming. Were that to occur, the
results could be catastrophic. Coral
reefs are eaten or inhabited by many of the oceanic fish population,
which in turn provide a food or income source for an estimated one-billion people around the
world. In addition to hunger and poverty, some predict that severe political unrest could also result,
should the coral reef actually become extinct. "You could argue that a complete collapse of the marine ecosystem
would be one of the consequences of losing corals," Carpenter told Brian Skoloff of the AP on Thursday.
"You’re going to have a tremendous cascade effect for all life in the oceans." "Whole nations
will be threatened in terms of their existence," added Carl Gustaf Lundin of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature.
They’re key to protect shorelines and prevent extinction
EPA ‘12
(Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an agency of the United States federal government which was created for the purpose of
protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. updated on
Tuesday, March 06, 2012, http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/habitat/factsheet.cfm accessed online July 11, 2012) TKT
Living coral reefs are the foundation for many marine species, and thus a crucial support for
human life. The coral reef ecosystem is an intricate and diverse collection of species that
interact with each other and the physical environment. Coral reefs are the homes of many
species including crabs, shrimp, oysters, and clams. They also provide extensive recreational and tourism
opportunities. Coral reefs are among the most diverse and biologically complex ecosystems on
earth, supporting 33% of marine fish species, according to U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF).
Reef-building corals grow where the water is clear, warm, and shallow. These conditions occur in tropical waters near the equator,
on the eastern sides of continents and around oceanic islands. According to the CRTF, an estimated
70% of the world's
reefs have been threatened or destroyed by a variety of stressors, including shoreline
development, polluted runoff from agriculture, physical damage, over-harvesting of fish,
destructive fishing, diseases, and warmer seawater temperatures. What is a Coral Reef? Coral reefs are
colonies of various types of reef-building stony hard corals. Each coral colony is composed of tiny animals, also known as polyps.
Polyps stay fixed in one place to create a colony that provides a home to symbiotic algae. Each polyp slowly secretes a hard calcium
carbonate skeleton, which serves as the base or substrate for the colony. The living animal or polyp attaches itself to the skeletal
base that it creates. The skeleton provides protection for the polyps and algae as predators approach. Calcium carbonate is
continuously deposited by the corals in the living colony, adding to the size and structure of the reef. It is these slow-growing hard
skeletal structures that build up coral reefs over long periods of time. Top of page Why are Coral Reefs Important? Coral reefs
provide a source of food and shelter for a large variety of species including fish, shellfish, fungi, sponges, sea anemones, sea urchins,
sea snakes, sea stars, worms, jellyfish, turtles, and snails. Coral
reefs protect coastlines from ocean storms and
floods. Coral reefs are environmental indicators of water quality because they can only tolerate narrow ranges of temperature,
salinity, water clarity, and other water conditions. Coral reefs make important contributions to local economies because they attract
millions of tourists every year to enjoy beaches, water sports, and other activities. Coral
reefs are important sources
of new medicines that can be used to treat diseases and other health problems. Top of page What is
Affecting the Health of Coral Reefs? Humans contribute to the deterioration of coral reefs through physical damage caused by boats
and recreational contact, and through runoff of sediments, contaminants, and nutrients from agriculture, industry, sewage, and land
clearing in the watershed. Coral bleaching slows the growth and reproduction of corals. Bleaching occurs when environmental
conditions no longer support the symbiotic relationship with photosynthetic algae, or zooxanthellae, found in coral polyps. When
the colored algae leave the coral, the coral loses its color (bleaches) and its source of food. Over the last three decades, several new
coral diseases have caused widespread mortalities. The responsible agents are known in only a few cases, and some diseases may be
caused by multiple organisms. Poor water quality, increased pollution, and elevated water temperatures increase the likelihood of
coral disease. Top of page How Does EPA Protect Coral Reefs? EPA has several programs that contribute to the protection of coral
reefs. These include research into the causes of coral reef deterioration and regulatory control programs for wastewater discharges,
storm water runoff, and ocean dumping of wastes. EPA scientists onboard EPA’s Ocean Survey Vessel Bold monitor and assess the
impacts of natural and human-caused impacts on coral reefs such as the potential effects of dredged material disposal or discharges
from sewage treatment plants. EPA participates in the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. The mission of the interagency Task Force is to
lead, coordinate, and strengthen U.S. Government actions to better preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. EPA is supporting
the development of biological assessment methods and biological criteria for states, tribes and territories to use in evaluating the
health of coral reefs and associated water quality. These methods will help us identify reefs at risk and assess the effectiveness of
protection techniques. EPA supports implementation of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Global Programme of Action
to address marine degradation from land-based activities in countries with coral reefs.
Shoreline protection key to save the horseshoe crab- independently prevents
extinction
ESI 11
(Endangered Species International, “Horseshoe crabs are one of the most fascinating
organisms!”
http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/horseshoecrabs.htmlhttp://www.endangereds
peciesinternational.org/horseshoecrabs.html)
Horseshoe crabs play an important role in the ecology and survival of migratory shorebirds
because their eggs, laid on sandy intertidal beaches, is the main source of food for millions of birds. A female can lay 90,000
eggs and it is estimated that only ten offspring survive, making the species very vulnerable to overfishing. When young hatch they go
into the water and spend about a week swimming, then settle to the bottom. Human
threatens the survival of
horseshoe crabs by affecting spawning sites and activities. For example, beach development and shoreline
modifications prevent them from reaching sandy sites. ¶ Protecting horseshoe crab populations are crucial for
the marine ecosystem and human being!
Horseshoe crab key to stop bio attack
Monaghan ’02
(Peter Monaghan of The Chronicle of Higher Education which is the No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and
university faculty members and administrators. Based in Washington, D.C., The Chronicle has more than 70 writers, editors, and
international correspondents. The Chronicle is a nine-time finalist for the National Magazine Awards, and one of its columnists was a
finalist for a 2005 Pulitzer Prize. The Chronicle has also received honors from the Education Writers Association, the Society of News
Design, the EPpy Awards, and the Webby Awards, among others. (Click here for a complete listing.) In 2007 The Chronicle was
ranked in the 10 most credible news sources by Erdos & Morgan, a widely used survey of thought leaders in the United States. The
Utne Reader that year named The Chronicle for "best political coverage" among independent newspapers. “Horseshoe Crab's Key
Role in Research Leads to a Run on the Species”, November 8, 2002 http://chronicle.com/article/In-Brief/25650/ Section: Research
& Publishing Volume 49, Issue 11, Page A14)
Your life may depend on horseshoe crabs. The distant relatives of spiders have trolled the seafloor for more than 300
million years. But 25 years ago, they figured in a key discovery of marine biology: Proteins in their blood cause
clotting in the presence of common bacteria that cause illnesses, including meningitis, E. coli
poisoning, and Legionnaire's disease. Their blood, therefore, can form a sensitive detection
system, the so-called "lysate test," for checking drugs, syringes, or any medical material that comes into contact with human
blood. Now the creatures are suffering the predations of a new, international industry, writes William Sargent, a former researcher
at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Crab Wars: A Tale of Horseshoe Crabs, Bioterrorism, and Human Health (University
Press of New England). Q. Why can't scientists just create a synthetic version of the clotting factor? A. It would cost about $100million to do the research, if you found the gene that produced the protein that you wanted, and actually it'd be a number of genes.
But nature has already given us a wonderful system where the crabs produce the lysate
themselves. You collect the animals when they come in in the spring, bleed them, and hold them and then bleed them again, and
then release them back into the wild in the fall. It's almost a form of ocean ranching. Q. Is this
a case of no one group -- drug
companies or fisherman -- being too greedy, but of too much demand over all? A. Exactly. All of a sudden
you have two or three users concentrating on one species, and things get out of hand. In the
lysate industry, the impact on them is not so much that the crabs are being killed outright while they're being bled -- there's
only about a 10-percent mortality. But they're being collected so intensely from specific areas.
Q. How might they be responsibly exploited? A. I would like to see them used only for biomedical purposes. South Carolina has done
this. That kind of regulation is not much of a hardship on fishermen. If you keep them alive and use them only for lysate, they're
worth about $2,500 over the lifetime of the animal. But if you chop them up and use them for bait, you get only about 75 cents for
that one-time use. Q. What's the future of the horseshoe crab? A. We're already seeing a coastwide decline, and that will continue
and become quite severe. That would affect the lysate industry, which would in turn affect the pharmaceutical industry. Q. Right
when we're entering a new era of biological warfare? A. Right. All
the vaccines that we're readying now to fight
bioterrorism have to be tested [with the lysate test].
Bioterror attack causes Extinction
Ochs 2
Chemical Weapons Working Group Member ("Biological Weapons must be Abolished
Immediately," June 9,http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html)
Of all the weapons of mass destruction, the genetically engineered biological weapons, many
without a known cure or vaccine, are an extreme danger to the continued survival of life on
earth. Any perceived military value or deterrence pales in comparison to the great risk these weapons pose just sitting in vials in
laboratories. While a "nuclear winter," resulting from a massive exchange of nuclear weapons, could also kill off
most of life on earth and severely compromise the health of future generations, they are
easier to control. Biological weapons, on the other hand, can get out of control very easily, as
the recent anthrax attacks has demonstrated. There is no way to guarantee the security of these doomsday weapons because very
tiny amounts can be stolen or accidentally released and then grow or be grown to horrendous proportions. The
Black Death
of the Middle Ages would be small in comparison to the potential damage bioweapons could
cause. Abolition of chemical weapons is less of a priority because, while they can also kill millions of people outright, their
persistence in the environment would be less than nuclear or biological agents or more localized. Hence, chemical weapons would
have a lesser effect on future generations of innocent people and the natural environment. Like the Holocaust, once a localized
chemical extermination is over, it is over. With nuclear
and biological weapons, the killing will probably
never end. Radioactive elements last tens of thousands of years and will keep causing cancers
virtually forever. Potentially worse than that, bio-engineered agents by the hundreds with no
known cure could wreck even greater calamity on the human race than could persistent
radiation. AIDS and ebola viruses are just a small example of recently emerging plagues with
no known cure or vaccine. Can we imagine hundreds of such plagues? HUMAN EXTINCTION IS NOW
POSSIBLE.
Horseshoe Crab Uniqueness/Solvency
Horseshoe Crab unsustainable now and key to the biomedical industry.
Majawat ’09
(Evangeline Majawat of New Straits Times (Malaysia) March 16, 2009 Monday accessed online July 11, 2012“Definitely a cracking
good crab”, Lexis) TKT
MYSTERIOUS and unappreciated, horseshoe crabs are slowly revealing their secrets to a team of local scientists. EVANGELINE
MAJAWAT discovers that their findings could just be the `eureka' moment the nation has been holding her breath for. With its
primitive armour-like shell and spiny tail, this misunderstood marine creature strikes fear in the hearts of many. But one of nature's
gentlest creatures, the horseshoe
crab could just be the nation's key to breakthrough research into
an exclusive multi-million biomedical industry currently dominated by one country. For the past
few years, horseshoe crabs or "belangkas" have been the subject of intense but low-profile research at Universiti Malaysia
Terengganu (UMT). The eight-man team has been studying two out of three species of Asian horseshoe crabs found in our waters Tachypleus gigas and Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda - in the hope of discovering a way to produce an endotoxin test kit. If successful,
Malaysia would be the second country in the world and the first in Asia to produce a test kit derived from the famous cyan-blue
blood of horseshoe crabs. More importantly, this test kit would be an alternative to the invaluable endotoxin test "Limulus
Amebocyte Lysate" (LAL), which is produced only in the United States. The prototype is expected to be ready by the end of this year,
with the end product completed by 2010. "We're on the brink of a great breakthrough. If we do produce this kit, then we won't have
to pay so much any more (for LAL)," UMT Institute of Tropical Aquaculture senior researcher Dr Zaleha Kassim told the New Straits
Times. The LAL is the standard test used by laboratories and hospitals worldwide to detect harmful bacteria and endotoxins in all
pharmaceutical products and medical devices. "We would cut cost for local labs and hospitals. And Malaysia could potentially make
a lot of money if this test kit gets into the market," Zaleha said. Fellow UMT Biological Science Department senior researcher Dr
Noraznawati Ismail believes that the local test kit would cost only half the price of the imported ones. "It generally costs more than
RM1,000 for just a minute amount of LAL. We could produce local kits which would be sold for half that sum." In December last year,
UMT received a RM1.9 million research grant from the Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry (Mosti). UMT was given two
years to study and develop a scientific protocol for the extraction of the blood compounds and production of the endotoxin test kit.
The kit would be called either "Tachypleus Amebocyte Lysate" (TAL) or "Carcinoscorpius Amebocyte Lysate" (CAL), after the genus of
the two types of horseshoe crabs. "We're in the midst of refurbishing the existing lab in UMT so we can concentrate on studying
these animals," Noraznawati said. The team is eager to extend the research to Sabah waters where the biggest of the Asian
horseshoe species, the Tachypleus tridentatus, thrives. Zaleha said a separate team of researchers were in the midst of conducting a
stock assessment study with Mosti and the Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Ministry. She said they hoped to start work in Sabah
in the middle of this year. "We're on the verge of discovering something very important," she said proudly. Pollution,
greedy
fishermen a threat to horseshoe crab ONCE considered useless, the humble "belangkas" is thrust into
the limelight as more people discover the beneficial properties of its blood. But the attention is not
always welcomed because with it, comes unsustainable demand and irresponsible fishing. Universiti Malaysia Terengganu Institute
of Tropical Aquaculture senior researcher Dr Zaleha Kassim said the
price of a horseshoe crab had skyrocketed
This, she said, had given rise to fly-by-night companies and greedy
fishermen who were all in for the quick buck. Zaleha has had to change her mobile phone number after being
from a mere 50 sen to a gut-punching RM5.
bombarded with calls from parties demanding she buy their catch. "I can't stand these people who demand that the university buy
from them. When we refuse, they'll blame us. We only need a small amount. These people call us and force us to buy up to
hundreds of horseshoe crabs," she said. Most of the time, these horseshoe crabs are found to be in poor condition. "Then, there are
those who call us for advice on how to rear horseshoe crabs. They cannot be cultivated. "Most of them die in captivity within two to
three months of being caught," she said. She also explained that it takes up to nine years for a horseshoe crab to mature sexually
and be able to mate. "There is no quick get-rich-scheme with these horseshoe crabs." Zaleha said the UMT research team would not
only draw up the scientific protocol for their blood extraction but also for the conservation of these "beautiful and gentle creatures".
"Not much is known about horseshoe crabs. They're
not a protected species but don't be fooled into
thinking that they are abundant in our waters. "It is very important that we protect them from
unsustainable fishing. This would ensure our supply if the research is successful," she said. There
are also threats from habitat destruction and pollution. "As mangrove forests disappear and beaches and the
sea are polluted, the number of these animals will dwindle," she said. Horseshoe crabs are also important for migratory birds.
"Horseshoe crabs are food source for migratory birds which flock to the country every year. If we protect the crabs, then the birds
come with the bird watchers in tow. Now, isn't that eco-tourism?" Zaleha also dismissed talk that consuming horseshoe crab meat
has traditional medicinal benefits. "It is not scientifically proven," she pointed out
Offshore wind Solves
Danish study proves ability for offshore wind to build artificial reefs.
Science Daily ’12
(Science Daily is one of the Internet’s most popular science news web sites. Since starting in 1995, the award-winning site has earned the
loyalty of students, researchers, healthcare professionals, government agencies, educators and the general public around the world. Now with
more than 3 million monthly visitors, ScienceDaily generates nearly 15 million page views a month and is steadily growing in its global audience.
No other web site offers readers the depth and breadth of breaking news about the latest scientific discoveries that ScienceDaily does in such a
user-friendly format – all freely accessible with no subscription fees. With over 65,000 research articles, 15,000 images, 2,500 encyclopedia
entries, 1,500 book reviews, and hundreds of educational videos, there is something for everyone on ScienceDaily. Updated several times a day
with breaking news and feature articles, seven days a week, the site covers discoveries in all fields of the physical, biological, earth and applied
sciences. Stories are integrated with photographs and illustrations, links to journals and academic studies, related research and topics,
encyclopedia articles, and videos, to provide a wealth of relevant information on almost every science topic imaginable – from astrophysics to
zoology. And thanks to a custom search function, readers can do their own research using the site’s extensive archive of stories, topics, articles,
videos, images and books. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100118132130.htm) TKT
Offshore wind power and wave energy foundations can increase local abundances of fish and crabs. The
reef-like constructions also favour for example blue mussels and barnacles. What's more, it is possible to
increase or decrease the abundance of various species by altering the structural design of foundation.
This was shown by Dan Wilhelmsson of the Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, in a
recently published dissertation. "Hard surfaces are often hard currency in the ocean, and these foundations can function as
artificial reefs. Rock boulders are often placed around the structures to prevent erosion (scouring) around these, and this strengthens the reef
function," says Dan Wilhelmsson.
A major expansion of offshore wind power is underway along European
coasts, and the interest is growing in countries such as the US, China, Japan, and India. Moreover, wave power
technologies are being developed very rapidly. Many thousand wind and wave power plants grouped in large arrays that each cover several
square kilometers can be expected. How marine life will react to this is not clear, but several research projects investigating the impacts of
noise, shadows, electromagnetic fields, and changes in hydrology etc. are underway. Dan Wilhelmsson
studied how offshore
wind turbines constitute habitats for fish, crabs, lobsters, fouling animals, and plants. He shows that
wind turbines, even without scour protection, function as artificial reefs for bottom dwelling fish. The
seabed in the vicinity of wind turbines had higher densities of fish compared to further away from the turbines and in reference areas. This was
despite that the natural bottoms were rich in boulders and algae. Blue mussels dominated on
the wind turbines that appeared to
offer good growth conditions. Wave power foundations, too, constituting massive concrete blocks, proved to attract fish and large
crabs. Blue mussels fall down from the surface buoys and become food for animals on the foundations and on the adjacent seabed. Lobsters
also settle under the foundations. In a large-scale experiment, holes were drilled in the foundations,
and this dramatically increased numbers of crabs. The position of the holes also proved to be of importance for the crabs.
However, aggregations of certain species may have a negative impact on other species. The number of predatory animals on artificial reefs can
sometimes become so large that the organisms they prey on, such as sea-pens, starfish, and crustaceans, are decimated in the surroundings,
and certain species can disappear entirely. "With
wind and wave energy farms, it should be possible to create large
areas with biologically productive reef structures, which would moreover be protected from bottom
trawling. By carefully designing the foundations it would be possible to favour and protect important
species or, conversely, to reduce the reef effects in order minimize the impact on an area," says Dan
Wilhelmsson.
AT Oil Rigs
Petro majors will participate --- it's a cost savings.
Texier 11 - Innovation Analyst @ Cleantech EDF [Maud Texier “Offshore Oil & Gas: a renewable energy?,” Sia Partners, July 1, 2011 pg.
http://tinyurl.com/c7pzupg
The IEA announces in its last annual report that the peak oil had been reached in 20061. Thousands of rigs, all around the world, currently
produce oil and gas from offshore fields. By 2050 however, their
decommissioning will be compulsory as their lifespan is
limited and oil resources are decreasing . How could we, first, dismantle those rigs and while avoiding on-site pollution, then,
recycle dozens of thousands tons of steel, and guarantee an optimized profitability? Far from being a burden for the petroleum
industry, on the contrary, those oil rigs can represent key-players for the energy changeover : by using them
and install offshore wind turbines on top of them. Toward the combination of offshore oil & gas with wind power
With current technologies, offshore wind turbines are still limited to water depths below 30 m. Hence, those turbines are not able to reach
greater wind potential which lies far from on-shore, beyond 30 m of water depth. Steel-jacket oil rigs, however, are installed to 60 meters
water depths, thanks to their jacket which can be to 90 meters high. By
removing the topsides from the top of the jacket
and replacing them with a wind turbine, one would significantly increase the reachable wind potential,
and on top of this, reduce noise and visual pollution usually reported by coasts inhabitants.
This concept becomes even more interesting as areas with a high density of oil rigs match with
offshore high wind potential areas: the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico for instance. Currently 450 oil rigs are standing in the
North Sea as the average wind speed is 9 m/s. Same as in the Gulf of Mexico with 3858 oil rigs for an average wind speed between 7 and 8,5
m/s. Those rigs have a 20 to 30-year lifespan; hence all of them will have to be removed by 2050. We can then easily imagine in 2050, thanks to
those rigs, offshore wind farms supplying onshore areas nearby with a high density of population. This
concept has indeed a great
potential in the Gulf of Mexico: considering for a 5 MW2 wind turbine a load factor of 23%, and for the rigs a reuse factor between
40% and 60%, depending on their shape and location, we can estimate an annual electricity production from 15,5 to 23,3 TWh, which is
equivalent to the residential electric consumption of a city such as Chicago in 2005 3. But wind energy potential is in reality far greater: offshore
wind’s load factor is actually greater than onshore’s and can reach 30% depending on the area. An unsuspected power potential Offshore
wind turbines capacities are increasing, thus the real power production will go far beyond those estimates
by 2050. Several projects are making this idea into a reality: in the North Sea, a company named Talisman has installed several steel-jacket wind
turbines for its project Beatrice. By
using offshore oil & gas” know-how”, long mastered technologies are now
experimentally used for an activity in development: wind energy. Actually the seed of this idea is already germinating in
industrials minds: SeaEnergy Renewables Company, created by former experts from the petroleum industry, has already bought the patent
rights for this concept aiming at a future marketing, and scientific studies on offshore wind potential have been performed in the Gulf of
Mexico4. Although wind turbine and steel jacket technologies are already fully mastered, their connection to the electric grid is still in
development: DC current lines lying on the seabed and covering hundreds of kilometers are still very expensive. Supergrids
are
business boom as several ongoing projects; hence we expect first feedbacks and
learning’s by ten years. Moreover additional costs to plug wind farms to the onshore electric grid, estimated
today to 700 k€/MW5, will be compensated, at least partially, by the savings on rig’s decommissioning. Thanks to
this process of reuse, the steel jacket is actually not removed from the seabed, what represents a saving on
nonetheless in the beginning of their
the overall decommissioning cost : in the Gulf of Mexico, decommissioning cost reaches 1400$/ton,
what is equal to save around 11,2 M€ per oil rig. This cost reduction added to feedbacks on offshore
electric grids will enable to improve the overall economics for this kind of project. By ten years answers will be
given to current technical padlocks. Furthermore, this concrete solution would enable, during the coming transition phase, to
capitalize on fossil fuels era’s know-how in order to promote renewable energies development. This
offshore wind energy concept represents hence the opportunity for petroleum majors to adapt to the
new emerging energy market and at the same time uses advantages of offshore wind energy against
onshore projects.
Turtles Scenario/Add On
Coral reefs important feeding area for sea turtles
NOAA ’12
(NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science. Our reach goes from the surface of the sun to the depths of the ocean floor as we work
to keep citizens informed of the changing environment around them. From daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate
monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic
vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and hightech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when
they need it. NOAA's roots date back to 1807, when the Nation’s first scientific agency, the Survey of the Coast, was established. Since then,
NOAA has evolved to meet the needs of a changing country. NOAA maintains a presence in every state and has emerged as an international
leader on scientific and environmental matters. “Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta)” February 2012
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/PDF/Loggerhead-Sea-Turtle.pdf) TKT
The loggerhead is widely distributed within its range. It may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore
areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and ship
wrecks are often used as feeding areas. Nesting occurs mainly on open beaches or along narrow bays having suitable sand, and
it is often in association with other species of sea turtles. Most loggerhead hatchlings originating from U.S. beaches are
believed to lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic gyre for an extended period of time, perhaps
as long as 7 to 12 years, and are best known from the eastern Atlantic near the Azores and Madeira.
Post-hatchlings have been found floating at sea in association with Sargassum rafts. Once they reach a certain size, these juvenile loggerheads
begin recruiting to coastal areas in the western Atlantic where they become benthic feeders in lagoons, estuaries, bays, river mouths, and
shallow coastal waters. These juveniles occupy coastal feeding grounds for about 13 to 20 years before maturing and making their first
reproductive migration, the females returning to their natal beach to nest.
Turtle Extinction destroys ocean and dune ecosystem- negatively affecting humans
STSL 2k
(Sea Turtle Survival League, Conservation group of Marine Biologist, “Why Care About Sea Turtles?,”
http://www.conserveturtles.org/sea-turtle-information.php?page=whycareaboutseaturtles)
Sea turtles, especially green sea turtles, are one of the very few animals to eat sea grass. Like normal lawn grass, sea
grass needs to be constantly cut short to be healthy and help it grow across the sea floor rather than just getting longer
grass blades. Sea turtles and manatees act as grazing animals that cut the grass short and help maintain the health of the sea grass beds. Over
the past decades, there has been a decline in sea grass beds. This decline may be linked to the lower
numbers of sea turtles. Sea grass beds are important because they provide breeding and developmental
grounds for many species of fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Without sea grass beds, many marine species humans
harvest would be lost, as would the lower levels of the food chain. The reactions could result in many
more marine species being lost and eventually impacting humans. So if sea turtles go extinct, there would
be a serious decline in sea grass beds and a decline in all the other species dependant upon the grass beds
for survival. All parts of an ecosystem are important, if you lose one, the rest will eventually follow. . Beaches and dune systems
do not get very many nutrients during the year, so very little vegetation grows on the dunes and no vegetation grows
on the beach itself. This is because sand does not hold nutrients very well. Sea turtles use beaches and the lower dunes to
nest and lay their eggs. Sea turtles lay around 100 eggs in a nest and lay between 3 and 7 nests during the summer nesting season.
Along a 20 mile stretch of beach on the east coast of Florida sea turtles lay over 150,000 lbs of eggs in the sand. Not every nest will
hatch, not every egg in a nest will hatch, and not all of the hatchlings in a nest will make it out of the
nest. All the unhatched nests, eggs and trapped hatchlings are very good sources of nutrients for the
dune vegetation, even the left over egg shells from hatched eggs provide some nutrients. Dune vegetation is able to grow and
become stronger with the presence of nutrients from turtle eggs. As the dune vegetation grows stronger
and healthier, the health of the entire beach/dune ecosystem becomes better. Stronger vegetation and root
systems helps to hold the sand in the dunes and helps protect the beach from erosion. As the number of turtles
declines, fewer eggs are laid in the beaches, providing less nutrients. If sea turtles went extinct, dune
vegetation would lose a major source of nutrients and would not be as healthy and would not be strong enough
to maintain the dunes, resulting in increased erosion. Once again, all parts of an ecosystem are important, if you lose one, the rest
will eventually follow. Sea turtles are part of two ecosystems, the beach/dune system and the marine system. If
sea turtles went extinct, both the marine and beach/dune ecosystems would be negatively affected.
And since humans utilize the marine ecosystem as a natural resource for food and since humans utilize the
beach/dune system for a wide variety of activities, a negative impact to these ecosystems would
negatively affect humans.
Healthy Ocean Systems are key to human survival
Craig 03
(– Associate Professor of Law @ Indiana – 2003 (Robin Kundis, “Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness
Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review,
Winter [34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155], Lexis/Nexis)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but
these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically
valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations,
services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem
"ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global
geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms,
function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally,
carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense,
therefore,
human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life.
Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems . Current
evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly
dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef
ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of
interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem
functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects
on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining
and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of
marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.
However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean
ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how
little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems.
The United States has
traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic
harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not
completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral
reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really
do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness
whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine
ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know
this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The
Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving
out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly,
the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.
Biodiversity Impact
Every species lost weakens the environment and risks extinction.
Diner 94
(JD and writer finds in 1994. David Diner has a J.D. from Ohio states and writes for law reviews and
environmental journals. This article is from the Military Law Review in Winter of 1994)
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological
niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the
more successfully it can resist stress... like a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several
strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which is cut
anywhere breaks down as a whole." By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many
ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like
a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wing, mankind may be edging closer to
the abyss.
Ocean Probability Card
Relative probability means you should err affirmative.
Kunich 5 – Professor of Law @ Roger Williams University School of Law [John Charles Kunich, “ARTICLE: Losing Nemo: The Mass
Extinction Now Threatening the World's Ocean Hotspots,” Columbia
Journal of Environmental Law, 2005, 30 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1
On the other hand, there
is an unimaginable cost from failing to preserve the marine hotspots if they contain
could cost ourselves and our posterity untold advancements in
medicine, therapies, genetic resources, nutrients, ecosystem services, and other areas, including perhaps a cure
to a global health threat that might not materialize until centuries from now... truly a "grave error" of the first order .
[*128] But if we sit on the sidelines and fail to invest in hotspots preservation, and we "get lucky" (few species, low value, small
extinction risk), our only gain is in the form of saving the money and effort we could have spent on the hotspots. Even if this amounts to
several billion dollars a year, it is a small benefit compared to the incalculably catastrophic losses we could
suffer if we guess wrong in betting on the inaction option.
numerous species of high value at great risk of extinction. We
The Decision Matrix actually under-represents the extent to which the rational decision is to invest in hotspots preservation. Because the Decision Matrix, in tabular
form, devotes equal space to each of the sixteen possible combinations of extreme variable values, it can mislead readers into thinking that each of the sixteen
outcomes is equally probable. This is most emphatically not the case. Some of these results are far more probable than others. This problem of apparent equality of
disparate results is of the same type as a chart that depicts a person's chances of being fatally injured by a plummeting comet on the way home from work on any
given day. There are only two possible results in such a table (survives another day, or killed by meteor), and they would occupy an equal amount of tabular space
on the printed page, but the probability of the former outcome is, thankfully, much higher than the likelihood of the latter tragic event.
As explained in this Article, it is much more likely that there are numerous, even millions, of unidentified species currently living in the marine
hotspots than that these hotspots are really not centers of profuse biodiversity. It
is also very probable that the extinction
threat in our oceans is real, and significant , given what we know about the horrific effects wrought
on coral reefs and other known marine population centers by overfishing, pollution, sedimentation, and other human-made stressors.
n525 Recent discoveries have revealed very high rates of endemism in small areas such as seamounts, which
are extremely vulnerable to trawl damage. n526 Even in the deep ocean areas, there is evidence that new technologies are
making it both a possibility and a reality to exploit the previously unexploitable biodiversity in these waters via [*129] demersal
fishing/trawling, to devastating effect. n527 Only a truly Orwellian brand of doublethink could label as progress the development of fishing
methods that do to the benthic habitats what modern clearcutting has done to so many forests, only on a scale 150 times as severe, but it is
this "progress" that has brought mass extinction to the seas. n528 However, there is also the positive side, in light of the large numbers of
marine species and habitat types, including life forms adapted to extraordinary niches such as hydrothermal vents and the abyss. That is, it
would be surprising if there were not highly valuable genetic resources, natural medicines, potential sources of food, and other boons waiting
to be discovered there.
Therefore, the results that are linked to high, rather than low, values of each of the three variables are far more probable than the converse
outcomes. In
terms of probabilities , it is much more likely that either a "first order grave error" or "first order
jackpot" will occur than a "lucky wager" or an "unused insurance" result. In fact, all of the combinations with either two or three
"high" values of the variables are significantly more probable that any of the combinations with two or three "low" variable values. This
means that the tilt in favor of betting on the hotspots is much more pronounced than is apparent from a cursory
glance at the Decision Matrix. The extreme results are far likelier to fall in favor of hotspots preservation than
the opposite .
Econ Adv
1AC
Port upgrades are inadequate and federal initiatives fail—private investment key
Natale ‘13
[We Need $30.2 Billion by 2020¶ By Patrick J. Natale, P.E.¶ P.E., Executive Director, American Society of Civil Engineers,
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2013/01/ports-matter-too.php]
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that over 95 percent of overseas trade produced or consumed by the United States moves through
our nation’s 300 commercial ports. Yet, our
ports are in danger of losing their competitive advantage due to the
slow and very complex process of critical dredging projects. Wednesday’s hearing by the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the status of the nation's ports put a giant spotlight on that alarming fact.
This issue is made all the more critical due to the looming arrival of new, larger container ships that
will begin to pass through America’s ports once upgrades to the Panama Canal are completed in
2015.¶ To accommodate this new traffic, U.S. seaports and inland waterways will need an investment
of $30.2 billion by 2020 according to a report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). In Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of
Current Investment Trends in Airports, Inland Waterways, and Marine Ports Infrastructure, ASCE finds that only $14.4 billion in inland waterway
and seaport funding is anticipated by 2020, creating a funding gap of $15.8 billion. ¶ This funding gap will have many consequences.
Congestion and delays in our ports lead to goods sitting on the docks and in warehouses for shipment.
These delays increase transportation costs for businesses, and then these costs are passed on to American families at the
checkout counter. According to the ASCE study, if we do not invest in our nation’s ports and inland waterways systems, we are on a
target to lose 738,000 jobs in 2020 and nearly $1 trillion in personal disposable income over next
seven years.¶ The good news is that with the additional investment between now and 2020, the
nation can eliminate this potential drag on our economy.¶ Unless America’s infrastructure investment gaps are filled,
transporting goods will become costlier, prices will rise, and the United States will become less competitive in the global market. The nation’s
seaports and inland waterways are critical links that make international commerce possible, and they deserve our attention. ¶
And, reliance on government deepening projects devastates port competitiveness,
prevents upgrades
Economist ‘13
[Crying out for dollars, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21571167-underinvestment-ports-and-inland-waterways-imperilsamerican-competitiveness-crying-out]
But it will take far more than that to get America’s maritime infrastructure in the condition it ought to be. Like much of America’s
infrastructure, its ports,
locks, dams and inland waterways are old, underinvested in, and too often
ignored—to the cost of the businesses that depend on them, and the consumers both in America and abroad who
buy things that pass through them. Some 70% of America’s imports and 75% of its exports go through its ports.¶
The number of ships calling at American ports is rising—by 13% in 2010 after an 8% decline a year earlier—as is those
ships’ size: after expansion is complete in 2014, the Panama Canal will accommodate 366-metre-long ships with a 15metre draft, compared with pre-expansion lengths of 294 metres and 12-metre drafts. The canal’s expansion will make it
easier for Asian ships to reach America’s east and gulf coasts—home to five of its ten busiest container ports—and for
American commodities to cross the Pacific. By 2030 “post-Panamax” ships are expected to comprise a majority of the world’s container ship
capacity. And yet just
seven of American container ports stand ready to receive such ships—and only one of these
president approved plans to deepen or begin the long
review process of deepening ports in Charleston, Jacksonville, Miami, New York/New Jersey and Savannah, but—as the
Industrial Canal lock shows—a long and winding road runs between approval and completion. And
approval does not necessarily come with funding. Kurt Nagle, who heads the American Association of Ports Authorities, says
is in the South, where population growth is highest.¶ Last year the
that in the next five years “public ports and their private partners expect to invest $9 billion in port infrastructure There… is a shared
responsibility, and the federal government, we believe, is not upholding its end of the partnership.”
The impact is total breakdown in economic competitiveness
O’hare ‘13
[US risks falling behind competition¶ By Kerry O'Hare¶ Vice President, Director of Policy, Building America's Future,
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2013/01/ports-matter-too.php]
Ports are indeed integral to the U.S. economy. Trade between the U.S. and other countries increased
by 13 percent a year between 2003 and 2008. Our freight transportation system was not built for the
explosive growth of coast-to-coast shipping and international trade experienced over the past two
decades, and our economically vital gateways and corridors – our primary port, road, and rail routes for shipping goods in
and out of the country – now operate at or over capacity. Congestion plagues our freight corridors and acts
as a drag on the American economy as a whole. In Chicago, the nation’s biggest rail center, congestion is so bad that it takes a
freight train longer to get through the city limits than it does to get to Los Angeles. ¶ Freight moving by water is slowed by similar constraints on
capacity and limitations of aging infrastructure. Many of our ports were built for the last century’s economy, without sufficient intermodal
access for increased container traffic. And only two East Coast ports can currently accommodate the post-Panamax ships that will become more
common with the widening of the Panama Canal.¶ As described in our Falling Apart and Falling Behind report, our inland waterways are
similarly overburdened as dozens of locks along major inland shipping routes are past their 50-year lifespan, and some are more than a century
old and showing their age.¶ The
bottom line is that delays in freight movement impose real costs on
businesses that reduce productivity, impede our economic competitiveness and increase prices for consumers. ¶
It is clearly time for policymakers to get serious about modernizing the nation’s infrastructure policy. We need a long term strategy that
prioritizes investment in our economically vital gateways and corridors and on projects that will provide the greatest economic returns. MAP-21
has started to lay the groundwork for much needed policy reforms with regard to surface transportation but more needs to be done. For
example, it has been roughly five years since Congress approved that last WRDA bill. This looks to change in the 113th Congress as both
Chairmen Shuster and Boxer have made passage of a new WRDA a bill a priority for both of their committees. That is welcome news.¶ But
until these long term strategies are put in place, the U.S. risks having our global economic competitors
pass us by. We must not allow that to happen.
Competitiveness prevents great power war
Baru, Singapore Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy visiting professor, 2009
(Sanjaya, “Geopolitical Implications of the Current Global Financial Crisis”, Strategic Analysis, Volume
33, Issue 2 March 2009, http://www.india-seminar.com/2009/593/593_sanjaya_baru.htm)
The management of the economy, and of the treasury, has been a vital aspect of statecraft from
time immemorial. Kautilya’s Arthashastra says, ‘From the strength of the treasury the army is born. …men without wealth do
not attain their objectives even after hundreds of trials… Only through wealth can material gains be
acquired, as elephants (wild) can be captured only by elephants (tamed)… A state with depleted resources, even if acquired, becomes only a
liability.’4 Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.5 In the modern era, the
idea that strong economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. ‘Victory (in war),’
Kennedy claimed, ‘has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base.’6 Drawing attention to the interrelationships between
economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power
projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others.
‘The fact remains,’ Kennedy argued, ‘that all of the major shifts in the world’s military-power
balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling
of the various empires and states in the international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of
the major Great Power wars, where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest material
resources.’7 In Kennedy’s view the geopolitical consequences of an economic crisis or even decline would be transmitted through a nation’s
inability to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously sustain economic growth and military power – the classic ‘guns vs butter’
dilemma. Apart from such fiscal disempowerment of the state, economic
under-performance would also reduce a
nation’s attraction as a market, a source of capital and technology, and as a ‘knowledge power’. As
power shifted from Europe to America, so did the knowledge base of the global economy. As China’s power rises, so does its profile as a
‘knowledge economy’. Impressed by such arguments the China Academy of Social Sciences developed the concept of Comprehensive National
Power (CNP) to get China’s political and military leadership to focus more clearly on economic and technological performance than on military
power alone in its quest for Great Power status.8 While China’s impressive economic performance and the consequent rise in China’s global
profile has forced strategic analysts to acknowledge this link, the recovery of the US economy in the 1990s had reduced the appeal of the
Kennedy thesis in Washington DC. We must expect a revival of interest in Kennedy’s arguments in the current context. A historian of power who
took Kennedy seriously, Niall Ferguson, has helped keep the focus on the geopolitical implications of economic performance. In his masterly
survey of the role of finance in the projection of state power, Ferguson defines the ‘square of power’ as the tax bureaucracy, the parliament, the
national debt and the central bank. These four institutions of ‘fiscal empowerment’ of the state enable nations to project power by mobilizing and
deploying financial resources to that end.9 Ferguson
shows how vital sound economic management is to strategic
policy and national power. More recently, Ferguson has been drawing a parallel between the role of debt and financial crises
in the decline of the Ottoman and Soviet empires and that of the United States of America. In an early comment on the present financial crisis,
Ferguson wrote: ‘We are indeed living through a global shift in the balance of power very similar to that which occurred in the 1870s. This is the
story of how an over-extended empire sought to cope with an external debt crisis by selling off revenue streams to foreign investors. The empire
that suffered these setbacks in the 1870s was the Ottoman empire. Today it is the US… It remains to be seen how quickly today’s financial shift
will be followed by a comparable geopolitical shift in favour of the new export and energy empires of the east. Suffice to say that the historical
analogy does not bode well for America’s quasi-imperial network of bases and allies across the Middle East and Asia. Debtor
empires
sooner or later have to do more than just sell shares to satisfy their creditors. …as in the 1870s the balance of
financial power is shifting. Then, the move was from the ancient Oriental empires (not only the Ottoman but also the Persian and Chinese) to
Western Europe. Today the shift is from the US – and other western financial centres – to the autocracies of the Middle East and East Asia.’10
An economic or financial crisis may not trigger the decline of an empire. It can certainly speed up a
process already underway. In the case of the Soviet Union the financial crunch caused by the Afghan war came on top of years of
economic under-performance and the loss of political legitimacy of the Soviet state. In a democratic society like the United States the political
legitimacy of the state is constantly renewed through periodic elections. Thus, the election of Barack Obama may serve to renew the legitimacy of
the state and by doing so enable the state to undertake measures that restore health to the economy. This the Soviet state was unable to do under
Gorbachev even though he repudiated the Brezhnev legacy and distanced himself from it
Only port upgrades solve—spills over to global trade and economic leadership
Kiefer et al, 2k
principal investigator for Planning and Management Consultants– study authorized by Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999, report to the US Army Corps of Engineers (Jack, Planning and Management Consultants, “The National Dredging Needs Study of Ports and
Harbors Implications to Cost-Sharing of Federal Deep Draft Navigation Projects Due to Changes in the Maritime Industry”, May 2000,
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/iwrreports/00-R-8.pdf)
Some benefits of harbor improvements are difficult or impossible to quantify. For individual projects these are given little attention. Policy
decisions concerning project authorizations and appropriations should consider intangible benefits as well as tangible direct and secondary
benefits. This idea is particularly applicable to international trade and specifically container trade. For example, America is such a big market,
international trade gives the U.S. considerable leverage when dealing with foreign governments.
Thus, international trade can enhance the United States’ role as a world leader. National harbors are
also a vital part of our military’s power projection platform. Economists believe in the law of comparative advantage,
which states that nations benefit when they specialize in producing certain goods and services and then trade with each other rather than
producing everything themselves. For example, most people perceive that the majority of foreign trade consists of consumer goods such as
clothing and televisions. However, as shown in Table 2-2, a significant portion
of U.S. foreign trade consists of semimanufactured commodities and raw materials such as iron and steel or crude petroleum. These
products are used to produce other goods, or are further processed in the importing country. For
example, in the United States imported car parts are often used to produce exports of finished
automobiles. Machinery and electrical equipment are often used the same way. Thus, efficient flow of
international commodities is important for all nations including the United States. Global trade is very
competitive and profit margins are thin. This is particularly true for maritime transportation including
the container shipping industry. . Growth in U.S. foreign trade, even though it is substantial, is not as high as growth in total
international trade, particularly with respect to containerships. It is quite possible for some U.S. trade to be diverted or to be serviced by less
efficient ships. This may occur if American ports and the Federal government are not able to meet current challenges posed by developments in
international trade. 2.2.4 Lost Benefits There are lost benefits associated with delays in the construction of harbor improvement projects. Costs
increase with delays, not only because of inflation but because the construction process becomes distorted by available funds. Costs associated
with delays can and have been estimated. Typically, a year’s delay in schedule leads to a penalty of more than 10 percent of project cost. This is
sizable and should be considered when making cost-sharing policies. Cost-sharing policies should seek to insure that both public ports and the
Federal government fund projects in a timely manner. There are also benefits foregone due to lost transportation cost savings with project
delays. Project delays affect the Nation in another way. Although these benefits are difficult to quantify, such effects are perhaps more
important than those that can be measured. Delays create an uncertain atmosphere that can impact decisions to develop infrastructure
elsewhere. Container ports are very capital intensive and require long term planning. Massive containerships are rapidly being put into service
at ports throughout the world. Without a clear signal of intent to accommodate these vessels in the United States, necessary ports and facilities
may be built elsewhere. Once major investments are made elsewhere, the full efficiencies of large containerships in the form of lower
transportation costs for general cargo may be lost to the Nation for a long time to come. 2.3 Geographical Incidence of International Trade
Public ports generally have a regional or local economic development mandate along with authorizations to improve harbor facilities. This does
not mean, however, that local economies near ports capture all or most of the benefits associated with international trade. For example, when
a port unloads crude petroleum from a ship, it charges a fee that generates revenues for the port and the local community. But imported oil
also fuels cars and homes throughout the Nation. Likewise, when a port loads grain or coal onto a ship for export, farmers in the U.S. heartland
benefit as do coal miners in the hills of West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Container trade benefits all regions of the country as well. As
shown in Table 2-3, fifteen U.S. ports account for about 80 percent of international maritime trade in terms of value. These ports represent only
ten states, however much of the cargo they handle flows to other regions. Table 2-4 shows the origin and destination of international cargo for
each U.S. state measured in terms of value. On average, any given state uses the services of 15 different ports around the country. For example,
the California ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland collectively handle about $187 billion worth of cargo, but the state of California is
the origin or destination of only $106 billion. While most container trade flows in and out of ports on the East and West Coasts, it is distributed
throughout the Nation as shown in Tables 2-5 and 2-6. For instance, the Port of Charleston, S.C. handled about 800 thousand TEUs in 1996, but
the state of South Carolina was the origin or destination of only 160 thousand of these TEUs. Similarly, the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach
and Oakland handled five million TEUs but only 2.5 million originated or were destined to sites within
California. [table omitted] 2.4 Conclusion The benefits of harbor improvements are numerous.
Expenditures for harbor improvements have facilitated international trade by providing ships more
efficient access to the Nation's ports. International trade in turn creates and sustains jobs and
generates Federal tax revenues. Foreign commerce has become crucial to the economic well-being of
the United States. In 1946, U.S. international trade represented a relatively small portion of the U.S.
economy, but today foreign trade accounts for 27 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Harbor
improvements also affect prices of U.S. imports and exports. With deeper channels vessel operators
can load more cargo onto a ship and sail deeper, or they can use larger more efficient vessels. Unit
transportation costs decline and lower transportation costs are reflected in commodity prices.
Intangible benefits are also important. Free trade promotes international relations and stability and
bolsters the United States’ position as a world leader. Lastly, it is important to stress that the economic benefits of international trade are
widespread and are not limited to a handful of coastal states.
The plan solves expanded offshore wind development increases port capacities and
causes port upgrades
Taylor, 12
[10/25/12, OFFSHORE WIND, Phil Taylor, E&E reporter¶ http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/10/25/1]
NORFOLK, Va. -- Port officials
here are vowing to roll out the red carpet for the nascent offshore wind
industry.¶ The Port of Virginia, home to Naval Station Norfolk and the world's largest militaryindustrial complex, hopes to become a home base for assembling, shipping and installing massive
wind turbines for mid-Atlantic power projects.¶ It is among a handful of East Coast ports jockeying for
a piece of what business leaders here say could be a $15 billion prize in offshore wind projects over
the next decade.¶ "We welcome you here; we want you here," Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) told hundreds of industry officials who gathered
earlier this month at the American Wind Energy Association's annual offshore wind conference at the Virginia Beach Convention Center. "We
want this to be the epicenter of this new and growing industry."¶ Cranes stand guard at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal in Hampton Roads.
State officials hope offshore wind developers use the area to store and assemble turbine parts. Photo by Phil Taylor.¶ Virginia officials say their
state offers a steady but powerful ocean breeze in waters that are shallow but far enough from shore to protect the coastal scenery.¶
Offshore wind, a keystone of the Obama administration's energy policy, could offer significant
onshore job opportunities from Savannah, Ga., to Maine, proponents said. The sheer size and weight
of offshore wind turbines will require significant upgrades to docks and ships.¶ Virginia officials touted their
port's deep waters, unrestricted navigation and proximity to the ocean in hopes of elbowing out competitors in Baltimore; Narragansett, R.I.;
and New Bedford, Mass.¶ The wind industry is backed by labor groups, including dock builders and pile drivers who sponsored an exhibit at the
AWEA conference, in addition to environmental groups that see offshore turbines as a significant opportunity to transition away from carbonintensive fuels.¶ But the industry has been hobbled by high costs, unsettled federal energy policy and, in the
case of the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts, a handful of lawsuits over impacts to viewsheds, cultural resources and airplanes.¶ Offshore
wind development has occurred almost exclusively in Europe -- where more than 50 projects and nearly 4,000 megawatts have been installed
in the past decade, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States could see up to 54,000 MW of projects in the Atlantic by
2030, DOE said.¶ J.J. Keever, senior deputy executive director for the Virginia Port Authority, said the building boom in Europe has spawned
major land-based projects like England's Green Port Hull, a collaboration between Siemens and the owners of the Alexandra Dock, to
manufacture and export offshore wind turbines.¶ Siemens this summer signed a deal reportedly worth $3.1 billion to supply 300 turbines for
offshore projects owned by Danish firm DONG Energy, according to the BBC. Components for those turbines would be built at the port.¶ "I
show you that to compare it to Portsmouth Marine Terminal," he said, referring to a 285-acre former container facility in Virginia that stands
vacant along the shores of the Elizabeth River, and which port officials here are promoting as a staging area for offshore wind.¶ From the deck
of a local tour boat, the Victory Rover, the Portsmouth terminal's massive blue cranes could be seen standing idly along the waterfront. The
terminal closed in 2010 when container-handling operations were moved to the other side of the port.¶ A few miles north, a dump truck
rumbled over Craney Island, a man-made peninsula that for decades has served as a dumping ground for muck dredged from the seabed. The
Army Corps of Engineers has authorized the island's east end to become a 500-acre marine terminal, the port's fourth.¶ 'Flash in the pan'?¶
Keever said offshore
wind could generate more than $400 million in economic growth in Virginia alone,
ranging from the fabrication of turbine foundations to the outfitting of electric service platforms,
charter vessels, leasing of large port landings and transmission upgrades.¶ Docks and boats will need
to be able to support turbines weighing more than 325 tons and their subsea foundations, which weigh upward of 450 tons,
according to Richard Palmer, vice president of Weeks Marine Inc., a New Jersey-based vessel contractor.¶ Weeks in June launched the first U.S.built vessel designed exclusively for the installation of wind turbines at sea.¶ The R.D. MacDonald will elevate itself by sinking eight giant legs
into the seafloor, providing a platform for a crane to lower turbines into the water.¶ General Dynamics works on a ship on the Elizabeth River.
Offshore wind farms will require extensive port infrastructure, and labor, to support East Coast projects. Photo by Phil
Taylor.¶ "What we are looking for, obviously, is a continuing industry," said Palmer. "We don't want this to be a flash in the pan. ... We need to
keep the vessel working in order to pay for it."
The plan causes colocation of manufacturing and port upgrades – creates a
sustainable industry
AWEA, 11
[American Wind Energy Assosciation, http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/factsheets/upload/Offshore-WindAmerica-s-New-Energy-Opportunity.pdf]
Offshore Wind: America’s New Energy Opportunity¶ We
must act urgently to support the development of the first
generation of offshore wind projects in the United States in order to capture a new American
manufacturing opportunity and create thousands of new American jobs. Newly created manufacturing
facilities and the associated jobs will be located in some of the areas of our country where they are
needed most, near ports along the Eastern Seaboard, the Gulf Coast and in the Great Lakes region. In addition, offshore wind will
allow us to tap a vast new source of clean domestic energy that will help to stabilize energy prices.¶ Offshore wind energy development will
Once a pipeline of projects is established, there is a tremendous opportunity for
regional port and supply chain development in support of the offshore wind industry. Substantial
industrial manufacturing jobs are expected to be created to manufacture turbines, foundations, blades, sub-stations, and
create American jobs¶
cables.¶
e U.S.
could create more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance jobs and approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt (MW).i¶
-based wind industry in the U.S., which has created over 75,000 jobs and contributed to the placement of over 400
manufacturing facilities across 43 states, ii demonstrates the economic development potential for offshore wind.¶
including both land-based and offshore, DOE estimates that the wind industry will support 500,000 American jobs by 2030.iii¶ Offshore wind is
an established global industry and a new opportunity for the United States¶
the potential for offshore wind power in the U.S. is four times greater than the country's current total generating capacity from all sources.iv¶
The first offshore wind farm was installed off the coast of Denmark in 1991 and in Europe today, 4,000 MW of offshore wind capacity has been
constructedv. This is enough electricity to power the equivalent of almost 1.3 million homes in the U.S.vi¶
of the equivalent of $10.76 billion, Europe is expected to have installed 40,000 MW of offshore wind capacity,vii enough electricity to power
the equivalent of almost 13 million homes in the U.S.viii¶
sector to 5,000 MW by 2015 and 30,000 MW by 2020ix, enough electricity to power the equivalent of 1.6 million and almost 10 million U.S.
homes respectively.
That ensures port and industry clusters
Bowen, 11
[Offshore Wind: Port and Staging Area Needs and Status WEBINAR, resenters:¶ James Bowen, Program Manager, Clean Energy Sector
Development, MASSACHUSETTS CLEAN ENERGY CENTER (MASSCEC)¶ Joel Constantino, Vice President, Director of Operations, NEW ENGLAND
STEAMSHIP AGENTS, INC.¶ Brian Fariello, Ship Power Sales, WARTSILA NORTH AMERICA¶ Fred Hashway, Director of Strategic Initiatives,
RHODE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, http://infocastinc.com/events/offshorewindweb]
A critical infrastructure requirement for the installation of offshore wind farms is a port facility
designed to serve as the central logistical point for delivery of components and construction of wind
turbines before they are loaded onto installation vessels. As a base of operations for offshore wind
projects, port facilities are drivers for the resulting economic development and industry clustering
that comes from the wind farm construction activity. In Southern New England, the offshore wind industry cluster has
been growing in large part due to the expectation that New Bedford, MA and Quonset Point, RI will be the two primary regional ports used in
future wind farm installations. ¶ This webinar presented by officials representing the New Bedford and Quonset facilities will discuss the role
that port facilities play in offshore wind projects, including the following topic areas:¶ The logistical role of a port facility in an offshore wind
project ¶ Port selection criteria and basic requirements ¶ Major design elements of an offshore wind port facility ¶ Misconceptions and pitfalls
in designing an offshore wind port facility ¶ Compare/contrast the European port experience with the US experience ¶ Economic development
benefits ¶ How
ports create industry clusters: Southern New England offshore wind cluster as a case
study ¶ vessel selection ¶ the process of importing Offshore Wind components
And, causes the deepening of ports
Barlow, 11
[Jason, Jason practices in the Maritime Law and Government Contracts Practice Group at Troutman Sanders, where his practice focuses on a
variety of maritime related matters, including regulatory compliance, maritime contract, marine insurance, general average, salvage, cargo
damage, and charter party disputes, vessel documentation and finance, marine pollution, vessel collisions, maritime personal injury and marine
insurance defense and subrogation. Jason is also a member of Troutman Sanders’ Renewable Energy Practice Team, which advises clients
engaged in a variety of renewable energy projects, including offshore wind energy development. ¶ Jason is a 2010 graduate of Tulane
University Law School, where he concentrated his studies on admiralty and maritime law, earning a Juris Doctorate with Maritime Law
Certificate, cum laude. While in law school, he served as Senior Notes and Comments Editor of the Tulane Maritime Law Journal. In addition,
Jason worked as law clerk at Ostendorf, Tate, Barnett, and Wells, LLP, a New Orleans based law firm specializing in transportation,
admiralty/maritime, and premises liability litigation. He also worked as law clerk at Forrester & Dick, a Baton Rouge boutique law firm
specializing in, among other practice areas, railroad defense litigation. ¶ Prior to attending law school, Jason earned his Bachelor of Arts in
Political Science and English, with honors, from Randolph-Macon College in 2007,
http://www.troutmansanders.com/files/FileControl/2e66ece0-0b9a-4dff-bdb7-57a768601573/7483b893-e478-44a4-8fedf49aa917d8cf/Presentation/File/TS%20-%20North%20American%20Windpower%20Article.pdf]
From the European example, it ¶ is clear that port
size is critical during the initial construction of offshore wind
farms. Port facilities ¶ must have acres of lay-down space ¶ to unload, store and pre-assemble ¶ turbine
and monopole components. ¶ The Port of Viissingen, for example, ¶ has more than 50 acres of
dedicated ¶ component-storage space. ¶ Construction ports also need ¶ deep water and substantial
pier and ¶ berth facilities to accommodate the ¶ large vessels. Viissingen, for example, ¶ boasts water depths of over 54
feet ¶ along over 1,100 feet of berth, and ¶ Harwich has up to 31 feet of water ¶ along more than 3,000 feet of berth. ¶ These wharf facilities
must be sturdy ¶ and equipped with heavy-lift cranes ¶ to load and unload the massive wind ¶ farm
components.¶ Furthermore, transit between the ¶ construction ports and open sea must ¶ be quick, with
no significant air or sea ¶ draft restrictions. Given these require ¶ ments, the ports of Dunkirk, Ilarwich ¶ and Viissin gen have emerged as lead ¶
ers in offshore wind farm construc ¶ tion support. Each of these ports has ¶ substantial lay-down space, an ability ¶ to accommodate large
vessels, heavy- ¶ lift capability, deep water, no air draft ¶ restrictions, and a proximity to Eu ¶ rope’s largest wind farms. ¶ European offshore
wind develop ¶ ers also looked for ports that offered ¶ turnkey solutions. That is, ports
that ¶ could provide facilities not only
to receive completed turbines, but also to ¶ manufacture and assemble the equip ment. This combination of manufac¶
turing, pre-assembly and loading at ¶ one single port can provide substan ¶ tial savings over facilities that require ¶ turbines to be constructed
at one lo ¶ cation and then shipped to another. ¶ The Port of Viissingen, for example, ¶ has created a separate offshore wind ¶ terminal,
complete with available ex ¶ pansion space, in an effort to court ¶ the European offshore wind industry. ¶ Smaller ports have also played siz ¶
able roles in Europe’s offshore wind ¶ energy development. The Port of ¶ Rainsgate, a small commercial fishing ¶ and recreational harbor in the
U.K., ¶ has been designated as the O&M base ¶ for two of the world’s largest offshore ¶ wind farms: the London Array project ¶ and the Thanet
offshore wind farm. ¶ Location trumps port size when it ¶ comes to lifelong O&M of offshore ¶ wind farms. To maintain the Lon ¶ don Array and
Thanet projects, it is ¶ estimated that fewer than a dozen ¶ smaller vessels, such as crew and work ¶ boats, will be needed. Several smaller ¶
ports, such as Ramsgate, are capable ¶ of accommodating these vessels, and ¶ Ramsgate’s location allows these ves-¶ sels to sail to wind farm
sites in less ¶ than an hour — a distinct advantage ¶ for long-term wind farm maintenance. ¶ Along the eastern seaboard of ¶ the U.S., ports
are investing in in infrastructure and vying to establish ¶ themselves as the most suitable port ¶ for
offshore wind investment and de ¶ velopment. Drawing from European ¶ offshore wind experience, offshore ¶ wind proponents in
the U.S. estimate ¶ that vessels transporting component ¶ parts may require berths of at least ¶ 450 feet and navigation channels with ¶ at least
24-foot drafts, 130-foot lateral ¶ clearance, and air draft sufficient to ¶ transport jack-up rigs and turbines ¶ in upright positions from terminal ¶
facilities to wind farm sites. ¶ The final assembly and
deployment of the turbines must occur at ¶ high-capacity port
facilities equipped ¶ with rail and heavy-lift cranes, due to ¶ the size and weight of offshore wind¶ farm
components. Although component parts could be manufactured ¶ off-site, cost efficiencies and transport ¶ logistics favor centralizing
manufac ¶ turing and assembly functions for ¶ turbines, towers and blades. ¶ Component manufacturers are the ¶ primary targets for ports
hoping to ¶ take the lead in offshore wind devel ¶ opment. For these manufacturers, lay ¶ down space is a major infrastructure ¶ consideration
once channel depth ¶ and vertical and lateral clearance arc ¶ deemed sufficient to support offshore ¶ wind development. ¶ Along the east coast
of the U.S.,¶ several terminals may emerge as vi ¶ able options for manufacturers; ¶ however, due to inadequate bridge ¶ clearance or
insufficicnt lay-down ¶ acreage, sorne of these sites may be ¶ limited to support and maintenance ¶ operations or to the manufacture ¶ of
smaller component parts, rather ¶ than staging ports for final turbine ¶ assembly ¶ For example, there is unobstruct ¶ ed access to the South
Terminal in ¶ the Port of New Bedford, Mass., and ¶ the Portsmouth Marine Terminal in ¶ the Port of Virginia. With 150 feet ¶ of lateral
clearance in the channel ¶ leading to the South Terminal, the ¶ Port of New Bedford has proposed a ¶ plan to expand the terminal’s berth ¶ to
1,600 feet and to dredge a 30-foot ¶ channel to that berth and the 14 acres¶ to 20 acres of land adjacent to it. ¶ 1’hc Portsmouth Marine
‘l’erminal ¶ sits on 219 acres of land with 3,540 ¶ feet of wharf, three berths and six ¶ cranes. Although the Port of Virginia ¶ will build a 500,000
square-foot paper ¶ and pulp warehouse facility on term j ¶ nal property in the next year, the port ¶ still has room for growth. ¶ The port has
water depths of 43 ¶ feet at the entrance channel and at ¶ the terminal wharf, which will allow it ¶ to accommodate large purpose-built ¶
offshore wind vessels. Its geographic ¶ location on the mid-Atlantic coast ¶ is ideal for offshore wind manufac ¶ turers and maintainers looking
to ¶ serve wind farms north and south of ¶ Virginia. ¶ The Port of Baltimore is a deep ¶ water port with substantial lay-down¶ acreage and
heavy-lift capability. The ¶ North Locust Point Terminal, in par ¶ ticular, sits on 90 acres and cornes ¶ equipped with two 75-ton gantry ¶ cranes.
The terminal has 19 acres ¶ of outside storage space, two sheds ¶ with a combined 399,311 square feet ¶ of covered storage space, and five ¶
34-foot draft finger piers. ¶ However, the Port of Baltimore has ¶ a disadvantage when compared with ¶ other East Coast ports because it is ¶
125 miles inland on the Chesapeake ¶ Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge pro ¶ vides only 1 86 feet of vertical clear ¶ ance, which is likely
insufficient to ¶ accommodate turbine assembly and ¶ delivery to offshore wind farm sites. ¶ Savannah, Ga.’s Ocean Terminal ¶ includes 73
acres of open storage, fIve ¶ dccpwatcr berths totaling 3,599 feet ¶ with a depth alongside of 42 feet, 1.4 ¶ million square lèet. of covered
storage ¶ with 60% immediately adjacent to ¶ the berth, and 73 acres of paved open ¶ storage with additional lay-down area ¶ available.
However, like the Port of ¶ Baltimore, the potential of the Ocean ¶ Termina] is limited by a bridge; the ¶ Talmadge Bridge has only 185 feet of ¶
vertical clearance.¶ The Port of Charleston is hop ¶ ing to attract offshore wind manu ¶ facturers with a $45 million federal ¶ grant awarded to
Clemson University ¶ for the development of a wind tur ¶ bine testing laboratory at the Clem ¶ son University Restoration Institute ¶ in North
Charleston, S.C. Two of ¶ Charleston’s five terminals arc ca ¶ pable of handling traditional break ¶ bulk, heavy-lift and project cargo. ¶ Both have
sufficiently deep channels ¶ and wharves, ample warehouses, open ¶ storage and berth space, and short ¶ transit times to the ocean. Neverthe
the Port of Charleston also has ¶ low bridge clearance. ¶ As development of offshore wind ¶ progresses on the
east coast of the ¶ U.S., support and infrastructure ¶ requirements will continually be ¶ refined. In the
meantime, manufac ¶ turers will take careful account of the ¶ political climate and incentives of ¶ fered
by the various East Coast states, ¶ but the main contenders will remain ¶ the ports with the best
infrastructure ¶ to support the physical requirements ¶ of offshore wind power.
¶ less,
Offshore wind incentives solve ports
Economic incentives ensures upgrades
Sargent, ‘12 [Rob Sargent, U.S. Poised to Join the Race on Offshore Wind: Lawmakers Must Commit to
More Pollution-Free Energy”, http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/us-poised-join-raceoffshore-wind]
The Turning Point for Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy includes details on the key milestones each Atlantic Coast state and along with the wind
potential and the economic benefits. Among the highlights of the report: Offshore
wind energy will be an economic
powerhouse for America. Harnessing the 52 gigawatts of already-identified available Atlantic offshore
wind energy – just 4 percent of the estimated generation potential of this massive resource – could
generate $200 billion in economic activity, create 300,000 jobs, and sustain power for about 14 million homes. (Europe already
produces enough energy from offshore wind right now to power 4 million homes.) America is closer than ever to bringing offshore wind energy
ashore. Efforts are underway in 10 Atlantic Coast states, with over 2,000 square nautical miles of federal waters already designated for wind
energy development off of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Environmental reviews finding no
significant impacts have been completed, and leases are expected to be issued for some of these areas by the end of the year. Despite
this
progress, leadership is urgently needed at both the state and federal level to ensure offshore wind
energy becomes a reality in America: President Obama should set a clear national goal for offshore wind energy
development, and each Atlantic state governor should also a set goal for offshore wind development
off their shores. These goals must be supported by policies that prioritize offshore wind energy and
other efforts to secure buyers for this new source of reliable, clean energy.
Green Jobs Econ Add-on/Solvency
Offshore wind solves jobs
Caperton et all, 12
(Richard, the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant
for the Energy Opportunity team at American Progress. “Congress Needs To Push Targeted Incentives For Offshore Wind”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/13/403620/congress-incentives-offshore-wind/)
2011 was pretty good for advancing the U.S. offshore wind industry in many ways. The Cape Wind
project proposed for the waters off Massachusetts received its final permits from the Department of the
Interior, theoretically paving the way to begin construction on America’s first offshore wind farm. The
Obama administration advanced its “Smart from the Start” initiative, designating wind energy areas off
the coasts of five Atlantic coast states, and it is actively pursuing leases with potential developers. And
projects in state waters off New Jersey, Texas, and Ohio took important steps and cleared hurdles in the
planning and permitting stages. Unfortunately, as has been the case throughout the history of offshore
wind in this country, it soon became another example of three steps forward, two steps back. Less
than a month after Interior gave Cape Wind the green light, the Department of Energy informed the
company it would not be eligible for a loan guarantee. Then, in the waning days of the year, another
offshore wind pioneer, NRG Bluewater Wind, announced that it would back out of a three-year-old
power-purchase agreement with Delmarva Power because it couldn’t generate sufficient investor interest.
Meanwhile, developers in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Norway,
China, South Korea, and other countries are proving that offshore wind is a viable economic model.
They have permitted more than 40,000 MW of offshore wind energy capacity. The United States has
only issued permits for 488 MW. (see table) Not only does this delay reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions and our transition to renewable energy sources, but it also prevents American innovators
from taking advantage of the design, manufacturing, and construction jobs that go along with it. In
Europe, where more than 4,000 MW of offshore wind capacity is already installed, developers
expect to create 169,000 jobs by 2020 and 300,000 by 2030.
Green Jobs key to economy
DiPasquale and Gordon 11
Christina C. DiPasquale, & Kate Gordon. 9/7/2011 [Christina DiPasquale is an Associate Director for
Press Relations at the Center for American Progress, with a portfolio focusing on national security,
energy, and immigration. Prior to joining the Communications team, she served as deputy press secretary
on Congressman Joe Sestak's (D-PA) campaign for U.S. Senate. Kate Gordon is a Senior Fellow at
American Progress. Most recently, Kate was the VP for Energy Policy at American Progress, “Top 10
Reasons Why Green Jobs Are Vital to Our Economy”, Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/top_ten_green_jobs.html]
Green jobs are integral to any effort to jumpstart our economy and reduce as rapidly as possible
our 9.1 percent unemployment rate. The rapid growth of green jobs will boost demand in our economy
by reducing unemployment, make America more competitive in the global economy, and protect
our public health—all of which will result in greater economic productivity and long-term
economic prosperity. Here are the top 10 reasons why this is the case today and into the future: 1. There are already 2.7 million jobs
across the clean economy. Clean energy is already proving to be larger job creation engine than the heavily
subsidized fossil-fuels sector, putting Americans back to work in a lackluster economy. 2. Across a range of clean energy projects,
including renewable energy, transit, and energy efficiency, for every million dollars spent, 16.7 green jobs are created. That is over three times
the 5.3 jobs per million dollars that are created from the same spending on fossil-fuel industries. 3. The
clean energy sector is
growing at a rate of 8.3 percent. Solar thermal energy expanded by 18.4 percent annually from 2003 to 2010, along with solar
photovoltaic power by 10.7 percent, and biofuels by 8.9 percent over the same period. Meanwhile, the U.S. wind energy industry saw 35 percent
average annual growth over the past five years, accounting for 35 percent of new U.S. power capacity in that period, according to the 2010 U.S.
Wind Industry Annual Market Report. As a whole, the clean energy sector’s average growth rate of 8.3 percent annually during this period was
nearly double the growth rate of the overall economy during that time. 4. The production of cleaner cars and trucks is employing over 150,000
workers across the United States today. These job numbers are likely to increase as improved car and light truck standards recently announced by
President Barack Obama will require more skilled employees and encourage further investment. 5. Median wages are 13 percent higher in green
energy careers than the economy average. Median salaries for green jobs are $46,343, or about $7,727 more than the median wages across the
broader economy. As an added benefit, nearly half of these jobs employ workers with a less than a four-year college degree, which accounts for a
full 70 percent of our workforce. 6. Green
jobs are made in America, spurring innovation with more U.S.
content than other industries. Most of the products used in energy efficiency retrofits are more than 90 percent made in America.
Sheet metal for ductwork is over 99 percent domestically sourced, as are vinyl windows (98 percent) and rigid foam insulation (more than 95
percent). Even major mechanical equipment such as furnaces (94 percent) and air conditioning and heat pumps (82 percent) are predominantly
American made. 7. We have a positive trade balance in solar power components such as photovoltaic components and solar heating and cooling
components of $1.9 billion, and are exporting components to China. Contrast this with the oil industry, where in 2010 alone we imported over
$250 billion in petroleum-related products. As our nation’s basic manufacturing base declines, we risk losing our place in the forefront of
innovation if we don’t invest in advanced manufacturing in the green sector. 8. Three
separate programs for energy
efficiency retrofits have employed almost 25,000 Americans in three months. The Weatherization Assistance
Program, Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program, and State Energy Programs have collectively upgraded over half a million buildings since the
programs began to ramp up from April 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011, providing immediate new and sustainable job opportunities to tens of
thousands of construction workers eagerly searching for work. 9. Clean energy jobs are better for U.S. small businesses. Specialty construction
companies that perform energy retrofits show very high rates of small business participation in the construction. Ninety-one percent of the firms
involved in retrofits are mall businesses with less than 20 employees. 10. An abundance
of jobs in the green sector are
manufacturing jobs with an upward career track. Forty-one percent of the nation’s green jobs offer
medium to long-term career building and training opportunities, and 26 percent of green jobs are in the
manufacturing sector, compared to 9 percent in the traditional economy. The bottom line: Green jobs being created through
smart investments in our energy infrastructure are expanding employment opportunities while
reducing pollution of our air and water, providing an alternative to foreign oil, and allowing us to
export more American-made goods abroad
Offshore Wind  Green Jobs
Offshore leads to green jobs and lots of energy
Hopkins, 7/12
[Robert B. Hopkins, Baltimore-based partner in the Trial Practice Group of international law firm Duane
Morris LLP. He practices in the area of litigation with a concentration on transportation, products liability
and commercial litigation both domestically and internationally, “Offshore Wind Farms in US Waters
Would Generate Both US and Foreign Maritime Jobs”
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/07/offshore-wind-farms-in-u-s-waterswould-generate-both-u-s-and-foreign-maritime-jobs]
With no offshore wind energy farms yet built off U.S. coastlines, various states over the last few years have proposed offshore wind
energy
legislation as a future investment in renewable energy as well as a vehicle for American job
creation. The immediate future of U.S. offshore wind farms may depend on whether Congress renews certain tax credit and federal loan
guarantee programs. In the event that offshore wind farms move forward, it is likely that both U.S.
maritime and foreign maritime workers will be involved in construction and maintenance. A recent
study by The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated the potential generating capacity from offshore wind
farms located off U.S. coastlines to be 4 times the present total U.S. electrical generating capacity.
The construction and maintenance of offshore wind farms to tap into even a small percentage of this potential will demand a
robust and competent maritime workforce. The U.S. understandably wants to avoid the situation that occurred in England
with the installation of the Thanet Wind Farm, currently the largest operating offshore wind farm in the world (300 megawatts). The Thanet
project received criticism for its lack of significant British job creation. U.S. wind farm developers, green energy advocates and some U.S.
politicians have stressed that offshore
wind farms will create jobs for both U.S. maritime and U.S. shorebased workers. In addition, some have pointed to a federal statute known as the Jones Act, to assert that foreign-flagged vessels crewed by
foreign maritime workers may not even be involved in U.S. offshore wind farm projects. However, such a broad statement is not entirely
accurate, and the issue is somewhat complex.
Awesome green jobs—UK proves
Bird 9
[Jenny, April 2009, Jenny Bird is a research fellow of the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR).
Prior to joining IPPR, she studied for a Masters in Sustainable Development with Forum for the Future.
She has also worked for the Environment Agency, Institute for Public Policy Research, “Green Jobs:
Prospects for creating jobs from offshore wind in the UK”]
We have chosen to focus on offshore wind for four main reasons: 1. Offshore wind is a sector with growing importance for the UK The UK
currently has the largest installed offshore wind capacity in the world and has ambitious plans to promote a rapid and large-scale growth in
offshore wind farms. Offshore
wind is expected to make a large contribution to meeting renewable energy
targets and carbon reduction budgets for 2020, unlike many other renewable and low-carbon energy technologies, which will not be able to be
deployed on such a short timescale (this is explored in more detail below). It is clear that if the UK expands its offshore wind capacity as planned,
then a large workforce will be needed to plan, manufacture, install and operate the new wind farms. 2. Offshore
wind provides good
long-term prospects While it is understandable to want to focus on short-term job creation
opportunities that will help tackle the current recession, it is important to consider the long-term
prospects for these jobs – will they still exist in decades to come? Offshore wind may not provide instant new jobs, but it does
offer good medium-term prospects. In addition, jobs in offshore wind are likely to be sustainable over
the longer term because – unlike jobs in carbon-intensive industries – offshore wind is likely to be a prominent
feature of the new low-carbon economy that is necessary to meet our climate change obligations. 3.
Offshore wind has potential for competitive advantage and export opportunities This is clearly a sector where the UK has the potential to develop
a competitive advantage. Germany is also developing its offshore wind market and it is possible that other countries, including the USA (the Cape
Wind Project – America’s first offshore wind farm – is currently going through the permitting system [Cape Wind 2009]), China and other
European countries will follow suit. Developing
an experienced offshore wind workforce could therefore
provide opportunities in the future to export these skills as other markets mature. Similarly, if we are able
to attract manufacturing facilities to open in the UK, there is scope for future export of components and turbines. There is also the potential that
once companies are established, they may innovate and create new markets – an opportunity that would be missed if companies locate overseas.
4. Offshore wind has the potential to provide good quality jobs in the right places It is important to give
consideration to the quality of the jobs that will be created through a Low Carbon Industrial Strategy – will they provide good career development
opportunities? Will more economically deprived areas of the country be able to benefit from the new jobs? And will people who are currently
unemployed or working in industries that are likely to decline in the future be able to benefit from the new job opportunities? Although there have
not been many studies in this area, there is some evidence to suggest that offshore
wind does have the potential to offer
good quality, career-track jobs. For example, studies of the Spanish and German renewables industries have shown that they offer
good job prospects, career paths and job security (UN 2008). It is also likely that a UK offshore wind industry is likely to be located in some of
the more economically deprived regions of the UK. Offshore wind could offer an alternative career option for those currently employed in the
offshore oil and gas industry, which is likely to decline over the next decade as reserves in the North Sea deplete. Many of the skills from this
sector can be transferred to offshore wind and the jobs are likely to be located in roughly the same geographical areas. There are also
opportunities for people working in the automotive and aerospace industries to move into offshore wind. Taken together, these four reasons
suggest that offshore wind is an area of strategic importance for the UK and as such would be a good subject for ‘industrial activism’.
Solvency
1AC
Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its nonmilitary development of the Earth’s oceans by expediting siting regulations of offshore
wind projects in federal waters and negotiating long term power purchase agreements
for offshore wind power.
The plan solves
Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center ’12
(Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center is a state wide citizens powered organization that environment requires independent
research. “What Offshore Wind Means for Maryland Environmental, Economic and Public Health Benefits Across the State” Release date:
Friday, March 30, 2012). TKT
Policy Recommendations. Building its first offshore wind farm will mean that Maryland has taken an important step toward a better future with
resilient ecosystems, less air pollution, and a more robust economy. To
capture the many benefits of offshore wind,
Maryland and the United States should make a strong commitment to the development of wind
energy off the mid-Atlantic coast. Specifically: • The Maryland Public Service Commission should solicit proposals for
construction of wind-powered electricity generation off of Maryland’s coast, and should establish effective incentives to encourage offshore
wind developers. • State and federal governments should set bold goals for offshore wind development in
the Atlantic, in order to provide clear leadership and vision regarding the important role of offshore wind in America’s energy future and to
demonstrate that it is a high priority. • The U.S.
Department of the Interior should expedite siting regulations for
offshore wind projects in federal waters, while maintaining a high level of environmental protection. In so doing, they should
maintain strong standards to make sure that offshore wind facilities do not have major impacts on wildlife, shipping channels or military
operations. • The
federal government should use its buying power to facilitate the financing of offshore
wind. The government should negotiate long term power purchase agreements with an offshore wind
developer covering electricity purchases for military installations and other federal facilities.
Federal incentives solve wind
Caperton et all, 12
(Richard, the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant
for the Energy Opportunity team at American Progress. “Congress Needs To Push Targeted Incentives For Offshore Wind”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/13/403620/congress-incentives-offshore-wind/)
Congress holds the key The answer lies in part in NRG Bluewater Wind’s fate. NRG was unequivocal in the reasoning behind its
decision to cancel its power-purchase agreement. The company’s press release stated that it was “unable to find an investment partner.”
Specifically, NRG placed the blame for this outcome squarely on the shoulders of Congress:
Two aspects of the project critical
for success have actually gone backwards: the decisions of Congress to eliminate funding for the
Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program applicable to offshore wind, and the failure to
extend the Federal Investment and Production Tax Credits … which have rendered the Delaware
project both unfinanceable and financially untenable. While the challenges facing this project are big, they’re solvable. As
NRG alludes to, targeted, efficient incentives from the federal government would allow this project to
move forward. The production tax credit Currently, offshore wind projects are eligible for the production tax
credit. This is a credit based on how much electricity a wind turbine generates, and is currently worth
2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. Unfortunately, this credit expires at the end of 2012, and a long-term
extension of the credit is uncertain. CAP has called on Congress to extend the credit for four more
years, which will provide needed policy certainty for investors in wind projects. The investment tax credit While
NRG Bluewater Wind would clearly benefit from a production tax credit extension, other incentives may be more useful for this project. For
onshore wind projects—with relatively predictable performance over the life of the project—the production tax credit is very valuable. For
offshore wind, however, the credit is less valuable to the project developer. Because offshore wind
turbines are relatively new technology and are deployed in environments that have never been used
for energy generation, developers can’t predict how much power a turbine will generate as accurately
as they can with onshore wind. Thus, developers aren’t as certain about how big their tax credits will
be, which affects the profitability of the project. Congress could fix this problem by making offshore wind eligible for the
investment tax credit. Instead of getting a tax credit as power is generated, the investment tax credit would allow offshore wind developers to
get an upfront credit for 30 percent of their initial investment, encouraging more to invest. This is much more useful for technologies with more
performance uncertainty—like offshore wind—and would be a smart example of matching the tax code to the unique circumstances facing
innovative industries. Loan guarantees Uncertainty around offshore wind turbines’ operational performance also makes it difficult to finance
these projects. When a bank evaluates a wind farm, it predicts how much power the turbines will produce each year and will only “count” the
power that they’re extremely confident will be produced. With an innovative technology like offshore wind, this could mean that only half of
the turbines’ expected output is “bankable.” This affects whether or not a bank thinks the developer will pay back a loan, and ultimately
influences whether or not a bank offers a loan. This is a significant problem for offshore wind developers. But
the federal
government can solve this problem by guaranteeing a loan to a project developer. In this case the
government agrees to pay back a loan if the developer is unable to. This puts banks at ease (after all, the
U.S. government has a perfect track record of paying back loans) and will allow financing to flow freely. Congress has
two simple ways to create a loan guarantee program for offshore wind. They can create a Clean
Energy Deployment Administration, or “Green Bank,” which would offer financing tools like loan
guarantees for innovative technologies. Or they can allocate funding to cover the cost of new loan
guarantees for offshore wind under the existing Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program.
Either way forward would help drive investment in the burgeoning offshore wind industry. Somehow,
the bright outlook from just a few years ago—moving the United States toward energy
independence—has fogged over despite overwhelming evidence from statewide polls that demonstrates sustained support for proposed
projects. Congress has the power to support constituents’ interests in the innovative clean energy and
economic opportunities offshore wind can produce to move us out of the energy Stone Age and into a
sustainable future.
Federal government requiring siting allows unified coordination while getting the
advantages to local control
Salkin and Ostrow 9
(Patricia E, the Raymond and Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law, Associate Dean and Director of
the Government Law Center at Albany Law School, Ashira Pelman Ostrow is an Associate Professor of
Law at Hofstra University School of Law, “COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM AND WIND: A NEW
FRAMEWORK FOR ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY” Hofstra Law Review, 37 Hofstra L. Rev. 1049,
Lexis)
Since the passage of the TCA, courts have worked to balance the twin aims of the Telecommunication
Siting Policy, weighing the national interest in deploying a national telecommunication network against
the desire to preserve state and local control over land use matters. n233 As the First Circuit observed,
"the statute's balance of local autonomy subject to federal limitations does not offer a single "cookie
cutter' solution for diverse local situations... . Congress conceived that this course would produce ...
individual solutions best adapted to the needs and desires of particular communities." n234 Overall, the
Telecommunication Siting Policy has proven effective in facilitating cell tower siting. Since the
Telecommunication Siting Policy was enacted, the number of cell towers has increased dramatically,
from 19,844 in 1995 to 245,912 in 2009. n235 Moreover,¶ ¶ the combination of local authority constrained
by federal law has encouraged municipal zoning officials to identify those places in their community
where cell phone towers would produce the least aesthetic harms, rather than trying to ban such towers
altogether... . The TCA also encourages cellular providers to research the propriety of possible [*1092]
sites for a new cell phone tower rather than simply choosing a site and then trying to force local officials
to approve it... . n236¶ ¶ The TCA provides a good model for federal-local cooperation in land use
siting because, in many ways, local opposition to cell phone towers parallels local opposition to wind
turbines. Both engender local opposition because they impose direct costs on the communities in
which they are located but provide dispersed societal benefits. n237 Given the similarities in local
opposition to telecommunication towers and wind turbines, and the national interests at stake in each
area, policy makers should look to the TCA for guidance in drafting a national wind siting policy.¶
In particular, a federal wind siting policy should: (a) prohibit local governments from banning
wind energy facilities; (b) require local governments to make decisions on wind siting within a
reasonable period of time; and (c) require such decisions to be made in writing and supported by
substantial evidence.¶ The recommendations here are mainly procedural. It should be noted that the
Telecommunication Siting Policy also substantively prohibits local governments from regulating on the
basis of radio frequency emissions, to the extent that applicants comply with the FCC's radio frequency
emissions standards. n238 The Telecommunication Siting Policy thus sets a federal ceiling on regulations
designed to mitigate the health and safety effects of radio frequency emissions and fully preempts state
and local efforts to adopt more stringent or different guidelines. n239 On the basis of this provision,
courts have overturned zoning decisions influenced by health and safety concerns. n240¶ Given the
relative newness of wind energy technology and the vast geographic and demographic variations amongst
wind-rich communities, Congress should avoid adopting a substantive ceiling on wind energy [*1093]
facilities siting. n241 Instead, at this time, sub-national governments should be given some freedom to
experiment with the substance of siting policies, in the hopes that the resulting variation in
regulatory policy might ultimately produce a better result. n242¶ 1. No Prohibition of Wind Facilities¶
¶ The Telecommunication Siting Policy of the TCA forbids any regulation that would prohibit the
provisions of personal wireless services. n243 Thus, localities can regulate the location of cell phone
towers, but cannot exclude them entirely from the jurisdiction. n244 Although courts have divided over
precisely when local regulations "have the effect of prohibiting" wireless service, n245 it is clear that a
municipality may not enact an express ban on cell phone towers. n246¶ A federal wind siting statute
could, similarly, preempt local regulations that exclude, or have the effect of excluding, wind energy
facilities from a jurisdiction with wind energy potential. A similar requirement is in place in New
Hampshire, where a state law prevents localities from unreasonably limiting wind installations. n247 A
federal [*1094] wind siting policy that preempted local regulations that unreasonably exclude wind
installations would aid in the deployment of wind energy technology by overcoming NIMBY efforts
to keep wind turbines entirely out of wind-rich communities.¶ 2. Decisions Within a Reasonable Time¶
¶ The Telecommunication Siting Policy requires local governments to act on telecommunication siting
requests within a reasonable time "taking into account the nature and scope of such request." n248 The
legislative history indicates that in requiring that zoning decisions be made within a "reasonable" time,
Congress did not intend "to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the
processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for
zoning decision." n249 According to one court, "the term "reasonable' was no doubt used to allow local
authorities the flexibility to consider each application on its individual merit. As recognized by the
express language of the TCA, what is reasonable will necessarily depend upon the nature and scope of
each request." n250¶ In November 2009, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling to provide guidance on the
time frame that would be considered "reasonable" under the statute. n251 Under the FCC ruling, zoning
boards must respond to requests for collocation within ninety days and requests for new tower
construction within 150 days. n252 According to the FCC, the ruling "achieves a balance by defining
reasonable and achievable timeframes for State and local governments to act on zoning applications while
not dictating any substantive outcome on any particular case or otherwise limiting State and local
governments' fundamental authority over local land use." n253¶ [*1095] Wind developers would
similarly benefit from a federal framework that sets reasonable time limits within which decisions
on wind siting must be made. Such a time frame would prevent local communities from using the
permitting process to perpetually delay siting, resulting in less fiscal waste and quicker access to
renewable energy.¶ 3. Decisions in Writing and Supported by Substantial Evidence¶ ¶ The
Telecommunication Siting Policy requires local land use decisions regarding telecommunication siting to
be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. n254 The Sixth Circuit
has explained that "a governmental unit's decision must (1) be separate from the written record, (2)
describe the reasons for the denial, and (3) contain a sufficient explanation of the reasons for the denial to
allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record that supports those reasons." n255 In
contrast, other courts accept any writing, including the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was
made. n256¶ In addition to the writing requirement, the Telecommunication Siting Policy creates a check
on the local zoning process by subjecting land use decisions to a heightened standard of judicial review.
Judicial review of local land use decisions is notoriously deferential. n257 In its [*1096] landmark
decision of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., the Supreme Court held that a zoning ordinance
violates due process only if it is "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the
public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." n258 State courts generally accord local zoning
decisions a presumption of validity and refuse to overturn them unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable. n259 Federal courts apply an even more deferential "shocks the conscience" standard to
local administrative acts. n260¶ In contrast, the Telecommunication Siting Policy requires that all
decisions to deny a wireless service facilities siting request be "supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record." n261 In Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, the Second Circuit
explained the impact of the substantial evidence requirement as follows:¶ ¶ Traditionally, the federal courts
have taken an extremely deferential stance in reviewing local zoning decisions, limiting the scope of
inquiry to the constitutionality of the zoning decision under a standard of rational review. Although
Congress explicitly preserved local zoning authority in all other respects over the siting of wireless
facilities, the method by which siting [*1097] decisions are made is now subject to judicial oversight.
Therefore, denials subject to the TCA are reviewed by this court more closely than standard local zoning
decisions. n262¶ ¶ Although the term "substantial evidence" is not defined in the statute, Congress
indicated that courts should employ "the traditional standard used for judicial review of agency actions."
n263 Generally, courts have interpreted this standard to require "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." n264 Substantial evidence typically requires,
among other things, scientific and engineering studies to support and/or refute identified concerns.¶ A
wind siting policy that requires zoning decisions to be made in writing would compel local officials
to articulate the grounds for their decision. A written record would enable wind siting applicants to
understand and respond to local concerns, and provide an official record for courts to review. In
addition, the heightened "substantial evidence" standard of review would ensure that proposed
projects are not denied solely on the basis of NIMBY concerns without careful consideration of the
overall project benefits.¶ VI. Conclusion¶ ¶ Harnessing and using renewable energy is an important
way that the United States can reduce its dependence on foreign oil and slow the [*1098] pace of
global warming. The federal and state governments have recognized the importance of wind energy
to meeting these goals. Despite the national importance of renewable energy, however, the wind siting
process remains largely uncoordinated and subject to state and/or local control. As a result, wind
siting regulations vary, not only between states, but also within state. This patchwork approach has
created an inconsistent and unpredictable regulatory process that adds to the cost of renewable
energy projects and enables local communities to prevent the siting of projects that would benefit
the entire nation.¶ Though there are advantages to empowering local communities to regulate land
use, in the context of wind energy more centralized regulation is desirable. Thus, this Article has
proposed a national wind siting regime, modeled the Telecommunication Siting Policy that leaves
primary siting authority in the hands of local zoning officials but places explicit federal constraints
on the local decision-making process.¶ This regime would provide the regulatory uniformity
necessary for the nationwide development of renewable energy, without sacrificing the benefits of
local tailoring or experimentation. In addition, the hybrid federal-local approach would strike an
appropriate balance between local concerns regarding wind turbine siting and the national interest in
developing wind as a renewable domestic energy source.
Incentives Solve
Federal Financial incentives key for offshore wind industry, and states and fed work
together to not hurt the environment.
Chu ’12
(Keith Chu is a contributor to Electric Utility Week which is published every Monday by Platts, a division of The McGraw-Hill. “BOEM opens up
743,000 acres offshore Massachusetts for wind energy leasing” June 4, 2012, lexis) TKT
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is opening a 743,000-acre area offshore Massachusetts to commercial wind energy leasing, even
as existing offshore wind proposals remain slow to get off the ground. BOEM Director Tommy Beaudreau
said the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area was developed as part of the agency's "smart from the start"
process, designed to avoid conflicts between renewable development and other resources, including
birds and fisheries. "The area off of Massachusetts has tremendous energy generation potential, and we will continue to
evaluate and mitigate the potential impacts of offshore wind energy development on wildlife habitat,
fisheries and sea bird migration," Beaudreau said in a statement. The Massachusetts WEA will include 117
whole lease blocks of the Outer Continental Shelf and 20 partial blocks. Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind
Development Coalition, a Washington-based group representing offshore developers, said the BOEM announcement was welcome news. The
size of the area could provide thousands of megawatts of capacity, based on roughly 10 turbines per block, he said. "This is
a very good
step forward for development of clean, renewable offshore wind," Lanard said. The Massachusetts WEA begins
about 12 nautical miles south of the island of Martha's Vineyard and 13 nautical miles southwest of the island of Nantucket. It is roughly 47
nautical miles at its widest point. BOEM
did exclude one area from the WEA with a high concentration of sea
ducks, and cut out another area of high value to commercial and recreational fisheries, based on
comments from stakeholders and the public. A map of the area is available at http://www.boem.gov/renewable-energyprogram/state-activities/Massachusetts.aspx. BOEM will now conduct an environmental assessment of the Massachusetts WEA,
including a study of impacts on species and ways to minimize those effects. That effort is expected to be finished this
fall. Then BOEM will hold a 60-day public comment period, before beginning to sell leases, said spokeswoman Caren Madsen. Although
the Department of Interior and BOEM have pushed forward efforts to speed offshore wind
development, to date no offshore wind farms have begun construction, largely due to difficulty
finding financing and buyers for their power. Despite that, BOEM received 10 responses from developers who indicated they
would be interested in leasing the new area, in response to an earlier request for comments. Those developers are: Arcadia Offshore
Massachusetts, Condor Wind Energy, Deepwater Wind, enXco Development, Energy Management, Fishermen's Energy, Iberdrola Renewables,
Neptune Wind, Offshore MW and US Mainstream Renewable. "There's a lot of pent-up interest in the development areas," despite a lag in
actually building offshore wind projects, Lanard said. "The big unknown is where will they sell their power?" BOEM has yet to unveil how it will
structure auctions for offshore wind leases, to the disappointment of Lanard and offshore wind developers. But Madsen, of BOEM, said the
auction format will vary from sale to sale, "based on the characteristics of the area," and which will be released as part of a "notice of sale"
issued this fall, after the environmental review is complete. The Massachusetts WEA is the second to be opened for leasing by BOEM, after the
Mid-Atlantic WEA, which runs offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. Keith Chu
Federal financial incentives key to solve and the states and fed work together to find
solutions to the environment, PPAs get projects off the ground
Juliano ’12
(Nick Juliano contributor to Electric Utility Week, which is published every Monday by Platts, a division of The McGraw-Hill. February 6, 2012
“Interior seeking offshore lease applicants on East Coast after finding of no harm in environmental review”, Lexis) TKT
The Obama administration boosted its effort to promote the offshore wind power industry along the
East Coast last week, when it finalized one mandatory environmental review, began another and
solicited applications for leases offshore Maryland, Virginia and Massachusetts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on
Thursday announced completion of an environmental assessment that found leasing the Outer
Continental Shelf to wind developers offshore four Mid-Atlantic states would have "no significant
impact" on the environment or other ocean users, such as the fishing industry. Concurrent with that
announcement, Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management began soliciting lease applications offshore two of those states, Maryland and
Virginia, following similar solicitations that had been conducted offshore the other two, New Jersey and Delaware. Then on Friday, BOEM
announced another lease solicitation for an area it identified offshore Massachusetts and launched the environmental assessment process for
that state, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Wind
leases offshore Maryland and Virginia are expected to be
issued toward the end of this year or the beginning of next year because regulators still need to
decide on a format to auction off the leases where multiple developers are interested in competing
for the same OCS blocks, and formats they are considering have divided companies in the industry. But completion of the four-state
Mid-Atlantic review clears the way for a noncompetitive lease to be issued sometime over the next few months for a proposed NRG Energy
project offshore Delaware. Salazar made the environmental assessment finding and initiated the lease solicitations at an event in Baltimore
Thursday, where he was joined by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and BOEM Director Tommy Beaudreau. "A
lot of the heavy
lifting has been done up front," Beaudreau said of the environmental review, pointing to cooperation between federal
officials and state task forces to find areas where offshore wind development would not conflict with
key wildlife habitat, fisheries, shipping lanes and other ocean uses. Last week's announcements
marked the latest step of the Obama administration's "smart from the start" initiative to guide
renewable energy development off the nation's coasts. The environmental assessment process began about a year ago,
when Interior announced its intent to prepare the assessment, which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Finalizing the
assessment, with a "finding of no significant impact" on the environment or other uses of the ocean, allows BOEM to begin issuing leases
without performing further NEPA reviews. While
the announcement was a welcome one for the offshore wind
industry, developers still face hurdles securing financing commitments and power purchase
agreements for potential projects. Energy Management's Cape Wind project, slated to be the first in
federal waters offshore Massachusetts, is still searching for investors and has only signed a PPA for half the project's power. And
growing uncertainty over federal financial incentives caused NRG Energy to abandon a PPA it had
reached to sell power from subsidiary Bluewater Wind's proposed project offshore Delaware. Finding
may trim years off permitting process The finding in the environmental assessment "has the potential to reduce the permitting time line for
offshore wind farms by as much as two years, as compared to a requirement that the agency prepare an Environmental Impact Statement" for
the offshore areas that would require two years of studies and government reviews, said Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind
Development Coalition, an industry trade group. Once a developer wins a lease and submits a construction and operations plan, BOEM will
complete an EIS to analyze such plans on a case-by-case basis. BOEM expects to conduct competitive leasing offshore Maryland and Virginia
once it receives lease nominations, and leasing offshore New Jersey is expected to start this year as well, after BOEM finishes analyzing
responses to a lease solicitation issued for that state last year. But Delaware will
be the first state to see a lease granted
for wind development off its coasts. Only NRG Energy indicated interest in an area offshore Delaware, in response to a similar
call for nominations issued last year, and finalization of the environmental assessment clears the way for that lease to be issued, Beaudreau
said in a brief interview following the announcement. BOEM officials and NRG representatives plan to meet soon to discuss the terms of the
lease, and a date to issue it has not yet been identified, he said. While NRG last year slowed work on its Bluewater Wind subsidiary that had
been planning to develop offshore Delaware, the company still remains interested in winning the lease. Once it has the lease in hand, NRG
could proceed to develop it or sell the lease to another developer. Nick Juliano
Case
AT Hurricanes
Offshore wind farms reduce the strength of Hurricanes
Carey ‘14
(“Offshore wind farms could tame hurricanes before they reach land, Stanford-led study says” Stanford Report, February 26, 2014
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/hurricane-winds-turbine-022614.html)
For the past 24 years, Mark Z. Jacobson, a
professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, has
been developing a complex computer model to study air pollution, energy, weather and climate. A
recent application of the model has been to simulate the development of hurricanes. Another has been to
determine how much energy wind turbines can extract from global wind currents. In light of these recent model studies and in the aftermath of
hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, he said, it was natural to wonder: What would happen if a hurricane encountered a large array of offshore wind
turbines? Would
the energy extraction due to the storm spinning the turbines' blades slow the winds
and diminish the hurricane, or would the hurricane destroy the turbines? So he went about
developing the model further and simulating what might happen if a hurricane encountered an
enormous wind farm stretching many miles offshore and along the coast. Amazingly, he found that
the wind turbines could disrupt a hurricane enough to reduce peak wind speeds by up to 92 mph
and decrease storm surge by up to 79 percent. The study, conducted by Jacobson, and Cristina Archer and Willett Kempton
of the University of Delaware, was published online in Nature Climate Change. The researchers simulated three hurricanes: Sandy and Isaac,
which struck New York and New Orleans, respectively, in 2012; and Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005. "We found that when wind
turbines are present, they slow down the outer rotation winds of a hurricane," Jacobson said. "This feeds back to decrease wave height, which
reduces movement of air toward the center of the hurricane, increasing the central pressure, which in turn slows the winds of the entire hurricane
and dissipates it faster." In the case of Katrina, Jacobson's model revealed that an array of 78,000 wind turbines off the coast of New Orleans
would have significantly weakened the hurricane well before it made landfall. In the computer model, by the time Hurricane Katrina reached
land, its simulated wind speeds had decreased by 36-44 meters per second (between 80 and 98 mph) and the storm surge had decreased by up to
79 percent. For Hurricane Sandy, the model projected a wind speed reduction by 35-39 meters per second (between 78 and 87 mph) and as much
as 34 percent decrease in storm surge. Jacobson acknowledges that, in the United States, there has been political resistance to installing a few
hundred offshore wind turbines, let alone tens of thousands. But he thinks there are two financial incentives that could motivate such a change.
One is the reduction of hurricane damage cost. Damage from severe hurricanes, caused by high winds and storm surge-related flooding, can run
into the billions of dollars. Hurricane Sandy, for instance, caused roughly $82 billion in damage across three states. Second, Jacobson said, the
wind turbines would pay for themselves in the long term by generating normal electricity while at the same time reducing air pollution and global
warming, and providing energy stability. "The turbines will also reduce damage if a hurricane comes through," Jacobson said. "These factors,
each on their own, reduce the cost to society of offshore turbines and should be sufficient to motivate their development." An alternative plan for
protecting coastal cities involves building massive seawalls. Jacobson said that while these might stop a storm surge, they wouldn't impact wind
speed substantially. The cost for these, too, is significant, with estimates running between $10 billion and $40 billion per installation. Current
turbines can withstand wind speeds of up to 112 mph, which is in the range of a category 2 to 3
hurricane, Jacobson said. His study suggests that the presence of massive turbine arrays will likely
prevent hurricane winds from reaching those speeds.
AT Not Cost Competitive
Startup costs irrelevant- output still makes it attractive
Clarke et al, 9
[Walter Cruikshank, U.S. Department of the Interior Soren Houmoller, 1st Mile (DK) Chris Jenner, RPS
Group (UK) Jim Manwell, University of Massachusetts Walt Musial, ex officio, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory Bonnie Ram, Energetics, “U.S. Offshore Wind Energy: A Path Forward” US Offshore
Wind Collaborative” http://offshorewind.net/Other_Pages/Links%20Library/PathForwardfinal.pdf]
Offshore wind farms are more expensive to build and maintain than onshore systems. According to the U.S.
DOE 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report, the capital costs for offshore wind farms are estimated at $2,400/kW (in 2006 dollars) compared with
$1,650/kW for land-based wind projects. Windpower Monthly notes that information on the cost of offshore wind power facilities continues to
be sparse. 81 Based on limited data available from completed offshore projects, this publication estimates that a fully-installed offshore wind
system will cost as much as €3,300/kW ($4,600/kW) compared with €1,700/kW ($2,400/kW) for landbased. These figures include the cost of
the turbines, as well as installation and maintenance. Despite
the increased costs associated with building and
operating turbines in ocean and lake environments, there are several factors that make offshore wind
development extremely attractive. Benefits include a more robust and consistent wind resource, and the ability to host everlarger turbines (approaching 10 MW) and more expansive multi-turbine projects (with installed capacities of 1,000-3,000 MW). Economies
of scale can offset, at least partially, the higher initial capital costs. Also, one of the most important
economic benefits of wind power (both land-based and offshore) is that it reduces energy price risk.
Once wind farms are operational, the fuel cost is zero (in contrast to the high price volatility of fossil
fuels). Finally, for a number of states along the East Coast and Great Lakes, offshore wind offers the best—or only—opportunity to develop
utility-scale renewable energy projects. The great potential benefits of offshore wind energy warrant its serious economic analysis.
Offshore costs are competitive
NREL, 2010 [National Renewable Energy Laboratory, September 2010, “Large-Scale Offshore Wind
Power in the United States Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers” Walter Musial, NREL Bonnie Ram,
Energetics, www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/40745.pdf]
The overall economics of offshore turbines depend on project life-cycle costs, including the capital investment, O&M costs, cost of fuel (zero for
wind projects), and cost of capital. Total project life-cycle costs are divided by total lifetime energy production to obtain an LCOE, which is the
cost of generating power from a particular project (Fingerish, Hand, and Laxson 2006). Offshore wind
energy is roughly twice as
expensive as land-based wind, which currently costs about 5–8¢/kWh. Significant cost reductions are possible,
however, because offshore wind is a relatively new technology and has not yet realized many of the
technology optimization and learning opportunities. The future cost of offshore wind energy will be
closely tied to the state of the technology, the maturity of the industry, the level of deployment, and
the experience gained through implementation. Differences in the energy markets of the United States and Europe,
especially how risk is allocated during project development and financing, could affect the cost of offshore wind in the United States. Different
government policies and project support mechanisms between EU countries and the United States might influence both the required up-front
capital investment and the cost of capital. Germany, for example, requires utilities cover the cost of grid connection out to and including the
substation, which is located several kilometers out to sea for offshore wind, reducing the required investment cost to developers. Germany also
offers feed-in tariffs that guarantee a price of 15 euro cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by an offshore wind project for the
first 12 years of operation. By
guaranteeing revenue, the German government reduces the risk of investing in
projects, effectively reducing the cost of capital (GWEC 2010). The effects of different policies and support mechanisms are
not fully analyzed in this report but contribute to some cost uncertainty in projecting the LCOE of initial offshore projects in the United States.
Breakdowns of the elements of LCOE are given in the studies cited in Figure 6-5, and Figure 6-6 summarizes those data. Because of differences
in the way that each author cited life-cycle project costs, some assumptions were made to allow reasonable comparisons across the various
datasets (see the footnotes to Figure 6-6). Although the exact proportions of each cost category will vary with the specifics of each project, lifecycle cost of offshore wind energy is dominated by balance of station (BOS) and O&M. The electrical and grid infrastructure, foundations and
support structures, offshore logistics and installation, and O&M represent the highest percentage of the total project cost, ranging from 57% to
71%. Because
project economics are dominated by BOS and operating costs, adopting larger capacity
turbines should result in significantly lower overall costs of energy for offshore projects. O&M costs are two
to three times higher than those of land-based systems (Rademakers et al. 2003) and can reach 20% to 30% of the LCOE.
AT Not Energy Effective
Offshore Wind energy effective
Renewable Energy ’12
(These findings were recently published in the Elsevier journal Renewable Energy. The journal seeks to promote and disseminate knowledge of
the various topics and technologies of renewable energy and is therefore aimed at assisting researchers, economists, manufacturers, world
agencies and societies to keep abreast of new developments in their specialist fields. “Maryland Study Demonstrates Mid-Atlantic Offshore
Wind Capacity” Jan 30, 2012 http://eponline.com/articles/2012/01/30/study-of-maryland-demonstrates-midatlantic-offshore-windcapacity.aspx) TKT
Offshore wind farms could generate more than enough energy to meet Maryland’s annual electricity
consumption, according to a just-published study by researchers at the University of Delaware. The potential power
output is nearly double current energy demands for the state, even when taking into account various limitations on where to place equipment
in the Atlantic. “Installing wind turbines far off the coast of Maryland would help the state generate large quantities of electricity while creating
local jobs,” said study co-author Willett Kempton, professor of marine policy in UD’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment (CEOE).
“Producing
more electricity this way also displaces fossil fuel generation, thus reducing harmful
carbon dioxide emissions and improving air quality.” Existing Maryland law requires 18 percent of electricity to come from
renewable energy sources by 2022. The law was passed before the potential supply of offshore wind was documented—no one even knew
whether offshore wind was of significant size. Offshore wind could be important to meeting Maryland’s requirement because it is more
abundant and more steady than land-based Maryland wind, and is less expensive than solar power. “If the offshore resource remains unused,
meeting the state’s renewable energy requirement will be more costly to Maryland, as is true for the other mid-Atlantic coastal states,”
Kempton noted. The study found that a maximum of 7,800 wind turbines could provide an annual average output of 14,000 megawatts,
equivalent to 189 percent of Maryland’s electric load. The calculation includes the use of new technology for deep-water turbines, but even
using only commercially proven, shallow-water equipment, the energy generated would total 70 percent of the state’s annual demand. This is
the maximum resource possible, but actual development of offshore wind would start with power plant-sized units of 80 to 150 turbines. In
determining areas of the ocean suitable for offshore wind farm development, the researchers excluded zones of possible conflict. The entire
Chesapeake Bay was excluded. Fish havens and areas where birds migrate were not counted, as well as shipping routes. The study also
considered how visible the turbines would be from shore, placing the turbines eight nautical miles away so that visual impact would be
minimal. Along
with the rest of the mid-Atlantic region, large shallow areas and strong winds off
Maryland’s coast make it suitable for currently available offshore windmill technology. The study found that
average power output would be highest in the winter and lowest in the summer. Extra power generated during the winter months could service
neighboring states, while Maryland would need to rely on other sources during a comparative shortage in the summer. Developers could
position windmills to capitalize on seasonal wind direction, such as to the southwest for summer winds. The findings were recently published in
the Elsevier journal Renewable Energy.
Off Case
T
2AC Development/Ocean
We meet – aff requires the exploration and development of the oceans
We meet – Wind is generated by the currents and temperature change of the ocean
We meet – the development occurs in the ocean
We meet - Ocean development includes wind platforms
Mori 11 Kazu-hiro MORI, President, National Maritime Research Institute
Ocean
Development―The Last Frontier: Initiatives by the National Maritime Research Institute Ocean Policy
Research Foundation 2011
http://www.sof.or.jp/en/news/251-300/266_1.php
With the world’s sixth largest Exclusive Economic Zone, ocean development is of great importance for Japan. As
ocean space is characterized by severe dynamics, its development requires research, including on peripheral
technologies. Along with its research into ocean development, including floating platforms, seabed
resource development, and floating wind turbine systems, the National Maritime Research Institute is
also developing technologies for marine environment conservation, in which it hopes to make
international contributions.
Counter interp - upper limit of the ocean includes 660 feet above the water
NOAA 8
(The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere.
NOAA October 8, 2008 Layers of the Ocean http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/ocean/layers_ocean.htm)
Layers of the Ocean - Just as the atmosphere is divided into layers the ocean consists of several layers itself.¶
Epipelagic Zone¶ This surface layer is also called the sunlight zone and extends from the surface to 660
feet (200 meters). It is in this zone that most of the visible light exists. With the light comes heating from sun.
This heating is responsible for wide change in temperature that occurs in this zone, both in the latitude and each
season. The sea surface temperatures range from as high as 97°F (36°C) in the Persian Gulf to 28°F (-2°C) near the
north pole.
Recent study proves what would be used is under that
Dvorak et al 13
(Michael J. Dvorak, Bethany A. Corcoran, John E. Ten Hoeve, Nicolas G. McIntyre and¶ Mark Z. Jacobson¶ Atmosphere/Energy Program,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University “US East Coast offshore wind energy resources and¶ their relationship
to peak-time electricity demand” Wind Energ. 2013;
https://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Offshore/12DvorakEastCoastWindEn.pdf)
The annual USEC OWE resource was estimated with the use of 5 years of hourly, high-resolution (5.0 km) mesoscale¶
model (WRF-ARW) results at the turbine hub height of 90 m for the years 2006–2010. A climatological analysis shows¶ that
these years are likely conservative estimates of the resource. Model output was shown to be skillful in the annual¶ aggregate by validating
hourly wind speed predictions against in situ observations from a total of 32 buoys and offshore¶ towers spanning the USEC region. Annual, 24hourly maps of mean wind speed, mean power density and CF based on¶ a representative 5 MW turbine power curve integrated hourly with
the use of modeled wind speeds at 90 m were created¶ Wind Energ. 2013; 16:977–997 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.¶ DOI: 10.1002/we
993US East Coast OWE resources and their relationship to peak-time electricity demand M. J. Dvorak et al.¶ with the 5 years of model output.
System availability, wake and transmission losses were accounted for with a combined¶ loss factor of 17.9%. Because of competing ocean uses,
it was assumed that one-third of the OWE out to 30-m depth and¶ two-thirds for 31–200 m depth could be developed.¶ In general, the OWE
resource is best in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Banks, east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and¶ generally diminishes southward. From FL-toME out to 200 m depth, based on the minimum turbine CF cutoffs of 45%¶ and 40%, between 965 and 1372 TWh exists annually (110–157 GW
average). Most of this capacity exists from Virginia¶ northward, which also coincides with regions with reduced severe-hurricane risk, with
annual gross CF commonly 40–50%.¶ Between 24% and 35% of total US or 79–112% of total FL-to-ME 2009 US electricity sales could be
generated with the¶ use of USEC OWE alone if the resource was fully developed, out to 200 m depth. If only shallower waters were developed¶
(50 m depth), between 6–13% of US and 18–41% of USEC 2009 electricity sales could be generated with USEC OWE. […]The
results here
suggest that a vast reservoir of peak-coincident wind sits near a large population center. The¶
extraction of such wind resource instead of the use of fossil fuels could significantly help to reduce
local air pollution and¶ global warming.
Prefer our interp
A – Precision our definition comes from NOAA the authority on Ocean Exploration
B – Their Interp overlimits makes all affs that deal with oceanic exploration on the
surface non-topical
C – Also they don’t lose any ground and doesn’t explode limits Affs still have to be
in the Ocean
Default to reasonability prevents a race to the bottom
DA
Birds DA
Offshore wind doesn’t kill birds
Fairley 7
PETER FAIRLEY Freelance writer and editor Monday, February 12, 2007 Massive Offshore Wind Turbines Safe for Birds
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/407299/massive-offshore-wind-turbines-safe-for-birds/
Uncertainty surrounding wind power's impact on wildlife--particularly the potential for deadly collisions between birds and turbines--has
tarnished its image and even delayed some wind farms. Indeed, the first large offshore wind farm proposed for U.S. waters--the Cape Wind
project in Massachusetts's Nantucket Sound--has been held up in part by concerns that its 130 turbines could kill thousands of seabirds annually.
Now a simple infrared collision-detection system developed by Denmark's National Environmental Research Institute is helping clear the air. The
Thermal Animal Detection System (TADS) is essentially a heat-activated infrared video camera that watches
a wind turbine around the clock, recording deadly collisions much as a security camera captures crimes. The first
results, released this winter as part of a comprehensive $15 million study of Denmark's large offshore wind farms, show seabirds to be
remarkably adept at avoiding offshore installations. "There had been suggestions that enormous numbers of birds would
be killed," says Robert Furness, a seabird specialist at the University of Glasgow, who chaired the study's scientific advisory panel. "There's a
greater feeling now among European politicians that marine wind farms are not going to be a major ecological problem,
and therefore going ahead with construction is not going to raise lots of political difficulties."
Alt causes to bird death- wind kills 20 birds a year
R. Saidur, 11
Centre of Research UMPEDAC, Level 4, Engineering Tower, “Environmental impact of wind energy”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032111000669, accessed 10/10/12,WYO/JF
It is found that birds are one of the largest victim groups in mortality collision of wind turbines around the world [29]. Regional and overall
birds’ fatality rates in United States are shown in Table 4. On the other hand, Sovacool
and Benjamin stated that wind
energy killed about twenty times fewer birds than fossil fuels. The number of birds killed by wind
turbines can be negligible compared to other human activities [30]. It was found that out of the total number
of birds killed in a year, only 20 deaths were due to wind turbines (for an installed capacity of 1000 MW), while
1500 deaths were caused by hunters and 2000 caused by the collisions with vehicles and electricity
transmission lines (they are almost “invisible” for birds [31]). Summing up, it is important to understand that whatever
impacts wind turbines have, on the one hand they are very obvious, and on the other hand, it is possible to minimize them through
proper design and planning. In contrast, the impacts of thermal or nuclear energy production are slow to appear,
are long term and no matter how much effort and money are spent, it is impossible to minimize them. In conclusion, we must
decide that if we have to produce electricity, it is certainly preferable to produce it in a way which has the smallest possible impact on the
environment. From a technical and economic standpoint, the
most mature form of renewable and “clean” energy is
wind energy. It can effectively contribute to combating climate change while at the same time providing various environmental, social and
economic benefits [31]. Table 5 shows the leading human-related causes of bird kills in United States [32]. AWEA calculates that if
wind energy were used to generate 100% of U.S. electricity needs, wind energy would only cause one
bird death for every 250 human-related bird deaths with reference to the current rate of bird kills as
described inTable 5[24].
Wind power technology allows for turbines to turn themselves off before killing
massive amounts of birds
R. Saidur, 11
Centre of Research UMPEDAC, Level 4, Engineering Tower, “Environmental impact of wind energy”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032111000669, accessed 10/10/12,WYO/JF
3.1.3.2. Guidelines and consultancy for industry In United States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed
voluntary guidelines for the sitting of wind energy facilities. These guidelines make recommendations regarding sitting of the
wind plants. However, the wind industries are resisting such guidelines. A wildlife consultant may identify any issues of possible concern. The
consultant examines the proposed site and prepares a detailed report on impacts for review for the developer. These
surveys reduce
the threat to avian to minimal levels [38]. 3.1.3.3. Radar technologies Avian radar was developed for
NASA and United States to detect birds as far as four miles away. The system will determine whether
the birds are in danger or in safe. If the system detects that a bird is in danger, it will shut down the
wind turbines automatically. Once a bird crossed the turbine safely, the system will automatically
restart the turbine [39].
Offshore wind does not affect birds
DOI, 11
“Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Characterization Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf Offshore New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia”,
http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Smart_from_the_Start/MidA
tlanticWEAs_DraftEA.pdf, accessed 10/26/12,WYO/JF
While birds may be affected by vessel discharges, the presence of meteorological towers and buoys,
and accidental fuel releases, no significant impacts are anticipated. The risk of collision would be
minor due to the small number of meteorological towers proposed, their size, and their distance from
shore and each other. The impact of meteorological buoys on ESA listed and non ESA listed
migratory birds is expected to be negligible, because they are much smaller and close to the water
surface and similarly dispersed. The impact of meteorological towers on ESA listed and non ESA listed
migratory birds is also expected to be minor at most for the same reasons.
Fish DA
Turbines don’t hurt fish
Vella 5
(Gero Vella, 2005, Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, University of Liverpool, Gero Vella is a marine
biologist at the University of Liverpool’s Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies. He researches the
impacts of anthropogenic activities on marine wildlife, both in a research and consultancy capacity.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1949&context=facpub)
Fish Intermittent
noise associated with activities during the construction of wind farms (vessel movements,
seismic sur vey, piling etc.) is well within the range of the behavioral audio- grams of fish (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This
is suppor ted by obser vations of their reac- tions, which have commonly demonstrated changes in behavior, such as alarm and startle
responses (Vella et al., 2001). Such responses may be of par ticular significance if a wind farm is in close proximity to spawn- ing or nursery
ground areas, and particularly if construction is prolonged. Of the fish species included in Figure 2, only the audiogram of cod falls within the
noise range of the Svante turbine, suggesting that some sort of behavioral response would be expected. Investigations at the Svante wind farm
have shown that the number of cod in the local area of the operating turbine are greater than in the surrounding area (Westerberg, 1999). This
presumably reflects the ability of animals to habituate to a continu- ous noise stimulus. Similar effects have been observed around other
“noisy” structures such as oil platforms (Valdemarsen, 1979). Intermittent, loud
noise may therefore have an adverse effect
on local fish popula- tions, causing alarm responses and probable movement of fish away from
construction areas. This could be significant if construction affected spawning or nursery areas. But when wind farms are
operating normally, fish appear to readily habituate and utilize wind farm sites at higher than normal
densities, taking advantage of the shelter provided and probably also the additional food resources provided by colonizing ani- mals (Vella
et al., 2001). Furthermore, a study of the effects of operational noise on migrating fish (Westerberg, 1999) did not show a significant effect of
the Svante wind farm on migrating eel direction.
Politics/Midterms DA
Plan popular with the public
Caperton et all, 12
(Richard, the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy, and
Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at American Progress. “Congress
Needs To Push Targeted Incentives For Offshore Wind”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/13/403620/congress-incentives-offshore-wind/)
Public support isn’t the problem According to a nationwide survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute, about 7 in 10
Americans (71 percent) support “a shift of federal support for energy away from nuclear and towards
clean renewable energy such as wind and solar.” In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, undeveloped land is difficult to
find. That means renewable energy developers have to look further afield—in this case, to sea. In the early days of offshore wind, the obstacles
to development in the United States were largely borne of ignorance—concerns that offshore turbines visible on the horizon would destroy
property values; that noise, or safety, or storage of lubricating fluid for the turbines would pose unacceptable risks. As other countries around
the world have moved ahead with offshore wind development and seen no ill effects from those factors, however, such concerns have
dramatically abated. Support from coastal residents is fundamental to the potential success of offshore wind projects. After all, these wind
farms will effectively be built in their backyards. And recently, poll
after poll has shown that coastal residents are highly
supportive of offshore wind energy. According to a poll of New Jersey residents, offshore wind
production is extremely popular among voters and its support cuts across party and geographic lines.
The analysis demonstrates that 78 percent of all New Jersey voters and 77 percent of the state’s shore residents surveyed support the
development of wind power 12 to 15 miles off their coast. Public support is strong in Delaware as well. According to a University of Delaware
poll, general statewide support for offshore wind in Delaware is 77.8 percent, compared with
an opposition of only 4.2 percent.
In Maryland The Baltimore Sun reported in October 2011 that 62 percent of Marylanders favor wind turbine construction off the coast of Ocean
City and would be willing to pay up to $2 more per month on electricity bills. Mike Tidwell, head of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network,
said, “Marylanders understand that the benefits of offshore wind are more than worth a modest initial investment.”
No link to politics on spending – spun as jobs
Schroeder 10
(Erica, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. M.E.M., Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, October, “Turning
Offshore Wind On,” 98 Calif. L. Rev. 1631 - Kurr)
While this revision would likely be the hardest of the three for Congress to swallow, particularly during an economic downturn, there
is at
least one compelling reason for Congress to consider it: offshore wind power development can create
jobs, both regionally and nationally. n276 Indeed, President Obama has explicitly acknowledged the potential for clean energy to
create new jobs, with particular urgency as the United States continues to see high rates of unemployment. n277 In addition, the President has
acknowledged the importance of public spending to stimulate the economy. n278 In particular, he
has promised to spend
significantly on renewable energy, in part because of its job-creation potential. n279 Or, as with the other
aforementioned revisions to the CZMA, these incentives might be tied into broader revisions to the Energy
Policy Act or the creation of new climate change legislation. n280 While this idea might buck historical trends related to federal
involvement in Coastal Zone development, it is well within the realm of practical policies already being discussed.
Plan funds the mandate and checks pre-emption via state participation in the
CZMA
Salkin 09
(Patricia E., Raymond & Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law, Associate Dean and Director of the
Government Law Center of Albany Law School; “Can You Hear Me Up There? Giving Voice to Local
Communities Imperative for Achieving Sustainability,” 4 Envt'l & Energy L. & Pol'y J. 257 – Kurr)
The Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA") was enacted in 1972, in part, "to encourage and assist states to exercise effectively their
responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and
water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as the needs for
compatible development. [*288] . . ." n159 Enacted in 1972, the CZMA gives states the opportunity to work with local governments to achieve
a shared land use vision for coastal resources. n160 Involvement
in the program is not mandatory, but there are
several incentives for the states to participate. n161 First, the states can receive increased control over
federal actions and permit approvals in their coastal areas by preparing state coastal plans under the
Act, because once a state's program has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, federal activity and permits then must
be consistent with the state's coastal policies. n162 In addition to the regulatory powers gained by
creating a coastal zone management plan, states also receive federal funding if they participate in
the program. n163
No nimby opposition- New Jersey proves
Caperton, 12
Richard W. Caperton is the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a
Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at American Progress. “Encouraging Investment Is Key to U.S. Offshore Wind Development”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/01/12/10951/encouraging-investment-is-keyto-u-s-offshore-wind-development/, accessed 10/27/12,WYO/JF
Public support isn’t the problem According to a nationwide survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute, about 7 in 10 Americans (71 percent)
support “a shift of federal support for energy away from nuclear and towards clean renewable energy such as wind and solar.” In the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic states, undeveloped land is difficult to find. That means renewable energy developers have to look further afield—in this case,
to sea. In
the early days of offshore wind, the obstacles to development in the United States were
largely borne of ignorance—concerns that offshore turbines visible on the horizon would destroy
property values; that noise, or safety, or storage of lubricating fluid for the turbines would pose
unacceptable risks. As other countries around the world have moved ahead with offshore wind development and seen no ill effects from
those factors, however, such concerns have dramatically abated. Support from coastal residents is fundamental to the potential success of offshore
wind projects. After all, these wind farms will effectively be built in their backyards. And recently, poll after poll has shown that coastal residents
are highly supportive of offshore wind energy. According
to a poll of New Jersey residents, offshore wind
production is extremely popular among voters and its support cuts across party and geographic
lines. The analysis demonstrates that 78 percent of all New Jersey voters and 77 percent of the
state’s shore residents surveyed support the development of wind power 12 to 15 miles off their
coast. Public support is strong in Delaware as well. According to a University of Delaware poll, general statewide support
for offshore wind in Delaware is 77.8 percent, compared with an opposition of only 4.2 percent. In Maryland The Baltimore Sun reported in
October 2011 that 62 percent of Marylanders favor wind turbine construction off the coast of Ocean City and would be willing to pay up to $2
more per month on electricity bills. Mike Tidwell, head of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said, “Marylanders understand that the
benefits of offshore wind are more than worth a modest initial investment.” This view is backed by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, but as The
Washington Post reported earlier this week, his efforts to make his state a leader in offshore wind appear to be in jeopardy. Monday’s article
quoted Democratic Del. Dereck E. Davis saying, “The situation has gotten worse — not better — for offshore wind since the last time it was up
for debate.” So what has changed?
CP
States CP
Uniform 50 state fiat is a voting issue
A. Skirts topic literature- avoids patchwork good bad which is the only stable disad to
states
B. No logical decision maker
C. Steals the aff
D. Reason to reject the team- deters these counterplans in the future
Keeping multiple regulators in place stifles the industry.
Tran 9
(Sarah McQuillen, “WHY HAVE DEVELOPERS BEEN POWERLESS TO DEVELOP OCEAN POWER?” Texas
Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law, 4 Tex. J. Oil Gas & Energy L. 195, Lexis)
B. Ocean Technologies Renewable energy may be harnessed from the ocean in the form of wind, wave,
tidal, current, solar, and hydrogen power. n14 To generate wind power, the most highly-developed renewable offshore technology, n15 wind
turbines, use aerodynamic lift to convert the kinetic energy of moving air into electricity. Offshore wind farms consist of a group of these
turbines operating independently and delivering power to onshore customers through a common undersea cable. n16 Onshore wind turbines
have been used for centuries, but offshore sites offer the advantage of stronger and more consistent wind resources. n17 Offshore wind farms
have been successfully developed and connected to electrical grids in Denmark, England, Ireland, Holland, Sweden, and Wales. n18 In the U.S.,
full-scale, offshore wind parks are only in the pre-planning and permitting stages. n19 The Cape Wind project, which is a proposed wind farm
off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is farthest along in the permitting process. n20 As planned, the project would consist of 130 wind
turbines with blades [*200] extending more than 400 feet above the sea, making it one of the largest offshore wind energy plants in the world.
n21 Wave power represents another promising form of offshore renewable energy source. Wave energy technologies generate electricity from
the undulating motion of the ocean's waves. n22 The power in a moving wave may drive a turbine or other device directly, or it may pressurize
air or hydraulic fluid to power a generator. n23 Although the United States has considerable wave energy potential, n24 testing of ocean wave
energy conversion technologies has occurred only on a small, prototype scale at a few locations. However, wave energy projects will likely be
operational and connected to the U.S. grid within the next five to ten years. n25 Other countries have been more aggressive than the U.S. in
their efforts to harness the power of ocean waves. The Scottish government, for instance, has provided grants of $ 7.5 million for wave and
tidal projects in its waters. n26 Portugal became the site of the world's first wave farm when a Scottish developer lauched Pelamis machines,
named after the Latin word for sea snake, into Portugal's waters. The machines consist of "a series of red tubes, each about the size of a small
commuter train, linked together and pointed towards the waves . . . ." n27 As waves travel down the tubes, a hydraulic system harnesses the
resulting movement and generates electricity. n28 Tidal technologies represent yet another form of hydrokinetic energy. Unlike other forms of
offshore ocean energy technologies, tidal technologies typically occur close to shore, outside of any potential MMS jurisdiction. n29 These
technologies are nevertheless relevant to the FERC-MMS dispute because they provide the basis for the development of the ocean current
technologies that both agencies seek to regulate. n30 Tidal technologies take various forms. Barrage technologies generate electricity from the
difference of water height on either side of an [*201] impoundment built across an area subject to tidal flow, such as a river estuary. n31 Tidal
fences, another technology, can be erected across channels between small islands or across straits between the mainland and an island to
capture the energy from tidal currents. n32 Tidal turbine technologies, which resemble underwater wind farms, can use the energy of the tidal
current to spin a turbine. n33 Ocean current energy technology is at a much earlier stage of development than tidal technologies in the U.S and
abroad, with only a small number of prototypes and demonstration units having been tested to date. n34 Efforts to adapt tidal technology to
ocean currents have raised a number of engineering challenges. Unlike tidal technologies, ocean current technologies are located relatively
large distances from shore in sites where there is a lack of slack water and water depths range from 985 to 1,640 feet. n35 III. A
JURISDICTIONAL OBSTACLE Despite the growing recognition of the value of "green" ocean technologies, FERC and MMS have hindered their
advancement by engaging in a jurisdictional battle. The controversy originated in 2003. In that year FERC held in its AquaEnergy Group decision
that the scope of its power under the Federal Power Act ("FPA") n36 to issue permits or licenses for wave energy projects extended beyond 3
nautical mile limits, the traditional limit of navigable waters, to the limits of the territorial sea, 12 nautical miles from the shore. n37 A couple of
years later, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted the Secretary of the Department of the Interior the authority, subsequently delegated to
MMS, to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way authorizing activities that produce or support production, transportation, or transmission of
energy from sources other than oil and gas on the OCS. n38 MMS has asserted that FERC's authority does not extend beyond the traditional
three-mile boundary of the [*202] territorial sea. n39 Rather, it has declared that "[s]uch activities on the OCS are expressly authorized and
regulated by the MMS." n40 The agencies have independently developed their own regulations to govern renewable energy projects in the
disputed zone. FERC has been processing permit and license applications for wave and tidal energy projects since its AquaEnergy decision.
MMS, on the other hand, has been establishing a cradle-to-grave process to oversee and coordinate projects from initial proposal evaluation,
permitting, and leasing, to final project decommissioning at the end of a project's useful life. n41 Commentators have pointed out the
detrimental impact this dispute could have on the development of the offshore alternative energy industry: This struggle between FERC and
MMS, whether perceived or real, may have a significant effect on the nascent industry seeking to develop alternative energy sources on the
OCS. Many companies cannot afford to go through, for example, FERC's permitting process only to find that, in fact, they should have gone
through MMS' permitting process, or vice versa. Obtaining approvals from both agencies would also be extremely burdensome. In short,
interagency squabbling may delay the growth of this industry and serve as a bar that would prevent
potentially interested companies and investors from entering into this field. n42 At a time when the
development of alternative energy sources should be encouraged by the federal government to help the nation take a stance against global
warming and the U.S.'s problematic reliance on foreign fuels, it is extremely unfortunate that two federal agencies have stifled the progress.
Even though joint regulation with both agencies sharing equally in the responsibility for protecting OCS resources and overseeing projects can
be suggested as a possible resolution of the conflict, this should be summarily dismissed. Joint
regulation would raise the risk of
too many chefs spoiling the broth. Unless one agency accepts a subordinate regulatory role in relation
to the other, such an approach would be overly burdensome on developers and would delay the
much-needed technological innovation of alternative energy sources. Nonetheless, the agencies have entertained
the possibility of joint regulation. They spent over a year negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to [*203] allocate authority on
the OCS that was designed to ensure the agencies "don't overlap or overburden each other." n43 A draft MOU, sent from MMS to FERC on June
5, 2007, set up a three-step process for OCS projects. n44 MMS would have taken the lead on leasing, which was an area "FERC has no desire to
get involved in." n45 Then, with the Commission's support, MMS would have headed the study phase as well. n46 Finally, FERC would have
authorized the construction of projects and related transmission lines. n47 Although it was expected that the final MOU would be released by
early summer, n48 the agencies did not finalize the MOU because they thought Congress intended to resolve the issue legislatively. n49 A
legislative solution did not materialize, and the inter-agency dispute continued as each agency effected its own regulatory regime for the new
technologies. Recently, on April 9, 2009, FERC and the Department of the Interior ("DOI") signed into effect a new MOU that, like the earlier
draft MOU, envisions a system of regulation with two lead regulators. n50 This agreement serves as a concrete indication that the government
wants to resolve the dispute. However, an
MOU is not a legally binding document and, as discussed in the
Postscript, may not provide anything more than a temporary solution to the interagency dispute.
Until a legislative solution appears, regulatory uncertainty will likely persist. A consequence of the
continuing regulatory uncertainty is that "companies are forced to hold off seeking funding for specific projects as financial institutions
are loath to fund projects with so much risk within the permitting arena." n51 But Congressional inaction, though stifling for the infant industry,
has an upside. Fermenting the dispute for several years has given FERC and MMS time to assert and defend their statutory arguments,
demonstrate the types of regulatory approaches they will likely administer to future renewable energy projects on the OCS, and expose how
regulation of these projects relates to their other official responsibilities.
Federal action is key to solve – federal regulatory uncertainty
Schroeder 10
(Erica, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. M.E.M., Yale School of Forestry &
Environmental Studies, 2004; B.A., Yale University, 2003, “Turning Offshore Wind On” California Law
Review, 98 Calif. L. Rev. 1631, lexis)
Section 388 came in response to controversy over which federal agency had permitting authority during
the early¶ stages of the Cape Wind project, which is described in more detail in Part IV. While Section
388 does not resolve all of¶ the issues relating to federal jurisdiction over offshore wind, n108 its
designation of MMS as the primary permitting¶ agency marks Congress's first step toward a unified
review process for offshore alternative energy. n109 Nonetheless, the¶ current federal regulatory
environment for offshore wind remains confusing. In April 2009, President Obama took a¶ first step
toward remedying some of that confusion by announcing a coordinated program, headed by DOI, for
federal¶ offshore renewable energy permitting. The program will cover not only offshore wind power
generation, but also other¶ offshore renewable energy, such as electricity generated from ocean
currents. n110 Despite this progress toward an¶ improved federal regulatory program, barriers to
offshore wind power still exist, largely due to the absence of a strong¶ and effective federal mandate
promoting offshore wind power development and the powers that states retain over¶ project siting.
n111
Biodiversity ADV CP (Endangered Species Act)
ESA fails and don’t buy their 99% claims
Ridenour ‘05
(David Ridenour in a National Policy Analysis. “"TESRA" Endangered Species Act Reform Proposal Would Do More Harm Than Good” a
Publication of the National Center for Public Policy Research, August 2005, http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA531TESRA.html). TKT
Congress is once again contemplating changes to the Endangered Species Act. As in the past, prospects for the adoption of meaningful reform are
poor. This is unfortunate, as few
laws have been as ineffective and counterproductive as the Endangered
Species Act. ESA's 32 Years of Failure In the 32 years the ESA has been on the books, just 34 of the nearly 1,300 U.S.
species given special protection have made their way off the "endangered" or "threatened" lists. Of this number, nine species are now
extinct, 14 appear to have been improperly listed in the first place, and just nine (.6% of all the species
listed) have recovered sufficiently to be de-listed. Two species - a plant with white to pale-blue flowers called the Hoover's
Woolly-Star and the yellow perennial, Eggert's Sunflower - appear to have made their way off the threatened list in part through "recovery" and
in part because they were not as threatened as originally believed. A
less than 1% recovery rate isn't good.1 Some
environmental groups, however, insist that this statistic proves the opposite - that the ESA has been very effective.
These organizations note that, since 99% of all the species given special protection have either
recovered or are still on the endangered and threatened lists, these species all "still exist" and,
therefore, the ESA has worked. The "still exist" standard, however, tells us little about the true
status of endangered and threatened species and certainly does not prove the efficacy of the ESA. It
is not clear that species recoveries so far can be attributed to the ESA. * The American Peregrine Falcon's
recovery benefited enormously from captive breeding programs sponsored by The Peregrine Fund and other private organizations. Such programs
would have existed without the ESA.2 * The recovery of the Aleutian Goose would have occurred without the ESA. The Goose's decline was
largely due to the introduction of a non-native predator, the Arctic Fox, to the goose's island habitat. Once the foxes were removed, the goose
again flourished.3 * The American Alligator's recovery had little to do with the ESA. There were already 734,000 alligators in 13 states by the
time the ESA became law - much of the recovery likely due to a 1967 ban on alligator hunting.4 * The Gray Whale was recovering well before
the ESA's adoption. Thanks to the collapse of the market for whale oil (due to the advent of petroleum-based alternatives in the late 1880s) and a
ban on commercial hunting of these whales in 1946, Gray Whale populations had been increasing for more than 100 years by the time they were
de-listed in 1994.5 Continued listing as a protected species under the ESA neither proves that a species exists nor that the ESA works. As the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service recently noted in its rejection of a petition to de-list the slackwater darter (etheostoma boschungi), petitions for delisting
are frequently delayed "due to low priorities assigned to delisting petitions in accordance with our Listing Priority Guidance... That guidance
identified delisting activities as the lowest priority (Tier 4)." The petition was filed by the National Wilderness Institute on February 3, 1997, but
this finding was not made until July 7, 2005 - more than eight years later. Such findings are supposed to be made within 90 days. The IvoryBilled Woodpecker, for example, was never removed from the endangered list despite widespread belief that it had been extinct for decades
before the ESA became law.6 A petition to de-list the woodpecker due to its extinction filed in 1997 was never acted upon.7 The act of delisting a
species for any reason is so politically-charged that it practically takes an act of Congress to get a species off the threatened or endangered lists.
By one estimate, 30 or more of currently listed species are extinct.8 Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers reportedly were recently spotted in Arkansas.
Some experts, including Jerome Jackson, a zoologist from Florida Gulf Coast University, have publicly disputed the evidence for the bird's
existence, however.9 Even if the bird does exist, the ESA could not be credited with its recovery. There hasn't been a rule, proposed rule, federal
agency notice, or executive order regarding the woodpeckers since June 2, 1970 - clear indications that, as far as the federal government was
concerned, the bird was extinct.10 Even
for species that aren't believed to be extinct, "existing" doesn't mean
success, especially when the species are hanging on by a thread. Just 36% of the species on the
endangered and threatened lists are currently believed to be stable or improving - meaning that 64% are
declining.1
Econ ADV CP (Port deepening)
CP links to politics – unpopular in congress
Spivak 11
senior research analyst at the HNTB Corporation, a transportation design and engineering firm (Jeffrey, "The Battle of the Ports", May/June,
American Planning Association, aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Battle%20of%20the%20Ports%20-%20Planning%20mag%20%20May_June%202011.pdf)
The fact is, with
the federal deficit-cutting climate
in Washington D.C., getting
funding for port projects could
be come more difficult . For one thing, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is tapped ¶ every year to help
offset the federal deficit. For another, Congress has sworn off the earmarks , or ¶ individual projects
requested by lawmakers, that were a major source of port funding. "There is too ¶ much competition
for scarce federal dollars," says Russell Held of the Virginia Port Authority.
That costs capital
Barnett, 12
(Ron, USA Today, 5/24, “East Coast ports scramble to dig deep, for supersize ships,” http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/201205-24/deepening-harbors/55653540/1)//DH ‘the association’ = the American Association of Port Authorities
The association is lobbying Congress for approval, which is required by the Constitution for such
projects, and for funding. But, "Because freight doesn't really have as strong a voice as the movement
of people, it's going to take a lot of heavy lifting ," Ellis said.
"We're fighting hard enough in this country just to keep our navigation channels maintained at their
authorized depths and widths."
Federal efforts fail – engineering failures and economics
Edwards, 2012
director of tax policy studies at Cato, senior economist, and expert on federal and state tax and budget issues, senior economist on the
congressional Joint Economic Committee (Chris, “Cutting the Army Corps of Engineers”, CATO, March 2012,
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usace#6)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a federal agency that constructs and maintains a wide range of
infrastructure for military and civilian purposes.1 This essay concerns the civilian part of the agency, which employs about
23,000 people and will spend about $9.2 billion in fiscal 2012.2 The civilian part of the Corps—called "civil works"—
builds and operates locks, channels, and other navigation infrastructure on river systems. It also
builds flood control structures, dredges seaports, manages thousands of recreation sites, and owns
and operates hydroelectric power plants across the country. While the Army Corps has built some
impressive infrastructure, many of its projects have been economically or environmentally dubious .
The agency's activities have often subsidized private interests at the expense of federal taxpayers .
Furthermore, the Corps has a history of distorting its cost-benefit analyses in order to justify its projects. The civilian side of
the Corps grew out of the engineering expertise gained by the agency's military activities early in the nation's history. In mid-19th century, Congress began adding civilian missions to the Corps
in response to political demands and various natural disasters. Today we are left with an agency involved in far flung activities such as beach replenishment, upgrades to city water systems,
The Corps has been greatly mismanaged over
the decades, with problems ranging from frequent cost overruns on projects to the major
agriculture irrigation, clean-up of hazardous waste sites, and efforts to revive the Florida Everglades.
engineering failures that contributed to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. In addition, the dominance
of special-interest politics on the agency's activities has resulted in it supporting many wasteful
projects. Fortunately, most of the Corps' activities do not need to be carried out by the federal government. Some of its activities—such as flood control and the management of
recreational areas—should be turned over to state and local governments. Other activities—such as seaport dredging and hydropower generation—should be turned over to the private
sector. This essay focuses on cutting the Corps' spending activities, and does not address the calls for reforming the agency's regulatory functions.3 The following sections look at the history of
the Army Corps, the pork-barrel nature of its spending, its legacy of mismanagement, and its role in Hurricane Katrina. The essay concludes that the bulk of the agency's civilian activities and
assets should be privatized or transferred to state and local governments. The remaining activities of the Corps that are truly federal in nature should be transferred to the Department of the
Interior.
The civilian side of the Army Corps should be closed down.
Means it doesn’t access any of the case
Edwards, 2012
director of tax policy studies at Cato, senior economist, and expert on federal and state tax and budget issues, senior economist on the
congressional Joint Economic Committee (Chris, “Cutting the Army Corps of Engineers”, CATO, March 2012,
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/usace#6)
These longstanding
problems are the result both of the agency's pro-building culture and congressional
politics. The ad hoc way that the agency's projects are funded creates further problems. New projects are typically authorized in
Water Resources Development Acts, which are passed every few years. The last of such acts was enacted in 2007 over a
veto by President George W. Bush.36 After authorization, each project included may or may not receive funding
a year at a time in annual appropriations bills.¶ The problem is that Congress has crammed far too
many projects into the Corps' pipeline, with the result that progress on each project is slow and
erratic.
For example, Congress has authorized more than 400 municipal water and sewer projects for the Corps, with a total price tag of
more than $5 billion. However, only about $140 million or so is actually appropriated for these projects each year.37¶ The
slow progress
of Corps' projects contrasts with private sector construction projects, which are built as quickly as
possible to hold down costs. A Government Accountability Office report on the Corps found that "funding projects in
increments hinders project efficiency by increasing costs and timelines."38 One Corps' official told the GAO, "this is
one of the reasons that a civil works project takes 20 years to execute, instead of 3 if we were fully funded from the start."39 The Corps
currently has a backlog of more than 1,000 feasibility studies and construction projects worth more
than $80 billion that have been authorized but not funded.40¶ The Corps is an engineering and
construction organization, and in our economy such activities are usually carried out by private
businesses. The Corps has never been run like a private business—it doesn't have an efficient
structure, it doesn't pursue the highest-return projects, and it doesn't construct projects quickly and
efficiently. Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said the Corps is "one of the most incompetent and inept organizations in all
the federal government."41 The good news is that we don't need a civilian Army Corps organization because most of its functions could be
carried out by state and local governments and the private sector.
Offshore Wind Neg
Offshore Solvency
Rhode Island
Rhode Island solving
Kessler 9/19/11
(Rebecca, science journalist based in Providence, Rhode Island, senior editor at Natural History magazine for five years, MA from the Science,
Health and Environmental Reporting Program at New York University, “Nation’s Smallest State Thinks Big When it Comes to Offshore Wind
Farms” http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nations-smallest-state-thinks-big-when-it-comes-to-offshore-wind-farms/)
But the nation’s smallest state has a big idea about how to streamline the approval process: instead of waiting for developers to take the lead
and forcing regulators and residents to react, Rhode
Island has created the nation’s first plan that lays out the
best places for wind farms to go, and some spots where they can’t. Called the Ocean Special
Area Management Plan, or SAMP, it took two years and about $8 million to put together — and the people who created it
tried to anticipate as many potential complications as possible. They not only documented wind resources, oceanographic conditions, marine
life and human activities that might be affected by wind farms, but also got input from numerous interested parties, including environmental
groups, fishermen, boaters, the Narragansett Indian Tribe, and wind energy developers. The
plan instantly turns Rhode
Island into a national leader in wind farm development. “[It] is a very strong tool to help us play a significant role
in determining how our oceans are used,” says Jennifer McCann of the University of Rhode Island’s Coastal Resources Center and Rhode Island
Sea Grant, who was a principal architect of the document. “It puts the state of Rhode Island in the driver’s seat. There’s no other state that has
this tool.” The Federal government formally approved the plan for state waters this past summer, and in September gave Rhode Island
additional leverage over wind energy projects and other activities in nearby federal waters. “Prior to this year,” said Jane Lubchenco, director of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at a ceremony in July, “individual proposals for new ocean uses generated
conflict that wasted time and energy. By bringing together diverse ocean interests to the table, this plan reduces uncertainty. And in the long
run the new plan reduces costs and makes authorization of offshore renewable energy projects more efficient.” Wind-energy companies seem
to agree. Soon after the July event, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the federal government was soliciting proposals for wind
energy projects in federal waters off Rhode Island and Massachusetts. As of October 11, eight companies had formally expressed an interest.
One of them is Providence-based Deepwater Wind, which took part in the meetings leading up to the plan. The company has proposed a fiveturbine demonstration project in Rhode Island waters that it hopes will beat Cape Wind by becoming the country’s first working offshore wind
farm in 2013. “What’s
been paramount to us as an industry is that [the SAMP has] provided real
renewable energy leadership, which has been absent in many ways up till now,” Paul Rich,
Deepwater’s Chief Development Officer for Rhode Island, said at the July event.
No Ships
No ships for installation
Hopkins 12
Partner @ Duane Morris LLP w/ with a concentration on transportation, products liability and commercial litigation [Robert B. Hopkins, Duane
Morris LLP, “Offshore Wind Farms in US Waters Would Generate Both US and Foreign Maritime Jobs,” Renewable Energy World, July 12, 2012,
pg. http://tinyurl.com/9sbj8k6
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency that enforces the Jones Act, has issued a number of rulings that conclude that the Jones Act in certain
situations does not apply to the actual installation of wind turbines by large-scale vessels known as jack-up lift vessels. Moreover, there has been some debate on
whether the Jones Act would apply to vessels travelling to an established wind farm located over 3 miles off the coastline in the OCS for such things as maintenance
and repair. A bill clarifying that the Jones Act would apply in this maintenance/repair scenario (HR 2360) has recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and
is now awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. Thus, at present, from a purely legal standpoint, foreign-flagged
vessels would likely be able to
participate in the installation of the proposed wind farms, but there is some uncertainty as to
whether foreign-flagged vessels would be able to participate in maintenance/repair work.
Complicating all of this is the dearth of U.S.-flagged jack-up lift vessels capable of undertaking
much of the very heavy work involved in the installation of offshore wind turbines. To further confound
matters, with a boom in offshore wind farm construction in Europe and China, many foreignflagged jack-up lift vessels capable of such work are now booked for the next several years.
Not Cost Competitive
Offshore wind’s not cost competitive---their projections are wrong
Howland 12
Caitlin holds an honors degree in economics from the University of Maine. Advisors for this thesis include Gary Hunt, PhD in Economics, Jeff
Thaler, J.D. Yale, Andrew Goupee, PhD in Mechanical Engineering, Sharon Tisher, J.D. Harvard, Sharon Wagner, PhD in Engineering and Public
Policy. “The Economics of Offshore Wind Energy,” May,
http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=honors
Offshore wind will not be viable in the coming years without a carbon tax and a potential
government subsidy. If no developers invest in a farm, learning curve effects will be stunted
and not be able to take the course of action predicted. The effect of learning-by-doing over time is crucial
to decreasing costs. If an aggressive pricing scheme on carbon is adopted, it is possible deepwater offshore wind energy could become competitive in less than two
decades.
Hurricanes
Hurricanes will destroy offshore wind farms- especially on US coast
PNAS 12
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, “Quantifying the Hurricane risk to hurricanes offshore wind turbines,” 1/10/2012,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/06/1111769109.full.pdf+html, RC)
The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that if the United States is to generate 20% of its electricity from wind, over 50 GW will be
required from shallow offshore turbines. Hurricanes are a potential risk to these turbines. Turbine
tower buckling has been
observed in typhoons, but no offshore wind turbines have yet been built in the United States. We
present a probabilistic model to estimate the number of turbines that would be destroyed by
hurricanes in an offshore wind farm. We apply this model to estimate the risk to offshore wind farms in four representative
locations in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal waters of the United States. In the most vulnerable areas now being actively considered by
developers, nearly half the turbines in a farm are likely to be destroyed in a 20-y period. Reasonable mitigation measures—increasing the
design reference wind load, ensuring that the nacelle can be turned into rapidly changing winds, and building most wind plants in the areas
with lower risk—can greatly enhance the probability that offshore wind can help to meet the United States’ electricity needs. As a result of
state renewable portfolio standards and federal tax incentives, there is growing interest and investment in renewable sources of electricity in
the United States. Wind is the renewable resource with the largest installed-capacity growth in the last 5 y, with U.S. wind power capacity
increasing from 8.7 GW in 2005 to 39.1 GW 2010 (1). All of this development has occurred onshore. U.S. offshore wind resources may also
prove to be a significant contribution to increasing the supply of renewable, low-carbon electricity. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) estimates that offshore wind resources can be as high as four times the U.S. electricity generating capacity in 2010 (2). Although this
estimate does not take into account siting, stakeholder, and regulatory constraints, it indicates that U.S. offshore wind resources are significant.
Though no offshore wind projects have been developed in the United States, there are 20 offshore wind projects in the planning process (with
an estimated capacity of 2 GW) (2). The U.S. Department of Energy’s 2008 report, 20% Wind by 2030 (3) envisions 54 GW of shallow offshore
wind capacity to optimize delivered generation and transmission costs. U.S. offshore resources are geographically distributed through the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Great Lake coasts. The most accessible shallow resources are located in the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Resources at depths
shallower than 60 m in the Atlantic coast, from Georgia to Maine, are estimated to be 920 GW; the estimate for these resources in the Gulf
coast is 460 GW (2). Offshore wind turbines in these areas will be at risk from Atlantic hurricanes. Between 1949 and
2006, 93 hurricanes struck the U.S. mainland according to the HURDAT (Hurricane Database) database of the National Hurricane Center (4). In
this 58-y period, only 15 y did not incur insured hurricane-related losses (5). The Texas region was affected by 35 hurricane events, while the
southeast region [including the coasts of Florida, where no offshore resources have been estimated (2)] had 32 events. Hurricane
risks
are quite variable, both geographically and temporally. Pielke, et al. (6) note pronounced differences in the total
hurricane damages (normalized to 2005) occurring each decade. Previous research has shown strong associations between North Atlantic
hurricane activity and atmosphere-ocean variability on different time scales, including the multidecadal (7, 8). Atlantic hurricane data show that
hurricane seasons with very high activity levels occur with some regularity; for instance, since 1950, there have been 25 y with three or more
intense hurricanes (Saffir-Simpson Category 3 or higher). There were two 2-y periods with 13 intense hurricanes: 1950–1951 and 2004–2005.
2004 and 2005 hurricanes were particularly damaging to the Florida and Gulf Coast regions (six hurricanes made landfall in those areas in 2004
and seven the following year). These
hurricanes resulted in critical damages to energy infrastructure. Hurricane
Katrina (2005), for example, was reported to have damaged 21 oil and gas producing platforms and completely destroyed 44 (9). Numerous
drilling rigs and hydrocarbon pipelines were also damaged. Similarly, hurricanes have damaged powers
systems. Liu, et al. (10) reported that in 2003 Dominion Power had over 58,000 instances of the activation of safety devices in the electrical
system to isolate damages as a result of Hurricane Isabel. Although no offshore wind turbines have been built in the
United States, there is no reason to believe that this infrastructure would be exempt from hurricane
damages. In order to successfully develop sustainable offshore resources, the risk from hurricanes to offshore wind
turbines should be analyzed and understood. Here we present a probabilistic model to estimate the number of turbines that
would be destroyed by hurricanes in an offshore wind farm. We apply this model to estimate the risk to offshore wind farms in four
representative locations in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal waters of the United States: Galveston County, TX; Dare County, NC; Atlantic County,
NJ; and Dukes County, MA. Leases have been signed for wind farms off the coasts of Galveston (11) and Dukes County (12); projects off the
coasts of New Jersey and North Carolina have been proposed (12). Results Wind Farm Risk from a Single Hurricane. Wind
turbines are
vulnerable to hurricanes because the maximum wind speeds in those storms can exceed the design
limits of wind turbines. Failure modes can include loss of blades and buckling of the supporting tower.
In 2003, a wind farm of seven turbines in Okinawa, Japan was destroyed by typhoon Maemi (13) and several turbines in China were damaged
by typhoon Dujuan (14). Here we consider only tower buckling, because blades are relatively easy to replace (although their loss can cause
other structural damage).
Lawsuits
Lawsuits prevent solvency
Ouellette 11
Apr 25 Gerry Ouellette is a retired aerospace engineer with extensive experience in electrical power generation, storage and distribution, and in
defense, radar and navigation systems and technologies. “YOUR VIEW: Problems with offshore wind farms not worth it”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/carver/topstories/x215600042/YOUR-VIEW-Problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worthit#ixzz20pX3d2b3http://www.wickedlocal.com/carver/highlight/x215600042/YOUR-VIEW-Problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worthit?zc_p=0#axzz20pVzy6cv
The problems associated with wind turbines and wind farms are widespread internationally. Feb. 14, The
Associated Press and other news media including Bloomberg Business Week published an article on court battles in the Netherlands and other
“Of some
200 wind energy projects studied in 2007-8 in Europe, 40 percent were ensnared in lawsuits, and 30
percent more faced slowdowns because of local resistance or questioning from nonprofit
environmental groups, the association said. It had no figures on how many projects were killed before they got started.” Even many
of the so called green organizations are against wind farms. In addition, they cannot produce electricity competitively and
European countries. I could not determine who first published the information, but key statements in most of the articles include:
require massive government subsidies for both installation and subsequent operation. Rate payers are hit a double whammy, higher electric rates
and higher taxes to pay the subsidies.
Timeframe
Takes 6 years to solve
Conger 11
(Hanna, JD from Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Summer, “A Lesson from Cape Wind: Implementation of Offshore Wind Energy in the
Great Lakes Should Occur Through Multi-State Cooperation,” 42 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 741 - Kurr)
Lessees must submit plans and information to the BOEMRE at various stages corresponding to the leasing and construction phases of projects.
n168 Throughout the process of plan approval, the BOEMRE [*769] coordinates with relevant federal agencies and state and local
governments. n169 The
purpose of this approval process is to demonstrate that the developer has
adequately planned the development to ensure that the activities will conform to applicable law, will be safe, will not
unreasonably interfere with other uses of the outer continental shelf, will not cause undue harm to environmental or historical resources, and
will use the best available technology and management practices, as well as properly trained personnel. n170 Developers must submit enough
information to allow the BOEMRE to complete the appropriate NEPA analysis, as well as certification indicating that the plan is consistent with
the CZMA in at least two of the several planning and approval stages. n171 Once
the plan has been approved, n172 the
developer may begin the activities outlined in the plan . n173 Because of the multiple rounds of
approval within the BOEMRE, and the environmental reviews and consultations with
agencies and state and local governments, it could take up to six years before construction
can begin under a lease. n174
Takes at least 3 years to build- constructions risks still deter.
Arnott ‘10
(Sarah Arnott of The Independent (London). “Offshore wind needs £10bn to avoid missing green targets”, July 26, 2010 Monday, Lexis).TKT
BRITAIN'S OFFSHORE wind ambitions will face a £10bn funding gap within five years, energy experts will warn today, and the Government's
legally-binding 2020 green targets will not be met unless the deficit can be closed. This comes a day after Energy Minister Chris Huhne revealed
plans for a huge expansion of the UK's wind turbines, saying wind power would be an "important part" of meeting the country's energy
demands in the future. A whopping £30bn of capital investment in offshore wind farms is needed over the coming decade if the UK is to
produce the 30 per cent of electricity from renewable sources needed to comply with European regulations, according to the report from
consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The number dwarfs current levels of investment, which run at around £8bn a year for all the
the average offshore wind farm takes more than three years
to construct, the £3bn annual investment requirement creates a capex exposure of £10bn by 2015. "A massive injection of money is
utilities and National Grid combined. Given that
needed," Michael Hurley, head of energy at PwC, said. "We need a radical new plan to deal with what is going to be one of the biggest issues
facing the Government in the aftermath of the departmental spending review [this autumn]." The problem is that the money cannot come from
the cash-strapped government. And with just £2bn of capital, the coalition government's planned Green Investment Bank will neither have
sufficient funds to solve the problem nor have the remit to solve the problems in the design of the market. Trickier still, the
risks
associated with offshore wind farms - both in terms of the construction process and the
unpredictable power price - are putting off the companies that might build them , and the financiers that might
help them raise the money. "The real issue is the ramp-up required to meet the 2020 target is very, very significant," Mr Hurley said. "Business
as usual simply will not work." There are a variety of options available to the Government to help spur investment in offshore wind, says PwC.
The simplest - already adopted in parts of the United States - is to add a flat levy to customer bills, to be spelled out separately from existing
standing and usage charges. It is difficult to estimate the size of such a levy. A more complex version of the same principle is to put the
provision of offshore infrastructure within the existing, regulated estate of National Grid, thus leaving the fundraising to a single corporate
entity. But the move is unlikely to prove popular with the company because it would leave it over-exposed to the massive construction risks
associated with offshore wind. Alternatively, the Government could approach the problem by raising the returns of the investment, by boosting
the number of Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs) - the system already in place to reward green generation - associated with offshore
wind. Whatever strategy is pursued has to appeal to utilities and potential financial backers - ideally either pension funds or Individual Savings
Account (ISA) holders, says PwC. "You may have an economic mechanism that works but [you] still have to get someone to finance it," Mr
Hurley said. "The key is to make it attractive to pension funds, so it has to be simple." The offshore wind industry is more bullish. Although
Renewable UK supports the call for improved regulation, the lobby group denies that without such changes, the money will not be found. "The
sums are huge and the structure of finance deals does not need a whole new approach," Maria McCaffery, the chief executive, said. "But the
number of international investors beating a path to our door suggests a healthy level of interest." There are 253 wind farms already in the UK,
and 12 offshore. Mr Huhne this weekend identified Dogger Bank in the North Sea as the potential site for an offshore wind project.
Takes years and guarantees a loss in investment capital
Van Bussel 2
(Dr. G.J.W. van Bussel , “OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY, THE RELIABILITY DILEMMA”
http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/Faculteit/LR/Organisatie/Afdelingen_en_Leerstoelen/Afdeling_AEWE/Wind_Energy/Research/Publications/
Publications_2002/doc/Bussel_Offshore_wind_energy.pdf, KB)
Increasing the size of offshore wind farms from the ¶ present 10 to 40 MW installed capacity per wind farm to ¶ values of 150 and probably as
large as 500 MW is not a ¶ straightforward procedure. Of course it is fairly easy to ¶ double or triple the number of turbines in a wind farm, ¶
extending the present 10 to 20 up to maybe 40 or 50 and ¶ hence increase its capacity proportionally. But this does ¶ require an equivalent
increase in the installation time of the ¶ wind farm. Assuming a typical value of 3 to 5 days per ¶ turbine this would already require more than
half a year of ¶ carefully planned continuous offshore activity. Weather¶ conditions need to be favourable for installation activities, ¶ and thus
they are usually planned in the summer season. ¶ Evidently a significant amount of time can be gained by ¶ parallel operations. This is
implemented in the realisation of ¶ the Horns Rev wind farm, consisting of 80 2 MW wind ¶ farms in front of the Danish North Sea coast near
Esbjerg. ¶ But
installing a larger number of turbines within one year ¶ will be virtually impossible .¶ Thus
realising a 500 MW wind farm using present ¶ state-of-the-art 2 to 2.5 MW wind turbines will take¶
several years with inherent loss of investment capital.
Wind Turbine Solvency
Turbines don’t work
Newest and most qualified studies prove that turbines can’t solve
RO 13
“Keeping Realistic Expectations About Wind Energy,”¶ February 25, 2013, http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112791094/wind-turbineenergy-power-solar-hydro-022513/, KB)
According to new research from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the
notion that wind energy presents an unending supply of power might be a bit misleading. While
there may be no end to breezes and gusts, the way we harness them could be counterproductive, according
to applied physicist David Keith. His latest research, which applies mesoscale atmospheric
modeling, finds large-scale wind farms will not be as effective as previously thought. His
conclusions have now been published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.¶ The issue lies in the byproduct of these wind turbines, an
effect called a “wind shadow.” As
the turbines spin, the drag created by the turbines slows the speed of
the wind. A properly executed wind farm of appropriate size accounts for wind shadow, spacing the
turbines far enough apart. Keith warns, however, as these wind farms begin to grow and grow
closer to one another, they’ll begin to interact with one another, affecting the regional-scale
wind patterns.¶ According to his research, “very large” wind farm installations of 62 or more square miles
apiece might only be able to generate less than one kilowatt per square mile. There had been
previous estimates
that
did not take wind shadow into effect.
These estimates held these large wind farms would be
able to generate as much as seven kilowatts per square mile.¶ Amanda Adams, a former postdoctoral fellow with Keith and currently a
professor of geography and earth sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte helped Keith write this report. In a press statement,
Adams says our trying to capture the wind is in it’s very nature altering how much of this wind is available to us.¶ “One of the inherent
challenges of wind energy is that as
soon as you start to develop wind farms and harvest the resource,
you change the resource, making it difficult to assess what’s really available ,” said Adams.
Wind Shadows
Their authors are wrong – “wind shadows” take out efficiency
AI 13
(American Interest “A Shadow Falls on Wind Power”, March 4, 2013,¶ http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/04/a-shadowfalls-over-wind-power/, KB)
Bad news for wind farms: the earth may have far less wind capacity than previously thought,
according to a new study from professors at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Up to this point, most
limits to wind power have centered on our inability to efficiently harness it, permit it, and site it. But new research suggests
geophysical limits will also hamper the fledgling energy source.¶ The chief problem is “wind
shadows.” These are created when the drag from wind turbine blades slows down the air
moving past them. This problem has been understood for years. Wind farm planners take it into account when placing turbines,
spacing them far enough apart so that one turbine’s blades don’t affect the wind “supply” of another’s.¶ But just as turbines slow down the air
immediately behind them, whole
wind farms create shadows that affect local and even regional
weather patterns. Current estimates of global wind power capacity don’t take this effect into
account. If they did, researchers say, they would be forced to trim their estimates of peak
production levels from 2-4 watts per square meter down to a maximum of just one watt per square meter at
large wind farms. In other words,
to four times.¶
our planet’s wind energy capacity has been overestimated by as much as two
This doesn’t mean that wind energy can’t be an important component of the world’s energy mix in the future, but it
should inform policymakers looking to plan for the future.
Unreliable
Wind power is unreliable
Energy Collective 6/1
Wind Energy CO2 Emissions Reductions are Overstated July 1, 2012 http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2emissions-are-overstated
Dispatch Value, Variability and Intermittency of Wind Energy: Wind energy is different from conventional gas, coal, nuclear and hydro energy.
The latter are controllable and dispatchable, whereas wind
energy is a product of variable wind speeds, i.e., its
supply is unpredictable and uncontrollable, and therefore, it has zero-dispatch value to a grid
operator. Wind energy has a scheduling value which ERCOT, the operator of the Texas Grid, sets at 8.7% of installed wind turbine capacity.
According to ERCOT, the scheduling value is a statistical concept created for generator planning purposes. It is based on multi-year averages of
wind energy generation at key peak demand times. ERCOT's
scheduling value of 8.7% does not assure that the
ENERGY of 8.7% of wind turbine rated capacity would be available at any specified “timeahead” period. Because of the randomness of wind speeds, no one can accurately predict
available wind energy at any future time. Hence, it's not available “on-demand”, i.e., not dispatchable.
Because wind energy increases by the cube of the wind speed, any change in wind speed creates significant surges
and ebbs of wind energy. If such energy were fed in larger quantities into the grid, it would create
chaos, unless the grid had enough quick-ramping generators to compensate for the wind energy surges and ebbs. Wind energy generation
usually it is minimal during summer, moderate during spring and fall, and maximal during winter. Almost all the time it is maximal at night.
German wind power output peaked at about 12,000 MW on July 24, 2011, four days later the
peak was 315 MW. About 10-15 percent of the hours of a year wind energy is near zero , because
Example:
wind speeds are too low (less than 7.5 mph) to turn the rotors, or too high for safety. During these hours wind turbines draw energy FROM the
grid, and also during hours with slowly turning rotors when parasitic energy exceeds the generated energy.
Uncompetitive
Most recent studies prove that hidden costs make wind uncompetitive
Tanton 13
(Tom Tanton - president of T2 & Associates, a consulting firm for the energy and technology industry. As president of T2 & Associates, Tanton
has conducted research regarding alternate fuels for the American Petroleum Institute (API). “Wind Energy Cost: Think Again ($0.15/kWh
wholesale prohibitively expensive)Ӧ January 8, 2013 http://www.masterresource.org/2013/01/wind-energy-15kwh/ KB)
“Once
these hidden costs [of windpower] are included and subsidies are excluded, wind generation is not
close to being competitive with conventional generation sources such as natural gas, coal or
nuclear.”¶ - George Taylor, quoted below.¶ “However, to meet the 33% RPS, technical studies show ramp rates may
triple, which is not possible for the [California] ISO’s conventional generation as configured today.”¶ - Clyde
Loutan (Senior Advisor, CaISO), “How Intermittent Renewables Impact CallSO.”¶ George Taylor and I have published a new study for the
American Tradition Institute (ATI) that finds that on a full cost basis, wind
electricity is nearly twice as expensive as
what is typically reported. “The Hidden Costs of Wind Electricity” provides an analysis of three major costs that past estimates
have ignored.¶ “The costs that have been left out of previous reports are the costs of paying for the
fossil-fired plants that must balance wind’s variations, the inefficiencies that wind imposes on
those plants, and the cost of longer-distance transmission,” said Taylor in ATI’s press release. “Once these hidden
costs are included and subsidies are excluded, wind generation is not close to being competitive with conventional generation sources such as
natural gas, coal or nuclear.Ӧ Adding
a conservative estimate of the hidden but real costs to the Energy
Information Administration’s (EIA’s) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s most
recent generation-cost reports increases wind’s projected cost from 8 cents to 15 cents per
kilowatt-hour (kWh).
No Storage
Storage of energy is not feasible—makes wind power impossible
Inhaber 11
Herbert, PhD in Physics and Mathematics from the University of Oklahoma. “Why wind power does not deliver the expected emissions
reductions.” May 5, 2011. Science Direct.
There are 17 pumped storage facilities described in a recent U.S. database [7].
These are the only large scale storage
facilities associated with electric grids. In principle, they could store wind and other
renewable energy. However, these facilities are geographically limited—they require two
large reservoirs, one hundreds of feet above the other. It is not clear how many of the 17
are sufficiently close to potential wind and renewable energy sources to store some of their
energy production.
Grid ADV
Turn
The aff overloads the power grid – causes blackouts
Neslen 12
Arthur Neslen for EurActiv, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 February 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/10/grid-blackout-threat-renewables
The policy chief of Europe's electricity industry association has told EurActiv that Europe will
have to slow down its integration of renewable energies or risk power cuts and systems
instability because of the slow pace of cross-border grid improvements. "Either you go very fast in the transition which is impossible [because] smart grids are expensive and the storage is not there in the
needed scope – or you diminish the speed for integrating renewables into the system," Susanne
Nies of Eurelectric told EurActiv in a phone interview. Given a choice between meeting the EU's target of getting 20% of energy – and 35% of the
EU's electricity mix – from renewables by 2020 or keeping the system stable, "I would rather say that system stability and avoiding blackouts is
more important," she said. Nies
cited a report claiming a rise of serious systems stability incidents last
year from 300 to 1,000 across a swathe of northern Europe, and said that the Czech Republic came
close to power black-outs in November and December 2010.
No Impact
No impact
Adams 12
Rod Adams 12, Former submarine Engineer Officer, Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., “Has Apocalyptic Portrayal of Climate Change Risk
Backfired?”, May 2, http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/has-apocalyptic-portrayal-of-climate-change-riskbackfired.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtomicInsights+%28Atomic+Insights%29
Not only was the discussion enlightening about the reasons why different people end up with different opinions about climate change
responses when presented with essentially the same body of information, but it also got me thinking about a possible way to fight back against
the Gundersens,
Caldicotts, Riccios, Grossmans and Wassermans of the world. That group of five tend to use
apocalyptic rhetoric to describe what will happen to the world if we do not immediately start turning
our collective backs on all of the benefits that abundant atomic energy can provide. They spin tall tales of deformed
children, massive numbers of cancers as a result of minor radioactive material releases, swaths of land
made “uninhabitable” for thousands of years, countries “cut in half”, and clouds of “hot particles”
raining death and destruction ten thousand miles from the release point. Every one of those clowns
have been repeating similar stories for at least two solid decades, and continue to repeat their stories
even after supposedly catastrophic failures at Fukushima have not resulted in a single radiation
related injury or death. According to eminent scientists – like Dr. Robert Gale – Fukushima is unlikely to EVER
result in any measurable increase in radiation related illness. One important element that we have to consider to
assess cancer risks associated with an accident like Fukushima is our baseline risk for developing cancer. All of us, unfortunately, have a
substantial risk of developing cancer in our lifetime. For example, a 50-year-old male has a 42% risk of developing cancer during his remaining
life; it’s almost the same for a 10-year-old. This risk only decreases when we get much older and only because we are dying of other causes. It’s
true that excess radiation exposure can increase our cancer risk above baseline levels; it’s clear from studies of the survivors of the 1945 atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of people exposed to radiation in medical and occupational settings, and of people exposed to radon
decay products in mines and home basements. When it comes to exposures like that of Fukushima, the question is: What
is the relative
magnitude of the increased risk from Fukushima compared to our baseline cancer risk? Despite our
fears, it is quite small. If the nuclear industry – as small and unfocused as it is – really wanted to take action to isolate the apocalyptic
antinuclear activists, it could take a page from the effective campaign of the fossil fuel lobby. It could start an integrated campaign to help the
rest of us to remember that, despite
the dire predictions, the sky never fell, the predicted unnatural deaths
never occurred, the deformations were figments of imagination, and the land is not really irreversibly
uninhabitable for generations. The industry would effectively share the story of Ukraine’s recent decision to begin repopulating the
vast majority of the “dead zone” that was forcibly evacuated after the Chernobyl accident. It would put some context into the discussion about
radiation health effects; even if leaders shy away from directly challenging the Linear No Threshold (LNT) dose assumption, they can still show
that even that pessimistic model says that a tiny dose leads to a tiny risk. Aside: My personal opinion is that the LNT is scientifically
unsupportable and should be replaced with a much better model. We deserve far less onerous regulations; there is evidence that existing
regulations actually cause harm. I hear a rumor that there is a group of mostly retired, but solidly credentialed professionals who are organizing
a special session at the annual ANS meeting to talk about effective ways to influence policy changes. End Aside. Most
of us recognize
that there is no such thing as a zero risk; repeated assertions of “there is no safe level” should be
addressed by accepting “close enough” to zero so that even the most fearful person can stop
worrying. The sky has not fallen, even though we have experienced complete core meltdowns and
secondary explosions that did some visible damage. Nuclear plants are not perfect, there will be
accidents and there will be radioactive material releases. History is telling me that the risks are acceptable,
especially in the context of the real world where there is always some potential for harm. The benefits
of accepting a little nuclear risk are immense and must not be marginalized by the people who market
fear and trembling.
No deaths from nuclear meltdowns
Drum 11
Kevin, political blogger for Mother Jones, "Nukes and the Free Market", March 14, www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/03/nukes-and-freemarket
We’re currently told that the death toll in Japan will be at least 10,000 people of whom approximately
zero seem to have perished in nuclear accidents . What happens when a tsunami hits an
offshore drilling platform or a natural gas pipeline? What happens to a coal mine in an
earthquake? How much environmental damage is playing out in Japan right now because of gasoline from cars pushed around? The main lesson is “try
not to put critical infrastructure near a fault line” but Japan is an earthquakey country, so what are they really supposed to do about this?¶
This is a good point: energy sources of all kind cause problems. Sometimes the problems create
screaming headlines (nuke meltdowns, offshore oil explosions, mining disasters) and sometimes they don't (increased particulate pollution,
global warming, devastation of salmon runs).
it's worth pointing out that
But the dangers are there for virtually every type of energy production .¶ Still,
the problem with nuclear power isn't
so much
its immediate capacity to kill people . As Matt
no one has died in Japan from the partial meltdowns at its damaged nuclear plants,
and it's unlikely anyone ever will . The control rods are in place, and even in the worst case
the containment vessels will almost certainly restrict the worst damage.
points out,
No Meltdowns
No meltdowns – newest studies prove that there is a low risk of a leak
Kaiser 11
Writer for Daily Tech NRC: Far Fewer People Would Die in a U.S. Nuclear Meltdown Than Previously Thought Tiffany Kaiser August 2, 2011
http://www.dailytech.com/NRC+Far+Fewer+People+Would+Die+in+a+US+Nuclear+Meltdown+Than+Previously+Thought/article22330.htm
The NRC is adjusting previous projections of how much and how quickly cesium 137 would escape
in the case of a total blackout The nuclear crisis at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan has caused a nuclear frenzy where leaders around the
world are questioning the safety of their plants. For instance, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for global nuclear review after visiting Japan,
and U.S. senators demanded that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) repeat an expensive inspection of the country's nuclear power. But
now, the NRC is close to completing a large nuclear study that may ease a few worried minds. The NRC has been working with Sandia National
Laboratories (a Department of Energy lab) on a study that revises previous projections of how quickly and how much cesium 137, which is a
radioactive material made when uranium is split, could release from a plant after a nuclear core meltdown. The NRC has been working on the study
for six years, and it will not be completely finished until next spring. But the nuclear watchdog group, Union of Concerned Scientists, has obtained
an early copy of the report through a Freedom of Information Act request. The new study is based on how much and how quickly cesium 137 could
escape an American nuclear plant if a total blackout were to occur. A total blackout means complete loss of power from the grid, and backup diesel
generators and batteries have failed as well. This leads to a nuclear meltdown. NRC scientists said that a
total blackout would be rare
at an American plant, but it is better to be safe than sorry. In addition, the NRC wanted to update previous projections related to cesium
137. The NRC focused on two different types of reactors in the U.S.: the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania, which has boilingwater reactors like Fukushima Daiichi, and the Surry Power Station in Virginia, which has pressurized-water reactors. Over
100 different
plants were studied. Through computer models and engineering analyses, the NRC has concluded
that the meltdown of a typical American reactor would lead to "far fewer deaths" than previously thought.
According to the new study, only 1 to 2 percent of a reactor core's cesium 137 could escape during a total blackout.
Previous NRC estimates concluded that 60 percent of the cesium inventory could escape. In addition, the new study found that one person in
every 4,348 within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear meltdown would develop a "latent cancer" from radiation exposure.
In previous estimates, it was one person in every 167. The NRC said that large releases of radioactive material would not be
"immediate," meaning that people within a 10-mile radius would have plenty of time to evacuate the
premises. It concluded that the chance of death from acute radiation exposure within a 10-mile radius would be near
zero, but some would be exposed to high enough doses to experience fatal cancers decades later. "Accidents progress more slowly,
in some cases much more slowly, than previously assumed," said Charles G. Tinkler, a senior adviser for research on severe accidents and an author
of the study. "Releases are smaller, and in some cases much smaller, of certain key radioactive materials." The NRC's revised projections report
tells what temperatures, flows of water and steam pressures would occur in a nuclear meltdown, as well as when leaks would begin after the
meltdown. The NRC concluded that Peach Bottom would not release enough radioactive material to cause fatal harm to any human immediately,
but could increase the chances of fatal cancer later on. As far as Surry goes, the number of people living within a 10-mile radius was so small that
the death toll would be a fraction of a person.
New regulations prevent potential disasters
Francis 4
David R. Francis
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, 2004 (DS) “After nuclear's meltdown, a cautious revival”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0329/p12s02-usec.html
Could
a Three Mile Island happen again? The NRC blames that accident on "a combination of personnel error, design deficiencies, and
component failures." The event, adds an NRC fact sheet, led to "permanent and sweeping changes in how NRC regulates
its licensees - which, in turn, has reduced the risk to public health and safety." David Lockbaum, an
engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agrees that the NRC has become much tougher, even
before 9/11 raised the specter of terrorists flying a jet into a nuclear power plant. Instead of inspecting
nuclear plants every two years for four safety categories, the NRC since April 2000 has been looking
them over every three months for 26 or so safety factors. "When performance starts to fall, it should show up sooner,"
says Mr. Lockbaum, a longtime campaigner for reducing the risks of nuclear power.
AT Econ Impact
It won’t trigger an economic collapse – no long lasting effects
Anderon & Geckil 3
Patrick L. Anderson, Principal Ilhan K. Geckil, Economist August 19, 2003 Northeast Blackout Likely to Reduce US Earnings by $6.4 Billion
http://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/Portals/0/upload/Doc544.pdf
There is no lasting damage to the US economy, given the information available today, which was based on the assumption of
no fundamental flaws in the US and Canadian power grids. U.S. residents lose earnings in 2003, and pay higher electric rates in the future to pay
there is nothing here that would indicate the US economy as a whole will sustain lasting
damage. A $6 billion loss is about 1/10 of 1% of the US $10.7 trillion GDP, meaning that the blackout
will hurt growth for about two quarters, but not trigger a recession.
for repairs, but
Biodiversity ADV
Birds DA
Plan kills birds which are keystone species
Sutton and Tomich 5
Victoria Sutton and Nicole Tomich, 2005, Victoria Sutton is Visiting Lecturer (Fall 2004) Yale University, Professor of Law, Texas Tech University,
Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas and Nicole Tomich has a JD from Texas Tech University School of Law, “Harnessing
Wind is Not (by Nature) Environmentally Friendly”, Pace Environmental Law Review, 92.
2.0 THE IMPACT OF WIND FARMS ON THE ENVIRONMENT Any
artificial structure, such as a wind turbine, is likely to
have a significant negative impact on the surrounding natural en- vironment.19 This reality
increases in magnitude when the surrounding environment encompasses threatened or
endangered species.20 Studies in Europe have revealed that the public’s perception of bird impacts can be
a major factor in deciding whether a wind farm will gain acceptance and receive the proper permitting for a
particular location.21 Furthermore, the minimal amount of existing scientific research on the
environmental impacts of wind- generated power is considered by some to be developerdriven, and therefore incomplete, biased, and flawed.22 Whether “flawed” or not, there is existing literature on
the negative impacts of wind power on the environment, and these impacts are discussed infra. 2.1 Impact of Wind Power on Birds Evidence of
negative impacts on birds from interaction with wind generation first arose in the late 1980s.23 Since then, turbine
blades have
been proven to injure and kill birds-particularly birds of prey, known as raptors, some of
which are threatened or endangered.24 These birds, such as the Bald Eagle,25 become victims of the
wind turbines, primarily because of the height at which they fly. An early study of just one wind farm site in Altamont Pass, California, reported hundreds of raptors being killed yearly.26 Studies from the site, which hosts 6,500 wind turbines on 190
kilometers of property reveal: (1) turbines within 500 feet of canyons, which are typically prey areas, are associated with higher mortality rates;
(2) mortality at end turbines is higher, but is just as high within strings of turbines where there are gaps of 35 meters or more between turbines;
and (3) the lower the turbine density, the higher the mortality rates.27 The Altamont study was validated in the 1990s when migrating
endangered Griffon Vul- tures were dying near Tarifa, Spain from collisions with wind tur- bine rotor blades.28 Bird
collisions with wind
generators can occur in a number of different ways: (1) a bird may strike the non-moving part of a tur- bine, such as the
tower or motor box; (2) a bird may hit the spin- ning rotor blades; or (3) a bird may become caught in the strong pressure wave, or “wake” of a
rotor blade.29 Wake collisions can cause a bird to become disoriented, lose control, and collide with the turbine, or be thrown down • onto the
ground or into the ocean.30 The speed of revolving rotor blades can also contribute to “motion smear,” which is the degradation of the
visibility of rap- idly moving objects, causing birds not to see them and fly straight into them.31 One study estimates that approximately 10,000
to 40,000 birds are killed each year by wind turbines in the United States.32 In comparison, approximately 60
million to 80 million yearly bird deaths result from vehicles, with an additional 40 million to 50 million deaths attributed to communication
tower impacts.33 While the second set of figures seem to dwarf the importance of 10,000 to 40,000 birds killed annually by wind turbines,
comparison studies are often flawed because they tend to focus on “cumulative impact” data
rather than focusing on losses suffered by a particular species. 34 Such studies compare the
total mortalities from various sources, instead of the risk emanating from each separate
source.35 Using the figures above, and factoring in approximately 230 million registered motor vehicles in the United States in the year
2000, the result is a low average of 0.3 bird deaths per vehicle per year.36 Furthermore vehicle deaths are much less likely to affect endangered
or threatened raptors. Collisions are not the only threat posed to birds by wind power development. Wind
farms can also
become a barrier to movement, causing a migrating species to fly around rather than through
a particular production site.37 A wind farm may also block daily home-range movements of a
particular species, for instance, birds flying to and from preferred feeding and roosting sites. 38
A wind farm that intersects a major migration path can cause a species to reroute adding
stress and forcing the species to exert extra energy.39 The lighting of turbines may also pose a
large threat to birds. Aviation lights that blink or rotate, have long been associated with bird
mortality.40 Lighting dangers become amplified during bad weather such as fog, or heavy rain, increasing reflection and refraction, thus
increasing mortality.41 Installed wind energy generating capacity increased by an average of 32% annually from 1998-2002;42 this everincreasing growth rate combined with the various threats discussed supra, creates a unique and rapidly growing threat to bird populations and
habitats.
Extinction
Diner 94
[Major David, Judge Advocate General's Corps, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Lexis]
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling
narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the
ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a
By
causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79
increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United
each new animal or plant
extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human
extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one,
the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 [HU]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
Birds DA (2NC Links)
Wind turbines kill millions of birds and bats annually
Meera Subramanian. 2012. Freelance writer. An Ill Wind: With Turbines Threatening Some Bird and
Bat Populations, Researchers are Seeking Ways to Keep the Skies Safe for Wildlife.
http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/IllWind_Nature_21June2012.pdf
When the biologists weren’t looking up at the sky, they were scouring ¶ the ground for carcasses of griffon vultures (Gyps fulvus), Spanish
imperial eagles (Aquila adalberti) and other species. The Spanish Ornithological Society in Madrid estimates that Spain’s
18,000 wind
turbines may be ¶ killing 6 million to 18 million birds and bats annually. “A blade will cut ¶ a
griffon vulture in half,” says Bechard. “I’ve seen them just decapitated.” ¶ Wind turbines kill far fewer birds in
general each year than do many ¶ other causes linked to humans, including domestic cats and collisions with
¶ glass windows. But wind power has a disproportionate effect on certain ¶ species that are already
struggling for survival, such as the precarious US ¶ population of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos
canadensis).¶ “The troubling issue with wind development is that we’re seeing a ¶ growing number
of birds of conservation concern being killed by wind ¶ turbines,” says Albert Manville, a biologist with the ¶
US Fish and Wildlife Service in Arlington, Virginia.¶ The deaths caused by turbines have the potential ¶ to harm
not only wildlife, but also the wind-energy industry, which is ¶ the fastest-growing source of power worldwide, according to the World
¶ Bank.
With critics vilifying wind turbines as ‘bird blenders’, wind companies, governments and researchers are teaming up to mitigate the
problem before it reaches a crisis point. Cádiz province, for example, requires ¶ all wind-energy projects to consider environmental issues, and
helps to ¶ fund research on reducing any damage.
Wind turbines kill more species of birds than humans usually do and threaten at least
three species in danger of extinction
Meera Subramanian. 2012. Freelance writer. An Ill Wind: With Turbines Threatening Some Bird and
Bat Populations, Researchers are Seeking Ways to Keep the Skies Safe for Wildlife.
http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/IllWind_Nature_21June2012.pdf
The industry maintains that the effects on ¶ wildlife are minor. Although there are only a ¶ few, limited
estimates of bird fatalities at a national level, the available ¶ data for the United States suggest that wind farms account for a tiny ¶ fraction of
avian deaths (see ‘Bird killers’). ¶ But
the concern is that turbines threaten species that are already ¶
struggling, such as bats, which in North America have been hit hard by ¶ white-nose fungus.
Another vulnerable group is raptors, which are slow ¶ to reproduce and favour the wind
corridors that energy companies covet. ¶ “There are species of birds that are getting killed by
wind turbines that do ¶ not get killed by autos, windows or buildings,” says Shawn Smallwood, ¶ an
ecologist who has worked extensively in Altamont Pass, California, ¶ notorious for its expansive wind farms and raptor deaths. Smallwood has ¶
found that Altamont
blades slay an average of 65 golden eagles a year ¶ 2 “We could lose eagles in
this country if we keep on doing this,” he says. ¶ Other species at risk include the critically
endangered California condors (Gymnogyps californicus) — which number only 226 in the wild ¶ — and
the few hundred remaining whooping cranes (Grus americanus), ¶ concentrated in the central United States.
Biologists can’t say whether ¶ the increase in wind farms will cause the collapse of these or
other bird ¶ species, which already face many threats. But waiting for an answer ¶ is not an option, says
Smallwood. “By the time we do understand the ¶ population-level impacts, we might be in a place
we don’t want to be.”
Birds DA (AT Alt Causes)
No alt causes – the species killed by turbines are distinct from the species killed by
their alt cause scenarios
Subramanian 12
Meera Subramanian. 2012. Freelance writer. An Ill Wind: With Turbines Threatening Some Bird and Bat Populations, Researchers are Seeking
Ways to Keep the Skies Safe for Wildlife. http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/IllWind_Nature_21June2012.pdf
“There are species of birds that are getting killed by wind turbines that do ¶ not get killed by autos,
windows or buildings ,” says Shawn Smallwood, ¶ an ecologist who has worked extensively in Altamont Pass, California, ¶ notorious
for its expansive wind farms and raptor deaths. Smallwood has ¶ found that Altamont blades slay an average of 65 golden eagles a year
Fish DA
Offshore wind destroys fish habitats – turns bio-d
Ouellette 11
Apr 25 Gerry Ouellette is a retired aerospace engineer with extensive experience in electrical power generation, storage and distribution, and in
defense, radar and navigation systems and technologies. “YOUR VIEW: Problems with offshore wind farms not worth it”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/carver/topstories/x215600042/YOUR-VIEW-Problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worthit#ixzz20pX3d2b3http://www.wickedlocal.com/carver/highlight/x215600042/YOUR-VIEW-Problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worthit?zc_p=0#axzz20pVzy6cv
The concept of offshore wind farms may at first appear attractive from a “green” energy concept, however it is, in reality, a disaster of major
Under the guise of “green,” offshore wind farms in areas such as the Nantucket Sound,
destroy much of our country’s most productive fishing
grounds and threaten future seafood production essential to our food supply . Although held at bay by
proportions in the making.
Georges Banks and the Nantucket Lightship areas would
intelligent citizens and legislators until now, they are being besieged by bureaucrats who for reasons about which I care not to speculate, dangle
leases aimed at speculators for acres in fishing grounds wherein wind farms have no business and should never be located. It is time to examine
the more economical solutions to providing reliable and non-polluting alternatives for generating sufficient electrical power to meet the current
and future needs of our country, and it is apparent to anyone who carefully examines off shore wind farm ideas and technology that off shore
wind farms are most definitely the wrong solution. The heavy equipment used in installation process will destroy
the local fish habitat for large areas around each of the tower locations and also along the channels for the hundreds of miles of high
voltage cabling between the towers, and to the electrical service platform(s) and to the shore power pickup location(s). The tower assembly
poses an obstruction at sea and also has a negative effect on radar operations in and around the wind farm. All assemblies
associated with the wind farm also pose a hazard to towed fishing net equipment. The seriousness of these deleterious effects appears to be
shunted aside or downplayed with arcane or overly simplistic arguments. In reality, locating wind farms in fishing grounds such as Nantucket
Sound, the Georges Banks and the Nantucket Lightship areas is trading off extremely expensive electricity for extremely valuable food supplies.
The installation of offshore wind farms will most definitely do irreparable damage to our
nations treasured fishing grounds and fish recovery regions along the Atlantic seaboard. To
provide electric power at all times wind farms must be backed up with fossil fueled generating
plants or small modular nuclear reactors. They must also be highly supported with at least 30 percent government subsidies.
Rate payers will get hit with the double whammy of high electric costs and more taxes to pay the subsidies.
Oil Spills DA
Oil spills
Ouellette 11
Apr 25 Gerry Ouellette is a retired aerospace engineer with extensive experience in electrical power generation, storage and distribution, and in
defense, radar and navigation systems and technologies. “YOUR VIEW: Problems with offshore wind farms not worth it”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/carver/topstories/x215600042/YOUR-VIEW-Problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worthit#ixzz20pX3d2b3http://www.wickedlocal.com/carver/highlight/x215600042/YOUR-VIEW-Problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worthit?zc_p=0#axzz20pVzy6cv
Wind turbines also require fairly large amounts of oil for lubrication and other needs. With some
70,000 gallons of oil needed for the Nantucket Shoal wind farm, under New England winter storm conditions,
this much oil distributed through the wind farm field could under certain conditions lead to oil spill problems in rich
fishing grounds, a potential hazard that has no business in the fishing grounds.
AT Turtles
Turtles are fine due to net upgrades, longlining bans; plan can’t solve due to swordfish
and international fleets
Brown and Crowder 03
[Jessica (organizer for SeaWeb) and Larry (Professor of Marine Biology, Duke University) February 17, 2003. "Leatherback Sea Turtles Careening
Towards Extinction", Ascribe newswire. l/n]
Yet saving sea turtles is possible. International cooperation has worked before to reverse the decline of Kemp's ridleys - another species of sea
turtle whose numbers became dangerously low in the mid 1980's. Kemp's ridleys sank to about 300 nesting females per year before their
decline was reversed by an international effort, protecting them on their nesting beaches in Mexico and by requiring turtle excluder
devices [TEDs]
in U.S. and Mexican trawl fisheries. TEDs are metal grids placed in the backs of trawl nets
that allow the turtles to slip out of harm's way instead of being entrapped in the net, then drowning.
Since the implementation of these efforts in the late 1980's, Kemp's ridleys have been increasing 11-13
percent per year, from a low of only 800 nests in 1986 to 6,200 in 2002. "People worked very hard for over a decade protecting them
on nesting beaches and in the water, and now we're seeing recovery. So there is a precedent for success. Saving leatherbacks will
be harder because of their range," says Crowder. "It will require even more international cooperation. There is hope, but we need to act now."
Unlike the Kemp's ridleys that stay in the coastal zone of the US and Mexico - leatherbacks roam the world. In the Pacific,
leatherbacks are declining at all major rookeries, primarily due to bycatch in longlines and gillnets. What can be done to save the Pacific
leatherback? In order to
save the leatherbacks and other sea turtles, U.S. scientists and managers are examining three options:
1] Develop and implement a gear fix to reduce bycatch in longlines and export this technology to other longlining nations,
2] Examine the spatial and temporal distribution of turtles and fishermen internationally to determine the potential for
time or space closures to reduce bycatch, and implement these measures accordingly and 3] Consider trade or market-based
approaches to reduce imports of target species in fisheries that take sea turtles. Critical to the success of the first two
options will be international cooperation, implementation, and enforcement from the major longlining nations. Scientists
have examined what best predicts bycatch. Is it where the hooks are set? Is it water temperature or bottom features? "Unfortunately the single
best predictor is swordfish catch - the
more swordfish caught, the higher the rate of leatherback bycatch ,"
longline fisheries already have been restricted or closed, but
this will not adequately protect leatherbacks. More that 90 percent of longlining effort in international waters originates
from international fleets, primarily from Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and China. Finding a fix across a global ocean will require both
says Crowder. To help remedy this problem, U.S.
international governments' and fishermen's buy-in.
AT Horseshoe Crabs
Horseshoe crabs aren’t necessary; scientists have already cloned their blood
Hooi 03
[Alexis (Staff Writer) June 29, 2003. “Horseshoe Crab study pays off for Singapore researchers”. Strait Times. l/n]
The husband-and-wife team who first genetically engineered a copy of an enzyme found in horseshoe
crabs' blood is set to profit from their creation, which is being marketed commercially as the diagnostic tool PyroGene. Until now,
the crab had been the only source of the enzyme Factor C, which is used to test for
contaminants in every drug and vaccine, every artificial limb, and every dialysis and intravenous drip. Now, Factor C's new substitute will
earn royalties for the National University of Singapore (NUS), where Professor Ding Jeak Ling works in the biological sciences, and Associate
Professor Ho Bow, in microbiology. Factor
C, extracted from the crab's sapphire-blue blood, can detect the
bacteria that causes cholera, gonorrhoea and flu. In their presence, the crab's blood clots and turns jelly-like because of Factor C. Each
year, up to 300,000 of the crabs are caught, bled for the enzyme by the biomedical industry, and returned alive to the
sea. The substitute, introduced to the world recently by United States-based life-science company Cambrex Corporation, opens
the door to a market said to be worth up to US$100 million (S$176 million) a year.
AT Oceans Impact
Not enough information for determining the impact of ocean extinctions
KUNICH 05
[John Charles, (Associate Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law) “Losing Nemo: The Mass Extinction Now
Threatening the World's Ocean Hotspots,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 30 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1]
With regard to extinction spasms, Earth's oceans, along with all other habitats, have been there, done
that, long before now. It is generally accepted that there have been no fewer than five mass extinctions in the earth's history, at
least during the Phanerozoic Eon (the vast expanse of time which includes the present day). [*5] These "big five" mass extinctions occurred at
the boundaries between the following geological periods: Ordovician-Silurian (O-S); near the end of the Upper Devonian (D) (usually known as
the Frasnian-Famennian events or F-F); Permian-Triassic (P-Tr); Triassic-Jurassic (Tr-J); and Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T). n4 In terms of millions of
years ago (Mya), the mass extinctions have been placed at roughly 440 for O-S, 365 for F-F, 245 for P-Tr, 210 for Tr-J, and 65 for K-T, n5 with
the mass extinctions taking place over a span of time ranging from less than 0.5 to as long as 11 million years. n6 There is some evidentiary
support for other mass or near-mass extinctions in addition to the big five, including events near the end of the Early Cambrian (about 512 Mya)
and at the end of the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous, among several others. n7 Although much has been written in the scientific literature
about these historical extinctions, relatively little
attention has been showered on extinctions in the oceans .
n8 For those areas that often remain submerged under thousands of feet of sea water, the usually-formidable challenges of piecing together
the ancient evidence are greatly magnified. It is extremely difficult to arrive at a satisfactory estimate of the magnitude
of the current extinction crisis, whether in the marine realm or on dry land. One problem is that we know so
little about life on Earth today in the first place, even in areas much more accessible that the
oceans' depths. If we do not know how many species exist, we cannot know precisely how many
are ceasing to exist; respectable estimates as to the number of species now extant vary by an order of magnitude. Moreover, for
many of the species we have identified, we know very little about their range, their [*6] habits,
their life cycles, and other details important to an understanding of their health or risk status .
Marine fluctuations are inevitable; ocean species are resilient
Dulvy et al ’03
(Nicholas, (School of Marine Science and Tech. @ U. Newcastle), Yvonne Sadovy, (Dept. Ecology and Biodiversity @ U. Hong Kong), and John D. Reynolds, (Centre for
Ecology, Evolution and Conservation @ School of Bio. Sci. @ U. East Anglia), Fish and Fisheries, “Extinction vulnerability in marine populations”, 4:1, BlackwellSynergy)
Great natural variability in population size is sometimes invoked to argue that ICUN Red List criteria, as one example, are
too conservative for marine fishes (Hudson and Mace 1996; Matsuda et al 1997; Musick 1999; Powles et al. 2000; Hutchings 2001a). For the
(1996) IUCN list, a
decline of 20% within 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer) triggered a
classification of ‘vulnerable’, while declines of 50 and 80% led to classifications of
‘endangered’ and ‘critically endangered’, respectively. These criteria were designed to be applied to all animals and plant taxa, but
many marine resource biologists feel that for marine fishes ‘one size does not fit all’ (see Hutchings
2001a). They argue that percent decline criteria are too conservative compared to the high natural
variability of fish populations. Powles et al. (2000) cite the six-fold variation of the Pacific sardine population (Sardinops sagax,
Clupeidae) and a nine-fold variation in northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax, Clupeidae) over the past two millennia to suggest that rapid
declines and increases of up to 10-fold are relatively common in exploited fish stocks It should,
however, be borne in mind that the variation of exploited populations must be higher than unexploited populations because recruitment
fluctuations increasingly drive populations when there are few adults (Pauly et al. 2002).
AT Coral Reefs
Tons of alt causes to coral reef decline
NOAA 5
2005 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “Hazards to Coral Reefs”
http://coris.noaa.gov/about/hazards/
Reefs are now, and always have been, vulnerable to destructive natural events. In fact, weather-related damage occurs frequently. The large,
powerful waves that accompany hurricanes and cyclones can break apart or flatten large coral heads and scatter fragments (Barnes
& Hughes, 1999; Jones & Endean, 1976). Branching corals, which tend to be more delicate and become increasingly unstable as they grow, are more vulnerable to
A single storm seldom kills off an entire
colony, but slow-growing corals may be overgrown by algae before they can recover —a circumstance
that may be aggravated by increased nutrient output from runoff and sedimentation (UVI, 2001). Reefs are dependent on specific environmental conditions. Most
require a specific water temperature range (23 to 29 °C) for optimal growth. Some can tolerate higher
temperatures, but only for limited periods of time. In addition, specific levels of salinity (32 to 42 parts per
thousand), water clarity and light levels generally must be consistent throughout the year for corals
to grow optimally. Many scientists, however, believe that impacts associated with global climate change, such as
increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, are disrupting the delicate balance of the ocean’s
chemistry. Warming trends can elevate seawater temperatures and levels as well, rendering
conditions unfit for coral survival (NMFS, 2001). Corals are susceptible to exposure during periods of
low tide. They may become so stressed that they eject their zooxanthellae, bleach and possibly
die. Tidal emersions—low-tide occurrences that leave coral heads exposed—also can damage shallow-water reefs, particularly
storm damage than massive forms such as brain coral or the stouter branching forms.
along the reef flat and on the reef crest. The amount of damage incurred depends on the time of day and the weather conditions that coincide with low tide. Chronic
emersions that occur during the day, when heat and sun are strongest, generally are more damaging to coral systems than other emersion events. During the day,
corals are exposed to the most ultraviolet radiation, which can overheat and dry out the coral. Corals may become so stressed that they begin to expel their symbiotic
Prolonged exposure to cold
and rainy weather also can damage corals (Barnes & Hughes, 1999). In some cases, corals exposed to such conditions
become covered with a grayish fuzz that consists primarily of decomposing coral tissue (Jones & Endean, 1976). In
addition, natural phenomena, such as the El Niño weather pattern, can have lasting , and sometimes devastating, effects on
coral reefs. During an El Niño season, easterly trade winds weaken, which depresses normal oceanic
upwelling processes and affects the climate. Rainfall increases along the eastern Pacific , while
Indonesia and Australia experience drought conditions. El Niño can lead to increased sea-surface temperatures,
decreased sea level, and altered salinity due to excessive rainfall (Forrester, 1997). During the 19971998 El Niño season, extensive and severe coral reef bleaching occurred , especially in the Indo-Pacific region,
and the Caribbean. Approximately 70 to 80 percent of all shallow-water corals were killed on many
Indo-Pacific reefs (NMFS, 2001). During the same year, coral reefs in the Florida Keys experienced bleaching
events ranging from mild to severe (NMS, 2001). Coral reefs also are vulnerable to disease outbreaks.
The onset of disease generally is a response to biotic and/or abiotic stresses. Biotic stress factors include the presence
zooxanthellae—a circumstance that can lead to a phenomenon known as “coral bleaching” (Barnes & Hughes, 1999).
of bacteria, fungi, protozoa and possibly viruses. Abiotic stress factors—physical and chemical changes—include increased sea-surface temperatures, ultraviolet
According to many coral researchers, rates of disease
outbreaks are increasing and affecting more reef species (NMFS, 2001). Scientists believe that the presence
of certain stress factors can create environmental conditions favorable to disease microbes,
while rendering corals weaker and more vulnerable to colonization . Currently, the most common diseases affecting
coral are white-band disease, black-band disease, white plague and yellow-blotch disease (NMFS, 2001). Finally, corals are vulnerable to
predation. Numerous species, including parrotfish, polychaetes, barnacles, crabs and gastropods, prey on coral polyps,
radiation, and nutrient input or other pollutants (NMFS, 2001).
destroying the substrate in the process and preventing other corals from settling (Jones & Endean, 1976).
Recent outbreaks of one predator, the crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci), devastated reef systems
in Guam, along Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and others. A. planci is a multirayed starfish covered with long, sharp, mildly venomous spines. A full-grown
specimen ranges in size from .25 to .5 m in diameter, and feeds by attaching itself to a coral head , inverting its stomach, and digesting
the underlying coral tissue. When it detaches, it leaves behind a large, white, dead skeletal patch that is rapidly
colonized by filamentous algae. Colonies of calcareous algae and soft corals soon follow (Barnes &
Hughes, 1999). In addition to natural threats, human activities pose grave threats to the viability of coral reefs. One of
the most significant threats to reefs is pollution, a term used to describe numerous types of human-induced marine discharges.
Excessive runoff, sedimentation, and pollutant discharges can result from dredging and shoreline
modifications, coastal development activities, agricultural and deforestation activities, and
sewage treatment plant operations. In addition, hot-water discharges from water treatment plants
and large power plants can significantly alter the water chemistry in coastal areas (UVI, 2001). When
pollutants are discharged, nutrient levels (nitrates and phophates) in the water can increase. This can lead
to an excessively nutrient-rich environment (eutrophic), which encourages algae blooms and the
growth of other organisms that can stifle corals or outcompete them for space (Jones & Endean, 1976). In addition, direct
sedimentation can smother a shoreline reef, or it may increase the water’s turbidity, which, in
turn, obscures the light on which corals thrive. Light deprivation ultimately will starve a coral ,
which is dependent on its symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) to generate food photosynthetically (UVI, 2001; Bryant et al., 1998). In many other areas, coral reef
habitats are overfished and/or overexploited for recreational and commercial purposes (UVI, 2001). Coral heads and brightly colored reef
fishes are collected for the growing aquarium and jewelry trade. Reef fishes also are collected for
food. Careless or untrained divers often can trample fragile corals. In addition, their fishing techniques can be
destructive not only to fish but to the coral habitat. Blast fishing, for example, in which dynamite or other heavy explosives
are detonated to stun fish for easy capture. This fishing method cracks coral heads apart and
stresses nearby coral colonies so much that they expel their symbiotic algae . As a result, large sections of
reefs can be destroyed. Cyanide fishing, which involves spraying or dumping cyanide onto reefs to stun and capture live fish, also kills coral
polyps, and degrades the reef habitat. In addition, one-third to one-half of all fish collected this way
die soon after they are removed—either sometime along the trade process or, ultimately, in captivity (NMFS, 2001). According to some
estimates, more than 40 countries are affected by blast fishing, and more than 15 countries have
reported cyanide fishing activities (ICRI, 1995). Other damaging fishing techniques include deepwater trawling, which involves dragging a fishing net along the sea bottom, and muro-ami
netting, in which reefs are pounded with weighted bags to startle fish out of crevices (Bryant et al., 1998). Often, fishing
nets left as debris. Live corals become entangled in nets and in areas of wave disturbance are torn away
from their bases (Coles, 1996). Moreover, the impact of anchors dropped from fishing vessels onto reefs
can break and destroy coral colonies (Bryant et al., 1998). Finally, coral reefs are directly impacted by marine-based pollution. Leaking
fuels, anti-fouling paints and coatings, and other chemicals can leach into the water, adversely
affecting corals and other species (UVI, 2001). Petroleum spills also are a concern. It is uncertain how much petroleum
spills directly affect corals - oil usually stays near the surface of the water, and much of its volume evaporates into the atmosphere within days. However, the timing
Corals that are spawning at the time of an oil spill can be damaged because the eggs
and sperm, which are released into the water at very precise times, remain at shallow water
depths for various times before they settle. In addition, it is not yet fully known how dispersants used to combat oil spills might affect
of a spill is crucial.
corals, as this results in more oil being suspended in the water column instead of the surface.
Econ ADV
AT Jobs
Can’t repair the turbines and it destroys jobs
Ouellette 11
Apr 25 Gerry Ouellette is a retired aerospace engineer with extensive experience in electrical power generation, storage and distribution, and in
defense, radar and navigation systems and technologies. “YOUR VIEW: Problems with offshore wind farms not worth it”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/carver/topstories/x215600042/YOUR-VIEW-Problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worthit#ixzz20pX3d2b3http://www.wickedlocal.com/carver/highlight/x215600042/YOUR-VIEW-Problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worthit?zc_p=0#axzz20pVzy6cv
Land-based wind farm costs provide no comparison basis for offshore when even a simple repair takes place. To service a land base power
nacelle in any weather – pleasant summer or winter storm – needs only two men in a pickup truck to drive to the tower, ride up the interior of
the mast and service the nacelle equipment. Even in good weather with moderate seas, the
sea farm repair is considerably more
difficult by boat and in bad weather, it’s a whole new ball game fraught with danger, that may not be
playable. At present (December 2010-January 2011) in Southeastern Massachusetts, electric generation charges to customers are 9.1 cents
per kilowatt hour without government subsidies; the comments that customers will pay more for clean energy is moot since they will be paying
all of the costs through taxation. It may be hearsay, but over 21 cents per kilowatt hour for Cape wind and has been analyzed and is a totally
unreasonable amount. Offshore projects may appear great for job generation, but with no reasonable financial incentive for electrical
purchasers will result in wind farms being nothing but a great taxpayer rip off boondoggle. And the
job losses in the fishing
industry as a result of wind farms in fishing areas are simply glossed over as are the destruction of valuable
fishing grounds. One myth that is quite misleading is the oft-used comment that wind farms will help reduce
our dependence on foreign oil. “U.S. Electric Utility Companies responded to the threat of the 1973 Arab oil embargo by
replacing petroleum fuel oil with USA coal, nuclear energy and natural gas to power their generators. The USA no longer depends
on petroleum to generate electricity for the power grid. The USA is not dependent on foreign
sources of energy for electricity generation.” (AmericanEnergyIndependence.com.) And as discussed below, the small
modular reactor concept, if adopted, would completely eliminate the need for the destruction of extremely valuable fishing grounds by wind
farms.
Wind affects 58,000 jobs - Congressional investigation of data proves
Linowes ’12
Executive Director of the Industrial Wind Action Group, “Wind Energy Jobs: Are the Numbers Pulled from Thin Air,”
http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/2012/07/wind-energy-jobs-are-the-numbers-pulled-from-thin-air/
The American Wind Energy Association has made extending the Production Tax Credit (‘PTC’) its primary focus this year. Documents available
on the trade group’s website show that about $4 million of its 2012 budget ($30 million) was directed toward securing extension of the PTC.
With job growth the number one political issue in the United States, AWEA’s
strategic plan calls for rebranding of the
wind industry as an economic engine that will produce steady job growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector.¶ The
problem for AWEA is that the industry’s own record on job growth lacks credibility . Accurate
information available in the public suggests the industry has inflated its overall job numbers .¶ Section 1603 and Jobs¶
Seventy-five percent of the Section 1603 largesse was lavished on big wind, yet, despite billions in public funding, the
wind sector experienced a net loss of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2010 bringing AWEA’s
reported total to 75,000 jobs[1].¶ In April, NREL released its estimates of direct and indirect jobs created by projects receiving
1603 funding. The agency relied on the JEDI model[2] to estimate gross jobs, earnings, and economic output supported through the
construction and operation of solar photovoltaic (PV) and large wind projects.¶ But an
investigation by the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations rightly objected to NREL’s conclusions. The
Subcommittee found that NREL overstated the number of jobs created under 1603, that it
failed to report on the more important net job creation, and ignored potential jobs that
would be created given alternative spending of Federal funds. The key sticking point was that NREL did not validate
its models using actual data from completed projects.¶ The Subcommittee concluded that models used to estimate job creation were no
substitute for actual data and added: “The Section 1603 grant program was sold to the American people as a necessary stimulus jobs program,
and yet, the Treasury and Energy Departments do not have the numbers to back up the Obama Administration’s claims of its success in creating
jobs.”¶ The problem with JEDI¶ A footnote in NREL’s report provides a useful explanation for why the JEDI model offers no meaningful
information when assessing the employment benefits of government subsidies.¶ The footnote states:¶ As
a gross analysis, this
analysis does not include impacts from displaced energy or associated jobs, earnings, and
output related to existing or planned energy generation resources (e.g., jobs lost in the operation of natural
gas or coal plants due to the need for less electricity production from these plants, given increased generation from wind) or increases or
decreases in jobs related to changes in electric utility revenues and consumer energy bills, among other impacts.¶ In other words, the model is
one-sided, only considering the benefit side of a cost-benefit comparison and ignores everything else.¶ Validating AWEA Job Data¶
So what
data do we have on wind industry jobs? Not much.¶ Apparently, AWEA is the only source of nationwide employment
statistics in the United States for wind-related jobs. Of thepurported 75,000 direct and indirect jobs, the
majority (around 60%) work in finance and consulting services, contracting and engineering services, and
transportation and logistics. Twenty thousand are employed in wind-related manufacturing with the
remaining jobs tied to construction and O&M.¶ But validating this information is not possible since no industry codes
exist that isolate wind power establishments or wind turbine and wind components establishments. The North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) bundles wind-related manufacturers under the same code as the “Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units” manufacturing
industry (NAICS 333611), which includes “establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing turbines (except aircraft) and complete turbine
generator set units, such as steam, hydraulic, gas, and wind.Ӧ At
the end of 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported 26,800 total jobs in this industry. It’s not credible that AWEA’s estimated manufacturing jobs could represent
the vast majority of employment under the NAICS 333611 classification.[3]¶ Navigant’s Magic¶ In December, Navigant Consulting, Inc. released
a study commissioned by AWEA that analyzed the impact of the PTC on job growth in the wind industry. Navigant considered two scenarios,
one where the PTC is extended for 4 years (2013-2016); the other where the PTC expires at the end of this year.¶ The study found that
extension of the PTC would provide a stable economic environment and allow the wind industry to grow to nearly 100,000 American jobs over
four years, including a jump to 46,000 manufacturing positions. Expiration of the PTC showed a loss of 37,000 jobs.¶ The message to Congress
was clear: extend the PTC or you will be blamed for American jobs being lost.¶ But statements by AWEA prompted us to look at the numbers
more closely. In May, AWEA’s Denise Bode told Windpower Monthly that “Of the estimated 75,000 wind jobs, at least 30,000 are
manufacturing jobs”. Somehow, wind manufacturing jobs jumped by 10,000 after Navigant released its report.¶ Where did the additional jobs
come from?¶ As
it turns out, Navigant tabulated direct and indirect jobs but also quietly added
INDUCED jobs — those jobs created when the overall level of spending in an economy rises
due to workers newly receiving incomes.¶ Addition of ‘induced employment’ is a radical departure from job figures
previously provided by AWEA. All prior reports, as well as the newer NREL study, only looked at direct and indirect jobs. We could find
no documentation that explained this change nor was the change footnoted in the Navigant
study.¶ In looking at the Navigant numbers, it appears the wind industry currently only
provides 58,000 direct and indirect jobs, not 75,000! A four-year extension of the PTC could result in a possible 70,000
direct and indirect jobs — 5,000 less than the number touted by AWEA before it started including induced jobs.¶ Conclusion¶ The change in job
counts raises serious credibility issues about the industry’s employment strength. But the absolute numbers tell only a piece of the story. Since
Navigant’s study is based on JEDI, the job figures represent gross numbers and do not consider them in the context of the larger economy. In
that sense, Navigant’s findings, like NREL’s study, tell us nothing about the true impact of the PTC.¶ But one thing does appear to be true:
AWEA’s job figures, dating back to least 2009, may be nothing more than figures pulled from thin air.¶ UPDATE: Windaction spoke with a
representative of Navigant who suggested AWEA might have been treating ‘induced jobs’ as ‘indirect jobs’ in its prior reports. If the case, this
would not explain the jump in manufacturing jobs. AWEA now supports Navigant’s job numbers.
Job siphoning – federal investment in wind diverts investment from more productive
parts of the economy
Green, 9 - resident fellow at AEI (Kenneth, “Green Illusions”, 2/25,
http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.29443/pub_detail.asp
Let's review the reasons why governments cannot create jobs, and why labelling them "green" doesn't change the basic dynamics.¶ Let's start
with the fallacy that governments can create jobs. This fallacy was exploded all the way back in 1845 by a French politician and political
economist named Frédéric Bastiat. Bastiat pointed out that the
only way governments can create jobs is by first
obliterating other jobs.¶ Sometimes, they obliterate other jobs by diverting taxpayer money away from
the economic uses the taxpayer would have pursued if they had kept their taxes.¶ Other times, they
obliterate jobs by imposing regulations that kill off one industry in favour of another. In still other situations,
they impose mandates, such as using recycled paper to create an artificial market for recycled paper which reduce jobs in fresh-paper
production.¶ In the green energy case, they are doing all of the above: Taxpayer
dollars are being used to subsidize the
renewable energy sector; damaging regulations are being implemented on the traditional fossil fuel sector, and mandates for
the use of renewable energy are being issued, creating a false market in wind power at the expense of
fossil fuel and nuclear power. Governments also invariably siphon off a good part of the money for
"administration," creating civil service jobs that pay comparatively higher wages than the private sector
for similar activity.¶ Inevitably, government efforts to create jobs cost the economy jobs and, adding
insult to injury, divert limited resources to inefficient uses, causing economic underperformance.
Squo Solves – Port Upgrades
Status quo is upgrading ports now- New York, Georgia proves
Spivak 11 – senior research analyst at the HNTB Corporation, a transportation design and engineering
firm (Jeffrey, "The Battle of the Ports", May/June, American Planning Association, aapa.files.cmsplus.com/Battle%20of%20the%20Ports%20-%20Planning%20mag%20%20May_June%202011.pdf//DG)
Eighteen ports along the East and Gulf coasts are already deepening their channels or pursuing
plans to do so, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Numerous ports are also building or planning new
terminals and wharfs, and some are adding highway connections to interstates and installing new
overhead cranes that are longer than a football field. In New Jersey, for instance, the New York-New Jersey port
authority is dredging its channel to 50 feet, and it recently approved raising the Bayonne Bridge 65 feet rather than demolish
and rebuild the structure. In Georgia, the Port of Savannah is midway through an eight-year, $500 million
expansion that will nearly double its container capacity, and it is pushing ahead with a dredging
project that will deepen its channel from 42 feet to 48 feet. In South Carolina, the Port of Charleston is building a $525
million container terminal on a former U.S. Navy base that, when completed in 2016, will increase the port's handling capacity by almost half.
And as part of a $600 million upgrade plan, Alabama's Port of Mobile has opened a $300 million container terminal and completed a turning
basin enlargement for Post-Panamax ships. Then there's the $2 billion in new projects planned for the port of Wilmington, North Carolina,
according to a Southern Legislative Conference survey of ports. "The expansion of the Panama Canal is the tool to help us build on our port,"
says Stephanie Ayers, director of planning and development for the North Carolina State Ports Authority. These projects illustrate the ports' high
hopes. It's unclear, however, whether they will be completed in time for the opening of the Panama Canal's new locks. The governmental reviews
required for Savannah's dredging project stretched over more than a decade, involving interests ranging from the commercial fishing industry to
environmental groups in neighboring South Carolina. "It's been a political logistics nightmare," says Tom Thomson, executive director of the
Chatham County- Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission, "but it was necessary to ensure that all the issues were addressed to the
community's satisfaction."
Status quo solves – upgrades now
Barnett, 12 (Ron, USA Today, 5/24, “East Coast ports scramble to dig deep, for supersize ships,”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-24/deepening-harbors/55653540/1)
The ports
of Norfolk, Va., and Baltimore have completed projects that put them in position to be the
first to receive the big ships, some of them 1,110 feet long with the capacity to haul up to 13,000 boxcar-size freight containers, Ellis
said. Elsewhere, the work is in varying stages: The Army Corps of Engineers is expected to finish dredging a 50foot deep channel to three terminals in New York Harbor by the end of the year and to the main New York terminal by
2014, according to New York/New Jersey Port Authority spokesman Hunter Pendarvis. The authority has committed $1 billion to raise the
Bayonne Bridge by 64 feet to allow the bigger ships to pass under, he said. Miami-Dade County reached an agreement in April with
environmental groups that had raised concerns about the Port of Miami's Deep Dredge project. It is expected to be able to handle the big ships by
2014 or soon thereafter, according to Ellis. The Corps
of Engineers completed a study in April finding that
Savannah, Ga.'s proposed $652-million channel deepening project is viable. The Corps is in the midst
of a study of Charleston harbor, said Jim Newsome, president and CEO of the South Carolina Ports Authority. Philadelphia
and Corpus Christi are currently involved in dredging projects, according to Ellis. Boston, Jacksonville, Canaveral
and Freeport, Texas, are among other ports pursuing deeper channels, he said.
Dredging Slow
Dredging hurdles delay solvency – environmental reviews, NED, WRDA, and EPA
American Institute of Marine Underwriters, 06
(“DREDGING & MARINE CONTRACTORS”, May 2006,
http://www.aimu.org/Dredging%20&%20Marine%20Contractors.pdf)//RM
Over the years, dredging has made a significant contribution to the development of many world economies. Construction and maintenance of
harbors, canals, and waterways have all directly benefited from the dredging industry. Additionally, dredging is key in coastal protection, land
reclamation, and environmental restoration projects. In addition, there are many other applications to which dredging is key. In many places,
agriculture depends on irrigation and drainage with the use of canals. Dredging is often used for infrastructure projects such as road construction.
Trenches for pipelines and ables and more, are often aided with the assistance of dredging as well. In the Northeastern U.S. alone, some of the
recent dredging projects that have been completed or are currently underway and/or planned include: Baltimore harbor dredging project, which
features the creation of an artificial island that will be filled with spoils from the dredging activities. Deepening of the channel for the port of
NY/NJ, which require drilling and blasting of bedrock that had been deposited during the Ice Age. Deepening of the channel (Delaware River) for
the Port of Philadelphia Dredging to remove hazardous material (PCB’s) from the Hudson river. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge tunnel project
required extensive dredging for the laying of the tunnel sections. Boston Harbor tunnel (The Big Dig). During marine construction, dredging is
often required in support of construction of piers, bridges and tunnels. Many dredging companies have diversified into Marine Contracting for
pile driving, pier construction, fender building and other marine construction. Marine Contracting tends to provide a more continuous source of
projects for owners/operators than does dredging, due to the heavily regulated nature of dredging activities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) is responsible for the maintenance of waterways and ports/harbors within the U.S. Consequently, they control and award all dredging
Before any dredging project can begin, there first must be a type of cost benefit
analysis performed by the USACE called Net Economic Development Benefits (NED). The NED
attempts to determine if the project would be in the government’s interest to undertake. This can
often lead to competition between neighboring ports. For example, is it in the public’s best interest to pursue the
projects on U.S. waters.
deepening of the channel for the Port of Philadelphia, or to commit our limited resources to the deepening of the Port of New York/ New Jersey?
Once the
USACE has decided the NED issue, the next step is to define the scope of work and solicit
competitive bids from marine contractors. The successful bidder is usually required to post a
performance bond. The next challenge is to find possible sponsors to fund the project. The
government provides funding for the USACE under the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA), but often additional funding is needed. The USACE will look to state and local governments, as well as
concerned industry associations. The point for underwriters is that dredging can be a cyclical business, with
the viability of companies sometimes tied to funding issues for projects. The other major hurdle in
the permit process is to perform an environmental impact study. This can be a time intensive and
onerous process, in which Federal (EPA), State and Local Authorities must review and approve the
dredging plans and disposal of spoils. Among the environmental factors considered are the impact to the environment and
Although not necessarily mutually exclusive, sometimes the answer may mean that one port will grow, while the other will decline.
marine life in the area affected by the dredging, as well as the disposal of them dredging spoils. Many river bottoms contain potentially toxic
chemicals and contaminants that have accumulated over the years, due to industry activity and previous dumping, such as residual PCBs in the
Hudson River, due to production of Agent Orange and other toxic chemicals in the past.
Dredging suffers massive delays – environmental reviews slow projects - Delaware
proves
Courier Post 00—“Anti-dredging forces buoyed by Army report”, Courier Post (Cherry Hill, New Jersey) 12/17,
ProQuest,
//JH
http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/436913746?accountid=14667)
Army Corps and the Delaware
River Port Authority, the project's sponsor, have yet to sign an agreement to start construction.
They had hoped to begin work over the summer. Army Corps officials last week said the agreement
has been held up by technicalities. `It's just strictly wording issues,' Army Corps spokesman
Richard Chlan said. `It's lawyers talking to lawyers.' But opponents argue the agreement is
effectively on hold because of the lack of funding commitments from Delaware and New Jersey. In
Legislation appropriating $24 million for dredging has passed both houses of Congress. But the
May, a New Jersey Senate committee withheld the state's $13 million contribution because of general economic and environmental concerns.
Delaware has raised state environmental permitting issues in holding back its $4 million contribution. Pennsylvania has committed its $15 million
contribution. Opponents now likely face lobbying New Jersey and Delaware legislators to continue holding back the contributions while they
figure out a way to get a review by either the GAO or the Pentagon. `We need to kind of roll up our sleeves and see . . . what it's going to take to
get them to turn their attention to this,' Ellis said. In March, Ellis' group and
the National Wildlife Federation issued a
joint study ranking the Delaware deepening as the second most wasteful Army Corps project in the
nation. The Mississippi project, which ranked third, is now on hold for at least a year, pending a new Army Corps economic analysis. The topranked project -- a massive irrigation project in eastern Arkansas -- is also on hold at the request of congressional leaders and stakeholders,
including rice farmers who questioned the economic benefits the Corps said they were to receive. Environmental groups are hoping for a similar
delay to the Delaware project, arguing the Army Corps has manipulated justifications for the deepening on behalf of the DRPA. The Philadelphia
District of the Army Corps and the DRPA, a quasi-governmental port development agency, staunchly defend the Delaware project as justifiable.
`I don't know anything about the (Mississippi) project, but the Delaware River deepening project is economically justified,' said Chlan, the Army
Corps spokesman. `And
years and years of studies have shown we have met or will meet all
environmental requirements.' In the Mississippi project, an economist testified Army Corps brass
ordered him to manipulate economic data to justify lock expansion along the Mississippi and
Illinois rivers. Such allegations have never emerged in the Delaware deepening. Still, opponents maintain the
Army Corps' justifications for the Philadelphia project are thin. Although the DRPA argues the port needs a deeper channel to accommodate
bigger cargo ships, the Army Corps did not take this into consideration. Instead the
Corps limited its analysis to potential
national economic benefits that could be derived through theoretically lower fuel prices resulting
from savings to refiners. The Corps estimates a deeper channel will save six major refiners along
the river $32million because tankers will have to off-load less oil at the mouth of the bay. The DRPA
insists the real stakes are the very survival of the port in face of competition from other East Coast ports for deeper draft cargo ships, an argument
that technically cannot be considered by the Army Corps. `Refiners are nice,' said Joe Diemer, a DRPA spokesman. `Butour point of view is
general cargo. Eighty percent of the jobs along the river have nothing to do with oil.' Opponents, meanwhile, maintain an Army Corps health
assessment as minimized the project's environmental impacts. The Corpscalculated levels of toxins in sediments after they would be pumpedinto
disposal sites. Corps
biologist Jerry Pasquale acknowledged this approach diluted the levels of toxins
measured because polluted sediments would be mixed with cleaner sediments. But Pasquale said he was
investigating potential health exposures to people that might get onto disposal sites, not impacts on aquatic life resulting from the stirring of
toxins in the river. Opponents further maintain the Corps has developed contradictory conclusions in two separate studies determining how water
flowsi n the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, which connects the Delaware River and the Chesapeake Bay. They argue the Army Corps came up
with a new conclusion as to the general flow of water in the canal to allay concerns that polluted and saltier water from the Delaware would harm
the more pristine upper reaches of the Chesapeake if the canal were deepened. Water generally flows in each direction because of tidal
differences, but the Corps was looking at net water flows over time, particularly during a severe drought, Army Corps oceanographer Jeffrey
Gebert said. An initial study conducted in connection with the Delaware project and released around late 1995 wrongly concluded net flow
toward the Chesapeake, Gebert said. A more thorough 1999 study related to canal deepening accurately concluded net flow toward the Delaware,
he said. `It's ludicrous for anyone to state that we said the canal runs in different directions at the same time,' Gebert said.
Alt Cause
Dredging alone can’t solve—rail and road improvements are key
Tracy 11 – Senior Specialty Writer at Orlando Sentinel (Dan, “Experts question Gov. Rick Scott's portdredging plan”, 3/16, McClatchy- Tribune Business News, ProQuest,
http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/857241224
?accountid=14667)
"The big ships don't change the size of the market," said Tampa Port Director Richard Wainio. Right
now, goods delivered to the Miami port largely supply South Florida. To grab a bigger share of the shipping business,
Miami would have to increase its local demand, or move the goods farther north or south, experts
say. That may not happen for at least two reasons, said Wainio and Mark Vitner, a top economist who studies Florida for
Wells Fargo Securities. It's cheaper to keep the goods on the ship, Vitner said, and head north to other ports that have
better access to the Southeast, such as Norfolk, Va. -- where the port already is deep enough -- Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, both of which are
too shallow for mega-ships and do not have the permits to get deeper. Goods for southern trade could continue being offloaded at Caribbean
There is no major rail spur in the
Miami port and the roads already are clogged with traffic, he said. The rail issue could be fixed by
2012 because the port has come up with nearly $50 million in federal, state and private dollars to fix tracks and a
ports as well, experts said. More problematic for Miami, Poole said, is its road and rail network.
bridge damaged by hurricanes, said Husein Cumber, vice president of corporate development of the Florida East Coast Railway. "South Florida is
not going to miss out on international trade opportunities anymore," said Cumber. He said goods unloaded in Miami could reach virtually
anywhere in the state or the Southeast just as fast as cargo unloaded farther north . But
expanding the roads could well be too
expensive, Poole said. In 2007, Poole wrote a paper suggesting the construction of a toll road
leading to and from the port that would be mostly for trucks. That could cost $1 billion or more,
likely making the tolls too high for truckers to afford on a regular basis, he said. The state already
is spending $1 billion building twin tunnels linking the MacArthur Causeway east of downtown
Miami with the port. They would get the trucks out of downtown, but still place them on already crowded highways such as Interstate
95. Without additional major rail and road improvements, Poole and Vitner said, it is unlikely ships would deliver goods in Miami slated for
Central and North Florida, much less the Southeast.
Advantage Counterplan
1NC ESA CP (Turtles/Horseshoe Crabs)
CP Text: The United States federal government should add the migratory birds that
feed on Horseshoe Crab eggs to the Endangered Species Act and change the
Endangered Species Act to require the use of Turtle Excluder Devices and other bycatch mitigation efforts, while appropriate agencies institute harvesting management
practices for Horseshoe Crabs. The United States federal government should create
artificial coral reefs using cinderblocks and additional necessary material at
appropriate locations.
That solves
CBD ’11
(Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is a nonprofit membership organization with approximately 220,000 members and online activists, known
for its work protecting endangered species through legal action and scientific petitions. The Center has offices and staff in Arizona, California,
New Mexico, Oregon, Montana, Illinois, Minnesota, Alabama, Alaska, Vermont and Washington, D.C. “Endangered Species Act 99 Percent
Effective at Saving Imperiled Species”, Immediate Release, December 5, 2011,
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2011/endangered-species-act-12-05-2011.html) TKT
WASHINGTON— Kierán Suckling,
executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, will testify
before the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday at a hearing called
"The Endangered Species Act: How Litigation is Costing Jobs and Impeding True Recovery Efforts." In his written testimony, Suckling
notes that the Endangered Species Act is, by any measure, a success: 99.9 percent of species
protected by the Act have been kept from extinction and, where measured, 93 percent of
protected species are moving toward recovery. “The Endangered Species Act is the most
successful law ever enacted to save wildlife and plants from extinction,” said Suckling. “The Act saved the
bald eagle, peregrine falcon, American alligator and scores of others and is in the process of saving the polar bear, Miami blue butterfly and
more than a thousand other species.” Critics of the Endangered Species Act complain
that the law is failing because
only 1 percent of endangered species have recovered and been removed from the list. But
these critics fail to explain why they think more species should have recovered by now . There are
currently 1,396 species protected under the Endangered Species Act. On average, they have been on the list 21 years. Their federal recovery
plans, however, expect that on average they will require 42 years from listing to be recovered. “Complaining that a species did not recover
decades faster than what scientists said is like declaring an antibiotic to be a failure because it did not cure an infection on the first day of a 10day course,” Suckling said. In fact, hundreds of listed species have strong recovery trends but, as per their federal recovery plans, will not reach
full recovery for several decades. Their progress is indicative of the Endangered Species Act’s effectiveness despite the fact they are not yet
recovered. Among species with strong recovery trends are the: Whooping crane, which has grown from 54 birds in 1967 to 599 in 2011;
Shortnose sturgeon, which has increased from 12,669 fish in 1979 to 56,708 in 1994-1996; Hawaiian goose, which has increased from 300 birds
in 1980 to 1,744 in 2006; Florida panther, which has increased from 30 to 40 individuals in the 1980s to 87 in 2003 and 130 in 2010; Utah prairie
dog, whose numbers increased from 3,300 in 1973 to 11,296 in 2010. Yet House Republicans continue to attack the Endangered Species Act,
including complaints over the cost of litigation that has helped to ensure that imperiled species and their habitat are protected as the law
requires. In fact, in a Sept. 11, 2011 letter to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service disclosed that in
2010 it spent $1.24 million to “manage, coordinate, track, and support ESA litigation” brought by environmental and industry groups. This
amounts to one half of 1 percent of the endangered-species budget, which was more than $275 million in 2010. According to the letter, the
amount the Service spent on litigation has remained relatively constant over the past 10 years, meaning 2010 was a typical year in terms of the
very small percentage of the endangered species budget spent managing litigation. “Although litigation has played an important role in making
sure declining species get the help they desperately need, it certainly isn’t breaking the bank,” Suckling said. “The irony of the House
leadership’s attack on environmental groups is that industry lawyers receive millions of dollars under these same enforcement powers, and
these lawsuits almost always seek to curtail protection for plants and animals, not enhance it.” A 2006 review found that 80 percent of all active
litigation over critical habitat in 2005 was filed by industry groups. Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability Office this year found that
industry groups filed 48 percent of lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency while environmental groups filed 30 percent.
Cinderblocks solve artificial reefs better and faster
PLAYA HERMOSA ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT ’11 (PLAYA HERMOSA ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT: "CONDOFISH",
http://condofish.com/) TKT
Some reefs are erroneously constructed from car tires (a bad idea due to the toxicity of rubber disintegrating in salt
water), and some are built using broken-down cars, old boats and scrap metal. Our goal was to
ensure that fish and other marine animals, such as crabs, octopus, and eels, looking for a
place to live and reproduce had the best environment available. The reef project chose cinder
block because the block was much easier to handle than cars and other heavy industrial items
and the Calcium content of concrete bolsters the growth of various plant and invertebrate life
forms. Also, logistically it made more sense because block is readily available. The fish habitats are
formed into an “igloo” and “caterpillar” shapes which offer the best environment to live, breed and find protection. Playa Hermosa Artificial
Reef Project i The very first step is to choose a low current location that is conducive to undersea life, reproduction and feeding. In 1985, a 60foot tuna-fishing vessel of Mexican origin was anchored close to the beach in Playa Hermosa. A fire broke out aboard causing considerable
damage and the boat sank. In 2002, fishermen living in Playa Hermosa knew the location of boat and helped discover the wreck and the
remains of the fishing vessel. The wreck has a N-S direction. To the south is a drum with nets and ropes completely covered with vegetation and
corals, at the center is the engine and various mechanical parts of the arms. At the other end, the north, one can see a metal cube of about 100
cubic feet that is most likely a fuel tank. The wreck lies about 400 meters west from the beach, facing the parking lot of the first entrance to
Playa Hermosa. It sits at a depth roughly 20 to 30 feet depending on the tide. 12 fish habitats consisting of the igloo block structure are located
around the wreck.. While the CondoFish project in Playa Hermosa Costa Rica obtained full government approval for the project, this may or
may not be relevant in other international locations. Costa Rica is a very ecologically conscious country and anything regarding natural
resources or wildlife requires approval and constant surveillance.
It prevents sea turtle destruction, trawling, and other fishing only by fisheries by
changing the permission granted by the ITS.
Griffin et al 2008
(Griffin, E., Miller, K.L., Harris, S. and Allison, Comprise Oceana’s of marine scientists, economists, lawyers and advocates win specific and
concrete policy changes to reduce pollution and to prevent the irreversible collapse of fish populations “TROUBLE TURTLES For Trawl Fishing in
the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico”, July 2008, www.oceana.org)
Sea Turtle Protection under the Endangered Species Act All
six sea turtle species in U.S. waters are threatened with
“take” of sea turtles
without government authorization is illegal. The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.16 Therefore, any interactions between sea turtles
and fisheries are “takes” under the ESA and are illegal without government authorization. For federal
fisheries, this authorization is an Incidental Take Statement (ITS). The ITS is given to the
fishery as a whole, not to individual fishermen. An ITS is based on a finding that the activities
under consideration – in this case fishing – will not cause “jeopardy” to a species, thus
allowing the permitted action to continue. Jeopardy, in terms of the ESA, “occurs when an action is reasonably expected,
or in danger of extinction and are therefore protected by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As a result, any
directly or indirectly, to diminish a species’ numbers, reproduction or distribution so that the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild is
appreciably reduced.”17 In state fisheries, authorization to take sea turtles is granted through an ESA Section 10 Incidental Take Permit.
2NC
CP solves
Bleyer ’12
(BILL BLEYER gathering information from National Park Service, published in News Day. May 14, 2012 “COUNTING CRABS; Volunteers help park
service conduct spring survey”, Lexis.) TKT
Most visitors are drawn to Sagamore Hill to learn about Theodore Roosevelt, but one recent morning more than a dozen people gathered in a
conference room for a briefing on the sex lives of horseshoe crabs. Civilian volunteers joined National Park Service staff for training on how to
count and tag horseshoe crabs as part of a population survey being conducted at national park beaches in the Northeast this spring. The
information gathered during May and June at Sagamore Hill in Cove Neck and other parks will be used by
the parks to better manage the crab habitat. It will be forwarded to the state and federal MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council to better manage harvesting of the crabs used for bait,
and to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The volunteers who came to Sagamore Hill to be trained by Patti Rafferty, a park
service coastal ecologist based at Fire Island, included students, retired teachers, biology buffs and James Foote of Sea Cliff, who usually turns
up at Sagamore Hill to portray the 26th president. "I was fascinated by horseshoe crabs since I was this high," Foote said, placing his hand near
his knee. Allie Holtzer of Wantagh volunteered because she had just graduated from college with a degree in history and was looking for
something to do before entering the Peace Corps. "I love the water and marine life and I love that I grew up on an island so it's great to learn
about the creatures around it," she said. Mary Wagner, 71, of Wantagh came with her husband, Wayne, a volunteer docent who usually gives
tours of Roosevelt's mansion, now closed for restoration. "I have a tremendous interest in horseshoe crabs," she said. "I think they're
interesting and I feel sorry for them because they are harvested by fishermen." The volunteers listened attentively to Rafferty, whose interest
in the species was telegraphed by the American horseshoe crab pin on her shirt and matching earrings. "The purpose of the project is to better
understand how the horseshoe crabs are using the national parks in the New York area as habitat," she explained. "We believe that we may be
providing areas of refuge that haven't been developed" and are not subject to harvesting while development has
reduced the
areas where the horseshoe crabs can survive. She said surveying began at Cape Cod National Seashore a decade ago
because of issues raised by harvesting by fishermen. The work expanded to three beaches at Fire Island last year and Sagamore Hill and
Gateway National Recreation Area in New York City this year. Researchers don't know if the crabs come back to the same beaches year after
year. They do know they move around quickly and can travel very far. A horseshoe crab tagged at Sagamore Hill last year showed up five weeks
later in Connecticut. Counting the crabs that come ashore to mate and lay eggs and affixing a tag to some of them to be able to follow their
travels will help fill in some of the blanks, Rafferty said. She began the training with Horseshoe Crab 101. "They are an important part of the
ecosystem," she said. "Their eggs are an important food source for many species, especially shorebirds." And they are used for bait by
fishermen and their blood for medical testing. Males and females mate and the female crabs come ashore at unusually high tides to dig a nest
in the sand to lay their eggs. "They time their spawning to the highest tides of May and June, and those highest tides occur during the full and
new moons," Rafferty said. "So we go out and survey two days before, the day of the full and new moon, and two days after." Only a handful of
horseshoe crabs showed up on the first cycle of the survey in early May but the researchers are hoping for better results in the next round
starting Friday. Rafferty noted that horseshoe crabs are one of the world's oldest animals - more than 300 million years. "As old as they are,"
she said, "we don't know a lot about horseshoe crabs." HORSESHOE CRABS Despite its common name, the horseshoe crab (Limulus
polyphemus) is more closely related to spiders and scorpions than crabs. Horseshoe crabs come to shore to mate and lay eggs with peak
spawning in New York in May and June, particularly during the evening high tides of new and full moons. A female will lay 90,000 eggs or more
during a spawning cycle; only about 10 will make it to adulthood. Many spring migratory shorebirds and fish rely upon the eggs for food. Native
Americans and colonists used horseshoe crabs to fertilize crops. Horseshoe crabs have blue blood because the protein that carries oxygen in
horseshoe crab blood contains copper. The blood is used by the biomedical industry for testing and sells for up to $5,000 per quart. The crabs
are harvested for conch and eel bait.
Things can be sunk that solve artificial reefs.
Scientific Diving’09
(The world of scientific diving encompasses a vast array of techniques, tools and disciplines utilized in systematic progression to unlock the
mysteries of the underwater world. It is our hope to create in conjunction with some of the worlds most noted minds in the world of scientific
diving one of the best possible resources related to this most fascinating of all areas of diving. This will include papers written exclusively for us,
reprints of articles previously published in other mediums, photos and video of scientific diving expeditions around the world, tips, techniques,
history and so much more. “Artificial Reefs for Marine Life”, http://www.scientificdiving.net/scientific-diving/artificial-reefs-marine-life/) TKT
Things sink. Everyone knows that. The bottom of the ocean is covered in things that have sunk throughout history. But sometimes
people decide to sink things on purpose to create an artificial reef. It could be a few cinder blocks,
tires, movie sets, an old freight container, or an entire train. Whatever is sunk, it is sunk with the purpose of
promoting marine life. Artificial reefs can be made in any coastal waters. When an artificial
reef is sunk, it makes a great location for species like algae, barnacles, corals, and oysters to
attach and make a new home. Over time a lively reef forms and provides great fishing locations, idyllic scuba diving sites, and
superb marine habitats. Unfortunately around the world coral reefs are suffering. Global warming, over fishing, pollution,
rising sea level, inexperienced divers, and much more are quickly killing the ecologically
fragile and diverse reefs. Artificial reefs are a good way to help these abused reefs regenerate
because they relieve stress from reefs that are overwhelmed by human and sea life impact.
Someday those abused reefs may thrive again. Artificial reefs help attract divers away from the fragile ecosystems of natural coral reefs by
providing them with new alternative reefs to explore. Artificial reefs are often created on shipwrecks; a type of diving that already is alluring for
most divers. In fact, many old Naval ships, after they are decommissioned, are now being sunk to create artificial reefs and promote marine life.
It’s actually more politically, environmentally, and economically cheaper to do this than take the ships apart for scraps. The
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, even gives guidelines on how to prepare your boat, car, or
plane if you want to sink it and make an artificial reef. Several privately owned companies are
creating jobs specifically for this niche market. Artificial reefs are great way to promote aquatic life, but as with
everything there are always people who oppose new ideas. The naysayers feel there is no major marine life benefit and that artificial reefs only
pollute the ocean. So next time you’re enjoying diving on a sunken James Bond plane wreck in the Bahamas, a sunken train in Thailand, or an
underwater tire world in Florida, remember they aren’t natural reefs but they’re awesome diving.
Use of TED’s reduce turtle fatalities by 97%
Griffin et al 2008
(Griffin, E., Miller, K.L., Harris, S. and Allison, Comprise Oceana’s of marine scientists, economists, lawyers and advocates win specific and
concrete policy changes to reduce pollution and to prevent the irreversible collapse of fish populations “TROUBLE TURTLES For Trawl Fishing in
the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico”, July 2008, www.oceana.org)
In the 1980s, an estimated 5,000-50,000 loggerhead and 500-5,000 Kemp’s ridley sea turtles died annually in
shrimp trawls.18 To address sea turtle bycatch in this fishery, the National Marine Fisheries Service spent the 70’s and 80’s
designing and testing turtle excluder devices (TEDs) for shrimp trawls. A TED is a grid of bars in the
neck of the net with an opening, reminiscent of an escape hatch. The bars are spaced far enough apart to allow shrimp and fish to
pass through to the tail of the net while allowing large species, such as sea turtles, to escape from the net through
the opening.¶ Studies showed that trawl nets equipped with properly functioning TEDs could lead to a 97
percent reduction in sea turtle net entrapment.20As a result, in 1992 the federal government required all U.S. shrimp
trawlers in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico to use TEDs in all waters, during all seasons.21 These regulations were altered in 2003 to
require a larger TED opening, which allows larger turtles to escape from the net.