Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Topshelf
1NC
The Cuban embargo is poised to overcome the fight in
Congress and be repealed, and Obama is heading the
effort
Naiman, 12/18
[Robert, 12/18/14, policy director at Just Foreign Policy, is the president of Truthouts
board of directors, and writes on US foreign policy for Huffington Post. He has Masters degrees in
economics and mathematics and studied and worked in the Middle East, Can Congress End the Cuban
Embargo? Many Republicans Want the Embargo to Fall, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/cancongress-end-cuba-emb_b_6349942.html]
Can Republicans nostalgic for the Cold War block President Obama from
taking executive actions to improve US diplomatic and economic ties with
Cuba? Could a Republican-led Congress vote to end the US embargo? Some
Republican leaders were quick to denounce President Obama's
announcement that the United States was restoring ties with Cuba. But how
many divisions do these Cold War dead-enders control? On whether
Republicans can follow through on threats to block the president, Associated
Press is skeptical: Opponents of President Barack Obama's sudden move to
reestablish ties with Cuba has little chance of scuttling his effort in Congress.
[. . .] But even if they were to pass sweeping legislation to stop what Obama
wants to do, he could veto it, and they are not likely to have the votes to
override a veto. [. . .] Republicans will face pressure from businesses and the
farm industry - eyeing opportunities for commerce in Cuba - not to stand in
the way of expanded ties. The Chamber of Commerce spent heavily in the
midterm elections, investing $35 million to elect business-minded,
predominantly Republican lawmakers. Its president, Thomas J. Donohue, said
Wednesday that Obama's actions "will go a long way in allowing opportunities
for free enterprise to flourish." The DNC noted that many establishment-wing
Republican presidential hopefuls (but not Rand Paul!) slammed the
president's move to restore ties. But, as AP noted: Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who
also went to Cuba to accompany [Alan] Gross home, said Obama's move
should not be seen as a concession. "My sense is that most of my colleagues
feel that we're long past due" in moderating the US stance on Cuba. House
Speaker John Boehner joined the dead-ender chorus of denunciation. But will
Boehner be able to control the Republican rank and file? A 2009 CBS/New
York Times poll found a plurality of Republicans (60 percent of Americans,
overall) thought all Americans should be allowed to travel to Cuba . Utah
Republican Jason Chaffetz said the President's move didn't go far enough:
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), meanwhile, questioned why any restrictions
would remain on travel to Cuba for Americans. "I think there is an issue of
freedom," Chaffetz, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, said in a phone interview with The
Washington Post. "It's amazing to me, post-Cold War, that the United States
of America will not allow me to travel to Cuba," he added. "I think we should
allow all Americans to make those choices. You can travel to North Korea, you
can travel to some pretty awful places. Americans should be able to make
those decisions all by themselves." Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis [IL13] praised the President's move: US Rep. Rodney Davis hailed an Obama
administration move to normalize relations with Cuba, saying the shift has
the potential to be good for the Cuban people and for American agriculture.
"What I hope this brings to the American people is the ability to trade with a
country that is craving our products and craving assistance from our
agricultural sector," the Taylorville Republican said Wednesday. "Illinois stands
to gain from leaps and bounds with the ability to sell our crops. The terms of
purchasing and selling products are changed in this decision by the president.
In the past Cuba would have to pay in advance before the product got there.
From what I'm reading there's been some modifications that allows for more
normalized trade relations. That really helps out Illinois agriculture." Recall
that a left-right coalition led by Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Democratic
Rep. John Conyers almost succeeded in passing a post-Snowden restriction on
NSA blanket surveillance against the policy of the administration and the
House Republican leadership. A similar left-right coalition supported by the
president and public opinion could successfully push Congress to end the
Cuba embargo. The Congressional Progressive Caucus - almost half the
Democrats in the new House - is fully onboard: "The president has laid out a
promising path forward and now it is up to Congress to act . Congress must lift
the trade embargo and normalize travel between our two nations, which are
only 90 miles apart. The Congressional Progressive Caucus looks forward to
working with President Obama and members of Congress who want to
stabilize relations between the U.S. and Cuba."
<LINK>
Ending the embargo is key to relations
Chase 12/18 (Michelle Chase, assistant professor of history and Latin American and
Caribbean studies at Bloomfield College, Rapprochement with Cuba needs to go further,
12/18/14, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/12/cuba-diplomatic-relationsembargoobama.html,
\\acc. 1/5/15, ali\\)
Obamas announcement yesterday that the U.S. would reestablish diplomatic ties with Cuba marked the end of an inglorious
episode of U.S. foreign policy. The change is a positive step, but we need to go
President Barack
further . The U.S. should acknowledge its half-century of aggression overt and covert
and repeal the embargo that has helped stunt the islands economy.
The
rupture of diplomatic relations in January of 1961 was only the beginning of decades of various attempts to overthrow, destabilize and subvert
the Cuban government. These ranged from the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 to various forms of sabotage directly orchestrated or fostered by
the Central Intelligence Agency to assassination attempts against Fidel Castro that continued until President Richard Nixon finally put a stop to
them. These CIA machinations have become the stuff of satire in popular culture: Jokes about the CIAs exploding cigars abound. But it was no
laughing matter. What failed in Cuba worked elsewhere, as the destabilization of Salvador Allendes government in Chile culminating in
Augusto Pinochets 1973 coup and Allendes death attests. In retrospect, our efforts to destabilize Cuba in the decades after the 1959
revolution are striking for their unremitting meanness. No forum was too petty, no sphere considered impenetrable, especially in the 1960s.
From orchestrating Cubas expulsion from the Organization of American States in 1962 to enlisting writers to oppose the Cuban government in
public forums such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom to hounding down the most meager economic transactions between the Cuban
government and other countries of the free world, the U.S. overlooked no opportunity to derail the Cuban government. As the recent
revelations of the U.S. Agency for International Developments attempt to penetrate Cubas hip-hop music scene five years ago reminded us,
the U.S. has left virtually no stone unturned. The point about these wrong-headed clandestine policies is not merely that they were ineffective
or counterproductive though they certainly were but that they violated Cuban sovereignty. In the U.S. arsenal, the economic embargo has
been its most formidable weapon. Originally referred to as the Economic Denial Program, it began piecemeal in 1960, when the U.S. cut off
annual purchases of Cuban sugar known as the Cuban sugar quota and prohibited U.S. exports to the island. It is the longest-running
economic sanction we have ever perpetrated against another country. The damage caused by the embargo is hard to calculate, but its cruelty
is evident. In the name of overthrowing the Cuban leadership, this policy has punished all Cubans. To be sure, the embargo alone is not
responsible for the dire state of Cubas economy. Poor planning in the hands of both the Soviets and the Cubans shares blame. But the
embargo managed to wreak havoc on Cubas economy, especially in two periods: the early 1960s, before Soviet support fully consolidated,
and again in the 1990s, after the Soviet Unions collapse suddenly left Cuba floundering without its subsidies. The early 1960s brought on epic
struggles, as familiar food products became scarce, lines outside stores stretched around blocks and the U.S.-made machines that the island
relied on broke down without replacements parts. Cubans tempered the hardships with revolutionary excitement and determination. Rallies
were punctuated with slogans such as We may lack soap, but we have plenty of courage. Cuban workers eventually managed, saving
materials or finding ingenious solutions to the chronic problem of replacement parts. But by the 1990s, years of revolutionary fatigue and
political bureaucracy had taken their toll. The food scarcity of the 1990s made Cubans lives very difficult, and the U.S. government bears
responsibility. Over the past 25 years the economy has slowly improved, but a whole generation of Cubans has faced a daily struggle to put
food on the table. While overt political aggression by the U.S. has only tended to shore up support for the revolution, economic sanctions have
undermined it. The economic embargo worked as intended: It brought ruination to the island. The intentional
deprivation of the population represented a perverse and failed effort to force Cubans to rise up against
their leaders one that inflicted needless suffering on innocent people. For that reason, it was important
Ending
requires congressional
that Obama recognized the cruel futility of trying to push Cuba toward collapse in his speech.
Cuba
countries in the hemisphere. 6 Specifically, the report pinpoints two key challenges
facing the region that are directly relevant to the subject of this book: securing sustainable energy supplies
and expanding economic development opportunities.
long term initiative be undertaken to provide general licenses for the exportation of additional categories
of goods and services that enhance the environment, conserve energy, and provide improved quality of
life.
and James T. Hill, President, The JT Hill Group, Inc. Director: Shannon K. O'Neil,
Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies Senior Adviser: Julia E. Sweig, Nelson
and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for
Latin America Studies, U.S.-Latin America Relations, A New Direction for a
New Reality, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-latinamerica-relations/p16279)
Latin America has never mattered more for the United States. The
region is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States and a
strong partner in the development of alternative fuels. It is the United States'
fastest-growing trading partner, as well as its biggest supplier of illegal drugs. Latin America is also the largest source of U.S. immigrants, both
2NC OV
The DA outweighs and turns the case
a- Only the removal of the Cuban embargo can promote
a permanent state of stability throughout the
hemisphere. Failure to do so increases the risk of
miscalculation and error replication due to failed
methods of communication- thats our 1NC Swieg
evidence
b- Only by removing the embargo can the US begin to
eliminate the major structural incentives for war.
Swieg identifies several key warrants: the promotion
of civil society organizations to resolve unrest, and
increase in global prosperity due to enhanced access
to resources, allowing for better communication in
order to resolve international issues, and spreading
democracy and commerce to unstable regions.
Absent these changes extinction is inevitable via
nuclear war.
2NC UQ Wall
Obama is capable of getting the ball rolling on repealing
the embargo, but he needs to hold on to the Republican
support he has now
Watson, 12/18
[K. William, 12/18/14, trade policy analyst for Catos Trade Policy Studies, has a BA
in Political Science at Texas Christian University, a JD from Tulane University Law School, and an LLM in
International and Comparative Law at George Washington University Law School, Republicans in Congress
Really Like the Cuban Embargo, http://www.cato.org/blog/republicans-congress-really-cuba-embargo]
[12/21/14, Carol E. Lee and William Mauldin, Obama Faces Battle With Congress Over
Cuba, http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-faces-battle-with-congress-over-cuba-1419211849]
travel, tourism and trade between the two countries, and lawmakers from
both parties have made clear they plan to complicate Mr. Obamas efforts by
refusing to fund certain proposals or confirm his nominees to fill diplomatic
posts. If youre being offered the ambassadorship to Cuba, turn it down
because you have a snowballs chance in hell of getting confirmed, said Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Some of the original restrictions that make up the Cuban
embargo were authorized by U.S. presidents starting half a century ago,
relying on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.
Timeframe
Its now or never
[Peter, 12/17/14, political correspondent for the Hill, Can Obama Lift Cuba
Embargo Alone? http://thehill.com/policy/finance/227442-can-obama-lift-cuba-embargo-without-congress]
**Aff Answers**
Timeframe
The embargo wont be repealed any time soon
Pace, 12/19
[Julie, 12/19/14, White House correspondent for PBS NEWSHOUR, Obama: No Quick End
to Embargo on Cuba, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/watch-live-obamas-year-end-newsconference-130-p-m-est/]
[Amanda, 12/17/14, former human rights lawyer and now a foreign policy and human
rights correspondent for Vox, Obama can limit the Cuba embargo on his own. But he needs Congress to
end it, http://www.vox.com/2014/12/17/7408829/cuba-embargo-obama-lift]
The President has the power to make significant changes to the embargo and
US-Cuba relations without any action from Congress. There are three key
avenues for this, and Obama's statements today suggest that he plans to
pursue all of them. First, the President can make sanctions less restrictive in
practice by exercising his licensing authority under the current laws. The
executive branch has the authority under current law to issue licenses that
permit US citizens and corporations to do business with Cuba, travel there,
and send money to family members there. The president isn't making
licenses for those activities universally available, but he will make them
easier to get. And Obama could, if he wants, make them much easier to get.
Lawrence Ward, a partner at the law firm of Dorsey and Whitney who
specializes in sanctions compliance law, told me that the President has broad
authority to implement various general licenses. So, even if Congress does
not act, he could broaden the general licenses available to US individuals and
businesses. That would have the substantive effect of easing the embargo,
even if, legislatively, it was still in place. For instance, Ward noted that "the
President has wide latitude in general licenses authorizing travel to Cuba,"
even though a full repeal of the travel ban could only be accomplished
through legislative action. Second, the President can remove Cuba from
certain types of sanctions by changing its classification as a "State Sponsor of
Terrorism." Technically, the Secretary of State makes that determination, not
the president. However, the White House said in a statement that it had
instructed Secretary Kerry to review whether Cuba should be removed from
that list, and submit a report on his conclusions within six months. If Cuba is
no longer designated as a sponsor of terrorism, it will no longer be subject to
a variety of different sanctions, including restrictions on imports of weapons
and "dual-use" technology, and a ban on its government doing business with
US citizens and institutions. Finally, Obama has wide latitude in determining
whether to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, regardless of whether
Congress grants him permission. The Constitution specifically grants the
President the authority to send and receive ambassadors, and the executive's
foreign affairs powers are generally interpreted as including the authority to
recognize foreign governments.
TPA
Topshelf
1NC
TPA and TPP will pass, PC is key
Hickey 12/31/14 (Jennifer, freelance writer and communications consultant, Obama Eyes
Smoother Ride in New Congress on Trade Deals http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/trade-agreementsAsia-Democrats/2014/12/31/id/615800/#ixzz3NV7MDU2v )
The silver lining for President Barack Obama in the dark cloud of the 2014
midterm elections is that with Republicans holding control of
Congress, chances to move forward on approval of trade promotion authority (TPA)
and other key trade deals have greatly improved.
One of the top items on the administration's agenda is the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), a comprehensive trade deal that is in its fifth year of
intense negotiations, and has seen deadlines to reach agreement pass by the last three
years. With little hope of pushing a major trade deal through Congress
during a presidential election year, supporters and opponents
recognize the coming year is critical.
This
to get out and educate members and address the concerns they might have. Ive been advising colleagues
who are skeptical and not supportive of trade to at least engage in conversations and feedback, Democrat
Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who is pro-trade, told The Washington Post.
A sign of the importance the administration places on achieving progress on the trade front is that U.S.
In working to secure its passage, one of Froman's key allies on Capitol Hill will be incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, who indicated after the election his willingness to work with Obama.
Ive got a lot of members who believe that international trade agreements are a winner for America and the president
and I discussed that right before I came over here. I think hes interested in moving forward. I said, send us trade
agreements, were anxious to look at them, said McConnell in November, according to U.S. News & World Report.
Obama told the Business Roundtable earlier this month that he has
committed to actively pushing for trade deals and is confident that
the TPP, as well as a trade deal with Europe, can be achieved in the
next year.
If he is to be successful, he must first take on members within the
Democrat caucus.
"It should help move TPA along both because it will help persuade wavering
Democrats that supporting it is the right thing to do and because it will
demonstrate to Republicans that the president is willing to wade
into the fight," National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch told Reuters.
With TPA's primary opponent, outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid no longer
controlling the agenda , the path forward for TPA, or "fast track"
trade authority, is much smoother.
It also is one of the priorities of incoming Senate Finance Committee
Chairman Orrin Hatch.
"Renewing TPA and advancing other parts of our trade agenda also
represents an opportunity for a fully Republican Congress to work with
the administration. So, trade will almost certainly take up much of the Finance Committees
agenda as next year gets underway," said Hatch recently during a Financial Services Roundtable event,
The Hill reported.
The real challenge for Froman and supporters of trade will be to overcome
opposition coming from Democrats and their allies in the labor and
environmental left-wing of their party.
LINK
TPA is key to revitalizing the global economy, sparks
international trade, and secures peaceful international
relationships
Sur 1/7 Debnil Sur (Columnist for the Stanford Daily; double majoring
at Stanford c/o 2017 in Computer Science and Public Policy), Free
trade: A site of potential bipartisanship? 1/7/15.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/07/trade-a-site-of-potentialbipartisanship/
Continued tariff reductions could create huge savings for companies that do
the most transatlantic trade, resulting in 0.5 percent annual increases
to the U.S. and EU GDPs by 2027. Stimulating struggling economies
in the eurozone can also benefit Americas geopolitical interests in
the region. For instance, expediting currently-stalled liquefied natural
gas (LNG) export deals could reduce countries dependence on
Russian energy and strengthen joint U.S.-EU sanctions on the
adventurous Putin regime. Such deepened isolation may help deter
further aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere.
IN JULY 2008 Barack Obama, then a candidate for the presidency, declared before an adoring crowd in
Berlin that true partnership and true progress [require] constant work and sustained sacrifice. So it is
free trade. If not championed by leaders who understand its broad benefits, it
will constantly be eroded by narrow economic nationalism . Mr Obama now
with
If he cannot drag
Democrats back to their senses , the world will lose its best
opportunity in two decades for a burst of liberalisation . It will also be a
signal that America is giving up its role as defender of an open
global economy in the same way that Mr Obama has retreated in foreign policy.
Obama did little to promote free trade during his first term, but has seemed bolder in his second. He
launched America into ambitious new deals with large Pacific economies
and the European Union, breathing new life into global trade talks .
Mr
Momentum built up; the constant work and sacrifice paid dividends. Members of the World Trade
Organisation agreed on a package of trade reforms in Decemberthe first truly multilateral deal in the
elusive. Congress last granted it in 2002; it expired in 2007. The Obama administration blithely asserted
that Congress would renew it, but many lawmakers, primarily Democrats, have signed letters opposing it.
Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has all but ruled out a vote this year. And on February 14th Joe
Biden, the vice-president, told a gathering of Democratic leaders that he understood their opposition. The
White House appears to have given up with scarcely a fight. A fast-track vote before Novembers mid-term
elections seems unlikely (see article).
some
optimists claim that Congress will return after the mid-terms ready
to back fast-track, providing Mr Obama allows some boilerplate language in the bill chiding China
Why panic about this? Tactically, it could just be another piece of Washington politicking:
for allegedly manipulating its currency. Others wonder whether the trade deals are really so vital. Indeed,
the idea that they will not do much to help the economy is one excuse for Democrats undermining their
president.
In fact, the deals on the table are big. Reasonable estimates say that the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could boost the worlds annual output
by $600 billionequivalent to adding another Saudi Arabia. Some $200 billion of that would accrue to
America. And the actual gains could be even larger. The agreements would clear the way for freer trade in
services, which account for most of rich countries GDP but only a small share of trade. Opening up trade
in services could help reduce the cost of everything from shipping to banking, education and health care.
Exposing professional occupations to the same global competition that factory workers have faced for
decades could even strike a blow against the income inequality that Mr Obama so often decries.
Tactically, even a short delay could prove fatal to both deals . Pacific
negotiations have been extended while America and Japan hammer out compromises on agriculture. Why
should Japanese politicians risk infuriating their farmers when any agreement can be torn up on Capitol
Hill? The deal with the EU was meant to be done swiftlyperhaps in as little as two yearsto keep politics
French farmers, are drooling. Angela Merkel, Germanys chancellor, who is already furious about American
spying, may decide that a trade deal is not worth battling for.
Only recently Congress childishly refused to honour an agreed-upon increase in Americas financial
commitment to the International Monetary Fund. The Federal Reserve is pushing forward with new banking
regulations that could penalise foreign banks and further Balkanise global finance (see article). Mr Obama
continues to delay approval of a critical oil pipeline from Canada, and is slow to grant permits to export
American natural gas.
America
cannot turn inward , the Obama of 2008 said in Berlin. The Obama of 2014 is
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will
inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist
legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it
triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a
serious economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide,
those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of
desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will
almost certainly intensify. [end page 136]
Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and
outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel.
Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly
difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and
reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies
seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on
the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by
noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global
payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine
business confidence and consumer spending.
In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across
markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily
spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome
exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.
Disputes over
the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural
resources will become more commonplace.
precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply.
Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military
encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances,
economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for
conflicts that stem from cultural and religious [end page 137]
differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away
from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist
sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap
technology and the waning threat of American retribution,
terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their
horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a
whole new level.
Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will
also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will likely
assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while
Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the
Mideast . Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies
2NC OV
Protectionism outweighs the case
a) Conflict escalationskewed supply and demand will
cause tensions over resourcescultural and religious
differences will be exacerbated by economic conditions
minimal provocation can escalate to full-scale military
encountersthats Panzer
b) Escalates to great power wars
Patrick 9 (Stewart, senior fellow and director of the Program on
International Institutions and Global Governance at the Council on Foreign
Relations, Protecting Free Trade, March 13,
http://nationalinterest.org/article/protecting-free-trade-3060)
In the 1930s, global recession had catastrophic political consequences-in part because policymakers took
As states took refuge in prohibitive tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies and competitive devaluations,
international commerce devolved into a desperate competition for dwindling markets. Between 1929 and
Global economic
activity went into a death spiral, exacerbating the depth and length
of the Great Depression. The economic consequences of protectionism were bad enough. The
political consequences were worse. As Hull recognized, global economic fragmentation
lowered standards of living, drove unemployment higher and
increased poverty-accentuating social upheaval and leaving destitute populations "easy prey to
dictators and desperadoes." The rise of Nazism in Germany, fascism in Italy
and militarism in Japan is impossible to divorce from the economic
turmoil, which allowed demagogic leaders to mobilize support
among alienated masses nursing nationalist grievances. Open
economic warfare poisoned the diplomatic climate and exacerbated
great power rivalries, raising, in Hull's view, "constant temptation to use
force, or threat of force, to obtain what could have been got through normal processes of trade."
1933, the value of world trade plummeted from $50 billion to $15 billion.
Assistant Secretary William Clayton agreed: "Nations which act as enemies in the marketplace cannot long
be friends at the council table." This is what makes growing protectionism and discrimination among the
world's major trading powers today so alarming. In 2008 world trade declined for the first time since 1982.
And despite their pledges, seventeen G-20 members have adopted significant trade restrictions. "Buy
American" provisions in the U.S. stimulus package have been matched by similar measures elsewhere,
with the EU ambassador to Washington declaring that "Nobody will take this lying down." Brussels has
resumed export subsidies to EU dairy farmers and restricted imports from the United States and China.
Meanwhile, India is threatening new tariffs on steel imports and cars; Russia has enacted some thirty new
tariffs and export subsidies. In a sign of the global mood, WTO antidumping cases are up 40 percent since
last year. Even less blatant forms of economic nationalism, such as banks restricting lending to "safer"
domestic companies, risk shutting down global capital flows and exacerbating the current crisis. If
called the "Buy American" provisions "poison"-not exactly how the Obama administration wants to start off
the relationship. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's ill-timed comments about China's currency
"manipulation" and his promise of an "aggressive" U.S. response were not especially helpful either, nor is
Congress' preoccupation with "unfair" Chinese trade and currency practices. For its part, Beijing has
responded to the global slump by rolling back some of the liberalizing reforms introduced over the past
thirty years. Such practices, including state subsidies, collide with the spirit and sometimes the law of open
trillion of our debt and will be critical to solving flashpoints ranging from Iran to North Korea. In the 1930s,
authoritarian great-power governments responded to the global downturn by adopting more nationalistic
and aggressive policies. Today, the economic crisis may well fuel rising nationalism and regional
assertiveness in emerging countries. Russia is a case in point. Although some predict that the economic
crisis will temper Moscow's international ambitions, evidence for such geopolitical modesty is slim to date.
Neither the collapse of its stock market nor the decline in oil prices has kept Russia from flexing its muscles
from Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan. While some expect the economic crisis to challenge Putin's grip on power,
there is no guarantee that Washington will find any successor regime less nationalistic and aggressive.
A long line of writers from Cruce (1623) to Kant (1797) to Angell (1907) to Gartzke (2003) have theorized
that economic interdependence can lower the likelihood of war . Cruce
thought that free trade enriched a society in general and so made people more peaceable; Kant thought
that trade shifted political power away from the more warlike aristocracy, and Angell thought that
economic interdependence shifted cost/benefit calculations in a peace-promoting direction. Gartzke
contends that trade relations enhance transparency among nations and thus help avoid bargaining
Jack Levy said that, While there are extensive debates over the proper research designs for investigating
this question, and while some empirical studies find that trade is associated with international conflict,
much less a war, between any random dyad in any given year is very low, if not zero. Paraguay and
Tanzania, for example, have never fought and are very unlikely to do so. But there have been thousands of
MIDs in the past and hundreds of wars and many of the 16,653 dyads have nonzero probabilities. In 2005
the mean probability of a country being involved in at least one war was estimated to be 0.8%, with 104
countries having a probability of at least 1 war approaching zero. A dozen countries12, however, have
probabilities. Not all dyadic war probabilities decrease, however, because of the power transition
mechanism that is also included in the IFs model. The probability for war between China and the US, for
the
probability of a China/US war never gets very high.14 Deglobalization
raises the risks of war substantially. In a world with much lower average incomes, less
example rises as Chinas power13 rises gradually toward the US level but in these calculations
democracy, and less trade interdependence, the average probability of a country having at least one war
in 2035 rises from 0.6% in the globalization scenario to 3.7% in the deglobalization scenario. Among the
top-20 war-prone countries, the average probability rises from 3.9% in the globalization scenario to 7.1% in
deglobalization scenario vs. 2 in the globalization scenario.16 IV. Winners and Losers Deglobalization in the
form of reduced trade interdependence, reduced capital flows, and reduced migration has few positive
effects, based on this analysis with the International Futures Model. Economic growth is cut in all but a
handful of countries, and is cut more in the non-OECD countries than in the OECD countries.
Deglobalization has a mixed impact on equality. In many non-OECD countries, the cut in imports from the
rest of the world increases the share of manufacturing and in 61 countries raises the share of income going
to the poor. But since average productivity goes down in almost all countries, this gain in equality comes at
the expense of reduced incomes and increased poverty in almost all countries. The only winners are a
small number of countries that were small and poor and not well integrated in the global economy to begin
the gains from deglobalization even for them are very small.
Politically, deglobalization makes for less stable domestic politics
and a greater likelihood of war. The likelihood of state failure
through internal war, projected to diminish through 2035 with increasing globalization, rises
in the deglobalization scenario particularly among the non-OECD democracies.
Similarly, deglobalization makes for more fractious relations among
states and the probability for interstate war rises.
withand
2NC UQ Wall
TPA will pass administration push will show republicans
Obama is not a lame duck and push presidentialist
democrats to vote for fast track.
A) Reid has backed off and Obamas continued support will
break the logjam on democrats and republicans
Reuters 12/3/14 (Obama says will make strong push for fast-track trade authority,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/03/us-usa-trade-obama-idUSKCN0JH24220141203)
Americans feel their wages and income have stagnated as a result of foreign trade.
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) but is a
place where Republicans can work with President Obama.
"Renewing
far from a certainty , and could easily fall victim to the bitter
partisanship
weakened influence
or President Obamas
The U.S. labor market continues to heal. Employers created more than 300,000 new payroll jobs in November, the vast majority of them in the
private sector. The unemployment rate remains at 5.8 percent, but there are signs that wages at last are growing again, at least modestly. Of
all major industrial economies, the United States is probably the healthiest. Indeed, if favorable trends such as low oil prices continue, the
economy might achieve the long-awaited escape velocity that would enable the Federal Reserve to end its zero interest-rate policy without
Obama
harming growth. For all the heat hes taking over other issues, from foreign policy to Ferguson, Mo., President
deserves more
credit for the economys soft landing after the Great Recession, even if he has to share it with the Fed and the boom in domestic energy
especially if Obama follows through on his pledge to take on folks in my own party and in my own constituency who oppose it. Republicans
already back legislation that would permit Congress to consider proposed free trade pacts with the European Union and 11 Pacific Rim nations
on an expedited basis, once Obamas team finishes negotiating them. This bill, known as trade promotion authority (TPA), would make it easier
for U.S. negotiators to complete the deals because it gives the other nations involved greater assurance that Congress cannot undermine what
the president agrees to. Yet until now, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., a long-time trade skeptic, has slow-walked TPA. By
contrast, Reids soon-to-be successor, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is a TPA enthusiast. That makes sense generally and
especially with regard to these two proposed trade deals, which involve mainly high-wage, environmentally conscious trading partners such as
theres a
potential for agreement on trade. Still, TPA would take 60 votes to clear the Senate. If McConnell is
willing to deliver most or all of his Senate Republican majoritys votes for
this long-postponed Obama administration policy objective, and if
Obama reciprocates by pushing Democrats to join, Americans will see growth-enhancing
proof that bipartisanship is not dead.
Europe, Japan, Australia and Singapore. In a separate meeting with business leaders, McConnell expressed the view that
2NC I/L
TPA key to pass TPP and TTIP which are key to US and
Global economy
Sabas 12/10/14 (Matthew Sabas is a Research Associate at Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute for
Policy Research. New Opportunities from Free Trade ; http://www.economics21.org/commentary/-free-trade-TPP-TPA-EU12-10-2014 ; DOA 12/12/14)
The United States is negotiating two trade agreements that have the
potential to expand U.S. exports to a billion global consumers. The U.S.EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would liberalize
trade between the United States and 39 countries across five
continents, which collectively account for almost two-thirds of global
economic output. The passage of both treaties would be a boon for the U.S. economy. The competitiveness of domestic
firms would rise dramatically in partner markets, as lowered trade barriers would make the price of American merchandise drop abroad.
the White House and the House of Representatives . However, the Senate,
under Majority Leader Harry Reid, never granted President Obama the ability to make legitimate negotiations for free trade agreements,
known as Trade Promotion Authority. Mr. Reid allowed Trade Promotion Authority expire under President George W. Bush in 2007 and it was
romotion
president is responsible for negotiating treaties. Trade Promotion Authority resolves the ambiguity by allowing Congress to set the objectives and rules for the United
States during negotiations. In return, Congress must hold an up-down vote on the treaty when it is finalized. This balance prevents members of Congress from slipping in
special interest favors or using certain procedural tricks to prevent the agreed-upon treaty from becoming law. It also prevents a president from favoring his environmental
another chance in America. However, there is still the possibility that rising protectionism abroad, particularly in economically-anemic Europe
at lower cost.
The signatories large economies and high share of international trade ensure that the proposed agreements will
be felt globally. The European Union, United States, and TPP economies account for 61 percent of the worlds GDP, and import 43 percent of
largest consumer markets, export-dependent countries such as China would have to adapt to the standards agreed upon by the European
Union and United States, and among the TPP countries. China is attempting to influence the outcome of the trade agreements by promoting
an alternative plan with different set of standards, termed the Free-Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTTAP). This trade agreement would include
the 12 TPP countries, as well as China, Russia, and 7 other countries located in the Pacific region, as illustrated below: Commerce and
capitalism can only thrive in a fair market, and that is why the United States should pursue both agreements, adequately safeguarding
American interests and avoiding the advice of centrally planned or otherwise corrupt states. The TPP agreement has left the option for
additional members in the Asia-Pacific region to join.
high-standard TPP
and then bringing China into the fold, rather than giving China the opportunity to present a trade
agreement that primarily fits Chinas agenda. Free trade should be Congresss first order of business. Otherwise, it will have squandered an
opportunity to expand employment and set global standards for international trade.
The
(TPP)
Trans-Pacific Partnership
has quickly become one of the largest trade opportunities in history, one that indicates a bright
future in overseas trade for the Americas. The Atlantic Council, behind new chairman Jon Huntsman Jr., advocates for TTP and other
advantageous trade options in an effort to expand trade between world powers. TTP is an economic potpourri, having attracted advanced
industrial countries like the U.S. and Japan as well as developing countries like Vietnam. In the 10 years since its creation, TPP has gained
remarkable traction in the global trade game. It originally started between four countries: Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. A decade
later, it is now the second-largest trade option for the U.S., providing opportunities for a dozen countries to negotiate flexible free-trade
majority of goods and raw materials to the U.S., but since 2000, Latin America has seen trade with Asia increase by a
still has other trade agreements, such as the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership
(TTIP) to fall back on. Latin America has no such Plan B . Trade between Latin America and Asia
most likely thrives due to similarities in standards of living between the regions, namely wages. As wages become more comparable (Asian
wages are decreasing to become more like those of Latin America), trading in commodities and manufacturing makes sense for both regions.
require the Senate Finance Committee, of which Orrin Hatch will be the next chairman, to release a new TPA draft bill that would encourage
, it comes down to
Republicans and Democrats working together. They should, as everyone involved
partisan support. In order for these very different countries to work together in trade
Impacts
Asian War
Thats key to dampen Asian power competition
Scott Miller, Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Paul Nadeau, program manager and
research associate with the Scholl Chair at CSIS, 1/31/ 14, TPP Is More than a
Trade Agreement, csis.org/publication/tpp-more-trade-agreement
The White House needs TPA because the TPP is the pivot to Asia. The
military realignment is important, but the repositioning is mostly relative, driven
by drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pivot is a political and economic
realignment that aims to improve cooperation and integration
among the United States and East Asia. Then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton said this
explicitly in her Foreign Policy article, Americas Pacific Century, when she wrote [O]pen
markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented
opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge
technology. Our economic recovery at home will depend on exports and the
ability of American firms to tap into the vast and growing consumer
base of Asia. Military presence was only one out of the six courses of
action that Secretary Clinton used to define the Asia Pivot, while the TPP is arguably the key
ingredient of three (deepening America's relationships with rising
powers, including China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions;
expanding trade and investment). If solving the financial crisis and passing health care reform
were President Obamas key domestic policy victories, then the Asia Pivot is primed to be the area where
he beneficially changes the course of U.S. foreign policy (the discussions with Iran are still too nascent to
determine how far reaching they will become).
there are tensions among Asias large powers , and the United States
is likely the single entity that can influence the situation . The United States
and Asia need each other and TPP is the vehicle that can functionally,
economically, and politically help bind them together. The Members of
Congress and staff that have drafted the TPA bill have put admirable effort into
legislation. Trade negotiators working on TPP have been equally tireless. But
TPP, and Asia, cannot wait forever. Many in Asia are already concerned that the Pivot
was only superficial and that United States is already moving on. If TPA and TPP remain
framed as a trade issue, with all of the political baggage that comes with that,
the Administration risks putting TPP on ice for 2014.
Alternatively, the Administration can influence perceptions by framing the
TPP as a strategic goal that will be the cornerstone of the Asia Pivot .
This would reassure U.S. partners in Asia and answer domestic critics who
argue that the Pivot lacks substance. Moreover, it would give the President an
Today,
the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Washington Quarterly, and was
the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia, rior to co-founding
CNAS, he served as Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the Henry A.
Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, doctorate in
International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public policy and international
relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science and
International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign Relations and International
Institute for Strategic Studies, The Power of Balance: America in iAsia June 2008,
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_J
une08.pdf)
Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with
unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion in foreign
currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are starting to shape global
economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing industrial giants such as
Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar
and Range Rover. Chinas Lenovo bought IBMs personal computer
We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of iAsia
to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia of fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the world. Asian nations are
pursuing their interests with real power in a period of both
tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia
includes increasing economic interdependence and a flowering of
multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural exchange, and, to some
degree, security. Innovating: iAsia boasts the worlds most successful
manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in
everything from finance to nanotech to green tech. Investing: Asian nations
are developing infrastructure and human capital at unprecedented rates. But
the continent remains plagued by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is
alive in Asia. Massive military investments along with historic
suspicions and contemporary territorial and other conflicts make war
in Asia plausible. Instability: From environmental degradation to
violent extremism to trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons,
Asian nations have much to worry about. Inequality: Within nations and
between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than anywhere else in
the world. Impoverished minorities in countries like India and China,
and the gap in governance and capacity within countries, whether as
backward as Burma or as advanced as Singapore, present unique
challenges. A traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States
is to both protect American interests and help iAsia realize its potential and
avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with other Asian
financial players, injected billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment
banks such as Merrill Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse
unfolded. Chinese investment funds regional industrialization, which in turn
creates new markets for global products. Asia now accounts for over 40
percent of global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half
of worlds available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil
are being used by China and India at astonishing rates, driving up commodity
prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other Western capitals.
Yet Asia is not a theater at peace. On average, between 15 and 50
people die every day from causes tied to conflict, and suspicions
rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors
every traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age: it is a
Russian War
TPP Solves Russia aggression
Stephen DeMaura, 4/5/14, Time to Counter Russia with Trade Expansion,
townhall.com/columnists/stephendemaura/2014/04/05/time-to-counter-russiawith-trade-expansion-n1818946/page/full
President Obama returned from a major overseas trip last week where he met with
many of our European Union (EU) allies at a moment when Russia continues to flex
its muscle in the region, recently sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on a high-profile
visit to the newly-annexed territory in Crimea. Its clear that the need for seamless
cooperation between the US and the Europe Union is paramount . And
theres no better way to shore up the transatlantic alliance than by
strengthening our economic ties. Already, trade between the United States and the EU
accounts for more than 30 percent of trade around the world and generates nearly $3 billion every day. An
agreement currently under negotiation between the US and the EU the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) would remove even more trade barriers and foster closer trade ties
between the two continents. The President reiterated his support for this agreement in Brussels last week;
unfortunately, he has yet to publicly stand up to some of his biggest political allies who are working to hold
2007. Congress now has a unique opportunity now to pass a retooled TPA for the 21st Century, and
bringing the EU and US closer to counter Russian expansionism only makes that aim more important.
Democrats in Congress are some of the most vocal voices in opposition to TPA and trade expansion in
general. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said earlier this year that everyone would be well-advised not
to push this right now. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi went even further, calling pending TPA
legislation out of the question. Why would Congressional Democrats seek to slow-track or shoot down
legislation that would increase trade with some of our closest allies and create new jobs? One reason is the
strong-arm tactics of Big Labor. Union bosses believe their position will be weakened by expanded
international trade and they are holding Democratic politicians beholden to their wishes. Just recently,
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) President Richard Trumka
criticized pending trade agreements with the EU and Asia in a speech at the left-leaning Center for
American Progress (CAP), daring to claim that TPA has failed to evolve with our complex and dynamic
global economy. In fact, the bipartisan TPA legislation currently before Congress aims to bring our trade
We
cannot allow petty politics to sabotage a crucial geopolitical
moment. We need to send an unequivocal message to Vladimir Putin
and the Russian oligarchs that the United States and the European Union
are more committed than ever to our transatlantic alliance. Fostering
closer trade ties a clear path to doing just that, as well as stimulating our
policies into the 21stCentury and its Big Labors archaic protectionism that belongs to the past.
economy and creating new and better jobs along the way. Its time for Democrats in Congress to see
Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, March
2009, Russia And Arms Control: Are There Opportunities For The Obama
Administration?
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub908.pdf
Proliferators or nuclear states like China and Russia can then deter regional or
intercontinental attacks either by denial or by threat of retaliation.168 Given
a multipolar world structure with little ideological rivalry among major
powers , it is unlikely that they will go to war with each other .
Rather, like Russia , they will strive for exclusive hegemony in their
own sphere of influence and use nuclear instruments towards
that end . However, wars may well break out between major powers
and weaker peripheral states or between peripheral and
semiperipheral states given their lack of domestic legitimacy, the absence of
the means of crisis prevention, the visible absence of crisis management
mechanisms, and their strategic calculation that asymmetric wars might give
them the victory or respite they need.169 Simultaneously, The states of
periphery and semiperiphery have far more opportunities for political
maneuvering. Since war remains a political option, these states may
find it convenient to exercise their military power as a means for
achieving political objectives. Thus international crises may increase
in number . This has two important implications for the use of WMD .
First, they may be used deliberately to offer a decisive victory (or in
Russias case , to achieve intra-war escalation controlauthor170)
to the striker, or for defensive purposes when imbalances in military
capabilities are significant; and second, crises increase the
possibilities of inadvertent or accidental wars involving WMD .171
Obviously nuclear proliferators or states that are expanding their
nuclear arsenals like Russia can exercise a great influence upon
world politics if they chose to defy the prevailing consensus and use
their weapons not as defensive weapons, as has been commonly thought,
but as offensive weapons to threaten other states and deter nuclear
powers. Their decision to go either for cooperative security and strengthened
international military-political norms of action, or for individual national
egotism will critically affect world politics. For, as Roberts observes, But if
they drift away from those efforts [to bring about more cooperative security],
the consequences could be profound . At the very least, the effective
functioning of inherited mechanisms of world order , such as the
special responsibility of the great powers in the management of the
interstate system, especially problems of armed aggression, under the
aegis of collective security, could be significantly impaired . Armed
with the ability to defeat an intervention, or impose substantial costs in blood
or money on an intervening force or the populaces of the nations marshaling
that force, the newly empowered tier could bring an end to collective
security operations , undermine the credibility of alliance
commitments by the great powers , [undermine guarantees of extended
deterrence by them to threatened nations and states] extend alliances of
headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, War declining worldwide, studies say. In
2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of
armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past
half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them
now civil conflicts within countries. The Institutes latest report found that 2005
marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war
with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death
toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, The
number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a
year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number. Current estimates of
people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and
from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie behind the good newsthe end of
on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While its true that democracies rarely if ever war
with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies.
We can still hope that has more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by
2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on Economic Freedom and
Peace by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the
propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that
economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country
will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that,
Making
A third
reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations
to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than
conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is
important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy.
University of New York at Binghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his
most recent paper on the topic, he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive
amount of research on trade, war, and peace. They find that "the
overwhelming evidence
indicates that trade reduces conflict." Likewise for foreign investment. The
greater the amounts that foreigners invest in the United States, or
the more that Americans invest abroad, the lower is the likelihood of
war between America and those countries with which it has
investment relationships. Professors Polachek and Seiglie conclude that, "The policy
implication of our finding is that further international cooperation in reducing barriers to both trade
and capital flows can promote a more peaceful world."
Director of the Centerf or the Study of Public Choice. He was recently President of the Foundation for Economic Education. Want World Peace?
Support Free Trade from The Christian Science Monitor. 10/20/06. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1120/p09s02-coop.html July 8, 2014.)
During the past 30 years, Solomon Polachek, an economist at the State University of New York at
Binghamton, has researched the relationship between trade and peace. In his most recent paper on the
topic, he and co-author Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers University review the massive amount of research on
easy ability of entrepreneurs to start new businesses, the lightness of regulations on labor, product, and
credit markets, ready access to sound money, and other factors that encourage the allocation of resources
and
is
therefore a likely area of cooperation for the president and the GOPcontrolled Congress beginning next year. But that also means Obama must put out
fires within the Democratic ranks.
The first step in that process, according to Obama, is to convince his own
party to be more open-minded about the real benefits of trade rather
than trotting out the same fears of wage stagnation and outsourcing that dominated the debates over
China's accession to the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement talks.
Part
Partnership.
Ironically, if we are able to get Trans-Pacific Partnership done, then were actually forcing some countries
to boost their labor standards, boost their environmental standards, boost transparency, reduce corruption,
increase intellectual property protection, he said. Those who oppose these trade deals, ironically, are
accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is expected to assume the gavel on the Senate Finance Committee in the
next Congress, welcomed Obama's comments on the future of the trade agenda, and TPA renewal in
particular.
If past experience has taught us anything, its that
get TPA over the finish line , Hatch said in a statement. The presidents
influence, particularly among members of his own party , will be a
vital component to congressional efforts."
When asked at his post-reelection press conference about where he thought Republicans and Democrats
could work together, trade was one of the first things incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) mentioned. Other Republican leaders have echoed that sentiment.
It happens to be, in their judgment, good policy and also something they can achieve results on by
working with the White House, National Foreign Trade Council President Bill Reinsch said. And its
something thats going to irritate the left wing of the Democratic Party. How can you go wrong with that?
Obama will
need lawmakers to pass a bill allowing him to fast-track the
agreements through Congress with straight up-or-down votes and no
amendments.
countries and the 28 nations of the European Union. To get those deals though Congress,
The labor group has been on the warpath against that legislation, also called trade promotion authority,
and is spending money on an ad campaign opposing it: Fast track. It means forgetting working
Americans, reads one of the ads in the Washington metros Capitol South station.
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are also against the legislation because of the potential
regulatory changes that could be included in the Asia-Pacific trade deal, which they fear could roll back
environmental protections.
With the backing of these groups, Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Mark Pocan
(D-Wis.), among others, have been holding rallies and sending letters to assemble an anti-fast track army.
They stand on the opposite side of the pro-trade New Democrat Coalition, which is losing 12 members
because of defeats in the midterm election and retirements.
The Democrats in the House generally represent really safe Democrat seats, so if Im a Democrat, Im not
worried about Republicans coming in and knocking me out, one congressional staffer said in describing
the influence of labor. Im worried about someone challenging me from the left. This dynamic has
become even more pronounced as moderate Democrats have lost their seats, the aide said.
Galston said Democratic support for trade will boil down to an intense local calculus.
[Democratic members of Congress] are going to ask, Is this on balance beneficial or not to my district?
Galston said. If the answer is no, that doesnt mean some of them wont vote in favor of it anyway, but
theyll sure think twice. A more open trading regime is not equally friendly to all sectors of the economy
and certainly not to all congressional districts.
Meanwhile, Republicans could push to alienate Democrats on trade to secure more funding from big
business groups with deep pockets, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of
Manufacturers, which are big supporters of free trade deals.
Its a question of fundraising, one Democratic adviser said, which is why youll ultimately see a strong
Republican vote in both chambers on [a] TPP deal and TPA [trade promotion authority], whenever that
occurs. And that dynamic also means that Democrats with strong labor backing are more likely to oppose
the trade agenda.
2NC PC Key
Obamas PC key for passage of TPA- his leadership can
avoid partisanship
Sur 1/7 Debnil Sur (Columnist for the Stanford Daily; double majoring
at Stanford c/o 2017 in Computer Science and Public Policy), Free
trade: A site of potential bipartisanship? 1/7/15.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/07/trade-a-site-of-potentialbipartisanship/
President Obama must
capitalize upon his sudden strength and use it to broker a deal as
soon as possible. With the Republican Senate poised to unveil legislation in coming weeks, the
window of opportunity has arrived. International officials from TPP countries have stated that the first
six months of 2015 will be critical to finish up talks and hammer out
details. Thus, it is imperative to pass domestic legislation sooner, rather than later. Effective
leadership and support from the President can avoid election year
politics and the partisanship that has plagued contemporary
Congress. On the other hand, starting the year by picking the wrong fight, such as environmental
With both foreign policy and the economy turning the corner,
conservation or health care, could destroy compromise and tank the presidents political capital altogether.
Perhaps, the thinking goes, Obamas support for open trade will find a partner in a Congress controlled by
free-market Republicans, allowing Americas trade agenda to move forward at a rapid clip. However, while
zone. No sooner had the president asked Congress for TPA, however, than opposition began to build,
putting both TTIP and TPP in jeopardy. Perhaps the most influential naysayer was President Obama loyalist
Harry Reid, Democrat and outgoing majority leader of the Senate, who undoubtedly feared that fast-track
approval would hamper his partys chances at the polls. A bipartisan bill to extend fast track was
introduced but quickly foundered on a lack of enthusiasm from all sides. Reasons for optimism Now that
the midterms are over and Republicans have retaken control of the Senate ,
some of his critics and frustrating some of his traditional allies in organized labor for his changed position
on this topic. In 2008, during a Democratic presidential candidate debate, then candidate Obama made it
clear he would use the threat of opting out of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) all together in
order to impose restrictions pushed by environmental and organized labor groups. However, more recently,
he gave a speech to a group of U.S. CEOs and said, Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are
his position
on free trade could produce immediate results. Republican leadership
and the president are publicly agreeing on the need to act quickly on
accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers. The evolution of
legislation to grant fast track approval of trade deals by Congress and pass a massive Asia-Pacific trade
pact and larger agreement with the European Union that would explode exports to these regions.
According to a recent Politico article, the Asia-Pacific pact would cover about 40 percent of the worlds
gross domestic product and about a third of global trade, while the legislation needed to pass trade
Fast track
authority has been a goal of many free trade advocates for year s
promotion authority could be a vehicle for several other free trade agreements.
because it empowers the U.S. to negotiate aggressive trade agreements and bring them to Congress for a
cleanup or down vote. Organized labor has typically opposed this type of legislation because they want to
The stalemate
has held back U.S. trade policy for decades and resolving this one
issue alone could open an unprecedented era of free trade. Louisiana can
manipulate any negotiated trade agreement through their supporters in Congress.
benefit greatly from this type of break from conventional wisdom. According to the World Trade Center of
New Orleans, Louisiana is currently sixth among U.S. exporters and is rapidly closing the gap on fifth
ranked Illinois. Louisiana is out performing the national export growth rate by 4.32 percent, and accounted
for 3.87 percent of the $1.208 trillion in total U.S. exports last year through the third quarter. Petroleum
based products continue to be a leading export market for Louisiana, accounting for roughly 42 percent of
our exports, but other strong markets like agriculture and chemicals continue to diversify our portfolio at
an impressive rate. Primary metal manufacturing and aerospace equipment exports are on the rise, with
the latter being supported by a new 82,300-square-foot Bell Helicopter assembly facility in Lafayette. Few
states stand to benefit as much as we do from an aggressive approach to free trade in Congress this year.
Conventional wisdom argues against it happening. The odds favor a year filled with finger pointing and
name calling in Washington, D.C., but conventional wisdom has been proven wrong before. Carly Fiorina,
the former chief executive officer at HP, once said, To build a great company, which is a CEOs job,
sometimes you have to stand up against conventional wisdom. The same is true for leading a nation.
The president has signaled he is ready to work with Republicans and stand up
against attacks by organized labor to aggressively support free trade. Conventional wisdom says it wont
happen, but history shows it can.
Efforts to grant Obama trade promotion authority once known as fast-track authority have gone
nowhere.
Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means
vote.
progress and could easily unravel . To pass TPA in the House and
Senate, and get over the 60-vote threshold to avoid a Senate
filibuster, a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats will be
required. While Republicans are likely to provide the majority of the
votes , particularly in the House, at least some Democrats will be necessary
in both chambers.
As a result,
public
effort by the
It provides that if the President and the United States Trade Representative bring back a trade deal with Asia (Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP), with Europe (Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership or TTIP), or some other trade deal, Congress has to address it with an up-or-down vote within a set period of time, usually 90 days. They cannot try to amend the trade deal back here in
Washington, after U.S. negotiators have gotten the best deal they think they can. The law made a good deal of sense when trade deals were mainly about lowering tariffs.
No Senator
, and any trade deal would soon be encumbered with hundreds of amendments raising, or preventing the lowering of, many tariff
lines. So everyone in Congress just had to vote up or down on the deal, presumably looking at the greater good of the country, and not at their own parochial interests (imagine that!)
There is
But Trade Promotion Authority may make a lot less sense given the complexity of current trade deals and the broad scope of their coverage.
TPP, for
he
. On the
But on the
other side, we have a "Bleak House" of industries and workers that are creative, competent, cost conscious, and U.S. based, and are being subjected to unfair subsidies by foreign countries, minuscule wage rates at
competitors abroad, and surges of low priced imports into our market. Many of these latter industries are in the manufacturing sector. They may not have the unassailable market position and patent portfolio of a
company like Google or Apple. Yet they still merit a big place in our economy and the millions of workers they employ deserve that place too.
the best in our country, paying excellent wages and benefits to middle class workers in a way most service jobs do not. And finally, having manufacturing industries is critical to staying at the cutting edge of R&D
and innovation.
. The same pattern will be repeated for product after product and
technology after technology. Innovation is central to our economy (and to our identity as a people) and we cannot afford to lose it. So where are we now, and what do we need to do in any TPA bill to remedy the
most of it in manufactured goods. And indeed we make almost no smart phones, computers, liquid crystal displays or many other high tech products in this country anymore. The TPA debate must begin with a
recognition that there are two sides to trade when it comes to U.S. manufacturers and workers, and our current trade policies and laws needs to deal with both. We need to open markets for exporters, but we also
need to understand the problems of indigenous U.S. manufacturers. And what do we need to do for them? Recognition of the problem will be a good start. And then some specific actions should be included in the
TPA legislation: 1) We need to develop and implement a national manufacturing policy with the goal of turning around the decline in our manufacturing sector and accomplishing significant revival. We do not have a
national manufacturing policy now. We need a Secretary of Manufacturing who will have the responsibility to reach that goal. 2) We need to create American industrial zones which will revive U.S. electronic
manufacturing. This will require careful planning with U.S. electronic companies, and significant investment to replace some of the input product manufacturing that we have already lost. Manufacturers in these
zones will be able to pay a VAT tax instead of income tax with respect to revenue from facilities in the zones, and the VAT will be rebated on exports, making products from the zones competitive internationally. 3)
All United States trade agreements currently being negotiated or to be negotiated in the future should be subjected to the test of whether they will increase the number of jobs in the United States and whether they
will increase the number of factories in the United States ("Plus Jobs/Plus Factories Trade"). 4) All of our trade agreements going forward must include a new negotiating objective, which is to make significant
industrial subsidies (over 5% by value) illegal, and not merely actionable after-the-fact. 5) Our trade agreements must address currency undervaluation (the largest industrial subsidy in history), and also provide
that trade remedies can be applied to off-set undervaluation if it continues despite commitments made in a trade agreement. With these additions to our trade policy and these kinds of commitments, we can begin
to make trade promotion authority into jobs promotion authority for many more American companies and many more American workers.
So while many in
. And with trillions of dollars at stake for both the domestic and global economies, trade could become a signature issue for both Republicans and the president as they look to claim
significant political victories. The temperature is rising, and I think, at least now, we have President Obama making very direct comments to support the trade agenda in a way that I hadnt seen in a long while,
said Mireya Solis, a senior fellow and Japan expert at the Brookings Institution.
But the
The last time Washington saw even a piece of this kind of trade action was
in 2011, when Congress approved the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade deals in rapid succession. The United States is also expected to finish negotiations on major expansion of an Information
Technology Agreement with nearly 80 countries that account for about 90 percent of world technology trade. The deal, which would eliminate duties on a long list of tech products, came within a hairs breadth of
concluding this month, but talks broke down after China refused to meet other countries demands for concessions on what goods to make duty-free. The White House will also press forward with the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership between the U.S. and the 28-nation European Union, a deal even bigger than the TPP, with European Union leaders earlier this month calling for the talks to finish up by the end of
2015. If all of that isnt enough, the U.S. is also pushing a new Environmental Goods Agreement with 13 other members of the World Trade Organization including China and the EU that compose about 86
percent of global trade. Talks on a new global services agreement and a bilateral investment treaty with China also will proceed. Not all of those will get done in 2015, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman
said. But we hope its a very productive year both in terms of negotiations and the legislative agenda. Before the biggest trade deals can get done, Obama will need to get lawmakers to give him the legislative
Also known as fast-track legislation, the Obamabacked TPA bill failed to advance earlier this year after outgoing
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to take it up out
authority to expedite their debate and passage.
of concern that a vote on the bill before the midterm elections would
put Democrats in the politically hazardous position of possibly
damaging their support from labor and environmental groups . Even
with the GOP majority in the Senate, the bill will still need
Democratic support to get through Congress, political observers
say.
The critical item here is the extent to which the president manages what Ive characterized as intraparty politics for Democrats, said Scott Miller, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. I think everybody has concluded, including myself, that this needs to be a bipartisan effort. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said the White House needs to rally support from at
least 50 House Democrats to get the bill through the lower chamber no easy task given the post-election decline in the number of trade-friendly Democrats
. Underscoring
even if the votes on a fast-track bill can be had, this years stalled effort to get the legislation underway has left little time to spare, especially given that Democratic support could again grow more scarce once the
presidential campaign kicks into full gear toward the beginning of 2016. The point isnt lost on congressional trade leaders. Incoming Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said trade will top the
committees agenda in early 2015. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a Finance committee member and No. 3 in the Senate GOP leadership as Republican Conference chairman, said the bill would likely be one of the first
pieces of legislation that emerges from the panel, which has jurisdiction over trade.
such as access to medicines in developing nations, environmental protections and Japanese agricultural and U.S. auto tariffs
without having to worry that any hard-won concessions could be picked apart by congressional amendment. Bilateral talks between the U.S. and Japan on the tariffs issue have proved particularly troublesome for
the larger deal. In a breakthrough last month, Tokyo proposed more meaningful tariff cuts on U.S. beef, pork and dairy products, but the negotiations have since stalled again over the United States refusal to meet
Japans demands for lower auto parts tariffs. Theyre kind of stuck because nobodys sure where the United States bottom lines are, Miller said.
reason to get TPA, so all our trading partners know where the
Congress bottom line is, and at that point you conclude pretty
quickly
. The first six months of the year will be a critical window for finishing up the talks given the tight timeline, officials from the TPP countries have said. Even if the pact gets signed, it will still
have to go through a legal scrubbing and translation before a bill to ratify the deal can be introduced. That could mean that the implementing legislation would have to be drafted over the August recess with a view
to getting the bill to a vote before Thanksgiving, a former Senate Democratic aide speculated. If people are motivated to finish, they could do it really, really quickly assuming they got the votes, the former aide
said, adding that
. In 2011, the House and Senate were able to pass bills ratifying the deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama in a single day, the aide noted. But those agreements had
been concluded in 2006 and 2007 under President George W. Bushs administration and had a number of provisions renegotiated before the Obama administration brought them to Congress for a vote.
Aside from infusing the Asia-Pacific talks with new momentum, the
fast-track legislation could serve as a vehicle for packaging other
trade bills that have languished on their own.
of Preferences, which cut tariffs on goods from developing countries and expired in July 2013, and the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, which would provide manufacturers with duty-free access to parts and supplies as long
as domestic industry isnt opposed and is considered an earmark by some Republicans. Business groups also would like a broader trade package to include legislation to overhaul customs procedures. TPA is the big
vehicle, said the former Senate aide. Its clear to me that they want to try to do it really early in the new Congress and the question is whether they can come together on a deal. Any trade package would likely
include a reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides assistance to workers displaced because of trade deals and is a priority for Democrats. The reauthorization of worker aid has
been necessary to secure Democratic support for trade legislation in the past. Meanwhile, the deadline for renewing the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which eliminates tariffs on a range of items from subSaharan African countries, is coming up in September. Programs like this or the GSP usually arent controversial on their own, but some Republicans notably retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have opposed
them if the lost tariff revenues arent made up elsewhere. Froman said the USTRs goal is to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis to move the agenda forward, including fast track, worker aid and trade
preference bills. There may be other issues out there of interest to Congress, Froman said. Ive heard mention of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill, a customs-related bill. So there are a number of ideas.
Obama
harming growth. For all the heat hes taking over other issues, from foreign policy to Ferguson, Mo., President
deserves more
credit for the economys soft landing after the Great Recession, even if he has to share it with the Fed and the boom in domestic energy
especially if Obama follows through on his pledge to take on folks in my own party and in my own constituency who oppose it. Republicans
already back legislation that would permit Congress to consider proposed free trade pacts with the European Union and 11 Pacific Rim nations
on an expedited basis, once Obamas team finishes negotiating them. This bill, known as trade promotion authority (TPA), would make it easier
for U.S. negotiators to complete the deals because it gives the other nations involved greater assurance that Congress cannot undermine what
the president agrees to. Yet until now, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, D-Nev., a long-time trade skeptic, has slow-walked TPA. By
contrast, Reids soon-to-be successor, Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is a TPA enthusiast. That makes sense generally and
especially with regard to these two proposed trade deals, which involve mainly high-wage, environmentally conscious trading partners such as
theres a
potential for agreement on trade. Still, TPA would take 60 votes to clear the Senate. If McConnell is
willing to deliver most or all of his Senate Republican majoritys votes for
this long-postponed Obama administration policy objective, and if
Obama reciprocates by pushing Democrats to join, Americans will see growth-enhancing
proof that bipartisanship is not dead.
Europe, Japan, Australia and Singapore. In a separate meeting with business leaders, McConnell expressed the view that
Obama has begun his administration's final phase the way he began
several other chapters of his presidency: seeking to recover from disaster.
President
Obama has moved vigorously since his party lost the Senate in
November. Without consulting Congress, he's offering legal status to millions of immigrants. He's
restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba. Above all, he's striving to show he will not be
a lame duck .
The president took our questions the day before he left Washington for the holidays. The 40-minute, yearending interview offered clues to his final two years in the Oval Office, which is where we met. NPR is
publishing the conversation in three parts starting with Obama's efforts to govern alongside (though not
necessarily along with) a Republican Congress.
Something has changed since the campaign season, when Obama was delaying action on immigration,
fearing political damage. That led to our first question: Why execute these maneuvers now?
to do.
Obama is not entirely "liberated": He can't finish what he started alone. He'll
need acts of Congress to complete immigration reform, or to lift the Cuba
But
embargo. That barely begins the lengthy list of issues on which the president would like the help of
lawmakers if he could get it.
For six years, the GOP has been criticized for reflexively obstructing
Obama, and the president has been criticized for keeping his
distance from lawmakers. Could the president possibly do anything
to improve the situation?
Translation: I won't change anything specific, but hope my opponents'
interests compel them to change .
AT: Veto
Obama wont veto tax and global trade
Fox News 12/29/14 (Obama threatens to wield veto pen to counter GOP-led Congress,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/29/obama-threatens-to-wield-veto-pen-to-counter-gop-ledcongress/)
To overturn Obama's veto, Republicans would need the votes of twothirds of the House and Senate. Their majorities in both chambers
are not that large , so they would still need to persuade some
Democrats to defy the president.
But Obama said he was hopeful that at least on some issues, that won't be
necessary , because there's overlap between his interests and those
of congressional Republicans.
Potential areas for cooperation include tax reform and global trade
deals -- both issues where Obama and Republicans see at least
partially eye to eye. Conversely, the likeliest points of friction surround Environmental Protection
Agency regulations, the Keystone XL pipeline and Obama's unilateral steps on immigration, which let
millions of people in the U.S. illegally avoid deportation and get work permits.
AT: Immigration
Immigration doesnt effect the TPA the GOP are pissed
about immigration, theyre on board for trade. Obama
needs to convince DEMS who are on the presidents side
about the issue.
Immigration is only driving the TPA debate allows the
GOP to have a wedge issue against the dems
Guida 12/30/14 (Victoria, Politico, The GOP's divisive trade play,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-trade-deal-113790.html)
with control of both houses of Congress and 2016 on the horizon, the
Obamas recent executive action allows some four million undocumented residents in the United States to
seek temporary legal status. But without Congressional approval, he cannot achieve comprehensive
immigration reform.
Republicans, who won majorities in both houses of Congress in Novembers midterm elections, replied
through Speaker of the House, John Boehner.
Instead of working together to fix our broken immigration system, the president says he is acting on his
own," he said. "That is just not how our democracy works.
Tony Payan, Director of the Mexico Center at Rice Universitys Baker Institute, says Obama's action will
help a lot of people come out of the shadows and "essentially, become a little more integrated, in a legal,
formal sense, into the American economy and the American society.
While some undocumented immigrants support the move, others have mixed feelings about what they see
as a temporary fix.
Payan says there are concerns about applying for legal status under this temporary measure.
Once they surrender their personal information to the government, once the government knows who they
are and where they are and if the next president is not willing to extend that temporary protected status,
then they are going to be found very quickly and to be denied, he said.
Republicans say they want to secure the border with Mexico before approving other measures. The surge
of Central American immigrants at the Texas border earlier this year underscored this concern.
Analysts say it may still be possible for the Republican-controlled Congress and President Obama to
achieve agreement on at least some parts of immigration reform next year, but that
full reform is
AT: Keystone
Keystone veto is a GOP opposed initiative, they want free
trade. Obama needs to focus on DEMS for TPA.
Keystone gets punted. GOP spends PC not Obama.
Colman 12/15/14 (Zack, Washington Examiner, Keystone XL: So will it finally get built?,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/keystone-xl-so-will-it-finally-get-built/article/2557281)
At this point,
Delays are starting to annoy even Democrats who have opposed the project. Some are starting to speak out against what
they consider disingenuous climate change concerns posed by environmental groups.
Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said more progress on climate change is occurring in other arenas. He pointed to a nonbinding
agreement between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping on reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020, a move
that would get the world's top two emitters on the same page for the first time.
"That dwarfs the concerns that we've heard now for a number of years on Keystone," Carper said recently. "I think the
other factor that's working here is we have waited for not months, but years, to get a decision on Keystone."
Hoeven said he thinks the legislative style that incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., hopes to install
would smooth passage for a bipartisan Keystone XL bill that includes energy items important to some Democrats.
McConnell has hinted he would operate with an open amendment process, unlike current Majority Leader Harry Reid, DNev., who has blocked amendments.
"I fully expect that we will bring the bill to the floor, and there will be an open amendment process," Hoeven said. "Maybe
there will be some amendments offered that have some broad support to get over the 67-vote threshold."
That could lure other Democrats. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., for example, voted against the Keystone XL bill in November.
But given the chance to advance one of his top priorities for years he has advocated extending a tax structure known
as "master limited partnerships" to renewable energy he might vote for building the pipeline.
Ian Koski, a spokesman for Coons, explained that the senator opposed the Keystone XL bill partly because it was a
"straight authorization," leaving the door open to backing it in a different legislative vehicle.
AT: Obamacare
Obamacare is a GOP v. Obama problem, trade is a dems v.
Obama problem. Doesnt apply/
Obama will just veto
The Guardian 12/29/14
(Obama: I will use veto pen and defend gains in healthcare and
environment, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/29/obama-veto-defend-healthcareenvironment-gop-senate)
I havent used the veto pen very often since Ive been in office, partly because
legislation that I objected to was typically blocked in the Senate even after Republicans took over the
House,
Hawaii.
Obama told NPR, in a conversation recorded before he left for a Christmas vacation in
Now
The language of Obamas pledge echoes his 2014 State of the Union
address, in which he promised to use his pen and phone to overcome
an intransigent Congress and seek alternatives to legislation .
The Democrats loss of the Senate in Novembers midterm elections means Republicans are
likely to try to reverse that momentum and pass legislation. Such
legislation can be blocked by the White House , unless there is a two-thirds
majority in both chambers of Congress.
AT: Taxes
Taxes are cooperative areas between the GOP and dems.
Doesnt hurt the agenda.
Miller 12/3/14 (Jake, CBS News, Obama woos GOP on tax reform, immigration, free trade
deals, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-woos-gop-on-tax-reform-immigration-free-trade-deals/)
he said.
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, for example, underscored his desire to reform corporate taxes on Tuesday at
the Wall Street Journal CEO Council's annual meeting, but not if significant new revenues are part of the
deal. "We're not going to pay a trillion dollar ransom to do something that would make the country more
competitive," he said.
hunger" among Asian nations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and said that effort is "moving forward." He
also said his administration, led by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, is "reinvigorating
negotiations" with European countries on a Transatlantic trade deal.
Those deals have drawn fire from labor and environmental interests
on the left, but the president sought to blunt that criticism by arguing the deals
would mandate higher labor and environmental standards among nations participating in the free trade
zone. He stressed the need to finalize an agreement and "explain it to the public" so they more fully
understand the benefits.
2009, page 19
distribution. n32 Thus, in a decriminalized regime, drug production and drug distribution may remain
criminalized.
criminal penalties for those using the drug pursuant to a doctors recommendation and setting up
regulatory regimes under which qualifying patients may purchase and possess the drug.
This increasingly differential treatment of marijuana under state and federal law creates significant legal
uncertainty.
is that
states cannot simply legalize that which the federal government prohibits.
While a state may remove its own marijuana prohibition and may even
create a regulatory system under which licensed dispensaries sell marijuana to those who can
show a medical need, a state is powerless to insulate its citizens from the
threat of federal law enforcement. Also hanging over the states is the
specter of federal preemptionthe possibility that the federal government will sue in federal
court to enjoin the states attempts to tax and regulate marijuana on the basis that federal law preempts
such state action.2 pg. 39-40
In 1984 the U.S. Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) to
regulate and help organize the growing field of organ transplants
(U.S.
Congress 1984). The act laid out the requirements to organize a qualified organ procurement agency, the
requirements to join the organ procurement and transplantation network, accounting practices within the
organ procurement and transplantation organizations, and prohibited the purchase of organs or tissue[1]1.
The act called for an Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN, to be run by private, nonprofit organizations under federal contract. The only organization of this kind is the United Network for
Organ Sharing or UNOS. UNOS was the first certified in 1986 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services as part of the OPTN [1]. UNOS works in conjunction with organ procurement agencies and
transplant centers. Under the federal contact, UNOS has established an organ sharing network that the
organization claims to "maximize the efficient use of deceased organs through equitable and timely
allocation" [1]2. UNOS also "guided persons and organizations" concerned with transplants in order to
increase the number of possible organs for transplant. UNOS allocates organs using a centralized computer
system linking organ procurement agencies and transplant centers to improve efficiency in the
transplantation process, bringing organs to those who need them most and are the best candidates for the
transplant surgery [1].
to propose,
entail
morally distasteful to many Americans. While such markets havebeen debated without
much progress in the past, far less attention has been paid to dozens of other monetary and nonmonetary
**Aff Answers**
PC Not key
PC is irrelevant to TPAit boils down to election calculus
Guida 12-30 (Victoria Guida, Politico Trade Reporter, 12-30-2014, "The
GOP's divisive trade play", POLITICO,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/republicans-trade-deal-113790.html,
Accessed: 1-1-2015) JO
The Democrats in the House generally represent really safe
Democrat seats, so if Im a Democrat, Im not worried about
Republicans coming in and knocking me out, one congressional staffer
said in describing the influence of labor. Im worried about someone
challenging me from the left. This dynamic has become even more
pronounced as moderate Democrats have lost their seats, the aide
said. Galston said Democratic support for trade will boil down to an
intense local calculus. [Democratic members of Congress] are
going to ask, Is this on balance beneficial or not to my district?
Galston said. If the answer is no, that doesnt mean some of them wont
vote in favor of it anyway, but theyll sure think twice. A more open trading
regime is not equally friendly to all sectors of the economy and
certainly not to all congressional districts. Meanwhile, Republicans
could push to alienate Democrats on trade to secure more funding from big
business groups with deep pockets, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and National Association of Manufacturers, which are big supporters of free
trade deals.
Democrats have additional reservations about the TPP. Senator Ron Wyden is
of the view that the fast-track regime needs to be overhauled and
modernised. Three House of Representatives DemocratsReps. Rosa
DeLauro (Conn.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Alan Grayson (Fla.)maintained
that there are insufficient votes in the House to pass trade promotion
authority to secure the approval of the 12-nation TPP. De Lauro
commented: Fast-track doesnt have support in the current Congress
and wont have support in the next Congress. She declared: The
votes are not there . Nonetheless, President Barack Obama has said that
he is willing to defy United States Congressional Democrats on his support of
the TPP, and work with Republicans if need be. However, there are
significant divisions within the Republicans over the TPP. There
could well be insufficient support within the United States Congress
for a trade promotion authority.
Keystone
Topshelf
1NC
Republicans are only four votes from overriding Obamas
veto on the Keystone pipeline, and Democrats will need to
have a unified front
RT, 1/6
[1/6/14, Obama not to sign Keystone XL pipeline bill, Senate set for Friday vote,
http://rt.com/usa/220119-usa-senate-keystone-bill/]
http://nypost.com/2014/03/29/the-keystone-pipeline-is-obamas-best-revengeon-putin/,#jbear)
Its too late to save Crimea, and possibly half of Ukraine, now that Vlad the Annexer has articulated the Putin Doctrine: Russia will
invade any country that oppresses its Russian minority. But
Putins Doctrine is underpinned by Russias oil and natural-gas
industry, which provides 70 percent of the countrys export income
and 52 percent of its governments revenues . Moscow now controls half the energy market in
Europe and is able to adjust prices to punish or reward countries and to keep others quiet. This strategy has made Russia, with an economy
the size of Californias, wealthier than ever but also exceedingly vulnerable.
little else. Since Ukraines crisis, sanctions have been imposed and
its stock market and currency have tanked. But a geopolitical and
energy policy shift is needed to stop Putin in his tracks, and only
the United States and Canada can flex enough energy muscle to
impede the Russian energy juggernaut . Together, the US and Canada have more oil and natural-gas
reserves than Russia or the Middle East. Modal Trigger Obama has been dragging his feet on the pipeline, but now might be the right time to
rethink his position. Photo: Reuters Modal Trigger The Keystone pipeline would add enough barrels a day into the US oil market to replace
imports from Russian ally Venezuela. Photo: Reuters Canada is the only supplier of natural gas and largest supplier of oil to the United States,
at 2.5 million barrels a day.
despite gains in oil production from shale, cannot become selfsufficient in oil until 2035, with 4 million barrels a day from the oil
sands, according to the International Energy Agency. Clearly, the
two must gear up for battle by deploying oil and natural-gas
weaponry . The most immediate retaliatory blow would be the approval of Keystone XL from Canada. This oil pipeline would add
830,000 barrels a day into the US oil market, more than enough to replace the 755,000 barrels a day of oil imports from Russias western
hemispheric ally Venezuela.
only way the United States can control its oil future is by tapping
into the oil sands. For these and other reasons , Bill Clinton has called upon his
environmental friends to embrace Keystone and move on
stability today comes from the inside, Jowitt said. If the Russian economy
collapses we might be in a situation where we see the appearance of
nihilistic ideologies and movements clustered around leaders trying to form
an alliance with parts of the Russian military. The result of such
developments, Jowitt concluded, would be a far less palatable alternative to
Putins rule. In light of the economic recession and what Russia is today and
what it is not, a state mercantilistic Russia led by non-ideological Putin may
not be the optimal political outcome for Russia. But in 2009, its not at all a
bad second-best.
Extinction
ISRAELYAN 98 (Victor, For almost 50 years, Victor Israelyan was a Soviet
ambassador, diplomat, arms control negotiator, and leading political
scientistWashington Quarterly, Winter)
The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this
option would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and foreign
denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention;
denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force,
including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as
medium- and short-range missiles such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial
financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties, would,
according to proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario,
Russia's military planners would shift Western countries from the category of strategic
partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security .
This will revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds against the
those countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal, including
economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as
well as to have an influence on other issues. Of those means,
force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Some will object that this scenario is implausible
because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some
Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert Makashov, who
are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this
path to save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240
exhausted, and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf
not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then
again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either. Thus, I am afraid that
economics will not deter the power scenario's would-be authors from attempting it. Baburin,
for example, warned that any political leader who would "dare to encroach upon
Russia" would be decisively repulsed by the Russian Federation "by all
measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear weapons ." n10 In autumn
1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while
Russia
has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe . n11 Former
saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western listeners that
Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could
become uncontrollable. In this context, one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear
with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble
first. Earlier this year, Ivan Rybkin, secretary of Russia's Security Council, said, "Everyone must know that
in case of a direct challenge our response will be fully fledged, and we are to choose the use of means."
n13 Later, in an interview, he said that parliamentary ratification of START II has become "almost
impossible." n14 The Duma has again postponed the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and
Russian military planners are claiming that the only feasible military response
to NATO expansion is the redeployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons
closer to Russia's borders.
2NC OV
The DA outweighs the caseThe plan shatters the remains of the Democrat front
against Keystone, allowing it to pass. The influx of oil will
shock the Russian oil industry, which is already on the
brink from recent oil price drops. Russian economic
collapse leads to the takeover of Russia by Russian
nationalists. This makes extinction inevitable; every
recent conflict in history has empirically been a direct
result of a rise in nationalism. This is especially true of
Russia. Heres more evidence
PAIN 2011 (Professor Emil Pain of the Higher School of Economics, Russian
expert sees authorities alarmed at uncontrolled growth of nationalism,
Novaya Gazeta, BBC World Monitoring, Jan 24, lexis)
Neither smoke-choked Moscow as a result of the fires, nor the winter incarceration of thousands of people
at Domodevo and Sheremetyevo Airports, which have been abandoned by the authorities, nor the
atrocities perpetrated over the many years by a gang of murderers in Kushchevskaya and covered up by
Krasnodar officials triggered protest rallies. Whereas between 5,000 (according to the Moscow Internal
They were not bussed in, paid fees, or lured to the square by promises of entertainment - this was a selfmade demonstration that spread to 15 Russian towns. According to the assessments of several polling
the level of approval or sympathy for this political activity among the
inhabitants of Russia totalled 25-27 per cent, with approximately the same percentage of
waverers. Is this a lot or a little? In October 1922 8,000 blackshirts enjoying negligible
support among the Italian population marched on Rome and brought
Mussolini to power. The ideas of that march, as of the "Russian March,"
combined demands for social justice and "the return of the dignity of a
humiliated nation." In this way they "raised from its knees" an Italy that in the 1920s was similar to
centres,
present-day Russia insofar as there was also no society there but a population divided into local groups.
Northerners hated southerners, who repaid them in kind. But in the 1920s there was still no Internet or
social networks capable of almost instantaneously organizing tens of thousands of people, as happened in
Moscow. Let me cite some extracts from the exchanges on social networks: "The group itself emerged on
12 December 2010; prior to that we had only had one meeting, whereas there are now more than 5,000
people in the group"; "The idea for Manezhnaya Square came as soon as Leningradskiy Prospekt was
successfully blocked; we immediately uploaded this info"; "We had been in contact since 6 December; as is
known, the meeting was scheduled for 11 December.... More than 9,000 people were registered at the
meeting"; "The group that prepared the Ostankino protests had been taken from the ranks of the rightwing guys who ran riot in Manezhnaya, but this did not seem enough for them and they asked us to help
them to organize the people...." And this is how they organized them. Dozens of volunteer dispatchers
between the ages of 14 and 20 gathered a thousands-strong crowd. There were also adults, of course, who
exploited this crowd. They relied on other, less overt forms of dispatcherization, also including clandestine
2NC UQ Wall
Republicans are just 4 votes away from overriding a veto
Litvan, 1/5
[Laura, 1/5/14, reporter for Bloomberg News in Washington, Keystone Bill Said to be Four
Votes Shy of a Veto-Proof Majority, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2015-01-05/keystone-bill-said-tobe-four-votes-shy-of-a-veto-proof-majority]
[Elana, 11/5/14, energy reporter for POLITICO Pro, has a Masters from Northwestern
University and a Bachelors from Columbia University, Elections give Keystone a filibuster-proof majority,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/keystone-pipeline-2014-elections-112567.html]
Coons and Tom Carper of Delaware, Bill Nelson of Florida and Michael Bennet
of Colorado. That gets them to 65. Going beyond that , in hopes of getting a
veto-proof 67, would depend on how willing Republican leaders are to add
sweeteners to a pipeline bill and avoid divisive riders on issues like
offshore drilling.
statements about the project, which remains under State Department review, but has stopped short until now of vowing
to veto the upcoming legislation.
gallon since early November to an average of $2.19 per gallon nationwide on Tuesday, according to AAA. The veto threat
arrived shortly after the bipartisan Senate duo of
McConnell's
which allows legislation to bypass committees. Democrats pounced on the GOP maneuver. "By moving to bypass
committees on the first bill of the new Congress, Senator McConnell is signaling that his promises of regular order have
already expired, and that he sees committees as nothing more than rubber stamps for Republican leadership," said Adam
Jentleson, a spokesman for Harry Reid, the Senate's top Democrat. McConnell's office defended the tactic. A spokesman
said the Keystone legislation that moves through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will be substituted for the
bill that made a beeline to the floor under Rule XIV. "With a new Congress, to get the wheels moving, we'll need to [Rule
XIV] a base bill. But the committee product, produced through regular order, will take its place," said McConnell
spokesman Don Stewart. DON'T MISS TODAY'S TOP STORIES Exactly what I need as a busy college student."Samantha,
StudentSign up form for the newsletter That wasn't even the only piece of procedural jousting to unfold on Tuesday.
Wednesday's energy committee hearing on the bill was scuttled after Democrats blocked it. Sen. Dick Durbin, the
chamber's second-ranking Democrat, said he was objecting to the hearing because a formal organizing resolution for the
committees in the new Congress won't happen until tomorrow. "I say to the Majority Leader we will continue this
conversation in a positive manner in an effort to come up with a mutually agreeable approach to considering this
legislation and others, but for that reason I object," Durbin said, according to a transcript. A frustrated McConnell
responded simply:
When the Senate eventually votes on Keystone, it will split the Democratic caucus
to some degree. GOP gains in the midterms mean the bill easily has the 60 votes needed to beat a filibuster. Late last
year, 14 Democrats joined Republicans in support of a failed Keystone bill. McConnell, for his part, wondered aloud why
Obama has now signaled a veto when the White House declined such a threat in November.
Warming I/L
Pipeline massively increases warming
Biello 14 (David Biello, associate editor for environment and energy at Scientific
American, Keystone Pipeline Will Impact Climate Change, State Department Reports,
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/01/31/keystone-pipeline-will-impact-climate-changestate-department-reports/, 1/31/14 \\acc. 1/7/15, ali\\)
So the State Department has dug more deeply into the issue of
greenhouse gases (pdf) as well and announced today that the Keystone
XL pipeline would increase greenhouse gas emissions. Oil from
Albertas tar sands is one of the most polluting kinds of oil, the report
notes, thanks to the energy cost of producing it in the first place as well as
the pet coke and other byproducts that end up getting burned as well. The
State Department also noted that just running the pipeline for a year
once built would result in the same greenhouse gas pollution as
roughly 300,000 cars over the same time span, and that the oil carried by
the pipeline could add as much as 27 million metric tons of
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere each yea r, most of that from its
ultimate use as fuel.
Ogallala Impact
Keystone contaminates the Ogallala Aquifer
Madhani 12
[Aamer. Energy for the Chi Tribune. Canada Seeks Alternative Route for
Keystone XL Pipeline The Chi Tribune, 1/9/12 ln//GBS-JV]
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would have been built from
northwest Canada to Texas, was delayed in November after the Obama
administration faced an avalanche of protest from environmentalists.
Central to environmentalists' argument against the pipeline is a concern
that it would cut near the Ogallala Aquifer and a potential leak
would be catastrophe to a major water source for the Midwest.
Several Nebraska Republicans--including Gov. Dave Heineman--also opposed
that route. Canadian environmentalists are voicing similar concerns
about the alternative route. The Toronto Star reports that the western
route faces fierce opposition from environmentalists in Canada who say that
pipeline leaks or a tanker spill would endanger some of the world's
most pristine forests and coastal areas and that the proposal "has
already galvanized unprecedented concern in the green movement."
Extinction
Zellmer 8
[Sandy Prof Law and Water Resources Research at U of Nebraska. Boom and
Bust on the Great Plains: Dj vu All Over Again The Creighton Law Review,
April 2008 ln//GBS-JV]
CONCLUSION " Water is life ... . Each drop is a benediction ." 226 Reforms
- especially agricultural reforms - are hard to come by. According to Jim Lyons,
a former U.S. Agriculture Under Secretary, "the big commodity groups
have a stranglehold on policy. And there's not a lot of stomach for new
ideas." 227 William Ashworth points out, however, that the depletion of the
Ogallala Aquifer is an impending crisis that we ignore at our own
peril . 228 Given that the aquifer produces around twenty percent of
the U.S. harvest, the ripple effects of its demise could be
cataclysmic, nationally and even internationally. 229
Warming Impact
Keystone pipeline creates easy production for Canadian
tar sandsthat massively exacerbates warming
Hansen 12 (James Hansen, Director NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies , Game
Over for the Climate, 5/9/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-theclimate.html,\\acc. 1/7/15, ali\\)
Global temperatures
would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planets
species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several
decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas
will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in
extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable . More
accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities.
and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. Californias Central Valley could no longer be irrigated.
Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels. If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.
This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has
the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast
refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to
encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.
It is the
violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate
change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge
portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and
malaria ; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and
worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have
been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists
have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with
1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths
and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled
broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating,
concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate
changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until
the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively
constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by
2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts
about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus
in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the
newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in
more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and
threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a
warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a
sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of
Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would
be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer
than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United
States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost
13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on
positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes
hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average
global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing
Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During
the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a
thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries
but possible end life on this planet.
**Aff Answers**
Wont Happen
Keystone is no longer economically viable
Halper, 12/15
[Evan, 12/15/14, political correspondent for the LA Times, Keystone XL pipeline may
no longer make economic sense, experts say, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-keystone-20141216story.html]
But "the political debate is not paralleled by the realities" in the market, said
Sandy Fielden, director of energy analytics at Texas-based RBN Energy. "The
economics of this project are becoming increasingly borderline." The problem
is that extracting oil from tar sands is difficult and costly. Prices need to be
relatively high to make the extra effort profitable . For pipeline boosters,
market conditions have turned gloomy as world oil prices have dropped to
the lowest point in five years. By some estimates, the price of oil already has
dropped below what investors in Keystone would need to break even, and
some analysts believe further drops are in store.
"The recent decline in [oil] prices has to give the sponsors some pause," said
Chris Lafakis, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics. The prospect of
abandoning the pipeline is something its Canadian builders and their
supporters in Congress say they won't even entertain. Keystone is a decadeslong investment that backers of the project say will not be changed by what
they portray as a temporary glut in the oil market. "We sign binding, longterm commercial agreements with our customers so they can reserve space
to deliver the crude oil they need to their customers," Mark Cooper, a
spokesman for TransCanada Corp., which would own the pipeline, wrote in an
email. The oil shippers investing in the pipeline, Cooper wrote, "have a good
understanding of what the market needs over time. They do not make
decisions based on short-term views or changes in commodity prices." But
some independent analysts say that's overly optimistic, especially after Saudi
Arabia announced over Thanksgiving that it will not slow its oil production in
the face of declining prices, as it has often done. Plunging prices have put oil
firms around the world under stress , placing smaller operations in danger of
bankruptcy. Canadian firms were already under pressure from the boom in
production by the U.S. shale-oil industry; the Saudi move squeezed them
further.
Lower oil prices reduce both the costs and the benefits of approving
the Keystone XL pipeline by reducing the odds that it will ever be fully
used. Theres an outside chance that, if prices are sustained at an
extremely low level, the Keystone XL pipeline wont get built. That
scenario isnt likely among other things, if Canadian production doesnt
grow, the odds of sustained low prices decline substantially but its not zero.
Lower prices also raise the odds that the pipeline will be built but
not fully utilized . In that case, you still get the up-front construction
stimulus, but you get less benefit from greater oil production, and less
climate damage from the same. You also have a waste of economic
resources. The more likely scenario, though, is that the Keystone XL
pipeline gets built and used. In that case, lower oil prices reduce its
economic benefits without any clear impact on its climate costs. If
you assume a constant elasticity of oil demand, then a given addition to
world oil production should push down prices by the same percentage,
regardless of what the starting point is. Imagine you think that the Keystone
pipeline would boost net world oil production by 100,000 barrels of
oil a day and you believe that would cut world oil prices by 0.3 percent.
If prevailing oil prices start at $100, youre cutting them by 30 cents;
if they start at $50, youre reducing them by only 15 cents. In both
cases the marginal reduction in oil prices saves Americans money through
reduced import costs and reduced absolute price volatility. (There is one
countervailing force at lower oil prices, U.S. imports are higher, and
therefore a given reduction in oil prices yields more economic benefit but
this shouldnt fully offset the main economic effect.) The upshot is that, in
the lower oil price world, any savings from Keystone XL are reduced.
What about the climate impact? For a given net impact of Keystone XL on
world oil production, the climate damages should be unchanged the impact
is a fixed function of how much extra oil is produced in Canada and how much
additional oil is consumed worldwide. So whatever you think the excess of
costs over benefits is for Keystone at $100 a barrel oil (and many people, of
course, think that excess is negative), you ought to think that its smaller
when prevailing oil prices are reduced. Keystone XL, like any oil production
project, is less compelling when prices are lower. What about the
absolute impact on both economics and climate? This is much more
difficult to pin down. The absolute impact of Keystone XL on both depends
on how other producers respond in the long run to any additional
production that it enables thats what determines the net impact on world
production and consumption. How that changes depending on the
prevailing oil price is unclear. Nailing that down would require
knowledge of global oil supply economics, as well as oil producer politics,
that no one confidently has. What hasnt changed is that both the
climate damages and the economic benefits from Keystone XL are
small in the grand schemes of climate change and the U.S. and
global economies. A Keystone XL decision will have much larger
consequences for U.S. politics, U.S.-Canada relations, and perhaps the
broader rules-based global trading system than it will for climate change or
the economy and thats where serious decision-makers ought to mostly
focus. Lower oil prices havent changed any of that.
feelings about the delay, telling Americans that approving Keystone was a no-brainer and his
government would not take no for an answer on the project. The Canadian government also spent
millions of dollars plastering Washington, D.C. subways with advertising meant to pave the way for
Keystone with Obama. And a frustrated Baird told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last winter that Canada
was tired of waiting and just wanted a decision on the pipeline, even if its not the right one.
Link UQ
Link Uniqueness
Generics
year, total funding for everything NOAA doesfishery management, weather and climate forecasting,
ocean research and management, among many other programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office
of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel
is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea
exploration is pricey as well. And thats not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are
dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. Yet space travel excites Americans imaginations in
a way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how
stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar
Galactica, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, and 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then there are B-movies such
as Plan Nine From Outer Space and everything ever mocked on Mystery Science Theater 2000. There
are even parodies: Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, and Mars Attacks! And lets not forget Camerons own
contributions: Aliens and Avatar. When it comes to the ocean, we have 20,000 Leagues Under the
Sea, Sponge Bob Square Pants, and Camerons somewhat lesser-known film The Abyss. And thats
red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as Mohawk Guy for his audacious
hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when
Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was
met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself. Part of this
incongruity comes from access. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into
the sky, and wonder about whats out there. Were presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets,
meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were
children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot
see all that lies beneath the waves. As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak. Humans
have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than
we do of Americas exclusive economic zonethe undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our
shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider
this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans.
And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or
For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White
House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights.
The wrangling
threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue the countrys patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as
diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obamas July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House,
Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panels top Democrat, Rep.
Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. Rep.
Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms. An
environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him. The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University
biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1
million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best
locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic
successor, Deval L. Patrick. The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Kaufman said, adding
that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination.
Nearly a decade
But he said he is
Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming
and chemical interests has galvanized industry opposition to the
policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm
Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the groups executive
director, said that the public has not had
and that his group worries about the potential economic impacts
of the policy on commercial or recreational activity.
coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the books.
No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In Southerlands reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and
sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against Southerland on the grounds his
stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while
most ocean
policy fights are regional, this is the first issue Ive seen thats
become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.
We
appear to be in a perpetual stalemate with fiscal brinksmanship
becoming the new normal. The government recently shut down for the first time in 17 years,
Gallup polling history and the presidents approval rating has sunk to the lowest of his presidency?
and you have to ask: what did we get for paying hundreds of thousands of federal workers to stay home?
Only the promise of more fiscal showdowns on the horizonfirst in January when another budget
sequester is scheduled to go into effect and then in February when the debt limit needs to be extended
These kinds of
activities are having a continuing deleterious effect on the budgets
for scientific research as they continue to get tighter and tighter.
again, putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of the United States government.
Budget Crisis The Consortium for Ocean Leadership is a leading voice for the ocean science community
While disasters
named Sandy, Katrina, Haiyan, Deepwater Horizon and Fukushima
have made the need for observing, understanding and forecasting
ocean processes and conditions more imperative, the political
morass in Washington is making our job more difficult than ever. As an
with the mission to advance research, education and sound ocean policy.
eternal optimist, I must admit that even I am beginning to have my doubts on whether our nation can
remain the world leader in innovation if we continue attempting to balance the budget on the back of
discretionary programs, including science. The Department of Defense is scheduled to take the brunt of
the next budget sequester in January, and I suspect that research and development programs will share
the pain. We have partnered with the University Corp. for Atmospheric Research to reach out to the
members of the Congressional budget conference, encouraging them to find a compromise to replace the
If
cooler minds do not prevail, then I suspect we will continue to see
erosion in federal science programs, in critical infrastructure and
eventually human capital. How can we expect to recruit and sustain the next generation of
sequester and restore funding for research programs and science agencies critical to the economy.
scientists if they have a less than one in 10 chance of having their grants funded? Why would the best
minds that come to America to be trained want to stay here and contribute to our nation during such a dire
fiscal environment? I am concerned that this could lead to our best and brightest looking for opportunities
Committee, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), began questioning the peer-review process that has been the
foundation for the U.S. to be the world leader in innovation. While every scientist I know has had a great
proposal declined by a federal agency and probably questioned how the panel could reject it, on the whole,
I believe they would all state that the U.S. has the best research proposal review system in the world. And,
although we should always strive for improvement, I fear questioning the peer-review process while cutting
a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights.
extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts
over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue the countrys patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal
agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obamas July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean
Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact. The
council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen
want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed. Still, activists invoking the
ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the
speed of vessels traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee
hearing on ocean policy last year, the panels top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can
do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was like air traffic
control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms. An environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him.
The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help
design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap
$10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the
Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit
and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without
proper coordination. Nearly a decade ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from
the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore. When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that
In Washington, however,
legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country the Mid-Atlantic, New
without it there could be a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a first come, first served basis.
England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific to set up regional bodies to offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss
said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws
and regulations that already affect our oceans. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in
theory. But he said he is concerned that the administrations broad definition of what affects the ocean including runoff from land could open the door to regulating all
fishing some of the nations oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights
were in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down,
said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nations major boat manufacturers, as
well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy
once its final implementation plan is released, after the election.
in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests has
opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director
work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the groups executive director, said that the public has not had enough
input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity. Sarah
Cooksey, who is Delawares coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of
laws already on the books. No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In Southerlands reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the
congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards
against Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that
while most ocean policy fights are regional, this is the first issue Ive seen
the
Congress featured threats of
shutdown in
order to force spending cuts
House Republican leaders
asserted they would refuse to
trigger
spending cuts
From the outset,
a partial government
more
. Prominent
that
initially
. They have recently postponed that threat until mid-April. President Obama has asserted he will not bargain at all over the debt limit. Democratic congressional leaders
decried the threat of a default as irresponsible. And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called on lawmakers to take care of their job and raise the debt ceiling, warning that default would damage the
economy. Adding fuel to the fire, the President stated that additional tax increases must accompany spending cuts. Rejecting that, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced simply that
there will be no additional tax revenues. So the first months of
process
whereby Congress will eventually accept the inevitable increase to the nations borrowing authority while trying to cobble together majorities for additional spending cuts and tax increases.
this irresponsible
its maritime industry
When Congress proves
unready to make hard decisions it does what most legislative bodies
do: It postpones them.
As a practical matter, the nation has already reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and another politically contrived crisis looms. Sadly,
only
harms
. In the
summer of 2011 this same kind of brinksmanship needlessly stalled the economic recovery and downgraded the nations financial rating.
,
Thus chronic congressional calls for fiscal responsibility are accompanied by growing debt and deficits. There is a reason why legislators have
proven unable to agree on additional spending cuts and tax hikes: Key constituencies oppose them. Congresss recent decision to approve $60 billion of emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy relief while rejecting
the proposal of House Republican budget hawks to pay for it with an across-the-board spending cut of less than two percent illustrates the challenge. Considering how the 2011 confrontation ended and the way
spending cuts have been rhetorically linked to the debt limit increase by Speaker of the House John Boehner, the most likely outcome appears to be something akin to what we have just witnessed. When push
comes to shove, Congress will likely not default on the national debt and the borrowing limit will be raised at the last minute, or even shortly thereafter. Whether or not such a measure will include additional
spending cuts or tax increases remains doubtful because that will require offending core constituencies. So an increase in the debt limit may be accompanied by another face-saving congressional maneuver
espousing fiscal responsibility, such as adoption of a budget, while actually producing the opposite effect. Cutting federal spending materially means assembling majorities that agree to cut specific programs upon
which Americans rely. Key Maritime Issues Despite the fiscal cliff controversy, the lame duck session of the 112th Congress decided significant maritime issues. Congress and the President enacted three important
laws: (1) the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2013, (2) the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, and (3) the American Taxpayers Relief Act of 2012. On December 20, President Obama signed the Coast
Guard authorization into law. Omitted from the legislation was a House proposal that would have established a uniform national ballast water standard and prohibited states from setting stricter standards. Repeated
House proposals to accomplish this have now failed, and in light of the decision this year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to its Vessel General Permit to adopt the uniform ballast water
standard set forth by the Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization, it appears this decision is resolved at the federal level.
adopt
other
significant proposals
Congress declined to
also
. Notably, it failed to use the year-end flurry of legislation to correct its erroneous repeal of an important cargo preference
provision inserted in the highway bill last June. As reported in our July/August 2012 column, the repeal hurts national security while off-shoring the jobs of American seafarers who would otherwise transport U.S.
government cargoes. Representatives Jeff Landry (R-LA) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced the Saving Essential American Sailors Act to correct this legislative misstep. However, despite widespread
bipartisan support, it was not included in any of the new legislation passed during the lame duck session.
own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his
Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and
minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore
could be a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a first come, first served basis. In Washington,
however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the
country the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific to set up regional bodies to
offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the
federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. It simply streamlines implementation of the more
than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc
Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that the
administrations broad definition of what affects the ocean including runoff from land could open the door to
regulating all inland activities, because all water going downhill goes into the ocean. ... That potential could be there.
The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the policy, though the
input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its final implementation plan is
work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the groups executive
director, said that the public has not had enough input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about
the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity. Sarah Cooksey, who is Delawares
coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will
streamline application of laws already on the books. No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In
Southerlands reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and sponsored TV ads
against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against
Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article.
State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job
of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy
hear the new White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National
Ocean Policy initiative by the Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next
year held in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80
percent of public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses.
In July 2010, in the wake of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,
President Obama finally signed the National Ocean Policy as an
administrative directive. NOAA then held a series of additional
hearings to engage stakeholders during which the oil and gas
industry tried to apply the brakes (why support a level playing field
when you already own the field). In 2012, CEQ finally announced that nine regional planning
bodies would be established to get the ocean policy implemented. In 2013, during the 4th Blue
Vision Summit activists held the largest Ocean Hill Day in history, a
citizens lobby from 21 states that included over 100 meetings with
Senators, House members and their staffs to advocate for getting
the National Ocean Policy underway. Still, today in early 2014, only four of the nine regional
bodies have held meetings. In New England, participation by the states, tribal governments, fishermen, environmentalists
and others have seen a strong launch. In the mid-Atlantic, its been more a case of different federal agencies talking to
each other without much transparency or citizen participation. Initial meetings have also been held in the Caribbean and
the Western Pacific, including Hawaii. Although the course forward seems as slow as that sea hare, its also clear the
public wants action for our ocean, coasts and the communities that depend on them. One can only hope (and insist) that
by the end of the Obama presidency in 2016 we see some tangible improvements in how we treat our ocean through
better coordination and planning among agencies and stakeholders. Good models for this kind of sustainable ocean use
already exist in states like California. At that point we can raise our public seas to the level of public policy and begin to
balance recreation, ports and shipping, wildlife protection, clean energy, coastal climate adaptation, food security,
national security, exploration and science to sustain both our economy and the health of the ocean. Its past time we get
serious about moving forward on ocean policy and restoring the blue in our red, white and blue.
The language of the relevant principle read: Decisions affecting the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes
Decision-making will
also be guided by a precautionary approach as reflected in the Rio
Declaration of 1992, which states in pertinent part, [w]here there
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective
measures to prevent environmental degradation. 164 Many feared
that this precautionary approach might mandate action or prohibit
activities, conceivably to the detriment of certain industries. However,
should be informed by and consistent with the best available science.
the NOP Task Force clarified the misconception by stating in part, precaution is a tool or approach . . . it is
In order to
garner support from all stakeholders, particularly in the current
political environment, it is essential that the NOC regularly involve
all stakeholders during the actual implementation and future
development of the NOPs objectives and actions.
clear that the precautionary approach does not mandate action or prohibit activities.165
The Administration could show good faith by not moving forward with establishing ocean zoning bodies
until either Congress acts to define their scope of authority or the Administration appropriately limits their
mandate. The Pacific Northwest and Alaska fishing industry are proud of our progressive and innovative
approach to properly managing ocean resources. And we are proud of our collaborative working
relationship with state and federal fishery managers. We do not welcome that relationship being put at risk
by implementation of an NOP that is being rushed forward without regard for constituents concerns.
Of
course, such success stories do not resonate well in Washington
D.C., where controversy rules the day and political parties
instinctively oppose each others proposals. As an initiative of the
Obama Presidency, the policy has suffered from partisan attacks,
despite the collaborative framework it is based upon. Yet, such political
to enusure that future development will mimize impacts to the environment and existing users.
gamesmanship by our federal leaders is obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean
Policy are taking hold in states and regions across the country, even without the meaningful support of
Congress. That is why Congress needs to hear from people who care about (and depend upon) the ocean.
Our ocean ecoystems are too important to the nation's well-being to be subject to the usual politics. It's
time for Congress to provide a level of support and funding that's commensurate with efforts being made
on the ground. Let's elevate support for our National Ocean Policy across the political spectrum!
partnerships are coalescing in New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the West Coast, and elsewhere, bringing
together states, Tribes, ocean stakeholders, and the public to address place-based needs and priorities.
funding and implementation of the policy this despite the fact that the policy is being advanced with
existing agency resources!
If you put your ear up to the Oval Office and listen very carefully, you
can hear the gentle sound of ocean waves lapping. Thats because the
presidentially-mandated Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (hereafter the task force) has just released
We have
covered issues relating to the task force periodically on this blog,
but I wanted to create a one-stop reference on the task force for
you, dear readers. President Obama authorized the task force on June 12 (pdf). It is an
interagency effort, guided by the Council on Environmental Quality
and consisting of representatives from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, and other agencies. The task force was charged
its full report to supplement the interim report (pdf) already released in September.
with developing a recommendation for a national policy that ensures protection, maintenance, and
restoration of oceans, our coasts and the Great Lakes. It will also recommend a framework for improved
stewardship, and effective coastal and marine spatial planning. (Note: though I hail from the greatest city
in the country, Im not going to focus on the Great Lakes here). To this end, task force members traveled
the country and held a series of public meetings (pdf all) to gather information on ocean issues. These
matters may appear to be solely the purview of environmental policy makers, but the worlds oceans raise
major security issues for U.S. national security policy makers as well. The interim report notes that the
the best intentions of U.S. treaty negotiators, the Senate voted against ratification of the UNCLOS after it
the uniformed services support ratification. Gen Richard Myers (USAF, ret), former Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, argued for ratification before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2004, saying (pdf):
Sustaining our overseas presence, responding to complex emergencies, prosecuting the global war on
terrorism, and conducting operations far from our shores are only possible if our ships and aircraft are able
to make unencumbered use of the sea and air lines of communication. Our naval and air forces must be
able to take advantage of the customary, established navigational rights that the Law of the Sea
Convention codifies. We strongly support US accession to the Convention. In addition, the Navys Judge
Advocate General corps hosts a document on its website called Eight National Security Myths: United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, (pdf) which dispels the notion (among others) that the UNCLOS
will subject the U.S. military to international tribunals. Well be watching to find out the actual policies that
follow on the new reports recommendations. It will be especially interesting to see if the administration
can summon the political capital necessary to ratify the UNCLOS after such a contentious year in Congress.
Whatever happens, I dont think those gentle waves will stop lapping at the Oval Office door anytime soon.
WRDA, specifically "preventing the Army Corps of Engineers and other entities that receive money from
the bill from implementing such planning as part of the National Ocean Policy." n132 Then again, also
before Congress is a bill that seeks to establish a National Endowment for the Oceans, which would fund
programs and activities to "restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their
the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the
books. No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In Southerlands reelection race,
Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim
Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against
Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this
article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are regional,
this is the first issue Ive seen thats become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.
nations most precious marine landscapes, Obama said in a video to participants at a State Department
conference, adding that while the ocean is being degraded, We cannot afford to let that happen. Thats
why the United States is leading the fight to protect our oceans. The announcement first reported
earlier Tuesday by The Washington Post is part of a broader push on maritime issues by an
by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and White House counselor John D. Podesta,
comprehensive program aimed at combating seafood fraud and the global black-market fish trade. In
addition, the administration finalized a rule last week allowing the public to nominate new marine
sanctuaries off U.S. coasts and in the Great Lakes. Obama has used his executive authority 11 times to
safeguard areas on land, but scientists and activists have been pressing him to do the same for untouched
underwater regions. President George W. Bush holds the record for creating U.S. marine monuments,
declaring four during his second term, including the one that Obama plans to expand. Under the proposal,
according to two independent analyses, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument would be
expanded from almost 87,000 square miles to nearly 782,000 square miles all of it adjacent to seven
islands and atolls controlled by the United States. The designation would include waters up to 200 nautical
miles offshore from the territories. Its the closest thing Ive seen to the pristine ocean, said Enric Sala, a
National Geographic explorer-in-residence who has researched the areas reefs and atolls since 2005.
[Alan B., Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for
Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography and former Deputy Assistant Administrator for International
Activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4/16/2014, Foreign
Affairs, Sea Change: How to Save the Oceans
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141198/alan-b-sielen/sea-change,
accessed 7/7/14, GNL]
The oceans of studies on dying seas have done nothing to stop their devastation. In a 2011 report, the
Oxford-based International Program on the State of the Ocean wrote that the planet faced losing marine
Last month,
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
reported that the effects of human-induced climate change are
already far-reaching. It also singled out ocean acidification. As the
oceans absorb higher levels of carbon, the more acidic water
threatens coral reefs, shellfish, and other marine life. The experts only
species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation.
confirm what people around the world see every day: marshland, once teeming with wildlife, paved over;
subsistence fishermen in poor countries driven from the ocean by industrial fishing; recreational fishermen
chasing fewer and smaller fish farther out to sea; surfers getting hepatitis shots before entering sewagecontaminated waters; families on vacation snorkeling through coral bone-yards. In the Chesapeake Bay,
the United States largest estuary, harvests of native oysters have fallen to less than one percent of
There is
no shortage of international recommendations, action plans, and
other prescriptions for restoring the oceans health. The 1982 United Nations
historic levels due to the combined effects of overfishing, disease, and habitat destruction.
Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on
Sustainable Development, and the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20)
all put forward different ways to protect the oceans from pollution and overfishing, preserve biological
diversity, and help developing countries build the scientific and institutional capacities to run effective
especially dire in poor countries, which have fewer assets for managing and protecting marine resources.
Even wealthy countries, such as the United States, which has made admirable
progress in reducing air pollution, providing safe drinking water, and managing hazardous waste, continue
help
advance relevant science and its application to decision-making
regarding the ocean. Those measures include sharing data on severe storms and sea level rise,
as well as melting ice in the Arctic. Several House Republicans have predicted the policy will expand the
ability of the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies to regulate land-based activities since
water from there eventually flows to the ocean:
different regions of the country to prioritize the ocean issues and concerns that matter most to them.
dealt with a local zoning board that keeps order between residential neighborhoods and busy commercials
areas. You may not always agree with their decisions, but we can all appreciate local control over such
economic times. Fishermen are having a hard time making ends meet and many are seeing their harvest
levels reduced, while their cost of doing business continues to rise. The House subcommittee I chair has
heard testimony describing how harvest levels have been driven down by the lack of agency-funded stock
those activities were previously authorized or occurring in an area. That means government bureaucrats,
working behind closed doors, may decide that their views on climate change or water quality both
priorities in the policy will win out over the longstanding interests of people who have depended for
decades on the oceans and waterways for their livelihood. Imagine putting those decisions, along with the
vague and undefined policy goals of the executive order, in the hands of special interest groups whose
The presidents plan, which has flown under the transparency and accountability radar, lists nearly 60
milestones for federal agencies to accomplish this year as they implement the policy, with another 92
milestones slated for 2013. Yet no federal agency has requested funding for these activities. That means
existing missions and management activities of several federal agencies will be put at risk because federal
dollars will be re-purposed to support this policy. President Obamas National Ocean Policy should be
authorized by specific legislation and funded through the regular appropriations process. Implementing
this power grab through an executive order, with funds diverted from other Congressionally-appropriated
questions we have asked about the authority and funding for this National Ocean Policy, I will continue to
oppose this policy.
home state of Oklahoma was ravaged by severe tornadoes last year, said that the bills intent was to
protect lives and property by shifting funds from climate change research to severe weather forecasting
research. But though scientists are still trying to determine what, if any, impact climate change has on
tornadoes, science has shown that climate change is a driver of other forms of extreme weather.
Bridenstine is also a known climate denier who last year asked President Obama to apologize to Oklahoma
for investing in climate change research. We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet
stream meets the warm Gulf air, and we also know that this President spends 30 times as much money on
Congress has
tried to influence what NOAA spends its time and money on in the
past, but it hasnt always been in line with a pro-weather research
agenda. In 2011, a House-passed billcut funding for NOAA satellite
programs, which play a key role in weather forecasting, and in 2012,
Republican lawmakers proposed further cuts to the satellite
program. NOAA was also hit by last summers across-the-board
sequester cuts, which forced NOAA to furlough employees so it could
keep its weather forecasting and satellite operations intact. Already,
NOAA spends more on weather forecasting than it does on climate
research. In 2013, NOAA spent about $742 million on local weather warnings and forecasts, compared
global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning, he said.
to the $108 million it spent on ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research and $176 million it spent on
climate research. And though the link between climate change and severe weather has grown clearer,
NOAA has called for more research into the potential link between climate change and tornadoes, which is
not as well understood.
[Carol, 6-23-11, Conservative Outlook, Obama raids SPR, oil rigs will be
going, going, GONE, http://conservative-outlooks.com/2011/06/23/obamaraids-spr-oil-rigs-will-be-going-going-gone/, accessed 7-9-14, AAZ]
The above as I am sure everyone can recognize as a picture of an off-shore oil rig. Nice to see, right? When
they are in your own backyard. Like say, in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska, and off the Atlantic coast. But
Atlantic and off the coast of Venezuela. Yep, to Hugo Chavez territory. I had the pleasure of being part of a
barrels. Enough to keep the U.S. supplied with oil and gasoline for a mere 2 days, at the most. A political
move which was a reaction to U.S. consumers ire about the rising cost of gasoline
and
yet
this
action did not create one job. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in 1973
and is meant to be used only when a dire national emergency exists. It has been tapped only twice before:
once under President George H.W. Bush during the first Gulf War when the Iraqis set fire to oil fields and
once again under George W. Bush during hurricane Katrina when rigs in the Gulf of Mexico were at risk.
Where is the emergency today, Mr. Obama? It is a crisis of your own making .
Slow-walking of
oil and gas rig permits, ping-ponging bureaucracy WITHIN the EPA, not between other
agencies. A moratorium in the Gulf, which a federal judge has ruled twice is illegal, yet DOI Secretary Ken
Salazar is not in jail for civil contempt, as any other person would be .
Several are The Keystone Project, which would create and utilize a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf off of
Texas. Areas in Alaska would be open to drilling again. The permit process for oil and gas companies must
be done in an expeditious manner. The House has passed bills with bi-partisan support with the goal of
Its
time for the American public to wake up and realize where the fault
lies: not with the oil and gas companies, or the Wall Street gurus; but with the present
administration. When enough of these roadblocks appear it is time to take action. The public must
making the U.S. energy independent, however they have been blocked in the Senate by Harry Reid.
before it. Such a successful campaign is going to require ocean conservationists to focus on a single
message, one that combines the seriousness of the threat with optimism that it can be overcome. That
message must be delivered by credible messengers over and over again until the public demands action.
Are we willing to create the kind of sustained and strategic campaign that persuades the public and our
political leaders that this is a crisis that threatens our future as a species? Are we also willing to invest in
electoral politics, to help elect members of both parties who will fight for the oceans? These questions
must be asked, and they must be answered.
industry
representatives and federal lawmakers, howevermost notably,
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chair of the House Natural Resources
Committeehave made it their mission to destroy the Policy. Wait,
some people actually are opposed to this the Policy? The National
Ocean Policy has been surprisingly controversial for an initiative
that is focused on streamlining decision making and using existing
agency resources more efficiently, and which explicitly does not
involve promulgation of new regulations. Following enactment of the Policy,
House lawmakers (with the support of oil and gas producers,
commercial fisherman, shippers, and other industry representatives)
held various hearings questioning the intended purpose and
consequences of the Policy (see, e.g., an October 2011 House hearing on A Plan for Further
Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal and Inland Activities) and even made multiple attempts
to block funding for implementation based on a vague claim that the
National Ocean Policy will result in ocean zoning. Hopefully, the commonocean users around the country applauded the National Ocean Policy. Some
sense approach of the Implementation Plan will help to put these ungrounded fears to bed.
released a national eutrophication report detailing the effects of nutrient enrichment in over ninety percent
of the estuarine surface of the United States and the Mississippi River Plume. n9 Of those waters surveyed,
the NOS found that over sixty-five percent suffered from moderate to high degradation due to nutrient
enrichment. n10 Most discouraging was the study's conclusion as to current trends. According to the
is not surprising that professional coastal conservationists are concerned. Given the experience of many
years of study and the observation of development along the Charleston-area coast, Dana Beach,
executive director of the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, has recently finished an assessment
from the front lines for the Pew Oceans Commission. n12 A summary of Mr. Beach's observations and
recommendations gathered from the vantage point of work with a heavily stressed coastal zone may be
useful in setting the stage for our discussion. Mr. Beach's basic conclusion was that, while federal law and
ensuing state CZMA programs may be helpful, they have not stopped the destruction because the CZMA
programs do not focus on the core problem. While such programs can determine at the site level the
appropriateness, for instance, of a berm or dock permit, they generally do not provide large-scale regional
growth management, development control or zoning regulation. Human occupation density on the coast is
already five times that of the interior of the United States, and all indications point toward a continuing
increase, especially with the added pressures of affluent retiring baby boomers. Comprehensive planning
for smart (or, in some places, no) growth is imperative. n13 n10. Id. at 9. n11. Id. at 43 .
No less
arbiter of public opinion than the New York Times has repeatedly stated
editorially that the results of studies conducted by the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy confirm that, among a handful of the most serious
problems threatening the health of oceans and the ecosystems they support, overdevelopment of the coast is a major culprit. See Still at Sea, N.Y. Times, Jan. 8, 2005, at
A14; Blueprints for Healthier Oceans, N.Y. Times, May 8, 2004, at A28. n12. See Dana Beach, South
Carolina Coastal Conservation League, Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems
in the United States, available at http://www.pewoceans.org/reports/water pollution sprawl.pdf (last visited
May 26, 2004). As an interesting historical aside, before and while the CZMA was being passed, there was
a simultaneous but failed attempt to pass a Henry Jackson-sponsored and President Nixon-supported Land
Use Policy Act and Planning Assistance Act, S.268, 93rd Congress, 1st Session (1973). This was an attempt
to adopt a national focus to protect and plan for any development of land of critical environmental
concern, including coastal and estuarine zones. Such land was to be managed by the Department of the
Interior. The law was intended to be process-oriented and programmatic. See Baird B. Brown, The Recent
Trend in Federal Land Use Regulation, 10 Willamette L.J. 464 (1974) [hereinafter Brown, The Recent Trend
in Federal Land Use Regulation].
n13. Brown, The Recent Trend in Federal Land Use Regulation, supra note 12,
at 13.
they would be almost cer- tain to recycle their used motor oil, and 42% said they would be almost certain
to pick up litter at the beach. A much smaller number (20%) said they would be prepared to pay higher
water bills to build better sewage treatment plants; 18% indi- cated that they would be very likely to
contact politicians to urge they take posi- tive actions to help the ocean; 12% said they would join an
environmental organi- zation; and only 10% said they would be almost certain to attend council or state
legislative meetings on ocean issues. These personal actions are apparently not only the most appealing,
they are also considered by those polled to be the most effective. Nearly three-quarters (70%) stated that
recycling used motor oil would be a very effective action toward ocean protection; 63% said the same of
picking up litter on the beach. In general, the poll suggests that Ameri- cans feel they have a responsibility
amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that provides for a National Endowment for the Oceans that passed with strong bipartisan support. The endowment
would authorize grants to universities, states and local organizations for ocean research, mapping, monitoring, conservation and restoration projects work that is critical
boundaries and proactively tackle challenges in a forward-looking way. To take those tools away would be bad for ocean health, bad for the ocean economy and bad for
immense size and apparent resilience fooled us into thinking that humans could draw on it for limitless protein and use it as a garbage dump. But now the ocean and our
coastal communities face serious challenges. Coral reefs are in steep decline. Many fisheries continue to struggle. Water quality problems and toxic algae blooms threaten
beaches and clam diggers. Ocean acidification is worsening each year, threatening multigeneration family-owned shellfish farms. Trash litters the open ocean, occasionally
exacerbated by tragic events such as the Japanese tsunami. And sea level rise is just over the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful long-
For example, the idea of a permanent ocean endowment was proposed back in 2004 by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy a commission appointed entirely by
President George W. Bush. When the commission first floated the idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft report and asked governors for comment, support was
overwhelming and bipartisan. Of the 20 coastal governors who submitted comments on an ocean trust fund, 19 supported the idea six Democrats and 13 Republicans.
Only one Democratic governor expressed any opposition.
incentive compatibility among heterogeneous actors in the context of transboundary water governance. Recent events have accentuated the
importance of developing mutually beneficial policy rules for resolving water resources. First, environmental externalities associated with
water use are increasing. For example, climate change is expected to make water resources much more scarce, relative to their current
Second, conflict over water resources seems to be increasing. For example, recent disputes in the South China Sea (SCS) have captivated the
international communitys attention with the prospects of con- flict. Sparked by competition over the SCS water resource, in part because of its
large hydrocarbon reserves, China has contested the property rights of neighboring countries, including: Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines,
institutions capable of promoting efficient and equitable outcomes for involved parties.
Link---Generic
Plan causes partisan battles and drains PC for other
priorities
Stauffer, 12 (Pete, the Ocean Program Manager at the Surfrider
Foundation, Why I Support the National Ocean Policy (And You Should Too),
May 7, http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/why-i-support-the-nationalocean-policy-and-so-should-you,)
the future of the National Ocean Policy is in
jeopardy, plagued by a lack of support and funding from congress. Just
Yet, despite these promising developments,
last month, yet another measure was introduced in the House to restrict funding and implementation of
Hastings (WA), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, have seized on the NOP as a partisan
issue, labeling marine spatial planning as burdensome and accusing the administration of regulatory
overreach (I wont elaborate on Hastings proposals to vastly expand offshore drilling or the donations he
receives from oil & gas companies). But the
D.C. are obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean Policy are taking hold in
states and regions across the country despite the lack of support from the federal government. From the
Pacific Northwest to New England, the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Islands, regions are making real
in Washington D.C.,
controversy is the rule of the day and political parties
instinctively oppose each others proposals. Adding to the problem, many
supporters in congress have been passive, spending their political
capital on other priorities and cautioning ocean advocates against making the NOP a target
in annual budget discussions. The result is that our National Ocean Policy is neglected and
under-supported by congress, while our oceans and those that depend upon them bear
energy opportunities. Of course, such success stories do not resonate well
where
the consequences.
the need to address these problems. The lack of partisanship is evinced by Bush administration
of the National Ocean Council for coordinating governmental programs. Though these
latest episode of Survivor or Lost, which is where we might all end up if we dont reverse current
trends). What does it say that, though we literally carry the oceans within ourselves, and though we are
so drawn to it that over half the U.S. population lives in a coastal county, our oceans languish in neglect,
while the biggest environmental fight of our time is over oil drilling in a patch of Arctic wilderness that
most people will never visit, and that has a fraction of the ecological significance of our oceans? In a 2003
report for the Packard, Oak and Munson Foundations, we looked in detail at the effectiveness of the ocean
conservation movement. We found a growing force of highly professional activists pressing for essential
that an overwhelming scientific consensus is enough to win, look at Congress inaction on global warming.)
Link---Generic---Partisanship
GOP will wage partisan attacks against the plan no link
turns
Conathan 12 (Michael, Director of Oceans Policy at the Center for
in recent
months the escalation of rancor and polarization encompassed even the
normally temperate issue of ocean policy. Nowhere is this tone more prevalent that in the House
Committee on Natural Resources, where Republicans have made President Barack
Obamas National Ocean Policy public enemy number one. Ever since its
roll-out, the policyimplemented by an executive order in 2010 to provide a comprehensive set
of guiding principles for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes has been
taking fire from opponents who cite it as an overreach that would spawn job-killing
valuable ocean resources, and they prioritize them more than their inland counterparts. But
regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and would mean the death of all land-use planning
in this country, in the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction
espoused by Rep. McClintockthat the National Ocean Policys nefarious efforts to develop a framework
for the great evil of ocean-use planning would in turn kill the wonderful benefits of land-use planning
boiling these statements down to their roots leaves little more than
bald political rhetoric. In practice, the policy will improve scientific management and will help
safeguard the commercial and recreational fishing industriessome of the most fundamental drivers of our
ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both
hail from coastal states, yet neither of the regions they represent in Congress actually touch the Pacific
Ocean. Still, the rivers that run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are
proving regularly what we already knewwhat enters those rivers flushes into the ocean and directly
affects all facets of marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the
National Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning administration officials, scientists,
industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach and a prime example
of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on Americas economic growth. (In the
interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastingss Committee on October 29, 2011.) On April 2
Rep. Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House Appropriations Committeethe holders of the
congressional purse stringsasking them to prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the
National Ocean Policy. On the whole, many fishing industry groups, including the regional fishery
management councils tasked with developing fishery management plans, have expressed concern over
the policy since its inception because they feared their voices would not be heard during the development
of specific policy recommendations. Since the initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken
steps to alleviate those concerns, including formally incorporating the councils in regional planning efforts.
including commercial and recreational fishing organizations. In their letter the groups call out potential
benefits of a national ocean policy designed to stimulate job creation and economic growth while
conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of our oceans and coastal regions. Then, in the next
sentence, they contradict this desire by calling for a pause in implementation of President Obamas
ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals.
[J.R., 11/4/03, Environment News Service, U.S. Urged to Chart New Course
for Ocean Research, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2003/2003-1104-10.asp, accessed 6/30/14, GNL]
The bottom of the ocean remains the Earth's least explored frontier and will remain so unless the United
States provides international leadership, scientists said today. How to provide that leadership is the focus
of a new report from the National Research Council, which recommends the U.S. government embark on a
knowledge of our oceans represents more than an academic interest," said Dr. John Orcutt, deputy director
of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and chair of the committee that prepared the report.
submersibles capable of diving to at least 6,500 meters and unmanned submersibles designed to reach
depths of 7,000 meters or more. The panel also recommended that the program include additional
autonomous underwater vehicles that are programmed to travel a specific route, collecting information
along the way with sensors and cameras. "Currently available submersibles - whether manned, remotely
operated, or autonomous - cannot reach the deepest parts of the sea," said committee vice chair Shirley
Pomponi, vice president and director of research at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. Orcutt told
reporters that the committee determined that much of the oceanographic work currently conducted
"reinvestigates previously visited locations." "We tend to go to places where we have been before," he
said. "If we are to understand the global oceans, it is necessary to go beyond that and go into this
exploration mode." The oceans cover 70 percent of the planet but vast portions have not been
"systematically examined for geological or biological characteristics," he said, noting in particular a lack of
exploration of the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. A multidisciplinary ocean exploration program
could buck that trend, the panel says, and could overcome the discipline based character of the U.S.
funding bureaucracy. Federal grants tend to be allocated to chemists, biologists, or physical scientists,
rather than to teams of researchers representing a variety of scientific fields. The report recommends that
the program focus on a range of key issues, including biodiversity, the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere,
deep sea archaeology and the influence of deep ocean water on climate change. The committee suggests
that a nonfederal contractor should operate the program, citing the benefits of creativity, cost savings and
performance incentives that can arise from competitive bidding. But who should oversee the program is a
Pennsylvania Republican, believes that pressure is growing for Congress to act. "We think it is time to do
something big and bold," said Greenwood. The National Research Council report - along with the Pew
Oceans Commission report released last June and the pending release of the U.S. Oceans Commission
the moon than exploring the deepest reaches of the ocean - a point Farr picked up on. "We may have to
Supporters in
Congress for the program hope that recent discoveries of previously
unknown species and deep sea biological and chemical processes
have heightened interest in ocean exploration. Explaining how these
discoveries could benefit mankind is key, the panel said, and education
and public outreach need to be an integral part of the ocean
exploration program. "This [program] could catch the imagination of the American people," said
find some money in the NASA budget to help the oceans budget," Farr said.
Greenwood, who plans to lobby the White House to embrace the program.
1NC- Exploration
Ocean exploration unpopular- funding issues
Spross 14 (Jeff Spross, Climate Progress, Republican Bill Cuts Funding For
Climate, Social, Economic Research By $160 Million,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426660/first-act-gop-sciencecuts/, April 15, 2014)
The House Republicans latest bill to reauthorize science research
funding makes an aggressive effort to pick and choose what science
to fund, the Boston Globe reports. The GOPs preferred version of
the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act of
2014 (otherwise known as the FIRST Act) would move about $160
million out of the social, behavioral, and economic sciences, cutting
those areas by roughly 40 percent. It would also shift money out of
the geoscience areas that cover oceanic and climate studies.
Democrats have managed to amend the bill to lessen the cuts to 26
percent. But even that would leave spending levels well below their
previous path. Its the role of Congress to make sure were using
limited federal funds for the highest priority research, Rep. Lamar
Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House Science, Space and
Technology Committee and the bills author, told the Globe.
Specifically, the FIRST Act is a partial reauthorization of the COMPETES Act,
which was first passed by Congress in 2007, and then again 2010, and has
now expired. The COMPETES Act originally set funding for the National
Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and
two offices with the Department of Energy, but the targets were always
something of a suggestion thanks to sequestration and the general
push for budget austerity over the last few years, the full funding
called for by the COMPETES Act was never authorized by Congress.
The FIRST Act would only cover funding for the National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, leaving the
Department of Energy agencies to be tackled by separate legislation.
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
FIRST Act gets into the weeds of how the NSF apportions its funds
something Congress hasnt done in years. The NSF is split into different
directorates, each one covering a different area: Biological Sciences (BIO),
Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), Engineering
(ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), and
Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE). The original version of the
FIRST Act wouldve modestly cut GEO, which includes funding for ocean and
atmospheric sciences. It wouldve cut SBE funding much more deeply. FIRSTNSF In mid-March, Democrats pushed through an amendment to scale back
the SBE cut to half of whats pictured above. The FIRST Act would also
require the NSF to publicly justify how each grant it awards would
serve the national interest. Just what that would mean has changed
as the bill has been revised. And anticipating ahead of time whether
any particular research project will serve the national interest ,
however defined, is an inherently difficult business. Finally, the
FIRST Acts overall level of spending is so low it would not keep up
with inflation, making it a cut in real and not just nominal terms. The
bill will be up for a vote in Smiths committee soon. And even if its passed
by the committee and the full Republican-controlled House, the
FIRST Act would still have to survive the Democrat-controlled
Senate. Nevertheless, it does offer a glimpse in Republicans
thinking when it comes to where Americas scientific research should
be going. For a committee that is supposed to be advancing science, we
seem to be doing an awfully good job of advancing selective science, said
Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-MA), whos also on the committee. He called
the GOP bill an opportunistic approach to defunding or attacking
certain areas of science that you either dont agree with or that you
dont want to see what the results might actually be.
Unhighlighted
Congress reducing budget for exploration
Mervis 13 a reporter on science policy
(Jeff, 3/25/13, Congress Completes Work on 2013 Spending Bill,
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/03/congress-completes-work-2013spending-bill)//spark
U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the
rest of the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20
March on a bill to fund the government through 30 September. The heavy lifting was
completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the Senate's version.
detailed spending road map for the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have
the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom line: Thanks to
Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more
than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a Sandy relief bill approved earlier this year
requires a cut of nearly 2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits,
reducing the total to about $5 billion. The sequesterabout a 5% cutfurther reduces the total to about
But lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with
universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they agreed,
. And they
Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as Titanic and Avatar, brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible
that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the worlds oceansthe Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into spaceincluding Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL),
who sits on the committee before which Cameron testifiedand 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon. All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and
NASAs
total funding for
NOAA
Exploration
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013
roughly
$3.8 billion
annual
everything
doesfishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office of
Research received
and
. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8
million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And thats not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. The single-seat submersible,
Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)The single-seat
Yet
in a way ocean exploration never
submersible, Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)
imaginations
. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers in
the 25th Century, and 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then there are B-movies such as Plan Nine From Outer Space and everything ever mocked on Mystery Science Theater 2000. There are even parodies:
Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, and Mars Attacks! And lets not forget Camerons own contributions: Aliens and Avatar. When it comes to the ocean, we have 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Sponge Bob
Square Pants, and Camerons somewhat lesser-known film The Abyss. And thats about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control
room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as Mohawk Guy for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of
spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of
ocean nerds such as myself.
Part of this
incongruity
. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the
sky, and wonder about whats out there. Were presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children.
Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep and
even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a
result facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak
,
, the
of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of Americas exclusive economic zonethe undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans
are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go
are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the
heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of
course space exportation does have benefits beyond the cool factor of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have
become ubiquitous in our livescell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a fewand research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the
technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a
much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside
the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next
level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least
one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the
Begich
asked where we would be if we had spent
money exploring
the oceans
Given the current financial climate in
Congress, we wont find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill.
governance structure for these activities. Toward the end of last weeks hearing, Sen. Mark
hypothetically
(D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
today
half as much
But
there may be another way. Cameron is currently in preproduction on the second and third Avatar films. He says the former will be set on an ocean planet. No one except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century
Fox really know how much the first installment of the movie series cost, but estimates peg it at approximately $250 millionor 10 times the total funding for NOAAs Ocean Exploration program. Since the original
Avatar grossed more than $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isnt willing to hand over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners can chip a percent or
either
, maybe
U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the rest of
The heavy
lifting was completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the Senate's version.
the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20 March on a bill to fund the government through 30 September.
The so-called continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that
went into effect earlier this month. But the spending bill retains the overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers
discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a detailed spending road map for the National Science
Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have received very little guidance beyond an
outcome has agency advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a very tough budget situationnot perfect,
but it could have been much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom line: Thanks to Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to
spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a Sandy relief bill approved
earlier this year that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that some of NOAA's research accounts will still feel pain from
the automatic cuts known as the sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013
spending bill, matching the president's request. At first glance, that total appears to be an increase. But the bill also requires a cut of nearly
2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits, reducing the total to about $5 billion. The sequesterabout a
5% cutfurther reduces the total to about $4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion. The Sandy relief bill
finalized in February, however, added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and
"hurricane hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on put NOAA back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester,
Research Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles, and to fold it into the
agency's broader ocean exploration program. But lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with
universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they agreed, should be allowed to compete for
continuing funding. The agency will also have to tell Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and automated undersea
craft.
and Jessica Ferrell focuses on environmental and natural resource litigation. She represents public
and private clients in cases arising under the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, NEPA, CERCLA, MTCA, the Clean Water Act, and other federal, state,
often
, President
into law the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (the "Act"). The Act sets aside two million acres of wilderness more than the combined acreage designated by the past three
including an ambitious ocean and coastal mapping program and interdisciplinary research into the causes and management of ocean acidification.The Act affects a broad array of interests, including oil and gas
developers in Wyoming, Alaska and other states; water purveyors nationwide (particularly in California); livestock producers, wildlife managers in the Rocky Mountain region, and state and regional regulators
charged with protecting coastal and estuarine areas and watersheds. Wilderness Protection, New National Parks and Monuments The Act expands wilderness areas located in nine states California, Oregon, Idaho,
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia. It will provide new or additional federal protection to, among other areas, the Sierra Nevada, White, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains in
California; Mt. Hood, high desert wilderness, and the Wild and Scenic John Day River in Oregon; canyon country in northern New Mexico; the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia; and the Rocky Mountain
National Park and Indian Peaks Wilderness in Colorado. The Act will create some new areas and expand existing national parks, monuments, and historic sites. It also codifies the National Landscape Conservation
System, which protects national icons and monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management.[2] Climate Change and Water: Bureau of Reclamation Authorizations and Water Settlements In the Act,
Congress found that: global climate change poses a significant challenge to the protection and use of the water resources of the United States due to an increased uncertainty with respect to the timing, form, and
geographical distribution of precipitation, which may have a substantial effect on the supplies of water for agricultural, hydroelectric power, industrial, domestic supply, and environmental needs.[3] Recognizing that
States bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing the water resources of the United States, the Senate still found that the Federal Government should support the States, as well as regional, local,
and tribal governments, by carrying out, for example, national research activities and actions to increase the efficient use of water throughout the United States.[4] Toward this end, Title IX of the Act authorizes
funding for local and regional water projects to improve water use efficiencies and update aging infrastructure. It provides for research on the effects of climate change on water, and authorizes projects to provide
sustainable water supplies to rural communities. More specifically, Title IX authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, along with other agencies, to establish a climate change adaptation program to address water
shortages. It provides for the creation of a panel consisting of federal, state and local officials to address the effects of climate change on water resources and flood management. The Act would also require
feasibility studies addressing water supplies in Idaho, Arizona and California, and explore water conservation and water supply enhancement projects in Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Colorado. Finally, Title IX
attempts to address aging dams and associated infrastructure by, among other things, authorizing appropriations to carry out identified maintenance.[5] In Title X, containing the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act provision, the Act authorizes implementation of the settlement reached in Natural Resource Defense Council v. Orange Cove Irrigation District,[6] which created the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program (the SJRRP). The SJRRP resulted from 18 years of federal litigation addressing competing water needs from and around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta is the largest estuary on the West
Coast, and supplies water to over 20 million people.[7] The case involved 14 conservation and fishing groups, 22 water contractors, and three federal agencies. It addressed various water disputes, including issues
over water flows provided to endangered fish. The parties crafted the settlement to achieve two broad goals: (1) a restoration goal, to restore and maintain fish populations in certain areas of the San Joaquin river;
and (2) a water management goal, to reduce or avoid water supply impacts to certain long-term water contractors that may result from flows provided for fish in the settlement.[8] The parties executed a separate
Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California to assist with implementing and funding the settlement. Still, the parties require federal funding. The Act provides for nearly $1 billion in federal funds and
requires an aggregate commitment of at least $200 million from the State of California.[9] Oceans: Coastal Protection Grants, New Science Initiatives Led by NOAA Title XII is comprised of many
coastal and Great Lakes resources and preserving significant coastal and estuarine habitat: The
establish new
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authorize appropriations of over $500 million for the next seven years to implement those programs. Research is to be
regional research centers. The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act calls for the creation of an innovative nation mapping plan for the nations coasts, oceans and Great Lakes to be coordinated at the federal
level by NOAA.[11] NOAA may establish up to three ocean and coastal mapping centers, co-located at an institution of higher education that will serve as hydrographic centers of excellence.
Obama on Monday announced he plans to close off a large swath of the Pacific Ocean
from fishing and energy exploration. The executive action is the biggest move yet by
Obama to protect the oceans, and drew criticism from Republicans who say Obama is
overreaching with his moves to create new nature preserves and national monuments. The president
President
will declare more of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the south-central Pacific Ocean off-limits, according to a White
House fact sheet. Obamas predecessor, President George W. Bush, expanded the marine sanctuary to 87,000 square miles. The sanctuary is
home to tropical coral reefs, and marine ecosystems that are the most vulnerable to climate change and ocean acidification, according to the
Obama
the new efforts, specifically the planned expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands marine
drew fire from Republicans such as Rep. Doc Hastings (Wash.). "For years the Obama
administration has threatened to impose ocean zoning to shut down our oceans, and today
the president is making good on that threat," Hastings said in a statement. "This is yet another
example of how an imperial president is intent on taking unilateral action, behind
closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape ."
Michele Kuruc of the Wildlife Fund. But
sanctuary,
and to
heal the planet. MY promise is to help you and your family. This was one of the key
points Mitt Romney made in the speech he gave Thursday night to officially accept the presidential
nomination of the Republican Party. This was the speech immediately before the balloon drop, his primary
here is from a speech Obama gave on June 3, 2008, the night he wrapped up the nomination for the
Democratic Party. In context, it reads like this. The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this
challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless
faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and
believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell
our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the
jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this
was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best
hope on Earth. This was the moment this was the time when we came together to remake this great
Obamas point, of
was that hed been endorsed to fight for what the Democratic
Party believes in: a strong safety net, employment, addressing climate change, ending the war in
nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.
course,
Iraq, burnishing an image of the United States that had been gutted by the man then holding the office. In
the past four years, he clearly hasnt accomplished all of that; on many points, hes fallen much shorter
than Democrats had hoped. But this was a statement of intent, an exhortation to ideals. As soon as he
was posted on YouTube, with the title Obama Promises The World. When you search for that phrase on
Google during the latter part of 2008, the first site that returns a result is ObamaMessiah.blogspot.com.
Obamas claim that we might address the rise of the oceans was seen as a man claiming dominion over
the universe, not as a sensible priority for a president in the year 2008. That year, Mitt Romney was also
running for president, though his campaign had ended by the time Obama gave that speech. During that
campaign in 2008, Romney admitted that climate change was occurring, and that humans were
save the environment or put people to work. Its the sort of argument that lets polluters squat in poor
communities, insisting that they be allowed to do as they wish or theyll take their jobs elsewhere. Its a
choice that need not be made, as demonstrated by green jobs and the burgeoning industries built around
. And they
Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as Titanic and Avatar, brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible
that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the worlds oceansthe Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into spaceincluding Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL),
who sits on the committee before which Cameron testifiedand 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon. All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and
NASAs
total funding for
NOAA
Exploration
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013
roughly
$3.8 billion
annual
everything
doesfishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office of
Research received
and
. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8
million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And thats not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. The single-seat submersible,
Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)The single-seat
Yet
in a way ocean exploration never
submersible, Deepsea Challenger, which James Cameron piloted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench last year arrived at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution last week. (Photo by James S. Talbot)
imaginations
. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers in
the 25th Century, and 2001 A Space Odyssey. Then there are B-movies such as Plan Nine From Outer Space and everything ever mocked on Mystery Science Theater 2000. There are even parodies:
Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, and Mars Attacks! And lets not forget Camerons own contributions: Aliens and Avatar. When it comes to the ocean, we have 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Sponge Bob
Square Pants, and Camerons somewhat lesser-known film The Abyss. And thats about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control
room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as Mohawk Guy for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of
spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of
ocean nerds such as myself.
Part of this
incongruity
. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the
sky, and wonder about whats out there. Were presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children.
Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep and
even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. As a
result facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak
,
, the
of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of Americas exclusive economic zonethe undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans
are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go
are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the
heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of
course space exportation does have benefits beyond the cool factor of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have
become ubiquitous in our livescell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to name a fewand research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the
technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is a
much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside
the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next
level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least
one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the
Begich
asked where we would be if we had spent
money exploring
the oceans
Given the current financial climate in
Congress, we wont find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill.
governance structure for these activities. Toward the end of last weeks hearing, Sen. Mark
hypothetically
(D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
today
half as much
But
there may be another way. Cameron is currently in preproduction on the second and third Avatar films. He says the former will be set on an ocean planet. No one except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century
Fox really know how much the first installment of the movie series cost, but estimates peg it at approximately $250 millionor 10 times the total funding for NOAAs Ocean Exploration program. Since the original
Avatar grossed more than $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isnt willing to hand over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners can chip a percent or
either
, maybe
world. He's covered science policy for more than 30 years, including a stint at
Nature, and joined Science in 1993.
3-25-2013 Congress Completes Work on 2013 Spending Bill
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/03/congress-completes-work-2013spending-bill DA: 6/11/14
U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the rest of
the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20 March on a bill to fund the government through 30 September. The heavy
lifting was completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the Senate's version.
The so-called continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that
went into effect earlier this month. But the spending bill retains the overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers
discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a detailed spending road map for the National Science
Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have received very little guidance beyond an
2013
. But the final
outcome has agency advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a very tough budget situationnot perfect,
but it could have been much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom line: Thanks to Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to
spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a Sandy relief bill approved
earlier this year that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that some of NOAA's research accounts will still feel pain from
the automatic cuts known as the sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013
spending bill, matching the president's request. At first glance, that total appears to be an increase. But the bill also requires a cut of nearly
2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits, reducing the total to about $5 billion. The sequesterabout a
5% cutfurther reduces the total to about $4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion. The Sandy relief bill
finalized in February, however, added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and
"hurricane hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on put NOAA back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester,
Research Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles, and to fold it into the
agency's broader ocean exploration program. But lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with
universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they agreed, should be allowed to compete for
continuing funding. The agency will also have to tell Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and automated undersea
craft.
and Jessica Ferrell focuses on environmental and natural resource litigation. She represents public
and private clients in cases arising under the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, NEPA, CERCLA, MTCA, the Clean Water Act, and other federal, state,
and local environmental laws.
often
, President
into law the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (the "Act"). The Act sets aside two million acres of wilderness more than the combined acreage designated by the past three
including an ambitious ocean and coastal mapping program and interdisciplinary research into the causes and management of ocean acidification.The Act affects a broad array of interests, including oil and gas
developers in Wyoming, Alaska and other states; water purveyors nationwide (particularly in California); livestock producers, wildlife managers in the Rocky Mountain region, and state and regional regulators
charged with protecting coastal and estuarine areas and watersheds. Wilderness Protection, New National Parks and Monuments The Act expands wilderness areas located in nine states California, Oregon, Idaho,
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Michigan, Virginia, and West Virginia. It will provide new or additional federal protection to, among other areas, the Sierra Nevada, White, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains in
California; Mt. Hood, high desert wilderness, and the Wild and Scenic John Day River in Oregon; canyon country in northern New Mexico; the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia; and the Rocky Mountain
National Park and Indian Peaks Wilderness in Colorado. The Act will create some new areas and expand existing national parks, monuments, and historic sites. It also codifies the National Landscape Conservation
System, which protects national icons and monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management.[2] Climate Change and Water: Bureau of Reclamation Authorizations and Water Settlements In the Act,
Congress found that: global climate change poses a significant challenge to the protection and use of the water resources of the United States due to an increased uncertainty with respect to the timing, form, and
geographical distribution of precipitation, which may have a substantial effect on the supplies of water for agricultural, hydroelectric power, industrial, domestic supply, and environmental needs.[3] Recognizing that
States bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing the water resources of the United States, the Senate still found that the Federal Government should support the States, as well as regional, local,
and tribal governments, by carrying out, for example, national research activities and actions to increase the efficient use of water throughout the United States.[4] Toward this end, Title IX of the Act authorizes
funding for local and regional water projects to improve water use efficiencies and update aging infrastructure. It provides for research on the effects of climate change on water, and authorizes projects to provide
sustainable water supplies to rural communities. More specifically, Title IX authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, along with other agencies, to establish a climate change adaptation program to address water
shortages. It provides for the creation of a panel consisting of federal, state and local officials to address the effects of climate change on water resources and flood management. The Act would also require
feasibility studies addressing water supplies in Idaho, Arizona and California, and explore water conservation and water supply enhancement projects in Oregon, California, New Mexico, and Colorado. Finally, Title IX
attempts to address aging dams and associated infrastructure by, among other things, authorizing appropriations to carry out identified maintenance.[5] In Title X, containing the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement Act provision, the Act authorizes implementation of the settlement reached in Natural Resource Defense Council v. Orange Cove Irrigation District,[6] which created the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program (the SJRRP). The SJRRP resulted from 18 years of federal litigation addressing competing water needs from and around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta is the largest estuary on the West
Coast, and supplies water to over 20 million people.[7] The case involved 14 conservation and fishing groups, 22 water contractors, and three federal agencies. It addressed various water disputes, including issues
over water flows provided to endangered fish. The parties crafted the settlement to achieve two broad goals: (1) a restoration goal, to restore and maintain fish populations in certain areas of the San Joaquin river;
and (2) a water management goal, to reduce or avoid water supply impacts to certain long-term water contractors that may result from flows provided for fish in the settlement.[8] The parties executed a separate
Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California to assist with implementing and funding the settlement. Still, the parties require federal funding. The Act provides for nearly $1 billion in federal funds and
requires an aggregate commitment of at least $200 million from the State of California.[9] Oceans: Coastal Protection Grants, New Science Initiatives Led by NOAA Title XII is comprised of many
coastal and Great Lakes resources and preserving significant coastal and estuarine habitat: The
establish new
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authorize appropriations of over $500 million for the next seven years to implement those programs. Research is to be
and the Great Lakes and is to be conducted by NOAA in coordination with other federal agencies, educational entities, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and a network of
regional research centers. The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act calls for the creation of an innovative nation mapping plan for the nations coasts, oceans and Great Lakes to be coordinated at the federal
level by NOAA.[11] NOAA may establish up to three ocean and coastal mapping centers, co-located at an institution of higher education that will serve as hydrographic centers of excellence.
GOP Opposition
Environmental policies are extremely partisan little GOP
support
Dunlap, Gallup Scholar for the Environment, 8
[Riley E., Regents Professor of Sociology at Oklahoma State University and
Gallup Scholar for the Environment with Gallup, 5/29/8, Gallup, ClimateChange Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand Sharp divergence on
whether the effects of global warming are yet
evident,http://www.gallup.com/poll/107569/climatechange-viewsrepublicandemocratic-gaps-expand.aspx, accessed 7/7/14, GNL]
Theodore Roosevelt's crucial role in promoting the conservation of natural resources by establishing
national parks and forests, and Democrats applauded Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to include
conservation as part of the "New Deal" via the Soil Conservation Service and related programs.
significant, difference in Republican and Democratic levels of pro-environmental voting in Congress since
1970 became a noticeable gap after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994.[i] In
the past decade, it has become a chasm in both the House and Senate, as reflected in recent voting
"scorecards" issued by the League of Conservation Voters. Nonetheless, partisan differences in support for
environmental protection among the general public remained relatively modest. For example, from the
early 1970s until the mid-1990s, support for increased spending on environmental protection by selfidentified Democrats was typically only around 10 points higher than for self-identified Republicans.[ii]
The gap began to widen in the late 1990s, likely reflecting voters'
tendency to follow cues from party leaders and political pundits.
Nowhere is the partisan gap on environmental issues more apparent
than on climate change. Beginning in the 1990s, particularly in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol
calling for reduced CO2 emissions was established, conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh
began to critique both the evidence for global warming and proposals for reducing carbon emissions.
It
The
growing gap is apparent in results from a decade of Gallup polling
on the issue, including the results from this year's Gallup
Environment Poll, conducted March 6-9, 2008.
between self-identified Republicans and Democrats in terms of perceptions of global warming.
Theodore Roosevelt's crucial role in promoting the conservation of natural resources by establishing
national parks and forests, and Democrats applauded Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to include
conservation as part of the "New Deal" via the Soil Conservation Service and related programs. Especially
notable was how Richard Nixon collaborated with a Democratic Congress by signing several of our nation's
The
situation began to change in the 1980s, as the Reagan
administration labeled environmental regulations a burden that
needed to be eased. While a temporary backlash from environmentalists and much of the
most important pieces of environmental legislation into law in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
public resulted, Republicans nonetheless enjoyed a good deal of electoral success in arguing that
difference in Republican and Democratic levels of pro-environmental voting in Congress since 1970
became a noticeable gap after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994.[i] In the
past decade, it has become a chasm in both the House and Senate, as reflected in recent voting
"scorecards" issued by the League of Conservation Voters. Nonetheless, partisan differences in support for
environmental protection among the general public remained relatively modest. For example, from the
early 1970s until the mid-1990s, support for increased spending on environmental protection by selfidentified Democrats was typically only around 10 points higher than for self-identified Republicans.[ii]
The gap began to widen in the late 1990s, likely reflecting voters'
tendency to follow cues from party leaders and political pundits.
Nowhere is the partisan gap on environmental issues more apparent
than on climate change. Beginning in the 1990s, particularly in 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol
calling for reduced CO2 emissions was established, conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh
began to critique both the evidence for global warming and proposals for reducing carbon emissions.
It
The
growing gap is apparent in results from a decade of Gallup polling
on the issue, including the results from this year's Gallup
Environment Poll, conducted March 6-9, 2008.
between self-identified Republicans and Democrats in terms of perceptions of global warming.
most people know Earth's climate always has changed; everyone knows about this little thing called the
most people don't care for is the issue being used politically
to slice and dice the country, the same way the minimum wage,
gender, race, immigration and religion have been used by this
administration. This is why folks do not look toward Washington, D.C., to solve problems anymore.
This is why young people the Millennials are so turned off by
the brands of both political parties, a one-time advantage that
Democrats have completely squandered. And this is why we have
wave-election cycles. Also, most folks who don't live in the privileged enclaves of high society
Ice Age. What
or high academia or high government would argue that other, more pressing crises most of them hidden
in plain sight should be considered the gravest threat to our country in our lifetime. Things such as
subpar graduation rates in our inner-city schools, or the 90 million people who have left the nation's
workforce in the past six years, or our economy being less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last
three decades or that a Brookings study showed, between 2009 and 2011, small businesses were
collapsing faster than they were being formed. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka cautioned Obama and
Democrats to consider how millions of livelihoods outside of D.C. would be impacted: We are prepared
to ... make sacrifices, but not while the most privileged in our society stand on the sidelines and expect our
poorest communities to bear the costs. A wave election is building beyond Washington not a tsunami,
but a wave yet most experts don't see it because they define an electoral wave as a large flip to the
party in power; Republicans already control the House and probably will add more seats to their list. Those
experts should review the results of November's races for state legislatures, governors' mansions and the
U.S. Senate, and then rethink their definition of a wave. And Democrats should rethink what really
constitutes a pressing issue.
example cited by some pollsters is President George W. Bush's effort to reform social security -- an idea
that tested well initially but whose support quickly collapsed as the Capitol Hill debate got under way. "It's
unclear if this were to move up on the agenda, whether those numbers would change or not," said Doherty
of Pew. "At
In the United States there are complex legal hurdles from activists,
who worry that beaches could be impaired and their recreational
value diminished, to the fascinating challenge of who in government
is responsible for licensing this new use of the ocean. Contenders
include the Department of the Interior, the Navy, the Coast Guard, the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which
controls the electric markets.
What about fishing? The states will want a say with their coastal
commissions. What about offshore shipping lanes and even
recreational boating? The oceans are vast and they already are
invaded by drilling rigs, wind turbines and undersea military activity ,
to say nothing of traditional marine uses like shipping, fishing and
boating.
Yet, so far, the problems have been technological rather than
governmental. The sea is a great resource, but it is a hostile
environment for mechanical and electrical equipment . At present, the
nascent ocean energy industry is still sorting through a galaxy of devices for
making electricity from ocean kinetic power. These show engineering
imagination run riot -- gloriously so.
As many as 100 machines for harnessing the ocean are being developed
around the world. They can be described as gizmos, widgets, gadgets,
devices, or dream machines.
Many Republicans deny its happening. Some Democrats dont want to talk about it. What is it? The answer
is the growing U.S. economy, on pace to expand as much as 3.5 percent this year, about the best
performance in the industrialized world. Unemployment has fallen from 10 percent to about 6.3 percent
and consumer confidence is at a six-year high. Yet, when you take an average of several polls, as the
website RealClearPolitics does, you find that Americans are not hot on Obama either. He has not had an
is appealing
The prospect of
in the deeper federal waters
for many reasons. Currently,
the United States imports more than 80 percent of the seafood it consumes, a seafood deficit that amounts to more than $9 billion annually.
And aquaculture is growing rapidly overseas: About half of the seafood imported by the United States originated in aquaculture farms, not in
consensus of the Council was that this was an important area for development for the United States, from the standpoint of seafood supply,
says Joe Hendrix, a member of the Gulf Council and a mariculture consultant in Houston, Texas. Furthermore, he says, it makes sense for the
regional councils to manage the industry. This process will not be the same in the Northwest as the Gulf or New England. Most of the fish
Hendrix says. Six years later, in January 2009, the Gulf Council approved the plan and sent it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, a
lawmakers, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, Durged the secretary to reject the plan, citing both the confusion over
proper authority and environmental concerns. A regional plan, wrote Rep. Rahall in a February
necessary step to become law. Meanwhile,
W.Va.,
2009 letter to the then-acting commerce secretary, would hardly be able to address how to allot ocean space to a growing list of industries.
Regulation Streamlining
Unpopular
Deregulation causes controversy federalism issues and
environmental concerns
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of
the Week section. She has a doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-bluefrontier-ocean-development DA: 6/4/14
regulatory fragmentation when it comes to many ocean issues makes
the oceans a regulatory orphan, as Florida State University law professor Robin Kundis Craig wrote in the University of
U.S.
Colorado Law Review in 2008. Throughout the past decade, stakeholders and policymakers alike have increasingly called for more streamlined government plans for
2000 by Congress to assess the health of the oceans, published a report in 2004 that
national oceans council, finding that the confusion over conflicting mandates between agencies made it difficult to regulate environmental concerns such as non-pointsource pollution. Shortly after the U.S. Commissions report, an interdisciplinary group of scientists focused on offshore aquaculture, outlining a policy framework on the
subject for NOAA. The group also recommended the creation of a new NOAA Office of Offshore Aquaculture to oversee leasing, environmental review and monitoring of the
But none of this has happened yet. A pair of 2007 House and Senate
bills to provide authority to the Department of Commerce (the department that includes NOAA) to establish a regulatory
system for offshore aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone didnt even make it out of committee, in
part because they lacked sufficient environmental safeguards, Leonard says. They were widely criticized as
fundamentally flawed, he adds. For example, the bills left many environmental mitigation measures up to the discretion of the Secretary
fledgling industry.
of Commerce, rather than establishing legally binding national standards. Many of us were concerned that that kind of discretion opens the door for putting ocean
management has long taken precedence over national policy. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (first enacted in 1976 and later amended in 1996 and 2007), is responsible for managing commercial fishing operations, including regulatory
requirements on permits and size limits. But most of the management decisions and fishing regulations are determined regionally by eight regional fishery management
councils, each consisting of various stakeholders related to the fishing industry, as well as state and federal representatives.
oceans and lakes power play has sparked quite a partisan fight going into this
election year. Many Republicans see this Executive Order as nothing more than an absurd power grab by the Obama administration. To control the
and now this
countrys lakes, oceans and coastlands by issuing strict usage regulations and restrictions will only hurt such livelihoods as farming, fishing and logging. Many Democrats
and environmental allies see this as a positive step forward that will protect the nations oceans and also limit the number of conflicts over how the waters are used. The
Washington Post cites a recent study where Boston University biologist Les Kaufman was a contributor. The study shows that using ocean zoning to help design wind
farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in
added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Kaufman responds to the study saying, The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit
and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Meanwhile, Florida Republican Rep. Steve Southerland II, who is in a tight reelection race, says this ocean policy was like
Democrats in both chambers, called OCEANS-21. It would have established a comprehensive National Oceans Policy, very similar to what the president is working on today.
compares this ocean policy to a rogue traffic control operation, all would agree that traffic control is a good operation to have. However, it is not an uncommon practice of
could open the door to regulating all inland activities, because all water going downhill goes into the ocean That potential could be there, Rep. Hastings said. Out of
director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, took Chairman Hastings comments even farther and said that this ocean policy is nothing more than private property theft.
This is a government takeover of every piece of water that drains into the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, he
says. This is taking states rights away, land rights and personal
property rights.
They usually foster alliances based far more on geography than on party
affiliation.
and districts
they
National
in 2010 to
provide a comprehensive set of guiding principles for the stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes
who cite it as an overreach that would spawn job-killing regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and would mean the death of all land-use planning in this country, in
the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction espoused by Rep. McClintockthat the National Ocean Policys nefarious efforts to develop a framework for the great evil of ocean-
. In practice, the policy will improve scientific management and will help
safeguard the commercial and recreational fishing industriessome of the most fundamental drivers of our ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both
hail from coastal states, yet neither of the regions they represent in Congress actually touch the Pacific Ocean. Still, the rivers that run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are
proving regularly what we already knewwhat enters those rivers flushes into the ocean and directly affects all facets of marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the
National Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning administration officials, scientists, industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach and a prime example
of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on Americas economic growth. (In the interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastingss Committee on October 29, 2011.) On April 2 Rep.
Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House Appropriations Committeethe holders of the congressional purse stringsasking them to prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the National
Ocean Policy. On the whole, many fishing industry groups, including the regional fishery management councils tasked with developing fishery management plans, have expressed concern over the policy since its
inception because they feared their voices would not be heard during the development of specific policy recommendations. Since the initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken steps to alleviate
those concerns, including formally incorporating the councils in regional planning efforts. Despite these improvements, Rep. Hastings has been joined in his effort to defund the policy by a coalition of ocean and
inland industry groups, including commercial and recreational fishing organizations. In their letter the groups call out potential benefits of a national ocean policy designed to stimulate job creation and economic
growth while conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of our oceans and coastal regions. Then, in the next sentence, they contradict this desire by calling for a pause in implementation of President
Obamas ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals. In this letter Rep. Hastings also says the policy is especially alarming because it stretches far inland following rivers and their tributaries upstream for
hundreds of miles. But of course it stretches upstream! There is no impermeable layer dividing salt water from fresh. This is a fundamental reason why we need the policy in the first place. In fact, the policy is
designed specifically to ensure adequate and efficient coordination between the agencies responsible for inland activities that affect ocean resources and the agencies that oversee the ocean activities themselves.
The news this week provided specific examples of why such coordination is necessary. Pesticide use was found to affect Pacific salmon populations, and ocean acidification was proven to stunt oyster growth. These
may seem like obvious conclusions to draw, but they both exemplify the difficulty in differentiating between oceans and lands. Similar to the estuarine boundary between salt water and fresh (how salty can fresh
water be before it becomes seawater?) our jurisdictional boundaries are equally nebulous. President Obama famously (if incorrectly) noted this blurring of the lines during his 2011 State of the Union address when
he famously poked fun at the governments management of salmon. The Interior Department handles salmon when theyre in freshwater, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater. And I hear it
gets even more complicated once theyre smoked, he quipped to polite laughter in the House chamber and rolling echoes of punditry in the days after the speech. The reality of salmon management is far more
sensible. The Commerce Departments National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is actually responsible for salmon species management throughout their range, though the Department of the Interiors Fish
and Wildlife Service does manage some salmon habitat programs. Yet the point remains that what happens upstream in salmon runs can have a dramatic effect on the survival of one of the most valuable fisheries
in the country. Thus it makes a great deal of sense that we should coordinate efforts across federal agencies to manage issues that transcend traditional boundaries. For example: If pesticides make life more difficult
for salmon, then the pesticide regulators should be talking to the fisheries biologists to figure out how to minimize that impact. This is precisely the kind of interagency collaboration the National Ocean Policy is
designed to facilitate. Further, Hastingss efforts to defund the policys recommendations not only would prevent government operations from becoming more efficient by collaborating across traditional agency
boundaries but could also have devastating ramifications for the day-to-day programs that improve fishery management and make life better for fishermen. Cutting funding as Rep. Hastings has requested risks
eliminating funding for many of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations existing programs that fishermen rely on or that could greatly enhance the understanding of what factors other than fishing
pressure are causing fish stocks to decline and prevent their rebuilding. Specifically, the National Ocean Policys Draft Implementation Plan calls for: Sustaining ocean observing systems that provide critical data for
fishery stock assessments Conducting research on what stressors (habitat degradation, pollution, global climate change, etc.) affect fish stocks other than fishing mortality Prioritizing a National Shellfish Initiative to
investigate potential ecosystem and economic benefits of shellfish aquaculture Identifying key ecosystem protection areas to enhance the quality of habitat that provides sanctuary and nurseries for the more than
half of all fish caught in US waters [that] depend on the estuaries and coastal wetlands at some point in their life cycles Understanding and combatting hypoxia (lack of oxygen) caused by polluted runoff from
rivers and streams that can lead to massive fish kills, harmful algal blooms, and other phenomena that adversely affect fish populations These programs are not new, and administration officials have been
abundantly clear in their testimony before Congress and, in some cases, in the face of withering interrogation, that the National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations for how we use our ocean space.
The
Ocean Policy
sets forth a proactive framework
exactly what small government Republicans claim they want
Maybe next time we should get
Ryan to propose it.
Healthy oceans and coasts are among the strongest economic drivers and most valuable resources our nation possesses.
National
to streamline government involvement, eliminate duplication of effort, and ensure taxpayers get more value for
their dollars
Rep. Paul
(R-WI)
Environment/Fish
Fishing
The presidents plan, which has flown under the transparency and
accountability radar, lists nearly 60 milestones for federal agencies to
accomplish this year as they implement the policy, with another 92
milestones slated for 2013. Yet no federal agency has requested funding for
these activities. That means existing missions and management activities of
several federal agencies will be put at risk because federal dollars will be repurposed to support this policy.
President Obamas National Ocean Policy should be authorized by specific
legislation and funded through the regular appropriations process.
Implementing this power grab through an executive order, with funds
diverted from other Congressionally-appropriated programs is simply wrong.
Existing laws already manage fisheries, and we dont need a costly,
massive, new, job-destroying layer of bureaucracy to centralize more
power in Washington, and jeopardize the liberties of hard-working
citizens. Until Congress receives answers to the questions we have asked
about the authority and funding for this National Ocean Policy, I will continue
to oppose this policy.
Removing the funding for catch shares -- at least until it gets straightened out and some consensus is developed among the fleet on what
catch share programs, if any, should look like -- would be one place to cut. Another place where change could be made to NMFS' budget would
be reprogramming Saltonstall-Kennedy Act funds to something useful, instead of offshore aquaculture or catch shares. An alternative to the
annual appropriations process for funding many essential fishery data collection programs, as we have been saying for many years, would be
through the creation of a National Fishery Trust Fund (see FN "Planning and Paying for Future Fisheries Research," August 2003,
www.pcffa.org/fn-aug03.htm). The framework for such a fund was provided for in an amendment sponsored by Senators Ted Stevens and
Barbara Boxer in the last MSA reauthorization. Depending on its source, such a stand-alone dedicated trust fund could finally provide the
resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House
resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March
23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in
the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent
[infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital
to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of
Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job growth and enhance
our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration
("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the
Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and
mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from
75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The
President's budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See
H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has
requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including
funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic
and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These
agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National
Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for
consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation
is passed this year. For NOAA,
the President has requested a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan.
Fisheries
and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a
do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas
super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move
unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But
fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing
Republicans
Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.
will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer
places to hunt, fish, and relax.
Impact on
oceans
The Whit e House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determ ining that the sequestration percent ages for the non-defense function would be a reduct ion of 8.2 percent for discret ionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discret ionary, except for one account in the C oast Guard that
has a defense function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is im portant to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not prov ide much specificity about how these cuts would be adm inistered to individual programs within agencies. It list s them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriat ions are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Serv ice operat ions budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which serv ices or which parks will bear the brunt of this reduct iont hose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies might makefor example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily
assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the serv ices and values that the agencies prov ide. Less accurat e weather forecast s One of the most im portant and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weather prediction. But sequestrat ion could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weat her forecasting by cutt ing the budget for the agency where weat her prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurat e natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for crit ical weather prediction
resources. Its National Weather Service is the nat ions primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane C enters storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the Weather C hannels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nat ions when it comes to forecast ing capabilit ies. As accurate as the Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall day s before U.S. models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week after Sandy, they
frequent ly referenced the European models predict ions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domest ic weather predict ion capabilit ies trail the Europeans in many capacit ies, sequestrat ions 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data last ing 17 to 53 monthst he time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys
natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal
significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind,
and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind
development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts
Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers,
the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and
ocean
that allow them to plan for, study, perm it, and help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means project s will take longer to get approved and set up, delay ing the process of energy development and in some cases
potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a great er reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to it s Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and minerals management, including perm it processing and env ironmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlif e Service also has funds that allow it to study the impacts of energy development on species and habit ats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts
could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development , the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency manages explorat ion, science, leasing, permitt ing, and development of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy dev elopment on the Outer C ontinental Shelf. Addit ionally, offshore drilling safety could be compromised by the fiscal showdown. The Office of Management and Budget notes that the agency that oversees offshore oil and gas rigs to ensure safety and environmental standardst he Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcementis slated to be slashed by $16 million altogether in fiscal year 2013. As this agency noted in it s budget justificat ion: The bureau conducts thousands of inspections of OCS [Outer C ont inental Shelf] facilit ies and operat ionscovering tens of thousands of safety and pollution prevention componentsto prevent offshore accidents and spills and to ensure a safe working env ironment. The bureau strives to conduct annual inspections of all oil and gas operations on the OCS, while focusing an increasing proport ion of resources on the highest risk operat ions in order to examine safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spills, and other major accidents. A $16 million cut to these operat ions could be dangerous for worker safety and well-being, as well as that of the ecosystems, communit ies, and businesses that rely
on a healthy ocean. Further reduct ions to the budget of the U.S. C oast Guard, which serves as the first responder in the event of an oil spill, could also affect its ability to respond to emergencies and are detailed later in this report. Fewer wildland firefighters Our land management agencies also make crit ical inv estments in fighting forest and wildland fires. This year saw devastat ing fires on both private and public lands but was particularly bad for nat ional forestsa fire in the Gila National Forest, for example, was New Mexicos largest-ever fire. And the National Interagency Fire C enter has determined the amount of acreage burned by wildfires has been increasing in recent decades. Land management agencies provide first-responder resources and capacity in terms of firefighters, equipment, and critical funding for fighting these blazes. They help
keep American families safe in times of need, part icularly those whose homes are close to wild places. But the U.S. Forest Service faces tremendous cuts to it s firefighting capabilit ies under sequestration. Its Wildland Fire Management account, which funds preparedness, fire suppression, hazardous-fuels removal, restorat ion, and state fire assist ance, among other things, is slated to be cut by $172 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequest er moves forward. Additionally, the Department of the Interiors Wildland Fire Management account faces a $46 million cut next year. The department also funds the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, which will be cut by $7 million under sequestration. In total, funding for wildland fire prevention and assist ance at the land management agencies will be cut by $225 million. Without such funding, not only
will Americans property and lives be more at risk, but special places such as nat ional forest s and nat ional parks will be less resilient in the face of future fires. C losures of nat ional parks Nat ional parksoften referred to as Americas best ideaare well- loved and protect our natural, cultural, and historical heritage. In addition to famous national parks such as Yellowstone and the Grand C anyon, the 398 nat ional park unit s managed by the Nat ional Park Service range from C ape Cod National Seashore to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to the Flight 93 Nat ional Memorial. And yet many, if not all, of these nat ional park unit s would face budgetary im pact s under sequestration. These could include park closures, fewer visitor resources including educational programs, and a reduction in park staff such as rangers who help wit h upkeep on these sites.
C ombined, all of these changes could lead to far worse visitor ex periences at national parks, making them less desirable vacat ion dest inat ions for American and int ernational tourists. Specifically , the Office of Management and Budget determined that the National Park Service as a whole faces a $218 million cut in fiscal year 2013. As seen in the chart below, the majority of this cut is in the O peration of the National Park System account, which funds programs such as protect ion of resources, law enforcement and park rangers, visitor services like educat ion and interpretat ion, and maintenance such as trail construct ion and campgrounds. Potent ial cuts to the nat ional Park Serv ice in fiscal year 2013 The Operation of the National Park System account also contains much of the funding for agency staffin fiscal year 2012 nearly all of the funds to pay
the Nat ional Park Services employees were housed in this account. An 8.2 percentor $183 millioncut to the Operation of the Nat ional Park System account could cripple some of the most im portant functions of the National Park Serv ice, which was already facing a decreasing budget and a serious maintenance backlog. While it is difficult to know for sure what exact ly would be cut due to lack of informat ion from the agency, the National Parks C onserv ation Association speculates that these cuts would very likely lead to the furloughingor indefinite closureof nat ional parks. A cut of this magnitude would also likely lead to the loss of many park rangers, particularly during the busy visiting season. The organization also warned that cuts of this magnitude could lead to park closures and calculated that an approximat ely 8 percent cut would be
equivalent to closing up to 200 national park units with the smallest operat ing budgets, closing 150 parks with low visitat ion rates, or closing a handful of large and famous parks such as the National Mall and Memorials, Yellowstone, Yosem ite, and Gateway National Recreation Area. In addit ion to the fact that visitors may not be able to see these places, their closures could also lead to declines in revenue and even jobst he National Park Service st imulated $31 billion in economic contribut ions and 258,000 jobs in 2011. Fewer places to hunt Americas lands and oceans also prov ide important opportunit ies for recreat ion, including hunt ing and fishing. Many of the areas that are open to these act ivit ies also prov ide nonwildlife-related recreat ion opportunities such as hiking, camping, boat ing, and off-road vehicle use. Not only are these areas im portant
places to play, they also are important economic drivers: A recent report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that more than 37 million Americans hunt ed or fished in 2011, contribut ing billions of dollars to the economy. A number of agencies that oversee recreat ional hunting and fishing face budgetary cuts. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, manages 256 million acres of public lands, much of which is open to sportsmen. The agencys largest budget line item is Management of Lands and Resources, which includes nearly all of its funds to manage wildlife and fisheries, wilderness, and other recreation resources. And yet the Office of Management and Budget predict s this account will see an $85 million cut in fiscal year 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice also has an vital role in providing hunt ing and fishing opportunit ies
because it funds wildlife programs and manages the nat ional wildlife refuges that serve as fish and game habitats. The Resource Management account in its budget houses operat ions such as visitor serv ices, law enforcement , refuge maintenance, habitat conservat ion, and nat ional fish-hat chery operat ions. This account would see a $105 million cut in fiscal year 2013, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The North American Wetlands C onservation Fund, which prov ides federal grants to restore wet lands for fish and wildlife, would be cut by $3 million, while the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman-Robinson), which prov ides federal funds to states for wildlife management and restoration, would be cut by $31 million. The Forest Serv ice also faces cut s that would impair its ability to prov ide American sportsmen with
recreat ion opportunities. Its National Forest System account, which would be cut by $129 million, funds priorit ies such as forest restorat ion, which prov ides new places to hunt and fish; planning in order to manage recreation opportunit ies; and an entire account devoted to Recreat ion, Heritage, and Wilderness. In addition, its Forest and Rangeland Research line it em, which has a small subaccount for Recreation Research and Development , would be cut by $24 million, and the State and Privat e Forestry account, which prov ides funds for open space conservation and new protected areas, would be cut by $21 million. While it is unclear exactly which programs will be cut at each of these agencieswe have merely predicted potent ial implications of budget cutsthere is litt le doubt that cuts would im pact the hunting and fishing experience that
recreational, are
Management and Budget applies that reduction equally across all the agencys departments, that would mean a further reduction of $73 million from the National Marine
Fisheries Service, on top of the 10 percent cut this year. These cuts could have major impacts on getting fish to our kitchen tables. No matter how the sequestration cuts
end up being distributed, they will mean the agencys fisheries scientists will have fewer resources with which to carry out research that informs the fishery stock
assessments on which catch limits are based. If scientists know less, they will have to be more conservative with catch limits to ensure overfishing does not occur. This
means fishermen will be forced to catch less, leading directly to fewer recreational opportunities, less fish in the marketplace, and a loss of revenue to coastal businesses
and communities. The cuts will also have impacts on jobs because fishing in U.S. oceans is a massive economic driver in coastal regions. Saltwater anglers spent $19.5
billion in 2009, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency estimates, and the recreational fishing industry was directly responsible for more than 300,000 jobs
(these figures do not include costs such as hotel rooms, meals, travel, and other services). This same report found that commercial fisheries accounted for more than 1
resources such as water and fish. It's hard to predict how the populist-oriented Tea-Party will take to a program best suited for Wall Street's
currently in place in some fisheries, including the Obama Administration's continuance of those Bush-era programs -- adding sector allocation
-- under the catch share banner, as well as limited access privilege programs generally. Consolidation, de facto privatization of fish resources,
Coral Reefs
Preservation Controversial
Coral reef preservation leads to backlash and fights
everybody hates it
Golden, Daily Beast, 14
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/23/republicans-obamas-ocean-protection-plan-evidence-of-imperial-presidency.html,
accessed 7/9/14, AC]
President Obama announced last week that he plans to add massive
amounts of territory to the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine
Monument, a tract of ocean surrounding seven hard-to-reach islands and
atolls in the south-central Pacific Ocean. Obamas decision will expand the
original reserve, created by George W. Bush in the last days of his presidency,
by almost five times its original size. The expanded national monument will
quintuple the number of seamounts, or underwater mountains, under federal
protection, and close almost 780,000 square miles of ocean to tuna fishing.
Obamas decision has been hailed for its conservation impact by
scientists and even by the New York Times editorial board. Gareth Williams, a
researcher at Scripps who studies the coral reefs within the reserve,
hailed the expanded national monument as protecting some of the most
intact natural areas left on the planet. Its almost impossible to find another
example of that, forests included, Williams told The Daily Beast. There are
always examples of degradation, but there are very few examples of
ecosystems left that are thatpristine.
But plenty of people arent happy with Obamas decision, and the
next few monthsin which the exact details of the expansion will be up for
reviewmay be contentious ones. These are the groups that have most at
stake in opposing the expanded Remote Pacific Islands reserve:
1. Republican lawmakers
Obamas use of an executive order to establish the reserve expansion
angered Republicans in government, who viewed it as an attempt to test
the limits of White House authority. Congressman Doc Hastings (RWash.), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee,
was quick to denounce Obama as an Imperial President who is
intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new
regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape.
By Hastings standards, another candidate for an imperial presidency would
be George W. Bush, who created four marine national monuments during his
time in office.
By Hastings standards, then, another candidate for an imperial presidency
would be George W. Bush, who created four marine national monuments
during his time in office, totaling some 300,000 square miles of protected
ocean.
2. The commercial fishing industry.
Currently, about 3 percent of the U.S. tuna catch in the western and southern
Pacific comes from the area now under protection, according to Pew
Charitable Trusts. Congressman Hastings has criticized Obama for
closing this area to tuna fishing, cautioning that this move will make
the U.S. tuna fleet even less viable, meaning that in the not-too-distant future
all of Americas tuna will be caught by foreign vessels.
Paul Dalzell, a senior scientist with the Western and Central Pacific
Regional Fisheries Management Council, echoed this industry-centric
approach. The islands [in the reserve] already have 50-nautical-mile
boundaries around them to protect all the coral reef and shallow water
habitats, so theyre more than adequately protected already, Dalzell told
The Daily Beast. But for migratory species like tuna, he argues, large-scale
ocean reserves have little conservation value, since tuna simply swim beyond
the boundaries of the closed areas to be caught by other fleets. The reserve
has no major conservation benefits, will penalize U.S. fishermen,
and theres no net gain, Dalzell continued.
Its worth noting that Pew Charitable Trusts, which works on ocean
conservation issues, has condemned the Western and Central Pacific Regional
Fisheries Management Council for its poor fisheries practices, which it claims
are hastening overfishing in the Pacific region.
3. Recreational fishers.
After Bush first established the Remote Pacific Islands reserve in 2009, the
American Sportfishing Association successfully petitioned for a
recreational fishing exemption within the reserve. Now the group, which
represents manufacturers of fishing tackle rather than sport fishermen
themselves, plans to push for the exemption to apply throughout the
expanded area.
We believe in almost all instances you can still have marine
conservation and make sure that your fisheries resources are in
good, healthy condition, and still allow some recreational fishing to
take place, Mike Leonard, a spokesperson for the ASA, told The Daily
Beast. The groups insistence on a recreational fishing exemption is mostly
academic, since the areas within the expanded reserve are so remote as to
be unreachable to sport fishermen. Williams, who has traveled to the reserve
repeatedly for his research, said that he has never seen a recreational fishing
boat there.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/09/fishing-in-murky-watersadministrations-secretive-oceans-policies-come-under/?
intcmp=latestnews, accessed 7/9/14, AC]
American fishermen are reacting with skepticism, concern and
frustration at the latest murky steps to prevent fishing in vast tracts
of the Pacific. The proposed expansion was announced along with
[Lauren. Writer for CQ Roll Call. Oceans Plan Meets Wave of GOP Resistance CQ Weekly,
6/4/14 Available via Lexis-Nexis]
On its face, the Obama administrations plan to begin implementing its National Ocean Policy
looks like something even the presidents most ardent opponents might like. The objective sounds
innocuous enough: safeguard the oceans and Great Lakes while encouraging sustainable
development of offshore resources. The plan aims to achieve that goal by coordinating the many
federal agencies that enforce the 140 laws affecting the oceans, coastlines and Great Lakes and by
streamlining the process for granting various permits. But President Obamas critics in Congress are
suspicious about the plan and are aggressively moving to block it. House Natural Resources
Chairman Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, fears the blueprint will usher in ocean
zoning. Texas Republican Bill Flores succeeded in attaching a rider to the fiscal 2013
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that would bar any expenditures to implement
the ocean policy, and Hastings vows to press for similar language in every spending bill that comes to
the House floor. The opposition reflects concerns by many of the industries that make a
living in the coastal waters including oil and natural gas producers, commercial
fishermen and seafood processors, boat owners and operators, shippers, and sports
fishermen. An industry-backed group called the National Ocean Policy Coalition backs
efforts to delay the policy through appropriations riders, saying that further policy
development and implementation should be suspended until Congress, user groups,
and the public have been fully engaged and all potential impacts have been assessed
and are understood.
Environment General
Environment General
Ocean protection links GOP opposition to Obama push,
spending, environmental issues and states rights
Rebekah Rast Media Outreach Director at Americans for Limited
oceans and lakes power play has sparked quite a partisan fight going into this
election year. Many Republicans see this Executive Order as nothing more than an absurd power grab by the Obama administration. To control the
and now this
countrys lakes, oceans and coastlands by issuing strict usage regulations and restrictions will only hurt such livelihoods as farming, fishing and logging. Many Democrats
and environmental allies see this as a positive step forward that will protect the nations oceans and also limit the number of conflicts over how the waters are used. The
Washington Post cites a recent study where Boston University biologist Les Kaufman was a contributor. The study shows that using ocean zoning to help design wind
farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in
added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Kaufman responds to the study saying, The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit
and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Meanwhile, Florida Republican Rep. Steve Southerland II, who is in a tight reelection race, says this ocean policy was like
Executive Order that is most puzzling and troublesome to some. In 2007, a similar bill was proposed in Congress, which at that time was controlled by Democrats in both
chambers, called OCEANS-21. It would have established a comprehensive National Oceans Policy, very similar to what the president is working on today. The bill never
became law. In spite of having an overwhelming partisan Democrat majority in his first two years in office, Obama chose to ignore the will of Congress altogether, by
mandating the policy into existence with a overly broad use of his powers to issue an Executive Orderinvolving only a small team of White House staff. As Rep.
Southerland compares this ocean policy to a rogue traffic control operation, all would agree that traffic control is a good operation to have. However, it is not an uncommon
practice of government, when it is given a little jurisdiction, to take much more. This is exactly what concerns Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the House Natural Resources
Committee Chairman. The Washington Post summarizes his thoughts as not being opposed to a national ocean policy, per se, but concerned about the administrations
vague and broad definition of what ocean means exactly. If it includes runoff from land in its jurisdiction then it could open the door to regulating all inland activities,
because all water going downhill goes into the ocean That potential could be there, Rep. Hastings said. Out of concern for the thousands of American jobs that rely on
Senate. In an interview with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) earlier this year, Jim Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, took Chairman
This is a government
takeover of every piece of water that drains into the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, he says. This is taking
states rights away, land rights and personal property rights.
Hastings comments even farther and said that this ocean policy is nothing more than private property theft.
Rep. Flores sixth attempt in the past two years to obstruct implementation of the National Ocean Policy through a legislative amendment. This
When the National Ocean Policy was established by President Obama in 2010 it signaled a serious attempt to address the many shortcomings
of our nations piecemeal approach to ocean management. Taking its cue from the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy -
a bipartisan body established by President George W. Bush - the policy emphasizes improved collaboration across all levels of government to
address priorities such as water quality, marine debris, and renewable energy A cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of regional
ocean parterships (ROPs) that empower states to work with federal agencies, stakeholders, tribes, and the public to plan for the future of the
to restore habitats, advance ocean science, and engage stakeholders. And finally, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast regions have
such
success stories do not resonate well in Washington D.C., where
controversy rules the day and political parties instinctively oppose
each others proposals. As an initiative of the Obama Presidency, the policy
has suffered from partisan attacks, despite the collaborative framework it is based upon. Yet, such
begun ocean planning to enusure that future development will mimize impacts to the environment and existing users. Of course,
political gamesmanship by our federal leaders is obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean Policy are taking hold in
states and regions across the country, even without the meaningful support of Congress.
The U.S. Government may soon be taking two giant steps backward from recent
progress in environmental protection. In 2010, President Obama issued an executive order called the
National Ocean Policy, which ensures that beaches are kept clean, ocean wildlife and habitats are protected and that energy facilities (i.e. oil
Ocean Policy. Representative Norman Dicks (D-WA) explains it simply, The core approach of the National Ocean Policy is to improve
stewardship of our oceans, coasts, islands, and Great Lakes by directing government agencies with differing mandates to coordinate and work
better together. With more than twenty agencies and 140 laws in place to regulate ocean industries, the NOP effectively improves efficiency
through increased communication and cross-management. The oil and gas industries that utilize ocean resources must have continuous,
transparent interaction with the fishing, recreation and protection agencies so that the ocean habitats do not face the destructive windfall of
inconsistent policies across industries. While environmental protection should be motivation enough, the National Ocean Policy will also ensure
stability and promote growth of the ocean tourism and recreation industry. In 2009, this sector produced upwards of 1.8 million jobs and over
$60 billion of the nations GDP. In total, not even the U.S. farm industry matches the output of the U.S. ocean economy. So criticism based on
the efficiency and economic viability of the National Ocean Policy is completely unfounded and those that read the policy will understand this
the final spending bill, which will not be completed until later this year, and the Senate also has not yet finalized its bill. Before such action is
taken, support these critical ocean policy measures and ensure that the vital protection of ocean habitat is upheld.
trample on virtually every area related to the environment, from rolling back EPA
safeguards for waterways and wildlife that stand in the way of the pursuit of coal, to limiting the president's power to preserve land as
National Monuments.
. Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) offered an amendment
to a bill that would prohibit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from enforcing a rule that prohibits fishermen from snaring
House Democrats had an average score of 82, while their Senate counterparts scored 89. House Republicans had a score of 10, while GOP
Senators' average was 17. League of Conservation Voters 2012 Scores By Party The divide is also reflected in the scores of party leadership.
Democrats Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Majority Whip Dick Durbin were both deemed environmental champions by LCV with perfect
scores of 100, while Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip Jon Kyl both had dismal scores of 7, only voting for
two eco-friendly measures that also concerned subsidies for farmers. In the House, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi scored 94 and
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer scored 91 for their attempts to stem the deluge of environmentally corrosive laws. Republican Majority Leader Eric
Cantor scored 3, voting against or abstaining on everything except flood insurance reform, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy scored 6, voting
against the protection of the water supply in his home state of California. (Speaker of the House John Boehner got a pass because the speaker
Environment Arctic
Arctic environmental policy costs capital its viewed as a
climate change issue
Andrew Holland is the senior fellow for energy and climate at the American
Security Project, a non-partisan national security think tank 9-26- 2013
America is failing to meet challenges of a changing Arctic
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130926/america-failing-meetchallenges-changing-arctic DA: 6/7/14
Americas Arctic
made it difficult
Sea ice is melting quicker
, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness
for us to take advantage of the vast resources and enormous opportunity of the region. Today,
the Arctic
have
and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker colored than ice, so
it collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below
historical averages and maintains a downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely
ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of
Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface
and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy
resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within
the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other
major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska.
But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without
our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering
Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy
exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as
"only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships
from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea
Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji
Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action,
Russia will certainly set the standards. The United States has not fully claimed territory in the Arctic to the fullest extent of International Law because the U.S. Congress refuses to ratify the Law of the Sea
Convention. The other four nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor
beneath the North Pole. They are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the
Law of the Sea so that we can have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally, we need a military presence in order to maintain the security in our sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today,
neither the U.S. Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the
surface on strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an
extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could
cost over $800 million. In todays federal budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is uncertain. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in
the world, and is currently constructing what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President
policy in
necessary
a changing
Marine Protected Areas/Marine Zoning. Here there is good news. Keep in mind, marine protected
areas can be a useful tool where there's a demonstrated need and good science is applied. Likewise, marine spatial planning could be helpful
in the future to resolve space use conflicts between competing ocean uses. However, our concern has been with the misuse of the former and
cow for environmental groups, pocketing massive amounts of foundation grants to fund their campaigns, whether or not there is any need or
the science to justify such closures. Some green groups have begun sounding like salesmen for monster pick-ups or Internet shills for male
enhancement pills -- "bigger is better." Then there have been the academics sniffing-out grants from writing or testifying about the benefits of
marine reserves -- whether or not the science is credible. Follow that up with politicians and bureaucrats falling in line to promote marine
reserves to get their League of Conservation Voters green points -- either trying for a perfect score or to avoid a goose egg -- and you can kiss
quality issues that have to be addressed -- not just fishing -- to make an effective marine protected area. Indeed, many of the already
designated areas protect little, they're merely no fishing zones, sort of like Maginot Lines in the sea readily penetrated by pollution and oil
spills. But then we haven't seen much from politicians or bureaucrats, to date, at either the federal or state level with the backbone to address
likely
." A two-year slow down to allow for a
more thoughtful, consensus driven, marine zoning policy to evolve would be welcome. The way we'd envision this happening is that
arent more being created? The short answer is that fishers, in general, hate them. Or at
best they distrust them. Marine reserves are usually set up in the most welcoming fish habitat, which anglers, of
well, why
course, consider the best fishing spots. But scientists and conservationists point out that unless more marine reserves are established, there
When it
comes to marine reserves, everything is negotiable, and confusion is common. There
are few clear hard-and-fast rules as there are with terrestrial wilderness designations, partly
because the ocean is so much more dynamic and complex, and partly because theres no
congressional act establishing marine reserves as there is for federally protected wilderness. While the designations given to marine
protected areas ecosystem reserves, marine sanctuaries, marine reserves, marine monuments may be terms of art to
bureaucrats, to the rest of us theyre confusing and alienating.
going to use adaptive management, which means they can change the rules at any time. It really got confusing.
, before these fleets start increasing their fishing effort in the Pacific. Bushs latest reserves in the Central Pacific include the islands of Howland, Baker, Palmyra, Johnston, Jarvis, Wake and Kingman
Reef, making up the 215,000 sq km Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, along with the 35,000 sq km Rose Island Marine National Monument, just east of Pago Pago. In the Western Pacific, it involves a
small area around the northern-most Mariana Islands.
If Obama
the
administration
Steve Gaines say that added to the Phoenix Islands Protected Area and the Nauru Agreement no-take pockets of international waters, the measure could have some effect on the tuna stocks that provide income for
many Pacific nations. Usually the effect of marine protected areas on fish like tuna that travel all over the ocean is marginal, says Gaines, an authority on marine reserves who heads the Marine Science Institute at
the University of California at Santa Barbara. But if these multiple reserves are big enough, you could see increases in their populations. John Hampton, the Oceanic Fisheries Program Manager at the Secretariat of
the Pacific community, says that to be effective, marine protected areas need to go in tandem with reduced fishing outside those areas if the actual catch is to be reducedsomething that the Nauru Agreement
accomplishes by restricting fishing in the EEZs of its members as its bans its licensees from fishing in the high-seas pockets. Ironically,
opposition
to extending the monuments to the full EEZs of the 11 islands had nothing to do with fishing: it
. Even
though Bush specified in a memorandum last August that the monument designation should not limit the department of defense from carrying out its mission in the Pacific, senior Pentagon officials expressed
concern that it could lead to future restrictions on their ability to carry out their tasks. They cited lawsuits restricting the use of active sonar, which injures whales and dolphins that arose from Bushs designation of
the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands monument two years ago. Without the Navy, I think the monuments would have been a lot bigger, said one environmentalist.
opposition from
to ban
fishing
recreational
recreational
Then came
urged Bush not
representing them
in any of the monuments, even though virtually none is taking place there or is likely to take place there in the foreseeable future because of their remote
locationswith the exception of Palmyra, which hosts a few dozen fishermen a year. We do not support any unnecessary closures to recreational fishing unless there is a scientific determination that shows
recreational fishing is harming the ecosystem, said Patty Doerr of the American Sportfishing Association. She added that the only way for a closure to be justified in the Pacific areas would be for recreational fishing
to be introduced and for it to demonstrably harm the environment. The new set of closed areas will have little immediate effect: Hawaiis 123 long-liners were spending less than 5 percent of their time there, NOAA
figures show, and the waters off the northernmost Marianas, which have few tuna, are not fished at all. But that did not prevent
Pacific marine conservationists old nemesis,
Council
, a federal agency whose executive director, Kitty Simonds, has fought restrictions on fishing for three decades. Wespac is tasked with protecting the interests of fishing companies as well as
insuring that these interests dont reduce fish stocks, but it has presided over the rapid collapse of lobster stocks in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and a steep decline in the fish stocks of the Main Hawaiian
Islands. It has even encouraged the issuance of commercial bottom-fishing and lobster-fishing permits in the National Wildlife Refuges of Baker, Howland, Kingman, Jarvis, Johnston and Palmyra, in violation of
federal laws, says Jim Maragos, a veteran Fish and Wildlife Service scientist. In Saipan, where tourism and the garment industry are in free-fall, a pro-monument petition attracted 6000 signatures and the Hotel
Association and the Chamber of Commerce endorsed turning the waters around the three northernmost islandsMaug, Asuncion and Uracusinto a marine national monument. Almost no one is able to enjoy
these islands at this time, wrote Lynn Knight, chairwoman of the association, in a letter to Bush, while monument status would boost the local economy in promoting ecotourism. In contrast, the governor and
most of the legislature have voiced their opposition to what they call The Pew Monument in language that strikingly resembles Wespacs. The opposition was led by Wespac in every regard, said Rick Gaffney, a
former Wespac council member. Without Wespac, added Andrew Salas, a former Marianas legislator, the opposition would have been minimal. There would have been a bit of grumbling because relations
between the Marianas government and the federal government are pretty bad these days, but thats it, because the overwhelming majority of the people support the monument. Wespac is under investigation by
the US General Accountability Office and the Inspector General of the Commerce Department for suspected illegal lobbying. In a letter to Bush that received wide publicity in Saipan, Aha Kiole, an organisation
essentially created by Wespac to prevent marine reserves from being created in Hawaii, accused the president of having created the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands reserve without the participation of the Native
Hawaiian people, all of whom feel anger, trepidation and despair whenever the monument is mentioned. Although more than 100 hearings were held on the issue over six years, the letter asserts that most
Hawaiians did not know that the Pew Foundation was planning to take three-fourths of Hawaiian lands and make it into a monument. (In fact, the total land area of the ten-islet monument is 13 sq km, while the
rest of Hawaii totals 16,635sq km). The Marianas monument, the letter continued, will take an integral part of the Marianas culture away from the native peoplewith no hope of ever getting this part of their
heritage back. Like all federal agencies, Wespac is barred from spending federal funds to lobby the legislative branches of state and federal government. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, and the Inspector General of the Commerce Department are currently both investigating allegations that Wespac lobbied the US Congress and the Hawaii legislature to push its pro-fishing, anticonservation agenda, notably in creating Aha Kiole. In Saipan, much of the political elite has ties to Wespac. The governors chief of staff, Ray Mafnas, is a senior, unsalaried Wespac official who collects over US$600
a day every time he travels for Wespac. Arnold Palacios, Speaker of the House, is a former member of the Wespac council. He wrote in a letter to Bush that the loss of control over such a vast area of land and water
is an assault on the traditions and culture of the islands. The representative Speaker Palacios appointed as chairman of the House Federal Relations Committee, Representative Diego Benavente, is a former
lieutenant governor who is running for governor. He engineered the approval of two He was president of the Saipan Fishermens Association in 2005 when it got a US$150,000 grant from Wespac to rent and equip a
store to sell its members catch. But this past December, the Marianas Variety reported that the store had closed two months after it opened because of unexpected expenses like utilities, rent, and salaries.
Benavente was quoted as saying: We ran out of money, basically. Valentin Taisakan, the mayor of the Northern Islands Municipality, which lies south of the three islands designated as a monument by Bush in
January, also wrote to Bush in opposition to the monument. Taisakan, who lives in Saipan, received a US$90,000 Wespac grant to create a fishing base in his remote municipality, but the base never opened,
according to Saipan sources. In another letter to Bush opposing the designation, Juan Borja Tudela, the mayor of Saipan, where most of the Marianas 65,000 people live, said the monument waters should be left
under the control of Wespac, which he called much more sensitive to the Pacific Islanders way of life. Wespacs vice-chairman, Manny Duenas, head of a fishermens group in Guam, went further in his own letter
The
result of all this opposition,
was a
reserve truncated into three segments all falling far short of
the goals
to Bush. The taking of our marine resources may be construed as being no different than cattle rustling and it would serve as a springboard to ensure the cultural genocide of a people, he wrote.
and of negotiations between James Connaughton, Bushs environmental adviser, and Gov. Benigno Fitial,
Marianas marine
articulated by its proponents: The Islands Unit around Maug, Asuncion and Uracus is only 42,500 sq km instead of the 300,000 sq km proposed by Lubchenco and Pew; The
Marianas Trench unit is 205,000 sq km, but it only protects the seabed and does not restrict fishing. The trenchs bottom fauna, including bacteria that are the oldest forms of life on earth, depends on rain of
nutrients from the surface area for food. The third component is a collection of 21 volcanic vents spewing bubbles and lava of great scientific interest. But since the area protected for each vent is just over a
square kilometre and some volcanoes have calderas up to 10 km across, the protection appears to be meaningless, specialists say.
such powers. President George W. Bush, impatient with government procedures, invoked the Antiquities Act to create the
nation's largest marine protected areas, surrounding the Northwest Hawaiian Islands and the Northern Marianas Islands.
Research Funding
for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this
in Congress
passed
two
of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective
appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten
years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget
request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly
70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The
President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas,
including ports, to spur job growth and enhance our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime
Administration ("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program;
$81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's
sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of
managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference
cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or
5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast
Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded
under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated
National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for consolidating the grants into one block
grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation is passed this year. For NOAA,
requested
the President
has
a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the
National Ocean Service, of which the Marine Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186
an increase of $21
oceanographic research
The House
is likely to
pass
bills
vastly different from the White House's request
Members
have
questioned whether funding can be provided for the
NOAA
It
also remains to be seen whether Congress can revert to regular
order,
this is not likely to happen in the near term
The government keeps limping along with cuts
from sequester delays in Congressional approval for spending plans,
and uncertainties in the outcome
The House and Senate will
have to debate their respective
visions
Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt
ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and
million to support
are currently holding a series of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests.
appropriation
of Representatives
that are
. In fact,
of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee,
full
already
Commerce/
budgets.
i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-
for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are
delayed.
once again
for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a
stand out is that unlike many projects funded through a questionable process known as earmarks think Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" it enjoys wide support in and out of
Congress and forms a part of the federal government's official ocean policy. "GoMoos has really been a groundbreaking model for the whole country," says Rick Wahle of
the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. "And now the plug may be being pulled." Monitoring America's oceans The Portland-based network
was supposed to serve as the prototype of an integrated national system of ocean-monitoring stations that would gather and process oceanographic information and
release it free of charge to the public, much as the National Weather Service does with atmosphere data. Ten other regional ocean observing systems have been
established across the United States and are in varying degrees of development. Gathering such information is seen as a crucial step toward better managing the nation's
oceans, which extend up to 200 miles offshore. For example: Many of the nation's fisheries have been fished into near oblivion, their recovery undermined by the
deterioration of wetlands, coral reefs, and estuaries that many species rely on. There's expert consensus that ocean politics should be revamped to take into account how
marine ecosystems work and that a national ocean-observing system is needed to collect the data that scientists require to properly understand the system. The
establishment of such a national system was one of the key 2004 recommendations of the US Commission on Ocean Policy, a body appointed by President Bush. The
official report urged Congress to commit $650 million annually to build and maintain the system, which it said would have "invaluable economic, societal, and
environmental benefits." One of those benefits has been improved search and rescue. "We're often trying to predict where survivors will have drifted over the time it takes
for us to get to them, so we rely on predictive models of wind and currents," says Art Allen of the Coast Guard's search and rescue headquarters in Washington, D.C.
"These systems allow our controllers to get the best available data at a push of a button, increasing the precision of our analysis and getting us there faster." Fishermen
use data on deep-water temperatures and the abundance of microscopic floating plants to figure out where fish might be, while many of Maine's recreational boaters have
grown accustomed to getting detailed information on offshore wind and seas. Scientists are also keenly interested in the data to figure out how to harvest marine life
without destroying the ocean's ability to produce it. "These buoys are unique in that they collect temperature and current information not just at the surface, but at various
intervals of depth," says Dr. Wahle, who studies the lobsters that support Maine's signature fishery. "With bottom-dwelling creatures like lobsters, it's far more important to
know what's going on deep beneath the ocean." Funding problems Now, GoMoos may be forced to shut down. "We may be pulling out some of our buoys, or we may be
pulling all of them," says Tom Shyka, GoMoos' chief operating officer. "We're working on other funding opportunities to avoid that, but we're definitely in a period of
squeeze
uncertainty." Other
same
. "We do not have
enough money to sustain the system in the long term," says Madilyn Fletcher, director of The Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction System in Columbia, S.C.,
observing systems relied on congressional earmarks to cover most of their operations, but these were stripped from this year's budget. "Given the scandalous results of
the earmark process in recent years, something needed to be done," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, which opposes
Whaling
Whaling Controversial
Whaling exemption, including process by which it is
achieved, massively controversial, ensuring debate about
the plan
Kamb, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5
[Lewis, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 3-20-5, Makah try long shot: asking
Congress to allow whale hunts, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Makahtry-long-shot-asking-Congress-to-allow-1169021.php, accessed 7-10-14, AFB]
Tribe's whalers await chance to hunt again
Already pursuing an obscure administrative waiver in its struggle to
one day hunt whales again, the Makah Indian Nation is now also
exploring its options on another front: Congress.
During a recent visit to the nation's capital, tribal officials informally raised to
members of Washington's congressional delegation the idea of seeking a bill
to allow an exception for Makah whale hunts.
"We've just talked to them a little at this point," Makah Chairman Ben Johnson
Jr. said last week. "Whether anything will come of it, who knows?"
Such discussions -- still embryonic, at best -- have yet to yield any promises
of support. There is no such bill now, nor any guarantees from lawmakers
that there ever will be one.
In fact, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., already appears to be somewhat
distancing herself from any potential proposal to allow for a tribal
whaling exception.
"It is very unlikely that she would try to use the Senate to force this issue,"
Cantwell spokeswoman Charla Neuman said last week.
The Makah have a whaling tradition that dates back some 2,000 years, but
the tribe suspended its whale hunts in the 1920s -- in part because the
commercial whaling industry had hunted gray whales nearly to extinction.
In 1994, with the mammals' numbers rebounding, the federal government
removed the gray whale from the endangered species list. And the tribe
began taking steps to whale again.
The Makah -- with support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration -- eventually won a small annual harvest quota from the
International Whaling Commission. In 1999, tribal whalers successfully
brought in the tribe's first whale in more than 70 years.
Animal protection activists soon sued the tribe and its federal
backers, winning a string of legal victories to stop the hunts.
In its most recent opinion, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
NOAA should have conducted a more stringent environmental analysis before
endorsing the hunts. The court also ruled that, before the tribe can legally
hunt again, it must first seek and win an exception to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
The 1972 federal law generally prohibits anyone in the United States
from harming gray whales or other sea mammals.
The Makah had argued that because they had an explicit right to hunt whales
in their 1855 treaty with the U.S. government, the tribe wasn't subject to the
law.
But the court disagreed. And instead of appealing to the Supreme Court and
risking the chance of setting bad precedent for other tribes, the Makah opted
to comply with the ruling last month by filing an application with NOAA for a
waiver to the law.
Winning such an exception -- a pursuit that could take two years or more of
administrative hearings and paperwork -- has never happened before,
officials say.
While that process moves ahead, the Makah are considering what might
be their only other option: congressional help.
Tribal representatives met individually late last month with Cantwell, Sen.
Patty Murray, D-Wash., and U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., among others, to
discuss the possibility of seeking a whaling exception through federal
legislation.
Alaskan Natives, who don't have treaty rights, are allowed to hunt whales
under an exception that was written into the mammal protection law when it
was enacted more than 30 years ago. So why shouldn't the Makah -- the only
Native American tribe with an express treaty right to whale -- also be exempt
from the law? "We just think it's unfair," said John Arum, the tribe's attorney.
Some opponents of the tribe's hunts actually may prefer that the
Makah receive a whaling exception through Congress rather than
winning one through an administrative process, Arum added. The
latter would be a first-of-its-kind waiver that some opponents have
said could open the doors to others who may want to seek to whale.
But Naomi Rose, a marine mammal biologist for the Humane Society of the
United States -- among the coalition of opponents that sued to stop the
Makah's hunts -- said either scenario is unacceptable.
"For us, it's a real simple equation: We do not want them hunting gray whales
again, period," she said.
The animal protection group has since voiced its concerns to
Washington's congressional delegation over any potential tribal
whaling bill -- even though activists foresee the tribe's legislative
prospects to be unlikely.
"To get an amendment to the law like that passed, you have to have
an awful lot of friends on the Hill," Rose said. "We don't think they
have enough."
Development
Aquaculture Unpopular
Plan-Specific Link: Aquaculture [1/1]
( ) The plans unpopular with likely voters they ignore the economic
benefits of aquaculture and focus only on environmental drawbacks
Knapp 2011
[Gunnar. Prof Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research. The Political
Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture March 2011
https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf] we do not endorse the genered
language in this card
ocean for recreational use, and commercial fishermen and aquaculturists must
make their case locally to people who have no history or link with the ocean for
making a living (Thomas, 2011). These groups opposition is vexing and frustrating to marine
aquaculture supporters who feel that the objections and fears of aquaculture opponents are exaggerated,
unfounded, or simply irrational. How do you argue with people who without any scientific
basis believe that marine aquaculture will destroy commercial fisheries? How do
you argue with people who claim that fish farms that will be barely visible will destroy
their coastal view? How do you argue with people who appear to be unwilling to
accept any level of risk or change?
Aquaculture Unpopular
Environmental lobby drowns out support for aquaculturepeople who should support it dont
Seafood News 2007 [Seafood News July 16, 2007 The big mistake
swordfish a break campaign, the ones likely to be hurt by this are American consumers and the
environmental groups
are opposed to everything but closed land based system
aquaculture, they should say so, but not be taken seriously on this bill. For the rest, who see a long
environmentally responsible aquaculture companies, like Kona Blue. If
term future in Aquaculture, a responsible compromise today to get a workable bill will yield long term
results tomorrow.
we said, all these problems and viruses! What does (Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister Sterling Belliveau)
say? He says to me,
damage to wild fish stocks. Coastal residents, who fear loss of access to
waterfront and changes in the views they enjoy. Environmentalists,
who worry variously that marine aquaculture will cause pollution,
harm marine ecosystems, or increase pressure on global wild fish
stocks harvested for production of fishmeal and fish oil used in fish feeds. These groups
play significant roles in the politics of United States marine
aquaculture, across the political and regulatory process at local, state,
and national levels. For example, Alaska salmon fishermen spearheaded
the Alaska legislatures 1990 ban on finfish farming, and continue
to vocally oppose aquaculture development in federal waters nationwide, along
with Alaskas congressional delegation (Figure 4). Similarly, coastal residents have
strongly and effectively opposed marine aquaculture in states
such as Maine and Washington. Sebastian Belle, Executive Director of the Maine
Aquaculture Association, described the political challenges facing aquaculture as a result of
demographic shifts in coastal regions: In Mainepart of the application process for the series of
permits and licenses needed to operate in the marine environment is an exhaustive series of meetings
with the general public and all stakeholde. Part of the constituency will not like what you do, whatever
you do. [Because of] a demographic shift to a population-base of retirees from other states, as summerhome visitors to our beautiful coast became year-round residents, coastal communities now view the
ocean for recreational use, and commercial fishermen and aquaculturists must make their case locally
to people who have no history or link with the ocean for making a living (Thomas, 2011).
being new and small also raises political challenges for U.S.
marine aquaculture. Because it is new and small, it is harder to
demonstrate the benefits and easier to exaggerate the risks of
marine aquaculture (Figure 3). As noted by Tiersch and Hargreaves (2002), new
resource industries such as aquaculture face a different political
playing field than older resource industries such as logging:A core concept of
But
the environmental movement is the precautionary principle, which basically states that it is wise to
avoid unnecessary risk This principle is biased towards slowing or stopping the development of new
of proof from environmental advocates to practitioners such that new
activities, like aquaculture, must show that they will not be a
problem in the future. This is in contrast to the situation for
established industries detractors must prove that the
established industry presents a problem. Of course, newer industries
also lack the financial and political resources of groups such as
logging, mining and petroleum extraction interests and large chemical
corporations. It is easier to restrict or stop aquaculture projects, despite their much smaller
environmental risk than it is to attempt to control more damaging established activities. Thus
be required later. To overcome the political challenges it faces, U.S. marine aquaculture will need
committed supporters at all levels of the political and policy process. It will need fish farmers and
employees who tell their friends and neighbors and elected officials about the benefits of aquaculture. It
will need supporters who will testify at local public meetings, write letters to the editor, and are elected
to local, state, and federal office. It will need organized lobbying efforts to influence state and federal
All of this takes committed people and money. Because U.S.
marine aquaculture is new and small, relatively few Americans
have or realize they have a direct stake in it. That means that
it has fewer committed supporters, with less money and less
political influence. In much of the United States marine aquaculture is still below a political
threshold scale necessary for people to understand, accept, and effectively advocate for marine
aquaculture. Achieving this scale will be critical to overcoming political challenges. Marine aquaculture
will become politically stronger as it grows but it is difficult for it to grow without being politically
stronger.
The tradition that marine fish and waters are public resources
imposes an extra political and regulatory hurdle for the development of
aquaculture, especially for finfish farming. Before any kind of marine
aquaculture can begin, new mechanisms need to be created to
allow for exclusive use of marine waters. Efforts to implement
rights-based management regimes for wild fisheries, such as individual
fishing quotas, face similar strong philosophical resistance from many
Americans. However, as these new management regimes are implemented, public attitudes are
likely to shift as the economic logic and advantages of exclusive use rights become more
same process will likely occur with marine aquaculture but it will take time.
apparent. The
However,
effects of the hugely varied kinds of activities collectively known as aquaculture. Here, for example is a
statement posted on the website of the NGO Food and Water Watch:Many fish-lovers would be horrified
to learn that huge quantities of fish and shrimp are now being grown in giant nets, cages, and ponds
where antibiotics, hormones and pesticides mingle with disease and waste. These industrialized
aquaculture facilities are rapidly replacing natural methods of fishing that have been used to catch
millennia. It is difficult for people in industry,
government or science to refute these kinds of arguments when
they are held to much higher standards of argument and evidence.
of scientific journals,
articles.
aquaculture to oppose it. Clearly there are many things to be gained from
marine aquaculture; such as stable jobs, tax revenues, and synergies with
other marine industries. But, in many areas, aquaculture supporters have
failed to make the case effectively that aquaculture has these positive
potential benefits.
Aquaculture Controversial
Aquaculture is politically unpopularempirically prove
Fry, Commercial Fisher, 13
[Christy, 2/26/13, Homer News; Republished on the website of Congressman
Don Young, Young Introduces Aquaculture Bill ,
http://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?
DocumentID=322513, accessed 7/8/14, AC]
Alaska Congressman Don Young has introduced legislation that
would prohibit the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture
operations in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone, from 3 to 200 miles
from shore, unless specifically authorized by Congress.
"If not properly managed, farmed fish can be a significant threat to
the health of Alaska's wild stocks and the health of our oceans,"
Young said. "Alaska's seafood industry is one of the largest
employers in the state, and today's legislation will preserve
Congress' prerogative to determine what type of aquaculture
programs should and should not be conducted in our waters and
those adjacent to our waters."
Congress has never authorized open ocean aquaculture or provided
a legislative framework for managing finfish farms in the EEZ, in spite
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration drawing up a 10-year
plan in 2007 that had stated goals such as "By the end of 2007, develop
policies, guidelines and protocols for use in the review of proposed marine
aquaculture facilities by NOAA regional and program offices under current
NOAA mandates."
The most recent activity on the NOAA aquaculture website involves funding
opportunities for creating biofuels from algea:
"As part of the Energy Department's efforts to develop transportation fuels
that don't rely on petroleum, they announced on January 16 up to $10 million
available this year to help unlock the potential of biofuels made from algae.
The funding will support projects aimed at boosting the productivity of algae
and increasing the efficiency of algae harvesting technologies."
NOAA drew fire from commercial fishermen when it began
aggressively promoting aquaculture in federal waters, saying that
spending taxpayer dollars to create a system that would lower prices
for wild-caught products was inherently unfair.
However, the spotty nature of the project appears to have
diminished the immediate threat. Three separate bills submitted to
Congress in 2004, 2007 and 2009 failed to produce the regulatory
framework, failing to even move out of committee.
NOAA says that it has a commitment to developing sustainable aquaculture,
although its definition of "sustainable" is not found in any of its literature.
1NC- Aquaculture
Aquaculture expansion is a hot-button issue- political
firestorm
Hedlund 10 (Stephanie Hedlund, Seafood Source, Online Ocean Website,
Can open-ocean aquaculture reach its potential?,
http://www.seafoodsource.com/en/news/aquaculture/13719-can-open-oceanaquaculture-reach-its-potential, March 3, 2010)
The challenges facing open-ocean aquaculture and the industrys
potential for growth was a hot-button issue at the World
Aquaculture Societys Aquaculture 2010 conference in San Diego on
Wednesday. In U.S. waters, perhaps the two biggest obstacles are
the lack of a regulatory framework and opposition from
environmental NGOs. Neil Sims, co-founder and president of Kona Blue Water Farms, which
raises Kona Kampachi, a Hawaiian yellowtail, off Hawaiis Big Island, called on conference participants to
become not just advocates but also activists. There are more than 20,000 marine species, said Sims.
We have barely begun to scratch the surface. We should not be weighed down by the concerns of those
who have focused exclusively on Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest. We should be viewing these
issues from a global perspective. We should be claiming the moral high ground. Aquaculture is not part of
the problem, he added. We need to promote the wider debate about the future of seafood and the
future of the oceans. This is not a debate between fish farmers and environmentalists. Damn it, I am an
environmentalist. Thats why I got involved in this industry. This is a debate between environmentalists and
preservationist, who would prefer that we do nothing. We need to propagate the message that
2NC- Aquaculture
Causes environmental backlash
BB 5 (Bend Bugle News Reports, Boone pushes Congress to regulate
aquaculture, http://www.bendbugle.com/2005/06/boone-pushes-congress-toregulate-aquaculture/, June 16, 2005)
Boone (D-North Coast) wants the legislature
to vote on urging Congress to regulate the commercial production of
aquacultural products in the open ocean, Boones office announced
Wednesday. The North Coast legislator has introduced a joint memorial, which is a formal
Salem-State Representative Deborah
message to Congress, asking for passage of new federal legislation that requires the National Marine
Fisheries Service to develop regional inventories of waters in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that are
suitable for aquaculture. The legislation, proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAH), would require the designation of such waters to be consistent with preserving the naturally
occurring fish stocks and marine ecosystems that Oregons seafood industry relies on.
http://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=322513,
February 26, 2013)
Alaska Congressman Don Young has introduced legislation that
would prohibit the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture
operations in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone, from 3 to 200 miles from
shore, unless specifically authorized by Congress. "If not properly managed, farmed
fish can be a significant threat to the health of Alaska's wild stocks
and the health of our oceans," Young said. "Alaska's seafood
industry is one of the largest employers in the state, and today's
legislation will preserve Congress' prerogative to determine what
type of aquaculture programs should and should not be conducted in
our waters and those adjacent to our waters." Congress has never
authorized open ocean aquaculture or provided a legislative
framework for managing finfish farms in the EEZ, in spite of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration drawing up a 10-year plan in 2007 that had stated goals such as "By the end
of 2007, develop policies, guidelines and protocols for use in the review of proposed marine aquaculture
facilities by NOAA regional and program offices under current NOAA mandates." The most recent activity
on the NOAA aquaculture website involves funding opportunities for creating biofuels from algea: "As part
of the Energy Department's efforts to develop transportation fuels that don't rely on petroleum, they
announced on January 16 up to $10 million available this year to help unlock the potential of biofuels made
from algae. The funding will support projects aimed at boosting the productivity of algae and increasing
Link Aquaculture
Aquaculture development contentious definition and
jurisdiction controversies
Carolyn Gramling, staff writer for Science and is the editor of the News of
the Week section. She has a doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-bluefrontier-ocean-development DA: 6/4/14
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which defines fishing as harvesting, also applies to offshore
aquaculture, Bunsick of NOAA says. That definition has been an ongoing source of
contention: Many environmental groups contend that harvesting fish from offshore
farms is vastly different from fishing and should be subject to different regulatory
requirements. Although aquaculture so far is not big business in the United States, deepwater fish farms could have significantly greater
capacity, providing potentially tens of thousands more tons of seafood per year to increasingly health-conscious U.S. consumers. Stakeholders
Because inland and nearshore aquaculture falls under the Department of Agriculture, USDA chairs the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
formed in the 1980s after the National Aquaculture Act passed. The Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to issue permits for offshore
aquaculture facilities under the Rivers and Harbors Act. The Environmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Water Act, issues permits for
waste discharge into public waters (which would include waste produced by the fish). And the Food and Drug Administration has jurisdiction
over regulating the sale of fish that have been treated for disease.
the Week section. She has a doctoral degree in marine geochemistry from the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Joint Program for Oceanography, as well as bachelors degrees in geology and
history 3-1-2010 http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-bluefrontier-ocean-development DA: 6/4/14
offshore aquaculture
is appealing
The prospect of
in the deeper federal waters
for many reasons. Currently,
the United States imports more than 80 percent of the seafood it consumes, a seafood deficit that amounts to more than $9 billion annually.
And aquaculture is growing rapidly overseas: About half of the seafood imported by the United States originated in aquaculture farms, not in
consensus of the Council was that this was an important area for development for the United States, from the standpoint of seafood supply,
says Joe Hendrix, a member of the Gulf Council and a mariculture consultant in Houston, Texas. Furthermore, he says, it makes sense for the
regional councils to manage the industry. This process will not be the same in the Northwest as the Gulf or New England. Most of the fish
Hendrix says. Six years later, in January 2009, the Gulf Council approved the plan and sent it to the Secretary of Commerce for approval, a
lawmakers, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, Durged the secretary to reject the plan, citing both the confusion over
proper authority and environmental concerns. A regional plan, wrote Rep. Rahall in a February
2009 letter to the then-acting commerce secretary, would hardly be able to address how to allot ocean space to a growing list of industries.
LOST Unpopular
GOP Opposition
Huge Republican opposition past rallies against prove
Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for President George
W. Bush, 12
[Marc A., writer for The Post and former chief speechwriter to President
George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a former
senior aide to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, 716-12, Washington Post, Portman, Ayotte kill the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/portman-ayotte-killthe-law-of-the-sea-treaty/2012/07/16/gJQADpJEpW_blog.html, accessed 7-914, AAZ]
Conservatives have long opposed the U.N. Convention on the Law of
the Sea Treaty (LOST). The treaty would create a new global
governance institution (known ominously as The Authority) that would
regulate U.S. citizens and American businesses without being
accountable to the American people or their elected leaders.
During the Clinton administration, my old boss, the late former Senate
Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms, declared the treaty
dead on arrival. But with the arrival of the Obama administration, and
with Democrats in control of the Senate, there has been a renewed push
to ratify the treaty.
Those efforts suffered a setback last week when Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he would oppose ratification.
That meant 32 Senate Republicans had either publicly opposed, or
signed letters declaring their intention to vote against , the Law of the
Sea Treaty. Opponents needed just two more Republicans to declare
their opposition to reach the 34 votes necessary to kill it.
Those final two votes came through this afternoon, when Sens. Rob
Portman (R-Ohio) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) wrote to Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid declaring their intention to vote against the
treaty. As one might expect from Portman and Ayotte, the letter delivers a
studious examination of the costs and the benefits of ratification, and then
concludes:
We are deeply concerned about the treatys breadth and ambiguity, the
inadequate U.S. input in the treatys adjudicative bodies, and the automatic
enforcement of tribunal judgments in the United States. No international
organization owns the seas, and we are confident that our nation
will continue to protect its navigational freedom, valid territorial
claims, and other maritime rights. On balance, we believe the treatys
litigation exposure and impositions on U.S. sovereignty outweigh its potential
benefits. For that reason, we cannot support the Law of the Sea treaty and
would oppose its ratification.
Translation: Dead on arrival.
No doubt the news will bolster Ayottes standing as a rising conservative
leader in the Senate. And it will certainly raise Portmans standing in the
veepstakes, as he wins well-deserved plaudits from national security
conservatives for putting the final stake into the coffin of this long-despised
U.N. power-grab. (Disclosure: My wife is Portmans legislative director.)
Somewhere up there, Jesse Helms is smiling.
LOST Unpopular
Conservative opposition to the treaty would be strong
Ballasy 2012 [Nicholas Ballasy senior video reporter 5-9-2012 Daily Caller Panetta: US needs
bipartisan spirit and leadership that Dick Lugar embodies http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/09/panetta-usneeds-bipartisan-spirit-and-leadership-that-dick-lugar-embodies-video/]
president Ronald
Link LOST
LOST links Obama pushes and lots of opposition
Joseph Farah Editor-in-chief at World News Daily, formerly six years as
executive news editor at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner 6-10- 2012 LOST
appears lost for the year http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/lost-appears-lost-forthe-year/?cat_orig=world DA: 6/5/14
Obama administration has been pressing hard for passage of the Law of the Sea
its prospects this year appear dim, according to a report in Joseph Farahs G2 Bulletin. The U.S.
Senate has been trying to pass the treaty since 1994. For those who object to it, there
remain serious security and sovereignty concerns. Also, there is an upcoming
presidential election in which Barack Obama will want to avoid controversy surrounding the treaty as long as those concerns remain. The
Senate needs 67 votes to agree to the treaty and even supporters believe there is little
prospect of obtaining that number. Some 162 countries have signed up to the treaty since it was first
While the
Treaty,
introduced in 1982. However, President Ronald Reagan refused then to sign up to the treaty. President Bill Clinton did sign the treaty but even
with changes the Senate didnt provide an advise and consent vote on it. Thats because the concerns raised then by Reagan in refusing to
sign the treaty remain. They include the fact that while the treaty would give the United States even greater access to oil, minerals and
precious metals found on the ocean floor beyond the 200-mile territorial limit, the issue of revenue in which the U.S. would have to pay a
International Seabed Authority. Critics say there is no say over where the money then would go. Reagan at the time was concerned that
monies would go to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The treaty also would force the U.S. to share any deep sea technology that most
Sea Treaty is a kind of Rorschach test, in which, if the right sort of person looks closely enough, one can discern all the evils of the United
Nations and international law. A bunch of dictators will ride roughshod over American interests. The United States will be constrained by
weaker powers, like Gulliver pinned down by the Lilliputians. And Obama's real identity as a one-world government socialist will be exposed.
Cliff Kincaid, the president of the group America's Survival, argued, "Our national survival is at stake. Our sovereignty is at risk and in danger.
We need your immediate help to avert a catastrophe." This is what Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style in American politics": the
fearful suspicions and conspiratorial fantasies found throughout American history, from Salem witches to Communists. Kincaid warned, "If we
UN Derangement
Syndrome has infected some wider elements of American conservatism.
don't defeat this treaty, the battle against the New World Order will be lost." Worryingly,
Dick Morris argued that a plot to create "one world government" is "happening." Donald Rumsfeld wrote in his memoirs that the Law of the
Sea: "would put all natural resources found in the seabeds of international waters ... into the hands of what was ominously called the
International Seabed Authority." If the Senate ratifies the treaty, Stephen Groves wrote, the U.S. Treasury will be "raided for billions of dollars,"
Twenty-seven Republican
senators signed a letter opposing ratification of the treaty -- just seven votes short of enough
which will then be "redistributed to the rest of the world by an international bureaucracy."
House members clashed Tuesday over a White House plan that essentially calls for zoning the oceans,
with Republicans charging that it already has created more job-killing bureaucracy and
Democrats saying it could give Americans more certainty on how they can use busy public waters. "It has the potential to stunt economic growth and the jobs associated
with that growth," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the top-ranked Democrat on
the panel, likened the idea formally known as marine spatial planning to making plans for air space. "Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air-traffic control," he
Hastings, who represents an agricultural district, said he feared that the ocean-planning
process ultimately could lead to new regulations on lands adjacent to rivers
and watersheds that drain into the ocean. "For example," he said, "a farmer working hundreds of miles from
the coastline could be at risk of a new layer of regulatory review based on the ocean." At a committee hearing Tuesday called by Hastings, business
groups assailed the proposal, and an official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
said.
accused the White House of trying to promote the plan with little fanfare, even though it could have a big impact. "From my vantage point, the national ocean policy is the
most significant issue affecting energy security, job creation and economic growth that no one has heard about," said Christopher Guith, the chamber's vice president for
policy.
ing
, Guith said the proposal would have a
"plethora of impacts on the country" and add "yet another maze of real or de facto regulation for businesses to attempt to navigate." "At a time of anemic economic
growth and persistently high unemployment, the country is looking to its leaders to reverse these trends," Guith said. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said the U.S. must do better
planning for its waters to reverse its "current destructive path." He called the current situation "a bureaucratic mess," noting that more than 140 federal laws and dozens
of agencies have jurisdiction over ocean space. "The terrifying fact is ... that our ocean economy is at risk," Farr said. "Just this summer, a growing 83-mile dead zone in the
Chesapeake Bay was described by scientists as the worst in history." Hastings said he called the oversight hearing because President Barack Obama acted without
he said the
president's new "tangled web of bureaucracy" is sure to lead to White
House requests for more federal spending. "With the stroke of the pen, President Obama created a new,
congressional approval when he created a task force to come up with new policies to manage the oceans and the nation's coastlines. And
huge, top-down bureaucracy that could override states and local authorities and change the way activities on the oceans, coasts and far inland will be managed," Hastings
said. "The executive order creates 10 national policies, a 27-member national ocean council, an 18-member governance coordinating committee and nine regional
planning bodies." But most alarming, Hastings said, is "the mandatory ocean zoning ordered to be imposed." "Disguised with the label of coastal marine spatial planning,
ocean zoning could place huge sections of the ocean off-limits to activities not zoned as government-approved," Hastings said. He added that the scope of the president's
plan "goes well beyond the oceans and includes the federalization of the Great Lakes, where states could be dictated to by a regional planning body on where certain
economic activities are allowed." Barry Rutenberg, chairman-elect of the National Association of Home Builders, said homebuilders already compete in one of the most
He expressed
concern that ocean planning would focus too heavily on climate
change. Markey accused opponents of using "scare tactics" by suggesting the plan
highly regulated industries and that the already-battered industry cannot be "weighed down by additional regulatory burdens."
would lead to fewer jobs. He said the word "plan" is not a dirty word and that making plans on how to best use ocean space would promote both commerce and comity, in
some cases even allowing development to move more quickly because rules would already be in place.
Colorado Law Review in 2008. Throughout the past decade, stakeholders and policymakers alike have increasingly called for more streamlined government plans for
2000 by Congress to assess the health of the oceans, published a report in 2004 that
national oceans council, finding that the confusion over conflicting mandates between agencies made it difficult to regulate environmental concerns such as non-pointsource pollution. Shortly after the U.S. Commissions report, an interdisciplinary group of scientists focused on offshore aquaculture, outlining a policy framework on the
subject for NOAA. The group also recommended the creation of a new NOAA Office of Offshore Aquaculture to oversee leasing, environmental review and monitoring of the
But none of this has happened yet. A pair of 2007 House and Senate
bills to provide authority to the Department of Commerce (the department that includes NOAA) to establish a regulatory
fledgling industry.
system for offshore aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone didnt even make it out of committee, in
part because they lacked sufficient environmental safeguards, Leonard says. They were widely criticized as
fundamentally flawed, he adds. For example, the bills left many environmental mitigation measures up to the discretion of the Secretary
of Commerce, rather than establishing legally binding national standards. Many of us were concerned that that kind of discretion opens the door for putting ocean
management has long taken precedence over national policy. NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (first enacted in 1976 and later amended in 1996 and 2007), is responsible for managing commercial fishing operations, including regulatory
requirements on permits and size limits. But most of the management decisions and fishing regulations are determined regionally by eight regional fishery management
councils, each consisting of various stakeholders related to the fishing industry, as well as state and federal representatives.
Marine Protected Areas/Marine Zoning. Here there is good news. Keep in mind, marine protected
areas can be a useful tool where there's a demonstrated need and good science is applied. Likewise, marine spatial planning could be helpful
in the future to resolve space use conflicts between competing ocean uses. However, our concern has been with the misuse of the former and
cow for environmental groups, pocketing massive amounts of foundation grants to fund their campaigns, whether or not there is any need or
the science to justify such closures. Some green groups have begun sounding like salesmen for monster pick-ups or Internet shills for male
enhancement pills -- "bigger is better." Then there have been the academics sniffing-out grants from writing or testifying about the benefits of
marine reserves -- whether or not the science is credible. Follow that up with politicians and bureaucrats falling in line to promote marine
reserves to get their League of Conservation Voters green points -- either trying for a perfect score or to avoid a goose egg -- and you can kiss
quality issues that have to be addressed -- not just fishing -- to make an effective marine protected area. Indeed, many of the already
designated areas protect little, they're merely no fishing zones, sort of like Maginot Lines in the sea readily penetrated by pollution and oil
spills. But then we haven't seen much from politicians or bureaucrats, to date, at either the federal or state level with the backbone to address
likely
." A two-year slow down to allow for a
more thoughtful, consensus driven, marine zoning policy to evolve would be welcome. The way we'd envision this happening is that
Resources Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on dams, dredging and flood control. The Endowment would establish a permanent
the Army Corps to participate in the Obama administrations National Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower the EPA to control the property of his drought-plagued
could reduce conflict, redundancy and government waste, putting urban planning in the water column, in the words of former Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral
Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding
to a disaster. And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas. Unfortunately
progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean
continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare
(large marine snail). In 2004 ocean conservationists held their first Blue Vision Summit in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam Farr (DCalif.) called for a Big Ocean Bill, to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first
blue ribbon panels to examine the state of Americas blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency, George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the
Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal commissions recommendations along with those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now retired), Leon
Panetta. As a result Americas seas continue to be poorly managed by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal approach to their oversight under 144 separate
laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions recommendations that he
there were thrilled to hear the new White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the
Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to
mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses.
mapping, monitoring, conservation and restoration projects work that is critical to coastal economies that rely on a healthy ocean with well-managed resources. It
reflects the belief that the federal government has an important role
to play in strengthening coastal communities, helping ocean-dependent businesses and improving the health of our ocean environment. By
contrast, the WRDA bill passed by the House of Representatives includes an amendment from Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would
undermine our National Ocean Policy, smart ocean planning and ecosystem approaches to ocean resource management. In an era when we need
government to work better, smarter, and more effectively, the National Ocean Policy and smart ocean planning are just common sense. They allow
the local, state, tribal and federal entities responsible for ocean management to work across jurisdictional boundaries and proactively tackle challenges in a forward-
This legislative
head-to-head dispute reflects the broader ideological struggle that
haunts the halls of Congress today. Its between those who believe that
the government can be a vehicle to serve the common good and
those who believe that nearly all government action restricts
personal freedom. We have for too long taken the ocean for granted. Its immense size and apparent resilience fooled us into thinking that
looking way. To take those tools away would be bad for ocean health, bad for the ocean economy and bad for coastal communities.
humans could draw on it for limitless protein and use it as a garbage dump. But now the ocean and our coastal communities face serious challenges. Coral reefs are in
steep decline. Many fisheries continue to struggle. Water quality problems and toxic algae blooms threaten beaches and clam diggers. Ocean acidification is worsening
each year, threatening multigeneration family-owned shellfish farms. Trash litters the open ocean, occasionally exacerbated by tragic events such as the Japanese
tsunami. And sea level rise is just over the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful long-term engagement to protect and enhance ocean
of a permanent ocean endowment was proposed back in 2004 by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy a commission appointed entirely by President George W. Bush.
When the commission first floated the idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft report and asked governors for comment, support was overwhelming and bipartisan. Of the 20
coastal governors who submitted comments on an ocean trust fund, 19 supported the idea six Democrats and 13 Republicans. Only one Democratic governor expressed
any opposition.
Right now,
National
can
safeguard the
existing
Policy in one fell swoop. How? Well, its a tale of two bills. The House and the Senate both recently passed versions of a bill called the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), but
their versions are different. The Senate version would establish a National Endowment for the Oceans (NEO), which would expand scientific research, provide planning and resource management, restore habitat and
much more. Conversely,
guts the
NOP
) that ensures
smart use of ocean resources. Soon, a committee made up of members of Congress from both chambers will come together in a conference to combine the two bills into a single final version. The ocean will either
get a big win or suffer a big loss. Whats at stake? Following the recommendations of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, NEO would invest in our oceans future. The endowment authorizes grants to
state, regional and tribal entities as well as academic institutions and nonprofit organizations to support ocean and Great Lakes research and restoration projects such as: Restoration of wetlands, coral reefs, sea
grass beds and watersheds Mapping, monitoring, observation and modeling of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes systems Adaptation to the impacts of climate change and mitigation of coastal hazards, including
infrastructure protection Research and monitoring of ocean acidification, hypoxia and harmful algal blooms Conservation of sensitive marine, coastal and Great Lakes species and their habitats Baseline data
collection, ecosystem assessments and mapping for use in planning for new sustainable ocean uses and protecting ecosystem health Planning for sustainable coastal development To put the importance of this work
into perspective, consider that scientists estimate that weve explored less than 5 percent of the ocean, that 91 percent of ocean species remain undiscovered, and that we have better maps of the surface of Mars
than we do of the United States territorial ocean waters. Moreover, NEOs investments would create jobs and support coastal economies. They would also ensure that present and future generations benefit from
the ecological, economic, educational, social, cultural, spiritual, nutritional and recreational resources of our ocean, coasts and Great Lakes. Then, theres the NOP. When it comes to making decisions that impact our
ocean, every tool should be on the table for gathering and sharing information. The NOP is one of those vital, common-sense tools. It allows the entities responsible for ocean use planning to coordinate with each
other, increasing efficiency and reducing redundancy. The NOP also pushes ocean and coastal management out to the regional level, putting ocean management decisions in the hands of on-the-ground people and
Attacks on
the NOP have ranged from hyperbolic to hysterical with the latest one
coming in the form of an amendment
offered by
Flores
The rider attempts to block full implementation of the NOP
businesses that will be impacted by ocean management decisions. In the words of Sen. Edward Markey, opposing the National Ocean Policy is like opposing air traffic control.
,
to WRDA
district.
Flores
Rep. Bill
. It would prohibit
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a key coastal and ocean management agency, from coordinating with coastal states, other federal agencies and the public as they engage in smart ocean planning.
Street Journal. In 2002, he shared the Gerald Loeb Award for his coverage of
the unfolding Enron scandal, 12-31- 2013 Nuclear Waste Sits on Ocean
Floor
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230477310457926856
3658319196 DA: 6/8/14
More than four decades after
forgotten Cold War legacy in its waters: tens of thousands of steel drums of atomic waste. From 1946 to 1970, federal records show, 55-gallon drums and other containers of nuclear waste were pitched into the
Atlantic and Pacific at dozens of sites off California, Massachusetts and a handful of other states. Much of the trash came from government-related work, ranging from mildly contaminated lab coats to waste from
the country's effort to build nuclear weapons. Federal officials have long maintained that, despite some leakage from containers, there isn't evidence of damage to the wider ocean environment or threats to public
health through contamination of seafood. But a Wall Street Journal review of decades of federal and other records found unanswered questions about a dumping program once labeled "seriously substandard" by a
senior Environmental Protection Agency official: How many dump sites are there? Over the years, federal estimates have ranged from 29 to more than 60. How much of various types of radioisotopes are in the
waste containers? While some isotopes are short-lived, others remain radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years. Has evidence of radioactive contamination in fish been adequately pursued? A 1983 California
law calling for fish testing and annual reports on a major dump site off San Francisco produced just one state report, in 1991, even though that study found fish contamination and recommended follow-up research.
Where are all the containerswhose numbers top 110,000, by one federal counton the sea floor, even at known dump sites? For instance, an estimated 47,000 containers lie at the site near San Francisco.
Though there were three designated dump areas for the containers, "many were not dropped on target," according to a 2010 report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which called the
waste site a "potentially significant resource threat." Much of the siteabout 50 miles west of San Francisco, near the Farallon Islandsis within a national marine sanctuary that the federal government describes as
"a globally significant" ecosystem "that supports abundant wildlife and valuable fisheries." Only about 15% of an estimated 540 square miles of sea floor containing the barrels, at depths from 300 to over 6,000
feet, has been evaluated, the NOAA report said. In a recent response to questions, NOAA said it wants to further study the dump site but lacks the funds. Representatives of federal agencies recently contacted
reiterated that the evidence collected over the years shows that the dump sites aren't posing any threat to the environment or the public. Concerned about the Farallon site, the California legislature passed the
1983 law calling for fish sampling in the area, where commercial fishing occurs. A spokeswoman for the California Department of Public Health said the law only required reports as funds were available, and they
haven't been since 1991. Plus, she said, researchers "didn't find anything in the first survey." "I would beg to differ," Thomas Suchanek, the principal investigator and lead author of the 1991 study, said recently. The
study found americium, a radioactive decay product of plutonium, in some fish samples from the site as well as a comparison area about 60 miles away. The report calculated that plutonium in underwater sediment
at the dump site was up to about 1,000 times normal background levels. Regularly eating such contaminated fish, about a pound a week, could expose a person to up to 18.5 millirems of additional radiation a year,
the report said. A chest X-ray typically gives about 2 to 10 millirems, while the average American gets about 300 millirems a year from natural background radiation. While an occasional meal of such fish wouldn't
be a worry, "I wouldn't want to eat it as a steady diet," said Dr. Suchanek. Current scientific thinking holds that even small doses of additional radiation can over time raise cancer risk by a small amount. The
California health department, in a written response to questions from the Journal, said continued monitoring of the dump should be a federal responsibility. The agency also provided a 1990 document from a nowdefunct state advisory board saying the fish tested "do not appear to have a significant level of radioactivity." A 2001 federal study of part of the Farallon dump site found indications of leakage from barrels, but only
"very low levels" of radioactive contamination in sediment samples. The Food and Drug Administration said that in 1990 it found traces of plutonium in fish samples from the site but at levels well within safety
standards. Questions about the sites stem partly from the government's approach to discarding the waste. Early on, waste drums were simply "taken out to a convenient location and put overboard," said a 1956
report from the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission. "Little administrative or technical control of those operations was required or exercised." Estimates of the radioactivity amounts in the containers "could be
off as much as a factor of 10," the document said, adding "little is known of the fate of radioisotopes added to the sea." Commercial fishermen have at times hauled up waste containers from various parts of
Massachusetts Bay, home to a dump site. Frank Mirarchi, a 70-year-old retired commercial fisherman, said his catches occasionally included nuclear junk containers. After one such discovery, Mr. Mirarchi said
government officials checked him and his crew for radiation but didn't find problems. Early government survey efforts had difficulty finding the dumps. One 1980 report by an EPA official noted that in 11,000
underwater photos taken in the early 1960s during dump surveys in the Atlantic and Pacific, no photo captured a single waste drum. Years after it started, the federal government began having second thoughts
about the ocean dumping, as did other countries over their own programs. A 1970 report from the federal Council on Environmental Quality recommended no further ocean dumping except as a last resort. That
Government and
public interest in the fate of offshore waste has waxed and waned
over the decades
the biggest flare-up came
amid talk
dumping might resume
Environmentalists and elected officials
jumped into action.
who argued
environmental damage
were
already arising
same year, ocean dumping off the U.S. coasts effectively ended. (In the 1990s, the U.S. signed on to an international compact banning the practice.)
that
. Perhaps
in the U.S.
some
A leading voice of alarm was W. Jackson Davis, a now-retired professor of biological and environmental sciences at the University of California, Santa
Cruz,
at the dump sites. In a recent interview, Mr. Davis recalled that the more he learned about the subject, "the more appalled I became."
Disaster Relief
Disaster Relief
Mr. Cuomos request could be seen as a challenge to Mr. Obama to make good on his pledge, delivered
it also
could be seen as a test of the governors ability to extract billions of dollars of
aid from Washington at a difficult time, with White House officials
and Congressional leaders searching to find areas of government to cut to
during a high-profile visit to New Jersey, to provide federal support for the recovery effort. But
avert a Jan. 1 fiscal crisis. It is far from certain whether Mr. Cuomo will get what he is looking for despite
the presidents reassurances. The amount the governor is apparently seeking would exceed the roughly
$12 billion in FEMA disaster aid currently available in Washington without action from Congress, where
Disaster relief causes controversy BAS News 11-12-2012New York to request $30 billion in additional
disaster aid http://www.knickledger.com/2012/11/new-york-to-request-30billion-in-additional-disaster-aid/ DA: 6/7/14
Faced with a staggering recovery from Hurricane Sandy, New York State is formulating a request for up to
$30 billion in additional aid from the federal government. The New York Times reports that Governor
Andrew M. Cuomos request will be separate from the $12 billion in aid already available from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and includes the costs of rehabilitating infrastructure damaged or
Because
the additional $30 billion is not already appropriated, the funding
must be approved by Congress. However, the Republican-led House of
Representatives has consistently sought to reduce federal spending and
Cuomos request may face opposition by Republican budget hawks
committed to austerity. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner is currently locked in
destroyed during the storm as well as the economic impact of long-lasting business closures.
negotiations with President Barack Obama over measures to raise revenue and trim federal budgets to
avoid an automatic $1 trillion in cuts and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on January 1,2013. While Obama
appears to have a stronger position in these negotiations following his election day victory, Cuomos
request will increase pressure on Obama and Congress to deliver additional funding. Other states along the
Atlantic coast affected by Hurricane Sandy may also make requests for additional funding from Congress
as well. Representatives from storm-ravaged districts will likely push for additional aid, and while this may
make House leadership more amendable to providing relief funding ,
budgetary decisions on the mix of tax increases and budget cuts enacted to avoid the fiscal
cliff.
The chances of fishermen getting any disaster relief for this year -whether they're from New England, the Pacific salmon fleet, or fishing the
Yukon River -- are not good. The State of Massachusetts has recently asked for
$40 million to help out their beleaguered fleet, and Pacific salmon fishermen are still hurting from a small 2010
season with few fish from the central Oregon coast extending south all along California. Traditional
champions for fishermen -- from former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Barney Frank, Frank Pallone and Mike Thompson
-- are now in the minority.
Disaster Relief.
resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House
resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March
23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in
the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent
[infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital
to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of
Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job growth and enhance
our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration
("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the
Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and
mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from
75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The
President's budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See
H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has
requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including
funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic
and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These
agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National
Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for
consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation
the President has requested a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending
the Marine
Debris Program has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5
is passed this year. For NOAA,
plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of which
million; a total of $2.186 million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an
increase of $21 million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's oceanographic research fleet. Summary The House and Senate are currently holding a series
and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a
the waves crash in, Chris Pallister says the debris could have serious impacts on fisheries and subsistence resources. I dont know if its being
take off in the helicopter and head north along the beach. Pallister looks out the window at all the debris below and says, it just goes on and
on and on.
Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" it enjoys wide support in and out of Congress and forms a part of the federal government's official ocean policy. "GoMoos has really been a
groundbreaking model for the whole country," says Rick Wahle of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. "And now the plug may be being
pulled." Monitoring America's oceans The Portland-based network was supposed to serve as the prototype of an integrated national system of ocean-monitoring stations
that would gather and process oceanographic information and release it free of charge to the public, much as the National Weather Service does with atmosphere data.
Ten other regional ocean observing systems have been established across the United States and are in varying degrees of development. Gathering such information is
seen as a crucial step toward better managing the nation's oceans, which extend up to 200 miles offshore. For example: Many of the nation's fisheries have been fished
into near oblivion, their recovery undermined by the deterioration of wetlands, coral reefs, and estuaries that many species rely on. There's expert consensus that ocean
politics should be revamped to take into account how marine ecosystems work and that a national ocean-observing system is needed to collect the data that scientists
require to properly understand the system. The establishment of such a national system was one of the key 2004 recommendations of the US Commission on Ocean Policy,
a body appointed by President Bush. The official report urged Congress to commit $650 million annually to build and maintain the system, which it said would have
best available data at a push of a button, increasing the precision of our analysis and getting us there faster." Fishermen use data on deep-water temperatures and the
abundance of microscopic floating plants to figure out where fish might be, while many of Maine's recreational boaters have grown accustomed to getting detailed
information on offshore wind and seas. Scientists are also keenly interested in the data to figure out how to harvest marine life without destroying the ocean's ability to
produce it. "These buoys are unique in that they collect temperature and current information not just at the surface, but at various intervals of depth," says Dr. Wahle, who
studies the lobsters that support Maine's signature fishery. "With bottom-dwelling creatures like lobsters, it's far more important to know what's going on deep beneath the
ocean." Funding problems Now, GoMoos may be forced to shut down. "We may be pulling out some of our buoys, or we may be pulling all of them," says Tom Shyka,
oceanobserving networks are facing the same squeeze. "We do not have enough money to sustain the system in
GoMoos' chief operating officer. "We're working on other funding opportunities to avoid that, but we're definitely in a period of uncertainty." Other
the long term," says Madilyn Fletcher, director of The Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction System in Columbia, S.C., which has deferred maintenance on its
congressional earmarks to cover most of their operations, but these were stripped from this year's budget. "Given the scandalous results of the earmark process in recent
It's an
inequitable and noncompetitive way to allocate funds. It's difficult to
separate what is worthwhile from what might not be ."
years, something needed to be done," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, which opposes earmarks. "
The search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 is set to be the most expensive in
aviation history, analysts say, as efforts to find the aircraft deep under the Indian Ocean show no signs of slowing. The Boeing
777 vanished on March 8 with 239 people on board, after veering dramatically off course en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and is believed to have crashed in the sea
off Australia. Australia, which is leading the search in a remote patch of water described as unknown to man, has not put a figure on spending, but Malaysia has warned
that
When we look at salvaging (wreckage) at a depth of 4.5km, no military out there has the capacity to do it, AFP
quoted Transport and Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein yesterday. We have to look at contractors and the cost of that will be huge. Ravikumar Madavaram, an
aviation expert at Frost & Sullivan Asia Pacific, said Malaysia, Australia and China, which had the most nationals onboard the flight, were the biggest spenders and
estimated the total cost up to now at about US$100 million (RM324 million). Its difficult to say how much the cost of this operation is but, yes, this is definitely the
biggest operation ever (in aviation history). In terms of costs this will be the highest. In the first month of the search, in which the South China Sea and Malacca Strait
were also scoured by the US, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam, the Pentagon said the US military had committed US$7.3 million to efforts to find the plane. Meanwhile, the
Indian Ocean search, in which assets have also been deployed by Australia, Britain, China, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand, has failed to find anything conclusive.
Hopes rest on a torpedo-shaped US Navy submersible, which is searching the ocean floor at depths of more than 4,500m
in the vicinity of where four signals believed to have come from black box recorders were detected. David Gleave, an aviation safety researcher at Britains Loughborough
the costs will be in the order of a hundred million dollars by the time
the longer it took to find any wreckage, the more costs
would mount because scanning the vast ocean floor will take a lot of money because you can only search about 50sq km a day. Salvaging anything
University, said
would also depend on how deep the ocean is at the crash point and how dispersed the wreckage, with weather and politics also complicating factors, he said. The fate of
MH370 has drawn parallels with the hunt for Air France Flight447 which plunged into the Atlantic in 2009. The two-year operation to recover its black box, which involved
assets from France, Brazil and the US, has been estimated to have cost 80-100 million euros, according to figures cited by Frances Investigation and Analysis Bureau
(BEA). Australias Joint Agency Coordination Centre says its main focus is still on finding flight MH370. It is one of the most difficult searches ever undertaken and could
take some time, JACC said in a statement.. The cost of the search is significant. The exact figure has not yet been calculated. The cost is being shared by our
international partners who have contributed their people and military and civilian assets to help with the search. As the search continues, all international partners are
meeting their own costs. But governments and militaries will need to consider the broader cost implications of the search down the track, said Kym Bergmann, editor of
Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter. I dont think that the Australians will be getting any change at all out of A$1 million a day. Bergman said it would likely be the most
expensive aviation search given how long it had already dragged on. It must be starting to worry military planners, he said, adding that any decision to scale back would
cause heartache to the families involved. Madavaram, who is based in Malaysia, agreed, saying at present it was still politically insensitive to cut spending. I think
they will continue one or two months irrespective of the costs, he said.
But then if nothing is found , it will become a wild goose chase , and
people will start questioning it.
to pay to perpetually use the equipment on an indefinite basis. Basically from here on out starting
next week or so they need to pick up the contract, he said. At least $44 million was spent on the deployment of military ships and aircraft in
the Indian Ocean and South China Sea in the first month of the search, about the same as was spent on the whole underwater search for Air
Frances Flight AF447, which crashed into the Mid-Atlantic in 2009. The Malaysian jetliner carrying 239 people disappeared en route from Kuala
Lumpur to Beijing more than seven weeks ago, and huge surface and underwater searches have failed to solve the mystery of what happened.
That mystery has major implications for airline manufacturers such as Boeing, which builds the 777 model that crashed and is awaiting a
verdict as to what went wrong. Malaysia is leading an investigation into the crash, but Australia has a key role in coordinating the hunt since
the plane is believed to have crashed in its search and rescue zone. Abbott said finding any wreckage on the ocean surface was now highly
unlikely and Australia would forge ahead with the upcoming phase of the search despite it likely costing A$60-million. He added that while
private companies under contract to Australia would soon be taking over from the military assets dispatched in the wake of the crash, he
would be seeking some appropriate contribution from other nations.
on 24 March that new satellite data indicates that Flight MH370 crashed in the South Indian Ocean, implying the aircraft traversed thousands
March. The disappearance of the aircraft has shocked many who believed that modern airliners could not be lost with the existing state of
communications and tracking technology. It seems crazy, though, in this day that we can have a major civilian airliner vanish in thin air and
were down to a 30-day ping to find it, Schiff says. Rep Patrick Meehan, a Republican from Pennsylvania, noted on earlier episode of the CNN
show on 23 March that systems that monitor air traffic are not present over large bodies of water. As a member of the House aviation
subcommittee, Meehan illustrated that
technology,
suggesting it
domestic and foreign breaking stories for NBCNews.com. Austin joined NBC
News after more than 10 years as a reporter. After starting at British press
agency South West News Service, he moved to British newspapers The Sun
and The People, before relocating to Canada to help set up press agency Hot
News. There, he covered U.S. news stories for a variety of newspapers and
magazines around the world. 5-6-2014 Missing MH370: Only 'Handful' of
Subs Capable of Hunting Jet http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missingjet/missing-mh370-only-handful-subs-capable-hunting-jet-n97901 DA: 6/12/14
Only "a handful" of
submersible
of the southern Indian
Ocean in the area that is believed to be the final resting place of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, experts said Tuesday. Officials
announced Monday that all of the data compiled in the hunt for the Boeing 777 will be re-examined to make sure the right area is being
scoured as
. Flight 370 search enters new
phase TODAY Capt. John Noble, the former general manager of the International Salvage Union, told NBC News that it made sense to narrow
down the search area as much as possible. You'd be lucky if there was a handful of vehicles that can to go to the sort depths of the ocean that
we are talking about here because they simply don't make them, Noble said. Listen to Air Traffic Control Interaction With Flight MH370 NBC
Navy
News A U.S.
deep-tow search system called the
, Noble said. It can search to a
maximum depth of 20,000 feet of seawater, according the U.S. Navy Supervisor of Salvage and Diving. The Orion would operate in tandem
with a remotely operated vehicle called Curv 21 which could salvage any wreckage. Most commercially owned remotely operated vehicles
(ROVs) arent designed to go to those depths because there simply isnt the call for them, according to Dr. Simon Boxall at Britains University
of Southampton. As a result, many of those built are used for government research projects. They have a distinct advantage over autonomous
underwater vehicles like the Bluefin 21 sub which has been leading the search, because their cameras allow a live view of the seabed he said.
The Bluefins data can only be downloaded and analyzed by researchers after it has resurfaced, he added. An ROV will also have manipulators
like claws built onto it, he added. So if you found a black box they would be capable of picking it up or they can attach cables to a wing so it
said. Ocean Shield has been used to launch the unmanned Bluefin 21 submarine that has been scouring the ocean floor for the jet. A similar
that
a partial government
. Prominent
initially
. They have recently postponed that threat until mid-April. President Obama has asserted he will not bargain at all over the debt limit. Democratic congressional leaders
decried the threat of a default as irresponsible. And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called on lawmakers to take care of their job and raise the debt ceiling, warning that default would damage the
economy. Adding fuel to the fire, the President stated that additional tax increases must accompany spending cuts. Rejecting that, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced simply that
process
whereby Congress will eventually accept the inevitable increase to the nations borrowing authority while trying to cobble together majorities for additional spending cuts and tax increases.
this irresponsible
political game of chicken harms
its maritime industry
When Congress proves
unready to make hard decisions it does what most legislative bodies
do: It postpones them.
As a practical matter, the nation has already reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and another politically contrived crisis looms. Sadly,
only
. In the
summer of 2011 this same kind of brinksmanship needlessly stalled the economic recovery and downgraded the nations financial rating.
,
Thus chronic congressional calls for fiscal responsibility are accompanied by growing debt and deficits. There is a reason why legislators have
proven unable to agree on additional spending cuts and tax hikes: Key constituencies oppose them. Congresss recent decision to approve $60 billion of emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy relief while rejecting
the proposal of House Republican budget hawks to pay for it with an across-the-board spending cut of less than two percent illustrates the challenge. Considering how the 2011 confrontation ended and the way
spending cuts have been rhetorically linked to the debt limit increase by Speaker of the House John Boehner, the most likely outcome appears to be something akin to what we have just witnessed. When push
comes to shove, Congress will likely not default on the national debt and the borrowing limit will be raised at the last minute, or even shortly thereafter. Whether or not such a measure will include additional
spending cuts or tax increases remains doubtful because that will require offending core constituencies. So an increase in the debt limit may be accompanied by another face-saving congressional maneuver
espousing fiscal responsibility, such as adoption of a budget, while actually producing the opposite effect. Cutting federal spending materially means assembling majorities that agree to cut specific programs upon
which Americans rely. Key Maritime Issues Despite the fiscal cliff controversy, the lame duck session of the 112th Congress decided significant maritime issues. Congress and the President enacted three important
laws: (1) the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2013, (2) the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, and (3) the American Taxpayers Relief Act of 2012. On December 20, President Obama signed the Coast
Guard authorization into law. Omitted from the legislation was a House proposal that would have established a uniform national ballast water standard and prohibited states from setting stricter standards. Repeated
House proposals to accomplish this have now failed, and in light of the decision this year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to its Vessel General Permit to adopt the uniform ballast water
standard set forth by the Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization, it appears this decision is resolved at the federal level.
adopt
other
significant proposals
Congress declined to
also
. Notably, it failed to use the year-end flurry of legislation to correct its erroneous repeal of an important cargo preference
provision inserted in the highway bill last June. As reported in our July/August 2012 column, the repeal hurts national security while off-shoring the jobs of American seafarers who would otherwise transport U.S.
government cargoes. Representatives Jeff Landry (R-LA) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced the Saving Essential American Sailors Act to correct this legislative misstep. However, despite widespread
bipartisan support, it was not included in any of the new legislation passed during the lame duck session.
Energy
General Resources
residual uncertainty to argue that monitoring data does not require management changes, even when
monitoring data might be considered effective by outside observers (Halbert 1993, Gunderson 2003b).
important (Stankey et al. 2005:27). This risk aversion makes it hard to change management practices.
Thompson 2003). This pressure to resolve uncertainty in favor of economic development or exploitation
derives from a number of sources, such as the advantage that regulated interests often have in the
Offshore Wind
Offshore Wind
Wind unpopular- Not in my backyard
Maxwell 12
Veery is a third-year law student at UC Hastings, Wind Energy Development:
Can Wind Energy Overcome Substantial Hurdles to Reach the Grid, West
Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 18 W.-N.W. J. Env. L. &
Poly323, lexis , kk
A critical barrier to entry for wind energy development is local hostility.
While the American public is very supportive of wind energy in
theory, not many people want large turbines in their neighborhood .
n34 This social phenomenon is commonly referred to as NIMBY-ism ("Not In My BackYard"), and is a
growing problem for wind energy developers. Citizens have attempted to block wind farms, complaining
the turbines are a visual blight, are too noisy, and create odd flutter shadows. n35 These complaints have
resulted in lawsuits, and at times halted, delayed, or dramatically limited proposed projects. n36 The
contrast to the pleasant agricultural landscape they regularly occupy. According to Robert Kahn, a siting
expert, "Americans put a high value on wilderness and open space. Sparks fly when lands seen as public
viewscapes (even if they are not publicly owned) appear threatened. Unfortunately, these lands are where
developable renewable resources are to be found." n37 Renewable resources like wind and solar power
tend to be easiest to capture in large open areas, which can overlap with scenic areas and parklands. In
order to lessen local opposition, wind developers have attempted to mitigate the negative impacts of their
projects. Some companies have even gone so far as to hire artists to try and make the turbines look "artsy'
instead of industrial. n38
China, tourism and Scotland. There were protesters about him being a windbag. Hey, give him a break, as
he's having other more important problems, like with Miss Pennsylvania at his Miss USA pageant. Worse,
the U.S. Congress, as broken as it is, seems currently negative on the production tax credit, the one piece
of legislation that will make or break this technology. So what is really happening? Nothing much new. For
one, when the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute advocated this form of renewable electricity a third of a
century ago, we were criticized by the Audubon Society (incidentally, they've since gotten smarter about
this) for killing birds, resorts (in Kahuku) spoke against this option at hearings for fear their investment
would suffer from image problems, noise protesters were always present, more than a few felt that these
ugly machines would affect their aesthetics and a few more depicted at the left protest (this was in Canada
in April). I might add that wind energy (with geothermal and hydroelectric) is the ONLY "new" sustainable
option somewhat competitive with coal and nuclear. Solar PV remains three times the cost of wind. Let's
look at the matter of bird kills, for, apparently, the figure in Massachusetts is 100,000 murdered birds/year.
Here is the reality: - glass windows: at least 100 million, and, perhaps up to a billion bird deaths/year house cats: 100 million/year - vehicles: 50 million to 100 million - electric transmission lines: 174 million
- hunting: more than 100 million Ever seen any protests against glass windows, cats.....? Oh, by the way,
there could well be around 400 billion birds in the world. Nothing about energy is perfect.
State of the Union Address for 80 percent of Americas electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035. In March, a Memorandum of Understanding between 10 federal agencies and
the governors of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania was signed to facilitate offshore wind proposals for the Great Lakes. Illinois law, similar to laws in other states,
requires 25 percent of the states electricity to come from renewable resources by 2025. To ignore the potential of offshore wind and the push for renewable energy is to miss out. We think
the day is coming pretty quickly when there will be offshore wind farms in the United States, says Patrick Gilman, wind market acceleration and deployment team leader in the wind and
water power program with the U.S. Department of Energy. It is a question of when and not if. He sees wind farms in the Great Lakes as part of that movement. State Rep. Robyn Gabel, a
Democrat from Evanston, has been leading the way in the states creation of a permitting process for offshore wind farming in Lake Michigan. Two years ago, Evanston, which is actively
seeking ways to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, identified developers interested in pursuing an offshore wind farm but discovered that no state permit process existed to allow such a
farm to be built. We realized we needed to be clear about how one goes about leasing the lakebed and the process for establishing this kind of renewable energy in the lake, Gabel says.
And so, Gabel sponsored legislation creating the Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Energy Advisory Council to draft an advisory report for the General Assembly that was released at the end of
June. One reason to set up this task force is to raise all the questions and the issues we would need answers for before we put an offshore wind farm in the lake, Gabel says. The council
looked at a number of areas such as: what criteria should be used to evaluate applications, how to identify areas favorable and unfavorable for development, what process should be used for
the public to weigh in on development proposals, how the state should be compensated for leasing the lakebed and what others have learned from offshore wind development. Its a big
issue, and we have to get it right, says Todd Main, deputy director for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Weve got a good sense about where we need to go as a trustee for Lake
Michigan and how we protect and evaluate the habitats, wildlife and navigation of the lake. The next move is the creation, by the state legislature, of another committee to look at how the
generation of offshore electricity gets into Illinois electric grid and then what role the Illinois Power Agency and Illinois Commerce Commission would play. Where does that happen? How
does that impact electricity transfers? Who pays for it? Main asks. There needs to be more study. The findings of the new committee then likely would be meshed with information
gathered by the current advisory council to create permitting and regulatory legislation, he says. While offshore wind farming policy appears to be shaping up in Illinois, other factors are
putting a damper on the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Michigan. Just because Illinois officials are crafting a permitting process doesnt mean turbines should be allowed in the lake, says
Joel Brammeier, president and CEO of Alliance for the Great Lakes, an independent citizens organization with a mission to conserve and restore the Great Lakes. What I think is essential to
this process is [that] legislators enter into any conversation about offshore wind with a clear understanding of the legacy they will be leaving for future generations, he says. Im not
comfortable that offshore wind is the right reason to build on the bottom of the lakebed. To put it simply, if you can build one thing in the lake, why not another? His concerns cant be
dismissed as they go to the heart of the public trust doctrine, a federal and state court common law that recognizes that the state of Illinois holds public water resources, including Lake
Michigan, in trust for the benefit of and use by its citizens. Court cases historically have allowed the lake to be used for public benefit, such as the expansion of Lincoln Park, but not for
private use, such as the expansion of the University of Loyolas campus. Besides that philosophical question, Brammeier also has concerns about what happens if a turbine becomes
outmoded. He questions who will deconstruct the wind farm and pay for it. It forces us to face the reality there is no such thing as a zero footprint energy source, he says. Were choosing
whether to put that footprint on the bottom of the Great Lakes. Other groups concerned with the well-being of the Great Lakes say that issues ranging from environmental concerns to the
high cost of offshore turbines can be addressed. The Sierra Club, for instance, is in favor of appropriately sited wind developments. Our top organizational priority is climate change and
getting the country off of coal, says Emily Green, Great Lakes program director for the Sierra Club. We need to find solutions, replacement energy, and we feel this will be accomplished
through a mix of things, including wind and solar. We believe offshore wind in some places offers the benefit for utilities to have large-scale wind energy close to load centers in areas where
we are seeking the retirement of coal-fired plants. The Sierra Club is working with the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes
Energy Research Laboratory to gather data to build a smart siting platform. Were trying to put the tools in place before major projects come to the drawing board, so they can be sited
appropriately, Green says. We have the chance to get it right in the Great Lakes. Other barriers to wind turbines in Lake Michigan are the need for technological advancements, the high
cost to build turbines and the economics of energy. Lake Michigans average depth is too deep to accommodate turbines, and ice is a problem. Research is being done to build floating
turbines, to develop turbines that can be anchored at greater depths and to deal with ice, says Pebbles of the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative. Any successful project will be a balance of cost,
public approval and environmental constraints, she says. For wind developers, the high cost of building offshore wind turbines in Lake Michigan, which cost five to six times more than an
onshore turbine, is too much to overcome, says Kevin Borgia, director of the Illinois Wind Energy Coalition. To say that we would focus on offshore wind that would be several times the cost,
the private sector isnt interested, Borgia says. We should focus our energy on opportunities that are effective. Instability in Illinois wind power market is the biggest thing holding it
back, Borgia says. Deregulation of the states electric market has created a questionable marketplace for power as consumers are buying short-term contracts. As a result, wind farm
developers have difficulty finding financing for their projects because they cant guarantee who will buy their power over more than a few years. Long-term renewable contracts would
stabilize the market and give investors the guarantees they need to support wind projects, Borgia says. Youve got a very complex power market, he says. That uncertain market is the
reason we need reform. If lawmakers were to fix that problem, that would build wind more than anything else. Also at issue is the expected expiration at the end of this year of the federal
Production Tax Credit subsidizing kilowatt hours for utility-scale wind power producers. The credit is in place to make wind energy competitive with alternatives. Wind energy supporters say a
long-term credit, rather than one in jeopardy of losing funding every few years, also would provide stability to the industry. Despite the market uncertainty, Chicago has emerged as a hub in
the wind business. Illinois is ranked seventh in the United States in wind-powered generating capacity with 2,742 megawatts, according to an Illinois State University report. Illinois
membership in regional power grids serving eastern and southern states means there is a demand for power from Illinois, Borgia says. Also, 15 wind companies are based in Chicago, in part
because of easy transportation to wind developments nationally and internationally. The cheap cost of natural gas also serves as a barrier to the growth of wind power in the United States.
Meanwhile, wind development overseas has been spurred by the unreliable conveyance of natural gas and Europes concern about climate change, says Chris Wissemann, CEO of New Jerseybased Fishermens Energy and managing director of Freshwater Wind, which is working to bring an offshore wind project off Ohios Lake Erie shore. He says Europe is 15 to 20 years ahead of
the United States in harnessing wind energy. Wind turbines account for about 94,000 megawatts of electricity, supplying more than 6 percent of the European Unions electricity, according to
the European Wind Energy Association. Of that, 4,000 megawatts come from offshore turbines, the first one built in Denmark in 1991. In the United States, about 3 percent of the nations
electricity is produced by the wind, the U.S. Department of Energy reports. Until the United States needs energy from sources like the wind, it will be difficult for the market to grow unless it
has significant government support. The DOE has launched the Offshore Wind Innovation and Demonstration initiative to reduce the cost of offshore wind energy and to reduce the timeline
for the deployment of offshore wind projects. Streamlining the approval process for projects is one goal, and another is funding. The department is considering grant requests for $180 million
in an effort to get a small project in the water by 2014 and three more projects demonstrating technological advances by the end of 2017. Money will be awarded this fall, says Gilman of the
DOE. Were doing a lot of work figuring out what issues need to be overcome to realize [wind power] opportunity, Gilman says. Job creation is another reason to invest in the industry. In
Illinois, according to a 2011 report from the Center for Renewable Energy at Illinois State University, the 17 biggest wind farms: Created about 13,000 full-time jobs during construction
periods, paying out about $762 million. Support about 600 permanent jobs in rural Illinois, paying about $35 million. Pay out about $10 million to landowners in rent from wind farm
developers. Generate $22 million annually in property taxes and will generate a total economic benefit of $4.1 billion over the life of the projects. Wind energy is an American success
story, says Long of the American Wind Energy Association. He says there are 500 manufacturing facilities supporting the wind industry that employ 30,000 Americans. Its anticipated that
offshore projects will create thousands more. But any growth in offshore wind will be slow-going, says Wissemann, who also lives in Evanston and served on Illinois wind advisory
committee. He predicts the offshore wind industry will develop here much as it has in Europe. Original projects began with the development of small installations of fewer than a dozen
turbines and then grew to the size of a utility like a coal plant with 50 to 200 turbines. Finally, large wind farms were developed. Projects off the Atlantic coast likely will be the first offshore
farms in the United States. Until you build a demonstration, no one really knows what these things are all about, says Wissemann. Projects are not going to pop up like mushrooms. I think
it is a common fear that turbines will be built all over the place. Wissemann estimates Illinois is five years away at the earliest from having a demonstration offshore wind project in Lake
Michigan, with the possibility of a full-scale project five years later. Whatever the timeframe, Illinois intends to do it right, Gabel says. We treasure our lake. We wouldnt want to do anything
that would hurt it. On the other hand, using so many nonrenewable resources is destroying our Earth. We need to find some balance.
protection statutes, in hopes of seeking an injunction against the wind farm construction and operations.
n45 The Coastal Habitat Alliance sued a Texas wind developer in 2007, demanding an injunction to halt
construction on a wind project adjoining the Laguna Madre, an environmentally sensitive bay between the
Texas mainland and Padre Island. n46 The Coastal Habitat Alliance alleged that the defendant developer
impinged its rights under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the Texas Coastal
Management Program by not holding public hearings or conducting appropriate environmental review on
the wind farm. n47 A federal court dismissed the case, holding the statutes did not confer a right of action
on private parties. n48 However, the case drew attention to the emerging issue of wind turbine siting in
ecologically fragile areas. In West Virginia, environmental plaintiffs were successful in halting operations
of a wind farm sited in an area home to endangered Indiana bats. n49 After exhaustive presentations by
expert witnesses, the federal court found, "there is a virtual certainty that Indiana bats will be harmed,
wounded, or killed imminently by the Beech Ridge Project, in violation of section 9 of the ESA ...." n50 The
court held that until the developer undergoes the Incidental Take Permitting process through the Fish and
Wildlife Service, no new turbines could be approved by the agencies or constructed for the project. n51
The Beech Ridge case was the first wind farm conflict decided under the Endangered Species Act, and
demonstrates the need for federal agencies to actively oversee the development of wind farms. n52 In
order to avoid costly litigation at every turn, the Beech Ridge holding shows that the myriad of federal
agencies involved in approving wind farms must develop comprehensive standardized siting and
permitting criteria. While the Fish [*331] and Wildlife Service has been spearheading a collaborative effort
to develop wind farm guidelines, only draft voluntary siting guidelines have been published. n53 The two
most noteworthy examples of environmental groups opposing wind farms, differ dramatically in terms of
location, technology, rationale of opposition, and timing. However, in both cases the wind developer has
continued to press forward with development and operations. The first case involves the Altamont Pass,
located just east of the San Francisco Bay Area, which was a massive experiment in wind energy begun in
the 1970s. n54 The second case involves the Cape Wind project, which is more modest in size, but located
in a high-visibility area of Nantucket Sound. n55 The projects are instructive as to the broad range of
claims opponents have levied against wind farms. Both cases have directly and indirectly driven a host of
solutions to the environmental and local problems generated by wind farms.
Over the past year, there has been an increase in the percentage of Republicans,
particularly conservative Republicans, who view the expansion of exploration and
production of oil, coal and natural gas as a more important priority for addressing the
nations energy supply than the development of alternative energy sources.
Conservative Republicans now prioritize traditional energy sources over alternative
sources by a 65% to 26% margin; a year ago they were divided (47% oil, coal, natural
gas vs. 43% alternative energy). But increasing numbers in other groups including
Westerners and older Americans also prioritize the development of energy from
traditional sources.
install
plans to use General Electrics 3.6s, designed exclusively for offshore use. Mounted, they would rise 128
meters from sea level to top blade tip (420 feet, or about 40 stories) and their nameplate electrical
output is 3.6 MW. This development is projected to generate a peak power of 420 MW, adding up to
1,491,384 MW hours of electricity per year, which is about 3/4 the electrical needs of Cape Cod, or 1/10
of the demand of the entire state of Massachusetts (Cape Wind 2004a).3 The developer states that
Nantucket Sound is a highly favorable site for wind development, arguably the best in the east coast
(strong steady winds, close to power lines on shore, shallow water, protected from high waves, and
But
$1.3 million of that; the top four individuals gave over $100,000 each, including a loan that was forgiven
(Zindler 2004). A similar pattern with a small number of large and very large donations was seen in 2002
(Zindler 2003). Opposition is also politically well connected , with declared
opponents including the Editorial page of the Cape Cod Times, US Sen. Ted Kennedy, U.S. Rep. William
Delahunt, several state legislators, and the Massachusetts Governor and Attorney General. The
York Power Authority's inclusion of eastern Lake Ontario as a possible site for turbines.
Our September 2013 survey found that only 48% correctly say that U.S. energy production is up in recent
years. But there is no indication that awareness of the nations growing energy production is related to
(73% to 25%), the public supports requiring better vehicle fuel efficiency, according our September 2013
survey. An identical percentage (73%) favors federal funding for alternative energy research, while twothirds (67%) back more spending on mass transit. A majority ( 58%)
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of U.S. Voters now believe offshore oil
drilling should be allowed, while 26% oppose it. One-in-five voters (19%) are undecided. Thats down from
60% last month. Since the oil rig explosion that caused the massive oil leak, support for offshore drilling
has ranged from 56% to 64%. Predictably, Rasmussen leaves most of the useful information out of their
GOP Opposition
Wind energy is unpopular key oil lobbies and Republican
lawmakers oppose.
Martin, Bloomberg News, 13
[Christopher, 4-23-14, Bloomberg News, U.S. States Turn Against
Renewable Energy as Gas Plunges,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/u-s-states-turn-againstrenewable-energy-as-gas-plunges.html, accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]
[Jennifer A., 6-4-13, Fuel Fix, Republicans attack landmark offshore wind
power plan, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/06/04/feds-to-unveil-details-on-firstfederal-offshore-wind-auction/, accessed 7-7-14, AAZ]
The Interior Department unveiled details for the nations first-ever
federal sale of offshore wind energy leases on Tuesday, even as
Republican lawmakers complain the approach is misguided.
Federal officials had already announced plans to sell wind leases off the
Atlantic Coast this year, but the sale package released Tuesday firmly
schedules the auction for July 31 and sheds more light on the terms of those
leases.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said the sale could be a harbinger of things to
come.
Were optimistic with this lease sale well see some action, Jewell told
reporters on an unrelated conference call on Monday. If there is good
interest in this one, then I think you will have this happening on a consistent
basis.
The panel voted 22-12 today to endorse the permanent extension of the
research credit, which has existed since 1981 and has never been made
permanent.
In arguing that that tax credits are needed to boost employment in the
wind industry, proponents overlook what the rest of the economy
gives up in exchange for them. In reality the PTC is a net jobs loserit
distracts labor and capital away from more efficient areas in the
economy and slows over all growth. Wind turbine makers may be able to
plump up their payrollsjust as any tax handout will boost employment in a
targeted industrybut the rest of the economy suffers as a result. Any
boost in employment among wind turbine makers is inherently temporary.
Compared to other forms of electricity generation, wind power is far from cost
competitive. The wind PTC is an outrageously large subsidy, leading to
giant disruptions in the energy market. At $23 per megawatt-hour, the
PTC is worth half (and sometimes even more) of the entire wholesale price of
electricity in many parts of the country. In fact, the PTC is so lavish and anticost-competitive that wind power producers often bid negative prices into
electrical grid, just so they can collect the subsidy. They literally pay utilities
to take their electricity.
Lawmakers should oppose resurrecting this tax break for wind
energy because its costly, and increasingly sothe PTC cost $12 billion
in 2014, up from a historical average of $5 billion per year.
In practice, targeted subsidies are a tried-and-terrible way to develop new
energy sources, Under President Obamas direction, the federal government
has tried to prop up its favorite energy sources with targeted subsidiestax
credits, grants, loan guarantees, state-based mandates, etc.with little to
show besides slower economic growth. Too many of these pet projects have
gone bankrupt and belly-up, sticking taxpayers with the bill, and failing to get
the U.S. any closer to its energy goals.
Even Warren Buffett readily admits that wind energy is a terrible investment
[O]n wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. Thats
the only reason to build them. They dont make sense without the tax credit.
At its core, the wind PTC is no different than these green energy boondoggles
like Solyndra and its successors. It represents exactly the kind of
government meddling in the economy that Republicans campaign
against. Republicans in particular should live up to their stated
principles of free markets and level playing fields by opposing
extending the PTC.
Lobby Opposition
Powerful oil coal and gas company Koch Industries
enlisted networks to campaign against wind energy
Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists news director, 13
(Elliott, 12-9-13, The Huffington Post, The Koch Brothers Are Still Trying to
Break Wind, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-koch-brothersare-sti_b_4396033.html, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
As Congress dithers for the umpteenth time over extending a key subsidy for
wind energy, the industry once again is up in the air. Called
the production tax credit (PTC), the subsidy helps level the playing
field between wind and fossil fuels and has proven to be critical for
financing new projects, helping to make wind one of the fastest growing
electricity sources in the country. Given the planet needs to transition as
quickly as possible away from coal and natural gas to carbon-free
energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, who
would be against renewing wind's tax credit?
The Koch brothers, that's who.
Charles G. and David H. Koch -- the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and
gas Koch Industries conglomerate -- have enlisted their extensive
network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill
to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC. Never mind the
fact that the oil and gas industry has averaged four times what the wind tax
credit is worth in federal tax breaks and subsidies annually for the last 95
years.
The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of
fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas)
sent a letter signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the
House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire.
Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by
the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a letter to each member of
Congress asking them to do the same. And earlier this month, the Kochfunded Institute for Energy Research launched an anti-PTC ad
campaign and released a report claiming that only a handful of
states actually benefit from the subsidy.
Malcolm Gladwell didn't include this battle in his new book David and
Goliath because, given the odds, it's more like Bambi versus Godzilla.
(Elliott, 12-9-13, The Huffington Post, The Koch Brothers Are Still Trying to
Break Wind, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-koch-brothersare-sti_b_4396033.html, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
The Kochs' Man in Congress
The fact that Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo is the Kochs' point man to scuttle
the PTC in the House is a bit ironic given his state is a wind energy leader.
Kansas has the second highest wind potential in the country, it has already
attracted more than $5 billion in wind industry investment, and last year wind
generated 11.4 percent of its electricity. With stats like that, the industry has
broad bipartisan support. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Sens. Jerry Moran
and Pat Roberts -- all Republicans -- are big fans.
Pompeo, who has been in Congress since only 2011, would argue that
he's against all energy tax credits. For the second year in a row, he has
introduced a bill that would eliminate tax breaks that benefit oil, natural gas,
coal, nuclear, electric vehicles, alternative fuels, solar and wind, including the
PTC, which gives wind developers a tax credit of 2.3 cents for each kilowatthour of electricity they produce.
But there's a catch. Although it appears evenhanded, Pompeo's bill would
severely hamper wind and solar but preserve a number of oil, gas
and coal subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance,
the ability to expense the costs of exploration, and the accelerated
depreciation of certain kinds of "geologic property." These and other
tax breaks he left out of his bill would be worth about $12.5 billion to the oil
and gas industry from 2011 through 2015, according to a March 2012
Congressional Research Service report.
Why is Pompeo so down on wind? Perhaps it's because Koch
Industries is headquartered in Wichita, smack-dab in the middle of
his district -- and the fact that the company is by far and away his
biggest campaign contributor. Since 2010, Koch Industries has given
him $200,000, more than four times what his second highest contributor
kicked in. Besides Koch Industries, three other oil companies are among
Pompeo's top five contributors -- McCoy Petroleum, Mull Drilling and Richie
Exploration -- and they're also based in Wichita.
What about the other 51 House members who signed Pompeo's
letter? As it turns out, 65 percent of them received contributions from
Koch Industries during the last two or three campaign cycles,
according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the nonpartisan
Center for Responsive Politics. A quarter of them, meanwhile, cashed checks
from ExxonMobil. And except for two congressmen who didn't take any
energy industry money, the signatories received sizable contributions from a
number of other corporations that compete with wind, including coal barons
Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources; oil and gas giants Chesapeake
Energy, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Valero Energy; and Exelon, which owns
the most nuclear reactors in the country.
Americans for (Koch) Prosperity Weighs In
Pompeo's letter came on the heels of a letter from the Kochs'
flagship advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, calling for Congress
to kill the PTC. AFP's letter, which was signed by 102 organizations, claims
that "the wind industry has very little to show after 20 years of
preferential tax treatment" and declares that "Americans deserve
energy solutions that can make it on their own in the marketplace -not ones that need to be propped up by government indefinitely."
Is that right? Little to show? Preferential tax treatment?
In fact, until Congress left the wind industry hanging late last year, it
had been doing quite well. Even with a deep recession and slow recovery,
over the previous five years -- with the help of the PTC, stimulus spending
and state renewable electricity standards -- the industry doubled its
Public Opposition
Offshore wind is unpopular key bureaucratic
impediments, land owners, loss of confidence, lack of
technology
Salih, Roosevelt Institute's Columbia Chapter,
Environment leader, 7/2/14
[Swara, 7-2-14, Huffington Post, Will Offshore Wind Pick up the
Speed?, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/swara-salih/will-offshore-wind-picku_b_5549967.html, accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]
Constructing any sort of energy infrastructure is expensive and lengthy, and
the construction of these facilities and their maintenance are highly
expensive (which the PTC helps to alleviate), but analysts have said that
offshore wind's benefits could ultimately outweigh the costs. What's
kept it from taking off? It appears to be an issue with the permitting
process for the plants themselves. While there is a vested private and public
interest in building the facilities, firms constantly run into bureaucratic red
tape that hinders their construction. The permitting process for wind farms
can take two years or longer to complete, and so the uncertainty of the tax
credit's extension often makes developers hesitate to begin. With no
infrastructure in place for offshore wind farms, this makes receiving permits
an exceedingly difficult task. Infrastructure is also expensive to construct,
putting the price of a facility like Cape Wind in Massachusetts in the range of
$2-3 billion, which makes permitting all the more less likely.
But there have been various state-level efforts at fostering offshore
wind energy industries. In 2010, Governor Chris Christie signed the
bipartisan Offshore Wind Economic Development Act, which established an
offshore wind renewable energy certificate (OREC) program to make financial
assistance and tax credits available to businesses that could build the
necessary infrastructure. However, projects have encountered various
bureaucratic impediments. This past March, the New Jersey Board of
Public Utilities (BPU) halted the construction of Fishermen's Energy,
despite the project's guarantee of a $47 million federal grant from the DOE.
The plant would need to be 2.8 miles off the coast of Atlantic City, and would
cost a total of $188 million while providing 25 MW of electricity, enough to
power 10,000 homes. The BPU cited concerns that household payers
would end up paying "hundreds of millions of dollars" for power and
that the federal grants were "unsecured." This past May, however,
Fishermen's Energy received the federal grant, prompting them to appeal to
the BPU to overturn their previous decision. Some suspect that the BPU has
put less confidence in renewable utilities due to Chris Christie's faltering
support for them, ironic considering he spearheaded the bipartisan legislation
in 2010.
Dominion Virginia was more fortunate, and bought a lease for 113,000 acres
last September from the Department of the Interior (DOI), aiming to provide
energy to around 700,000 homes. However, Dominion has little intention of
using all this acreage any time soon, with the cost of offshore wind
A massive offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has generated fierce political
and legal controversy has cleared all federal and state regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape
Wind project, the first of its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain conditions. Previous agency approvals
were challenged in court, including a ruling last year that forced the latest FAA safety evaluation. A leading opposition group said another legal challenge was possible. The
Obama administration first approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for more than a decade, in
April 2010 despite opposition from residents. Opponents over the years have included the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family
Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would threaten
wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents also fear it will drive down
property values. The administration has pushed a "green energy" agenda nationally as
a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil imports. That effort, however, has been sharply criticized by
congressional Republicans who have said certain high-profile projects are
politically driven. They also have skewered certain Energy Department programs
that extended millions in taxpayer loans and other aid to alternative energy companies or
projects that faltered or did not meet expectations. The Republican-led House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the political assertions around Cape
Wind as part of a broader review of "green energy" projects supported by the administration. The panel's chairman, California's Darrell Issa, wrote President Barack
Obama last week saying that White House interest in the Massachusetts project is "well known"
compound is in Hyannis Port. 125 years of wind power
and that the FAA had been under political pressure to approve it.
offshore drilling
in response to the 2010 spill. They say Interior acted too quickly by imposing a drilling freeze
GOP lawmakers
say Obama's five-year offshore plan is too limited. They want to open the
Atlantic and Pacific to drilling, saying drillers could unlock previously undiscovered reserves.
Vitter and Alexander said increasing offshore oil-and-gas leases
would generate new revenue that could help pay down the deficit.
in the Gulf of Mexico, and complain that rules instituted since then are overly burdensome.
They said oil and gas firms would pay handsomely for the right to explore those areas, and noted they would owe federal
years' experience. He is the author of three books and has written for
magazines, newspapers, and online media. A specialist in business and
finance, he lived in Europe for many years, has traveled widely, and has a
master's degree from Columbia University's School of International and Public
Affairs. 4-30-2010 U.S. Approval of Cape Cod Offshore Wind Project Will Not
End Controversy http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/U.S.Approval-Of-Cape-Cod-Offshore-Wind-Project-Will-Not-End-Controversy.html
DA: 6/8/14
Obama administration approved the controversial Cape Wind project, which calls for a wind farm of
offshore wind project in the country. But it is sure to
generate more controversy as opposition was voiced by everyone from
environmental groups to Native American tribes to Cape Cod residents, who
The
are disturbed at the prospect that they will see the wind turbines as specks on the horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their
closest point, and 14 miles and their most distant. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy opposed the project because the turbines will be visible from
the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, however, welcomed the project and was present at the Boston
announcement of the federal government approval. The state wants to have 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar made it clear that the decision is final and that the administration is confident it can withstand the court challenges that
from Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland.
its visual impact on the scenery.
for American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project
Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to
Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-waysthat-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-allamericans/ DA: 6/10/14
across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies
is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a
direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
On January 2, 2013 a set of large,
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would
do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas
super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move
unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But
fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing
Republicans
Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.
will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer
Impact on
oceans
of our
oceans
significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind,
and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind
development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts
Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers,
ocean
management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and
the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and
help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of
energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a
greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land
Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and
minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it
to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by
$105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on
progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
"I happen to think in many of these areas, these have been exceptionally helpful for us, and I'd like to see
the extensions."
that are real, but may not have real effect on any legislation. Action on the tax credit won't happen before the election, aides for Iowa's
After Nov. 6, when there's more clarity to the political landscape, language is
likely to get tacked onto a bigger bill and squeak through amid
debate about the farm bill and George W. Bush-era tax cuts, staffers said.
congressional delegation said.
regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape Wind project, the first of
its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain
administration first approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for more
than a decade, in April 2010 despite opposition from residents. Opponents over the years have included
the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family compound is in Hyannis Port.
Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would
threaten wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents
also fear it will drive down property values. The administration has pushed a
"green energy" agenda nationally as a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil
imports. That effort, however, has been sharply criticized by congressional
Republicans who have said certain high-profile projects are politically driven.
125 years of wind power
They also have skewered certain Energy Department programs that extended millions in taxpayer loans
The
Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is
investigating the political assertions around Cape Wind as part of a broader
review of "green energy" projects supported by the administration.
and other aid to alternative energy companies or projects that faltered or did not meet expectations.
one component of their argument against Cape Wind. Recently, APNS went so far as to claim that there
website. (The last claim has been negated with this latest FAA decision.)
Obama will get blame for the plan and it will sap capital
Delamaide 10 Darrell is a writer at Oil Price.com [U.S. Approval of Cape
Cod Offshore Wind Project Will Not End Controversy, April 30,
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/U.S.-Approval-Of-CapeCod-Offshore-Wind-Project-Will-Not-End-Controversy.html]
Obama administration approved the controversial Cape Wind project, which
calls for a wind farm of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound and will be the first offshore wind
project in the country. The announcement Wednesday was not a complete surprise after President
The
Barack Obama on Tuesday toured the factory in Iowa that will supply the blades for the Cape Wind
horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their closest point, and 14 miles and their most
distant.
GOP
for American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project
Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to
Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-waysthat-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-allamericans/ DA: 6/10/14
across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies
is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a
direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would
On January 2, 2013 a set of large,
do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas
super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move
unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But
fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing
Republicans
Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.
will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer
Impact on
oceans
prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nations primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive
from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Centers storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the
Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting capabilities. As accurate
as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S.
models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a
week after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction
capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to
replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement
satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online.
During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and
Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially
causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development
of our
oceans
significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind,
and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind
development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts
Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers,
ocean
management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and
the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and
help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of
energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a
greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land
Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and
minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it
to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by
$105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on
progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
fire, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/303321-interior-deptoffshore-wind-plan-draws-partisan-fire)(AC)
GOP lawmakers on Tuesday sharply criticized the Interior
Departments move to hold the nations first offshore wind lease
sale. Sen. David Vitter (La.), the Environment and Public Works Committees
top Republican, said it amounted to the Obama administration
picking energy industry winners and losers. Interior announced on
Monday that it would hold an auction on July 31 for 164,750 acres off the
coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which has the potential to generate
3,400 megawatts of electricity enough to power 1 million homes. Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell called the pending lease sale which has drawn
interest from nine firms history in the making. She said the July bidding
could be a bellwether for future offshore wind lease sales, though she noted it
might take time for a commercial industry to develop because the projects
are expensive and difficult to finance. Democrats applauded the move as a
strong step toward developing alternative energy sources. Offshore wind is
a win for American jobs, for American energy security, and for our
environment, and it will start off the coast of New England. With lease sales in
federal waters, offshore wind will also be a boon for U.S. taxpayers, Rep.
Edward Markey (Mass.), the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources
Committee, said in a Tuesday statement. For Republicans, the milestone
is more of a boondoggle.
Oil Development
Plan-Specific Link: Oil Development [1/1]
( ) The plans extremely unpopular with liberal democrats and
environmentalists
Jervis et al 2008
[Rick Jervis and Bill Welch and Richard Wolf. Worth The Risk? Debate on Offshore Drilling
Heats Up USA Today, 7/14/8, available via Lexis-Nexis]
Environmentalists see two basic problems from offshore drilling: pollution from
everyday operations and oil spills from platforms, pipelines and tankers. On both
fronts, they acknowledge, the industry has improved through the years. "Today's
technology is much better at routine drilling, at avoiding the kinds of seepages that
were common a generation ago," says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen. Even so,
there are still risks. When oil is brought up from beneath the ocean floor, other
things are, too. Chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead can be
discharged back into the ocean. The water pumped up along with the oil may
contain benzene, arsenic and other pollutants. Even the exploration that precedes
drilling, which depends on seismic air guns, can harm sea mammals. "Basically, oil
and water don't mix," says Melanie Duchin of the environmental group Greenpeace,
who lives in Alaska and still sees pollution from the 11 million-gallon Exxon Valdez
spill of 1989, which supplanted Santa Barbara as the nation's worst. "Oil smothers
wildlife." Government officials and industry specialists say improved technology and
government oversight have made routine drilling safe. State and federal laws
regulate how much of each chemical can be discharged into the water; most are at
insignificant levels, according to the Minerals Management Service. The mercury
that's generated cannot be absorbed by fish tissue, officials say, avoiding the food
chain. "The best fishing in the Gulf is where the rigs are," says Rep. John Peterson,
R-Pa., a leading proponent of offshore drilling. Spills from platforms have become far
less frequent over recent decades, federal data show. A report by the National
Research Council found that offshore oil and gas drilling was responsible for just 2%
of the petroleum in North America's oceans, compared with 63% from natural
seepage and 22% from municipal and industrial waste. Coast Guard reports show
that the amount of oil spilled in U.S. waters dropped from 3.6 million barrels in the
1970s to less than 500,000 in the 1990s. During Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in
2005, 115 oil platforms were toppled, but only insignificant amounts of oil spilled,
says Roland Guidry, Louisiana's oil spill coordinator. There was significant pollution
8 million to 10 million gallons of oil spilled, mostly from tanks and pipelines on land
and from tankers striking submerged drilling platforms but less than 10% of that
came from federal offshore operations. Today's technology, such as automatic
shutoff valves on the seabed floor and mechanical devices that can prevent blowouts
caused by uncontrolled buildups of pressure, has greatly reduced the risk of oil
spills. "Offshore drilling is the safest way to go," Guidry says. "Those guys don't spill
oil." Environmentalist Richard Charter of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund says
smaller spills are still too common. "This is a dirty, polluting industry," he says. "I've
seen it with my own eyes, stepped in it with my own feet." The biggest pollution risk
involved in offshore drilling is in transporting the oil back to shore by pipeline,
barge or tanker. The 2002 National Research Council report found that marine
transportation was responsible for one-third of worldwide petroleum spillage, about
eight times the amount caused by drilling platforms and pipelines. Still, the Minerals
Management Service projects about one oil spill per year of at least 1,000 barrels in
the Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years. Every three to four years, it says, a spill of
at least 10,000 barrels can be expected. "If that hit a beach in western Florida once
every four years, I think people would care," says Michael Gravitz of Environment
America. "Those communities live and die by having clean beaches."
OCS Unpopular--Environmentalists
Environmental groups hate the plan theyll halt progress
because of drilling
WorldWatch 14 (May 20, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5874)
The U.S. Congress is likely to debate an energy package this month that
would lift the offshore drilling ban. It could also offer financial support for
renewable energy technologies and policies that reduce fossil fuel
consumption. Politicians in both chambers of Congress who previously
opposed offshore drilling are now expressing support for expanded energy
policies. Even Santa Barbara County supports offshore drilling.
The political showdown has forced environmental groups to decide
between staunchly opposing offshore drilling or supporting
legislation that furthers their wider goals in addressing the climate
crisis. While most environmentalists oppose offshore drilling, some leading environmental groups may
ease their opposition in favor of clean energy policies that have so far floundered in Congress. If
national organizations support offshore drilling, they risk further
divisions with local environmental groups that are based along U.S. coastlines.
"The leaders of local environmental groups are digging in their heels.
They only want to talk about offshore drilling," said Eric Smith, a political science
professor at the University of California in Santa Barbara. "Meanwhile, lots of environmentalists are saying
We have a fight
here. It reflects a fight on coastal zones around the country."
we ought to talk more broadly and talk about what to do with climate change.
Renewables
GOP Opposition
Republicans and powerful conservative councils against
Renewable Energy
Malewitz, Stateline Energy and Environmental reporter, 13
(Jim, 6-24-13, The Pew: Stateline, Renewable energy incentives survive lobby
attack, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2013/06/24/renewable-energy-incentives-survivelobby-attack, accessed 7-9-14, CLF)
For renewable energy supporters, this was supposed to be a year of
statehouse setbacks.
States Cooling to Renewable Energy read the headline of a MarchWall
Street Journal story reporting that more than a dozen legislatures were
weighing proposals to roll back or abolish mandates that utilities purchase a
certain amount of renewable energy. Mandates are in place in 29 states and
Washington, D.C.
Opponents of the renewable energy requirements, which are
credited with spurring wind and solar investment across much of the
country, said the policies violate free-market principles and ramp up
electricity costs. After the 2012 elections installed large Republican
majorities in a number of states, the conservative American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) joined ranks with prominent
libertarian groups in a nationwide anti-mandate blitz. Wind and solar
advocates feared the worst.
So much for predictions. With most sessions now wrapped up or waning,
renewable energy backers now brim with triumph and relief as they eye a
legislative scorecard tilting their way.
Colorados state senate passed a bill April 16 that would increase the amount
of energy utilities must get from renewable sources, and also expands the
definition to include non-renewable sources such as methane produced from
coal mining.
Connecticut is following a similar strategy, by including large hydroelectric
plants in its definition ofrenewable energy. That will help utilities meet the
states goal of 20 percent renewable energy by 2020, said Nick Culver, an
analyst at New Energy Finance in New York.
Connecticut has thrown up the white flag on its ambitious renewable targets,
and is now negotiating its terms of surrender, Culver said. Instead of simply
easing back targets, they intend to widen eligibility criteria to include
imported hydropower from Canada that would have been built regardless,
which amounts to pretty much the same thing.
Proposed Bills
Other states considering similar policies include Missouri, Ohio and Kansas.
Thirty of the proposed bills in those states were deemed
significant, meaning they have the potential to affect demand for
renewable power, by the North Carolina Solar Center, a partnership
between the Energy Department and North Carolina State University that
tracks such activity for the U.S. Energy Department.
Alecs Wynn said groups in six additional states are planning attacks on
renewable-energy policies.
The wind and solar industries are beating back efforts to reduce
demand with their own lobbying, said Carrie Hitt, vice president of state
affairs at the Washington-based Solar Energy Industry Association.
This is a deliberate campaign by conservative think-tanks, the
Heartland Institute and Alec to overturn renewable energy policy that
threatens the fossil industry, Hitt said in an interview.
Hager = Bill Hager, Florida House Representative
big ethanol producer. Whether Obama will be willing to reform the policy
remains to be seen, but for now, statements from the Agriculture Department
and EPA indicate that the administration remains firm in its support for the
renewable-fuels standard.
biggest U.S. oil producer, and Peabody Energy Corp (BTU)., the
largest U.S. coal mining company. Those companies contributed to at
least one of the lobby groups pushing the change, according to the
Center for Media and Democracy, a Madison, Wisconsin-based non-profit
group. It would hurt wind turbine makerVestas Wind Systems A/S
(VWS) and First Solar Inc (FSLR)., which develops solar farms.
Were opposed to these mandates, and 2013 will be the most active year
ever in terms of efforts to repeal them, said Todd Wynn, task force
director for energy of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or
Alec, a lobby group pushing for the change. Natural gas is a clean
fuel, and regulators and policy makers are seeing how its much
more affordable than renewable energy.
Conference Discussion
President Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group for
the oil and gas industry, along with the former governors of Colorado
and New Mexico will speak about the issue today in New York at a conference
hosted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Hydraulic-fracturing technology opened aging reservoirs for natural gas
drilling, driving prices down about 72 percent from their record 2005 high.
Thats making more expensive wind and solar power projects harder for utility
regulators to justify, according to Alec and its allies, which include
theHeritage Foundation in Washington.
The shale revolutions are not just having ramifactions politically and
economicaly in the U.S. but also around the world, said Michael Liebreich,
chief executive officer of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. In 17 years, not
that far away, we could reach peak energy use. This is not generally
accepted.
Threat to Wind
Killing support for renewable-energy policies threatens sales at
companies from wind-turbine makersGeneral Electric Co (GE). and Siemens
AG (SIE) to SolarCity Corp. (SCTY), the San Mateo, California-based rooftop
energy developer.
The push at the state level replicates efforts in Washington.
Opposition from Republican lawmakers delayed the extension of a
federal tax credit for wind power, prompting Vestas, the biggest turbine
maker after GE, to fire 10 percent of its workforce at two Colorado factories.
There havent been any outright repeals yet, but weve seen some wateringdown, said Justin Barnes, senior policy analyst at the North Carolina Solar
Center. Activity against renewable portfolio standards has been
increasing in the past year. Their arguments are mostly on cost.
The Raleigh, North Carolina-based research group is supported by the Energy
Department and operates the DSIRE database of state incentives.
U.S. Renewables
More than half the U.S. states with laws requiring utilities to buy
renewable energy are considering ways to pare back those
mandates after a plunge in natural gas prices brought on by technology
that boosted supply.
Sixteen of the 29 states with renewable portfolio standards are
considering legislation that would reduce the need for wind and
solar power, according to researchers backed by the U.S. Energy
Department. North Carolina lawmakers may be among the first to move,
followed by Colorado and Connecticut.
The efforts could benefit U.S. utilities such as Duke Energy Corp
(DUK). and PG&E Corp (PCG). as well as Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM).,
the biggest U.S. oil producer, and Peabody Energy Corp (BTU)., the largest
U.S. coal mining company. Those companies contributed to at least one
of the lobby groups pushing the change, according to the Center for
Media and Democracy, a Madison, Wisconsin-based non-profit group. It would
hurt wind turbine maker Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS) and First Solar Inc
(FSLR)., which develops solar farms.
Were opposed to these mandates, and 2013 will be the most active
year ever in terms of efforts to repeal them, said Todd Wynn, task force
director for energy of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or Alec, a
lobby group pushing for the change. Natural gas is a clean fuel, and
regulators and policy makers are seeing how its much more
affordable than renewable energy.
see tangible benefits coming to their community, they will make sure that it
is done, which is the key to success.
Solar
Conservative Opposition
Conservatives and the nations largest power companies
oppose solar energy
Abrams, SALON assistant editor, 14
(Lindsey, 4-21-14, SALON, The Koch brothers are going after solar panels,
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/21/the_koch_brothers_are_going_after_solar_p
anels/, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
Homeowners and businesses that wish to generate their own cheap,
renewable energy now have a force of conservative political might to contend
with, and the Koch brothers are leading the charge. The L.A. Times, to its
credit, found the positive spin to put on this: Little old solar has now
grown big enough to have enemies.
The escalating battle centers over two ways traditional utilities have
found to counter the rapidly growing solar market: demanding a
share of the power generated by renewables and opposing net
metering, which allows solar panel users to sell the extra electricity
they generate back to the grid and without which solar might no
longer be affordable. The Times reports on the conservative heavyweights
making a fossil fuel-powered effort to make those things happen:
The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the
nations largest power companies have backed efforts in recent
months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The
conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North
Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a membership group
for conservative state lawmakers, recently drafted model legislation that
targeted net metering. The group also helped launch efforts by conservative
lawmakers in more than half a dozen states to repeal green energy
mandates.
State governments are starting to wake up, Christine Harbin Hanson,
a spokeswoman for Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group backed
by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, said in an email.
The organization has led the effort to overturn the mandate in
Kansas, which requires that 20% of the states electricity come from
renewable sources.
These green energy mandates are bad policy, said Hanson, adding that the
group was hopeful Kansas would be the first of many dominoes to fall.
The groups campaign in that state compared the green energy mandate
to Obamacare, featuring ominous images of Kathleen Sebelius, the outgoing
secretary of Health and Human Services, who was Kansas governor when the
state adopted the requirement.
(Evan, 4-19-14, The Los Angeles Times, Koch brothers, big utilities attack
solar, green energy policies, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solarkochs-20140420-story.html#page=1, accessed 7-12-14, CLF)
WASHINGTON The political attack ad that ran recently in Arizona had some
familiar hallmarks of the genre, including a greedy villain who hogged sweets
for himself and made children cry.
But the bad guy, in this case, wasn't a fat-cat lobbyist or someone's political
opponent.
He was a solar-energy consumer.
Solar, once almost universally regarded as a virtuous, if perhaps over-hyped,
energy alternative, has now grown big enough to have enemies.
The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the
nation's largest power companies have backed efforts in recent
months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The
conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina
and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.
Alarmed environmentalists and their allies in the solar industry have
fought back, battling the other side to a draw so far. Both sides say the
fight is growing more intense as new states, including Ohio, South
Carolina and Washington, enter the fray.
At the nub of the dispute are two policies found in dozens of states. One
requires utilities to get a certain share of power from renewable sources. The
other, known as net metering, guarantees homeowners or businesses with
solar panels on their roofs the right to sell any excess electricity back into the
power grid at attractive rates.
Net metering forms the linchpin of the solar-energy business model. Without
it, firms say, solar power would be prohibitively expensive.
The power industry argues that net metering provides an unfair
advantage to solar consumers, who don't pay to maintain the power
grid although they draw money from it and rely on it for backup on
cloudy days. The more people produce their own electricity through solar,
the fewer are left being billed for the transmission lines, substations and
computer systems that make up the grid, industry officials say.
"If you are using the grid and benefiting from the grid, you should
pay for it," said David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric
Institute, the advocacy arm for the industry. "If you don't, other
customers have to absorb those costs."
The institute has warned power companies that profits could erode
catastrophically if current policies and market trends continue. If electricity
companies delay in taking political action, the group warned in a
report, "it may be too late to repair the utility business model."
The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a membership group for
conservative state lawmakers, recently drafted model legislation that
targeted net metering. The group also helped launch efforts by
conservative lawmakers in more than half a dozen states to repeal
green energy mandates.
"State governments are starting to wake up," Christine Harbin Hanson, a
spokeswoman for Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group backed by
billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, said in an email. The
organization has led the effort to overturn the mandate in Kansas, which
requires that 20% of the state's electricity come from renewable sources.
"These green energy mandates are bad policy," said Hanson, adding
that the group was hopeful Kansas would be the first of many dominoes to
fall.
The group's campaign in that state compared the green energy mandate to
Obamacare, featuring ominous images of Kathleen Sebelius, the outgoing
secretary of Health and Human Services, who was Kansas' governor when the
state adopted the requirement.
The Kansas Senate voted late last month to repeal the mandate, but solar
industry allies in the state House blocked the move.
Environmentalists were unnerved. "The want to roll it back here so
they can start picking off other states," said Dorothy Barnett, director of
the Climate and Energy Project, a Kansas advocacy group.
The arguments over who benefits from net metering, meanwhile, are hotly
disputed. Some studies, including one published recently by regulators in
Vermont, conclude that solar customers bring enough benefits to a regional
power supply to fully defray the cost of the incentive.
Utilities deny that and are spending large sums to greatly scale back the
policy.
In Arizona, a major utility and a tangle of secret donors and operatives with
ties to ALEC and the Kochs invested millions to persuade state
regulators to impose a monthly fee of $50 to $100 on net-metering
customers.
Two pro-business groups, at least one of which had previously reported
receiving millions of dollars from the Koch brothers, formed the campaign's
public face. Their activities were coordinated by GOP consultant Sean Noble
and former Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams, two early architects of the
Koch network of nonprofits.
In October, California ethics officials levied a $1-million fine after accusing
groups the two men ran during the 2012 election of violating state campaign
finance laws in an effort to hide the identities of donors.
The Arizona Public Service Co., the state's utility, also had Noble on its
payroll. As a key vote at the Arizona Corporation Commission approached late
last year, one of the commissioners expressed frustration that anonymous
donors had bankrolled the heated campaign. He demanded APS reveal its
involvement. The utility reported it had spent $3.7 million.
"Politically oriented nonprofits are a fact of life today and provide a vehicle for
individuals and organizations with a common point of view to express
themselves," company officials said in a statement in response to questions
about their campaign.
The solar companies, seeking to sway the corporation commission, an
elected panel made up entirely of Republicans, formed an organization aimed
at building support among conservatives. The group, Tell Utilities Solar won't
be Killed, is led by former California congressman Barry Goldwater Jr., a
Republican Party stalwart.
"These solar companies are becoming popular, and utilities don't like
competition," Goldwater said. "I believe people ought to have a choice."
The commission ultimately voted to impose a monthly fee on solar
consumers of $5.
The solar firms declared victory. But utility industry officials and
activists at ALEC and Americans for Prosperity say the battles are
just getting underway. They note the Kansas legislation will soon be up for
reconsideration, and fights elsewhere have barely begun.
In North Carolina, executives at Duke Energy, the country's largest electric
utility, have made clear the state's net metering law is in their sights. The
company's lobbying effort is just beginning. But already, Goldwater's group
has begun working in the state, launching a social media and video campaign
accusing Duke of deceit.
"The intention of these proposals is to eliminate the rooftop solar industry,"
said Bryan Miller, president of the Alliance for Solar Choice, an industry
group.
"They have picked some of the most conservative states in the country," he
added. "But rooftop solar customers are voters, and policymakers ultimately
have to listen to the public."
LNG Terminals
With respect to Sparrows Point, "our primary concern is assuring public safety.
We have done so in this order by attaching 169 conditions that will protect
public safety and mitigate any adverse environmental impact," said FERC
Chairman Joseph Kelliher. "I realize this is not a popular decision, but it
is the correct decision, rooted in voluminous record and based on sound
science."
The Sparrows Point project, which was been the target of intense
opposition by state and federal politicians, would have about 1.5
Bcf/d of regasification capacity with a potential for expansion to 2.25
Bcf/d. Regasified LNG would be delivered to regional markets via Mid-Atlantic
Express, an 88-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline that would extend from the
terminal to connections with interstate pipelines at Eagle, PA.
The project, including three LNG tanks to store up to 480,000 cubic meters of
LNG, would be located on 80 acres within the existing Sparrows Point
Industrial Complex southeast of Baltimore in Baltimore County. The site was
previously owned by Bethlehem Steel and housed a steel manufacturing and
shipbuilding facility.
The decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission came
two days after the state of Maryland, in a last-ditch effort, urged
FERC to withhold approval of the terminal and pipeline project until
the concerns of state and local governments are fully addressed.
Maryland's concerns about the LNG terminal proposed near
Baltimore are "substantial and numerous," wrote Bruce Michael of the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources in a letter to the Commission last
Tuesday.
Even with FERC's approval of the terminal and pipeline project,
Maryland could delay the construction of the facilities indefinitely by
refusing to issue water permits -- as some states have done with
contentious gas projects within their boundaries.
Offshore Drilling
calling it too modest. The plan also scuttles some proposed Alaska lease
sales.
White House spokesman Bill Burton largely deflected questions Wednesday
about whether the drilling push would help the push for climate change
legislation.
I would say that its obviously a part of the climate legislation and
the entire package that the president is working with Congress to
move forward, he said when asked about the implications of the
drilling plan on the Capitol Hill climate change debate.
So I would say that this is mostly about coming through on a promise that he
made to the American people that he would have a comprehensive energy
plan that would include some increased domestic production of energy but
also some big investments in renewable technology, as well as finding ways
to promote efficiency and things like that. So all these things are connected,
he added.
Something else to watch: Several lawmakers who support wider
offshore drilling want the Senate energy and climate bill to give
coastal states a nice cut of what could be billions of dollars in
leasing and royalty revenue.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a centrist swing vote in the climate fight, on
Wednesday applauded the plan to proceed with leasing off Virginias coast
but reiterated his call for Virginia to receive a share of the money.
This policy should be coupled with a fair and equitable formula for profitsharing between the federal and state government in order to attract wellpaying jobs to the commonwealth and support a range of projects, from clean
energy development to transportation infrastructure to coastal restoration,
Webb said.
Obamas plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas.
board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council
Unpopular
Offshore drilling is unpopular with Democrat Senators and
Oceana
Fisher, Oceana Editorial manager, 10
[Emily, 5-10-14, Oceana, Oceana Joins Senators in Opposition to
New Drilling, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2010/05/oceana-joins-senators-incall-for-a-ban-on-new-offshore-drilling, accessed 7-6-14, AAZ]
Oceana CEO Andy Sharpless joined three Senators at a press
conference on the oil spill yesterday, and he called on President
Obama and Congress to ban new offshore drilling.
"I will make it short and to the point," said Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida).
"The president's proposal for offshore drilling is dead on arrival. Senator
Nelson was joined by New Jersey Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg and
Robert Menendez.
The Senators also vowed to keep new oil drilling provisions out of any
climate change legislation that comes out of the Senate, and Senator
Menendez has introduced new legislation to raise the limit on the
amount of money oil companies could be forced to pay for economic
damages from catastrophic oil spills.
While it is too late to avert the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it is not
too late to learn from it, or to put those lessons to work, said Sharpless.
We must take immediate action and put in place long-term policies
that put the health of coastal communities and ecosystems over the
interests of the oil lobby and industry profits.
[Mike, 9-7-12, Energy Acuity, Energy Policys Impact on the 2012 Presidential
Debate, http://www.energyacuity.com/blog/bid/217770/Energy-Policy-sImpact-on-the-2012-Presidential-Race, accessed 7-7-13, HG]
A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office cites 70% of the
nations oil and gas reserves as available for drilling already, making
it unclear as to the extent to which Romneys plan will increase actual energy
yields (3). An emphasis in off-shore exploration is expected to bolster our
nations fuel production but we must remain mindful of the potential for
disaster, as shown by the recent Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Romney notes
that exploration in the Mid-Atlantic, which is currently prohibited, has
received continuous bipartisan support (4). Its worth noting that this support
is from Virginia State Senators, whose responsibility is primarily to their
constituents. Sen. Jim Webb (D) mentions improvements to his
commonwealths economy as a primary reason to support development in
the Mid-Atlantic. When discussing national energy policy, this inherent danger
of porkbarrel politics, the allocation of federal funds for use in largely
localized projects, cannot be ignored. Even still, at our current pace of
development, the EIA (Energy Information Administration) predicts
the US can eliminate its net imports of natural gas and reduce
imports of oil to 38% by 2020. A majority of the necessary oil
imports remaining will be sourced from Canada and Mexico, an idea
that has continually attracted bipartisan support (5). If were going to
be approaching North American energy independence by 2020 anyways, than
the question becomes whether the actions proposed by Romney to further
accelerate domestic production are worth the potential externalities.
One key factor in achieving energy independence not discussed in this report
is the fate of existing CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards.
President Obama implemented standards in May 2010 which aim to achieve a
fuel economy of 34.5 mpg in model year 2016 vehicles. The EIA cites these
new standards as a contributing factor to the 124,000 barrel per day
decrease in US gasoline consumption during the first quarter of 2012 as
compared to 2011. In an effort to continue this positive trend, this summer
President Obama implemented new standards aimed at improving nationwide
fuel economy for 2017-2025 (54.5 mpg in model year 2025 vehicles) (6). The
EIA predicts this new measure will save 1.4 million barrels of oil per day by
2035 when compared to a simple extension of the 2012-2016 standards (7).
This decision has been received with staunch opposition from the Republican
Party, including the new Presidential hopeful. Romney has been open in his
opposition of the CAFE standards, stating that they hurt domestic
automakers and provided a benefit to some of the foreign automakers (8).
Not only would Romney be expected to rescind the new standards but could
repeal the 2012-2016 standards which have already had a tangible effect on
foreign oil imports. Despite these accusations, the National Highway
built, will produce more than 6,100 MW of power, according to DOI figures.
Since 2009, seven wind projects worth nearly 3,900 MW also have been
approved; 566 MW of wind energy had been approved on federal land prior to
that.
The bill's sponsors remain confident that their efforts to broaden the appeal
of revenue sharing to more states and constituencies will help this latest
measure secure passage in the 113th Congress. "We want to move this
legislation," Dillon said. "This isn't a message bill; this is something we think
is important to actually accomplish."
more visits than usual, said Rep. Gene Green, whose south Texas district is
in the heart of oil country. Among his callers, he said, have been
representatives of ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil to discuss climate-change
legislation and other matters. To a degree, the investment appears to be
paying off. On Wednesday, a Senate committee voted to lift a ban on
drilling across a vast area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The provision,
which the industry pushed for, is included in a bill that would expand the use
of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The bill now goes to the
full Senate. Democrats from oil states have also managed to get rid of a
provision in an anti-pollution bill to require refiners to meet a standard on
low-carbon motor fuel. Refiners say the bill would still be devastating to
business. Most major industries have increased what they spend on
lobbying, but no one has done so at a faster clip over the past two
years than oil and gas companies, according to data from the Center
for Responsive Politics. The enormous amount of money funneled to
Washington by energy companies comes after some members of Congress
suggested slapping the big oil companies with a windfall profits tax last year,
when Americans were seething over $4-a-gallon gas. Democrats who
also took the majority of state legislatures and governorships in
2006 traditionally have not been as cozy with the oil sector as
Republicans, and the energy lobby has spent the past few years
trying to make inroads. You'll often see a correlation between
spending and an industry or company that's in the hot seat, said
Sheila Krumholz, the Center for Responsive Politics' executive
director. That will be enough to get them to hire additional guns
and direct more money to lobbying.
the success of presidents in governing depends on their success in striking the right
balance between governing to please their partys base and governing to please the
political center. Like every presidency before his, this is the challenge for
Obamas presidency. Its success in governing the nation, as well as the possibility of a second
term, may hinge on how well the president strikes the right balance between appealing to his liberal base
and simultaneously to his supporters in the political center. The principal reason why a presidents
success in office depends on his ability to maintain the support of the presidents
electoral coalition (the combined partisan base and centrist supporters) is that
this is also his governing coalition. Since political views are generally stable, a president should
expect to receive most of his support while in office from the same quarters that supported him in his
election. As a consequence, the success of a president in office depends to a great
extent on his ability to maintain both the support of his base and the center. Just as the
presidents electoral success depended on maintaining his electoral coalition, his success in
governing depends on maintaining the support of that same coalition. In effect, there is
no bright line between the politics of governing and the politics of elections. In its most basic sense, the
permanent campaign to maintain the presidents constituency of supporters from election to office and
on to the next election is fundamental to presidential politics.
policy and ushered in more restrictions on new exploration, tighter controls of existing wells and higher costs for oil companies. I continue
to believe that domestic oil production is important, President Barack Obama told reporters at a Thursday news conference. But I also
Some have
likened the spill to the 1979 partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island
a turning point in U.S. energy policy that would effectively cap expansion of nuclear power for decades. Just as
believe we can't do this stuff if we don't have confidence that we can prevent crises like this from happening again.
Three Mile Island didnt put an end to nuclear power production, the BP disaster wont put a stop to deep water drilling in the Gulf. For at least
cap the leaking well is successful, the legacy of the disaster and the final tally of the environmental and financial damage wont be known
for years. There is a long term study needed Im talking decades to really fully understand the consequences of this spill, said John
Stegeman, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. So that when the next one comes along and there will be others,
whether theyre this big our not we can enhance our ability to understand and deal with and predict consequences of future spills. For now,
the spill has brought new offshore drilling to a virtual standstill. On Thursday, the Obama
administration announced a six-month moratorium on deep water oil and gas drilling and
ordered the shutdown of offshore exploratory wells already operating until they meet new safety requirements. Public outrage over
BPs inability to stop the runway well has created a political firestorm. Congress has held a blizzard of hearings on
the cause of the accident and the implications for future drilling. Pictures of tarred beaches and oil-fouled pelicans in the Gulf Coast have
intensified a decades-long debate weighing the need to expand domestic oil supplies against the risk of environmental damage. Supporters of
expanded drilling argue the country cant afford to stop looking for new domestic oil supplies. "If the delay is for a season to ensure we have
the highest levels of protection in place, that's one thing," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the ranking member the Senates Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, on Thursday. But if it means that existing permits are allowed to lapse that's not acceptable to me or
political battle lines over U.S. energy policy are complex. Over the past decade,
multiple skirmishes have been fought between bipartisan alliances of energy-producing and energy-consuming
Alaska." The
states. The divisions are further complicated by the often conflicting goals of energy policy related to oil natural gas, coal, wind, solar, etc.
offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the moratorium on offshore oil
drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and
central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell
PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of
Anchorage. The administration is also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such
survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken steps to make
offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven
members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the
Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill
preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by
government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per
Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political
capital. The environmental community hates the drilling proposals. The Republicans
and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough . And
gallon,
independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in
Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy
was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a
strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized
on energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental
protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's offshore oil
development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of
path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is
in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a
six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the
early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off
Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic.
The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due
to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the
moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor.
Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a
series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially
allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted
by the Democrat-controlled Senate.
on the OCS, and industry has clearly done so for over 30 years," the groups say, adding that "since it is not always clear prior to drilling
whether a field will yield natural gas, oil, or both, it seems inconsistent with the principle of conservation of the resource to leave recoverable
oil deposits behind in order to drill new wells for natural gas elsewhere."
2009. You have the normal cyclical impacts of a downturn in government receipts and that overlays all of
the government support to shore up the markets. You have to go back to the question of
whether or not there will there be the political will. There are important reasons behind why
we haveto become less reliant on foreign energy; from a geopolitical point of view, from a carbon
emissions point of view. But how now you have to ask, How do we make that happen in an
environment where the government will be under some severe fiscal constraints.
Thats going to be the real challenge. Spitzer: And regulation is effectively a silent taxation
policy. So instituting that in the face of the pocketbook issues that people are dealing with is going to be
tough. Any administration would have to burn a lot of political capital to push
through an energy policy that tries to accomplish what either candidate proposed.
Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far
enough. And independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric . According to
the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand
what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was
"described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became
enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A
recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey
found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental
protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that
political climate, Obama's offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the
nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of
Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't
going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals,
Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's
pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan,
minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and
gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month
moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically
reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama
backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan
lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The White
House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of
Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration
offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill.
When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the
Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills
that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing
development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the
Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas
plan floated by former President George W. Bush during his last days in office. That proposal would have
offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison,
Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and
excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast.
Empirics
E&E Daily 12 (Environment and Energy Daily, 1/17, lexis)
Despite an impressive track record at clearing energy and public lands measures, the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee didn't see a single measure debated on the Senate
floor in 2011. Retiring committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is likely to keep the pressure on
Senate leaders to take those measures up in the full chamber as his time in the Senate comes to a close at
the end of this year. And he'll also likely encourage discussions of his upcoming clean energy standard
legislation. The measure isn't likely to gain much traction among Republicans in either chamber -- a fact
Bingaman acknowledges -- but he says it will still be important to start debate on the issue. Other
highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The committee last year kept up its famously bipartisan
appearances, churning out an impressive 61 bills. But the panel still suffered from bouts of
partisanship that brought action on certain issues -- like a response to the 2010 Gulf of
Mexico oil spill -- to a standstill. The addition of several new tea party-backed GOP freshmen to the
roster also caused some strife at committee meetings and in negotiations on seemingly noncontroversial
bills. Head-butting isn't likely to go away on key issues as election-year politics dominate
discussions throughout the Capitol. CES: Bingaman has vowed to float legislation early this session that
would create a federal clean energy standard requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their
electricity from low-carbon sources in the coming decades. Once introduced, the measure is sure to get
ample face time in the committee, but partisan roadblocks in the full Senate and a sure death in the House
will likely prevent it from moving beyond the panel. Smaller bipartisan bills: The committee last year
cleared dozens of smaller energy bills on a bipartisan basis -- many of them breakouts from a broad 2009
energy bill that stalled in the full Senate -- but none have seen floor time. Bingaman will likely push Senate
leaders to move on some of those measures as he sees the clock ticking on his time in the Senate.
Offshore drilling: Efforts last year to advance offshore drilling safety language stalled after
ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) urged the inclusion of coastal
revenue-sharing language in a bill responding to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bingaman isn't
likely to advance the legislation this session, but the committee could take a look at other
offshore drilling issues, such as Interior's five-year leasing plan. Republicans and the oil
industry want to see the areas included in that plan beefed up, while environmentalists
and many Democrats say it already infringes on too many sensitive areas.
research note Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new
support. One obvious implication of todays announcement: delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the
Bipartisan opposition
Greenwire 6 (Rough going seen for efforts to lift congressional moratoria, 5-266,
http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=295)
With a growing number of Republican lawmakers facing stiff midterm races, efforts to
open more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling will find tough going on Capitol Hill,
environmentalists and others tracking the issue say. For now, industry groups say momentum is on their
side. Though the House voted 217-203 on Thursday to reject removing congressional moratoria on most
offshore natural gas drilling, industry lobbyists point out that Rep. John Peterson's (R-Pa.) plan got 46 more
votes than it did last year. If there is an offshore drilling component to an upcoming House energy
package, it is expected to be shaped largely by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (RCalif.). Pombo's plan would allow states to "opt-out" of offshore oil and gas drilling bans. States that opt-out
would receive a share of offshore production revenues. Environmentalists are hopeful the
bipartisan coastal coalition that opposes wider leasing will not be swayed in sufficient
numbers to endorse an opt-out plan or other efforts that are less aggressive than Peterson's but
still relax current bans. Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, called the argument that Thursday's vote puts industry within striking distance of winning changes
to current restrictions a "stretch." "We still won. Period," Taylor said in an interview Friday. " The bottom
line is that [the] vote proves that people care about our coasts, and any proposal that
comes through that hurts our coasts will be rejected." Also, a House floor vote last week that
would also have lifted congressional coastal oil drilling bans lost by a large margin. That prompted an
environmentalist to note that an opt-out covering both oil and gas would face hurdles
that could be greater than Peterson's gas-only proposal . One lobbyist who works on
environmental and energy issues does not believe the House is ready to adopt the opt-out
idea, which was most recently floated through legislation offered by Rep. Bobby Jindal
(R-La.) that largely mirrors an opt-out and state revenue-sharing plan Pombo floated last year. " I don't
see how an opt-out passes," the lobbyist said. "We have never lost a vote on this on
the floor," added an aide to a Democratic lawmaker. "To succeed, Pombo has to play the middle ground.
I am not sure if he is there yet." Still, an industry lobbyist seeking wider drilling said Friday the vote on
Peterson's plan "proves a nuanced approach to things ... has a lot of credibility on the Hill right now." Yet
the fight could get tougher if it does not happen this year. Republicans are bracing for a tough midterm
election, and while votes on offshore drilling are not quite partisan showdowns, more
Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called Obamas plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays
leasing or sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note
Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an
opening to woo new support. One obvious implication of todays announcement: delaying and canceling
OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to sweeten a climate bill by
Tanks capital
Goddard 9 (Taegan, Creator Political Wire, (One of the Most Widely-Read
and Influential Political Web Sites on the Internet), "Does Obama Practice a
Different Kind of Politics?", CQ Politics, 3-19, http://innovation.cq.com/
liveonline/51/landing)
Dan from Philadelphia: How quickly is Obama burning through his political
capital? Will he have anything left to actually keep some of his promises?
With potential shifts from his campaign stances on the question of
Gitmo, Iraq troop withdrawals and taxing employer healthcare
benefits, it seems he is in for tough fights on all fronts. # Taegan
Goddard: That's a great question. I think Obama spends some of his
political capital every time he makes an exception to his principles -such as hiring a lobbyist to a key position or overlooking an
appointee not paying their taxes. Policy reversals such as the ones
you note burn through even more of this precious capital.
Environmental groups hate the plan Hobson 12 (Margaret, Offshore Drilling: Obamas Development Plans
Gain Little Political Traction in Years Since Gulf Spill)
http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1, 4/18/12)
While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken
steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill
Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill
commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the
Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety,
stable, a president should expect to receive most of his support while in office from the same quarters that
electoral coalition, his success in governing depends on maintaining the support of that same coalition. In
effect, there is no bright line between the politics of governing and the politics of elections. In its most
basic sense, the permanent campaign to maintain the presidents constituency of supporters from
election to office and on to the next election is fundamental to presidential politics.
Bipartisan opposition
Greenwire 6 (Rough going seen for efforts to lift congressional
moratoria, 5-26-6,
http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=295)
efforts to open
more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling will find tough going on
Capitol Hill, environmentalists and others tracking the issue say. For now, industry groups say
With a growing number of Republican lawmakers facing stiff midterm races,
momentum is on their side. Though the House voted 217-203 on Thursday to reject removing
congressional moratoria on most offshore natural gas drilling, industry lobbyists point out that Rep. John
Peterson's (R-Pa.) plan got 46 more votes than it did last year. If there is an offshore drilling component to
an upcoming House energy package, it is expected to be shaped largely by House Resources Committee
Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Pombo's plan would allow states to "opt-out" of offshore oil and gas
drilling bans. States that opt-out would receive a share of offshore production revenues. Environmentalists
are hopeful the bipartisan coastal coalition that opposes wider leasing will
not be swayed in sufficient numbers to endorse an opt-out plan or other efforts that are less aggressive
than Peterson's but still relax current bans. Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, called the argument that Thursday's vote puts industry within striking distance
of winning changes to current restrictions a "stretch." "We still won. Period," Taylor said in an interview
drilling bans lost by a large margin. That prompted an environmentalist to note that an opt-out covering
both oil and gas would face hurdles that could be greater than Peterson's gas-only proposal. One lobbyist
who works on environmental and energy issues does not believe the House is ready to adopt the opt-out
idea, which was most recently floated through legislation offered by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) that largely
mirrors an opt-out and state revenue-sharing plan Pombo floated last year. "I don't see how an opt-out
passes," the lobbyist said. "We have never lost a vote on this on the floor," added an
aide to a Democratic lawmaker. "To succeed, Pombo has to play the middle ground. I am not sure if he is
there yet." Still, an industry lobbyist seeking wider drilling said Friday the vote on Peterson's plan "proves a
nuanced approach to things ... has a lot of credibility on the Hill right now." Yet the fight could get tougher
if it does not happen this year. Republicans are bracing for a tough midterm election, and while votes on
offshore drilling are not quite partisan showdowns, more
offshore leasing.
N.M.) is likely to keep the pressure on Senate leaders to take those measures up in the full chamber as his
time in the Senate comes to a close at the end of this year. And he'll also likely encourage discussions of
his upcoming clean energy standard legislation. The measure isn't likely to gain much traction among
Republicans in either chamber -- a fact Bingaman acknowledges -- but he says it will still be important to
start debate on the issue. Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The committee last year
kept up its famously bipartisan appearances, churning out an impressive 61 bills. But the panel still
several new tea party-backed GOP freshmen to the roster also caused some strife at committee meetings
Bingaman has vowed to float legislation early this session that would create a federal clean energy
standard requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from low-carbon sources in
the coming decades. Once introduced, the measure is sure to get ample face time in the committee, but
partisan roadblocks in the full Senate and a sure death in the House will likely prevent it from moving
beyond the panel. Smaller bipartisan bills: The committee last year cleared dozens of smaller energy bills
on a bipartisan basis -- many of them breakouts from a broad 2009 energy bill that stalled in the full
Senate -- but none have seen floor time. Bingaman will likely push Senate leaders to move on some of
those measures as he sees the clock ticking on his time in the Senate. Offshore drilling:
Efforts
last
year to advance offshore drilling safety language stalled after ranking member Lisa
Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) urged the inclusion of coastal revenue-sharing
language in a bill responding to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bingaman isn't likely to advance the
The battles won't be pretty. But they -- along with the campaigns, of course -- will be
what occupies Washington during the next year. What follows is a look at the likely agendas for key
congressional committees over the next several months: Cont HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES The agenda for 2012 Rep.
in 2012. Expect to see plenty of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and his agency heads on the witness stand as the
committee continues its assault on the Obama administration's policies. "Republicans on the committee will continue to
focus on creating new American jobs, reducing the debt and federal deficit, protecting access to our nation's natural
resources and conducting oversight of the administration's policies and actions," said committee spokeswoman Jill Strait.
Last year saw 115 hearings and markups of a dizzying number of bills. "I think 2012 will be equally as busy," Strait said.
Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011
Refuge, new uranium claims near the Grand Canyon and limit or reduce funding for land acquisition and conservation. The
minority will also promote accelerated development of solar, wind and other clean energy on public lands.
spill President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil rig
exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history,
includes offshore
March 2010
offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House
appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is
also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama
administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's
oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety,
environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully
that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters
are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means.
The report said, however, that once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and
necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that
issues
. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as
a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's
, Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will
work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White
House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old
plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south
Atlantic. The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the
administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House
favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all
U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas plan floated by former President George W. Bush
during his last days in office. That proposal would have offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison, Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a
dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast. American Petroleum Institute officials say that Obama's policies have kept 87 percent of federal offshore acreage
off limits to oil and gas development. "We need more certainty in the process and knowledge that things are going to move forward at a much better pace so that companies can plan for and make investments in
U.S. projects," argued Erik Milito, API's group director for upstream and industry operations But White House officials take issue with API's explanation. Interior Department officials say that thanks to Obama
administration policies, more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable offshore oil and natural gas resources will be open to exploration and development in the next five years. "Those who claim that
the areas that will be offered constitute few total acres aren't paying attention to where the oil and gas resources are," Heather Zichal, Obama's deputy assistant for energy and climate change, wrote in a White
House blog. "[T]hat's where we are focusing our attention, in places like the Western Gulf and the Central Gulf, an offshore area which, according to our resource estimates, has nearly double the resource potential
. Charging that the White House and Congress are ignoring the lessons of the BP oil spill, the green
groups are focusing their opposition on the president's plans to advance oil and gas development along the Alaska shores and parts of the East Coast.
energy exploration in half a century, Obama announced that he will open the door to drilling off Virginia's coast, in other
parts of the mid- and south Atlantic, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in waters off Alaska. At the same time, he declared
off-limits the waters off the West Coast and in Alaska's Bristol Bay, canceled four scheduled lease sales in Alaska and
called for more study before allowing new lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. What Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar called "a new direction" in energy policy amounted to an offshore political gerrymander in which the
administration barred drilling near states where it remains unpopular -- California and New Jersey -- and allowed it in
places where it has significant support, such as Virginia and parts of Alaska and the Southeast. Some conservative critics
determine whether a climate bill succeeds on Capitol Hill this year -- suggested that the move had helped revive the
legislation's prospects. A string of senators, including Alaska's Mark Begich (D) and Lisa Murkowski (R), Louisiana's Mary
Landrieu (D), New Hampshire's Judd Gregg (R), and Virginia Democrats Mark Warner and James Webb, praised the
strategy. They have urged the administration to use a climate bill to help boost domestic energy production, through
expansion of oil and gas drilling and nuclear power, and Begich and Gregg said Wednesday's announcement made them
more optimistic about a deal on the bill than they have been in months. Noting that Obama has also offered recent
support for more nuclear production, Gregg said such moves show that the administration is "genuinely trying to approach
the energy production issue in a multifaceted way and a realistic way, rather than listening to people on their left."
Landrieu concurred, saying that Obama is "sending as clear a signal as possible that he is willing to compromise in a way
that will bring forth a great energy and climate bill, and he wants Republicans to be a part of it." But coastal lawmakers
such as Democratic Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland joined environmentalists in blasting the
Wooing proponents
of drilling "cuts both ways," Cardin warned. "You can lose support if you do
things that have environmental risks."
change as unnecessary, and said it could jeopardize fisheries and tourist attractions.
do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas
super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move
unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But
fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing
Republicans
Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.
will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer
Impact on
oceans
Weather Channels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting capabilities. As accurate
as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S.
models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a
week after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction
capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to
replace our nations aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement
satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 monthsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online.
During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and
Budgets projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially
causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development
of our
oceans
significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind,
and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind
development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts
Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers,
ocean
management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit, and
the agency issued its first lease under the program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and
help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of
energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a
greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan outcome weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land
Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and
minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Departments Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it
to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by
$105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on
progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The US Mid-Term elections concluded with a large influx of Republican law makers signaling a change in US House committee chairmanships. With the departure of
Democrat lawmakers from the majority chairs, committees like the House Natural Resources Committee will switch to Republican control. Congressional Republicans, in
general, have been more sympathetic to Alaskan energy issues than Congressional Democrats.
OCS) exploration
(
, Republicans in the House and Senate have made up the majority of yes votes throughout the history of debate on these
issues. In Alaska, neither issue has been traditionally partisan with both winning strong near unanimous support from Republicans and Democrats alike. ANWR exploration
one vote on ANWR ever took place despite there being 18 ANWR bills introduced. This record pales compared to the 5 or 6 votes that Congress has sometimes averaged
on ANWR per Congressional term over the past 20 years. The issue of ANWR exploration however will still have a very difficult time of it during the 111th Congress due to
the fact that the Senate still remains in Democrat control and the President still remains decidedly against the issue. As a stand alone issue, ANWR will stand a slim chance
to pass in the Senate where a certain 60 votes will be required to overcome an expected partisan filibuster. However, the defensive position that ANWR and the State of
Alaska has been forced to take over the past two years will clearly switch to an offensive position with regard to promoting energy exploration legislation. The new make
up of the House on the other hand will clearly benefit Alaskas views. Speaker-Elect Boehner has visited the Arctic oil fields in the past and is strongly supportive of State of
Alaska exploration initiatives. The House over the past three decades has past ANWR legislation 12 times many votes of which Speaker-Elect Boehner has participated in.
Of particular interest in the next few months will be the make up of the Senate Energy Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee. The Senate Energy
Committee will still be controlled by Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico with the expected Lisa Murkowski as Minority chair. The position of and seniority of
Murkowski will be beneficial strategically for promotion and passage of Alaska energy legislation. Should this makeup be changed for any reason between now and January
6th, prospects will possibly not be as good. In the House, Rep. Doc Hastings will decide if he will continue with Natural Resources Cmte. or move to the Rules Committee.
His replacement, if it happens, would probably be Sam Bishop of Utah who will take the helm as the full committee chairman. Rep. Bishop, like Rep. Hastings, has been a
strong supporter of ANWR and Alaska oil and gas legislation and will likely push pro development bills to the floor for vote. Much to the dismay of many Democrats and
development legislation on Capitol Hill could not be more immediate for the State. The Alaska State Legislature has near unanimously and consistently supported oil and
, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness
for us
vast
resources
have
Today, the Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker colored than ice, so it
collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below
historical averages and maintains a downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely
ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of
Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface
and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy
resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within
the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other
major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska.
But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without
our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering
Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy
exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as
"only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships
from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea
Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji
Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action,
The U
fullest extent
Russia will certainly set the standards.
nited
of International Law
fully
U.S.
nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They
are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can
have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally, we need a military presence in order to maintain the security in our sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today, neither the U.S. Navy nor the
U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on strategic patrols).
The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is over
36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In todays
federal budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is uncertain. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently
constructing what will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly
in
So long as a
necessary
a changing
OTEC
OTEC costs political capital requires massive funding for
commercialization
Dorminey, Science Journalist, 2012,
(Bruce, "Our Massive Marine Energy Potential: Scouring The Tropics For Thermal
Energy," Think Progress, 5-8, PAS) thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/08/479526/ourmassive-marine-energy-potential-scouring-the-tropics-for-thermal-energy/ 6-28-14
OTEC production converts heat energy from seawater into kinetic energy using the
oceans naturally steep temperature gradient. Its this juxtaposition of tropical (and
sometimes subtropical) subsurface seawater at temperatures typically above 80
degrees F. and below 40 degrees F. that makes OTEC possible. An OTEC plant literally
pumps the warm surface seawater through a heat exchanger connected to a closed
circuit filled with several hundred tons of liquid ammonia. Since ammonia boils at
lower temperatures and at lower pressures than water, once the warm seawater hits
the heat exchanger, it causes the ammonia to vaporize and expand in volume. As
this ammonia vaporizes, it creates pressure to run a turbine coupled to a generator.
In most cases, the resulting electricity would be delivered onshore via an undersea
cable. Once this ammonia vapor exits the turbine, it flows through a second heat
exchanger that is connected to a cold water pipe carrying tons of seawater pumped
from depths of 3000 ft. This cold seawater, in turn, condenses the spent ammonia
vapor back into liquid and the whole OTEC process begins again. But despite the fact
that the idea for the technology is more than a century old; to date, OTEC has only
been successfully demonstrated on small scales of less than a quarter of a megawatt
(MW) and has yet to produce utility-scale power. Funding certainly is the biggest
obstacle for OTEC, said Gerard Nihous, an ocean engineer at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa. While nothing we have learned in the past suggests that OTEC has
major technological hurdles left to clear, OTEC cannot be considered ready for
commercialization. A multi-year operational record at sea would help resolve
lingering uncertainties and fix the design bugs that are bound to be revealed.
Algae Biofuels
Prefer our evidence; even if algae used to be bipartisan, it
has become politicized
Parker 12 (Alex M. Parker, journalist for the US News and World Report,
Algae Amendment Puts Biofuels Back in Energy Debate March 13, 2012,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/13/algae-amendment-putsbiofuels-back-in-energy-debate)
The cultivation of algae to create or enhance biofuels has, in the past,
been relatively non-controversial. But the issue became politicized
quickly after President Barack Obama mentioned it as a component of his energy platform last month.
Mocking the idea as a pie-in-the-sky response to the real-life problem of high gas prices, the
GOP presidential candidates have made it a regular laugh line on the
campaign trail. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has taken to calling
Obama "President Algae." On Capitol Hill, the algae-as-fuel idea has
quickly become a symbol of wasteful government overreach among
conservative Republicans. "Algae will be a bad sequel to ethanol," says John Hart,
spokesman for Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who has lead charges to eliminate tax preferences or federal
standards which promote the use of corn-based ethanol.
AIM 12
Two articles out this week deftly explore the dilemma the algae, and
for that matter the entire bio fuels, industry finds itself in the wake
of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) recently passing the
2013 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 4130) banning the Defense
Department from making or buying an alternative fuel that costs
more than traditional fossil fuel. While the military itself has been an outspoken
supporter of the need to have more reliable and controllable fuel sources, the Republicandominated HASC feels the greater need to bring down costs,
especially the premiums that the military has been paying for earlystage green fuels; costs that have helped to cover some of the bio
fuels industrys development. In Eric Beidels piece in National Defense Magazine he calls
it the classic chicken and the egg conundrum, where the developing bio-fuels
industry needs the military to buy big, providing a demand signal
that could help reduce prices.
is out of touch," McConnell added, arguing that the way to bring down gas prices is to drill for
more oil. "Americans get this issue," McConnell said. "They get that we need to
increase oil production right here at home, not simply rely on pipe dreams
-- pipe dreams -- like algae or by wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on more failed clean energy
projects." McConnell was followed by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who
suggested Obama's plans were no plans at all. "What the president does
favor is the Saudis increasing oil production, and increased use of solar, wind and algae
here at home," she said. "Does that really substitute for an energy
policy?"
Biofuel Costs PC
Investments and tax breaks for biofuels cost political
capital
Naylor 12 (Rosamond Naylor, Director of the Center of Food Security and the Environment, William Wrigley
Senior Fellow, Professor of Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford University, Biofuels, Rural Development, and
the Changing Nature of Agricultural Demand April 11, 2012,
https://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/BiofuelsPaper.pdf)
The third and final theme draws on these points and addresses the question: Given the uncertainties and
public sector costs surrounding the development of liquid biofuels, should developing countries facing
high rates of food and energy insecurity invest in the industry? There is no universal answer to this
question; each country must evaluate its own economic and resource situation, and its institutional
capacity. This evaluation must be done with skill and great care, because the stakes for rural
development, hunger, resource depletion, and inequality are high. Adopting a strategy for biofuel growth
as a means of stimulating the agricultural economy, addressing domestic transportation fuel needs, and
enhancing foreign exchange reserves will require the creation of well functioning supply chains that can
generate economies of scale. To date, small isolated plants with new sources of feedstocks (e.g.,
Public investments in agricultural
productivity and infrastructure, as well as fuel mandates and tax
exemptions for private companies that are needed to build supply chains and ensure
long-run demand for biofuels, will have large opportunity costs in terms of fiscal
expenditures, land and water resources, and political capital.
Offshore Nuclear
Aff gets spun as floating Chernobyl- unpopular
AP 6 (Associated Press, Russian world-first: A floating nuclear plant,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13316942/ns/world_newsworld_environment/t/russian-world-first-floating-nuclearplant/#.U3O1Kfk7uSo, June 14, 2006)
enough to conventional reactors that they don't face the burden of being a "new" technology under skeptical scrutiny. However,
during
the
siting
step. If one accepts a site for a new nuclear plant, one must also accept wider
strongly after the accidents of Three-Mile Island, PA, USA in 1979 and
Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. Arguably, in addition, the modern public fundamentally mistrusts political
power emerged
because of
even
deeper
policy
and are likely to give great emphasis to safety issues during the licensing process of any new
nuclear plant.
Role of Small Modular Reactors, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; Tufts
University, May 2011
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/877618836, 8-2-12)
SMRs would not solve the public concern over
nuclear power. To the general public, they would still be nuclear
facilities, something that they do not understand and fear. Unless they were
proven and demonstrated, opposition would exist even for the smaller
demonstration projects. The NIMBY attitude would likely preclude
SMRs from being a game changer for nuclear power, unless
something changes dramatically, not only incrementally, in public perception.
Paolo Ferroni also mentions that
presidential budget request is just that - a request. It is not a decision. It is a presidential election year with
the entire House and one-third of the Senate up for a vote. Also, many incumbents are mindful of the fact
that public approval ratings for congress in general are in the single digits making a "throw the bums out"
nuclear power plant sporting two 35-MW reactors, which Rosatom expects to have tethered to an Arctic oil
Bipartisan
energy bills have been held "hostage," he said in 2009-10 by cap and
trade advocates and now by budget hawks. And it's not just energy Simon noted
Simon, majority staff director of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee.
the current Congress has passed just 69 bills since January, a fifth of the output of what President Harry
Truman in 1947 dubbed "the do-nothing Congress." Speaking to the US Association of Energy Economists
conference in Washington, DC October 10, Simon said his committee had crafted bipartisan agreement on
a range of issues in the last Congress, in 2009-10. Read more notes from the conference: USAEE Notebook:
DOE Weighing Export Price Effects. The panel voted out bills supporting a Clean Energy
Development Authority, a national Renewable Energy Standard, facilitation of transmission siting and
electric vehicle infrastructure, expanded energy research, small nuclear reactor support,
and efficiency improvements in manufacturing, building and appliances. Also supported last congressional
session were cybersecurity for electric grids, expansion of off-shore drilling and improved drilling safety
standards, more renewables on federal lands, and support for carbon capture and storage pilot projects.
This session, he said, the areas of bipartisan agreement have narrowed to energy
efficiency, expansion of existing hydropower, CCS projects, advanced vehicle research and nuclear
important multiyear research and development effort, and we want to make sure we take the time during the review process to get the
Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who pushed for new reactors as chairman of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said during a brief interview Tuesday that well-designed loan guarantees
won't cost too much because they get repaid over time. The cost could be borne by a "tiny little tax" on the nuclear industry, he said.
when it comes to straight-up spending, like the grants that would support
getting these cutting-edge reactors ready for their first demonstrations, the
solution may not be so clear. While some Republicans remain staunch
supporters of funding for the nuclear power industry, there are others
who label the government subsidies as a waste of taxpayer dollars.
"It's awful hard, with the needs that are out there and the debt that haunts
us, to figure out how you're going to establish priorities ," said Domenici, who has advocated for
But
the deployment of new nuclear reactors as a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "I can't stand here and tell you that I know how to do that."
. But in the 1970s nuclear power was still in many ways a low-emissions dream of the future. In 1975, nuclear power accounted for about 4 percent of the electrical energy generated in the United
States. But some people at that time were predicting that by the dawn of the 21st century, nuclear power might supply over 50 percent of electrical energy needed in this country. (Nuclear power currently produces
built by 1999. Each power plant was envisioned to produce 1,150 megawatts of electricity, enough for a city
of about 600,000 at the time. The plan was devised by Offshore Power Systems (OPS), a partnership between Tenneco and Westinghouse. In 1972, a New Jersey utility company contracted with OPS to build an
offshore nuclear power plant in Jacksonville, Florida, and tow it to New Jersey. The $1.1 billion contract to build the plant was even signed at sea aboard a yacht just off the New Jersey coast. The power plants
would have been gigantic barges anchored a few miles off the American coastline, starting with Brigantine, New Jersey. Why build a power plant at sea? Nuclear power plants require a tremendous amount of water
for cooling and moving nuclear power plants offshore provides easy access to water without raising the ire of potential protesters on land. Gordon P. Selfridges 1975 paper Floating Nuclear Power Plants: A Fleet on
the Horizon? notes the concern over access to water: Since nuclear power plants have a tremendous impact on the surrounding community, problems and confrontations on land have contributed to the impending
move offshore. Physically, the plants consume enormous amounts of water for cooling and steam production and emit low-level radiation. With reference to the once-through cooling water necessary for the
plants operation, one study has projected that the demand for such coolant will encompass over fifty percent of the entire runoff from the continental United States in only twenty-five years unless the plants are
moved offshore. The possible ecological impact of running half our river water through nuclear power plants has led many to conclude that such plants would be better built in the coastal zone. News reports from
the time indicated that officials expressed a desire to have less of an impact on the environment, which is a more pleasant way to say that its probably not good to have half of the nations water running through
nuclear power plants. Officials were concerned that states friendly to nuclear power (like New Jersey) were running out of vital riverfront property on which to build plants at least without angering environmental
groups. From the September 19, 1972, News Journal in Mansfield, Ohio: The stated reason for building the offshore power plant was to minimize its impact on the environment, but officials privately admitted that
the move to the sea was motivated by the fact that New Jersey may be the first state in the United State to run out of riverfront property for power plants. This is the only reason for putting this plant in the ocean,
Jimmy Carter called for a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in the United States. Public opinion was already turning against nuclear power in the mid-1970s but the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania
on March 28, 1979, permanently altered the way that Americans perceived nuclear power. In 1982, a federal nuclear licensing board gave temporary approval for the OPS program to go through in New Jersey. But
by then OPS was barely hobbling along. In 1975, Tenneco had withdrawn from the project leaving just Westinghouse at the helm. And by the early 1980s all of the utility companies with which OPS signed contract
had long since cancelled their orders on account of the delays. Over the next decade OPS began liquidating everything and laying off most of their staff of 1,500 in Jacksonville. In 1990 Westinghouse sold what was
environmentalists
with the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima
is again concerned about the very real potential for accidents
especially when it comes to
the ocean
then the worlds largest crane 38 stories tall, and built for $15 million to a Chinese shipbuilding company for a measly $3 million. Today,
shunned nuclear power are giving it a second look. But
who once
regulators. Even the trade press raised concerns. Nuclear News worried about the incredibly tangled mass of overlapping jurisdictions, state, national, and international
law, inter-agency authority that included new players such as the U.S. Coast Guard. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Events conspired
to worsen OPSs prospects. The oil crisis that began in 1973 made construction financing expensive and slowed electricity consumption. Facing slack demand, PSEG
postponed delivery of the first floating plant from 1981 to 1985 and later to 1988. Tenneco backed out of the OPS partnership in 1975. With the entire enterprise
threatened, Westinghouse and the Florida Congressional delegation asked the federal government to purchase four plants. But, the prospect of bailing out OPS did not
the U.S. General Accounting Office criticized the NRC for what it believed was an incomplete safety review, particularly for not accounting for impacts on the ocean
opposition to the
plant was intense. Nearby counties voted in non-binding referendums 2 to 1 against the Atlantic Generating Station, and the New Jersey
ecosystem during an accident where a melting reactor core broke through the bottom of the barge. Local and state
legislature refused to introduce a bill to turn the offshore site over to PSEG. Westinghouse held out hope for a brighter future; PSEG didnt. In late 1978, the utility
announced it canceled its orders for all four of its floating plants. Slack demand, it noted, was the only reason for the cancellations. We simply will not need these units
in the foreseeable future, a utility official admitted. Others blamed excessive regulation. In March 1979, John OLeary, a Department of Energy deputy secretary, provided
It has
become impossible to build energy plants in America OLeary said, due to
excessive environmental regulations and an indecisive bureaucracy. Environmental laws, OLeary complained, had
to the White House a grimeven alarming report, as one staffer said, that the NRC delays with the OPS license were symptomatic of a larger problem.
The accident
raised anew questions about a core melt accident and further delayed the manufacturing license.
action moot. Two and a half weeks later the Three Mile Island accident occurred, ending any hope of an imminent industry rebound.
The NRC did not issue a license until 1982. In 1984, Westinghouse formally abandoned the OPS enterprise, dismantled the Jacksonville facility, and sold its huge crane to
Going to sea, OPS discovered, did not allow it to escape the problems that beset
nuclear power. A novel technological solution could not overcome
public distrust and economic, technical and regulatory uncertainty. We shall see how Russia handles the challenges.
China.
presidents past, the President used his State of the Union podium to signal a newly invigorated
industrialism in the United States. He advocated broadly for renewed investment in infrastructure,
education, and technological innovation. And he did so in a room with many more members of the
opposition party than at any point during the first half of his term. The eagerness of the President to
combine left and right agendas can hopefully match the hyper-partisan bitterness that dominates our
may have sidelined the contest. "The rumors are a'flying," said Paul Genoa, director of policy development
at the Nuclear Energy Institute, in an interview last week. "All we can imagine is that
this is now
caught up in politics, and the campaign has to decide whether these things are good for them
to announce, and how." Small modular reactors do not seem to be lacking in political support. The nuclear
lobby has historically courted both Democrats and Republicans and still sees itself as being in a strong
position with key appropriators on both sides of the aisle. Likewise, top energy officials in the Obama
administration have hailed the promise of the new reactors, and they haven't shown any signs of a change
of heart. DOE spokeswoman Jen Stutsman said last week that the department is still reviewing
applications, but she did not say when a decision will be made. "This is an important multiyear research
and development effort, and we want to make sure we take the time during the review process to get the
decision right," she wrote in an email. That the grants haven't been given out during
a taut campaign season, even as President Obama announces agency actions ranging from trade cases to
Congress has given the grant program $67 million for fiscal 2012, shy of the amount that would be needed
annually to reach full funding. If the "sequester" kicks in at year's end and slashes DOE funding or the
balance of power changes in Washington, the amount of money available could dwindle yet again.
Even
when it comes to straight-up spending, like the grants that would support getting
these cutting-edge reactors ready for their first demonstrations, the solution may
not be so clear. While some Republicans remain staunch supporters
of funding for the nuclear power industry, there are others who label
the government subsidies as a waste of taxpayer dollars. "It's awful
hard, with the needs that are out there and the debt that haunts us,
to figure out how you're going to establish priorities," said Domenici,
who has advocated for the deployment of new nuclear reactors as a
fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "I can't stand here and tell you that I know
how to do that."
Energy
environmental goals
example, our abundant natural gas supplies are frequently touted as providing major economic benefits,
but there are also environmental concerns. Moreover, goals change over time; in the 1970s we instituted
policies to shift oil out of electricity generation and promoted coal use for national security and economic
The
second major theme is the roiling debate over the role of
government. While not limited to the energy sector, there are nearly constant
heated discussions over fundamental questions: What is the right
way if any for the government to influence or participate in the
market? What is the right mix of policy approaches, i.e., market-based vs.
command and control? In the last several years we have heard much criticism about
the dangers (market distortions, waste of taxpayers money) of
government picking winners in fuels, technologies, or sectors. And there is growing
reasons, while now we are looking for ways to reduce coal use for environmental reasons.
support for government to promote a portfolio approach; that our challenges are so complex that as
one utility CEO phrased it we need silver buckshot not a silver bullet. In todays policy discourse this
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.php?
comments=expandall#comments
gridlock we are
reality is that there are a number of critical obstacles keeping
us from passing energy and environmental legislation. We know that objective
As convenient as it would be to say that a single change could alleviate the
experiencing, the
scientific knowledge is needed to inform good policy decisions and that objective knowledge exists but
all too often we are allowing politics and ideology to take precedence over,
or be pitted against, science. This not only risks the legitimacy of the science, but also the strength of the
policy and its ability to protect the security, health and welfare of the American people, and support a
small initiatives that require only nominal investments can't begin to address the environmental and
energy proposals. Even environmental legislation that saves many times its cost in medical and health
care savings cannot advance in the current Congress. One recent example is the defeat of legislation to
limit the release of airborne particulates proven to adversely affect the respiratory health of children and
and potential to impose costs on private sector that might adversely impact economic recovery
Kerry conceded that it would be difficult to pass almost anything in an election year, "but we're
going to do stuff that's not controversial." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who with
Kerry introduced comprehensive climate change legislation in the last Congress, said supporters of action
on global warming remain disappointed that it failed. "But if we get some energy independence,
alternative energy, energy efficiency legislation adopted, I think we will thereby also diminish carbon
pollution, which I think it's all about," he said. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked with Kerry and
Lieberman on the climate bill but was not ultimately a co-sponsor, said that he saw opportunities for
bipartisan collaboration, especially on efficiency measures. "I think there's a market now for energy
efficiency and a market for domestic energy production," he said. In particular, Graham singled out his
Home Star bill, which would have provided incentives for residential efficiency retrofits that he sponsored
last Congress with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). "I think there would be bipartisan support for that," Graham
added. But it is unclear whether Home Star would be a candidate for any proposed package this year. The
Warner-Graham bill has not been reintroduced, and while a version passed the House in 2010, when the
The
bills the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has approved this Congress with
bipartisan support include an industrial energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen
(D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a measure to establish a new carbon capture and
sequestration program at the Energy Department and bills to promote solar energy and
Democrats were in the majority, the Senate version was never approved by the Finance Committee.
geothermal. Aside from the goal of producing legislation, the Tuesday group also provides an opportunity
for its members to talk about climate and energy issues. Energy Secretary Steven Chu addressed the
senators in November. Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress Action Fund said that any of the
LinkRenewable Energy
Plan spurs a huge fight
Karoun Demirjian, "Will Republicans Plan ball on Obama's Lofty SecondTerm Agenda," LAS VEGAS SUN, 11--11--12,
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/11/will-republicans-play-ballobamas-lofty-second-ter/
But the phrase cap-and-trade makes conservatives see almost as much red as the name Nancy
a lifelong Las Vegas Democrat and single father of seven who voted for Romney. He used to have a
job constructing solar panels with Bombard Electric. We all made a lot of money doing it, but now
the systems dont work. ... Those are garbage now. Th ats
conventional sources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power, to renewable sources focused
achieving
consensus will remain difficult. Wide ideological differences still exist,
especially regarding theefficacy of focusing resources on the development of
renewable versus traditional energy sources. Moreover, related issues such
as the exportation of domestic energy sources, clean energy standards for utilities, and
overall environmental protection will remain as obstacles to the success
of any energy-related legislative effort .
on wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy projects. At the same time,
game you project victory long before the results are in. And when you think you've won,
becomes theater. Thats where we are now. In one corner is the House budget,
essentially the Republican Partys line in the sand thats been drawn
over the size of the federal government. A key component of this is the federal
governments more limited role in supporting a clean energy future. In the other corner is the
White House and the Democrat-controlled Senate, which has vowed to
stonewall any legislation that it says caters to the super-wealthy and the entrenched fossil fuels industry.
Like two tired boxers in the ring, theyre content to leave it in the hands of the judges in this case the
voters, who will in many ways determine the force with which our federal government pursues a national
policy built on clean energy. But the real prospects for any meaningful legislation is likely to come after the
most industry
observers dont expect much chance of any real federal renewable
energy legislation passing through a divided Congress . That means no Clean
election, when the rhetoric cools and when political capital comes due. Until then,
Energy Standard, no revival of the 1603 Treasury grant program, no extension of the Production Tax Credit
included an amendment that addressed some of these concerns. Ultimately, the amendment went
nowhere, and the renewable industry was left looking months down the road to when something could get
resolved.
partisan gridlock in
Congress would require the President to push his energy agenda
comprehensive energy package is unlikely. For the Obama administration,
through regulation. Potential items of his docket include efforts to expand federal regulation over hydraulic fracturing and
to create new incentives or mandates for alternative fuel consumption, such as a low carbon fuel standard. For a Romney
Congress and its budgeting process. However, a Romney administration would likely expand leasing opportunities in the
federal offshore and public lands for oil and natural gas development.
print is even necessary. Obama's policy is a loosely knit set of policies that focus on producing more oil at home and reducing dependence on foreign oil by developing
cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency. The Obama plan is not the result of any particular deep thinking or strategy. The President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) called for the development of such a strategy in its November 2010 Report to the President on Accelerating the Pace of Changein Energy
Technologies. Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy. PCAST called for a Quadrennial Technology Review (QTR) as the first step in preparing a Quadrennial Energy
Review. DOE completed the QTR in November 2011, six months after Obama published his blueprint. Steven E. Koonin, former undersecretary of Energy for Science, says
QTR is limited in scope and all DOE felt it could get done given budget and time. "Technology development absent an understanding and shaping of policy and market
context in which it gets deployed is not aproductive exercise," he says. At this point there is no indication that DOE will even undertake the much more important QER,
energy independence or energy security policy. Natural Gas Making Inroads The biggest energy input for industrial and commercial business users is natural gas.
Natural gas prices are incredibly important, bothbecause the fuel is used directly to run industrial processes, heat facilities and commercial buildings and make products
such as fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics and other advanced materials. Thanks to the shale revolution, EIA forecasts natural gas prices will stay low for the foreseeable
future, rising to $4.66 m/BTU in 2015 and $5.05 m/BTU in 2020. That is good news for the owners of 15,000 to 17,000 industrial boilers in this country, most of which use
natural gas (and many of those who still use coal are switching to natural gas). In addition, companies such as Dow Chemical Co. are restarting operations at facilities idled
during the recession, Bayer AG is in talks with companies interested in building new ethane crackers at its two industrial parks in West Virginia and Chevron Phillips
Chemical Co. and LyondellBasellCo., are considering expanding operations in the United States. Fracking has also had a much less remarked-upon effect on petroleum
prices, which are important to businesses with transportation fleets. New oil sources are spurting from the Bakken (stretching from Canada to North Dakota and Montana)
and Eagles Ford (South Texas) shale plays. U.S. oil prices have fallen from $133.88 a barrel of Texas intermediate crude in June 2008 to around $86.07. EIA predicts oil
prices will rise to $94.58/bbl in 2015 and $108.10/bbl in 2020. Beyond the flood of natural gas washing over them, U.S. companies are also benefitting from three
decades of investments--most of whichwere made without federal subsidies, or support--into facility energy efficiency. Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of the Energy Program
at the Natural Resources Defense Council and a member of the Electricity Advisory Board at DOE, says the most important single solution for U.S. businesses worried about
energy prices and access is aggressive energy efficiency. "Energy independence is the wrong issue," Cavanagh says. "It is reducing the cost of energy services and
improving energy security. "U.S. business has done a tremendous job in energy efficiency overthe past three decades," he adds. "It takes less than one-half of a unit of
energy to create $1 of economic value than it did in 1973. Industry has done that by upgrading the efficiency of process equipmentand upgrading lighting." Others may
well argue that the U.S. needs, and has always needed, an energy policy, but one narrowly targeted. Kenneth B Medlock III, deputy director, Energy Forum at the James A
Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, notes that DOE and the Gas Research Institute helped develop, with federal funding, the horizontal drilling (i.e.
fracking) technology that Mitchell Energy and Development Corp. (now a part of Devon Energy Corp.) pioneered. "Government ought to be focused on research and
development," Med-lock notes. He also is a supporter of loan guarantees to promote investment activity in frontier technologies, and argues that as long as there are more
spectacular failures of
energy companies such as Solyndra Corp., the Chapter 11 filing of Beacon Power Corp. and
good bets than bad bets in that kind of portfolio, thefunds committed in total are a good investment. But
other less publicized busts reduce, if not kill, the prospect of any additional
congressional funding for energy loan guarantees of any kind. That is true even when
legislation has bipartisan support, which is the case for the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2011
(S. 1000), which would, among other things, provide grants for a revolving loan program designed to develop energy-saving technologies for industrial and commercial
use. The bill passed the Senate Energy Committee by a vote of 18-3 in July. However, the Congressional Budget Office has pegged the cost of the bill's provisions at $1.2
billion over five years. That is a serious barrier to passage. And in any case, even if it did pass, the bill would simply authorize funding. Congressional appropriations
committees would have to approve the money as part of DOE's budget, which would be highly unlikely, Solyndra aside, since similar programs authorized by the 2005 and
arguing it would create more greenhouse gas emissions than necessary and pose a potential drinking water danger for Nebraska residents because it passed over the
Ogallala Aquifer. That view is shared by Nebraska's Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, whose views are opposite those of all the can presidential candidates, each of whom
supported U.S. approval of Keystone XL. Labor unions, another key Democratic constituency, support the project that TransCanada, the project sponsor, says will bring
debate features
Democrats versus Democrats and Republicans versus Republicans,
efforts to substitute domestic natural gas for foreign petroleum features business versus
business.
more than11 8,000 person-years of employment to workers in the states of Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. If the Keystone
Congress returns and the president prepares to deliver his State of the Union address, many Americans,
frustrated about the seemingly endless
string of partisan battles over energy policies and projects.
Whether its Keystone and oil pipelines, Solyndra and loan guarantees, light bulb standards
and energy efficiency, responsible development of new shale natural gas or the future of nuclear
power, partisans on both sides are portraying these issues as all or
nothing. We know from experience that more agreement and desire for compromise exists than it now appears, if
As
only Congress and the administration will look for it. Indeed, we hope President Obama begins that process in his speech
tonight. For example, little noticed in the presidents remarks on the Keystone XL oil pipeline last week was a suggestion
that he stands ready to work with industry to expedite that part of the pipeline that would run from the major oil supply
center at Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf Coast refineries. The administration should make good on this promise. Currently, oil
from U.S. sources like the Bakken fields in North Dakota cannot reach Gulf Coast refineries easily. Expediting construction
of a pipeline that flows south from Cushing would reduce the glut of cheaper oil there, allowing refiners to be less reliant
on more expensive foreign oil and creating jobs, according to industry analysts. This could be important progress as the
larger Keystone issue gets resolved. And while Keystone has attracted the attention, a huge assortment of new
pipelines, gathering systems and storage projects are on the horizon; where appropriate, their construction can be
expedited, as well. Important advances are possible this year on other energy issues. For example, the United States is
one step closer to building the first new nuclear power plants in 30 years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
likely to soon approve a license for construction of two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in Georgia; the AP1000 reactor
features advanced passive systems that provide a significant safety advantage. Critical to this project are loan
guarantees, also pending, established with bipartisan support under the 2005 energy bill. With issuance of the NRC
license, the Department of Energy can finalize a loan guarantee to the plants owner to mitigate financing costs over the
Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), approved by a 18-3 vote in the Senate Energy Committee, could greatly improve U.S.
energy efficiency, reducing costs for consumer and businesses and making American industry more competitive.
Congress hasn't ratified the pact the US-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement
because the House and Senate disagree on whether oil and gas
producers should be required to publicly disclose their payments to
foreign governments. On Tuesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a meeting to try to move
forward on the agreement. "It is the hope that, through this Agreement and the proposed energy reforms in Mexico, that the energy revolution
the U.S. is currently experiencing can extend throughout the Western Hemisphere," Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon said in a statement
prepared for the Senate committee hearing. "This would make our region more competitive and less reliant on politically tumultuous states for
obtaining energy." For decades, the two countries have negotiated over how to divvy up resources along the US-Mexico maritime border and in
areas between the two economic zones. In 2000, a moratorium was placed on drilling in the region to allow time to develop a coordinated
plan. As the decade wore on, exploration on the US side moved farther and farther offshore, toward the maritime border. Concern grew in
Mexico that rigs on the US side could start siphoning oil from the Mexico side the "efecto popote," or, "straw effect." Meanwhile, energy
companies felt hindered by the legal uncertainties of tapping reservoirs that straddle the border. "The motive for the US is 'Were ready to drill,
but we don't want to drill ourselves into a legal nightmare,'" said George Baker, publisher of Mexico Energy Intelligence, an industry newsletter
based in Houston. "For Mexico, its 'We want to make certain our oil rights are protected so that if they start drilling on the US side and
discover crossborder oil we have architecture in place to protects our interests." The 2012 hydrocarbons agreement sought to alleviate those
issues. It lifts a moratorium on drilling in the region and provides a legal framework for jointly developing the projected 172 million barrels of
oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas in the region. Mexico almost immediately ratified the Transboundary Hydrocarbons
thirds majority for Senate ratification, or an executive agreement, which would require implementing legislation to be passed by a majority in
both chambers. Regardless, its failure was a surprise to staff on the ENR Committee who had crafted a news release in preparation for its
passage but had to delete it after the agreement was blocked. According to the report by Foreign Relations Republicans, the Obama
administration has yet to say whether the agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement but appears to prefer the latter. Mexicos Senate
, a formal communication
would need to be sent from the president to the Foreign Relations Committee, which
ratified the agreement, suggesting it was interpreted as a treaty. If it is a treaty
would trigger hearings on the matter and allow Congress to interpret any ambiguous language in the agreement.
That is important, because several provisions in the treaty invite scrutiny and
clarification, according to the committee report. The treaty doesnt have every detail
worked out, said Neil Brown, a former adviser to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) who was ranking member of the committee until his
retirement earlier this month. For example, one section of the agreement calls for common standards, but it is unclear whether that
requires companies to adopt U.S. safety and environmental standards or Mexicos, which are considered less developed. Another area of the
agreement creates a dispute resolution process without saying whether the arbitration is binding, the report said. The agreement would
the Foreign
Committee said they were miffed that the administration did not
consult with them before pushing the agreement through in the lame duck.
allow joint inspections by Interiors BSEE and the Mexican government to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Some on
Relations
Nat gas
Dems hate it
Democrats hate Natural gas- theyll do anything including
restrictions to stop it
Dailykos 5/27/14 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/27/1302337/-
PA-Gov-New-RMU-Poll-Shows-Tom-Corbett-R-Still-Unpopular-But-ReallyUnpopular-With-Seniors)(AC)
Forty-eight percent of seniors had an unfavorable opinion of Corbett in an
RMU survey in February, and exit polling in the 2010 election showed seniors
supported him 63 percent to 37 percent, Harold said. Harold said the issue
of taxing natural gas extraction and drilling, in general, could be
turning the table. The poll asked respondents why they had the impression
they did. About 29 percent of those with a negative impression of the
governor cited education. The second most-mentioned issue was taxing
natural gas at 13 percent, up from 7 percent in February. The issue of
natural gas drilling has gotten more public awareness with the
Democratic gubernatorial primary race. So one theory could be that
Democratic seniors gained more familiarity with this issue in recent months
and, as a result, their opinion of the governor worsened correspondingly,
Harold said. Seniors are a demographic that would stand to benefit from an
extraction tax ... without paying any of the costs, if the costs include harm to
job creation as Republicans claim. Harold said seniors support natural
gas extraction, or severance, taxes by 74 to 18 percent. Voters
younger than 50 do by 51 to 30 percent. Corbett opposes any new taxes on
drilling. Wolf has argued for an extraction tax
Democrats fear that selling more natural gas abroad would raise costs
at home, and they cite an Energy Information Administration (EIA) report that found increased exports
would raise electricity bills by an average of 1 to 3 percent annually between 2015 and 2035. They
also say it could cause environmental and health hazards by ramping up
exploration through hydraulic fracturing, a process that injects a mixture of chemicals, water and sand into
security advantages from this abundant, low-cost source of domestic energy, committee spokesman Eben
Burnham-Snyder told The Hill in a statement.
Everybody hates it
Politicians are split and the debate is contentious it will
drain capital
Rascoe 9/17/12 (Ayesha, Energy Dept delays release of LNG export report
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-usa-lng-report-idUSBRE88G1E120120917?
feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Fe
ed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reuters+Politics+News%29
Manufacturers lobby
Manufacturers hate the plan
Colman 9/24/12 (Zack, staff writer, Republicans charge Obama not serious about natural gas
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/251421-republicans-charge-obama-with-slow-walking-sales-ofnatural-gas)
The EIA report concluded that the divide between low U.S. natural
gas prices and higher-priced international markets would likely
narrow in the coming years. It also said investment in LNG terminals would be costly. The
manufacturing sector, which consumes large amounts of electricity, could feel the
price pinch from exporting natural gas. The American Chemistry
Council told The Hill it plans to "monitor the policy and regulatory
landscape carefully" on LNG exports, stressed the importance of the
energy source to U.S. manufacturers and noted that it has not
asserted LNG exports will raise prices.
Transportation
Transportation
reformed the way Washington goes about selecting capital improvements, bringing a new emphasis on livability and underdeveloped modes
like high-speed rail, there was little indication in the speech of an effort to expand such policy choices. All that we heard was a rather meek
suggestion to transform a part of the money made available from the pullout from the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts a sort of war dividend
whose size is undefined to do some nation-building right here at home. If these suggestions fell flat for the pro-investment audience, they
were reflective of the reality of working in the context of a deeply divided political system in which such once-universally supported policies as
development of a transportation reauthorization program. Such legislation remains on the Congressional agenda after three years of delays
(the law expires on March 31st). There is so far no long-term solution to the continued inability of fuel tax revenues to cover the growing
national need for upgraded or expanded mobility infrastructure. But if it were to pass, a new multi-year transportation bill would be the most
that the goal is to complete a new and improved spending bill, rather than simply further extensions of the existing legislation. The House
could consider this month a bill that would fund new highways and transit for several more years by expanding domestic production of heavily
carbon-emitting fossil fuels, a terrible plan that would produce few new revenues and encourage more ecological destruction. Members of the
Senate, meanwhile, have for months been claiming they were looking for the missing $12 or 13 billion to complete its new transportation
package but have so far come up with bupkis. The near-term thus likely consists of either continued extensions of the current law or a
bipartisan bargain that fails to do much more than replicate the existing law, perhaps with a few bureaucratic reforms.
Bloomberg Businessweek, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the
New York Observer, and the Brooklyn Paper 3-27- 2012 When is Obama
going to have his Eisenhower moment?
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/03/5524547/whenobama-going-have-his-eisenhower-moment DA: 6/11/14
the current president, theres more of a consensus. One point of agreement is that he has talked a
great game, but has been unable to do much to deliver. Another is that he might be able to do more if he gets
On the subject of
a second term, but that even then it would depend on whether the upcoming election produces a Congress that is, one way or another, less hostile to his agenda Even
Eisenhower didnt mention transportation as much as this guy, said Joshua Schank, a former transportation adviser to Hillary Clinton who is now president of the Eno
building
support for increased transportation spending is not the president's top priority, as he heads into a
general election with the economy just showing signs of recovery. Infrastructure fundingand what were once packaged as stimulus projects, generally have
taken a back seat to, say, the price of gas and, by extension, the conspicuously expanded drive for domestic energy resources. The lesson that
Center for Transportation. Its hard not to be frustrated that he hasnt acted on it more, he added At the moment, it can safely be said that
Obama and the administration seem to have taken from the times they have pushed hard for spending on big
transportation-infrastructure projects is that they're a tougher sell than expected, or at least
that voters don't necessarily see them as the economic generators they eventually become So, for example, the president insisted that the federal stimulus act include $8
billion for high-speed rail, but then absorbed a great deal of grief over ensuing allocations, which were criticized as politically motivated. And while spending on less costly
projects has been easier for the administration, politically, it has also been less rewarding. For instance, the stimulus included $1.5 billion in funding for so-called TIGER
grants, a small pot of money (it was later expanded to $2.6 billion) thats been sprinkled around the country. They hardly got noticed nationally, other than by
transportation advocates, who felt they were too small to make any meaningful change to the physical transportation system itself. (There was a total of $48 billion in
stimulus spending on projects around the country, but aside from the high-speed rail component and the TIGER grants, those funds are generally considered to have been
inserted at the initiative of Congressional leaders and were not part of a coordinated national transportation strategy.) The reforms that transportation boosters have in
mind are, generally speaking, more profound: an ongoing commitment to paying for large capital projects and maintenance of existing infrastructure; sustainable sources
of revenue to offset that cost; alterations to the system of incentives that drive commercial and residential growth, and to the metrics that measure the efficiency and cost
of moving people around their regions and across the country. The federal tax code subsidizes some really bad development, says Andrew Goldberg, managing director
of government relations at the American Institute of Architects, which has advocated tax-code reforms. A lot of the funding goes toward sprawl, toward building where
land is cheapest." I know this isnt sexy," said Schank, "but he could direct D.O.T. to start doing the research necessary to implement real performance measures and
accountability for transportation. In other words, the administration could lay out a precise vision for how it would like to see the money it controls spent, and support that
vision accordingly. The American Society of Engineers says theres a $3 trillion backlog in surface transportation spending. The United States spends a mere 2.4 percent of
its G.D.P. on transportation and water infrastructure, compared to Europes 5 percent and Chinas 9. Many transportation experts also argue for a significantly higher tax on
gas. This is politically difficult, if not impossible, as illustrated by the way Republicans have latched onto currently high gas prices as an argument against Obama, and the
president's high-profile response, cheerleading the expansion of domestic oil and gas exploration as a solution. But the fact is gas here is cheap, relatively speaking:
Americans are likely at any given time to be paying about half as much for fuel as Europeans. Yet gas-related revenue is where much of the nations infrastructure funding
comes from. Weve got one of the lowest federal gasoline taxes in the world, said Robert Yaro, president of the Regional Plan Association. The other countries that have
gasoline taxes as low as ours include Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. And thats not the only issue with the gas tax, which is about 18 cents per
gallon and which provides much of the funding for the nation's highways and mass transit (New Yorks M.T.A. derives some $1 billion from it per year). It's not pegged to
inflation, so it provides ever less revenue in real terms. Also, it's a victim of its own success: Today, thanks in part to the fact that the gas tax makes it more expensive to
burn fuel, cars are much more fuel-efficient. Less consumption equals less revenue. But while transit-dedicated revenue from gas is going down, the need to spend money
on the nation's aging transportation infrastructure is going up. The interstate system, most of it is already approaching half a century old, says Yaro. Its at the end of its
useful life. Big stretches need to be rebuilt and theres no money to rebuild them, much less create any new capacity in the system." The president, at least rhetorically,
recognizes that. He's proposed a half-trillion-dollar, six-year transportation plan. And hes suggested a $50 billion infrastructure bank that would leverage private funding.
As of now, they're still just proposals.
it because he has other priorities, said Schank. In this years State of the Union, the president made a strong argument for infrastructure spending. During the Great
Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge, he said. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and
Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today. In the next
few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. "But you need to fund these projects. Take the money
we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home. The you in that sentence was
environmental, and legislative issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank
Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy administrator of
the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also
former majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries 3-21-2014 United States: Congress Funds The Agencies And Looks
Ahead To FY2015
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/301526/Marine+Shipping/Congress+F
unds+the+Agencies DA: 6/7/14
For the first time in many years, Congress actually enacted
appropriation bills to fund
maritime
agencies
12
the Federal Government through September 30, 2014. This was done in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub.L. 113-76).
and transportation
have the budgets they need to get some important work done. The following is a summary of the key provisions of
the FY2014 budget. A forecast of where Congress is going this year in regards to major maritime legislation will be included in the conclusion of this article. Highlights of the FY2014 Budget Agreement Congress
enabled the passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act by first passing the Bipartisan Budget Act (Pub.L. 113-67). The Bipartisan Budget Act established the overall funding limits for the federal government for
2014- 2015. The Budget Act also represents the first time in four years that Congress has actually passed a budget agreement. The budget was negotiated between Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Cong. Paul Ryan
(R-WI), the respective chairs of the Senate and House Budget Committees. As the two leaders have publicly stated, they worked off the art of the possible, not what they knew they couldn't reach agreement on.
From the levels set in the budget agreement, the appropriation committees could perform their jobsfunding the federal government at least for FY2014. Below are some of the highlights of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act. The Department of Transportation $600M for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructurethe so-called TIGER grantsto fund infrastructure projects of regional and national
significance, including a set-aside of $35M for planning grants. U.S. Maritime Administration: $186M for the Maritime Security Program to preserve the U.S. flag merchant fleet; $38.5M for the subsidy cost of title XI
loan guarantees for shipbuilding; and $16M for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and $11.3M for the state maritime academies. Infrastructure projects at ports are eligible for the TIGER program and, on average,
have received about 10 percent of the funding to date. Setting aside money for planning grants is a new allocation for the TIGER program. Finally, funding the title XI program represents a new infusion of cash for
the shipbuilding loan guarantee program. With a subsidy amount of 10 percent, this will enable the Maritime Administration to fund close to $400M in new shipbuilding loans. With a new (Acting) Administrator at the
helm of the Maritime Administration, one hopes that the title XI program is resuscitated and the cumbersome review procedures streamlined. The Department of Homeland Security FEMA: A total of $1.5B for grants,
contracts, and cooperative agreements, including $466.3M for the State Homeland Security ("HLS") Grant Program, $600M for the Urban Area Security Initiative, and $100M for port security grants. Ports, with the
support of the American Association of Port Authorities ("AAPA"), successfully fought back against the Administration's proposal to consolidate all HLS grants into one block grant to states, fearing they might not get
their fair share from state agencies. Although $100M is considerably less than the $400M authorized for these grants in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, at least it gives ports a separate bucket to
shoot at. U.S. Coast Guard: A total of $1.375B for acquisition, construction, and improvements, including the cost of production of the 7th National Security Cutter ("NSC") and the contract for long-lead time
materials for the 8th NSC. (Huntington Ingalls has the contract for long-lead time materials for the 7th NSC.) Admiral Papp, Commandant of the Coast Guard, has hinted that he is looking to fund the 8th (and final)
NSC in the FY2015 budget, continue work on the Offshore Patrol Cutter, and perhaps start work on a new icebreaker in the FY2015 budget. (As reported in Seapower Magazine on January 24, 2014.) With the Coast
Guard's newly released Arctic Strategy, it makes sense to look at its icebreaking capabilities. (For a copy of the Strategy, see: www.uscg.mil/seniorleadership/DOCS/CG_Arctic_Strategy.pdf.) Customs and Border
Protection ("CBP"): A total of $10.6B for security, enforcement, and investigations, including $351M for border security fencing and $805M for air and marine operations. This budget will enable CBP to add 2,000
more agents at U.S. ports of entry. (And they say we don't spend enough on border security!) >The Department of Defense U.S. Navy: A total of $15B for shipbuilding and conversion of naval vessels, to remain
available until obligated until September 30, 2018, provided no funds for construction are spent in a foreign yard. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A total of $1.656T (from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) to
remain available until expended for the construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, and restoration. The Secretary of the Army may initiate up to four new construction
starts (three for navigation, one for environmental restoration), provided the Secretary sends Congress a report on out-year funding for the new starts. The Environmental Protection Agency $20M in clean diesel
engine or Diesel Emissions Reduction Act ("DERA") grants. These grants can be used by private companies and public transit agencies to purchase new diesel engines or to upgrade existing ones and are funded
through a coalition of regional and nonprofit entities. (For more information on the DERA Program, see www.epa.gov/diesel/grantfund.htm.) The Department of the Interior For the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management: $166.8M for leases for oil and gas, other minerals, and energy on the Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS"). For the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement: $122.7M for regulation of activities on
the OCS. Summary of the FY14 Budget Agreement and Outlook for FY2015 Now that agencies have budgets that last through FY2014, they can begin to plan, issue contracts, and begin to award grants. The
Department of Transportation ("DOT"), Department of Homeland Security ("DHS")/ Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), and Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") all have grant-making authority.
The White House will submit its FY2015 budget request to Congress the first week of March 2014. In the meantime, Congress sent the President a clean bill raising the debt limit ceiling until March.
Act ("WRDA"), which funds port dredging and maintenance, is still underway despite this author's predictions it would be wrapped up by now. Cong. Bud Shuster, Chairman of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure ("T&I") Committee, admitted (at a recent Bloomberg Government conference) that
Engineers, above, may have taken some pressure off this Conference. On February 11, 2014, the House T&I Committee ordered reported H.R. 4005, the "Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 2014," with a
manager's amendment. The amendment included new cargo preference requirements. We will address these amendments in detail in a separate advisory. Any urgent maritime problem that needs a legislative fix
should be addressed in this major maritime legislation, which Congress usually passes every two years. Chairman Shuster and the Administration have both begun work on principles for the next surface
transportation bill. The current lawMoving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, commonly referred to as MAP-21expires this coming September. The main issue for reauthorization is how to fund the
Highway Trust Fund. Congress balked last time and is very reluctant to get near an increased gas tax, especially in an election year. In fact, both Chairman Shuster and Chairman Barbara Boxer (of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee) have written off the gas tax increase as a funding solution for "MAP-22." Other options include use of repatriated overseas revenues and a user fee based on vehicle miles
travelled (or "VMT"). It will be up to the Ways and Means Committee in the House and the Senate Finance Committee to determine how to fund the next round of surface transportation projects. While the surface
transportation bill is largely focused on roads and bridges, there is an increasing focus on a national freight network. The current freight network, which is under review at the DOT, is limited to highways and needs
to be expanded to include ports. Even the President in his State of the Union Address identified the need to upgrade our ports. After all, how do goods come into and out of the U.S., except through our ports?
113th
during the lame duck sessionboth post-election and before the new
Congress is sworn in. This may provide the window needed to pass a Coast Guard authorization bill, a new surface transportation bill, and even perhaps some type of immigration reform bill.
Port Dredging
Dredging Controversial
Port dredging is empirically unpopularconcerns over
earmarking funding
Gale, South Florida Business Journal Chief Editor, 12
[Kevin, 2/14/12, South Florida Business Journal, Port dredging is a hot
topic in D.C,
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/blog/2012/02/port-dredging-ishot-topic-in-dc.html, accessed 7/9/14, AC]
Some members of Congress are starting to get antsy about getting
East Coast harbors dredged to accommodate post-Panamax ships.
While PortMiami has $77 million in state funding to help launch its project,
ports further north are fighting for federal funding.
In his Fine Print column in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Walter
Pincus tells how the Senate Armed Services Committee grilled Army
Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, who has been nominated to lead the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. (Bostick is already facing a roadblock from
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., over repairs on a dam in his home state.)
The problem for ports and their congressmen is that earmarks aren't
supposed to happen anymore, and that's a classic way for port
dredging projects to get funded.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has concerns about the Port of
Savannah, the column says.
Ive visited Savannah, and the port complex is impressive in size and has
grown rapidly. A major issue, though, is that it's located on a river, and
experts have told me it's more expensive to maintain depth because of silt
carried by currents. The Army Corps has some preliminary funding for the
port, but the Post account indicates events are moving slowly.
report said, then perhaps state governments and private companies such as shipping lines should be required to pay a greater share.
executive of South Carolina's seaports who now works as a private consultant. "Everyone is telling the
budget bills as "earmarks" line items requested by individual lawmakers to benefit their districts back
home. Yet earmark spending was widely denounced as government waste in the
2010 elections that swept Republicans back in control of the U.S. House. As a result, GOP lawmakers in
both the House and Senate have sworn off earmarks for the time being. It's not clear how else port
projects would obtain federal money. "It has the potential to have a dramatic impact," said Nagle, who
insists port projects aren't waste. "There clearly is a distinction between these types of projects and what is
finished last November that recommend deepening Savannah's harbor, the Army Corps of Engineers
concludes the project would have economic benefits for the nation as a whole the benchmark for the
agency's approval. But what the Army Corps hasn't done is take a comprehensive look at all East Coast
ports to determine how many should be dredged to post-Panamax depths and which would reap the most
benefits for the best price. "The Corps is evaluating the cost and benefits of these individual proposals in a
vacuum," said Chris DeScherer, an attorney for the Southern Environmental Law Center. "Where does it
make the most sense on the East Coast to have a deep water port? Where does the American taxpayer get
the most bang for his buck with the least environmental impact?" The Army Corps said it hasn't done a
broader study to compare ports, in part, because no one has asked. The Corps doesn't have the authority
to initiate port studies on its own. "To date, there has been no request by the ports or Congress to
undertake a comprehensive study," said Jim Walker, chief of the Navigation Program for the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Icebreakers
Icebreakers Controversial
Icebreakers are unpopularspending and connection to
global warming
Holland, American Security Project Energy and Climate
Senior Fellow, 13
[Andrew, 9-26-13, Alaska Dispatch News, America is failing to meet
challenges of a changing Arctic,
recapitalize all its ships and aircraft. Its the equivalent of telling the Navy they have to suddenly fund another aircraft carrier, said Patrick Bright, chief analytical officer
at AMI International, a shipbuilding consulting firm in Bremerton, Wash. Brian Slattery, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said, Even if the icebreaker was the only
acquisition priority for the Coast Guard, it would be tough to afford it. The service has known for decades that its statutory obligation to be the sole federal agency
responsible for busting through polar ice was at risk. A 1983 polar icebreaking requirements study it produced spelled out the upcoming shortages. Design of a new
icebreaker should start immediately, emphasizing research as well as escort and logistics capabilities, and should reflect the needs of both primary and secondary users,
the report stated. Since then, the service was forced to retire several icebreakers and was only allocated the funding to build one, the Healy. It is a medium-size ship
intended for scientific research, and was not commissioned until 16 years after the 1983 report. The Coast Guard now only has two heavy polar icebreakers remaining, the
Polar Star and Polar Sea, which have exceeded their 30-year service lives and have been in and out of mothballs for several years. Polar Star, after undergoing repairs,
returned to service in December after six years of being docked. After upgrades, it is expected to last another seven to 10 years, said the March 2013 CRS report, Coast
Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization, authored by Ronald ORourke. Polar Sea broke down in 2010 and is no longer operational, the report added. A 2011 study for
Congress said one heavy icebreaker would cost $800 million to $925 million based on 2008 dollars, but by 2012 it would swell to $900 million to $1 billion. The Coast
Guard has requested relatively small amounts in the 2013 and 2014 budgets $8 million and $2 million respectively to kick off the acquisition program with an eye
patrol cutters, one of its most expensive acquisition programs to date. It is currently having a hard time completing its fleet of eight national security cutters. It is
which doesnt require any of those high-tech systems, Bright said. The unique ships use mass and velocity to move through frozen waters. As they are propelled forward,
they move up onto the ice, and the weight of the hull breaks it. That requires a large ship with powerful engines, a 2007 National Academies study on the Coast Guards
icebreaker fleet stated. It also has reinforced steel and a double hull at the bow in case of a breach. Protecting the rudders and propellers or propulsion units is of
paramount importance in icebreaker hull design, it also stated. They must not protrude from the ship. Despite the lack of weapons and other high-tech systems, there
are also special items that go on those ships, and that jacks prices up, Bright said. And at 13,000 to 17,000 tons, that is an awful lot of steel to buy, he added. Slattery
said the seven- to 10-year estimate of additional service life for the Polar Star is generous. It is unrealistic that that replacement vessel will come online by the time
they are going to have to pull the Polar Star out for good, he added. It has been about 40 years since U.S. industry has built a heavy icebreaker. The medium-sized Healy
was built by Avondale Shipyards in Louisiana, which has changed hands twice and is now owned by Huntington Ingalls Industries. It announced its plans to shutter the old
Avondale yard this year, then reversed course, and said it would now build oil and gas exploration equipment, according to a company press release. Even $200 million per
This high
pricetag is only for one vessel. The requirements on the books call for three medium and three heavy icebreakers, he noted.
year in incremental funding would be a pretty significant chunk of the entire recapitalization budget, Slattery said. Thats not the worst of it.
The Healy is essentially a research vessel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he pointed out. The Heritage Foundation has suggested leasing private
icebreakers to at least mitigate the gap in capability. That would provide the government with the most essential capability, which is breaking the ice so we can get to
places that regular vessels cannot get to. ORourke said along with leasing, there have also been plans to ask other federal agencies such as the Navy, which benefit from
the icebreakers, to chip in some of the money. During a recent budget hearing, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chair of the homeland security appropriations committee,
said lawmakers would look for icebreaker funding from outside the Department of Homeland Security budget, according to SeaPower Magazine. Adm. Robert Papp Jr.,
commandant of the Coast Guard, testified at a different hearing that there were no icebreakers available in the world to lease. A for-hire ship would have to be purpose-
It almost seems like one of those things that is never going to happen
based on price, Bright said.
built, the CRS report said.
has been
, and has gained urgency with the thawing of ice in the Arctic Circle. Diminishing ice, widely believed to
be caused by global warming, may actually increase the need for icebreakers, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service. The opening of
waterways could lead to expanded commercial, cruise and military ship operations, and increase exploration for oil and other resources, the report says. The Coast Guard
uses icebreakers to defend U.S. sovereignty and interests, monitor sea traffic, launch search and rescue missions, conduct fisheries and law enforcement operations, and
support scientific research, including resupplying McMurdo Station in Antarctica, a mission that is now contracted to Russian and Swedish icebreakers. Currently, the U.S.
Coast Guard has only three Polar icebreakers -- the Polar Star and its sister ship the Polar Sea, and the newer but less robust medium polar icebreaker Healy. In addition,
the National Science Foundation leases a smaller ship, Nathaniel B. Palmer, for research in the Antarctic. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Polar Sea has also exceeded its 30year design life. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Polar Sea has also exceeded its 30-year design life. Both the Polar Star and Polar Sea have already exceeded their 30-year
design life, and both have been removed from service because of breakdowns. The Polar Star was laid up in 2006, and the Polar Sea suffered unexpected engine problems
in June 2010, and it has been out of service ever since. Since mid-2010, the United States has had no heavy-duty icebreaker. Russia, which has a much larger Arctic border,
has a fleet of about 20 icebreakers, including seven nuclear-powered ones. The Coast Guard says it needs at least three heavy and three medium polar icebreakers to fulfill
its statutory missions, but would require even more ships if the Coast Guard is to comply with a Naval Operations Concept issued in 2010 requiring a presence in both the
Arctic and Antarctic. The Coast Guard also has a fleet of icebreakers in the Great Lakes that keep shipping lanes open there. The Congressional Research Service said one
potential concern for Congress is the absence of a plan for replacing the Polar Star upon completion of its seven- to 10-year life after it returns to service in late 2012. That
is why Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-New Jersey, included the provision to decommission the Polar Star, said spokesman Jason Galanes. "We absolutely support the Arctic
icebreaker mission," Galanes said. "We're forcing this decision rather then allowing the administration to kick the can down the road." In a statement, the Office of
Management and Budget said
repairs
that the
to the Polar Star "
capability requirements are finalized."
, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness
for us
vast
resources
have
Today, the Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker colored than ice, so it
collects more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below
historical averages and maintains a downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely
ice-free summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of
Alaskas ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface
and increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy
resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within
the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other
major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska.
But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without
our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska, there is insufficient infrastructure to ensure safe navigation north of the Bering
Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than 700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy
exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as
"only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships
from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea
Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji
Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action,
The U
fullest extent
Russia will certainly set the standards.
nited
of International Law
fully
U.S.
nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They
are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can
have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally,
we need
a military presence in order to maintain the security in our sea lanes and to provide for disaster response. Today, neither the
U.S. Navy nor the U.S. Coast Guard have the infrastructure, the ships, or the political ambition to be able to sustain surface operations in the Arctic (the Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on
ice-breaker
The heavy icebreaker
Polar Star is undergoing trials
The Coast Guards
budget includes $2 million for plans for a
new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million In
todays federal budget environment, even the $2 million outlay is
uncertain.
strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium
sea
service life.
for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year
proposed FY14
In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently constructing what will be the worlds largest
nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding their naval presence.
a changing
as the melting of polar ice increases the economic and security stakes in the Arctic region
the last somewhat seaworthy icebreaker after its sister ship, the Polar Sea, goes out of service in the near future.
"
, slated to be
the Polar Star would "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking
capacity." In the Senate, Sen . Maria Cantwell , D-Wash., is trying to block the decommissioning of either ship with a provision she added to a Coast Guard bill. The ships are based in the Seattle area and support
hundreds of jobs there. "Our nation needs icebreakers," she said at the committee meeting. "With Russia moving many troops to the Arctic, and Chinese investors buying parts of Greenland, this is also a national
security issue." There's little disagreement on the need for a U.S. presence in the Arctic. The Congressional Research Service, in a report last year, said the shrinking of the icecap will result in increased commercial
and military ship activity and greater exploration for oil and other resources. That calls into demand the functions of icebreakers: defending U.S. sovereignty and economic interests, monitoring sea traffic, law
enforcement, conducting search and rescue operations and scientific research. " We desperately need the Coast Guard and the administration to do what we have asked them to do really now for more than 10
years _ define what our mission is in the Arctic ," said Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Coast Guard subcommittee. He said it costs tens of millions of
dollars a year to keep the two vessels tied up at the dock, and he hopes the House move to take them out of service will push the administration into deciding how large a fleet is needed in the future. The lone
Alaska congressmen, Republican Don Young, opposes decommissioning icebreakers and wants to increase the number of vessels in any way possible, spokesman Luke Miller said. Young has introduced a bill that
would authorize the Coast Guard to enter into long-term lease agreements for two new icebreakers. The icebreakers are supposed to have a 30-year service life. The Polar Star, commissioned in 1976, is docked in
Seattle, in caretaker status since 2006. The Polar Sea, commissioned in 1978, suffered an engine breakdown last year and has been out of service. The Coast Guard also has a third, medium-duty icebreaker, the
Healy, that is used mainly for scientific research. The White House said Congress has previously approved funds to reactivate the Polar Star by the end of next year, extending the life of the ship for seven to 10
years . That, it said, "will stabilize the United States' existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized.
the
Government Hill neighborhood he calls home has become a front in the fight
against pet projects in Congress. That's because land just a block from Mr. Pease's home could be ripped
apart if plans for a major bridge proceed. Officially, it's called the Knik Arm Crossing. But the US public knows it by a different name: the
"bridge to nowhere." And ever since it drew headlines last fall, it's become a poster child for
congressional earmarks. Earmarks are items that lawmakers on Capitol Hill tuck into spending bills to fund projects
back home. Supporters call it investment. Critics call it "pork." Both call it
one of the biggest issues in American politics this year. "I couldn't believe our little
Thomas Pease's flower-scented backyard might seem to be an odd place for a battle over federal spending. But
neighborhood fight was actually going national," says Pease, an elementary schoolteacher who opposes the bridge plan. "But I certainly
thought the name was appropriate." Actually, the "bridge to nowhere" refers to two bridges. One is the Knik Arm Crossing, which would
connect Alaska's largest city with a little-used port on the other side of a glacier-fed channel that drains into the Pacific. The other is a span
that would link Ketchikan, Alaska, to sparsely populated Gravina Island. They initially received earmarks of $231 million and $223 million in
phrase, Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington watchdog group. Spans divide Alaska Even in Alaska,
which leads the nation in per-capita pork-barrel spending, locals were divided over the merits of the projects. In a December survey of
Anchorage residents by pollster Ivan Moore, 46 percent opposed the Knik Arm Crossing, while 44 percent favored it. When told that the
earmark was removed and that the state could spend the money on any transportation project, a stronger majority - 56 percent - wanted to
use the money elsewhere. "It's obviously not a high priority," Mr. Moore says. Supporters defend the bridge as economically vital to
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the fastest-growing district in Alaska. Alaska has as much right to a large bridge as any other
state, they say. "The Golden Gate was a bridge to nowhere. Mackinac back in Michigan was a bridge to nowhere,'" says former Anchorage
Mayor George Wuerch, chairman of the state-funded Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, the organization overseeing bridge plans. "This is not
a bridge to nowhere. These are the two fastest-growing populations of this state." Alaska's veteran Sen. Ted Stevens (R), a legend for his
ability to funnel federal funds home, has argued that critics fail to grasp the bridge's historic mission. "What they forget was that in the
Western movement of the country, if the people who were paying the taxes at that time said it was wasteful to build roads to the West we
would have never had the West," he told Anchorage reporters last year, as criticism of the bridges crescendoed. Proponents, who hope the
Knik Arm Crossing will be built by 2010, say it will open up new, lower-cost land needed for development. Already, speculators have started
buying property on the other side of Knik Arm, where the bridge is expected to deliver traffic. But skeptics here say the project would
promote sprawl and, with a cost estimate of between $600 million and $2 billion, it would divert resources from revitalizing Anchorage itself.
Routing traffic to this spot in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is impractical, they add, because it's not near population centers. Critics also
worry about the effect on beluga whales and other wildlife. View from Government Hill In Government Hill, Anchorage's oldest
neighborhood, the bridge debate is about more than budgets. Locals fear the planned access road for the bridge would ruin the quality of life,
bringing traffic, congestion, and general degradation. "At the risk of sounding like a radical, there's something undemocratic about having to
defend your home from the government," Pease says. In a city dominated by cookie-cutter condos and sprawling McMansion subdivisions,
Government Hill is a throwback. Architectural masterpieces mix with refurbished Quonset huts and old-fashioned cabins. Its location on a bluff
above downtown Anchorage gives it a microclimate warm enough for local gardeners such as Pease to grow apples, cherries, and other
delicacies rarely found in Alaska. The social atmosphere is also warm. Government Hill denizens were invited recently to a celebratory picnic
thrown by a pair of newlyweds and, Pease says, residents are known to barter garden produce for salmon. "It's one of the few neighborhoods
in Anchorage that has a real neighborhood feel to it," says Stephanie Kesler, president of the Government Hill Community Council. The Knik
Arm Bridge idea, too, has a long history, proposed in various forms since the 1950s, with boosters even then claiming Anchorage lacked
sufficient space for development. Justifications abound. The "world-wide recognition which would accompany the construction of this unique
and monumental project would certainly be valuable to the State of Alaska," said a 1972 study prepared for the state Department of
Such thinking may have spurred other megaprojects once embraced by state leaders but never realized. They
have had plans to: * Drop hydrogen bombs to carve out a deepwater port off northwest Alaska. * Erect a domed city near
Mount McKinley. * Gouge a Bering Strait railroad tunnel to Russia . * Hook up a water
pipeline to California. "We live in a grand state, and it inspires grand thinking ,
which can be a good thing until you take it to extremes. And then it
gets a little ridiculous," says bridge opponent Emily Ferry, coordinator of the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project in
Highways. A state that inspires grand thinking
Juneau.
capital would probably not make much difference. Promoting critical components of a Bering
Strait crossing, such as an Alaska Canada Rail Link, will have to be a private sector-led effort, and the farther away from the
Pacific Northwest you are, the less awareness and interest there is
in this railroad. An ACRL will have to first garner widespread support from Alaska, Yukon, and Alberta, which in the long run will be much more
effective. A high profile and costly Washington, DC, lobbying office is not
relevant or needed at this stage. Congress will move only when the private
interests are on board and jobs are quantified. This support will only happen from the ground up -- from Alaska to Washington, DC (and
from western Canada to Ottawa), and not the other way around. Regional support, in both the private and public sectors, for an ACRL must be very strong over a sustained
period in order to get Congresss attention.
Security
Security
United States
of Representatives
, and for other purposes. Adopted with a 390-3 vote, bill H.R. 1073 was introduced on 12 March by Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner. He explained that the legislation had
been prepared in full cooperation with Democratic colleagues. The so-called Nuclear Terrorism Conventions Implementation and Safety of Maritime Navigation Act of 2013 is the implementing legislation for four
major nuclear security and terrorism treaties: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT), the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
(CPPNM amendment), and two 2005 protocols to the Convention concerning Safety of Maritime Navigation and to the Protocol concerning Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf. The Senate adopted
resolutions of advice and consent for all four treaties ratification in 2008 (see, for example, Senate Report on Resolution of advice and consent to ICSANT ratification), declaring that certain provisions were selfexecuting. As noted in the resolutions, however, other provisions obligate the US to criminalize certain offenses, make those offenses punishable by appropriate penalties, and authorize the assertion of jurisdiction
over such offenses. United States Code Title 18 on crimes and criminal procedure should therefore be amended to set up a comprehensive domestic legal framework indispensable to combatting terrorist threats
effectively, as sponsor James Sensenbrenner pointed out. From that perspective, bill H.R. 1073 defines and clarifies key treaty terms such as radioactive material, nuclear material, nuclear facility, and device. It
also provides for new offences and associated penalties, including maritime terrorism acts and the maritime transport of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons (BCN weapons), unlawful possession and use of
radioactive material with the intent to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment, as well as attempts, threats, and conspiracies to commit these offenses. Damaging or
interfering with the operation of a nuclear facility in a manner that causes the release of or increases the risk of the release of radioactive material, causes radioactive contamination or exposure to radiation is also
criminalized. As explained in House report 113-85, U.S criminal jurisdiction is expanded over, for instance, prohibited activities against U.S. ships to include not just those ships flying the flag of the United States,
but also a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Prohibited activities committed by a United States corporation or legal entity would also fall within US jurisdiction,
in addition to those committed by a national of the United States or by a stateless person whose habitual residence is the United States. Furthermore, national enforcement measures are strengthened, updating
grounds permitting the master of a ship to deliver an offender to another state, under certain conditions, to include the new offenses. House report 113-85 rightly emphasizes that the legislation enhances U.S.
national security by modernizing and strengthening the international counterterrorism and counter proliferation legal framework and improving multilateral efforts to combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation, and
complements important United States priorities such as the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the Washington Nuclear Security Summit, and the Proliferation Security Initiative. Effective national
implementation measures for radiological and nuclear treaties and related instruments are in fact crucial to help combat the illicit trafficking and misuse of nuclear and radioactive materials. Leaders at the 2010
Washington and 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summits encouraged all States to enhance their physical protection of and accounting system for nuclear materials, emergency preparedness and response capabilities
and relevant legal and regulatory framework. The IAEA Nuclear Security Plan for 2010-2013 also affirms the need to enhance the global nuclear security framework, especially through facilitation of implementation
of the international legal instruments relevant for nuclear security, including the CPPNM amendment and ICSANT. Adoption of effective implementing legislation in the US would be in line with such objectives and
But as
the bill moves to Senate, its future remains uncertain Previous
attempts to adopt similar legislation failed
Measures on
the
death penalty
and
wiretapping
turned the project into a legislative quagmire Removal
allowed the House to pass the bill
but pushed Senate
Grassley to
eintroduce the contentious language.
should also, as noted by the House report, reinforce the United States leading role in promoting these and other counterterrorism treaties and will prompt other States Parties to join.
.
in 2012.
nuclear incident
on extension of federal
the application of
on 28 June 2012,
Member Charles
of such measures
As explained by
Republican co-sponsor John Conyers on March 14, the 2013 proposal is free of proposed language that seemed entirely [] outside the scope of underlying treaties. He explained: the Administration's original
proposal expanded the scope of conduct subject to the death penalty, including new wiretap predicates, and authorized the President to conduct similar agreements in the future without congressional approval.
These controversial provisions are not necessary in order to implement the underlying treaties, and I am grateful for the spirit of cooperation in which the bill before us has been drafted. The National Journal and
Global Security Newswire reported that Senator Grassley, for his part, would now be willing to consider the bill on the Senate floor with a time agreement and a vote on the death penalty. John Conyers nonetheless
noted that
the
bipartisan
by voice vote in this committee and House last Congress, and accordingly urge[d] all the members to support the bill. Hopefully Senators will hear him, so efforts to effectively implement nuclear security and
terrorism conventions can be pursued.
have
region
, roughly the northern third of Alaska, is our countrys last frontier. The harsh weather conditions, ice cover, and persistent darkness
for us
. Today, the
Arctic is changing faster than any other region in the world. Sea ice is melting quicker and the open ocean is lasting longer than at any time in human history. Open water is darker colored than ice, so it collects
more heat, leading to further melt in a downward spiral. In 2012, summer sea ice retreated to its lowest recorded extent. While 2013s ice cover did not fall to the lows of 2012, it was still well below historical
averages and maintains a downward trend. While scientists disagree on how soon it will happen, it now appears clear that the Arctic Ocean has passed a tipping point that will eventually lead to completely ice-free
summers. The cause of the ice melt is clear -- global climate change caused by the emissions of fossil fuels. Although climate change will have devastating effects on certain regions, including to many of Alaskas
ecosystems and the people who rely on them, the retreat of sea ice presents two main opportunities that could benefit the people of Alaska: increased access to energy resources under the waters surface and
increased transportation through the Arctic Ocean. It is ironic that the unprecedented changes in the Arctic, which are caused by global climate change, could actually have the effect of making more energy
resources are available -- the very same fossil fuel resources causing the warming. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 90 billion barrels of oil, or 13 percent, of the worlds undiscovered reserves are within
the Arctic, fully one-third of those reserves are concentrated in Alaskas territory or in the federally controlled waters of our "Exclusive Economic Zone" (which extends 200 nautical miles from the coast). The other
major opportunity for Alaska is the opening of both the Northern Sea Route over Russia and the Northwest Passage through Canada to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic. Eventually, when summer sea ice is
completely gone, ships will sail directly over the pole. However they go, they will have to pass Alaskas coast on the Bering Strait. A changing Arctic provides a new opportunity for the United States and for Alaska.
But we have to plan for them. We have to put in place the policies that will allow for the exploitation of these opportunities. Moreover, we need to act fast before other countries define the rules in the Arctic without
our input. Unfortunately, today, the United States is failing to meet the challenges we face in a rapidly changing Arctic. In Alaska,
there is insufficient
north of the Bering Strait, with the closest deep-water harbor at Dutch Harbor, more than
700 miles south of Nome (which has a small harbor that can handle medium-draft ships) and 1,100 miles from much of the projected energy exploration activity in the Chukchi Sea. The nearest permanent Coast
Guard presence is at Coast Guard Air Station Kodiak, and the commandant of the Coast Guard has characterized their operations in the Arctic as "only temporary and occasional." We should act now to establish
heightened international standards for shipping in the Arctic through the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Without these standards, ships from around the world will pass through the Bering Strait without
us being ensure their safety. This summer we saw that danger persists: The tanker Nordvik collided with an ice floe along Russias Northern Sea Route. Thankfully, no fuel was spilled, but we cannot trust solely to
luck. The U.S. has thus far failed to push for strong standards at the IMO; meanwhile, earlier this summer, the Russian government hosted Koji Sekimizu, the Secretary General of the IMO, on a 5-day Arctic sea tour
The U
has not claimed territory in the Arctic to the fullest extent
because the Congress refuses
aboard a Russian icebreaker, with numerous senior Russian government and business officials present. In the absence of American action, Russia will certainly set the standards.
fully
nited
tates
of International Law
U.S.
to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. The other four nations bordering the Arctic Ocean are submitting claims to
extended Exclusive Economic Zones -- Russia has sought to bolster its claim by famously placing a flag on the ocean floor beneath the North Pole. They are party to decisions determining borders, while the U.S. is
left out because some members of the U.S. Senate are afraid of the United Nations. We should ratify the Convention of the Law of the Sea so that we can have a role in determining borders within the Arctic. Finally,
response. Today,
U.S.
Navy regularly operates submarines beneath the surface on strategic patrols). The United States Coast Guard only has one medium ice-breaker in service today, the Healy. The heavy icebreaker Polar Star is
undergoing sea trials for its return to service after an extensive retrofit, but she is over 36 years old, well beyond her intended 30-year service life. The Coast Guards proposed FY14 budget includes $2 million for
plans for a new icebreaker, but purchasing one could cost over $800 million. In
outlay is uncertain
. In contrast, Russias defense commitment to the region is extensive; it controls the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, and is currently constructing what
will be the worlds largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. Russias largest naval fleet is its Arctic fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk off of the Barents Sea, and President Putin has publicly committed to expanding
Congress and in
a changing
Lockheed Martin and Austal USA, there is a chance a modified version of the ship could emerge as the Navys top choice to fill out its fleet. Hagels announcement halts
contractual discussions beyond 2016, but thats after the next election, said Stu Slade, Forecast Internationals warships analyst. There could be major changes to the
program once a new president and legislators are in office. This isnt a done deal. Its certainly a setback for the LCS program viewed in isolation, but its one that could
yet be reversed, he told National Defense. Hagel sent Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert back to the drawing board,
instructing them to evaluate more capable and lethal alternatives to the ship. The LCS was designed to perform certain missions, such as mine sweeping and antisubmarine warfare, in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the independent protection and firepower to operate and
survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia-Pacific, Hagel said in February. If we were to build out the LCS
program to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal restraints, we must direct future shipbuilding
resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict, he added. Officials will consider new designs, existing vessels and a
modified LCS, examining ship cost, delivery date, mission and weapons requirements and sensors, Hagel said in a memo obtained by Reuters. Greenert and Sean Stackley,
the Navys acquisition lead, issued a directive in March establishing a small surface combatant task force to evaluate the Navys options, including the lethality of possible
ship designs to air, surface and undersea threats. The task force will be lead by John Burrow, executive director of the Marine Corps Systems Command. The task forces
findings will be due in July. Slade said the Navy most likely will procure larger, better-armed versions of the LCS a move that would increase the price of the ships and
would be even more profitable for Lockheed Martin or Austal. The littoral combat ship comes in two variants the Freedom-class monohull built by Lockheed and Austals
Independence-class trimaran. Both types feature a mission bay that can be outfitted with modules containing weapons, unmanned underwater vehicles and other
equipment for surface warfare, mine countermeasures or anti-submarine warfare. The Freedom-class ship is as survivable in combat as the Navy specified it to be, but
could be modified to be more so, said Joe North, Lockheed Martins program manager. Were building LCS to fight, and its semi-planing steel monohull design meets all of
the current customer requirements in survivability, he said. LCS is actually already more survivable than the three ship classes that it replaces, so if they want to
leverage more requirements on it, they can do that. That comes at a cost. If the Navy decides to move forward with procuring a modified littoral combat ship or even a
frigate-sized ship, both Lockheed Martin and Austal have floated international versions that could fit the bill, Slade said. Lockheeds multi-mission combat ship could be
scaled up from the Freedom classs hull length of 378 feet to that of a frigate and outfitted with a version of the Aegis combat system, according to material from the
company. Before Austal ended its teaming agreement with General Dynamics in 2010, the companies in 2007 debuted their own international LCS variant, although few
details about the ship are known. A modified, frigate-sized LCS could cost about $800 million per copy, or double the current price, Slade said. Not all are convinced that
believes is most likely to ultimately be purchased, albeit in small amounts is the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer manufactured by General Dynamics Bath
Iron Works and Huntington Ingalls. Arleigh Burkes can do it all, and theyre proven. They can kill other ships. They can find and kill subs. They can find and kill aircraft and
missiles with the Aegis ballistic missile system and then attack ground targets. Its got a wide variety of weapons, he said. The littoral combat ship, in my opinion, just
cant compare. The Navy could possibly also purchase a frigate from a foreign manufacturer such as the U.K.s BAE Systems or Frances DCNS, he said. While the service
In
this budget environment, how are you going to get a new program
started? Curran asked. Its very difficult, and the Navy has not shown that theyve been great about putting out a new ship. Look at
the history lately. Youve got the littoral combat ship, and then youve got the Zumwalt DDG 1000. ... It hasnt had a great record. The littoral combat ship
program has been plagued by criticism since its inception. One of the most scathing
might be able to afford a modified littoral combat ship or another existing vessel, it is unlikely that it will be able to procure a new design, Curran and Slade agreed.
claims was that the ship would not be able to sustain itself through a major battle.
Port Security
Port security causes controversy spending backlash
AP, 8-12-2011 US ports spend big on post-9/11 security
said Susan Monteverde, the group's vice president for government affairs.
Agency
Treaties
Treaties Controversial
Approving any international treaty is massively unpopular
nationalist backlash
Kaye, Penn State Law Professor, 13
[David, September/October 2013, Stealth Multilateralism, Foreign
Affairs, 92: 5, 113-124,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139649/david-kaye/stealthmultilateralism, AC]
The U.S. Senate rejects multilateral treaties as if it were sport . Some
it rejects outright, as when it voted against the Convention on the
Rights of Persons With Disabilities in 2012 and the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1999. Others it rejects through
inaction: dozens of treaties are pending before the Senate,
pertaining to such subjects as labor, economic and cultural rights,
endangered species, pollution, armed conflict, peacekeeping,
nuclear weapons, the law of the sea, and discrimination against
women. Often, presidents dont even bother pushing for ratification,
since they know the odds are long: under the U.S. Constitution, it takes
only one-third of the Senate to reject a treaty.
The United States commitment problem has grown so entrenched that
foreign governments no longer expect Washingtons ratification or its full
participation in the institutions treaties create. The world is moving on; laws
get made elsewhere, with limited (if any) American involvement. The United
States still wields influence in the UN Security Council and in international
financial and trade institutions, where it enjoys a formal veto or a privileged
position. But when it comes to solving global problems beyond the old
centers of diplomatic and economic power, the United States suffers the selfinflicted wound of diminishing relevance. Administrations operate under
the shadow of Senate rejectionism, harboring low expectations that
their work will be ratified.
The foundation of the Senates posture is the belief, widespread
among conservative Republicans, that multilateral treaties
represent a grave threat to American sovereignty and democracy.
Treaties, they argue, create rules that interfere with the democratic
process by allowing foreigners to make law that binds the United
States. These sovereigntists portray treaties as all constraint, no
advantage, as Jon Kyl, Douglas Feith, and John Fonte did recently in these
pages (The War of Law, July/August 2013). These Republicans
automatically resist, in the words of the 2012 GOP platform,
treaties that weaken or encroach upon American sovereignty. And
because such a small group of senators can block any given treaty,
they essentially control ratification.
OMEGA
Expansion of OMEGA triggers political fights
Lauren De Vore, 11/19/2009, LLNL Community News, Algae could turn
tide for biofuel production,
https://newsline.llnl.gov/_rev02/articles/2009/nov/11.13.09-algae.php
Theres biology what strains of algae are best at producing oil, and can we make them grow in the
system? Theres engineering not just plastic bags in the ocean, but the whole system design and all of
OMEGA will
require new infrastructure. And of course there are the
environmental issues, including policies, politics and public
acceptance. Despite the magnitude of the undertaking, Trent was adamant about the need to push
the logistics involved in maintaining such a system. Theres the economic angle
ahead. Its clear that something has to be done and done soon about our energy problems. Things are not
sustainable the way they are now. OMEGA may not be the best way to go, but we
need to investigate it to determine its technical and economic feasibility. We need to try other new ideas
as well. If we wait too long, the environment will be the first thing to go as we do whatever it takes just to
feed the growing population.
prior to Hurricane Katrina, dubious projects elsewhere in Louisiana and other states moved ahead.
Coast Guard
Coast guard funding causes controversy GOP budget
conflicts
Jessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center
for American Progresss Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director
of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project
Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to
Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-waysthat-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-allamericans/ DA: 6/10/14
across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies
is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashesknown as the fiscal showdown or sequestrationare a
direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American
economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would
On January 2, 2013 a set of large,
do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of Americas
super committeewas unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress
agrees by years end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2
trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered
a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax ratesa plan that heads in the wrong
direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gateswho served
under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obamahas said would have a catastrophic effect on national security. Sequestrations impacts could be
equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation.
Sequestration will have a bigand negativeimpact on land and ocean management agencies. Heres how itll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts
Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security
Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spendingadditional sources of revenue
must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge
he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not obligated to honor the pledge he
made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government serviceseverything from a strong military to the interstate
highway system to public educationbecause it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move
unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are
going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider
forward. But
fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might
mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our
tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal
year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel
the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites,
firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionallyand perhaps most obviouslythe cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not
complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous
value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in
economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving Americas shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national
parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to
balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut. And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation
initiatives. As these statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing
Republicans
Attempting to balance
the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we
ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal benefits they provide.
will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer
places to hunt, fish, and relax.
Impact on
oceans
he Whit e House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determ ining that the sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduct ion of 8.2 percent for discret ionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending. All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discret ionary , except for one account in the C oast Guard
that has a defense funct ion and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to indiv idual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriations are tracked. For example, the analy sis shows that the Nat ional Park Service operations budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which services or which parks will bear the brunt of this reductionthose decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies might makefor ex ample, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can
easily assume that cut s on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a num ber of front s, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies prov ide. Less accurate weat her forecasts One of the most im portant and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weat her prediction. But sequestrat ion could threaten the governments ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weat her prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate nat ural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the cat astrophic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weat her
prediction resources. Its National Weat her Service is the nat ions primary source of the dat a and analysis, form ing the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane C enters storm-tracking capabilit ies to the long-term projections of global clim ate change. Even the Weather C hannels forecasts come from this agencys data. The United States is already falling behind other nat ions when it comes to forecast ing capabilities. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys predict ions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predict ed its landfall days before U.S. models did. As a result , when meteorologists sought to predict the arriv al and int ensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week after Sandy,
they frequently referenced the European models predictions to lend more credibility to their report s. Even though our domestic weat her prediction capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestrations 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nat ions aging weat her monitoring satellites. The Government Account ability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement satellites, there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 mont hsthe time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of im pending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys
Procurement, Acquisit ion, and C onstruct ion account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budgets project ions. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalit ies due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development Energy dev elopment is an im portant and legit imate use of our lands and oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore) prov ide substant ial nat ural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the nat ural gas, and 43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands and waters. Sequestrat ion, however, could potent ially hinder
this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy
development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy on public lands, more
than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind project has received all its
permits and is preparing to begin construction on the countrys first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its
Smart from the Start initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its first lease under the program in
government agencies from planning, study ing, and perm itting
October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and
hat allow them to plan for, study, permit, and help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient t imeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of energy dev elopment and in some cases potent ially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sourcesan out come weve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interiors Bureau
of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to its Management of Lands and Resources account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devot ed to energy and minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analy ses of energy projects. The Department s Fish and Wildlife Serv ice also has funds that allow it to study the im pacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purposeResource Managementwill be slashed by $105 million in 2013 under sequestrat ion. These types of cut s could delay the env ironmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the
sequester moves forward. This agency manages explorat ion, science, leasing, permitt ing, and development of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agencys budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer C ontinental Shelf. Addit ionally, offshore drilling safety could be compromised by the fiscal showdown. The Office of Management and Budget notes that the agency that oversees offshore oil and gas rigs to ensure safety and environmental standardsthe Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcementis slated to be slashed by $16 million altogether in fiscal year 2013. As this agency noted in it s budget justificat ion: The bureau conducts thousands of inspections of OCS [Outer C ontinental Shelf] facilit ies and operat ionscovering tens of thousands of
safety and pollut ion prevent ion componentsto prevent offshore accidents and spills and to ensure a safe working env ironment. The bureau strives to conduct annual inspect ions of all oil and gas operations on the OC S, while focusing an increasing proportion of resources on the highest risk operations in order to exam ine safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spills, and other major accidents. A $16 million cut to these operat ions could be dangerous for worker safety and well- being, as well as that of the ecosystems, communities, and businesses that rely on a healthy ocean. Furt her reduct ions to the budget of the U.S. C oast Guard, which serves as the first responder in the event of an oil spill, could also affect its ability to respond to emergencies and are detailed later in this report. Fewer wildland firefighters Our land management
agencies also make critical investments in fight ing forest and wildland fires. This year saw devastat ing fires on bot h private and public lands but was part icularly bad for nat ional forestsa fire in the Gila National Forest, for example, was New Mexicos largest-ever fire. And the National Interagency Fire C enter has determined the amount of acreage burned by wildfires has been increasing in recent decades. Land management agencies provide first-responder resources and capacity in terms of firefighters, equipment, and crit ical funding for fighting these blazes. They help keep American families safe in times of need, part icularly those whose homes are close to wild places. But the U.S. Forest Service faces tremendous cuts to it s firefighting capabilit ies under sequestration. Its Wildland Fire Management account, which funds preparedness, fire
suppression, hazardous-fuels removal, restorat ion, and state fire assistance, among other things, is slated to be cut by $172 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. Addit ionally, the Department of the Interiors Wildland Fire Management account faces a $46 million cut next year. The department also funds the FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, which will be cut by $7 million under sequestrat ion. In total, funding for wildland fire prevent ion and assistance at the land management agencies will be cut by $225 million. Without such funding, not only will Americans property and liv es be more at risk, but special places such as national forests and national parks will be less resilient in the face of future fires. C losures of national parks National parksoften referred to as Americas best ideaare well-loved and protect our
nat ural, cult ural, and historical heritage. In addition to famous nat ional parks such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon, the 398 national park units managed by the National Park Serv ice range from C ape C od Nat ional Seashore to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore to the Flight 93 National Memorial. And yet many, if not all, of these national park units would face budgetary impacts under sequestrat ion. These could include park closures, fewer visitor resources including educat ional programs, and a reduct ion in park staff such as rangers who help with upkeep on these sites. Combined, all of these changes could lead to far worse v isitor experiences at nat ional parks, making them less desirable vacation destinations for American and internat ional tourists. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget determ ined that the National Park
Service as a whole faces a $218 million cut in fiscal year 2013. As seen in the chart below, the majority of this cut is in the Operation of the National Park System account, which funds programs such as protection of resources, law enforcement and park rangers, v isitor serv ices like education and interpretation, and maintenance such as trail construction and campgrounds. Potential cut s to the nat ional Park Service in fiscal year 2013 The Operat ion of the National Park System account also contains much of the funding for agency staffin fiscal year 2012 nearly all of the funds to pay the National Park Services employees were housed in this account. An 8.2 percentor $183 millioncut to the O perat ion of the National Park System account could cripple some of the most important funct ions of the National Park Service, which was already facing
a decreasing budget and a serious maintenance backlog. While it is difficult to know for sure what exact ly would be cut due to lack of informat ion from the agency, the National Parks Conservat ion Association speculates that these cuts would very likely lead to the furloughingor indefinite closureof nat ional parks. A cut of this magnitude would also likely lead to the loss of many park rangers, particularly during the busy visiting season. The organization also warned that cuts of this magnitude could lead to park closures and calculated that an approximately 8 percent cut would be equivalent to closing up to 200 national park units with the smallest operat ing budgets, closing 150 parks with low visitation rates, or closing a handful of large and famous parks such as the National Mall and Memorials, Yellowstone, Yosem ite, and Gateway National
Recreat ion Area. In addition to the fact that visitors may not be able to see these places, their closures could also lead to declines in rev enue and even jobsthe Nat ional Park Service st imulated $31 billion in economic contribut ions and 258,000 jobs in 2011. Fewer places to hunt Americas lands and oceans also prov ide im portant opportunit ies for recreat ion, including hunt ing and fishing. Many of the areas that are open to these act iv ities also provide nonwildlife-relat ed recreation opportunit ies such as hiking, camping, boat ing, and off-road vehicle use. Not only are these areas im portant places to play, they also are im portant econom ic drivers: A recent report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service found that more than 37 million Americans hunted or fished in 2011, contributing billions of dollars to the economy. A number of agencies that oversee
recreat ional hunting and fishing face budgetary cuts. The Bureau of Land Management, for example, manages 256 million acres of public lands, much of which is open to sportsmen. The agencys largest budget line item is Management of Lands and Resources, which includes nearly all of its funds to manage wildlife and fisheries, wilderness, and other recreation resources. And yet the Office of Management and Budget predict s this account will see an $85 million cut in fiscal year 2013. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice also has an vital role in providing hunt ing and fishing opportunit ies because it funds wildlif e programs and manages the nat ional wildlif e refuges that serv e as fish and game habit ats. The Resource Management account in its budget houses operat ions such as v isit or serv ices, law enforcement, refuge maintenance, habit at
conservat ion, and nat ional fish-hat chery operat ions. This account would see a $105 million cut in fiscal year 2013, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The North American Wetlands C onservation Fund, which provides federal grants to restore wet lands for fish and wildlife, would be cut by $3 million, while the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman-Robinson), which prov ides federal funds to states for wildlife management and restoration, would be cut by $31 million. The Forest Service also faces cuts that would im pair its ability to prov ide American sportsmen with recreation opportunit ies. Its National Forest System account, which would be cut by $129 million, funds priorit ies such as forest restorat ion, which prov ides new places to hunt and fish; planning in order to manage recreation opportunit ies; and an ent ire account
devoted to Recreat ion, Heritage, and Wilderness. In addition, its Forest and Rangeland Research line it em, which has a small subaccount for Recreation Research and Development , would be cut by $24 million, and the State and Privat e Forestry account, which prov ides funds for open space conservation and new protected areas, would be cut by $21 million. While it is unclear exactly which programs will be cut at each of these agencieswe have merely predicted potent ial implications of budget cutsthere is litt le doubt that cuts would im pact the hunting and fishing experience that Americans currently enjoy. And cuts of this magnitude could potentially lead to a decline in the quality of wildlif e habitat , fewer places that are protected for their hunting and fishing values, less law enforcement, poorly maintained hiking trails, deteriorat ion of
visitor facilit ies, fewer educat ion programs, unprocessed hunt ing and access perm its, and the basic disint egrat ion of visitor experiences overallall of which means less revenue. Less fish on your table Americas saltwater fisheries, both commercial and recreat ional, are managed by the [NOAA] Nat ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys National Marine Fisheries Service. Despit e an onerous and costly legal mandate to end overfishing in U.S. waters and set strict science-based annual cat ch limit s in all fisheries beginning in 2011, this services budget has already declined by more than 10 percent from an all- time high of $1 billion in 2010 to $895 million for fiscal year 2012. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agencys O perat ions, Research, and Facilit ies accountwhich includes funding for day-to-day operat ions of the Nat ional Marine Fisheries
Servicewill be cut by 8.2 percent if sequestration occurs. If the Office of Management and Budget applies that reduct ion equally across all the agencys departments, that would mean a further reduct ion of $73 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service, on top of the 10 percent cut this year. These cuts could have major impacts on getting fish to our kitchen tables. No matter how the sequestrat ion cuts end up being distributed, they will mean the agencys fisheries scientist s will have fewer resources with which to carry out research that informs the fishery stock assessments on which cat ch limits are based. If scient ists know less, they will have to be more conservativ e with catch limits to ensure overfishing does not occur. This means fisherm en will be forced to catch less, leading directly to fewer recreational opportunit ies, less fish in the
market place, and a loss of revenue to coastal businesses and communit ies. The cuts will also have impacts on jobs because fishing in U.S. oceans is a massiv e economic driver in coastal regions. Saltwater anglers spent $19.5 billion in 2009, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency estimates, and the recreat ional fishing industry was direct ly responsible for more than 300,000 jobs (these figures do not include cost s such as hotel rooms, meals, travel, and other services). This same report found that commercial fisheries accounted for more than 1 million jobs and more than $116 billion in sales impacts. Members of the House of Representat ives Appropriat ions C ommittee stated in a report on the 2012 budget for the federal government s C ommerce, Justice, and Science account that, Healthy levels of investment in [ fisheries]
scientific research are the key to long-term economic growth. And yet the legislation accompanying that report still slashed more than $200 million from the presidents recommended budget. Sequestration will cut even more. Diminished ocean safety On October 28, amid Hurricane Sandys 30-foot waves and wind gusts of up to 70 miles per hour, the tall ship Bounty began to founder about 90 miles off the North Carolina coast. As the 16 crew members were forced to abandon ship, the U.S. C oast Guard went to work, launching two helicopters into the teeth of the storm. Tragically, the ocean claim ed the lives of the ships captain and one of its crewmembers, but just a few hours after receiv ing the distress call, the 14 other crewmembers were safely on shore. All in a days work.
Despite the Coast Guards high-profile, action-movie-worthy heroics such as the Bounty rescue or the
remarkable efforts to pluck thousands of stranded New Orleans residents from rooftops during and after Hurricane Katrina, the fifth branch of
our armed services largely toils in anonymity. But since the Coast Guard was shifted into the newly
created Department of Homeland Security in the departmental reshuffling following the 9/11 attacks, its suite of missions has increased dramatically. In addition to
carrying out search-and-rescue activities, patrolling our maritime boundaries to prevent narcotics and illegal immigrants smuggling, enforcing fisheries regulations, and
coordinating response to offshore pollution events such as the BP oil spill, one of the services core missions is now protecting our maritime border from threats including
that of a terrorist attack. Sequestration will only reduce the Coast Guards capacity to accomplish all of these tasks effectively. Meanwhile,
Guard uses to carry out its vital missions are literally rusting beneath their feet. High Endurance Cutterssuch as the 368-foot
Gallatin, which led the search for the Bountys missing captain in the days after the rescueare on average 43 years old and their age is showing. According to the
Government Accountability Office, the eight Cutters in the Coast Guard fleet together lost 528 operational days in 2011 alone due to unscheduled maintenance issues. The
report went on to state that 10 of the 12 vessels deployed to Haiti in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake experienced severe failures of parts or systems, which
diminished their availability to deliver emergency aid and perform medical evacuations. As Shell and other oil companies look to expand oil drilling operations in the Arctic
Ocean, the Coast Guard currently has just one functional icebreaking ship, with no plans to build any more. This is important because the Coast Guard is responsible for
overseeing drilling safety operations, and needs infrastructure like icebreakers in case of a spill or other disaster. By contrast, Russia, which already operates seven
nuclear-powered icebreakers, recently announced plans to build 30 more ships by 2030and three more by 2015. The sequestration process will have significant negative
ramifications for both
effort to build new ships to replace their aging fleet and for the services day-to-day operations. The
reductions
will include $247 million from the Operating Expenses account, and $115 million from
deal would slash nearly half a billion dollars from the Coast Guard budget, which Republicans and Democrats alike agree is already too thin. The
the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvementsthe former account pays for Coast Guard personnel and missions, and the latter for the construction of new ships and
aircraft.
These cuts will result in decreased homeland security and maritime safety for all Americans.
For the U.S. Coast Guard, it is the beginning of the end and not in a good wayas
it eyes a massive proposed cut to its long-struggling recapitalization efforts. And for one major European aerospace
company, EADS, it also could be the second of a one-two punch from Washington this year that challenges its long-running desire to break into
struggling to design, buy and deploy a modernized fleet of aircraft, ships and other equipment to meet its wide-ranging mission requirements.
officials appear to be all but abandoning their effort to overhaul the Coast
Guard's aging fleets, proposing to cut a third of the funding for a five-year acquisition program that already was going to support only
two-thirds of the service's missions, which range from homeland defense to fishing enforcement. Worst of all, lawmakers
seem resigned to going along. It is time for the president to tell Congress what missions the Coast Guard will
Now U.S.
no longer conduct, says House Coast Guard and maritime transportation subcommittee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). It is simply
irresponsible to continue to send our servicemen and women out on failing legacy assets commissioned over 50 years ago and expect them to
succeed in their missions. Under the latest iteration of the five-year capital investment plan and its consequences, unveiled piecemeal this
spring with the fiscal 2014 budget request, the service would receive a total of about $5.1 billion in acquisition funding, or around $2.5 billion
less than the roughly $7.6 billion included in the version of the plan issued last year, according to Congressional Research Service (CRS)
money was always an issue. To meet the existing plan, before the latest proposal, the Coast Guard needs about $2 billion in acquisition
funding every year, according to its commandant, Adm. Robert Papp. The latest five-year plan averages $1.02 billion per year, compared to
$1.53 billion per year under last year's version.
to the
and growing demands that threaten their ability to operate. Although one of the nation's five armed services,
since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security. The House Appropriations Committee recently complained about the Coast Guard's "egregious" 2014 funding cuts, castigating DHS's budget for eliminating
essential functions without suggesting an end to the across-the-board budget sequester that's doing equal harm.
Plans to modernize its mostly obsolete fleet are at "dead ahead slow." Given its vast duties on the ocean, Great Lakes and rivers -- including Search And Rescue (saving an average of 10
people a day), port security, oil spill response, drug and migrant interdiction, ship inspections, fisheries enforcement, etc. -- the public interest might better be served by doubling their $10 billion budget. After all,
Republican senators' asking price for immigration reform remains $30 billion for increased border security, including a "surge" of 20,000 new border agents at a time when illegal crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border
are at a 40-year low. Instead of expanding the Border Patrol they might consider adding those new bodies to the 43,000 active-duty men and women who secure our maritime borders: the Atlantic, Pacific,
Caribbean, Gulf, Great Lakes and Arctic Ocean, only not so much nowadays with Coast Guard offshore patrols down 15 percent due to budget cuts.
Without strong
Do more
." Its leadership even came to believe that giving taxpayers more "bang for the buck" might win them support from politicians who complain about government waste. What "doing more
with less" actually got them is less. A few examples: In 1994, the Clinton administration called for "streamlining" of the federal government and asked agencies to propose ways to operate with a 10 percent
reduction in force. While other agencies used bureaucratic delays to avoid the cuts the Coast Guard voluntarily reduced its personnel by 12 percent, laying off 4,000 people. Still, on 9/11 they managed to coordinate
the waterborne evacuation of half a million people from lower Manhattan. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 the Coast Guard proved to be the only part of government functioning in New Orleans and along
the Gulf Coast, rescuing over 33,000 people that week. Congress and the Bush White House gave them no budget boost. The stress of being under-resourced became apparent during the BP oil disaster in 2010
when so many Coast Guard resources were sent to the Gulf that oversight of major American ports was left in the hands of junior offices and offshore drug smuggling and illegal fishing spiked. In 2011 the Coast
Guard led U.S. forces into Haiti following that nation's devastating earthquake but ten of the twelve aging Cutters sent there suffered breakdowns including two that required emergency repairs and one that had to
be dry docked. Luckily by the time Superstorm Sandy hit in 2012 the federal disaster response system had been fixed so that the Coast Guard didn't have to act alone. The service is now in the process of replacing
its aged high seas ships with eight modern National Security Cutters. Still, last year the Obama administration proposed cutting the number from eight to six, claiming the Navy could pick up the slack. The newest
federal budget has reinstated the seventh ship while Congress and the White House argue over the eighth. Meanwhile the Navy, with 16 times the Coast Guard's budget, is on track to acquire 20 Littoral (coastal)
Warfare ships of the same size and price and is lobbying for 32 more. The Navy's R&D budget is actually larger than the Coast Guard's entire budget. Yet the Coast Guard keeps getting new assignments like
protecting America's newest blue water coast emerging with the melting ice of the Arctic. While recommissioning an icebreaker from the 1970s Congress has failed to prioritize new icebreakers, leaving the service
with a total of two plus one on the Great Lakes. Nor has new money been allocated for the additional people, boats and aircraft needed to operate at the top of the world. As a result Coast Guard Commandant
Admiral Robert Papp recently announced that for at least the next 10 years the Coast Guard will not open a sector (area) station in Barrow, Alaska, on the north slope but continue to operate in the Arctic by sending
one of its National Security Cutters -- at present there are only three in operation -- up to the ice each summer. That will seriously cut into its anti-drug and pirate fishing patrols. In response to budget cuts and the
sequester Admiral Papp has admitted the service has passed the point of diminishing returns, pointing out that, for example, it is now interdicting fewer multi-ton drug shipments (the Coast Guard captures more
cocaine than the DEA, FBI and all state and local law enforcement combined). But before his revelation had time to sink in he defaulted to the service's traditional position of making due, telling a congressional
committee this spring, "We will make the best use of the resources you provide to safely and efficiently conduct operations in the area of greatest risk to the nation." What he might have said is, "The Coast Guard
can no longer remain a world-class maritime law-enforcement agency and armed service given the inadequate resources you now provide." That is, he could have sounded more like the heads of the other Armed
The Coast
Guard is the only armed service that actually has no fat to cut. In fact
it is being starved of lean muscle. And no one seems to care
Services when they testified with great theatricality about the impact of the sequester on them. But in Admiral Papp's case he'd have the added advantage of telling the truth.
UNESCO
Congress opposes UNESCO banned contributions
John Daly, freelance consultant working on issues of technology and science
for developing countries for more than a decade, formerly director of the
Office of Research at USAID, 2-26-2014
http://stconsultant.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-oceans-are-in-trouble-iscongress.html DA: 6/4/14 Edited for gendered language
The oceans are vitally important to [hu]mankind. The oceanic environment is deteriorating, and international cooperation
double in the next decade as humans flock to coastal cities like gulls. The oceans produce $3 trillion of goods and services
each year and untold value for the Earths ecology. Life could not exist without these vast water reservesand, if
anything, they are becoming even more important to humans than before. The Economist This article in The Economist
indicates that the oceans are deteriorating because we haven't managed to develop common property institutions that
work to protect them. Fisheries are being over exploited. Large areas are oxygen depleted and dead. Coral reefs are in
trouble. Acidification of ocean waters is occurring and likely to become dangerous. Further treats are in view from off shore
drilling and deep sea mining. Climate change may threaten the ocean currents, with profound consequences. UNESCO is
the international agency leading in ocean science, and it hosts the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Its
World Heritage Center implements the World Heritage Convention; it has declared Papahnaumokukea, an oceanic World
NOAA
NOAA funding costs PC Obama pushes, spending causes
intense opposition and pushes off other agenda items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation,
environmental, and legislative issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank
Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy administrator of
the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also
former majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries 6-18-2013 United States: The Budget Outlook For Maritime
Programs For FY2014
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budge
t+Outlook+for+Maritime+Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14
The President's budget request
arrived
in the midst of
budget
by the House
for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this
in Congress
passed
two
of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These resolutions, while non-binding, provide guidance to their respective
appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten
years. The Senate Budget Resolution, passed on March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget
request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly
70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to move our goods." The
President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which contains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas,
including ports, to spur job growth and enhance our nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime
Administration ("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013 level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program;
$81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by last year's
sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of
managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference
cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For the Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or
5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including funding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast
Response Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (projected to be 2022). Also funded
under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45 billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated
National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree to this request for consolidating the grants into one block
grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation is passed this year. For NOAA, the President has requested a total of $5.4 billion,
an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of which the Marine Debris Program
has increased by $1 million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186 million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and
Information Service, including $954 million for two new GOES weather satellites; and an increase of $21 million to support an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's oceanographic research fleet. Summary The
is likely
to pass
bills
vastly different from the White House's request
Members
have
questioned whether funding can be provided for the
NOAA
It
also remains to be seen whether Congress can revert to regular
order,
this is not likely to happen in the near term
The government keeps limping along with cuts
from sequester delays in Congressional approval for spending plans,
and uncertainties in the outcome
The House and Senate will
have to debate their respective
visions
Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt
ceiling is expected to be postponed to the fall.
House and Senate are currently holding a series of hearings featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests.
appropriation
The House
of Representatives
that are
. In fact,
of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee,
full
Commerce/
already
budgets.
i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-
for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are
delayed.
once again
for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a
U.S. research agencies finally know what they have to spend for the rest of
The heavy
lifting was completed by the Senate, and, on 21 March, the House of Representatives accepted the Senate's version.
the 2013 fiscal year after Congress completed work on 20 March on a bill to fund the government through 30 September.
The so-called continuing resolution modifies some of the more onerous aspects of the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester that
went into effect earlier this month. But the spending bill retains the overall $85 billion reduction in a trillion-dollar budget that covers
discretionary spending (which covers most science agencies). The Senate bill provides a detailed spending road map for the National Science
Foundation, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology that includes
congressional preferences. But other research agencies, notably the National Institutes of Health, have received very little guidance beyond an
outcome has agency advocates feeling somewhat serene. "NOAA did well given the constraints of a very tough budget situationnot perfect,
but it could have been much, much worse," says Scott Rayder, a former top NOAA aide who is now a senior adviser at the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. The bottom line: Thanks to Superstorm Sandy, NOAA will have about $5.2 billion to
spend in fiscal year 2013, some $300 million more than its 2012 total. All of that increase, however, comes from a Sandy relief bill approved
earlier this year that specifies how the agency must use the funds. The result is that some of NOAA's research accounts will still feel pain from
the automatic cuts known as the sequester. The math can be hard to follow. Overall, Congress gave NOAA $5.1 billion in its final 2013
spending bill, matching the president's request. At first glance, that total appears to be an increase. But the bill also requires a cut of nearly
2% to bring the agency's budget, in line with government-wide spending limits, reducing the total to about $5 billion. The sequesterabout a
5% cutfurther reduces the total to about $4.74 billion, some $150 million below NOAA's 2012 total of $4.89 billion. The Sandy relief bill
finalized in February, however, added $476 million to NOAA's budget for a range of specific needs, such as repairing laboratories and
"hurricane hunter" aircraft and new weather radars and satellites. The add-on put NOAA back into the black for 2013, despite the sequester,
Research Program (NURP) , a $4 million program that gives academic scientists access to research submersibles, and to fold it into the
agency's broader ocean exploration program. But lawmakers also directed NOAA to take a close look at the NURP's regional partnerships with
universities and other groups. Those "producing the most valuable scientific information," they agreed, should be allowed to compete for
continuing funding. The agency will also have to tell Congress what it plans to do with NURP's small fleet of piloted and automated undersea
craft.
Courts
story.
[Luke Schoen
(Holds a Masters degree in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University), CLEAN TECHS RISE, PART I: Will the U.S. and China Reap the Mutual Benefits?, ChinaFAQs
Issue Brief, April 2012
OOInnovation Encouraging private investment in research and development
Remaining a
global leader in clean energy technology, will require continual development
and commercialization of new technologies. U.S. businesses have long called for a national energy
such as the Department of Energys Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) can fill a gap
in funding game-changing technologies that may appear too risky for private investors, but with the
potential to generate large economic and environmental returns if successful. OOFederal Executive branch
sector.54 National Vehicle rules Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Executive branch can
tighten national fuel standards to improve fuel economy for road, marine, and airborne vehicles. Proposals
for further tightening are pending.55
The U.S. stake in speaking and acting with one voice is enormous. Two
former secretaries of state, themselves of different political parties and holding different political ideologies, have warned: The American national purpose
must at some point be fixed. If it is redefined-or even subject to red e fi nit ion-w i t h every change in Ad ministration in Wash i
ng t on, the United States risks becoming a factor of inconstancy in the world. . . . Other nations-friend or adversary-unable to gear their policies to American steadiness
will go their own way, dooming the United States to growing irrelevancy. The urgent need for creating a new bipartisanship is also an acknowledgment of the changed
international system. In the early 1950s, the United States produced 52 percent of the world's gross national prodhct. It enjoyed a nuclear monopoly and was without
question the world's preponderant power militarily. The past 40 years, however, have witnessed a relative decline in U.S. wealth, dictating that the United States can no
longer simply ovenvhelm any problem with its vast national resources. Economic realities have also changed domestic political realities, forcing the country to make very
real choices benveen guns and butter and to establish its priorities. Indeed, in the absence of a bipartisan consensus on the role of the United States in the world, public
sentiment- including among certain foreign policy elites-is already calling for the United States to turn inward. The fact is, however, that the twilight of the Cold War
actually creates a greater need for bipartisanship as the United States confronts a more anarchical international system. The transition of the posnvar blocs from EastWest bipolarity to multipolarity will significantly alter the structure of the international arena, making conflict more, not less, likely. With the passage of time, Japan and a
reunited Germany will almost certainly emerge as more assertive and independent actors pursuing their own national interests. China will continue to be a major player on
the world stage and will have great sway over world events. Furthermore, as the two superpowers continue on the path of arms control and scale down their military
efforts, as anticipated, the gap between their capabilities and those of rising powers will diminish significantly. Additionally, by the year 2000, at least a handful of new
countries will be capable of terrorizing other states or of sowing general chaos in the international system. The result will be a new interna- tional system characterized by
highly dynamic interaction and, over time, shifting alliances and interests more akin to the strife-ridden European balance of power system than the twentieth- century
At the same time, these changes will occur against the backdrop of a Soviet Union in decay, itself a potential cause of vast instability; the existence of nuclear weapons;
, the world
may once again be made safe for jolly little wars, the difference
this time being the existence of weapons of mass destruction. There are fewand rising nationalistic, religious, and ethnic strife stretching from Europe to the Middle East to Southeast Asia. To use Kaiser \\ilhelms words
and really no-parallels in history to serve as a model or paradigm for guiding U.S. policymakers in an international setting of this kind. Thus, at a time when bipartisanship
is at its lowest ebb, U.S. policymakers are now being challenged in more ways intellectually, politically, diplomatically, and militarily than during the past 40 years. The
United States does have the resources to continue to play a major world role and to deal with its domestic problems at the same time, although admittedly those resources
are now constrained. In addition, when one looks at military, economic, and even cultural factors, the United States has no challenger to its position as the preeminent
world power should it choose this role. The problem for the United States is clearly not that epitomized by the apocalyptic cries of the decline school as portrayed by Paul
Kennedy-that is, decline following upon imperial over~tretch.~ Rather, the problem the United States faces is an international system in flux, characterized by the
diffusion of military capabilities and power abroad, all of which will create far more complex, nuanced, and unpredictable challenges. In the future, deterrence of conflict
will be more difficult, and U.S. defense planners and diplomats will have to address the capabilities and intentions of a wide array of actors far beyond that of the Soviet
Union alone. Threats to U.S. interests and those of its allies will often appear ambiguous, falling in the greyer areas of not war, not peace. Rather than following the well-
abroad the predictability and resolve that can only come from bipartisanship at home is as critical as during the perilous days following World War II.
say trade is good for their country, along with 71% of Japanese, 77% of Britons, 82% of French and 89% of Spaniards.
AT
AT: No Blame
Zero sum nature of politics ensures president is assigned
political blame
Fitts, Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania
Law School, 96
(Michael, The Paradox of Power in the Modern State, University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, January, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827, Lexis, accessed 78-09, AB)
To the extent that the modern president is subject to heightened
visibility about what he says and does and is led to make
increasingly specific statements about who should win and who
should lose on an issue, his ability to mediate conflict and control
the agenda can be undermined. The modern president is supposed to
have a position on such matters as affirmative action, the war in Bosnia, the
baseball strike, and the newest EPA regulations, the list is infinite. Perhaps in
response to these pressures, each modern president has made more
speeches and taken more positions than his predecessors, with Bill Clinton
giving three times as many speeches as Reagan during the same period. In
such circumstances, the president is far less able to exercise agenda
control, refuse to take symbolic stands, or take inconsistent
positions. The well-documented tendency of the press to emphasize
the strategic implications of politics exacerbates this process by
turning issues into zero-sum games.
Offshore Power Systems, apparently, did not appreciate that putting land-based reactors out to sea was
included new players such as the U.S. Coast Guard. Drawing from a 1978 GAO report. Drawing from a 1978
GAO report. Events conspired to worsen OPSs prospects. The oil crisis that began in 1973 made
construction financing expensive and slowed electricity consumption. Facing slack demand, PSEG
postponed delivery of the first floating plant from 1981 to 1985 and later to 1988. Tenneco backed out of
the OPS partnership in 1975. With the entire enterprise threatened, Westinghouse and the Florida
Congressional delegation asked the federal government to purchase four plants. But, the prospect of
bailing out OPS did not appeal to officials in the Ford Administration. The purchase proposal died.
Generating Station, and the New Jersey legislature refused to introduce a bill to turn the offshore site over
to PSEG. Westinghouse held out hope for a brighter future; PSEG didnt. In late 1978, the utility announced
it canceled its orders for all four of its floating plants. Slack demand, it noted, was the only reason for the
cancellations. We simply will not need these units in the foreseeable future, a utility official admitted.
Going to sea, OPS discovered, did not allow it to escape the problems that
beset nuclear power. A novel technological solution could not overcome public distrust and
economic, technical and regulatory uncertainty. We shall see how Russia handles the challenges.
more strict than those applied to fossil fuels (as measured by dollars spent per unit of public health and
safety benefit, etc.). Five years ago, it seemed like things were finally moving in a more fair, balanced
direction, with the prospect of CO2 limits, etc., but now things seem set to get even worse. We have the
NRC considering adding even more regulation, and arguing that current regulations are insufficient since
the Fukushima event inflicted significant economic costs, even though the public health impacts have been
very smallmuch smaller than what NRC had always assumed the consequences of a severe meltdown
would be (i.e, current regulations were always based on the assumption that such an event would be
vastly more harmful). Meanwhile, we hear calls from the right side of the political spectrum, to reign in or
even eliminate the EPA, with no similar calls for the NRC. Humble proposals to merely reduce the ~20,000
annual deaths, in the United States alone, from fossil plant pollution are loudly decried, while nuclear
requirements are being increased even further, in a quest to reduce even the chance of the release of
pollution to even more negligible levels, without any fanfare or political resistance (even from the industry
And why does the seemingly popular legislative item continue to slide further and further down the
congressional agenda? Answering those questions could be pivotal for the future of climate legislation, as
both sides admit that the fate of the bill could be determined just as much by public opinion as by the
actual policy language in the legislation. Environmentalists and their allies say it takes time to connect
public sentiment with political behavior, and many lawmakers do not have a firm grasp of how the public
views this issue or how it can benefit them on the campaign trail. "There are frequently positions that
politicians take that are out-of-step with America," said Joel Benenson, head of Benenson Strategy Group,
which conducted its poll for the coalition Clean Energy Works. "I think that when you campaign and you
create a narrative about whether a candidate is siding with special interests like oil companies and Wall
Street is opposed to creating energy independence, capping pollution, regulating the financial industry, I
think that's a pretty good argument for a Democrat to have against a Republican in a lot of races right
the bill. "Some folks, I don't think are listening to people on the ground -- this is a battle between public
sentiment and special interests," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), an ardent supporter of the climate change
came in at 49 percent -- an 11 percentage point drop from last year and the lowest since 2006. "There's
more support than opposition for it, but people haven't heard a lot about this," said Carroll Doherty,
associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
AT Aff Tricks
Bills must carry a number and have an official title. "It's the prerogative of the
sponsor to name the legislation," though bills must conform to the "general
rules of decorum," a House Rules Committee spokeswoman said. She could
not recall a name ever being rejected, but no such records are kept.
They usually foster alliances based far more on geography than on party
affiliation.
and districts
they
National
implemented by an executive order in 2010 to provide a comprehensive set of guiding principles for the stewardship of
killing regulations, according to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and would mean the death of all land-use planning in this country, in the words of Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA). Leaving aside the inherent contradiction
espoused by Rep. McClintockthat the National Ocean Policys nefarious efforts to develop a framework for the great evil of ocean-use planning would in turn kill the wonderful benefits of land-use planning
boiling these statements down to their roots leaves little more than
bald political rhetoric
. In practice, the policy will improve scientific management and will help safeguard the commercial and recreational fishing industriessome of the
most fundamental drivers of our ocean economy. Rep. Hastings, who chairs the Committee on Natural Resources, and Rep. McClintock both hail from coastal states, yet neither of the regions they represent in
Congress actually touch the Pacific Ocean. Still, the rivers that run through their districts ultimately terminate in the sea, and new findings are proving regularly what we already knewwhat enters those rivers
flushes into the ocean and directly affects all facets of marine life, including our fisheries. Rep. Hastings has held multiple hearings about the National Ocean Policy in his committee this year, repeatedly questioning
administration officials, scientists, industry members, and advocates about what he sees as an authoritarian overreach and a prime example of the regulatory stranglehold the Obama administration is putting on
Americas economic growth. (In the interest of full disclosure, I testified before Rep. Hastingss Committee on October 29, 2011.) On April 2 Rep. Hastings sent a letter to his colleagues in the House Appropriations
Committeethe holders of the congressional purse stringsasking them to prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy. On the whole, many fishing industry groups, including the
regional fishery management councils tasked with developing fishery management plans, have expressed concern over the policy since its inception because they feared their voices would not be heard during the
development of specific policy recommendations. Since the initial proposal was announced, the administration has taken steps to alleviate those concerns, including formally incorporating the councils in regional
planning efforts. Despite these improvements, Rep. Hastings has been joined in his effort to defund the policy by a coalition of ocean and inland industry groups, including commercial and recreational fishing
organizations. In their letter the groups call out potential benefits of a national ocean policy designed to stimulate job creation and economic growth while conserving the natural resources and marine habitat of
our oceans and coastal regions. Then, in the next sentence, they contradict this desire by calling for a pause in implementation of President Obamas ocean policy, which explicitly shares those goals. In this letter
Rep. Hastings also says the policy is especially alarming because it stretches far inland following rivers and their tributaries upstream for hundreds of miles. But of course it stretches upstream! There is no
impermeable layer dividing salt water from fresh. This is a fundamental reason why we need the policy in the first place. In fact, the policy is designed specifically to ensure adequate and efficient coordination
between the agencies responsible for inland activities that affect ocean resources and the agencies that oversee the ocean activities themselves. The news this week provided specific examples of why such
coordination is necessary. Pesticide use was found to affect Pacific salmon populations, and ocean acidification was proven to stunt oyster growth. These may seem like obvious conclusions to draw, but they both
exemplify the difficulty in differentiating between oceans and lands. Similar to the estuarine boundary between salt water and fresh (how salty can fresh water be before it becomes seawater?) our jurisdictional
boundaries are equally nebulous. President Obama famously (if incorrectly) noted this blurring of the lines during his 2011 State of the Union address when he famously poked fun at the governments management
of salmon. The Interior Department handles salmon when theyre in freshwater, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once theyre smoked, he
quipped to polite laughter in the House chamber and rolling echoes of punditry in the days after the speech. The reality of salmon management is far more sensible. The Commerce Departments National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration is actually responsible for salmon species management throughout their range, though the Department of the Interiors Fish and Wildlife Service does manage some salmon habitat
programs. Yet the point remains that what happens upstream in salmon runs can have a dramatic effect on the survival of one of the most valuable fisheries in the country. Thus it makes a great deal of sense that
we should coordinate efforts across federal agencies to manage issues that transcend traditional boundaries. For example: If pesticides make life more difficult for salmon, then the pesticide regulators should be
talking to the fisheries biologists to figure out how to minimize that impact. This is precisely the kind of interagency collaboration the National Ocean Policy is designed to facilitate. Further, Hastingss efforts to
defund the policys recommendations not only would prevent government operations from becoming more efficient by collaborating across traditional agency boundaries but could also have devastating
ramifications for the day-to-day programs that improve fishery management and make life better for fishermen. Cutting funding as Rep. Hastings has requested risks eliminating funding for many of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations existing programs that fishermen rely on or that could greatly enhance the understanding of what factors other than fishing pressure are causing fish stocks to decline and
prevent their rebuilding. Specifically, the National Ocean Policys Draft Implementation Plan calls for: Sustaining ocean observing systems that provide critical data for fishery stock assessments Conducting research
on what stressors (habitat degradation, pollution, global climate change, etc.) affect fish stocks other than fishing mortality Prioritizing a National Shellfish Initiative to investigate potential ecosystem and economic
benefits of shellfish aquaculture Identifying key ecosystem protection areas to enhance the quality of habitat that provides sanctuary and nurseries for the more than half of all fish caught in US waters [that]
depend on the estuaries and coastal wetlands at some point in their life cycles Understanding and combatting hypoxia (lack of oxygen) caused by polluted runoff from rivers and streams that can lead to massive
fish kills, harmful algal blooms, and other phenomena that adversely affect fish populations These programs are not new, and administration officials have been abundantly clear in their testimony before Congress
and, in some cases, in the face of withering interrogation, that the National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations for how we use our ocean space. Healthy oceans and coasts are among the strongest
The
Ocean Policy
sets forth a
proactive framework
exactly
what small government Republicans claim they want Maybe next
time we should get
Ryan to propose it.
economic drivers and most valuable resources our nation possesses.
National
to streamline government involvement, eliminate duplication of effort, and ensure taxpayers get more value for their dollars
.
Rep. Paul
(R-WI)
week begins work on its version of the spending bill, would have to agree to the amendments in order for them to become law (and in the past
Flores
added language barring the president from enforcing his
National Ocean Policy, which has been a partisan football in recent years. The amendment, which is similar to past
amendments adopted by the House but later stripped from final measures, was approved on a voice vote. In a 226 to 179 vote, the
House adopted a proposal from Representative Mark Meadows (RNC) to bar the United States from entering
international trade agreements to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.
An amendment from Representative Scott Perry (RPA), adopted on a voice vote, would bar
spending money on a number of government climate assessments and reports, including the
has stripped similar provisions from the legislation). For now, however, these amendments remain in the mix: Representative Bill
(RTX) successfully
U.S. Global Change Research Programs National Climate Assessment (NCA). The president has used the most recent NCA, released last
month, to bolster his Climate Action Plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Several other amendments offered by Democrats to bolster
the
Senate will hold firm against the climate-related funding restrictions
and strip out the poison pills, says Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. The White House has also indicated its opposition to climate
research limits.
funding for ocean acidification and climate research failed on voice votes. Advocates for strong action on climate change are hoping
PC Debate
**Neg**
tool of presidential power, it does not take place in a neutral environment. Presidents bring certain advantages and disadvantages to the
table.
presidential speeches that reference policies or roll-call votes tend to increase the presidents legislative
In their landmark
examination of presidential success in Congress, Bond and Fleisher
(1990, 230) identify yet another condition that may facilitate
presidential success on legislation when they write that the
presidents greatest influence over policy comes from the agenda
he pursues and the way it is packaged. Moreover, the policies that
the president prioritizes have a major impact on the presidents
relationship with Congress. Taken together, these assertions
strongly suggest that the policy content of the presidents
legislative agendawhat policies the president prioritizes before
Congressshould be a primary determinant of presidential success
in Congress.
success rate (Barrett 2004; Canes-Wrone 2001; Eshbaugh-Soha 2006).
local governments, foreign governments, and actions of private citizens and groups. Most other political
actors have influence over a very narrow range of stuff. What that means is that while the president's
overall influence is certainly far greater than that of a House subcommittee chair or a midlevel civil servant
in some agency, his influence over any specific policy may well not be greater than that of such a no-name
where and how to use the various bargaining chips that are
available.
the cap-
February 19, 2007, at a San Francisco ore-election fundraiser with a lengthy question and answer session.
Towards the end of the event a woman asked then presidential-candidate Obama what his position was
on same-sex marriage. For an instant, Obama seemed surprised; then he gathered himself and
responded he was aware of strong feelings on both sides of this issue and his position was evolving. Five
years later, in May of 2012, President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. What took
Obama so long to make up his mind? No doubt he needed to clarify his own moral position -- although the
Protestant denomination he was baptized into, the United Church of Christ, announced its support for
years I've realized Barack Obama has several personas. On occasion he moves us with stirring oratory;
that's Reverend Obama, the rock star. Once in a while, he turns philosophical; that's Professor Obama, the
student of American history. On April 3, I saw Politician Obama, the pragmatic leader of the Democratic
Party.
amount of political capital each year and has learned to ration it. In
2007, he didn't feel it was worth stirring up controversy by
supporting same-sex marriage; in 2012 he thought it was. He's a
cautious pragmatist. He doesn't make snap decisions or ones that will
divert his larger agenda. Intuitively, most Democrats know this about the president. At the
beginning of 2012, many Democratic stalwarts were less than thrilled by the prospect of a second Obama
term. While their reasons varied, there was a common theme, "Obama hasn't kept his promises to my
constituency." There were lingering complaints that 2009's stimulus package should have been bigger and
a communal whine, "Obama should have listened to us." Nonetheless, by the end of the Democratic
convention on September 6, most Dems had come around. In part, this transformation occurred because
from January to September of 2012 Dems scrutinized Mitt Romney and were horrified by what they saw. In
January some had muttered, "There's no difference between Obama and Romney," but nine months later
none believed that. While many Democrats were not thrilled by Obama's first-term performance, they saw
fiscal stimulus and affordable healthcare. In March of 2011, veteran Washington columnist, Elizabeth Drew,
Obama as: ... a somewhat left-of-center pragmatist, and a man who has
avoided fixed positions for most of his life. Even his health care proposal -- denounced by the
right as a 'government takeover' and 'socialism' -- was essentially moderate or centrist. When he
cut a deal on the tax bill, announced on December 7 [2010], he pragmatically
concluded that he did not have the votes to end the Bush tax cuts for the
wealthiest, and in exchange for giving in on that he got significant
described
concerned jobs and the economy. We gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard
work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs -- but too many people still
can't find full-time employment. Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs -- but for more than a
decade, wages and incomes have barely budged. It is our generation's task, then, to reignite the true
engine of America's economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class. He also spoke passionately about
the need to address to address global warming, "For the sake of our children and our future, we must do
more to combat climate change." But it's clear that's a secondary objective. At one of the Bay Area
fundraisers, President Obama observed that his big challenge is to show middle-class families that, "we are
working just as hard for them as we are for an environmental agenda." Obama isn't going to block the
Keystone XL pipeline because he doesn't believe that he can make the case his action will help the middleclass.
AT: Dickinson/Ideology
Their ev is just a blog post, not peer reviewed and solely
in the context of Supreme court nominations Dickinson
concludes neg
Dickinson, 2009 (Matthew, professor of political science at Middlebury College. He taught
previously at Harvard University, where he also received his Ph.D., working under the supervision of
presidential scholar Richard Neustadt, We All Want a Revolution: Neustadt, New Institutionalism, and the
Future of Presidency Research, Presidential Studies Quarterly 39 no4 736-70 D 2009)
Small wonder, then, that initial efforts to find evidence of presidential power centered on explaining
legislative outcomes in Congress. Because scholars found it difficult to directly and systematically measure
presidential influence or "skill," however, they often tried to estimate it indirectly, after first establishing a
baseline model that explained these outcomes on other factors, including party strength in Congress,
members of Congress's ideology, the president's electoral support and/or popular approval, and various
control variables related to time in office and political and economic context. With the baseline established,
one could then presumably see how much of the unexplained variance might be attributed to presidents,
and whether individual presidents did better or worse than the model predicted. Despite differences in
modeling assumptions and measurements, however, these studies came to remarkably similar
conclusions: individual presidents did not seem to matter very much in explaining legislators' voting
behavior or lawmaking outcomes (but see Lockerbie and Borrelli 1989, 97-106). As Richard Fleisher, Jon
Bond, and B. Dan Wood summarized, "[S]tudies that compare presidential success to some baseline fail to
find evidence that perceptions of skill have systematic effects" (2008, 197; see also Bond, Fleisher, and
Krutz 1996, 127; Edwards 1989, 212).
Beckman
shows that in addition to these pivotal voters, presidents also lobby
leaders in both congressional parties in order to control what
legislation during the 83rd (1953-54) through 108th (2003-04) Congresses, Matthew
a winning coalition, Sullivan theorizes that presidents can reduce members of Congress's penchant for
strategic bluffing and increase the likelihood of a legislative outcome closer to the president's preference.
presidential influence, rather than measuring it directly (Bond, Fleisher, and Krutz 1996,128-29; see also
Edwards 1991). Interestingly, however, although the vote "buying" approach is certainly consistent with
Neustadt's bargaining model, none of his case studies in PP show presidents employing this tactic. The
reason may be that Neustadt concentrates his analysis on the strategic level: "Strategically the question is
not how he masters Congress in a peculiar instance, but what he does to boost his mastery in any
the president's approval level, a variable of some controversy in the presidential success literature.
Further, we are interested in both the causes and consequences of success. We develop a theory that
competition in Congress while our analyses on presidential success enable us to fit existing theories of
party politics into the literature on the presidency.
president is usually left out or marginalized . At the same time, research that
The result is that welldeveloped theories of parties in Congress exist but we know much
less about how parties connect the two branches. For example, between
centers on the presidents success has developed with little crossover.
models of conditional party government (Aldrich and Rohde 2001; Rohde 1991), Cartel Theory (Cox and
we have an advanced
understanding of how parties are important in Congress, but little
knowledge of where the president fits. As the head of his party, the
presidents role in the partisan politics of Congress should be
central.
McCubbins 1993, 2005), and others (e.g., Patty 2008),
AT: Hirsch
Hirsh is just an internet correspondent complaining
about the term political capitala. Theres still an agenda crowd out link- concedes tradeoffs
happen - especially if a policy is unpopular and out of sync
with the countrys moodie the plan
b. Despite the evs hype, it concedes it is a real thing
c. Concludes Obama messaging on immigration is a relevant
factor for GOP support
Michael Hirsch, chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012
Decoded. Hirsh previously served as the senior editor and national economics correspondent
for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau. He was also Newsweeks Washington web
editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, The World from Washington. Earlier
on, he was Newsweeks foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September
11 attacks and the war on terror. He has done on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and other places around the world, and served as the Tokyo-based Asia Bureau Chief for
Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994. http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-nosuch-thing-as-political-capital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control
and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do this time of year: They will talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often
informed by sagacious reckonings of how much political capital Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider
this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at
the beginning of his second termeven after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundits license. (It
doesnt exist, but it ought to.) In his first term, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants
who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didnt dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic third rail that has cost the party elections and
that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the presidents health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obamas personal prestige or popularityvariously put in terms
of a mandate or political capitalchances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasnt the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were
slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national
conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of
opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to
appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: Be bold. As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a
plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. Its impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make
anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didnt a few weeks ago.
Meanwhile, the Republican members of the Senates so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of compromise on immigration reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standardbearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would self-deport. But this turnaround has very little to do with Obamas personal influencehis political
mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. Thats 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election.
Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But
the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Partys recent introspection, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of
Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. Its got nothing to do
term.
ever elected
more of
because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction.
pundits
Norman
some
or mandates, or momentum
on your side.
so
the idea of
usually
says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. The best kind of political capitalsome sense of an electoral mandate to do somethingis very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe.
And to some degree in 1980. For that reason, political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the everelusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to
invest, just as someone might have real investment capitalthat a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history.
and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economyat the moment, still stuckor some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the
closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the
abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of
political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, Winning wins. In theory, and in
practice, depending on Obamas handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can
appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive
calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it.
It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless, says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein
concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. The idea here is, if an
issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors Ornstein says. If they
a clever practitioner
can get more done because hes aggressive and knows the hallways of
Congress well
Edwards is right
think hes going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. Its a bandwagon effect. ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes,
of power
just
. Texas A&Ms
to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnsons landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of
the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwaters ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnsons masterful use of power leading up to that election,
and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson
getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Dont focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern
lawmakers support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you
oughtnt to expend it on this, Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, Well, what the hells the presidency for? Johnson didnt worry about coinage,
and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he
possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. Momentum is not a mysterious mistress, LBJ said. It is a controllable fact of political life. Johnson
had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who
get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of
wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didnt fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush declared, I earned capital in the
campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. Thats my style. The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overriding passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a fullbore public-relations campaign that included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didnt have enough political capital. Yes, he may have
overestimated his standing. Bushs margin over John Kerry was thinhelped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that was almost the mirror image of Romneys gaffe-filled failure this timebut that was not the real
mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in most peoples eyes. Voters
didnt trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bushs term, the stock-market collapse bore out the publics skepticism. Privatization just didnt have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it
The mistake that Bush made with Social Security says Sides,
an associate professor of political science
there was no sense of
urgency on Social Security
I dont think Obamas going to make
that mistake Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill . He didnt
understand how steep the hill was
Obama has more momentum
because of the
Latino vote
THE REAL LIMITS
ON POWER Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention
just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate
health care
problem was that the plan was unpopular
or how much capital Bush spent to sell it.
John
at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, was that just because he
reform. Its like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one.
.
. I think
on his side
and the shooting at Newtown. Obama may also get his way on the debt ceiling, not because of his
reelection, Sides says, but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal policy is a good idea, as the party suffers in the polls.
span,
of course,
. But this,
too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the
, the economy was bad, and the president didnt realize that the national mood (yes, again, the
national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled
by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the
Obama
had settled on pushing an
issue that was out of sync with the countrys mood
the political problem with health care was that it distracted
from other issues people cared about
Health
care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room,
idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling.
, like Bush,
. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But
bigger
reform
that
more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional
staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes.
calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven
Spielbergs hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewiss Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent attempts to move
peoples hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But its clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as
much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horse-trading. The reason I think the idea of
people. It really
oversimplifies
political capital
is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to
why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did, says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington. Consider, as another example,
the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs
through a largely compliant Congress, assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprecedented
Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDRs plan to
expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus inadvertently handed
back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political
capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didnt
Anything goes.
only
after 2014. But if he picks issues that the countrys mood will supportsuch as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun controlthere is no reason to think he cant
win far more victories than any of the careful calculators of political capital now believe is possible, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid todays atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new,
more mature Obama seems to be emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly. If he can get some early winsas he already has, apparently, on the fiscal
cliff and the upper-income tax increasethat will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. Winning wins. Obama himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the falsity of the
political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a post-partisan president who somehow had
been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth. The president
thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it
mainly wasa giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measurehe might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and following
up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obamas public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the
president put his personal imprimatur on any planfrom deficit reduction, to health care, to immigration reformRepublicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to
exploit the chastened GOPs newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own
as well: You Republicans dont have to listen to what I say anymore. And dont worry about whos got the political capital. Just
this: in a state
cleverly
reaching on its own: If you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. Its your choice.
There was nothing new about this, of course. It falls into the age-old annals of hubris, the same excess of pride that got
his reserves just dealing with the stimulus and financial reform, much less
fixing Afghanistan. I first became worried about this bridge-too-far problem last year while covering financial reform on
the Hill, when various congressional staffers told me their bosses didn't really have the time to understand how the Wall
Street lobby was riddling the legislation with loopholes.
oxygen out of the room and from their brains, the aides said. Obama and his team seemed barely
focused on transforming the financial systemexcept now, belatedlyand left a lot of the infighting to regulators like
Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Obama had spoken admiringly of Ronald
Reagan as a transformational president. And yet at what would seem to be a similar historical inflection pointwhat
should have been the end of Reaganite free-market fundamentalism and a laserlike scourging of Wall StreetObama
he has a terrific
fight on his hands over health care, that Obama is talking about seriously breaking up the
seemed to put this once-in-a-lifetime task on a back burner. It is only now, a year later, when
structure of Wall Street. The big-bank lobby will dig in big time of course, and seek to buy everyone it can on Capitol Hill,
when the
president did do h ealth c arewhatever version of it squeaks through nowhe seemed
to be getting such a meager result for so bruising an effort that it will
be a long time before anyone has the stomach to set it right legislatively.
which means that the president will need even more political capital that he no longer has. Just as bad,
AT: Klein
PC theory true- empirics prove deal making matters- Klein
is overly pessimistic
Seth Mandel is Assistant Editor of Commentary magazine. He was a 2011
fascinating subject:
rhetoric, using mostly presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama as case
studies. Reagan, Klein notes, was considered to be a great communicator (or, as he is remembered, the
Great Communicator), yet his approval ratings were average and many of his primary policy prescriptions
never caught on with the public. Overall, he writes, the same is true of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Bush
was unable to convince the country to accept social security reform, and Obama has been unable to sell
additional fiscal stimulus and most notably his health care reform law, which remains broadly unpopular.
The overestimation of the power of the bully pulpit, he finds, is more likely to harm a presidents domestic
policy agenda than advance it. But I think the key word there is domestic. Switch the subject to foreign
policy, and the power is somewhat restored. Bush may not have been able to sell Social Security reform,
but it would be difficult to conjure a more memorable scene from Bushs eight years in office than his
speech atop the fire truck at Ground Zero after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It wasand remainsboth
moving and inspiring to hear the president emerge brilliantly from the shell of his tendency toward the
folksy, and sometimes awkward, when ad-libbing, at that scene. It all could have gone very differently,
since the bullhorn he was using worked only intermittently, and the crowd began losing patience. Yet, as
they shouted that they couldnt hear him, Bush remained calm, steady, and delivered a fine moment when
he responded, I can hear you. I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who
knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. Reagans most famous line, obviously, was Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It is what he is remembered for as wellnot just the words, but the
sentiment, and the political risk involved. Very few conversations about Reagan center on what he said
before or after his first-term tax deal with the Democrats. Its fitting, because though presidential elections
usually turn on the economy, the chief executive has more influence on foreign affairs. This is no different
for Obama. After Obama announced a troop surge in Afghanistan in December 2009, polls showed a 9percent jump in Americans who thought staying in Afghanistan was the right course of action, and a 6percent drop in those who opposed the war. Americans favored the speech itself by a 23-point margin. And
the president saw a 7-point jump in public approval of his handling of the war. None of this is out of the
ordinary. When I interviewed James Robbins about his book on Vietnam, This Time We Win, he argued that
polls at the time showed Lyndon Johnson to have more support for the war effortespecially its escalation
than most people think in retrospect. According to opinion polls at the time taken directly after Tet and a
few weeks after Tet, the American people wanted to escalate the war, Robbins told me. They understand
that the enemy had suffered a terrible defeat, so there was an opportunity if we had taken concerted
action to actually win this thing. Even on college campuses, he said, more people identified as hawks than
doves: The notion that young people were long-haired dope smoking draft resisters in 1967-68 is not true.
The Forrest Gump view of history is wrong. If you expand the category to national security in general,
Clinton gets a boost as well. This one is more difficult to measure than support for a war, but leading up
the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton had been marginalized to such a degree by Newt Gingrichs masterful
ability to control the narrative that Clinton offered his much-mocked plea at a briefing: The president is
still relevant here. The bombing happened the next day, and Clintons ability to project empathy and his
portrayal of opposition to his presidency as right-wing anti-government excess partly to blame for any dark
mood in which someone bombs a federal building completely changed the pace and tone of the coverage
of his presidency. Speeches delivered in the service of selling a tax increase or even solving a debt-ceiling
showdown are often treated as the president taking his eye off the ball. The president as commander-in-
together, but, ultimately, the Speaker didnt make a private deal with the President for the same reason
that Republican legislators dont swoon over a public speech by him: he is the leader of the Democratic
Party, and if he wins they lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply divided, it may
I
disagree. The details of the deal matter, not just the party lines
become increasingly difficult for a President to governand theres little that he can do about it.
c are, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities
increased rather than decreased during Reagans tenure." OK. But
what about the notion that tax cuts are good for the economy ? The
public may have already been primed to believe this by the tax revolts of the late '70s, but I'll bet
Reagan did a lot to cement public opinion on the subject. And the
Republican tax jihad has been one of the most influential political
movements of the past three decades. More generally, I think it's a mistake
to focus narrowly on presidential speeches about specific pieces of
legislation . Maybe those really don't do any good. But presidents do have the
ability to rally their own troops, and that matters . That's largely what Obama
has done in the contraception debate. Presidents also have the ability to set
agendas. Nobody was talking about invading Iraq until George Bush
revved up his marketing campaign in 2002, and after that it suddenly seemed like the
most natural thing in the world to a lot of people. Beyond that, it's too cramped to think of
the bully pulpit as just the president, just giving a few speeches. It's
more than that. It's a president mobilizing his party and his supporters
and doing it over the course of years. That's harder to measure, and I can't prove that presidents have as
Truman made
containment national policy for 40 years, JFK made the moon
program a bipartisan national aspiration, Nixon made working-class resentment the
much influence there as I think they do. But I confess that I think they do.
driving spirit of the Republican Party, Reagan channeled the rising tide of the Christian right and turned
It's true that in all of these cases presidents were working with public opinion, not against it, but I think it's
also true that different presidents might have shaped different consensuses.
Lee's thoughtful new book, which is a study of Senate voting behavior from 1981
offers an alternative interpretation, one that validates public skepticism
of inside-the-beltway party politics. Her claim is that much of the congressional
partisanship is about politics and power, rather than ideological
differences. Collective political interests within each party predispose Democrats and Republicans to
stark. Frances
through 2004,
oppose each other, even on votes with no ideological content. If true, then public distaste for partisan
bickering is reasonable, and much of the conventional scholarly understanding of congressional
partisanship is wrong. Lee begins by historicizing and challenging the methodological individualism now
content based on the observed behavioral patterns of votes, Lee uses legislative language and
Congressional Record debates to distinguish, a priori, those roll call votes that bear on liberal/conservative
debates over the economy, social issues, and foreign policy from those that do not. What she discovers is
associated with popular outcomes. The party, in her view, is a political institution (p. 182), a team of
members who have gotten better at working together to advance collective electoral and political goals.
one party will regularly disagree with the other simply to make
the president look bad (or good), to discredit the opposition's integrity, to
Thus,
attempt to control the debate , or to burnish its image. In short, today's parties
fight because there is political payoff even if there is no ideological
reward. When we understand this, we see why bipartisanship is so hard to come by. Lee designs her
research carefully and rigorously. For example, in determining whether to count a vote as ideological, she
digs deeply into the public record to learn if senators discussed any aspect in ideologically identifiable
terms. In coding nonideological votes, such as good government votes, Lee excludes those that may be
even partially about ideology, such as nomination fights in which part of the debate was about the
nominee's policy views and part was about credentials or ethics. Expansive ideological categories make for
a harder test of her argument, as do narrower nonideological categories. There are some elements of the
research, though, where greater clarification would be especially useful (some might claim critical). Most
important is the description of nonideological votes. According to the author's method, these votes
account for a sizable majoritynearly 60%of all Senate votes in her time period (p. 65), and thus are
central to her argument. She provides some textual description of the types of issues included (e.g., good
government, institutional powers, some federal programs), but knowing more about these votes and how
they break down, similar to what she usefully provides for ideological votes, would be helpful in evaluating
her argument. One suspects that in any given political moment, a putatively nonideological partisan
battle over an ethics investigation or presidential power is actually a proxy war about the party-in-power's
liberal (or conservative) agenda. While the nominal issue at hand may, in principle, defy left/right
categorization, the vote is nevertheless very much about ideological commitments.
Context is
Neustadt
remains skeptical that presidents can substitute "going public" for
bargaining as a general means of influence. "Public appeals," he argues
instead, " are part of bargaining , albeit a changing part since prestige bulks far larger than
before in reputation" (Neustadt 1990, xv). A key reason why presidents cannot
expect to rely on prestige to augment their power is that approval
levels are largely governed by factors outside their control. "[L]arge and
If higher approval ratings can augment a president's persuasive power in select cases,
relatively lasting changes [in Gallup Polls measuring popular approval] come at the same time as great
events with widespread consequences" (81).
**Aff Answers**
Persuasion Fails
Presidential rhetoric has no effect on the public or on
Congress- empirical data proves
Klein, Washington Post columnist, 12
speech by him: he is the leader of the Democratic Party, and if he wins they
lose. This suggests that, as the two parties become more sharply
divided, it may become increasingly difficult for a President to
governand theres little that he can do about it.
Theorists have long worried over this possibility. They note that our form of
government is not common. As Juan Linz, a professor of political science at
Yale, pointed out in a 1989 paper, The only presidential democracy with a
long history of constitutional continuity is the United States. A broad
tendency toward instability and partisan conflict, he writes, is woven
into the fabric of a political system in which a democratically elected
executive can come from one party and a democratically elected
legislature from another. Both sides end up having control over
some levers of power, a claim to be carrying out the will of the
public, and incentives that point in opposite directions.
The American system has traditionally had certain features that reduced the
stakesnotably, political parties that encompassed a diverse range of
opinions and often acted at cross purposes with themselves. But today the
parties operate as disciplined, consistent units. According to Congressional
Quarterly, in 2009 and 2010 Democrats and Republicans voted with their
parties ninety per cent of the time. That rigidity has made American
democracy much more difficult to manageand it has made the President, as
party leader, a much more divisive figure.
Edwards, ever the data cruncher, has the numbers to back up this perception.
When President Obama took office, he enjoyed a 68 percent approval level,
the highest of any newly elected president since John F. Kennedy, he wrote
in a recent paper. For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, however,
his early approval ratings were the most polarized of any president
in the past four decades. By February 15, less than a month after taking
office, only 30 percent of Republicans approved of his performance in office
while 89 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents approved.
The gap between Democratic and Republican approval had already reached
59 percentage pointsand Obama never again reached even 30 percent
approval among Republicans.
This, Edwards says, is the reality facing modern Presidents, and one they
would do well to accommodate. In a rational world, strategies for governing
should match the opportunities to be exploited, he writes. Barack Obama is
only the latest in a long line of presidents who have not been able to
transform the political landscape through their efforts at persuasion. When he
succeeded in achieving major change, it was by mobilizing those predisposed
to support him and driving legislation through Congress on a party-line vote.
Thats easier said than done. We dont have a system of government set
up for Presidents to drive legislation through Congress. Rather, we
have a system that was designed to encourage division between the
branches but to resist the formation of political parties. The parties formed
anyway, and they now use the branches to compete with one another. Add in
minority protections like the filibuster, and you have a system in which the
job of the President is to persuade an opposition party that has both the
incentive and the power to resist him.
Jim Cooper says, Weve effectively lost our Congress and gained a
parliament. He adds, At least a Prime Minister is empowered to get things
One way of interpreting this is that party members let their opinion of the
President influence their evaluation of the issues. Thats not entirely
unreasonable. A Democrat might have supported an intervention in Iraq but
questioned George W. Bushs ability to manage it effectively. Another
interpretation is that party members let their political incentives influence
how they evaluate policy. Whatever people think about raw policy issues,
theyre aware that Presidential successes will help the Presidents party and
hurt the opposing party, Lee says. Its not to say theyre entirely cynical,
but the fact that success is useful to the Presidents party is going to have an
effect on how members respond. Or, to paraphrase Upton Sinclair, its
difficult to get a man to support something if his relection depends on his
not supporting it.
Both parties are guilty of this practice. Karl Rove, President Bushs deputy
chief of staff, recalls discussing the Social Security privatization plan with a
sympathetic Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. He says
that the representative told him, You wouldnt get everything you want and I
wouldnt get everything I want, but we could solve the problem. But I cant do
it because my leadership wont let me. Rove says, It was less about Social
Security than it was about George W. Bush. At various times during the
nineteen-nineties, Clinton and other Democrats had been open to adding
some form of private accounts to Social Security, and in 1997 there were,
reportedly, quiet discussions between Democrats and Republicans about
doing exactly that. In theory, this background might have led to a
compromise in 2005, but Bushs aggressive sales pitch had polarized the
issue.
The Obama Administration was taken by surprise when
congressional Republicans turned against the individual mandate in
health-care reform; it was the Republicans, after all, who had
championed the idea, in 1993, as an alternative to the Clinton initiative.
During the next decade, dozens of Senate Republicans co-sponsored healthcare plans that included a mandate. Mitt Romney, of course, passed one
when he was governor of Massachusetts. In 2007, when Senator Jim DeMint,
of South Carolinanow a favorite of the Tea Partyendorsed Romney for
President, he cited his health-care plan as a reason for doing so.
Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, who supported the mandate before he opposed
it, shrugs off his partys change of heart. We were fighting Hillarycare, he
has said, of the Republicans original position. In other words, Clinton
polarized Republicans against one health-care proposal, and then Obama
turned them against another.
No Effect
Capital barely affects the DA 8% swing
going from the lower third of political capital to the upper third
increases presidents' chances for success by 8 percentage points (in a
setting like 2008). Thus, political capital's impact does provide an
important boost to presidents' success on Capitol Hill, but it is
that
Winners Win
Winners win.
Halloran 10 (Liz, Reporter NPR, For Obama, What A Difference A Week
Made, National Public Radio, 4-6,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125594396)
Amazing what a win in a major legislative battle will do for a
president's spirit. (Turmoil over spending and leadership at the Republican National Committee
over the past week, and the release Tuesday of a major new and largely sympathetic book about the
president by New Yorker editor David Remnick, also haven't hurt White House efforts to drive its own, new
narrative.) Obama's Story Though the president's national job approval ratings failed to get a boost by the
passage of the health care overhaul his numbers have remained steady this year at just under 50
thought he couldn't," says Henry Olsen, vice president and director of the business-oriented American
and
Troy says. "He exercised that power and had a success with health care passage,
and now he wants to make sure people realize it's not just a blip on the map." The White House now has an opportunity,
he says, to change the narrative that had been looming that the Democrats would lose big in the fall midterm elections,
and that Obama was looking more like one-term President Jimmy Carter than two-termer Ronald Reagan, who also
managed a difficult first-term legislative win and survived his party's bad showing in the midterms. Approval Ratings
Obama is exuding confidence since the health care bill passed, but his approval ratings as of April 1 remain unchanged
from the beginning of the year, according to Pollster.com. What's more, just as many people disapprove of Obama's health
care policy now as did so at the beginning of the year. According to the most recent numbers: Forty-eight percent of all
Americans approve of Obama, and 47 disapprove. Fifty-two percent disapprove of Obama's health care policy, compared
with 43 percent who approve. Stepping Back From A Precipice Those watching the re-emergent president in recent days
say it's difficult to imagine that it was only weeks ago that Obama's domestic agenda had been given last rites, and
pundits were preparing their pieces on a failed presidency. Obama himself had framed the health care debate as a
referendum on his presidency. A loss would have "ruined the rest of his presidential term," says Darrell West, director of
governance studies at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. "It would have made it difficult to address other issues and
emboldened his critics to claim he was a failed president." The conventional wisdom in Washington after the Democrats
lost their supermajority in the U.S. Senate when Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts seat long held by the late
Sen. Edward Kennedy was that Obama would scale back his health care ambitions to get something passed. "I thought he
was going to do what most presidents would have done take two-thirds of a loaf and declare victory," says the AEI's
Olsen. "But he doubled down and made it a vote of confidence on his presidency, parliamentary-style." "You've got to be
impressed with an achievement like that," Olsen says. But Olsen is among those who argue that, long-term, Obama and
his party would have been better served politically by an incremental approach to reworking the nation's health care
system, something that may have been more palatable to independent voters Democrats will need in the fall. "He would
have been able to show he was listening more, that he heard their concerns about the size and scope of this," Olsen says.
tend to think this critique is overstated: Obama has passed the most ambitious domestic agenda since
FDR, and there are some grounds for believing that the White House got as much as it possibly could have.
if Obama had drawn a sharper contrast with the GOP from the outset; and
for failure , his lefty critics would be more willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt .
presidential decisions are made with an eye toward managing political capital at home (Fordham 2002).