OSW

***AFFIRMATIVE***

1ac Plan
The United States federal government should revise the
Coast Zone Management Act to:
mandate offshore wind power development where
appropriate and feasible on all U.S. coasts;
require revisions to states' Coastal Zone
Management Plans in accordance with this mandate;
increase incentives for offshore wind power
development.

1ac Solvency
The lack of a strong and effective federal mandate is a
key barrier blocking offshore wind development
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(October 2010, Erica, California Law Review, Turning Offshore Wind On, Vol.
98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
III Current Regulatory Framework for Offshore Wind
Both state and federal governments share control over offshore wind project
siting approval and permitting. Geography determines the jurisdiction of
each: state governments control their respective Coastal Zones, from the
baseline of their shores out three nautical miles, n92 and the federal
government controls the Outer Continental Shelf beyond that. n93 Offshore
wind turbines are typically located on the Outer Continental Shelf; n94 thus,
the federal government sites and permits this component of an offshore wind
project. n95 To get the electricity to consumers on land, however, offshore
wind projects must necessarily include transmission lines from the turbines,
through state waters and onto land. State governments control the siting and
permitting of these [*1643] transmission lines. n96 Both federal and state
jurisdiction are described in more detail later, along with the CZMA. The
CZMA provides the primary mechanisms for balancing state and federal
interests in coastal waters. n97 It leaves states with substantial
discretionary power and no federal mandate regarding offshore wind
power development, despite its undertones of environmental protection.
A. Federal Jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction begins more than three nautical miles from the shore,
along the Outer Continental Shelf, and ends two hundred nautical miles out
to sea. n98 Analyses of offshore wind capacity typically assume that wind
farms will be built in federal waters, more than five miles from the coast. n99
Thus, federal jurisdiction covers the generation component of an offshore
wind project, mainly the turbines. n100 This includes site approval and
permitting for project construction. n101
Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 grants the Department of the
Interior (DOI) primary authority over offshore wind farm approval and
permitting. n102 Section 388 specifies that the Minerals Management Service
(MMS), a branch of DOI, controls the offshore wind facility permitting process;
the Secretary of the Interior makes the final permitting decision. n103 This
grant of authority extends MMS's existing authority under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which gives it management rights over
the Outer Continental Shelf primarily for offshore fossil fuel extraction. n104
Because of MMS's experience with managing offshore oil and gas extraction,
Congress deemed it the proper body for offshore wind permitting as well.
n105 Opponents of the decision have been concerned with MMS's lack of
experience with marine habitat regulation and protection. n106 Fortunately,

MMS appears receptive to coordinating with other agencies with relevant

experience, like the Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Coast Guard, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection
Agency, as well [*1644] as appropriate state actors. n107
Section 388 came in response to controversy over which federal agency had
permitting authority during the early stages of the Cape Wind project, which
is described in more detail in Part IV. While Section 388 does not resolve all of
the issues relating to federal jurisdiction over offshore wind, n108 its
designation of MMS as the primary permitting agency marks Congress's first
step toward a unified review process for offshore alternative energy. n109
Nonetheless, the current federal regulatory environment for offshore wind
remains confusing. In April 2009, President Obama took a first step toward
remedying some of that confusion by announcing a coordinated program,
headed by DOI, for federal offshore renewable energy permitting. The
program will cover not only offshore wind power generation, but also other
offshore renewable energy, such as electricity generated from ocean
currents. n110 Despite this progress toward an improved federal regulatory
program, barriers to offshore wind power still exist, largely due to the
absence of a strong and effective federal mandate promoting offshore
wind power development and the powers that states retain over project
siting. n111
B. State Jurisdiction
Under the Submerged Lands Act, state jurisdiction generally covers ocean
territory three miles or less from the coast, n112 an area known as the
Coastal Zone. n113 As noted previously, any electricity generated in an
offshore facility must be transmitted to land through the state controlled
Coastal Zone. Therefore, state - and sometimes local - authorities ultimately
have a role to play in any offshore wind project through the siting and
permitting of transmission cables that are necessary to bring electricity from
the turbines to land. Although state and localities may only exert direct
control over the permitting of transmission cables, they will almost certainly
consider the impact of the generation turbines on their aesthetic view
environment. They know that denying transmission permits effectively stalls
or destroys the construction of generation facilities. States will also likely
consider such [*1645] aesthetic and environmental considerations in the
federal consistency review process, with which they may also block federal
activities and permits. n114 Federal consistency review is a component of the
CZMA, and will be described in more detail below.
Because most of the costs of offshore wind power development are local,
there is a strong argument for state and local control over offshore wind
project siting: because localities must deal with the downsides of offshore
wind projects, they should control where those projects are placed. n115 On
the other hand, there are broader, positive effects of offshore wind power
development - such as energy security improvement and environmental
benefits like climate change mitigation - that imply a need for stronger

federal intervention to balance appropriately the costs and benefits of

offshore wind. n116 The CZMA attempts to provide a formal structure for
such balancing, but it ultimately leaves the states with too much power, and
the federal government and offshore wind farm proponents with no formal
federal encouragement or support.
C. The Coastal Zone Management Act: Attempting to Reconcile Local Interests
with National Priorities
The overarching goal of the CZMA is "to preserve, protect, develop, and
where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal
zone for this and succeeding generations." n117 The CZMA mentions the
development of energy facilities in the Coastal Zone, but its language is
vague, and generally requires only that states undertake "adequate
consideration of the national interest" in siting energy facilities, and "give
consideration" to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or
program. n118 The CZMA also mentions energy with regard to funding for
development: "The national objective of attaining a greater degree of energy
self-sufficiency would be advanced by providing Federal financial assistance
to meet state and local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activity
in or affecting the coastal zone." n119 However, the CZMA does not mention
offshore wind energy or renewable energy at all.
Although the CZMA acknowledges the "national interest in the effective
management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal
zone," n120 it allows states substantial discretion over their coastal zone
management through CZMPs, which the Secretary of Commerce oversees.
n121 As noted previously, the Submerged Lands Act defines state coastal
zones as [*1646] three miles from the shoreline. n122 The CZMA
mechanism of federal consistency review extends state power further, past
their coastal zones, by allowing states to review and sometimes overrule
federal actions and permits in federal waters. n123
Before the CZMA was promulgated, the coastal zone had long been subject to
decentralized management. n124 The CZMA continues this tradition with its
own approach to federalism, explicitly encouraging cooperation between
local, state, and federal levels of government in their management of coastal
resources. n125 Specifically, under the CZMA, each state makes its own
CZMP. n126 The CZMA provides a variety of policy considerations for states to
incorporate into their management programs. Prioritizing construction of
certain facilities, specifically energy facilities, in states' coastal zones is one
of several listed considerations. n127 Others include protecting natural
resources; minimizing the loss of life and property to flooding and sea level
rise; improving coastal water quality; allowing public recreational access to
the coast; restoring urban waterfronts and preserving coastal features;
coordinating and simplifying governmental management procedures for
coastal resources; consulting and coordinating with federal agencies; giving
timely and effective notice for public and local participation in governmental
decision making; comprehensive planning for marine resource preservation;

and studying sea level rise and land subsidence. n128 The Secretary of
Commerce examines states' CZMPs, making sure they are in accordance with
the CZMA's policy considerations and other mandates, and any other federal
regulations. n129 In particular, the CZMA requires that states adequately
consider the national interest in "siting of facilities such as energy facilities
which are of greater than local significance. In the case of energy facilities,
the Secretary shall find that the State has given consideration to any
applicable national or interstate energy plan or program." n130 Once
approved by the Secretary of Commerce, however, state CZMPs are subject
to very little federal constraint under the CZMA, leaving states with nearly
complete discretion within their coastal zones.
State control is expanded by federal consistency review, n131 a mechanism
unique to the CZMA. Consistency review allows a state to review a federal
agency activity or permit within or outside of the coastal zone for
compatibility [*1647] with the state's CZMP when the activity or permit
affects the state's coastal zone. n132 Under this mechanism, the federal
agency must submit a "consistency determination" (for an activity) or
"consistency certification" (for a permit) to the state before moving forward
with the project. n133 For federal permits, which would be more relevant to
offshore renewable development than federal actions, the state then has the
opportunity to concur with or object to the agency's certification. n134 "No
license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state ... has
concurred with the applicant's certification." n135 Thus, a coastal state's
control extends beyond its own coastal zone into federal waters, as it has the
ability to review - and potentially block - any project that affects their coastal
zone. In the end, however, the Secretary of Commerce - by her own initiative
or in response to an appeal - can overrule the state's protest by finding that a
permit is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or otherwise in the
interest of national security. n136
Since the passage of the CZMA in 1972 until March 2010, states had filed 141
appeals with the Secretary protesting federal permits affecting their coastal
zones. n137 States settled their issues with the federal government in 64
instances, or 45 percent of these cases. n138 The Secretary dismissed or
overrode state appeals in 32 instances, or 23 percent of these cases. n139 Of
the remaining 45 appeals that the Secretary considered for their substance,
the Secretary overrode the state's objection in 14 cases, or 31 percent of the
time, and accepted the state's objection in 30 cases, or 67 percent of the
time. n140 Only 19 of the 45 appeals related to energy facilities, but all of
these related to oil or natural gas projects; the Secretary overrode these
appeals about half of the time. n141 Although states do not choose to use
their federal consistency review power over federal permits frequently, as
these numbers show, it is nonetheless a powerful tool that extends their
power beyond their coastal zones.
Ultimately, the CZMA, with its focus on decentralized, state control over
coastal-zone management, leaves the federal government and offshore

wind proponents with minimal recourse in their struggle to develop

offshore wind [*1648] projects. The CZMA allows states near-complete
control over their coastal zones through their CZMPs, with almost no role
for the federal government in promoting offshore wind energy (or any
kind of renewable energy). Because electricity transmission lines must
necessarily run through states' coastal zones to reach consumers, states
therefore have significant control over offshore wind projects. Through federal
consistency review, their direct control can even extend into federal waters;
though states have not often employed this process, the Secretary of
Commerce has seemed willing to give them some deference when they do.
Given a policy of such strong local control, and the absence of a firm federal
mandate for offshore wind power development, local interests have been
able to stall both federal and state permitting processes, often through
litigation. Proponents of offshore wind have little federal support, and no
guaranteed source of state support, on which to rely. Cape Wind presents a
compelling and frustrating illustration of this problem.

The plan ensures offshore wind development --- it

maintains NEPA reviews to prevent environmentally
destructive over development
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(October 2010, Erica, California Law Review, Turning Offshore Wind On, Vol.
98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
V The Coastal Zone Management Act: A Potential Solution
The Cape Wind example poignantly illustrates the disconnect between local
costs and national benefits with regard to offshore wind power development,
and the potential for local interests to hijack state and federal processes
and stall a project. The federal government needs a stronger role in
the process to counteract narrow-minded state and local opposition. With a
well-integrated federal perspective, agencies and developers could properly
weigh regional, national, and global benefits of offshore wind against its
limited local costs.
The CZMA presents an obvious starting point for a revised regulatory
framework. It already covers the states' coastal zones - that is, the area three
miles or less from the shore - and leaves states with substantial power. n227
However, it currently does not give sufficient weight to the national interest in
the benefits of offshore wind power. Some academics have come to a similar
conclusion, but their revisions are tentative and minor. n228 Now is a time for
more decisive and bold action. With the change in the United States'
administration, the deteriorating climate situation, and the nation's ongoing
energy and economic crises, the country has both the opportunity and the
need to make effective changes. However, setting up an entirely new
regulatory scheme, as some have suggested, n229 goes too far: it fails to
acknowledge what Congress can realistically accomplish and ignores the
tools we already have in our hands in the CZMA. With some strengthening

revisions, the CZMA might become the simple solution that helps the United
States turn offshore wind on.
A. An Ineffective Tool to Promote Offshore Wind
The CZMA has had some measure of success - almost every coastal state
participates and it has led states to view their Coastal Zones as "unified
ecological areas." n230 Still, despite clear undertones of environmental
protection, the Act has failed to serve as an effective tool to promote offshore
wind power development, even at well-suited sites such as the location of the
Cape Wind project. The CZMA's failure with respect to offshore wind can be
attributed to lack of specificity in the terms of the Act. That is, without more
[*1658] explicit guiding principles and requirements, states can fulfill the
process required by the CZMA - the development of CZMPs - while not
meeting any particular standards. n231 This leaves states with substantial
discretion, but without a coherent, overarching goal driven by a federal plan.
In particular, with its decentralized structure and only brief explicit mention of
the national benefits of offshore energy development, the CZMA gives
insufficient encouragement to states to recognize the benefits of offshore
wind power in their CZMPs. n232 For example, the CZMA explicitly mandates
that coastal states "anticipate and plan" for climate change and resulting sea
level rise and other adverse effects. n233 However, it fails to specify the role
for offshore wind energy or offshore renewable energy, even in a general
manner, in such climate-change planning and in state CZMPs.
Once the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a state has given
"adequate consideration" to the "national interest" in its CZMP, the federal
government no longer has control over energy facility development in state
waters. n234 Thus coastal states can block proposed turbines in state waters
and proposed transmission lines from offshore turbines proposed for federal
waters. Or, as in the Cape Wind saga, most of which occurred before the
Oceans Act was passed, states can simply not encourage, or even address,
renewable energy production, giving proponents no mandate to rely on in
litigation and administrative processes. In a more extreme situation, through
federal consistency review, a coastal state retains a "reverse-preemption
power" for federal projects and permits in state and federal waters, as long as
these projects affect the state's coastal zone. n235 Therefore, as projects
outside of a state's CZMP will frequently impact a state's coastal zone, states
can also potentially block permitting and/or construction of turbines not only
in their coastal zones, but also in federal waters outside of their CZMP's
jurisdiction. Through these two mechanisms - state CZMPs and federal
consistency review - local interests focused on local costs in coastal states
can stall or block offshore wind power development, despite compelling
national and global reasons to promote it. The CZMA offers no support to
counteract this local opposition, such as a pro-offshore wind federal mandate.
In addition, the federal government has offered only low levels of funding for
renewable energy activity offshore. n236 When this factor is combined with
the regulatory uncertainty resulting from so much discretion given to each

individual state, it is not surprising that the CZMA has been an ineffective tool
for promoting offshore wind power development.
[*1659]
B. Denmark: An Example of Offshore Success
Not surprisingly, offshore wind power development has been most successful
in places with a powerful, centralized government implementing a strong prooffshore wind power policy. n237 Denmark in particular has been successful
in its promotion of wind power, especially offshore wind power. n238 By the
end of 2006, Denmark was generating 20 percent of its electricity from wind,
both offshore and onshore. n239 Since 1991, Denmark has erected eight
offshore wind farms, with a total capacity of 423 MW, n240 meeting about 4.5
percent of Denmark's power needs. n241 The Danish Energy Authority, the
governmental agency that oversees energy facility construction, required the
construction of the two largest Danish offshore wind farms - Horns Rev and
Nysted. n242 Its requirement resulted from a governmental action plan
outlining the expansion of wind power in Denmark, which emphasized the
expansion of offshore wind power in particular. n243
The Danish government has promoted wind power generation for decades,
and the Danish Energy Authority serves as the centralized head of the Danish
government's offshore wind policy implementation. n244 The Energy
Authority is a "one stop shop" for the many parties interested in offshore wind
power development. n245 It determines whether to pursue an Environmental
Impact Assessment, which it then uses, along with relevant legislation, to
determine whether to allow offshore development. n246
At the same time, the government has worked to win support from a wide
range of stakeholders, including energy companies, industry, municipalities,
research institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and consumers. n247
In localities around the Horns Rev offshore wind farm, people expressed
concerns before construction regarding the lack of local involvement in the
process, the negative visual and aesthetic impact of the project, and the
resulting negative effect on tourism. n248 After construction, and after no
drop in tourism occurred, attitudes gradually shifted to neutral or even
somewhat positive towards the [*1660] project. n249 Denmark offers a
lesson in the power of constructed offshore wind projects to change negative
attitudes. n250 The same transformation might be possible in the United
States.
In 2007, after nearly a year of negotiations, the Danish government
committed to increasing its wind power generation capacity by 1,300 MW by
2012, bringing its capacity to a total of 4,400 MW, n251 or nearly 50 percent
of Denmark's total power needs. n252 This increase will include 400 MW of
new offshore generation on existing wind farms, Horns Rev and Nysted, and
at least 400 MW of offshore generation in new wind farms. n253 The Danish
government's commitment to renewable energy, wind power, and, in
particular, offshore wind power, fits into the European Union's broad pro-

renewable energy goals. Specifically, the EU aims to generate 21 percent of

its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010 as part of its efforts to
combat climate change and to reduce its dependence on coal, oil, and natural
gas. n254 A number of other EU countries also have strong offshore wind
programs. n255 Although Denmark has traditionally been touted as the
leader in offshore wind production, the United Kingdom recently overtook it
with a total offshore generation capacity of 590 MW. n256
C. Suggested Revisions to the CZMA
Despite its ineffectiveness to date, the CZMA has great potential to serve as
a framework for offshore wind power development. With some simple
but clear revisions that could enhance federal influence, mimicking
Denmark's stronger centralized control of energy development, the CZMA
could be used to mandate offshore wind power-friendly CZMPs where
applicable. At the same time, the Act will continue to uphold the
federalism values ingrained in the management of coastal resources in the
United States. These revisions should be:
To include an explicit mandate for offshore wind power development where
appropriate and feasible on all U.S. coasts;
To require revisions to CZMPs in accordance with this new mandate; and
[*1661]
To increase funding and other incentives for offshore wind power
development.
Revising the CZMA is not a new idea for Congress. For example, during the
Cape Wind federal jurisdiction saga, Cong. William D. Delahunt (D-MA)
proposed a set of revisions to the CZMA n257 in response to the Cape Wind
federal jurisdiction confusion. n258 Although these did not pass, n259 and
focused on agency jurisdiction over offshore wind rather than the promotion
of offshore wind, the proposal at least demonstrates some willingness in
Congress to take on the idea of revising the CZMA. Indeed, the CZMA has
been amended in the past, for example to encourage aquaculture. n260
In a promising sign of state willingness to cooperate in coastal management,
Massachusetts and fifteen other states participated in MMS's initial
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process, which was
MMS's effort to determine how to address offshore wind permitting. n261
Several commenters in the process, including representatives of state
agencies, urged MMS to coordinate with state authorities in finding suitable
locations for offshore wind facilities. n262 More recently, Massachusetts's
Ocean Management Plan explicitly suggests coordination with MMS for
offshore renewable energy siting. n263
1. Mandate Offshore Wind Power Development

Although the United States has evolved a fundamentally different approach

to coastal management from Denmark, revisions to the CZMA should shift our
national approach toward increased, centralized influence and coordination
that has worked so effectively in that country. Currently the CZMA recognizes
the potential importance of offshore energy development and requires the
consideration of the development of energy facilities that "are of greater than
local significance" in state plans. n264 These vague standards are not
sufficient, however, as evidenced by the failure of offshore wind power
development in the United States, and in Cape Wind in particular. The CZMA
should be revised to include an explicit mandate to states to permit, and
possibly even to promote, offshore wind energy and other renewable energy
development in appropriate locations. The term "development" should
broadly encompass generation facilities as well as transmission lines and
other works required to allow facilities to operate effectively. While it is
important for states to continue to respond to local concerns and negative
impacts, the federal [*1662] government needs a stronger voice in favor of
the national interest in offshore wind power development.
This new mandate would not have a detrimental effect on the federal
government's broad goal of environmental protection. It would not give
offshore wind power developers a right to develop anywhere off the coast,
but it would push development in locations that are appropriate
environmentally. Along with studies relating to optimal coastal development
conditions, for example, wind pattern studies, MMS's PEIS could serve as a
useful starting point in defining what "appropriate locations" should entail.
The PEIS examines "the potential environmental consequences of
implementing the [Alternative Energy and Alternate Use Program on the OCS]
and will be used to establish initial measures to mitigate environmental
consequences." n265 Individual projects would almost certainly still
require individual EISs under NEPA, which would further ensure
environmentally appropriate offshore renewable development . In
fact, NEPA would effectively serve as a backstop to the development that a
revised CZMA would encourage, as it would discourage or prohibit
environmentally harmful overdevelopment.
This revision to the CZMA could change how coastal states treat offshore
wind power development in two ways. First, it would require changes to many
states' CZMPs to reflect the new national priority for offshore renewable
energy sources, including offshore wind. Second, the new CZMA mandate
would affect how states approach the federal consistency review process with
respect to renewable permitting and construction in state and federal waters.
n266 The federal government would likely certify offshore wind projects as
consistent with states' revised CZMPs because development of offshore
renewable energy would be an explicit goal in the states' CZMPs under the
revised CZMA. Similarly, states would less frequently be able to object to
these determinations, because they would have difficulty finding
inconsistency with their revised state CZMPs. n267 And even if a coastal state
did object to a federal determination, the Secretary of Commerce could

overrule the state's objection as inconsistent with the new objectives of the
CZMA. n268 Thus, the revised CZMA would more effectively compel states to
consider the national benefits of offshore wind in addition to just their
consideration of the local costs. Further, it would give offshore wind
proponents support in combating local opposition to projects.
This revision could come in tandem with revisions to the Energy Policy Act or
as part of an entirely new energy agenda. President Barack Obama has
[*1663] repeatedly expressed interest in a new trajectory for energy policy in
the United States that focuses on climate change, energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy independence. n269 Congress could take
advantage of this momentum to make these related revisions to the CZMA as
well. In fact, reform of an existing, familiar set of regulations, like the CZMA,
may be more palatable to Congress, and an easy first step to take with regard
to renewable energy.
2. Require Revisions to State Plans
To give this new offshore renewable energy mandate effect, Congress or the
Secretary of Commerce should instruct states to revise their CZMPs in order
to achieve full compliance with the new requirement. n270 Once the plans
are revised, the CZMA already provides the Secretary of Commerce with a
mechanism to ensure there are no gaps or deficiencies in state plans. As
noted previously, before approving a state's CZMP, the Secretary of
Commerce must ensure the CZMP is in compliance with the CZMA and all
other additional rules and regulations the Secretary has promulgated. n271 If
the CZMA's "purposes" were to include promotion of offshore wind power
generation, the Secretary of Commerce could make sure the CZMPs carry out
that purpose.
Thus, states could retain some measure of control, but the broader benefits
of offshore wind power development would be integrated into both the CZMA
and the CZMPs. As noted previously, CZMPs revised in favor of offshore wind
would also give proponents of development more statutory support in any
state litigation by offshore wind opponents and may even deter such
litigation altogether.
3. Increase Funding and Incentives for Offshore Wind
As previously discussed, a federal agency, MMS, is responsible for siting and
permitting offshore wind power generation facilities. n272 Although the CZMA
alludes to the ability of the federal government to play another role by
[*1664] encouraging energy facility development through "financial
assistance," n273 it is once again vague. Congress would need to back up its
commitment to offshore wind power development - and renewable energy, in
general - with funding increases and incentives for such development in
particular. Such assistance could include incentives for not only generation
facilities, but also transmission and distribution lines, and any other related
works necessary for functioning offshore wind farms. Funding could be
dependent on state CZMP revision, as described above, to encourage

prompt revision. Congress has already recognized the importance of tax

incentives for renewable energy in its renewal of the Production Tax Credit
through 2012. n274 Other studies have shown a correlation between these
credits and increases in renewable energy investment, and have postulated
more significant increases with a longer-term incentive. n275
While this revision would likely be the hardest of the three for Congress to
swallow, particularly during an economic downturn, there is at least one
compelling reason for Congress to consider it: offshore wind power
development can create jobs, both regionally and nationally. n276 Indeed,
President Obama has explicitly acknowledged the potential for clean energy
to create new jobs, with particular urgency as the United States continues to
see high rates of unemployment. n277 In addition, the President has
acknowledged the importance of public spending to stimulate the economy.
n278 In particular, he has promised to spend significantly on renewable
energy, in part because of its job-creation potential. n279 Or, as with the
other aforementioned revisions to the CZMA, these incentives might be tied
into broader revisions to the Energy Policy Act or the creation of new climate
change legislation. n280 While this idea might buck historical trends related
to federal involvement in Coastal Zone development, it is well within the
realm of practical policies already being discussed.

Only a federal mandate can guarantee the expansion of

wind energy
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(October 2010, Erica, California Law Review, Turning Offshore Wind On, Vol.
98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)
However, the Oceans Act and Ocean Management Plan, though promising,
have come late in the game for Cape Wind, nine long years after the project
sought its initial federal permits. For most of this time, Cape Wind proponents
had to fight state and local interests at every turn, at both the state and
federal levels, with no explicit state or federal mandate to back them up in
administrative processes or litigation. Although Massachusetts finally appears
to be explicitly acknowledging the broad benefits of offshore wind power,
other states may not have such foresight, and other projects may face the
same uphill battle as Cape Wind against powerful opposition focused on local
costs. Without a stronger federal policy in the process promoting the
broad benefits of [*1657] offshore wind, and one with a congressional
mandate and requirements to back it up, offshore wind power development is
sure to be slow. The CZMA offers a potential way for the federal
government to assert itself and the benefits of offshore wind in state
and local decision making.

Pre-emption of state barriers solves nuclear power,

hydropower, cell tower and vehicle emissions statutes
prove
Thaler 12 Visiting Professor of Energy Policy, Law & Ethics, University of
Maine School of Law and School of Economics
(Jeff, FIDDLING AS THE WORLD FLOODS AND BURNS: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE
URGENTLY REQUIRES A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE PERMITTING OF RENEWABLE
ENERGY PROJECTS, Environmental Law, 42, Lexis)//BB
However, statutes expediting agency review of offshore wind projects solve
only part of the problemafter all, litigation delayed and plagued the Cape
Wind project even after it received its multiple regulatory approvals.266
Thus, as in Maine, there should be both expedited and limited judicial
reviews of agency decisions on offshore wind projects.267 Any effort toward
national-scale coordinated and streamlined review of offshore wind projects
must also consider the separate state and local regulatory obstacles before
a project can begin construction. Again, there is federal precedent for
limiting the delay or denial of deserving projects that are deemed critical to
the countrys economic, energy, or environmental interests. For example,
the role of state and local agencies in permitting, licensing, or regulating
nuclear and hydroelectric power projects, cell towers, and vehicle emissions
has been restricted by Congress with the support of the courts.268
Comparable legislation for siting and permitting offshore wind projects,
including their associated transmission corridors, is in order. Just as state
and local governments cannot regulate cell tower siting on the basis of
impacts from the radio frequency emissions,269 those governments should
also be prohibited from regulating on the basis of harm to wildlife if the
proposed project follows federal guidelines and laws, such as the ESA, the
MMPA, and the MBTA. The CZMA federal consistency requirement also
provides many opportunities to delay approval of offshore wind energy
projects. One set of proposals has been to streamline the CZMA process, as
well as to legislatively include in the Act an explicit mandate for offshore
wind power development where appropriate and feasible on all U.S. coasts;
[t]o require revisions to [states] CZMPs in accordance with this new
mandate; and [t]o increase funding and other incentives for offshore wind
power [planning and] development.270 One consequence would be
requiring changes to many states CZMPs to reflect the new national
priority for offshore renewable energy sources, including offshore wind.271
A second consequence would be that the federal government would likely
certify offshore wind projects as consistent with states revised CZMPs
because development of offshore renewable energy would be an explicit
goal in the states CZMPs under the revised CZMA.272

Long-term incentives ensure that the supply chain follows

on fed support key
Galluci 11 - Staff Reporter at InsideClimate News Honduras Contributor at
Fodor's, Co-Editor & Reporter at The News, Newsroom Intern at Associated
Press, Newsroom Intern at Columbus Business
(Maria, Never-Used Tax Credit Could Jumpstart US Offshore Wind Energyif
Renewed, http://truth-out.org/news/item/4778:neverused-tax-credit-couldjumpstart-us-offshore-wind-energy%E2%80%94if-renewed)
Matt Kaplan, a North American wind analyst at IHS Emerging Energy
Research, said removing the tax credit's end date could help lure investors
by guaranteeing the government's support even if projects gets held up by
bureaucracy or politics. "Having a long-term incentive for offshore wind
would help ... investors to feel a bit more comfortable with knowing what they
can expect out of these projects," he said. But even if the bill passes
Congress, attracting financing will remain a challenge for never-before-seen
wind farms in America, said Amy Grace, a North American wind analyst with
Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Most financiers prefer to invest only after the
first generation of projects proves successful, she said. "Most banks want to
be the first to invest in your second project." Still, the subsidy gives the
industry at least a shot, she said. "The tax credit won't guarantee investment
in the industry. But not having the tax credit will guarantee no investment in
the industry." Why The Legislation May Have a Chance Sen. Tom Carper (DDel.) introduced the Senate bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in July, in
part to support NRG Bluewater's planned Delaware wind park. Carper, who
chairs the Senate finance committee, said last month that he would meet
with all six Senate members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction to discuss the bill. The panel is tasked with creating a plan to curb
$1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit by Thanksgiving. Clean energy
supporters in Congress have appealed to committee members in recent
months to secure or extend tax credits for cleantech manufacturing and
R&D. In the House, Reps. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.)
have proposed a companion bill that they say would help a 25-megawatt
project by Fishermen's Energy get built off New Jersey's coastline. The 3,000megawatt incentive would cost the U.S. Treasury roughly $1.5 billion,
according to estimates provided to InsideClimate News by Jim Lanard,
president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition, a lobbying group. The
current tax credit, which the federal stimulus approved in 2009 for offshore
and land-based wind, geothermal, biomass and other clean energy projects,
costs roughly $3 billion. Grybowski of Rhode Island's Deepwater said he's
optimistic the investment tax credit will be approved by Congress, despite
the ideological resistance from some Republicans to continue Obama's green
energy subsidies in the wake of the collapse of solar firm Solyndra, which
received a $535 million federal loan. "We have lots of strong support on both
sides of the aisle," he said. One possible reason is that payments to the
large-scale projects won't begin for five years. "We think it will take 10 years

before those first 3,000 [megawatts] are used up," explained Lanard. He and
other advocates of the bills hope this will sway a spending-averse Congress
to okay the measure. Another selling point is jobs. Mandelstam of NRG
Bluewater said the first 200 megawatts of its Delaware project would create
500 construction and supply chain jobs over three yearsa point he aims to
drive home to lawmakers. According to the DOE's National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Obama administration's goal to deploy
10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity in the next decade and 54,000
megawatts by 2030, would create more than 43,000 permanent jobs and
generate around $200 billion in new economy activity. A large chunk of that
growth would come from luring global turbine and equipment
manufacturers to set up shop along the Atlantic Coast, developers say.
Lanard noted that making one offshore wind turbine requires some 8,000
parts from hundreds of different companies. Mandelstam, who also heads
the offshore group of the American Wind Energy Association, said he often
plays "matchmaker" between European manufacturers and legislators and
governors in coastal states, in an effort to entice them to open factories in
the U.S. But manufacturers aren't likely to follow until turbines are out at sea,
he said. "The supply chain will follow the projects." Along with creating
jobs, a domestic network of suppliers and skilled technicians could
significantly cut the cost of building an offshore wind farm in the U.S., which
right now "is higher than it would be for a comparable project in northern
Europe, where there's a developed supply chain," Deepwater's Grybowski
said. Who Will Build the First Offshore Wind Farm? Meanwhile, the race to
build America's first floating wind farm is on. At this point Deepwater's
proposed 30-megawatt Block Island demo installation off Rhode Island
appears to be leadingin part because it doesn't need government
financing. The tax credit is "less critical for the Block Island wind farm
because it is a smaller project," Grybowski said. The project, which includes
an underwater network of transmission cables to carry electricity from wind
turbines to the mainland, is expected to cost around $250 million. Permits
could be wrapped up by 2013, and the turbines, which would produce enough
power for 12,000 homes on the island, could go up that same year. "We are
confident that we will have a financing package in place to allow the project
to proceed," Grybowski said. But for larger wind farms, he added, federal
support is "critical." For now it's still anyone's guess which utility-scale
wind part will be up and running firstand by when. If the tax credit is
extended, the first payments for big projects would likely be dispensed in five
years or later and divvied up among the leadersCape Wind, NRG
Bluewater's Delaware wind park and Deepwater's trio of 1,000-megawatt
projects. Cape Wind and NRG Bluewater are the furthest along. NRG
Bluewater says it expects to wrap up all the necessary permitting by 2014. It
could sign a lease even sooner from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), which is expected to start leasing blocks off the coasts
of Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia by the end of this year. (The
developer is also seeking to build an additional 2,000 megawatts off
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.) Theoretically, winds

blowing off the Atlantic Coast's Outer Continental Shelf could provide more
than 1,000 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power 800 million average
homes. But it's not just the Atlantic states that are vying for offshore
renewable energy. Ohio wants to build a 20-megawatt demo on Lake Erie. Off
the coast of Galveston, Tex., developer Coastal Point Energy is proposing a
12-megawatt project. It suffered a setback this summer after utility Austin
Energy turned down the developer's proposal for a power purchase
agreement. Eventually, Coastal Point hopes to build 300 megawatts at the
site and 2,100 more megawatts throughout the area. The key for the entire
U.S. offshore wind industry will be consistent government support, say
the developers. "Stability in tax and regulatory policies will go a long way
toward helping this industry develop in the United States," Grybowski said.

1ac Warming
Warming is anthropogenic the most comprehensive
data-sets are conclusive
Green 13 Professor of Chemistry @ Michigan Tech
*John Cook Fellow @ Global Change Institute, produced climate
communication resources adopted by organisations such as NOAA and the
U.S. Navy
**Dana Nuccitelli MA in Physics @ UC-Davis
***Mark Richardson PhD Candidate in Meteorology, et al.,
(Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the
scientific literature, Environmental Research Letters, 8.2)//BB
An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential
element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating
the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate
change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012). Despite numerous
indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate
scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW;
Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis
performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate
papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific
literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine
the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing
most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). Surveys of
climate scientists have found strong agreement (9798%) regarding AGW
amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg
et al 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement
about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is
reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW
(Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007). The peer-reviewed
scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of
consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published
from 19932003 matching the search 'global climate change' found that none
of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004).
This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a
consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010).
Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the
perception of the US public is that the scientific community still disagrees
over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls
have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant
disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet
and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were
unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to

human activity (Pew 2012). Through analysis of climate-related papers

published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most comprehensive
analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and
evolution of consensus over the last two decades. 2. Methodology This letter
was conceived as a 'citizen science' is not provided. Schulte estimated a
higher percentage of endorsements and rejections, possibly because the
strict methodology we adopted led to a greater number of 'No Position'
abstracts. Schulte also found a significantly greater number of rejection
papers, including 6 explicit rejections compared to our 0 explicit rejections.
See the supplementary information (available at
stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia) for a tabulated comparison of results.
Among 58 self-rated papers, only one (1.7%) rejected AGW in this sample.
Over the period of January 2004 to February 2007, among 'global climate
change' papers that state a position on AGW, we found 97%
endorsements. 5. Conclusion The public perception of a scientific
consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy
(Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public
perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or
unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due
to human activity (Pew 2012). Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are
campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement
among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a
$510000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as
theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of
active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes
2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue,
where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal
attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff
and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has
improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid
press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and
Mansfield 2008). The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the
scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the
number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allgre et
al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides
quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers
rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the
percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a
position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings,
97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

Even if some warming is inevitable, keeping it below 4

degrees avoids the worst impacts
Kim 12 PhD in Anthropology @ Harvard, former president of Dartmouth,
Now President of the World Bank
(Jim Yong, Turn Down the Heat, p. ix)//BB

The 4C scenarios are devastating: the inundation of coastal cities;

increasing risks for food produc- tion potentially leading to higher
malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wet- ter;
unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics;
substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased
frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of
biodiversity , including coral reef systems. And most importantly, a 4C
world is so different from the current one that it comes with high uncertainty and new risks that threaten our ability to anticipate and plan for
future adaptation needs. The lack of action on climate change not only
risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing
world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development. It is clear
that we already know a great deal about the threat before us. The science

is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and

major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8C
above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09C since the 1950s
and are acidi- fying; sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times
and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme
heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are
increasingly affected by drought. Despite the global communitys best
intentions to keep global warming below a 2C increase above pre-industrial
climate, higher levels of warming are increasingly likely. Scientists agree
that countries cur- rent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change emission pledges and commitments would most likely result in
3.5 to 4C warming. And the longer those pledges remain unmet, the
more likely a 4C world becomes. Data and evidence drive the work of the
World Bank Group. Science reports, including those produced by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, informed our decision to ramp
up work on these issues, leading to, a World Development Report on climate
change designed to improve our understanding of the implications of a
warming planet; a Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change,
and a report on Inclusive Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate
for ambitious action on climate change, not only because it is a moral
imperative, but because it makes good economic sense. But what if we fail to
ramp up efforts on mitigation? What are the implications of a 4C world?
We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research and Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science
and the potential impact on development in such a world. It would be so

dramatically different from todays world that it is hard to describe

accurately; much relies on complex projections and interpretations. We
are well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and we
know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of
risk. But the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient to

justify strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to avoid

that scenario is vital for the health and welfare of communities around the
world. While every region of the world will be affected, the poor and

most vulnerable would be hit hardest. A 4C world can, and must,

be avoided . The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate
for international and regional agreements and increasing climate
financing. We will redouble our efforts to support fast growing national
initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions and build adaptive capacity as
well as support inclusive green growth and climate smart development. Our
work on inclusive green growth has shown thatthrough more efficiency and
smarter use of energy and natural resourcesmany opportunities exist to
drastically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down
poverty alleviation and economic growth. This report is a stark reminder that
climate change affects everything. The solutions dont lie only in climate
finance or climate projects. The solutions lie in effective risk management
and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a
4C degree world in mind. The World Bank Group will step up to the
challenge.

Catastrophic warming risks extinction

Mazo 10 PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
(Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for
Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for
Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming
threatens security and what to do about it, pg. 122)//BB
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario.
Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual
emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have
already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2C (O'9""1.5C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the

Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate

change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be
catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy.
Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging
and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of
widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries .' And although they have
been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change
beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is
certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid
change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to
these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes .
century."

Independently, emissions cause ocean acidification

extinction
Romm 12 physicist and climate expert, Fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Senior Fellow at the Center for
American Progress

(Joseph J., Science: Ocean Acidifying so fast that it threatens humanitys

ability to feed itself, 3/2/12;
http://earthlawcenter.org/news/headline/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-itthreatens-humanitys-ability-to-feed-itself/)
The worlds oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon
emissions than they did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million
years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring , says
a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic
record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. What
were doing today really stands out, said lead author Brbel Hnisch, a
paleoceanographer at Columbia Universitys Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory. We know that life during past ocean acidification events was
not wiped outnew species evolved to replace those that died off. But if
industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose
organisms we care aboutcoral reefs, oysters, salmon. James Zachos, a
paleoceanographer at University of California, Santa Cruz, with a core of
sediment from some 56 million years ago, when the oceans underwent
acidification that could be an analog to ocean changes today. Thats the news
release from a major 21-author Science paper, The Geological Record of
Ocean Acidification (subs. reqd). We knew from a 2010 Nature Geoscience
study that the oceans are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55
million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. But this
study looked back over 300 million and found that the unprecedented
rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place has put marine life at risk in a
frighteningly unique way: the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2
release stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of
ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300
My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown
territory of marine ecosystem change. That is to say, its not just that
acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown by end of century as a
2010 Geological Society study put it. We are also warming the ocean and
decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a recipe for mass
extinction. A 2009 Nature Geoscience study found that ocean dead zones
devoid of fish and seafood are poised to expand and remain for thousands
of years. And remember, we just learned from a 2012 new Nature Climate
Change study that carbon dioxide is driving fish crazy and threatening their
survival. Heres more on the new study: The oceans act like a sponge to draw
down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the gas reacts with seawater to
form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells
on the seafloor. But if CO2 goes into the oceans too quickly, it can deplete the
carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and
shell-building. That is what is happening now. In a review of hundreds of
paleoceanographic studies, a team of researchers from five countries found
evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans
changed even remotely as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal
Maximum, or PETM, some 56 million years ago. In the early 1990s, scientists

extracting sediments from the seafloor off Antarctica found a layer of mud
from this period wedged between thick deposits of white plankton fossils. In a
span of about 5,000 years, they estimated, a mysterious surge of carbon
doubled atmospheric concentrations, pushed average global temperatures up
by about 6 degrees C, and dramatically changed the ecological landscape.
The result: carbonate plankton shells littering the seafloor dissolved, leaving
the brown layer of mud. As many as half of all species of benthic foraminifers,
a group of single-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went
extinct, suggesting that organisms higher in the food chain may have also
disappeared, said study co-author Ellen Thomas, a paleoceanographer at Yale
University who was on that pivotal Antarctic cruise. Its really unusual that
you lose more than 5 to 10 percent of species over less than 20,000 years,
she said. Its usually on the order of a few percent over a million years.
During this time, scientists estimate, ocean pHa measure of aciditymay
have fallen as much as 0.45 units. (As pH falls, acidity rises.) In the last
hundred years, atmospheric CO2 has risen about 30 percent, to 393 parts per
million, and ocean pH has fallen by 0.1 unit, to 8.1an acidification rate at
least 10 times faster than 56 million years ago, says Hnisch. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that pH may fall another
0.3 units by the end of the century,to 7.8, raising the possibility that we may
soon see ocean changes similar to those observed during the PETM. More
catastrophic events have shaken earth before, but perhaps not as quickly.
The study finds two other times of potential ocean acidification: the
extinctions triggered by massive volcanism at the end of the Permian and
Triassic eras, about 252 million and 201 million years ago respectively . But
the authors caution that the timing and chemical changes of these events is
less certain. Because most ocean sediments older than 180 million years
have been recycled back into the deep earth, scientists have fewer records to
work with. During the end of the Permian, about 252 million years ago,
massive volcanic eruptions in present-day Russia led to a rise in atmospheric
carbon, and the extinction of 96 percent of marine life. Scientists have found
evidence for ocean dead zones and the survival of organisms able to
withstand carbonate-poor seawater and high blood-carbon levels, but so far
they have been unable to reconstruct changes in ocean pH or carbonate. At
the end of the Triassic, about 201 million years ago, a second burst of mass
volcanism doubled atmospheric carbon. Coral reefs collapsed and many sea
creatures vanished. Noting that tropical species fared the worst, some
scientists question if global warming rather than ocean acidification was the
main killer at this time. The effects of ocean acidification today are
overshadowed for now by other problems, ranging from sewage pollution and
hotter summer temperatures that threaten corals with disease and bleaching.
However, scientists trying to isolate the effects of acidic water in the lab have
shown that lower pH levels can harm a range of marine life, from reef and
shell-building organisms to the tiny snails favored by salmon. In a recent
study, scientists from Stony Brook University found that the larvae of bay
scallops and hard clams grow best at pre-industrial pH levels, while their
shells corrode at the levels projected for 2100. Off the U.S. Pacific Northwest,

the death of oyster larvae has recently been linked to the upwelling of acidic
water there. In parts of the ocean acidified by underwater volcanoes venting
carbon dioxide, scientists have seen alarming signs of what the oceans could
be like by 2100. In a 2011 study of coral reefs off Papua New Guinea,
scientists writing in the journal Nature Climate Change found that when pH
dropped to 7.8, reef diversity declined by as much as 40 percent. Other
studies have found that clownfish larvae raised in the lab lose their ability to
sniff out predators and find their way home when pH drops below 7.8. Its
not a problem that can be quickly reversed, said Christopher Langdon, a
biological oceanographer at the University of Miami who co-authored the
study on Papua New Guinea reefs. Once a species goes extinct its gone
forever. Were playing a very dangerous game.

THE PLAN SOLVES

US offshore wind development curbs carbon emissions
Thaler 12 - Professor of Energy Policy, Law & Ethics
(Jeff, FIDDLING AS THE WORLD BURNS: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE URGENTLY
REQUIRES A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE PERMITTING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
PROJECTS, 42 Environmental Law Journal 1101)//BB
as the economic and health costs from fossil fuel emissions have grown so too has the byzantine
labyrinth of laws and regulations to be navigated before a renewable energy project
can be approved, let alone financed and developed. 6 The root cause goes back to the
1970s when some of our fundamental environmental laws were enacted , before we
were aware of climate change threats, to slow down the review of proposed
projects by requiring more studies of potential project impacts before
approval.7 But in our increasingly carbon-based 21st century , we need a
paradigm shift. While achieving important goals, those federal laws and regulations, and similar ones at the state and local levels, have
become so unduly burdensome, slow, and expensive that they will chill investment in, and kill any significant growth of,
renewable carbon-free energy sources and projects, thereby imposing huge economic, environmental and social costs upon both our country and the
Unfortunately,

world8 unless they are substantially changed. Indeed, by 2050 the U.S. must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to even stabilize atmospheric levels of carbon,
and can do so by increasing generated electricity from renewable sources from the current thirteen percent up to eighty percent9-- but only if there are targeted new
policy efforts to accelerate, fifty times faster than since 1990, implementation of clean, renewable energy sources.10 Thus, Part II focuses on one promising technology to

Wind power generation from onshore

is increasingly cost-competitive with most
fossil fuel sources, and can be employed relatively quickly in many parts of
the United States and world. Offshore wind power is a relatively newer technology, especially deep-water floating projects, and
presently less cost-competitive than onshore wind. However, because wind speeds are on average about ninety percent stronger and
more consistent over water than over land, with higher power densities and
lower shear and turbulence,13 Americas offshore resources can provide more
than our current electricity use.14 Moreover, these resources are near many major
cities that are home to much of the population and electricity demand
thereby reducing the need for new high-voltage transmission from the Midwest and Great Plains
demonstrate the flaws in its current licensing permitting regimes, and makes concrete recommendations for reform.11
installations is proven, generates no GHGs and consumes no water,12

to serve coastal lands15 Therefore, in light Part IIs spotlight on literally dozens of different federal (yet alone state and local) statutes and their hundreds of regulations
standing between an offshore wind project applicant and construction, Part III makes concrete statutory and regulatory recommendations

to much more

quickly enable the full potential of offshore wind energy to become a reality before it is too late.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat in the atmosphere; the primary GHG emitted by human activities is carbon dioxide (CO2), which in
2012 represented 84 percent of all human-sourced U.S. GHG emissions.16 The combustion of fossil fuels
to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 40% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 33% of total U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions in 2009.17 The significant increased concentrations of GHGs into our atmosphere since the 1750 Industrial Revolution began greater use of fossil fuel

Climate change may be the single greatest

threat to human society and wildlife, as well as to the ecosystems upon which each depends for
survival.19 In 1992, the U.S. signed and ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), whose stated objective was:
[s]tabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow
sources have caused our world to warm and climate to change.18

ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that it is very likely, at
least ninety percent certain, that humans are responsible for most of the
unequivocal increases in globally averaged temperatures of the previous fifty years. 21 Yet in the
twenty years since the UNFCCC, it also is unequivocal that GHG levels have not stabilized but
continue to grow, ecosystems and food production have not been able to adapt, and our heavy reliance on fossil-fueled energy continues
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.22 Equally unequivocal is that 2011 global
temperatures were the tenth highest on record and [were] higher than any
previous year with a La Nina event, which [normally] has a relative cooling influence;
the warmest 13 years of average global temperatures [also] have all
occurred in the 15 years since 1997.23 Global emissions of carbon dioxide also jumped 5.9% in 2010 by the largest amount on
manner.20 In 2007,

record -- 500 million extra tons of carbon was pumped into the air, the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution [began in 1750], and the largest
percentage increase since 2003.24 In order to even have a fifty-fifty chance that the average global temperature will not rise more than 2 C25 beyond the temperature
of 1750,26 our cumulative emissions of CO2 after 1750 must not exceed one trillion tons; but by mid-July 2012 we had already emitted over 559 billion tons and rising, and
at current rates will emit the trillionth ton in July 2043.27 The consequence is that the current generation are uniquely placed in human history: the choices we make now
in the next 10-20 yearswill alter the destiny of our species (let alone every other species) unalterably, and forever.28 Unfortunately, by the end of 2011 the more than
10,000 government and U.N. officials from all over the world attending the Durban climate change conference29 agreed that there is a significant gap between the
aggregate effect of Parties mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having
a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 C or 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels.30 What are some of the growing economic, public
health, and environmental costs to our country proximately31 caused by our daily burning of fossil fuels? The National Research Council (NRC) analyzed the "hidden" costs
of energy production and use not reflected in market prices of coal, oil, other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them. For the year 2005 alone,
the NRC estimated $120 billion of damages to the U.S. from fossil fuel energy, reflecting primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation
and motor vehicle transportation. Of that total, $62 billion was due to coal-fired electricity generation; $56 billion from ground transportation (oil-petroleum); and over $2.1
billion from electricity from and heating with natural gas. The $120 billion figure did not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems and infrastructure,
insurance costs, effects of some air pollutants, and risks to national security, which the NRC examined but did not specifically monetize. 32 The NRC did, however, suggest
that under some scenarios climate damages from energy use could equal $120 billion.33 Thus, adding natural resource damages from harm to ecosystems, infrastructure
damages, insurance costs, air pollutant costs, and fossil-fueled national security costs to $240 billion, our burning of fossil fuels appears to be costing Americans about
$300 billion each yeara hidden number likely to be larger in the future. What does the future hold for a carbon-stressed world? Most scientific analyses presently
predict that by 2050 the Earth may warm by 2 to 2.5 C due to the rising level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; at the high-end of projections, the 2050 warming
could exceed 4.5 C.34 But those increases are not consistent globally; rather, [i]n all possible [predicted] outcomes, the warming over land would be roughly twice the
global average, and the warming in the Arctic greater still.35 For example, the NRC expects that each degree Celsius increase will produce in the U.S. double to quadruple
the area burned by wildfires in the western U.S.; a 5-15 percent reduction in crop yields; more destructive power from hurricanes; greater risk of very hot summers; and
more changes in precipitation frequency and amounts.36 Globally, a summary of studies predicts that a 1C global average temperature rise will reduce Arctic sea ice by
an annual average of fifteen percent and by twenty-five percent in Septembers 37; at 2C Europe suffers greater heat waves, the Greenland Ice Sheet significantly melts,
and many land and marine species are driven to extinction; at 3C the Amazon suffers severe drought and resultant firestorms that will release significantly more carbon
into the atmosphere38; at 4C hundreds of billions of tons of carbon in permafrost melt, releasing methane in immense quantities, while the Arctic Ocean ice cap
disappears and Europe suffers greater droughts.39 To presently assess what a 5C rise will mean, we must look back into geological time, 55 million years ago, when the
Earth abruptly experienced dramatic global warming due to the release of methane hydrates--a substance presently found on subsea continental shelves. Fossils
demonstrate that crocodiles were in the Canadian high Arctic, breadfruit trees were growing on the coast of Greenland, and the Arctic Ocean saw water temperatures of 20
C within 200km of the North Pole itself.40 And a 6C average rise takes us even further back, to the end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago, when up to 95% of
species relatively abruptly became extinct.41 This may sound extreme, but the International Energy Administration warned this year that the 6C mark is in reach by 2050
at current rates of fossil fuel usage.42 However, even given the severity of these forecasts, many still question the extent that our climate is changing,43 and thus reject
moving away from our largely fossil-fueled electricity, transportation and heating sources. Therefore, in this next subsection I provide the latest scientific data documenting
specific climate impacts to multiple parts of U.S. and global daily lives, and the costly consequences that establish the urgency for undertaking the major regulatory
reforms I recommend in Part III of this Article. B. Specific Climate Threats and Consequences 1. When Weather Extremes Increase A 2011 IPCC Special Report predicted
that it is virtually certain [99-100% probability] that increases in the frequency of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur throughout

It
is very likely that average sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in
extreme sea levels and extreme coastal high water levels. 44 Similarly, a House of Representatives Committee report (ACESA Report) found that
[t]here is a broad scientific consensus that the United States is vulnerable to weather
hazards that will be exacerbated by climate change .45 It also found that the cost of damages from weather
the 21st century on a global scale. It is very likely [90% to 100% probability] that heat waves will increase in length, frequency, and/or intensity over most land areas.

disasters has increased markedly from the 1980s, rising to more than $100 billion in 2007. In addition to a rise in total cost, the frequency of weather disasters costing
more than one billion dollars has increased."46 In 2011, the U.S. faced the most billion-dollar climate disasters ever, with fourteen distinct disasters alone costing at least
$53 billion to our economy.47 In the first six months of 2012 in the U.S., there were more than 40,000 hot temperature records, horrendous wildfires, major droughts,

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report identified impacts from growing weather
hazards upon public health to include: more frequent and more intense heat waves; more people suffering death , disease
and injury from floods, storms, fires, and droughts; increased cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality associated with ground-level ozone
pollution; changes in the range of some infectious disease carriers spreading,
for example, malaria and the West Nile virus; and increased malnutrition and
oppressive heat waves, major flooding, and a powerful derecho wind storm.48

consequent disorders.49 As noted above, $120 billion per year of the NRCs Hidden Energy reports damage assessment were based on health damages,50 including an
additional 10,000-20,000 deaths per year.51 And by 2050, cumulative heat-related deaths from unabated climate change are predicted to be an additional 33,000 in the

Weather extremes also threaten our

national security, whose policy is premised on stability. In 2007 the CNA Corporations report National Security and the Threat of
forty largest U.S. cities, with more than 150,000 additional deaths by 2100.52

Climate Change

described climate change as a threat multiplier for instability and

warned that p]rojected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security. The predicted effects of climate change over the coming decades include

drought, flooding, sea level rise, retreating glaciers, habitat shifts,

and the increased spread of life-threatening diseases . These conditions have
the potential to disrupt our way of life and to force changes in the way we keep ourselves safe and secure.53 The following year, in the
first-ever U.S. government analysis of climate change security threats, the National Intelligence Council issued an
assessment warning, in part, that climate change could threaten U.S. security
by leading to political instability, mass movements of refugees, terrorism,
and conflicts over water and other resources.54 2. When Frozen Water Melts In 2007 the IPCC predicted that
extreme weather events,

sea levels would rise by 8 to 24 inches above current levels by 2100; since then, however, numerous scientists and studies have suggested that the 2007 prediction is
already out-of-date and that sea levels will likely rise up to 1.4 meters (55 inches) given upwardly trending CO2 emissions.55 The 2009 ACESA Report found that rising sea
levels are already causing inundation of low-lying lands, corrosion of wetlands and beaches, exacerbation of storm surges and flooding, and increases in the salinity of
coastal estuaries and aquifers. Further, about one billion people live in areas within 75 feet elevation of today's sea level, including many US cities on the East Coast and
Gulf of Mexico, almost all of Bangladesh, and areas occupied by more than 250 million people in China.56 This year NASAs Chief Scientist testified to Congress that twothirds of sea level rise from the last three decades is derived from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and the melting Arctic region, then warned: [t]he West Antarctic
ice sheet (WAIS), an area about the size of the states of Texas and Oklahoma combined.contains the equivalent of 3.3 m of sea level, and all that ice rests on a soft-bed
that lies below sea level. In this configuration, as warm seawater melts the floating ice shelves, causing them to retreat and the glaciers that feed them to speed up, there
is no mechanism to stop the retreat and associated discharge, if warming continues. Thus the WAIS exhibits great potential for substantial and relatively rapid
contributions to sea level rise. In Greenland, the situation is not as dramatic, since the bed that underlies most of the ice is not below sea level, and the potential for
unabated retreat is limited to a few outlet glaciers. In Greenland, however, summer air temperatures are warmer and closer to ices melting point, and we have observed
widespread accumulation of meltwater in melt ponds on the ice sheet surface..57 In the West Antarctic ice sheet region, glacier retreat appears to be widespread, as the
air has warmed by nearly 6F since 1950.58 As for Greenlands Ice Sheet, it also is at greater risk than the IPCC had thought. Recent studies with more complete
modeling suggest that the warming threshold leading to an essentially ice-free state is not the previous estimate of an additional 3.1C, but only 1.6C. Thus, the 2C
target may be insufficient to prevent loss of much of the Ice Sheet and resultant significant sea level rise.59 The ACESA Report also identified the Arctic as one of the
hotspots of global warming60 because [o]ver the past 50 years average temperatures in the Arctic have increased as much as 7 F, five times the global average.61
Moreover, in 2007, a record 386,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice melted away, an area larger than Texas and Arizona combined and as big a decline in one year as had
occurred over the previous decade.62 Arctic sea ice is melting faster than climate models [had] predict[ed], and is about thirty years ahead of the 2007 IPCC
predictions, thus heading toward the Arctic Ocean being ice-free in the late summer beginning sometime between 2020 and 2037.63 How is the Arctics plight linked to
non-Arctic impacts? The Arctic region arguably has the greatest concentration of potential tipping elements in the Earth system, including Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice
sheet, North Atlantic deep-water formation regions, boreal forests, permafrost and marine methane hydrates.64 Additionally: Warming of the Arctic region is proceeding
at three times the global average.Loss of Arctic sea ice has been tentatively linked to extreme cold winters in Europe Near complete loss of the summer sea ice, as
forecast for the middle of this century, if not before, will probably have knock-on effects for the northern mid-latitudes, shifting jet streams and storm tracks.65 Since
1980, sea levels have been rising three to four times faster than the global average between Cape Hatteras, N.C. and Boston.66 [P]ast and future global warming more
than doubles the estimated odds of century or worse floods occurring within the next 18 years for most coastal U.S. locations.67 Although land-based glacier melts are
not major contributors to sea level rise, they do impact peoples food and water supplies. Virtually all of the world's glaciers, which store seventy-five percent of the worlds
freshwater, are receding in direct response to global warming, aggravating already severe water scarcity--both in the United States and abroad.68 While over fifteen
percent of the world population currently relies on melt water from glaciers and snow cover for drinking water and irrigation for agriculture, the IPCC projects a sixty
percent volume loss in glaciers in various regions and widespread reductions in snow cover throughout the twenty-first century.69 Likewise, snowpack has been
decreasing, and it is expected that snow cover duration will significantly decrease in eastern and western North America and Scandinavia by 2020, and globally by 2080.70

increases food insecurity by reducing yields of grains , such as corn

and wheat, from increased water scarcity and intensification of severe hot
conditions, thereby causing corn price volatility to sharply increase.71 Globally, the number of people
Climate change thus

living in "severely stressed" river basins will increase by one to two billion people in the 2050sAbout two-thirds of the global land area is expected to experience
increased water stress.72 3. When Liquid Water Warms Over the past century, oceans, which cover seventy percent of the Earths surface, are warming. Global seasurface temperature has increased about 1.3F, while the heat has also penetrated almost two miles into the deep ocean.73 This increased warming is contributing to the
destruction of seagrass meadows, causing an annual release back into the environment of 299 million tons of carbon.74 Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations also are leading to higher absorption of CO2 into the upper ocean, making the surface waters more acidic (lower Ph).75 [O]cean chemistry currently is
changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed during the 650,000 years preceding our [fossil-fueled] industrial era.76 The acidification has serious

Coral reefs, the habitat for

about a quarter of (over a million ) of marine species, are collapsing,
endangering more than a third of all coral species77 ; indeed, temperature
thresholds for the majority of coral reefs worldwide are expected to be
exceeded, causing mass bleaching and complete coral mortality. 78 [T]he
productivity of plankton, krill, and marine snails, which compose the base of
the ocean food-chain, [also] declines as the ocean acidifies ,79 adversely
impacting populations of everything from whales to salmon80 -- who also are
being harmed by the oceans warming up. 81 Extinctions from climate change
also are expected to be significant and widespread. The IPCC Fourth Assessment found that approximately
implications for the calcification rates of organisms and plants living at all levels within the global ocean.

20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C82a range
likely to be exceeded in the coming decades. [R

in

such []

]ecent studies have linked global warming to declines

species as [] blue crabs, penguins, gray whales, salmon, walruses, and ringed seals[; b]ird extinction rates are predicted to be as high as 38 percent

in Europe and 72 percent in northeastern Australia, if global warming exceeds 2C above pre-industrial levels.83 Between now and 2050, Conservation International

one species will face extinction every twenty minutes ; the current
extinction rate is one thousand times faster than the average during Earth's
history, 84 in part because the climate is changing more than 100 times faster than
the rate at which many species can adapt.85 4. When Land Dries Out The warming trends toward the Earths poles and
estimates

higher latitudes are threatening people not just from melting ice and sea level rise, but also from the predicted thawing of permafrost of thirty to fifty percent by 2050, and
as much or more of it by 2100.86 The term permafrost refers to soil or rock that has been below 0C (32F) and frozen for at least two years.87 Permafrost underlies
about twenty-five percent of the land area in the northern hemisphere, and is estimated to hold 30 percent or more of all carbon stored in soils worldwidewhich
equates to four times more than all the carbon humans have emitted in modern times.88 Given the increasing average air temperatures in Eastern Siberia, Alaska and
northwestern Canada, thawing of the Northern permafrost would release massive amounts of carbon dioxide (doubling current atmospheric levels) and methane89 into the

atmosphere. Indeed, there are about 1.7 trillion tons of carbon in northern soils (roughly twice the amount in the atmosphere), about eighty-eight percent of it in thawing
permafrost.90 Permafrost thus may become an annual source of carbon equal to fifteen to thirty-five percent of today's annual human emissions.91 But like seagrass
meadows and unlike power plant emissions, we cannot trap or prevent permafrost carbon emissions at the source. Similarly, forests, which cover about 30 percent of the
Earth's land surface and hold almost half of the world's terrestrial carbonact both as a source of carbon emissions to the atmosphere when cut, burned, or otherwise
degraded and as a sink when they grow...92 A combination of droughts, fires, and spreading pests, though, are causing economic and environmental havoc:. In 2003, []
forest fires in Europe, the United States, Australia, and Canada accounted for more global [carbon] emissions than any other source...93 There have been significant
increases in both the number of major wildfires and the area of forests burned in the U.S. and Canada.94 Fires fed by hot, dry weather have killed enormous stretches
forest in Siberia and in the Amazon, which recently suffered two once a century droughts just five years apart.95 Climate change also is exacerbating the geographic
spread and intensity of insect infestations. For example, in British Columbia the mountain pine beetle extended its range north and has destroyed an area of soft-wood
forest three times the size of Maryland, killing 411 million cubic feet of treesdouble the annual take by all the loggers in Canada. Alaska has also lost up to three million
acres of old growth forest to the pine beetle.96 Over the past fifteen years the spruce bark beetle extended its range into Alaska, where it has killed about 40 million
trees, more than any other insect in North America's recorded history.97 The drying and burning forests, and other increasingly dry landscapes, also are causing flora
and fauna[ to move] to higher latitudes or to higher altitudes in the mountains. 98 The human and environmental costs from failing to promptly reduce dependence on

Rather than being the leader

among major countries in per capita GHG emissions, our country urgently
needs to lead the world in cutting eighty percent our emissions by 2050, and using our
renewable energy resources and technological advances to help other major
emitting countries do the same. However, significantly increasing our use of
carbon-free renewable sources to protect current and future generations of all
specieshuman and non-humanrequires concrete changes in how our legal
system regulates and permits renewable energy sources . One of those
sources with the potential for significant energy production and comparable elimination of
fossil fueled greenhouse gases near major American and global population sources is offshore wind. II. THE OFFSHORE WIND POWER PERMITTING
AND LEASING OBSTACLE COURSE A. Overview of Technology and Attributes As noted in the Introduction, offshore wind energy projects
have the potential to generate large quantities of pollutant-free electricity
near many of the worlds major population centers, and thus to help reduce the ongoing and projected economic, health, and
environmental damages from climate change.99 Wind speeds over water are
stronger and more consistent than over land, and have a gross potential
generating capacity four times greater than the nations present electric
capacity.100 The net capacity factor101 for offshore turbines is greater than
standard land-based turbines, and their blade-tip speeds are higher than their
land-based counterparts.102 Offshore wind turbine substructure designs mainly fall into three depth categories: shallow (30 m or less),
carbon-dioxide emitting sources for electricity, heating and transportation are dire and indisputable.

transitional (>30 m to 60 m), and deep water (>60 m).103 All of the grid-scale offshore wind farms in Europe have monopole foundations embedded into the seabed in
water depths ranging from 5m to 30m; the proposed American projects such as Cape Wind in Massachusetts and Block Island in Rhode Island would likewise be shallowwater installations.

Offshore wind is comparatively the cleanest and most

productive renewable energy
Jensen 13 partner in the Washington, DC office of Holland & Hart LLP
(Thomas, et al, From the 35th Public Land Law Conference: Balancing Act
and Paradigm Shift: The Role of Public Lands in America's Energy Future:
Oceans: Are Ocean Wind Turbines like Homesteads and Gold Mines and
Railroads? A Public Lands Policy Question for the Climate Change Era, 34
Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 93)//BB
The ocean wind resource in United States marine waters is estimated to be as
large as 4,223 gigawatts ("GW"), 12 with as many as 1,372 terawatt hours of
electricity available off the East Coast alone. 13 The low estimate of the
resource is roughly four times the generating capacity of the current United
States electric grid. 14
Ocean wind is a green energy asset owned by the American people. It is an
energy source for the country that will be available forever. It can be found in
undeveloped areas near almost all coastal urban centers. It is of a potential
scale that dwarfs most other alternatives, and is big enough to shrink the

United States' carbon footprint toward fitting even the most constrictive
greenhouse gas policy.
[99] Today, America's ocean wind energy is unharvested. While thousands of
turbines spin onshore, and nations around the globe have developed at least
57 marine wind projects, 15 no turbines have been sited in United States
waters. An energy resource area larger than the total landmass of the United
States, 16 one wholly owned by the American people, is unused and wasted
as a tool to power our communities.

Full-scale offshore wind would enough electricity for the

entire country
Levitan 13 - writes about energy, the environment, and health. His articles
have been published by Scientific American, Discover, IEEE Spectrum, Grist,
and others. In previous articles for Yale Environment 360, he has written
about vehicle-to-grid technology for electric cars and cities' efforts to recycle
food scraps and organic waste
(Dave, Will Offshore Wind Finally Take Off on U.S. East Coast?,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/will_offshore_wind_finally_take_off_on_us_east_c
oast/2693/)//BB
The East Coast is the Saudi Arabia of offshore wind, because there is
enough energy there to provide the entire U.S. with electricity if it
was fully developed, says Matt Huelsenbeck, a marine scientist and offshore
wind expert with the non-profit group Oceana. The National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, part of the Department of Energy, puts the onshore and
offshore U.S. wind energy potential at 4,150 gigawatts, around four times the
entire electricity requirements of the United States. The Northeast and midAtlantic coasts in particular are windy spots with water depths that make
development feasible.

Electricity-emissions reductions sufficiently solve global

warming
Akorede 12 - .F., Ph.D degree in Electrical Power Engineering from
Universiti Putra Malaysia
(H. Hizam,M.Z.A. Ab Kadir,I. Aris,S.D. BubaElectrical & Electronic Engineering
Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Mitigating the
anthropogenic global warming in the electric power industry, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16.5)//BB
5. Power industry's share of CO2 emissions To identify the most productive
mitigation strategies, it is crucial to understand the current as well as the
projected sources of GHGs, most especially CO2[30]. Looking at Fig. 5, it is
glaringly evident that CO2 constitutes the largest share (76.7 percent) of the
total global GHGs emissions recorded in 2004. In the same vein, energy
supply sector which comprises of power generation and heat supply,
accounted for nearly 26 percent of the overall anthropogenic GHG emissions

in the same year, as depicted in Fig. 6. To narrow down to CO2 emissions, Fig.
7 identifies individual contribution of each sector to global CO2 emissions. As
a group, energy supply, which is responsible for 41 percent of the total global
CO2 is by far the largest producer of CO2 in 2008, followed by the
transportation sector. In fact, it is glaringly visible in the figure that these two
sectors alone constitute two-thirds of the total CO2 in the atmosphere in the
year. According to the International Energy Agency, out of the 41 percent of
the man-made CO2 emissions mentioned previously, the power sector is
responsible for 37 percent. The sector creates about 23 billion tons of global
CO2 emissions per year. Out of this, the United States produces the most CO2
from electricity generation, releasing 2.8 billion tons of CO2 each year, while
China is close to overtaking it with her annual 2.7 billion tons emissions [31].
By this amount, China CO2 emissions in electric supply sector is about half of
the country's total volume, even though plans are still underway to expand
her coal-fired facilities in the next decade [8]. In the UK, 38 percent of GHG
emissions produced is from energy supply sector [32]. Carbon dioxide
emissions by source compiled in 2005 by Information Analysis Center, World
Resources Institute (WRI) for the year 2000 is plotted and shown in Fig. 8. The
emissions sources considered are CO2 emitted primarily in to the air from
burning of solid fuels (SF) such as coal, liquid fuels (LF) such as petroleum
products, gaseous fuels (GF), e.g. natural gas, gas flaring (GL), cement
manufacturing (CM), and land-use change (LU). All together, it is evident from
the plots that 73.3 percent of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the
atmosphere is from fossil fuels burning. Meanwhile, the International Energy
Outlook (IEO2010) [33] has forecasted the world energy demand at 739
quadrillion Btu in 2035. This figure is equivalent to 49 percent increase of the
energy consumed in 2007, estimated at 495 quadrillion Btu. To adequately
cope with the projected demand, the said document similarly projected a
growth in the generation of 95.12 MWh in the same period. Fig. 9 illustrates
the energy mix of the projected generation from 2007 to 2035. From the
figure, it is seen that the world net coal-fired generation nearly doubles over
the projection period, from 7.9 trillion kWh in 2007 to 15.0 trillion kWh in
2035. It is apparent in the reference case that coal continues to fuel the
largest share of worldwide electric power production by a wide margin of 43
percent of the total generation. With this scenario, all things being equal,
more GHGs are expected to be emitted into the atmosphere, leading to more
globalwarming. Due to this fact, the power generation sector, which is
projected to grow at an annual rate of 2 percent, is seen to have the greatest
potential to reduce CO2 emissions in the coming decades [30]. To accomplish
this goal, the CO2 emissions per kWh of electrical energy produced can be
reduced by using newer and novel power production technologies. Current
retrofit technology is theoretically available, but will likely be substantially
more expensive per unit of power generated, than would be the case for new
plants with CO2 capture [30]. To mitigate globalwarming arising from the
power industry, various areas and approaches are suggested and discussed
in details in the following section of this paper. 6. Mitigating globalwarming in
power sector Since the highest amount of CO2 is generated in the power

sector, curbing the CO2 produced in this sector would go a long way in
mitigating global warming. To address this issue, it is suggested in [4] to
decarbonise the power sector by at least 60 percent by 2050 since coal emits
about 1.7 times as much carbon per kWh of energy produced as natural gas
and 1.25 times as much as oil. However, the task to accomplish this is not an
easy one, as elaborated in the later part of this paper. Other measures
proposed for addressing globalwarming in the realm of power generation
identified and discussed in this study include adoption of carbon capture and
storage technology, improvement in energy efficiency, increasing the use of
renewable energy, increasing the share of nuclear power generation, and
decarbonisation of fossil fuels. Each of these possible mitigation techniques is
discussed in turn in the following subsections.

1ac Hegemony
Fast growth promotes US leadership and solves great
power war
Khalilzad 11 PhD, Former Professor of Political Science @ Columbia,
Former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan
(Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq,
and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the
director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992.
"The Economy and National Security" Feb 8
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-nationalsecurity-zalmay-khalilzad)//BB
economic
trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States position as
global leader. While the United States suffers from
low economic growth, the
economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. continuation
could lead to a shift
from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading to
geopolitical rivalry and war among the great powers.
Today,

and fiscal

fiscal imbalances and

The

of these two trends

in turn

even

increased

The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation

in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of creditfueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on

Without faster economic growth

interest rates
would

an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years.
deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If

crowd out other spending

and actions to reduce

were to rise significantly, annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget

or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt,

the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order.

It was the economic devastation of Britain and France

countries to relinquish their empires

during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers,

that led both

. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which

the United
States would be compelled to retrench,
shedding international commitments We
face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing
rapid economic growth
If U.S. policymakers fail to act
The closing of the gap
could intensify geopolitical competition
among major powers,
and
the higher
risk of escalation.
the longest period of peace among the great powers has
been the era of U.S. leadership
multi-polar systems have been unstable, with
major wars among the great powers.
American
retrenchment could have devastating consequences
there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or
other crises spiraling into all-out conflict
weaker powers may shift their
geopolitical posture away from the United States.
hostile states would be emboldened to
make aggressive moves in their regions
crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical,
reducing its military spending and

. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this

could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world.

and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether

but when a new international order will emerge.

between the United States and its rivals

increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another,

undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of

The stakes are high. In modern history,

. By contrast,

their

competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and

Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.

. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to

balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario,

. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers,

Either way,

Slow growth leads to hegemonic wars relative gap is key

Goldstein 7 - Professor of Global Politics and International Relations @
University of Pennsylvania,
(Avery Goldstein, Power transitions, institutions, and China's rise in East
Asia: Theoretical expectations and evidence, Journal of Strategic Studies,
Volume30, Issue 4 & 5 August, EBSCO)

Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on

the consequences for international politics of a shift in power between a
dominant state and a rising power. In War and Change in World Politics,
Robert Gilpin suggested that peace prevails when a dominant states
capabilities enable it to govern an international order that it has shaped.
Over time, however, as economic and technological diffusion proceeds during
eras of peace and development, other states are empowered. Moreover, the
burdens of international governance drain and distract the reigning hegemon,
and challengers eventually emerge who seek to rewrite the rules of
governance. As the power advantage of the erstwhile hegemon ebbs, it may
become desperate enough to resort to theultima ratio of international
politics, force, to forestall the increasingly urgent demands of a rising
challenger. Or as the power of the challenger rises, it may be tempted to
press its case with threats to use force. It is the rise and fall of the great
powers that creates the circumstances under which major wars, what Gilpin
labels hegemonic wars, break out.13 Gilpins argument logically
encourages pessimism about the implications of a rising China. It leads to the
expectation that international trade, investment, and technology transfer will
result in a steady diffusion of American economic power, benefiting
the rapidly developing states of the world, including China. As the
US simultaneously scurries to put out the many brushfires that threaten its
far-flung global interests (i.e., the classic problem of overextension), it will be
unable to devote sufficient resources to maintain or restore its former
advantage over emerging competitors like China. While the erosion of
the once clear American advantage plays itself out, the US will find it ever
more difficult to preserve the order in Asia that it created during its era of
preponderance. The expectation is an increase in the likelihood for the use of
force either by a Chinese challenger able to field a stronger military in
support of its demands for greater influence over international arrangements
in Asia, or by a besieged American hegemon desperate to head off further
decline. Among the trends that alarm those who would look at Asia through
the lens of Gilpins theory are Chinas expanding share of world trade and
wealth(much of it resulting from the gains made possible by the international
economic order a dominant US established); its acquisition of technology
in key sectors that have both civilian and military applications (e.g.,
information, communications, and electronics linked with to forestall, and the
challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the transition to a new
international order whose contours it will define. the revolution in military
affairs); and an expanding military burden for the US (as it copes with the
challenges of its global war on terrorism and especially its struggle in Iraq)
that limits the resources it can devote to preserving its interests in East
Asia.14 Although similar to Gilpins work insofar as it emphasizes the
importance of shifts in the capabilities of a dominant state and a rising
challenger, the power-transition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler
present in The War Ledger focuses more closely on the allegedly dangerous
phenomenon of crossover the point at which a dissatisfied challenger is
about to overtake the established leading state.15 In such cases, when

the power gap narrows, the dominant state becomes increasingly

desperate. Though suggesting why a rising China may ultimately present
grave dangers for international peace when its capabilities make it a peer
competitor of America, Organski and Kuglers power-transition theory is less
clear about the dangers while a potential challenger still lags far behind and
faces a difficult struggle to catch up. This clarification is important in thinking
about the theorys relevance to interpreting Chinas rise because a broad
consensus prevails among analysts that Chinese military capabilities are at a
minimum two decades from putting it in a league with the US in Asia.16 Their
theory, then, points with alarm to trends in Chinas growing wealth and power
relative to the United States, but especially looks ahead to what it sees as the
period of maximum danger that time when a dissatisfied China could be in
a position to overtake the US on dimensions believed crucial for assessing
power. Reports beginning in the mid-1990s that offered
extrapolations suggesting Chinas growth would give it the worlds
largest gross domestic product (GDP aggregate, not per capita) sometime in
the first few decades of the twentieth century fed these sorts of concerns
about a potentially dangerous challenge to American leadership in Asia.17
The huge gap between Chinese and American military capabilities (especially
in terms of technological sophistication) has so far discouraged prediction of
comparably disquieting trends on this dimension, but inklings of similar
concerns may be reflected in occasionally alarmist reports about purchases of
advanced Russian air and naval equipment, as well as concern that Chinese
espionage may have undermined the American advantage in nuclear and
missile technology, and speculation about the potential military purposes of
Chinas manned space program.18 Moreover, because a dominant state may
react to the prospect of a crossover and believe that it is wiser to embrace
the logic of preventive war and act early to delay a transition while the task
is more manageable, Organski and Kuglers power-transition
theory also provides grounds for concern about the period prior to the
possible crossover.19

States will inevitably compete for relative status only

primacy can prevent conflict
Wohlforth 9 - Professor of government at Dartmouth
(William, Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War World
Politics, 61:1, January, Project Muse)
Second, I question the dominant view that status quo evaluations are relatively independent of the distribution of capabilities. If the
status of states depends in some measure on their relative capabilities, and if
states derive utility from status, then different distributions of capabilities
may affect levels of satisfaction, just as different income distributions may
affect levels of status competition in domestic settings . 6 Building on research
in psychology and sociology, I argue that even capabilities distributions among
major powers foster ambiguous status hierarchies, which generate more
dissatisfaction and clashes over the status quo. And the more stratified the distribution of capabilities,
the less likely such status competition is. Unipolarity thus generates far fewer incentives than either

for direct great power positional competition over status . Elites

in the other major powers continue to prefer higher status, but in a unipolar
system they face comparatively weak incentives to translate that preference
into costly action. And the absence of such incentives matters because social status is a positional goodsomething whose
value depends on how much one has in relation to others.7 If everyone has high status, Randall Schweller notes, no one does.8 While
one actor might increase its status, all cannot simultaneously do so. High
status is thus inherently scarce, and competitions for status tend to be zero
sum.9 I begin by describing the puzzles facing predominant theories that status competition might solve. Building on recent research on
social identity and status seeking, I then show that under certain conditions the ways decision
makers identify with the states they represent may prompt them to frame
issues as positional disputes over status in a social hierarchy . I develop hypotheses that
bipolarity or multipolarity

tailor this scholarship to the domain of great power politics, showing how the probability of status competition is likely to be linked to polarity.
The rest of the article investigates whether there is sufficient evidence for these hypotheses to warrant further refinement and testing. I

the theory advanced here is consistent with what we

know about large-scale patterns of great power conflict through history ; by [End
Page 30] demonstrating that the causal mechanisms it identifies did drive relatively secure
major powers to military conflict in the past (and therefore that they might do so again if the world were
bipolar or multipolar); and by showing that observable evidence concerning the major
powers identity politics and grand strategies under unipolarity are consistent
with the theorys expectations. Puzzles of Power and War Recent research on the connection between the
pursue this in three ways: by showing that

distribution of capabilities and war has concentrated on a hypothesis long central to systemic theories of power transition or hegemonic
stability: that major war arises out of a power shift in favor of a rising state dissatisfied with a status quo defended by a declining satisfied
state.10 Though they have garnered substantial empirical support, these theories have yet to solve two intertwined empirical and theoretical
puzzleseach of which might be explained by positional concerns for status. First, if the material costs and benefits of a given status quo are
what matters, why would a state be dissatisfied with the very status quo that had abetted its rise? The rise of China today naturally prompts

Most of the best known and most consequential

power transitions in history featured rising challengers that were prospering
mightily under the status quo. In case after case, historians argue that these revisionist powers sought recognition
and standing rather than specific alterations to the existing rules and practices that constituted the order of the day. In each
paradigmatic case of hegemonic war, the claims of the rising power are hard
to reduce to instrumental adjustment of the status quo . In R. Ned Lebows reading, for example,
Thucydides account tells us that the rise of Athens posed unacceptable threats not to the
security or welfare of Sparta but rather to its identity as leader of the Greek
world, which was an important cause of the Spartan assemblys vote for
war.11 The issues that inspired Louis XIVs and Napoleons dissatisfaction with the status quo were many and varied, but most accounts
this question, but it is hardly a novel situation.

accord [End Page 31] independent importance to the drive for a position of unparalleled primacy. In these and other hegemonic struggles

the rising challengers dissatisfaction is often

difficult to connect to the material costs and benefits of the status quo, and
much contemporary evidence revolves around issues of recognition and
status.12 Wilhemine Germany is a fateful case in point. As Paul Kennedy has argued, underlying material trends
as of 1914 were set to propel Germanys continued rise indefinitely , so long as Europe
remained at peace.13 Yet Germany chafed under the very status quo that abetted this
rise and its elite focused resentment on its chief trading partnerthe great
power that presented the least plausible threat to its security : Great Britain. At fantastic
cost, it built a battleship fleet with no plausible strategic purpose other than to
stake a claim on global power status.14 Recent historical studies present strong evidence that, far from
fearing attacks from Russia and France, German leaders sought to provoke
them, knowing that this would lead to a long, expensive, and sanguinary war
that Britain was certain to join.15 And of all the motivations swirling round these momentous decisions, no serious
among leading states in post-Westphalian Europe,

historical account fails to register German leaders oft-expressed yearning for a place in the sun. The second puzzle is bargaining failure.

Hegemonic theories tend to model war as a conflict over the status quo

without specifying precisely what the status quo is and what flows of benefits
it provides to states.16 Scholars generally follow Robert Gilpin in positing that the underlying issue
concerns a desire to redraft the rules by which relations among nations
work, the nature and governance of the system, and the distribution of
territory among the states in the system.17 If these are the [End Page 32] issues at stake, then systemic
theories of hegemonic war and power transition confront the puzzle brought to the fore in a seminal article by James Fearon: what prevents
states from striking a bargain that avoids the costs of war? 18 Why cant states renegotiate the international order as underlying capabilities
distributions shift their relative bargaining power? Fearon proposed that one answer consistent with strict rational choice assumptions is that

bargains are infeasible when the issue at stake is indivisible and cannot
readily be portioned out to each side. Most aspects of a given international
order are readily divisible, however, and, as Fearon stressed, both the intrinsic complexity and richness of most matters
such

over which states negotiate and the availability of linkages and side-payments suggest that intermediate bargains typically will exist.19 Thus,
most scholars have assumed that the indivisibility problem is trivial, focusing on two other rational choice explanations for bargaining failure:
uncertainty and the commitment problem.20 In the view of many scholars, it is these problems, rather than indivisibility, that likely explain

Yet recent research inspired by

constructivism shows how issues that are physically divisible can become
socially indivisible, depending on how they relate to the identities of decision
makers.21 Once issues surrounding the status quo are framed in positional
terms as bearing on the disputants relative standing, then , to the extent that they value their
standing itself, they may be unwilling to pursue intermediate bargaining solutions .
Once linked to status, easily divisible issues that theoretically provide opportunities for
linkages and side payments of various sorts may themselves be seen as indivisible
and thus unavailable as avenues for possible intermediate bargains . The
historical record surrounding major wars is rich with evidence suggesting that positional
concerns over status frustrate bargaining: expensive, protracted conflict over
what appear to be minor issues; a propensity on the part of decision makers
to frame issues in terms of relative rank even when doing so makes
bargaining harder; decision-makers [End Page 33] inability to accept feasible divisions of the matter in dispute even when
leaders inability to avail themselves of such intermediate bargains.

failing to do so imposes high costs; demands on the part of states for observable evidence to confirm their estimate of an improved position in
the hierarchy; the inability of private bargains to resolve issues; a frequently observed compulsion for the public attainment of concessions
from a higher ranked state; and stubborn resistance on the part of states to which such demands are addressed even when acquiescence
entails limited material cost. The literature on bargaining failure in the context of power shifts remains inconclusive, and it is premature to take
any empirical pattern as necessarily probative. Indeed, Robert Powell has recently proposed that indivisibility is not a rationalistic explanation
for war after all: fully rational leaders with perfect information should prefer to settle a dispute over an indivisible issue by resorting to a lottery
rather than a war certain to destroy some of the goods in dispute.

What might prevent such bargaining

solutions is not indivisibility itself, he argues, but rather the parties inability to commit to abide by any agreement
in the future if they expect their relative capabilities to continue to shift.22 This is the credible commitment problem to which many theorists
are now turning their attention. But how it relates to the information problem that until recently dominated the formal literature remains to be

positional concerns for status may help account for the

puzzle of bargaining failure . In the rational choice bargaining literature, war is
puzzling because it destroys some of the benefits or flows of benefits in
dispute between the bargainers, who would be better off dividing the spoils
without war. Yet what happens to these models if what matters for states is
less the flows of material benefits themselves than their implications for
relative status? The salience of this question depends on the relative importance of positional concern for status among states.
Do Great Powers Care about Status? Mainstream theories generally posit that states come to
blows over an international status quo only when it has implications for their
security or material well-being. The guiding assumption is that a states satisfaction [End Page 34] with its place in
the existing order is a function of the material costs and benefits implied by that status.24 By that assumption, once a
states status in an international order ceases to affect its material wellbeing,
its relative standing will have no bearing on decisions for war or peace . But the
assumption is undermined by cumulative research in disciplines ranging from
neuroscience and evolutionary biology to economics, anthropology,
seen.23 The larger point is that

sociology, and psychology that human beings are powerfully motivated by

the desire for favorable social status comparisons. This research suggests that the
preference for status is a basic disposition rather than merely a strategy for
attaining other goals.25 People often seek tangibles not so much because of
the welfare or security they bring but because of the social status they confer .
Under certain conditions, the search for status will cause people to behave in ways that
directly contradict their material interest in security and/or prosperity .

There are hundreds of causes of conflict hegemony

deters and controls escalation by internalizing costs
Moore 4 Dir. Center for Security Law and Professor of Law @ University of
Virginia, Editor of the American Journal of International Law
(John Norton, Solving the War Puzzle: Beyond the Democratic Peace, pg. 4143)
major interstate war is predominantly a product of a synergy between a potential nondemocratic
aggressor and an absence of effective deterrence , what is the role of the many traditional
"causes" of war? Past, and many contemporary, theories of war have focused on the role of specific disputes between nations,
If

ethnic and religious differences, arms races, poverty or social injustice, competition for resources, incidents and accidents, greed, fear, and
perceptions of "honor," or many other such factors. Such factors may well play a role in motivating aggression or in serving as a means for

The reality, however, is that while some of these may have more potential to
contribute to war than others, there may well be an infinite set of motivating factors , or human
wants, motivating aggression. It is not independent the existence of such motivating
factors for war but rather the circumstances permitting or encouraging high risk
decisions leading to war that is the key to more effectively controlling war. And the same may also be true
generating fear and manipulating public opinion.

of democide. The early focus in the Rwanda slaughter on "ethnic conflict," as though Hutus and Tutsis had begun to slaughter each other
through spontaneous combustion, distracted our attention from the reality that a nondemocratic Hutu regime had carefully planned and

if we were able to press a

button and end poverty, racism, religious intolerance, injustice, and endless disputes,
we would want to do so. Indeed, democratic governments must remain committed to policies that will produce a better
world by all measures of human progress. The broader achievement of democracy and the rule of law will itself assist in this progress. No
one, however, has yet been able to demonstrate the kind of robust correlation with any
of these "traditional" causes of war as is reflected in the "democratic peace." Further, given
the difficulties in overcoming many of these social problems, an approach to
war exclusively dependent on their solution may be to doom us to war for
generations to come. A useful framework in thinking about the war puzzle is provided in the Kenneth Waltz classic Man, the
orchestrated a genocide against Rwandan Tutsis as well as its Hutu opponents.I1 Certainly

State, and War,12 first published in 1954 for the Institute of War and Peace Studies, in which he notes that previous thinkers about the causes
of war have tended to assign responsibility at one of the three levels of individual psychology, the nature of the state, or the nature of the
international system. This tripartite level of analysis has subsequently been widely copied in the study of international relations. We might
summarize my analysis in this classical construct by suggesting that the most critical variables are the second and third levels, or "images," of
analysis. Government structures, at the second level, seem to play a central role in levels of aggressiveness in high risk behavior leading to
major war. In this, the "democratic peace" is an essential insight. The third level of analysis, the international system, or totality of external
incentives influencing the decision for war, is also critical when government structures do not restrain such high risk behavior on their own.
Indeed, nondemocratic systems may not only fail to constrain inappropriate aggressive behavior, they may even massively enable it by
placing the resources of the state at the disposal of a ruthless regime elite. It is not that the first level of analysis, the individual, is
unimportant. I have already argued that it is important in elite perceptions about the permissibility and feasibility of force and resultant
necessary levels of deterrence. It is, instead, that the second level of analysis, government structures, may be a powerful proxy for settings
bringing to power those who may be disposed to aggressive military adventures and in creating incentive structures predisposing to high risk
behavior. We should keep before us, however, the possibility, indeed probability, that a war/peace model focused on democracy and
deterrence might be further usefully refined by adding psychological profiles of particular leaders, and systematically applying other findings
of cognitive psychology, as we assess the likelihood of aggression and levels of necessary deterrence in context. A post-Gulf War edition of
Gordon Craig and Alexander George's classic, Force and Statecraft,13 presents an important discussion of the inability of the pre-war coercive
diplomacy effort to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait without war.14 This discussion, by two of the recognized masters of
deterrence theory, reminds us of the many important psychological and other factors operating at the individual level of analysis that may well
have been crucial in that failure to get Hussein to withdraw without war. We should also remember that nondemocracies can have differences
between leaders as to the necessity or usefulness of force and, as Marcus Aurelius should remind us, not all absolute leaders are Caligulas or
Neros. Further, the history of ancient Egypt reminds us that not all Pharaohs were disposed to make war on their neighbors. Despite the
importance of individual leaders, however, we should also keep before us that

major international war is predominantly

an interaction, or synergy, of certain characteristics at levels two and three, specifically an absence of democracy
an absence of effective deterrence. Yet another way to conceptualize the importance of democracy and
deterrence in war avoidance is to note that each in its own way internalizes the costs to decision
elites of engaging in high risk aggressive behavior. Democracy internalizes these costs in a variety of ways
and critically
and

including displeasure of the electorate at having war imposed upon it by its own government. And deterrence either prevents achievement of
the objective altogether or imposes punishing costs making the gamble not worth the risk.I5 VI Testing the Hypothesis Theory without truth is
but costly entertainment. HYPOTHESES, OR PARADIGMS, are useful if they reflect the real world better than previously held paradigms. In the

perfection is unlikely. No general construct will fit all

cases even in the restricted category of "major interstate war"; there are simply too many variables. We should insist,
however, on testing against the real world and on results that suggest enhanced usefulness over other constructs.
In testing the hypothesis, we can test it for consistency with major wars ; that is, in looking, for example,
at the principal interstate wars in the twentieth century, did they present both a nondemocratic aggressor and an
complex world of foreign affairs and the war puzzle,

absence of effective deterrence?' And although it is by itself not going to prove causation, we might also want to test the hypothesis against
settings of potential wars that did not occur. That is, in nonwar settings, was there an absence of at least one element of the synergy? We
might also ask questions about the effect of changes on the international system in either element of the synergy; that is, what, in general,
happens when a totalitarian state makes a transition to stable democracy or vice versa? And what, in general, happens when levels of
deterrence are dramatically increased or decreased?

THE PLAN SOLVES

Offshore wind promotes fast US growth
Ndolo 10 associate principal @ Camoin Associates
(Michael and Bruce Bailey, Offshore development can yield economic
benefits, North American Wind Power, Fall 2010)//BB
Economic opportunities
Wind power is a job-creation engine. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the wind industry
supported over 85,000 jobs in 2009 alone. Most of these jobs were in manufacturing, an area of the U.S. labor force that
has been declining rapidly for years. The wind energy industry represents a
significant opportunity for turning this decline around. Although wind power industry
clusters exist in North America, there are many specifics to offshore wind that differentiate it from its
onshore cousin. Requirements such as installation vessels, unique turbine
components, specialized research focus, and professional and technical
experience are not yet present in the North American workforce skill set. All
of these unique requirements represent an economic opportunity for job
creation, ranging from research, design and manufacturing to operations and
maintenance. Vessels. Highly specialized installation vessels must be built, operated, repaired
and docked during the off-season. The newest generation of such vessels under development in Europe can cost hundreds
of millions of dollars to construct and can require a small army of workers in ports with sufficient
ship-building capacity. In addition, other smaller vessels are necessary for
ongoing maintenance and repair operations . The Jones Act requires that all
goods transported by water between U.S. ports are carried in U.S.-flagged ships that are constructed in the
U.S., owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by permanent residents of the U.S. Although some developers have been successful in requesting an

Investing and
developing a domestic vessel industry to serve the offshore market would
significantly increase the attractiveness of a region to offshore developers
and investors, in addition to creating jobs to support the new industry .
Components. Offshore components tend to he larger and bulkier . Certain components are either
exception, allowing them to use foreign vessels, the Jones Act creates a significant barrier for off-shore developers.

unique to (foundations) or modified for (hermetically sealed nacelles, seaworthy substations, nacelle-mounted or substation-mounted

One of the largest portions of the

installed cost of a typical offshore wind farm is directly attributable to the
manufacturing and pro-assembly of turbine and foundation components . In
helicopter pads for maintenance, and corrosion-resistant materials) offshore use.

there is significant opportunity tor

creating offshore wind component manufacturing clusters . Installation. Turbines
and foundations must be assembled in a staging area, loaded onto a vessel
and installed. There are limitations on the ability of any one state or province to service both coasts, but it is reasonable to assume,
for example, that an installation cluster in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. could
provide installation capacity for a number of projects on the East Coast .
regions where a high level of wind component manufacturing currently exists,

Even limited energy production leads to quick growth

Sargent 12
(Rob Sargent, U.S. Poised to Join the Race on Offshore Wind: Lawmakers Must
Commit to More Pollution-Free Energy,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/us-poised-join-race-offshorewind)//BB
The Turning Point for Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy includes details on the
key milestones each Atlantic Coast state and along with the wind potential
and the economic benefits. Among the highlights of the report: Offshore wind
energy will be an economic powerhouse for America. Harnessing the 52
gigawatts of already-identified available Atlantic offshore wind energy just 4
percent of the estimated generation potential of this massive resource
could generate $200 billion in economic activity, create 300,000 jobs, and
sustain power for about 14 million homes. (Europe already produces enough
energy from offshore wind right now to power 4 million homes.) America is
closer than ever to bringing offshore wind energy ashore. Efforts are
underway in 10 Atlantic Coast states, with over 2,000 square nautical miles of
federal waters already designated for wind energy development off of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
Environmental reviews finding no significant impacts have been completed,
and leases are expected to be issued for some of these areas by the end of
the year. Despite this progress, leadership is urgently needed at both the
state and federal level to ensure offshore wind energy becomes a reality
in America: President Obama should set a clear national goal for offshore
wind energy development, and each Atlantic state governor should also a
set goal for offshore wind development off their shores. These goals must be
supported by policies that prioritize offshore wind energy and other efforts
to secure buyers for this new source of reliable, clean energy.

The plan solves unemployment and diversifies fuel

sources
Schroeder 10 J.D @ Berkeley, M.E.M., Yale School of Forestry &
Environmental Studies
(Erica, Turning Offshore Wind On, California Law Review, 98.5)//BB
Many of the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are similar to
those of onshore wind, though offshore wind has its own unique set of
benefits. To start, wind power generation can help meet the growing energy

demand in the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration

predicts that the demand for electricity in the United States will grow to 5.8
billion MWh in 2030, a 39 percent increase from 2005. The more that wind
power can help to meet this demand, the more diversified the United States'
energy portfolio will be, and the less susceptible the nation will be to
dependency on foreign fuel sources and to price fluctuations in traditional
fuels.59 In addition, wind power benefits the United States by creating a
substantial number of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind
energy facilities. 6 0 In an April 2009 speech at the Trinity Structural Towers
Manufacturing Plant in Iowa, President Obama predicted that if the United
States "fully pursue[s] our potential for wind energy on land and offshore,"
wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030.61

---2ac case extensions

Solvency Positive economic support key

Subsidies key
Giordano 10 JD, served four years of active duty in the United States
Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer where he gained unique training,
experiences, and insights for working with people and solving complex
problems
(Michael, ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT,
ECONOMICS, AND THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL:
WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT
MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, 44 U. Rich. L. Rev.
1149)//BB
Based on limited data from completed offshore wind projects in Europe, the
U.S. Offshore Wind Collaborative estimates that a fully installed offshore wind
farm will cost as much as $ 4600 per [1153] kilowatt of installed electric
capacity. 22 That amount is almost twice as expensive as an onshore wind
farm. 23 The higher price tag for offshore wind projects results from extra
"costs related to turbines, installation, O&M [operation and maintenance],
support structures, electrical infrastructure, and engineering and
management." 24 More costs arise because offshore wind turbines must be
equipped to handle more severe weather conditions than their onshore
counterparts. For example, monopile foundations require stronger, more
expensive materials in order to withstand storms, waves, and the sea air. 25
Costs are also higher because offshore wind projects must be larger than
onshore projects in order to offset additional costs of cabling and installation
in deeper water far from shore. 26 These added costs reduce the number of
potential investors because, absent government financial incentives, offshore
wind energy cannot compete on a cost-per-kilowatt-hour basis with traditional
fossil fuels. 27 Addressing economic challenges and making offshore wind
projects more attractive to investors will take a concerted effort on the part of
the government and the private sector. Although the cost of onshore wind
energy has decreased significantly over the past twenty years, at $ 0.04 per
kilowatt-hour ("kWh"), wind energy remains more expensive than coal or
hydropower. 28 Offshore wind energy is even more expensive, as it is
projected to cost about twice as much as onshore wind power. 29
Notwithstanding the fact that the coal and gas industries are much more
mature than wind energy, another contributing factor to the difference in cost
is the enormous gap in the amount of government subsidies for fossil fuels
compared to those for renewable energy [1154] sources. 30 From 2002 to
2008, the federal government subsidized five dollars for fossil fuels for every
two dollars it subsidized for renewable energy. 31 It will be hard for offshore
wind energy to compete if the federal government does not provide
support similar to what it has provided for fossil fuels.

Incentives necessary to boost wind energy

Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(October 2010, Erica, California Law Review, Turning Offshore Wind On, Vol.
98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)

Technological improvements in the 1990s that resulted in increased turbine

reliability and lower production costs helped to spur wind power
development. n30 Since 2006, the federal government has been providing
significant support to wind power, importantly in the form of tax incentives,
which has allowed for record growth for wind power in the United States. n31
None of this growth has occurred offshore, however.

Federal incentives are key to offshore wind development

Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(October 2010, Erica, California Law Review, Turning Offshore Wind On, Vol.
98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)

Still, to be truly effective, revising the CZMA needs to be just one step in a
broader offshore wind or renewable energy program. While a new CZMA
would address problems related to offshore wind farm siting, this is just one
barrier that offshore wind power development needs to overcome. For
example, as with all renewable energy sources, the importance of positive
federal government policies and incentives, such as the production tax
credits mentioned previously, are key to offshore wind power's success.

Stable federal financial incentives are key to effectively

grow the industry
Plovnick, 12 (Amy, 12/19/2012, Offshore Wind Energy Investments
Should Be Just Tip Of Iceberg, http://earthtechling.com/2012/12/offshorewind-energy-investments-should-be-just-tip-of-iceberg/, JMP)

The Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced a major investment in

offshore wind projects in the Northwest, Midwest, Gulf, and East Coast. The
DOE will provide seven projects with an initial investment of $4 million, and
may provide each project with $47 million over four years with the goal of
deploying these projects for commercial operation by 2017.
These grants represent a major boost for the offshore wind industry and will
help innovative, pioneering technologies become commercially viable. For
example, one grant recipient, the Fishermans Atlantic City Windfarm, plans

to install up to six direct-drive turbines in state waters off the coast of Atlantic
City, New Jersey. The project will use an advanced bottom-mounted
foundation design and innovative installation procedures to mitigate
environmental impacts, and it will achieve commercial operation by 2015. All
of the projects supported by these grants promote exciting new technologies
everything from floating wind turbines to foundations that use fewer
materials.
While these DOE investments are a huge boost towards making innovative
offshore wind technologies commercially operational in the next five years,
they represent a small step towards the type of policy needed to help
offshore wind energy reach its full potential. Offshore wind resources in the
U.S. could provide 4,000 GW of clean, domestic energy. An offshore wind
industry could support up to 200,000 jobs and spur over $70 billion in annual
investments by 2030.Onshore wind has a similar potential for growth.
Onshore wind already makes up more than 50 GW of our generating capacity
and supports 75,000 jobs. Wind power is on track to meet 20% of our
generating capacity by 2030.
To fully take advantage of our massive wind resources, stable, long-term
federal policy is needed. The wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) and offshore
wind Investment Tax Credit (ITC) are examples of such policies. These tax
credits have helped the wind industry to grow, produce clean energy, and
provide well-paying jobs for thousands of Americans. The credits are at risk of
expiring, which would halt the wind industrys growth and lead to the
elimination of tens of thousands of jobs.
Congress can renew the PTC and ITC and put the wind industry on track to
generate thousands of megawatts of clean energy. In fact, a bill doing just
this has already passed the Senate Finance Committee, and is now stalled in
the House.
The DOEs offshore wind grants are a small step towards meeting our wind
energy potential. Renewing the PTC and ITC would be a huge step. TAKE
ACTION: Tell Congress to do just that.

Solvency On the brink

Mass development is just around the corner
Jensen 13 partner in the Washington, DC office of Holland & Hart LLP
(Thomas, et al, From the 35th Public Land Law Conference: Balancing Act
and Paradigm Shift: The Role of Public Lands in America's Energy Future:
Oceans: Are Ocean Wind Turbines like Homesteads and Gold Mines and
Railroads? A Public Lands Policy Question for the Climate Change Era, 34
Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 93)//BB
The size of the ocean wind resource is great - four times the total United
States electricity generation capacity today by one estimate. 4 Its location is
near to many of the nation's largest economic centers. The ocean wind
resource is rich and in a good place. European and Asian countries have
moved aggressively to develop ocean wind and at least 55 projects are in
operation. 5 No offshore wind projects exist in the United States today,
though several pioneering projects are moving forward toward development.
United States policymakers have begun to understand how to tap ocean
wind, but are only at the threshold of that effort. The Obama
Administration's steps to promote ocean wind energy have been, quite
literally, unprecedented. The President and his key cabinet officials have
made renewables, including ocean wind, key elements of the Administration's
energy policy. 6 Virtually all the prime development areas - those with the
highest and steadiest wind speeds - are located in federal waters where use
of the seabed is under the jurisdiction of the [96] United States Department
of the Interior ("DOI" or the "Interior Department"). 7 It would be difficult to
overstate the challenge faced by Interior Department officials, other
agencies, and all categories of stakeholders in creating a new regulatory
regime for a brand new industry seeking to make new industrial use of the
oceans. 8 The current Administration's efforts have opened the door and
allowed a small number of investors to begin moving forward with
development plans. That such progress has occurred in just a few years is a
credit to the quality of effort brought to the task by people in government,
the energy industry, academia, the marine conservation community, and
others.

Solvency AT: OSW Impossible

Economic incentives ensures upgrades
Sargent 12
(Rob Sargent, U.S. Poised to Join the Race on Offshore Wind: Lawmakers Must
Commit to More Pollution-Free Energy,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/news/ame/us-poised-join-race-offshorewind)//BB
The Turning Point for Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy includes details on the
key milestones each Atlantic Coast state and along with the wind potential
and the economic benefits. Among the highlights of the report: Offshore wind
energy will be an economic powerhouse for America. Harnessing the 52
gigawatts of already-identified available Atlantic offshore wind energy just 4
percent of the estimated generation potential of this massive resource
could generate $200 billion in economic activity, create 300,000 jobs, and
sustain power for about 14 million homes. (Europe already produces enough
energy from offshore wind right now to power 4 million homes.) America is
closer than ever to bringing offshore wind energy ashore. Efforts are
underway in 10 Atlantic Coast states, with over 2,000 square nautical miles of
federal waters already designated for wind energy development off of
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
Environmental reviews finding no significant impacts have been completed,
and leases are expected to be issued for some of these areas by the end of
the year. Despite this progress, leadership is urgently needed at both the
state and federal level to ensure offshore wind energy becomes a reality
in America: President Obama should set a clear national goal for offshore
wind energy development, and each Atlantic state governor should also a
set goal for offshore wind development off their shores. These goals must be
supported by policies that prioritize offshore wind energy and other efforts
to secure buyers for this new source of reliable, clean energy.

Solvency AT: High costs

High returns offset high costs
Puliafico 11 JD @ Suffolk
(Amy, ARTICLE: OFFSHORE WIND: WHAT STEPS NEED TO BE TAKEN TO
ENSURE IT HAS A FUTURE IN AMERICA, 12 J. High Tech. L. 330)//BB
Unlike offshore wind farms, America has embraced land-based wind farms
due to the available space and lower energy costs. 14 However, land-based
farms are limited because it is wasteful to transfer electricity over long
distances, and these farms are located in sparsely populated areas. 15 More
than half of the United States population lives near the ocean, so offshore
projects can be larger, and reach people easier, without the high
transmission costs. 16 Additionally, offshore winds are "typically stronger
and less turbulent than land-based winds, increasing the revenue
potential," which can offset the higher costs of installation [333] and
maintenance. 17 Offshore development is the next logical and necessary step
in green technology. 18

Warming OSW Solves Warming

OSW solves warming
Schroeder 10 - J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(Erica, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies, Turning Offshore Wind On, California
Law Review)//BB
Many of the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are similar to those of
onshore wind, though offshore wind has its own unique set of benefits. To
start, wind power generation can help meet the growing energy demand in
the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that
the demand for electricity in the United States will grow to 5.8 billion MWh in
2030, a 39 percent increase from 2005.58 The more that wind power can
help to meet this demand, the more diversified the United States energy
portfolio will be, and the less susceptible the nation will be to dependency on
foreign fuel sources and to price fluctuations in traditional fuels.59 In
addition, wind power benefits the United States by creating a substantial
number of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind energy
facilities.60 In an April 2009 speech at the Trinity Structural Towers
Manufacturing Plant in Iowa, President Obama predicted that if the United
States fully pursues our potential for wind energy on land and offshore,
wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030.61 Once a wind project is
built, it involves only minimal environmental impacts compared to
traditional electricity generation. Wind power emits negligible amounts of
traditional air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as
well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.62 Lower emissions of
traditional air pollutants means fewer air quality-related illnesses locally and
regionally.63 Lower greenhouse gas emissions will help to combat climate
change, effects of which will be felt locally and around the world.64
According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of
climate change will include melting snow, ice, and permafrost; significant
effects on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater plant and animal species; forced
changes to agricultural and forestry management; and adverse human health
impacts, including increased heat-related mortality and infectious diseases.65
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States
emits 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, and it expects
emissions to increase to 7.9 billion metric tons by 2030, with 40 percent of
emissions coming from the electric power sector.66 Thus, if the United States
can get more of its electricity from wind power, it will contribute less to
climate change, and help to mitigate its negative impacts. Furthermore, wind
power does not involve any of the additional environmental costs associated
with nuclear power or fuel extraction for traditional electricity generation,
such as coal mining and natural gas extraction.67 Wind power generation
also does not require the water necessary to cool traditional coal, gas, and
nuclear generation units.68Moreover, offshore wind power has certain
attributes that give it added benefits compared to onshore wind. Wind tends

to be stronger and more consistent offshoreboth benefits when it comes to

wind power generation.69 This is largely due to reduced wind shear and
roughness on the open ocean.70 Wind shear and roughness refer to effects of
the landscape surrounding turbines on the quality of wind and thus the
amount of electricity produced.71 While long grass, trees, and buildings will
slow wind down significantly, water is generally very smooth and has much
less of an effect on wind speeds.72 In addition, because offshore wind
projects face fewer barriersboth natural and manmadeto their expansion,
offshore developers can take advantage of economies of scale and build
larger wind farms that generate more electricity.73Importantly, offshore wind
also could overcome the problems that onshore wind faces regarding the
distance between wind power generation and electricity demand. That is,
although the United States has considerable onshore wind resources in
certain areas, mostly in the middle of the country, they are frequently distant
from areas with high electricity demand, mostly on the coasts, resulting in
transmission problems.74 By contrast, offshore resources are near coastal
electricity demand centers.75 In fact, twenty-eight of the contiguous fortyeight states have coastal boundaries, and these same states use 78 percent
of the United States electricity.76 Thus, offshore wind power generation can
effectively serve major U.S. demand centers and avoid many of the
transmission costs faced by remote onshore generation.77 If shallow water
offshore potential (less than about 100 feet in depth) is met on the nations
coasts, twenty-six of the twenty-eight coastal states would have sufficient
wind resources to meet at least 20 percent of their electricity needs, and
many states would have enough to meet their total electricity demand.78

Peer reviewed evidence

Biello 12 Associate editor @ Scientific American
(David, The Sky Is the Limit for Wind Power,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=no-limit-for-windpower)//BB
Wind turbines on land and offshore could readily provide more than four
times the power that the world as a whole currently uses. Throw in kites or
robot aircraft generating electricity from sky-high winds and the world could
physically extract roughly 100 times more power than presently employed
and the climatic consequences remain minimal. Two new computer-model
analyses suggest there are few limits to the wind's potential. Although
"there are physical limits to the amount of power that can be harvested from
winds, these limits are well above total global energy demand," explains
climate-modeler Kate Marvel of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who
led the analysis published September 9 in Nature Climate Change.
(Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) Current global
demand is roughly 18 terawatts. (A terawatt is one trillion watts.)

Solves multiple warming causes

Rosenberg 8 Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, and
Director, American Legal Systems (LLM) Graduate Program, William and Mary
Law School
(Ronald, Article: Making Renewable Energy a Reality--Finding Ways to Site
Wind Power Facilities, 32 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 635)//BB
3.Total Elimination of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Probably the strongest advantage of wind power is the absence of air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Thermoelectric fossil-fuel-fired
plants generate the largest percentage of American electricity. 121 They are
also the largest single CO2 contributor, even exceeding contributions from all
forms of transportation. 122 Wind power, by definition, does [661] not burn
any fuel so it does not emit any air pollutants or greenhouse gases. This lack
of air emissions is a permanent feature of a wind power facility. Conventional
fossil fuel combustion also results in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, mercury and other emissions
which are considered to be air pollutants of concern to the public's health and
safety and regulated under clean air laws. 123 Additionally, the absence of
carbon dioxide resulting from wind power contributes to the reduction of
global warming gases. With the increased emphasis on the elimination of
greenhouse gases, 124 the substitution of fossil-fuel- generated electricity
with non-combustion-produced electricity will reduce the rate of growth of
greenhouse gas emissions from America's electrical energy sector. As
American climate change policy begins to embrace more rigorous
greenhouse gas reduction goals, wind power could be viewed as a viable
energy alternative to electricity generated from coal and natural gas.

Warming Mitigation solves

Action now can reverse warming
Peters 12 - Center for International Climate and Environmental Research
(Peer Reviewed Journal, Glen, The challenge to keep global warming below 2
[deg]C, Glen P. Peters, Robbie M. Andrew, Tom Boden, Josep G. Canadell,
Philippe Ciais, Corinne Le Qur, Nature Climate Change,
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1783.html)
On-going climate negotiations have recognized a significant gap between the current trajectory of global greenhouse-gas emissions and the likely chance of holding the
increase in global average temperature below 2 C or 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels1. Here we compare recent trends in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossilfuel combustion, cement production and gas flaring with the primary emission scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Carbon dioxide
emissions are the largest contributor to long-term climate change and thus provide a good baseline to assess progress and examine consequences. We find that current
emission trends continue to track scenarios that lead to the highest temperature increases. Further

increasingly difficult to stay below 2 C.

delay in global mitigation makes it

Long-term emissions scenarios are designed to represent a range of plausible

emission trajectories as input for climate change research2, 3. The IPCC process has resulted in four generations of emissions scenarios2: Scientific Assessment 1990
(SA90)4, IPCC Scenarios 1992 (IS92)5, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)6, and the evolving Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)7 to be used in the
upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The RCPs were developed by the research community as a new, parallel process of scenario development, whereby climate
models are run using the RCPs while simultaneously socioeconomic and emission scenarios are developed that span the range of the RCPs and beyond 2. It is important to

In the past, decadal trends in CO2

emissions have responded slowly to changes in the underlying emission drivers because of inertia and path
regularly re-assess the relevance of emissions scenarios in light of changing global circumstances3, 8.

dependence in technical, social and political systems9. Inertia and path dependence are unlikely to be affected by short-term fluctuations2, 3, 9 such as financial

and it is probable that emissions will continue to rise for a period even after global
mitigation has started11. Thermal inertia and vertical mixing in the ocean, also delay the temperature response to CO2 emissions12. Because of
crises10

inertia, path dependence and changing global circumstances, there is value in comparing observed decadal emission trends with emission scenarios to help inform the
prospect of different futures being realized, explore the feasibility of desired changes in the current emission trajectory and help to identify whether new scenarios may be
needed.

Global CO2 emissions have increased from 6.10.3 Pg C in 1990 to 9.50.5 Pg C in 2011 (3% over 2010), with

average annual growth rates of 1.9% per year in the 1980s, 1.0% per year in the 1990s, and 3.1% per year since 2000. We estimate that emissions in 2012 will be 9.70.5
Pg C or 2.6% above 2011 (range of 1.93.5%) and 58% greater than 1990 (Supplementary Information and ref. 13). The observed growth rates are at the top end of all four
generations of emissions scenarios (Figs 1 and 2). Of the previous illustrative IPCC scenarios, only IS92-E, IS92-F and SRES A1B exceed the observed emissions (Fig. 1) or
their rates of growth (Fig. 2), with RCP8.5 lower but within uncertainty bounds of observed emissions. Figure 1: Estimated CO2 emissions over the past three decades
compared with the IS92, SRES and the RCPs. The SA90 data are not shown, but the most relevant (SA90-A) is similar to IS92-A and IS92-F. The uncertainty in historical
emissions is 5% (one standard deviation). Scenario data is generally reported at decadal intervals and we use linear interpolation for intermediate years. Full size image
(386 KB) Figures index Next Figure 2: Growth rates of historical and scenario CO2 emissions. The average annual growth rates of the historical emission estimates
(black crosses) and the emission scenarios for the time periods of overlaps (shown on the horizontal axis). The growth rates are more comparable for the longer time
intervals considered (in order: SA90, 27 years; IS92, 22 years; SRES, 12 years; and RCPs, 7 years). The short-term growth rates of the scenarios do not necessarily reflect
the long-term emission pathway (for example, A1B has a high initial growth rate compared with its long-term behaviour and RCP3PD has a higher growth rate until 2010
compared with RCP4.5 and RCP6). For the SRES, we represent the illustrative scenario for each family (filled circles) and each of the contributing model scenarios (open
circles). The scenarios generally report emissions at intervals of 10 years or more and we interpolated linearly to 2012; a sensitivity analysis shows a linear interpolation is
robust (Supplementary Fig. S14). Full size image (112 KB) Previous Figures index Observed emission trends are in line with SA90-A, IS92-E and IS92-F, SRES A1FI, A1B
and A2, and RCP8.5 (Fig. 2). The SRES scenarios A1FI and A2 and RCP8.5 lead to the highest temperature projections among the scenarios, with a mean temperature
increase of 4.25.0 C in 2100 (range of 3.56.2 C)14, whereas the SRES A1B scenario has decreasing emissions after 2050 leading to a lower temperature increase of 3.5
C (range 2.94.4C)14. Earlier research has noted that observed emissions have tracked the upper SRES scenarios15, 16 and Fig. 1 confirms this for all four scenario
generations. This indicates that the space of possible pathways could be extended above the top-end scenarios to accommodate the possibility of even higher emission
rates in the future. The new RCPs are particularly relevant because, in contrast to the earlier scenarios, mitigation efforts consistent with long-term policy objectives are
included among the pathways2. RCP3-PD (peak and decline in concentration) leads to a mean temperature increase of 1.5 C in 2100 (range of 1.31.9 C)14. RCP3PD
requires net negative emissions (for example, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) from 2070, but some scenarios suggest it is possible to stay below 2 C without
negative emissions17, 18, 19. RCP4.5 and RCP6 which lie between RCP3PD and RCP8.5 in the longer term lead to a mean temperature increase of 2.4 C (range of
1.03.0 C) and 3.0 C (range of 2.63.7 C) in 2100, respectively14. For RCP4.5, RCP6 and RCP8.5, temperatures will continue to increase after 2100 due to on-going
emissions14 and inertia in the climate system12. Current emissions are tracking slightly above RCP8.5, and given the growing gap between the other RCPs (Fig. 1),
significant emission reductions are needed by 2020 to keep 2 C as a feasible goal18, 19, 20. To follow an emission trend that can keep the temperature increase below 2
C (RCP3-PD) requires sustained global CO2 mitigation rates of around 3% per year, if global emissions peak before 202011, 19. A delay in starting mitigation activities will
lead to higher mitigation rates11, higher costs21, 22, and the target of remaining below 2 C may become unfeasible18, 20. If participation is low, then higher rates of
mitigation are needed in individual countries, and this may even increase mitigation costs for all countries22. Many of these rates assume that negative emissions will be
possible and affordable later this century11, 17, 18, 20. Reliance on negative emissions has high risks because of potential delays or failure in the development and largescale deployment of emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage, particularly those connected to bioenergy17, 18. Although current emissions are tracking

The historical
record shows that some countries have reduced CO2 emissions over 10-year
periods, through a combination of (non-climate) policy intervention and economic adjustments to changing resource availability.
the higher scenarios, it is still possible to transition towards pathways consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 C (refs 17,19,20).

The oil crisis of 1973 led to new policies on energy supply and energy savings, which produced a decrease in the share of fossil fuels (oil shifted to nuclear) in the energy
supply of Belgium, France and Sweden, with emission reductions of 45% per year sustained over 10 or more years (Supplementary Figs S1719).A continuous shift to
natural gas partially substituting coal and oil led to sustained mitigation rates of 12% per year in the UK in the 1970s and again in the 2000s, 2% per year in
Denmark in the 19902000s, and 1.4% per year since 2005 in the USA (Supplementary Figs S1012).

These examples highlight the

practical feasibility of emission reductions through fuel substitution and efficiency improvements, but additional factors
such as carbon leakage23 need to be considered. These types of emission reduction can help initiate a transition
towards trajectories consistent with keeping temperatures below 2 C, but further
mitigation measures are needed to complete and sustain the reductions. Similar energy transitions could be encouraged and co-ordinated across countries in the next 10

well-targeted technological innovations24 are required to

sustain the mitigation rates for longer periods17. To move below the RCP8.5 scenario avoiding
the worst climate impacts requires early action17, 18, 21 and sustained mitigation
from the largest emitters22 such as China, the United States, the European Union and India. These four regions together account for over half of global CO2
years using available technologies19, but

emissions, and have strong and centralized governing bodies capable of co-ordinating such actions. If similar energy transitions are repeated over many decades in a
broader range of developed and emerging economies,

the current emission trend could be pulled down to

make RCP3-PD, RCP4.5 and RCP6 all feasible futures. A shift to a pathway with the highest likelihood to remain below 2 C above pre-industrial levels (for example, RCP3PD), requires high levels of technological, social and political innovations, and an increasing need to rely on net negative emissions in the future 11, 17, 18. The

timing of mitigation efforts needs to account for delayed responses in both CO2
emissions9 (because of inertia in technical, social and political systems) and also in global temperature12 (because of
inertia in the climate system). Unless large and concerted global mitigation efforts are initiated soon, the
goal of remaining below 2 C will very soon become unachievable.

Warming AT: Squo solves warming

Need faster and more robust action
Stern 14 Professor of Economics, chair of the Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the LSE
(Nicholas, Climate change is here now and it could lead to global conflict,
The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/stormsfloods-climate-change-upon-us-lord-stern)//BB
If we do not cut emissions, we face even more devastating consequences, as
unchecked they could raise global average temperature to 4C or more above
pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. This would be far above the
threshold warming of 2C that countries have already agreed that it would be
dangerous to breach. The average temperature has not been 2C above preindustrial levels for about 115,000 years, when the ice-caps were smaller and
global sea level was at least five metres higher than today. The shift to such
a world could cause mass migrations of hundreds of millions of people away
from the worst-affected areas. That would lead to conflict and war, not peace
and prosperity. In fact, the risks are even bigger than I realised when I was
working on the review of the economics of climate change for the UK
government in 2006. Since then, annual greenhouse gas emissions have
increased steeply and some of the impacts, such as the decline of Arctic sea
ice, have started to happen much more quickly. We also underestimated the
potential importance of strong feedbacks, such as the thawing of the
permafrost to release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, as well as
tipping points beyond which some changes in the climate may become
effectively irreversible. What we have experienced so far is surely small
relative to what could happen in the future. We should remember that the
last time global temperature was 5C different from today, the Earth was
gripped by an ice age. So the risks are immense and can only be sensibly
managed by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which will require a new
low-carbon industrial revolution. History teaches us how quickly industrial
transformations can occur through waves of technological development, such
as the introduction of electricity, based on innovation and discovery. We are
already seeing low-carbon technologies being deployed across the world, but
further progress will require investment and facing up to the real prices of
energy, including the very damaging emissions from fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, the current pace of progress is not nearly rapid enough,
with many rich industrialised countries being slow to make the transition to
cleaner and more efficient forms of economic growth.

Carbon set to rise

EB 14
(Eco-Business: Climate News Network, Carbon output 'will climb 29 per cent
by 2035', http://www.eco-business.com/news/carbon-output-will-climb-29cent-2035/)//BB

The good news, from the climates standpoint, is that while global demand for
energy is continuing to grow, the growth is slowing. The bad news is that one
energy giant predicts global carbon dioxide emissions will probably rise by
almost a third in the next 20 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change says greenhouse gas emissions need to peak by 2020 and then
decline if the world is to hope to avoid global average temperatures rising by
more than 2C over pre-industrial levels. Beyond 2C, it says, climate change
could become dangerously unmanageable. But BPs Energy Outlook 2035
says CO2 emissions are likely to increase by 29 per cent in the next two
decades because of growing energy demand from the developing world. It
says energy use in the advanced economies of North America, Europe and
Asia as a group is expected to grow only very slowly and begin to decline in
the later years of the forecast period. By 2035 energy use in the nonOECD economies is expected to be 69 per cent higher than in 2012 BP
Energy Outlook 2035 But by 2035 energy use in the non-OECD economies is
expected to be 69 per cent higher than in 2012. In comparison use in the
OECD will have grown by only 5 per cent, and actually to have fallen after
2030, even with continued economic growth. The Outlook predicts that global
energy consumption will rise by 41 per cent from 2012 to 2035, compared
with 30 per cent over the last ten. Nor does it offer much hope that the use
of novel energy sources will help to cut emissions. It says: Shale gas is the
fastest-growing source of supply (6.5 per cent p.a.), providing nearly half of
the growth in global gas.

Warming AT: Wind leads to warming

The most recent rigorous studies point to the necessity
and sufficiency of wind power
Goggin 12 - Manager of Transmission Policy at the American Wind Energy
Association, Previously consulted for two environmental advocacy groups and
a consulting firm supporting the U.S. Department of Energys renewable
energy programs, Holds an undergraduate degree with honors from Harvard
University
(Michael, Fact check: Coverage of Argonne wind and emissions study flawed,
June 2006, http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?
customel_dataPageID_1699=16631)
Other analyses using more accurate assumptions and more reliable sources
have found that winds emissions savings are as large or larger than
expected. A recent analysis using real-world data derived from EPA emission
monitors found that in an absolute worst case, wind energy achieves 98.3%
of the expected carbon dioxide emissions savings, and 103.3% of the
expected nitrogen oxide emissions savings. An ongoing phase of that
analysis, due to be completed within the next several months, is likely to
show that winds net emissions savings are even larger than expected. This
result occurs because wind energy tends to disproportionately displace dirtier
and less flexible coal generation instead of more flexible natural gas
generation, so any slight decrease in power plant efficiency is more than
offset by this additional emissions savings. This result was also found in the
Argonne analysis, which noted that increasing wind generation leads to a
shift in dispatch from coal toward natural gas, though those emissions
savings were masked by the larger impact of the incorrect assumption that
wind energy would displace nuclear generation. - Real-world data confirms
that states that have added significant amounts of wind energy, such as
Illinois, have seen fossil fuel use and emissions decline by as much as or
more than expected. Department of Energy data for Colorado show that as
wind energy jumped from providing 2.5% of the states electricity in 2007 to
6.1% of the states electricity in 2008, carbon dioxide emissions fell by 4.4%,
nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions fell by 6%, coal use fell by 3%
(571,000 tons), and electric-sector natural gas use fell by 14%. DOE data for
Texas show that as wind and other renewables share of Texass electric mix
increased from 1.3% in 2005 to 4.4% in 2008, an increase in share of 3.1
percentage points. During that period, electric sector carbon dioxide
emissions declined by 3.3%, even though electricity use actually increased by
2% during that time. Because of wind energy, the state of Texas was able to
turn what would have been a carbon emissions increase into a decrease of
8,690,000 metric tons per year, equal to the emissions savings of taking
around 1.5 million cars off the road. Similarly, thanks to the growth of wind
energy in the state, Illinois saw a 0.5% decrease in CO2 emissions from 2006
to 2009, even though electricity use actually increased by 0.75% over that
time period. In Minnesota, as wind energy grew from providing less than 4%

of the states electricity in 2006 to almost 10% in 2009, electric sector carbon
dioxide emissions fell by more than 10%, or 4 million metric tons per year. As
further evidence, four of the seven major independent grid operators in the
U.S. have studied the emissions impact of adding wind energy to their power
grids, and all four have found that adding wind energy drastically reduces
emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful pollutants. While the
emissions savings depend somewhat on the existing share of coal-fired
versus gas-fired generation in the region, as one would expect, it is
impossible to dispute the findings of these four independent grid operators
that adding wind energy to their grids has significantly reduced emissions.
The results of these studies are summarized below. Finally, analysis of readily
available DOE data puts to rest the idea that wind energy has a significant
negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants. The Department
of Energy collects detailed data on the amount of fossil fuels consumed at
power plants, as well as the amount of electricity produced by those power
plants. By comparing how the efficiency of power plants has changed in
states that have added significant amounts of wind energy against how it has
changed in states that have not, one can test the hypothesis that wind
energy is having a negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power
plants. The data clearly shows that there is no such relationship, and in fact
states that use more wind energy have seen greater improvements in the
efficiency of their fossil-fired power plants than states that use less wind
energy. Specifically, coal plants in the 20 states that obtain the most
electricity from wind saw their efficiency decline by only 1.00% between 2005
and 2010, versus 2.65% in the 30 other states. Increases in the efficiency at
natural gas power plants were virtually identical in the top 20 wind states and
the other states, at 1.89% and 2.03% improvements respectively. The
conclusion that adding wind energy actually increases fossil plant efficiency
makes intuitive sense, because as explained above, adding wind energy to
the grid displaces the output of the most expensive, and therefore least
efficient, fossil-fired power plants first.

Hegemony OSW leads to fast growth

OSW promotes fast growth
Ndolo 10 associate principal @ Camoin Associates
(Michael and Bruce Bailey, Offshore development can yield economic
benefits, North American Wind Power, Fall 2010)//BB
Avoided costs
There are many other ways that offshore development can positively impact
local economics, all of which focus on avoided costs. Often misunderstood or
ignored, avoided costs are those that, if not addressed, could result in money
or opportunity leaving an area. For example, is the avoided costs of
transmission system upgrades. Many metropolitan areas along the Eastern
Seaboard suffer from capacity issues in transmission infrastructure that
require tens of billions of dollars to remedy. The extent to which such costs
can be delayed, reduced or avoided altogether is an economic benefit to the
host community and should be considered as an offset to the perceived
higher per-kilowatt power costs of offshore wind. There are additional
avoided costs that may be more sig-nificant. Many states and some
metropolitan areas have either mandates or policy goals requiring the
sourcing of renewable energy by a certain date. If such power cannot be
produced locally, providers will be required to source renewable power from
elsewhere. This is, in effect, taking local ratepayer dollars and sending them
outside of the local economy, a situation analogous to consumer dollars
flowing out of the U.S. to pur-chase electronics from low-cost manufacturing
countries. These outflows of dollars are tied to massive job losses. For the
exporting state or province, the ability to recapture these dollars represents
new money added to the local economy and additional economic activity. The
final avoided cost worth noting is that offshore, while expensive relative to
fossil fuels, is less expensive than some other sources of renewable energy
such as solar or tidal. The differential costs between offshore wind and other
forms of renewable energy can be considered avoided costs that are not
passed on to ratepayers.

Hegemony AT: Energy costs turn Link small

Only .2% increase [and thats WITHOUT the subsidy of the
plan]
Conathan 13
(Michael, Making the Economic Case for Offshore Wind,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/02/28/54988/maki
ng-the-economic-case-for-offshore-wind/)//BB
without including in the cost estimate the assistance from federal
subsidies, the results of this analysis are resoundingly positive. Overall investment required Of
course, getting the offshore wind industry off the ground in the United States will
require an upfront investment, and in its analysis, the Brattle Group found that a build-out to 54 gigawatts of offshore
Taking each of our metrics in turn shows that even

wind capacity would require an investment ranging from $18.5 billion to $52 billionassuming some greenhouse gas externalities are
included in the market price. To place this figure in context, the Brattle Group also explored subsidies to other existing energy technologies
and found them to be comparable in size to the investment required to develop Americas offshore wind industry. Domestic oil subsidies, for
example, from 1950to 2010 totaled approximately $369 billion, while coal subsidies totaled $104 billion, and natural gas totaled $121 billion.
Recall that these subsidies are for industries that are already decades old and, as in the case of oil and gas, are making annual profits in

w does this investment translate to the

average Americans monthly electric bill? Numerous studies have shown that Americans living in coastal
excess of $100 billion industrywide. Cost to ratepayers Ho

regions are willing to pay modestly higher electricity bills if they know their electricity supply includes local offshore wind farms. A poll
released in January 2013, for example, showed that 72 percent of Maryland residents would be willing to pay $2 more per month for their

building out a
domestic offshore wind industry under the medium- or fast-learning scenarioseven without federal
subsidieswill result in an electricity rate increase of 0.2 percent to 1.7 percent if the cost
electricity bills to develop an offshore wind industry. The Brattle Group analysis finds that the cost of

is spread across the whole country, and a 0.4 percent to 3 percent increase if costs are borne entirely by consumers in the Atlantic and Great
Lakes regions.

This equates to a range of 0.06 cents to 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour. (see Figure 2)

Hegemony AT: Energy costs DA Link turn

Lowers energy prices
Dinnell 7 Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts
Branch, Environmental Torts Section. B.A., University of Notre Dame; J.D.,
Tulane Law School.
(Adam, et al, SYMPOSIUM ON INTERNATIONAL ENERGY LAW: ARTICLE: The
Legal Hurdles to Developing Wind Power as an Alternative Energy Source in
the United States: Creative and Comparative Solutions, 27 NW. J. INT'L L. &
BUS. 535)//BB
A. Not in My Cape Cod: An Illustration of the Role Public Sentiment Plays in
Development.
Although the United States does not currently have an offshore wind power
development, 64 several projects are in the planning and permitting stage.
65 The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") is optimistic that competitive
commercial wind power developments can be realized, and "that U.S.
offshore wind electric generating capacity could grow significantly over the
next two decades." 66 In fact, some experts believe that the development of
offshore wind energy could contribute "up to 70,000 megawatts of power to
the electric grid by 2025, nearly [ten] times the current level." 67 Growth of
wind power along the coastal areas could result in lower energy prices, as
wind power develops as an alternative energy resource. 68

---2ac off-case answers

AT: Politics Bipartisan

ITC is bipartisan they just extended it in April!
---but it doesnt solve the case, because its just for one year

Hess 4-4
(Daniel, Senate Finance Committee Votes to Extend the ITC for Offshore
Wind, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/04/senate-finance-committee-votes-toextend-the-itc-for-offshore-wind)//BB
The Senate Finance committee gave a strong bipartisan show of support
for domestic offshore wind energy yesterday by voting to extend the
critical investment tax credit. This vote resurrects a crucial incentive for
this nascent clean energy industry and offers a great chance to catapult the
industry into the mainstream and allow companies to plan successful projects
that take advantage of the nations vast offshore wind potential. The vote
also shows that the United States is finally getting serious about transitioning
to a clean and domestically produced energy future that mitigates the effects
of global climate change and creates thousands of good-paying American
jobs in the process. Todays action adds to the momentum being felt by the
offshore wind industry. The federal government is now holding multiple
competitive lease sales along the Atlantic Coast, the Cape Wind and Block
Island projects are moving forward, and an Oregon floating wind project
recently received approval to develop its offshore wind resources. While this
is a great victory, the fight to extend the ITC is far from over. Now is
not the time to let up our efforts. Contact your Representatives and
Senators and make sure they know how important an extension of the ITC is
for the future of offshore wind, and of clean and domestic energy in the
United States!

Party platforms prove offshore wind support is bipartisan

Jensen 13 partner in the Washington, DC office of Holland & Hart LLP
(Thomas, et al, From the 35th Public Land Law Conference: Balancing Act
and Paradigm Shift: The Role of Public Lands in America's Energy Future:
Oceans: Are Ocean Wind Turbines like Homesteads and Gold Mines and
Railroads? A Public Lands Policy Question for the Climate Change Era, 34
Pub. Land & Resources L. Rev. 93)//BB
Federal lawmaking is usually an inefficient and difficult process, rarely more
so than now. The difficulties seem particularly acute in relation to proposals
to legislate on climate or energy policy. Anyone watching Capitol Hill today
will see little encouragement that the Republican-led House of
Representatives and the Democratic-led Senate will find common ground to
do anything on those two issues in the near future. An optimist would,
however, note that the Republican and Democratic party platforms from the
2012 presidential election can be juxtaposed in a way that suggests an area
of possible agreement. Both platforms acknowledge the importance of the

United States' natural resources, 230 and both agree that the country should
develop renewable energy. The Republicans' platform calls for policies aimed
"at energy security to ensure an affordable, stable, and reliable energy supply
for all parts of the country" and Democrats urge promotion of "smart policies
that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range
of economic and social benefits." 231 The Republican platform "encourages
the cost-effective development of renewable energy." 232 It promotes a
"pathway toward a market-based approach for renewable energy sources"
and one that "aggressively develops alternative sources for electricity
generation such as wind." 233 However, it does so with the caveat that "the
taxpayers [144] should not serve as venture capitalists for risky endeavors."
234 The party instead believes that the "role of public officials must be to
encourage responsible development across the board." 235 The party would
"let the free market and public's preferences determine the industry
outcomes." 236 The Democratic platform does not endorse privatizing
natural resource development, but strongly endorses the need to address
global climate change. 237 The Democrats "commit to significantly reducing
the pollution that causes climate change." 238

Congress will support the plan

Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(October 2010, Erica, California Law Review, Turning Offshore Wind On, Vol.
98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)

This revision could come in tandem with revisions to the Energy Policy Act or
as part of an entirely new energy agenda. President Barack Obama has
[*1663] repeatedly expressed interest in a new trajectory for energy policy in
the United States that focuses on climate change, energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and energy independence. n269 Congress could take
advantage of this momentum to make these related revisions to the CZMA as
well. In fact, reform of an existing, familiar set of regulations, like the CZMA,
may be more palatable to Congress, and an easy first step to take with
regard to renewable energy.

AT: Politics Public support

Public supports offshore wind
Caperton 12
(Richard W. Caperton is the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael
Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a Special
Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at American Progress. ,
"Encouraging Investment Is Key to U.S. Offshore Wind Development" 1/12/12
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/offshore_wind.html)//BB
According to a nationwide survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute,
about 7 in 10 Americans (71 percent) support a shift of federal support for
energy away from nuclear and towards clean renewable energy such as wind
and solar. In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, undeveloped land is
difficult to find. That means renewable energy developers have to look
further afieldin this case, to sea. In the early days of offshore wind, the
obstacles to development in the United States were largely borne of
ignoranceconcerns that offshore turbines visible on the horizon would
destroy property values; that noise, or safety, or storage of lubricating fluid
for the turbines would pose unacceptable risks. As other countries around the
world have moved ahead with offshore wind development and seen no ill
effects from those factors, however, such concerns have dramatically abated.
Support from coastal residents is fundamental to the potential success of
offshore wind projects. After all, these wind farms will effectively be built in
their backyards. And recently, poll after poll has shown that coastal residents
are highly supportive of offshore wind energy. According to a poll of New
Jersey residents, offshore wind production is extremely popular among voters
and its support cuts across party and geographic lines. The analysis
demonstrates that 78 percent of all New Jersey voters and 77 percent of the
states shore residents surveyed support the development of wind power 12
to 15 miles off their coast. Public support is strong in Delaware as well.
According to a University of Delaware poll, general statewide support for
offshore wind in Delaware is 77.8 percent, compared with an opposition of
only 4.2 percent. In Maryland The Baltimore Sun reported in October 2011
that 62 percent of Marylanders favor wind turbine construction off the coast
of Ocean City and would be willing to pay up to $2 more per month on
electricity bills. Mike Tidwell, head of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network,
said, Marylanders understand that the benefits of offshore wind are more
than worth a modest initial investment.

Public loves it
Higgins 9 - Research Counsel, Rhode Island Sea Grant Legal Program and
Marine Affairs Institute at Roger Williams University School of Law
(Megan, Symposium: Is Marine Renewable Energy a Viable Industry in the
United States?: Lessons Learned from the 7th Marine Law Symposium, 14
Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 562)//BB

A survey conducted in Delaware revealed that 77.8% of respondents support

the development of a wind farm six miles offshore. 105 A project proposed by
Bluewater Wind will be developed approximately twelve miles offshore. 106
Those in support of wind power favored the development of renewable
energy because of high electricity rates (but were willing to pay
approximately $ 1-30 more per month for wind energy versus oil or coal), air
quality, environmental impacts, aesthetics, and fishing impacts/boating
safety. 107 Another survey conducted in Rhode Island used photosimulations, site selection drawings, wind measuring, and a PowerPoint
presentation on wind energy to [588] determine the public's perception of
wind energy projects, located both onshore and offshore. 108 The Rhode
Island study found that the community's "overall stance on wind turbine
power" was 99% in favor. 109

AT: CPs That Dont Change Regulatory

Structure
Overbearing local control is the primary barrier blocking
the development of offshore wind --- plan key to solve
Schroeder, 10 --- J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
(October 2010, Erica, California Law Review, Turning Offshore Wind On, Vol.
98, No, 5, Lexis, JMP)

II Offshore Wind: Balancing Benefits and Costs

The benefits of offshore wind power are significant, frequently outweighing its
costs, which tend to be site specific. With careful planning and siting, wind
power developers can substantially reduce and nearly eliminate the costs
associated with wind power generation. In the United States, however,
localities and local interests exert substantial control over offshore wind siting
and permitting, and regional and national interests have ineffective recourse
for dealing with strong local power, as described in more detail in Part III.
Because of this dominant local control and the localized costs of offshore
wind power development, the cost-benefit balance tends to tip against the
global benefits of offshore projects. As a result, there are currently no
offshore wind projects under construction in the United States, despite
several proposals. n57
A. Benefits of Offshore Wind
Many of the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are similar to those of
onshore wind, though offshore wind has its own unique set of benefits. To
start, wind power generation can help meet the growing energy demand in
the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that
the demand for electricity in the United States will grow to 5.8 billion MWh in
2030, a 39 percent increase from 2005. n58 The more that wind power can
help to meet this demand, the more diversified the United States' energy
portfolio will be, and the less susceptible the nation will be to dependency on
foreign fuel sources and to price fluctuations in traditional fuels. n59 In
addition, wind power [*1639] benefits the United States by creating a
substantial number of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind
energy facilities. n60 In an April 2009 speech at the Trinity Structural Towers
Manufacturing Plant in Iowa, President Obama predicted that if the United
States "fully pursues our potential for wind energy on land and offshore,"
wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030. n61
Once a wind project is built, it involves only minimal environmental impacts
compared to traditional electricity generation. Wind power emits negligible
amounts of traditional air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate

matter, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. n62 Lower
emissions of traditional air pollutants means fewer air quality-related illnesses
locally and regionally. n63 Lower greenhouse gas emissions will help to
combat climate change, effects of which will be felt locally and around the
world. n64 According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
effects of climate change will include melting snow, ice, and permafrost;
significant effects on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater plant and animal
species; forced changes to agricultural and forestry management; and
adverse human health impacts, including increased heat-related mortality
and infectious diseases. n65 The U.S. Energy Information Administration
estimates that the United States emits 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse
gases annually, and it expects emissions to increase to 7.9 billion metric tons
by 2030, with 40 percent of emissions coming from the electric power sector.
n66 Thus, if the United States can get more of its electricity from wind power,
it will contribute less to climate change, and help to mitigate its negative
impacts. Furthermore, wind power does not involve any of the additional
environmental costs associated with nuclear power or fuel extraction for
traditional electricity generation, such as coal mining and natural gas
extraction. n67 Wind power generation also does not require the water
necessary to cool traditional coal, gas, and nuclear generation units. n68
Moreover, offshore wind power has certain attributes that give it added
benefits compared to onshore wind. Wind tends to be stronger and more
[*1640] consistent offshore - both benefits when it comes to wind power
generation. n69 This is largely due to reduced wind shear and roughness on
the open ocean. n70 Wind shear and roughness refer to effects of the
landscape surrounding turbines on the quality of wind and thus the amount of
electricity produced. n71 While long grass, trees, and buildings will slow wind
down significantly, water is generally very smooth and has much less of an
effect on wind speeds. n72 In addition, because offshore wind projects face
fewer barriers - both natural and manmade - to their expansion, offshore
developers can take advantage of economies of scale and build larger wind
farms that generate more electricity. n73
Importantly, offshore wind also could overcome the problems that onshore
wind faces regarding the distance between wind power generation and
electricity demand. That is, although the United States has considerable
onshore wind resources in certain areas, mostly in the middle of the country,
they are frequently distant from areas with high electricity demand, mostly
on the coasts, resulting in transmission problems. n74 By contrast, offshore
resources are near coastal electricity demand centers. n75 In fact, twentyeight of the contiguous forty-eight states have coastal boundaries, and these
same states use 78 percent of the United States' electricity. n76 Thus,
offshore wind power generation can effectively serve major U.S. demand
centers and avoid many of the transmission costs faced by remote onshore
generation. n77 If shallow water offshore potential (less than about 100 feet
in depth) is met on the nation's coasts, twenty-six of the twenty-eight coastal
states would have sufficient wind resources to meet at least 20 percent of

their electricity needs, and many states would have enough to meet their
total electricity demand. n78
B. Costs of Offshore Wind
Whereas many of the benefits of offshore wind power are national or even
global, the costs are almost entirely local. The downsides to offshore wind
that drive most of the opposition to offshore wind power are visual and
[*1641] environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects complain
about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local
property values. n79 They also make related complaints about negative
impacts on coastal recreational activities and tourism. n80 However, studies
have failed to show statistically significant negative aesthetic or propertyvalue impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts. n81
In addition, opponents frequently cite offshore wind power's environmental
costs. These costs are site specific and can involve harm to plants and
animals, and their habitats. n82 This harm includes impacts on birds, which
can involve disruption of migratory patterns, destruction of habitat, and bird
deaths from collision with the turbine blades. n83 However, these adverse
impacts are generally less dramatic than those associated with fossil fuel
extraction and generation, and in a well-chosen site they can be negligible.
n84 A recent, exhaustive study of the environmental impact of major offshore
wind farms in Denmark concluded that "offshore wind farms, if placed right,
can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine
environment and vulnerable species." n85
A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more expensive to build, and
more difficult to install and maintain, than onshore wind farms. n86 The cost
of an offshore wind project is estimated to be at least 50 percent greater than
the onshore equivalent. n87 Short-and long-term technical improvements
could help to lower offshore wind costs, however, and government assistance
may help them occur more quickly. n88
[*1642]
C. Balancing Costs and Benefits: The Future of Offshore Wind
Despite the aforementioned challenges, offshore wind remains important to
the United States' energy future. Its many benefits make it an ideal choice to
meet some of the country's growing electricity demand, especially as the
United States begins to realize the severity of the threats from both climate
change and its dependence on foreign fuels. n89 In addition to the
environmental and economic benefits that offshore and onshore wind power
provides, the proximity of offshore wind to U.S. electricity demand and the
resulting lower transmission costs are crucial. n90 The many benefits of
offshore wind outweigh its primarily local environmental and aesthetic costs,
most of which can be minimized with careful planning and community
relations.

In spite of these compelling drivers, a primary obstacle to offshore wind

power development is the lack of a regulatory framework with which to
reconcile the local costs with the regional and national benefits. n91 The
current regulatory framework is described in the next Part. Until the federal
government puts a revised framework in place, such as the revised CZMA
proposed in Part V, states and local groups fixated on immediate, local costs
will retain the ability to stall and even block offshore wind power
development. Without federal regulatory revision, offshore wind will
not realize its full promise.

AT: States CP Federal waters

Federal waters key to testing and scaling
Sterne 9
(J.D. Roger Williams University): Symposium: The Seven Principles of Ocean
Renewable Energy: A Shared Vision and Call for Action. Lexis
THE NEED FOR ACTION America urgently needs new sources of clean energy.
While the deployment and evaluation of ocean energy technologies8
represent a unique and important renewable energy opportunity, these
technologies are being hampered and constrained by several factors. The
technologies are generally recognized as not sufficiently mature for
commercial-scale development. This makes it difficult for project developers
to attract sufficient capital, due to the perceived risk of these projects.
Another factor, which is the focus of this paper, is an uncertain regulatory
system that results in larger transaction costs than are appropriate for this
demonstration phase of these emerging technologies. Principle 1. As general
policy, the United States should substantially increase electrical generation
from renewable sources. Ocean renewable energy has significant potential to
contribute to this increase. The United States government should use its
authorities and commit the resources needed to support a robust evaluation
of ocean renewable energy technology and its potential environmental
impacts. Development of diverse and numerous sources of alternative 8. This
paper focuses on ocean energy generated from waves, tides, and currents. It
does not address other technologies deployable in the marine environment,
including thermal conversion or offshore wind, although these
recommendations may also have relevance to those technologies. renewable
energy is critical to our nation's energy security and environmental well
being. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, ocean renewable
energy in U.S. waters has the estimated potential to supply some 400
Terawatt hours of clean power annually, or roughly 10% of today's electrical
demand.9 Yet project testing and deployment in coastal waters is almost non
existent. The federal role is crucial because virtually every site where ocean
renewable energy technology is likely to be tested or deployed is subject to
federal jurisdiction. Unlike conventional wind and solar, ocean renewable
energy technology cannot be tested or deployed on private land. The industry
will emerge and mature in the United States only if the federal
government uses its considerable resources and authorities to answer
critical questions and encourage appropriate use of marine areas.

AT: States CP Perm

Perm do both shields the link to politics
Overby 3 Professor of Law, Tulane University School of Law,
(Brooke, Our New Commercial Law Federalism. Temple University of the
Commonwealth System of Higher Education Temple Law Review, Summer, 76
Temp. L. Rev. 297 Lexis)
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress
cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States' officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring
the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a
federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is
necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.n65 The concerns articulated
in New York and echoed again in Printz addressed the erosion of the lines of political accountability that could result from federal

Federal authority to compel implementation of a national legislative agenda

through the state legislatures or officers would blur or launder the federal provenance of the
legislation and shift political consequences and costs thereof to the state legislators. Left
unchecked, Congress could foist upon the states expensive or unpopular
programs yet shield itself from accountability to citizens. While drawing the line
commandeering.n66

between constitutionally permissible optional implementation and impermissible mandatory implementation does not erase these concerns
with accountability, it does ameliorate them slightly.

2ac National Policy Key

National policy key to propel offshore wind --- will speed
up licensing
Jackson, 13 (Derrick, 3/2/2013, Politics imperil offshore wind sweet
spots, http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/02/sour-politics-imperiloffshore-wind-sweet-spots/wZHvvjxVMtZKx2Y42iRpII/story.html, JMP)

Kyle Aarons, a fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said that
despite Obamas high-profile advocacy of renewable energy in his State of
the Union address, only 30 states have adopted renewable energy standards,
and most states without them are Republican strongholds that soundly voted
against Obama for president.
No two state policies are alike, and were not really anticipating much
progress on new states, Aarons said. I wouldnt say were stuck on
renewables overall. We have a lot of potential to still catch up. Onshore wind
will still probably do well, but without a national policy, I would imagine that
offshore, being newer, will be pretty slow.
Rick Sullivan, Massachusetts secretary for energy and environmental affairs,
agreed, saying in a telephone interview that a national policy would likely
speed up offshore wind development. I think youd not only see more
permits, but faster permitting should allow developers to take advantage of
the most up-to-date wind technology out there rather than it taking years to
put up something that may be outdated, Sullivan said.
Being outdated weighed heavily on the minds of participants at the offshore
conference. While Cape Wind and Block Islands Deepwater Wind are finally
poised to plunge their first platforms into the water, Europe had a record year
in offshore wind development, installing 369 turbines. Denmark announced it
now gets 30 percent of energy from wind.
Investors at the conference said billions of dollars are sitting on the sidelines
as Americas wind potential waits for a national policy. Deepwater Wind
board manager Bryan Martin gave credit to Salazar for getting wind energy
as far as he has, but were tapped out on the state-by-state model. The
White House and Congress must tap into a national model, or the United
States will remain on the sidelines for good.

***NEGATIVE***

---Off-case

Politics Ocean policy link

No support for Ocean reform
Migliaccio 14 JD @ Vermont Law School
(Emily, NOTE: THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: CAN IT REDUCE MARINE
POLLUTION AND STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN BUREAUCRACY?, 15 Vt. J. Envtl. L.
629)//BB
The Obama Administration issued Executive Order 13,547, intending for
Congress to "show support for effective implementation of the NOP, including
the establishment of an ocean investment fund"--the hope being that
Congress would codify the Order in subsequent legislation. 130 At present,
Congress is wrestling with some bills relating to the NOP; however, not all
proposals support the policy. For example, the House has adopted an
amendment to the Water Resources and Development Act ("WRDA") 131 that
would bar the Obama Administration from implementing marine spatial
planning under the WRDA, specifically "preventing the Army Corps of
Engineers and other entities that receive money from the bill from
implementing such planning as part of the National Ocean Policy." 132 Then
again, also before Congress is a bill that seeks to establish a National
Endowment for the Oceans, which would fund programs and activities to
"restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their
habitats and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. . . ." 133 For this bill
to pass, House and Senate members must agree to prioritize ocean
conservation and research, and allocate funds to [647] the initiative.
Although the NOP [National Ocean Policy] is appearing on the Congressional
docket, it is hard to find hope for successful ocean reform in the current
congressional atmosphere.

Politics Taxes link

The plan triggers a fight
Coile 8 - journalist and reporter
(Zachary, San Francisco Chronicle, Lexis)//BB
Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country
toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax
credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end
of the year. The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a
bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy. The tax
incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a
fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them. Last
month, the House approved a bill to extend the credits by delaying an
obscure tax break for companies with foreign operations and closing a tax
loophole for hedge fund managers. But Republicans objected to what they
called a stealth tax increase, and the Senate's 52-44 vote Tuesday.

Any evidence to the contrary is just political posturing

Coleman 8 - Washington Correspondent of the Albuquerque Journal
(Michael, political news journal, Congress in Clouds on Tax Credits,
www.abqjournal.com/opinion/coleman/2293354opinion06-22-08.htm)//BB
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. At a time when gas prices have soared
past $4 per gallon and OPEC countries are signaling that oil production may
be peaking, Congress keeps stumbling and bumbling and failing to pass
simple legislation to move us toward new, clean energy sources. Virtually
every member of Congress claims to support extending tax credits to the
fledgling wind and solar industries. But despite a halfdozen chances and a
90 percent level of support for renewable energy development, our elected
officials in Washington just can't seem to get the bill passed. The latest attempt
came last week, when Republicans objected to closing a tax loophole for hedge-fund managers to help pay for the $18 billion clean energy tax
breaks. Meanwhile, Congress wonders why the American public holds them in such contempt. But Republicans don't deserve all of the blame.
Democrats, who control both chambers of Congress, couldn't resist larding up last week's Senate bill with a $1.6 billion giveaway to trial
lawyers. In the process, they also gave Republicans some political cover for voting against the bill. New Mexico Sens. Jeff Bingaman, chairman
of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Pete Domenici, the panel's top Republican, both support the renewable energy
tax breaks. But they parted ways in their votes last week. Bingaman, who has voted for the wind and solar tax break proposals with and
without budget offsets, voted for them again last week. In an interview, Bingaman told me the latest proposal to shut the hedge fund loophole
to pay for the tax breaks was "eminently reasonable." Earlier this year Bingaman also voted, along with Domenici, to pass the tax breaks
without any budget offsets. That bill passed, but the House, led by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, shot the proposal down, insisting that the
tax breaks be paid for somehow because fiscal discipline is important, we should try to reign in the deficit. The House stripped that unpaid for
proposal -- which passed the Senate 88-8 -- out of a larger housing bill Thursday. "The House is right," Bingaman told me. "The responsible

a recent House proposal to rescind $18

billion in tax breaks for oil companies to pay for wind and solar failed in the
Senate because Democrats didn't have enough votes to override a
Republican filibuster. Republicans argue that stripping oil companies' tax
breaks will force them to cut back on expensive exploration and technology.
Nobody wants that. Seriously. We need all the oil we can produce, too. Maybe
some of those Big Oil executives who make $30 million annually could help
foot the bill? Domenici, once an outspoken deficit hawk, voted against taking
either the Big Oil money, or the hedge fund money to pay for the renewable
energy tax incentives. As he sees it, the energy tax breaks will create
thing to do is make up the revenue somewhere else." Meanwhile,

investment and create jobs and pay for themselves. Maybe so, but doesn't it
make sense to at least try to offset the revenue loss? "I don't think we will
ever pass this package of taxes as long as the Democrats insist that we place
a tax on someone or some business," Domenici told me. Republicans also
maintain that the solar and wind tax breaks weren't paid for initially, so they
need not be paid for now.

Politics Picking winners link

Even internal executive decisions on offshore wind cause
partisan bickering accused of picking winners
Colman 13
(Zack, Interior Dept. plans for offshore wind leases draw GOP fire,
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/303321-interior-dept-offshorewind-plan-draws-partisan-fire)//BB
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.

Politics Public link

Public opposes
Frulla 12 partner in the law firm of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP's
Washington, D.C. office. He represents commercial fishing and other oceanrelated interests in judicial, legislative, and regulatory matters
(David, et al, Emerging Issue: Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning: Found in
the Wind: The Value of Early Consultation and Collaboration with Other Ocean
Users for Successful Offshore Wind Development, 17 Roger Williams U. L.
Rev. 307)//BB
Further, in the private sector, historic ocean users are deeply embedded in
the social and economic fabric of coastal communities, and remain skeptical
of offshore wind's promises of new jobs and environmental benefits,
particularly if these are realized at the cost of risking their ways of life. Many
also fear the proliferation of a daunting array of independent regulatory and
management bodies, each with the potential to affect negatively their
livelihoods. Finally, historic users often lack the time and resources, not to
mention the opportunity, to participate in these various regulatory and
planning processes.

Their power empirically stops offshore wind projects

Stolte 6 Candidate for Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School, 2007; B.S.,
Petroleum Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 2002
(Justin, NOTE: THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005: THE PATH TO ENERGY
AUTONOMY?, 33 J. Legis. 119)//BB
Nonetheless, possibly the biggest restraint on renewable energy as a
domestic energy source is the public's unwillingness to use it. The Energy
Policy Act of 1992 included similar incentives to those provided by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, 120 and the supply of alternative energy has only
marginally increased since the incentives took effect. 121 Critics have argued
that the price of alternative energy is too high for it to become a viable
energy supply. 122 This criticism is no longer convincing. While solar power
remains cost restrictive, the cost of wind power has become very competitive
with other sources of energy. 123 Furthermore, the Energy Policy Act's
renewal of the Renewable Energy Production Incentive program makes
several forms of renewable energy even more cost efficient. Much of the
reason that alternative energy production has remained stagnant - especially
from wind turbines - is a result of the public's unwillingness to adopt
renewable energy into its standard of living. For instance, in states where
offshore wind-farms have been proposed, citizens have vehemently opposed
them. In Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project, a proposal to build a windfarm off the shores of Cape Cod, was strongly challenged by Cape Cod
residents because it was deemed a potential eyesore. 124 Although the
electricity generated by the Cape Wind project would have provided the
electricity necessary for Cape Cod and surrounding islands, the proposal

continues to face strong local opposition. 125 Analogous offshore projects

have faced similar resistance from communities who believe that the projects
are not aesthetically pleasing. As technology improves and the provisions
provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 make renewable energy a more
viable source of energy, Americans, especially those who will be affected in
some way by the generation of alternative energy, will have to reassess their
values in relation to their need for energy.

States CP 1nc
The 50 states and territories should collaborate to provide
a long-term investment tax credit for oceanic offshore
wind energy and mandate oceanic offshore wind is
included as a substantial component of all state
Renewable Portfolio Standards.
The counterplan solves and federal support ALONE fails
Levitan 13 - writes about energy, the environment, and health. His articles
have been published by Scientific American, Discover, IEEE Spectrum, Grist,
and others. In previous articles for Yale Environment 360, he has written
about vehicle-to-grid technology for electric cars and cities' efforts to recycle
food scraps and organic waste
(Dave, Will Offshore Wind Finally Take Off on U.S. East Coast?,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/will_offshore_wind_finally_take_off_on_us_east_c
oast/2693/)//BB
The U.S. has no national renewable energy target, but 29 states and
Washington, D.C., have adopted their own. Northeastern states like
Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been aggressively pursuing
renewables, and there is now legislation in New Jersey and Maryland
specifically targeting offshore wind development. Kevin Jones, deputy
director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at the Vermont Law
School, says he is optimistic about the development of offshore wind,
especially in the Northeast, in part because there are so few other options for
renewables in the region and the opposition to onshore wind continues to
grow. If natural gas prices remain low I think the offshore industry is going
to need public policy support rather than federal subsidy, but it can
happen if the Northeastern states work together to achieve economies
of scale, says Jones. That collaboration could include states collectively
mandating that utility companies purchase a set amount of electricity from
offshore wind farms.

States CP Solvency
California proves state tax credits can jumpstart
renewable industries
Yudken 11 - Ph.D. in Technology and Society from Stanford , Founder of
High Road Strategies, LLC, a Consulting firm - Former Postdoc research Fellow
Project on Regional & Industrial Economics at Rutgers, Congressional Science
and Engineering Fellow in Office of Sen. Boxer, Senior Fellow Work &
Technology Institute, Sectoral Economist for AFLCIO
(Joel S., "Clean Energy Manufacturing in California Report Prepared for
Apollo Alliance BlueGreen Alliance Clean Energy Manufacturing Project
San Francisco, CA." 7/17/11
http://www.highroadstrategies.com/downloads/Apollo-CA-CEM-Report.pdf)//BB
Californias
manufacturing base provides a
strong foundation for developing a robust clean energy manufacturing
sector
Californias manufacturing strengths. Despite these loses,

large, diverse

. Most production of clean energy technologies is rooted in the design and manufacture of conventional technologies and products. For example, solar photovoltaic manufacturing is

centered in the semiconductor and related device manufacturing industrysome of the largest producers of photovoltaic cells in California are semiconductor manufacturersand the states strong
glass industry is an important supplier in the fabrication of solar cells and module. Storage battery manufacturing is part of the electronic equipment, appliance, and component manufacturing
industry. Wind turbine manufacturing belongs to the turbine and turbine generator set industry within the machinery manufacturing sector.11 Californias global leadership in technology, large pools
of educated, high-skilled workers, major transportation and export hubs, and ready access to sources of venture capital, are some of the main advantages attracting innovative clean energy
manufacturing to the state: By most measures California leads the nation in science and technology research, development and innovation: It is a major center for the design of automobiles,
furniture, apparel, software, electronics, telecommunication services, computers and semiconductors.12 Almost 25 percent of U.S. industrial R&D is performed in California.13 The state is home
to over 40 federal laboratories and three of the ten NASA centers in the countrymore than any other state in either category.14 It leads in several strategic high- tech industry segments, with
between 20- 60% of U.S. market share in electronic components, commercial aerospace, medical instruments, biotechnology and transportation.15 It leads the nation in patentsover 23,000 in
2009, more than any other state.16 Californias manufacturing, professional and technical services, and information sectors employ more workers in each category than any other state. It also a
leading state in high-wage services. California has nearly 1 million high-tech workersmore than any other state and equal to one-eighth of all U.S. high-tech workers. It also has seven of the
nations top 20 engineering schools and possesses the highest concentration of engineers, scientists, mathematicians and skilled technicians.17 California ranks first in venture capital; i.e., it gets
more venture capital as a share of gross state product than the national average. For example, in 2009, the California companies received more than $11 billion or nearly half of all VC invested
in the United States.18 The top sectors receiving VC funding include software, telecommunications, biotechnology, medical devices and semiconductors.19 HRS- Apollo CA CEM Reportpage 4
1/11/12 California has twelve cargo airportscarrying 3 million tons of freight per yearand leads the country with eleven cargo seaports.20 A top exporter, it shipped merchandise totaling
$143.2 billion overseas in 2010. The largest exports include computers and electronic productsaccounting for 29 percent of the states total merchandise exports in 2009, transportation equipment,
machinery and chemicals. Twelve metropolitan areas exported over $1 billion in 2008; the Los Angeles area led the state, with 39 percent of exportsthe 3rd largest in the nation, followed by the

An important advantage is Californias

market for clean energy
components, products, and systems.
state tax credits
helped spawn
new solar and wind industries.
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara and the San Francisco-Oakland Fremont areas.21
large

oil crises of the 1970s, federal and

other

generation

very

Spurred by the

during the first administration of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Solar companies producing and installing solar heating and generation equipment proliferated and wind turbine

farms were built on the slopes of hills in three primary locations around the state.22 Californias capacity for renewable energy generation is extensive. Its sunny southeastern deserts have a high
potential for solar energy production (solar cells and solar thermal). And substantial geothermal and wind power resources exist along the coastal ranges and the eastern border with Nevada.23

States CP Federal follow on

Small successes lead to future federal funding
Levitan 13 - writes about energy, the environment, and health. His articles
have been published by Scientific American, Discover, IEEE Spectrum, Grist,
and others. In previous articles for Yale Environment 360, he has written
about vehicle-to-grid technology for electric cars and cities' efforts to recycle
food scraps and organic waste
(Dave, Will Offshore Wind Finally Take Off on U.S. East Coast?,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/will_offshore_wind_finally_take_off_on_us_east_c
oast/2693/)//BB
Long, of the American Wind Energy Association, and others are confident that
the initial phase of offshore projects will illustrate to policy makers the
attraction of offshore wind power. Onshore wind, after all, is often plagued by
siting issues, with nearby residents complaining about the sight and sound of
large turbines. Most U.S. offshore projects are now proposed far enough off
the coast that they will be essentially invisible a lesson learned from the
viewshed controversy surrounding Cape Wind. Proponents hope that the
start of several offshore projects will encourage more federal and state
support and will serve as a reminder that there is a lot of energy just a few
miles off the beach.

---On-case

AT: Solvency
Offshore wind fails:
Limited foundation technology
Giordano 10 JD, served four years of active duty in the United States
Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer where he gained unique training,
experiences, and insights for working with people and solving complex
problems
(Michael, ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT,
ECONOMICS, AND THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL:
WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT
MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, 44 U. Rich. L. Rev.
1149)//BB
One of the things keeping the offshore wind energy industry from growing is a
lack of sufficient technology. Expanded growth of the offshore wind industry
will depend on research, development, and innovation. 46 Areas of
technological need include improved reliability, greater environmental
compatibility, and cost reduction. 47 Technological advances must address
these areas of need with regard not just to the design of turbines but also to
the installation process and maintenance.
At present, offshore wind turbines are basically larger versions of onshore
wind turbines that have been adapted to the marine environment. 48 The
current foundation system for offshore wind [1156] turbines consists of large
steel tubes called monopiles, which are typically embedded twenty-five to
thirty meters below the mud line. 49 Monopile designs are considered
appropriate for waters up to thirty meters deep. 50 Offshore wind farms use
large turbines "ranging from the Vestas V-80 2 MW turbine to GE Wind's 3.6
MW turbine to Repower's 126 m diameter, 5 MW turbine." 51
Present foundation technology limits the offshore wind energy industry's
ability to harness the full potential of offshore wind energy. The strongest and
most consistent winds blow above waters deeper than thirty meters. 52 A
marginal "10% increase in wind speed creates a 33% increase in available
energy." 53 Thus, meaningful growth of offshore wind energy is dependent
upon the research and development of new technologies that enable
developers to place turbines in deep water. Some anticipate the creation of
"stiffer, multi-pile configurations with broader bases suitable for water
depths up to 60 m or greater." 54 From there, many expect that foundations
will transition even further, toward floating turbine structures that would be
fastened and secured to the ocean floor by wires. 55 Such a transition would
have to make use of existing technologies from the oil and natural gas
industries, which already use floating platforms. 56 Unlike oil and gas projects
on the OCS, wind projects require fast, modular installations that can be
replicated easily due to the anticipated frequency of maintenance. 57
Researchers believe that "the biggest challenge [1157] for deepwater

wind turbines will be to merge the mature but expensive technologies borne
of the oil and gas industry with the experience of low-cost economic drivers
fueling the shallow water offshore wind energy industry." 58

Limited turbine capacity

Giordano 10 JD, served four years of active duty in the United States
Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer where he gained unique training,
experiences, and insights for working with people and solving complex
problems
(Michael, ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT,
ECONOMICS, AND THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL:
WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT
MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, 44 U. Rich. L. Rev.
1149)//BB
Present constraints on turbine capacity also limit the amount of wind
energy that can be harnessed for electricity. The power and productivity of
wind turbines increases as turbine tower height and the area swept by the
turbine blades increase. 59 For example, an increase in rotor diameter from
ten meters to fifty meters "yields a 55-fold increase in yearly electricity
output" because of the increase of the tower height and the size of the swept
area. 60 Added costs due to the construction and operation of offshore wind
farms can be absorbed more easily if the wind farm is able to generate more
electricity. Most believe that offshore wind projects will need 5 MW or larger
turbines to capture wind power and reach the economies of scale needed to
make long-distance offshore sites financially viable. 61

No installation vessels
Giordano 10 JD, served four years of active duty in the United States
Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer where he gained unique training,
experiences, and insights for working with people and solving complex
problems
(Michael, ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT,
ECONOMICS, AND THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL:
WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT
MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, 44 U. Rich. L. Rev.
1149)//BB
The installation process also brings technological challenges to the offshore
wind energy industry. In order to install offshore wind turbines, developers
will need to hire a fleet of vessels including "barges with compensated
cranes, leg stabilized feeder fleets, oil and gas dynamic positioning vessels,
and floating heavy lift cranes." 62 "This imposes a limitation on American
offshore wind development, since all vessels used for construction and
operations and maintenance (O&M) have been European," 63 and United
States law mandates that only United States-based vessels may work in
United States waters, with little exception. 64 Thus, growth of domestic

offshore wind energy also depends on the construction of new, customized

vessels in the United States. Technology must also find ways to address
uncertainties associated with connecting to the electrical grid and finding
ways to [1158] assemble turbines at nearby land locations just prior to
installation in the seabed.

Stakeholder opposition
McDonnell, 13 (Tim, 2/28/2013, Why the US still doesn't have a single
offshore wind turbine; Here's a look at the top four reasons why offshore wind
remains elusive in the US,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/windpowerrenewableenergy, JMP)

2. Blowback from "stakeholders": Whale and bird lovers. Defenders of tribal

lands. Fishermen. The Koch brothers. Since it was proposed in 2001, Cape
Wind, a wind farm whose backers say could provide 75 percent of Cape Cod's
energy needs, has been run through a bewildering gauntlet of opponents
and fought off more than a dozen lawsuits on everything from boat traffic
interference to desecration of sacred sites to harming avian and marine life.
Just down the seaboard another major project, Deepwater Wind, had to
negotiate concerns that its turbines would throw a roadblock in the migratory
pathways of endangered right whales. Alliance for Nantucket Sound, Cape
Wind's main opposition group, claims the project "threatens the marine
environment and would harm the productive, traditional fisheries of
Nantucket Sound."
Last summer's "Cape Spin" is an excellent "tragicomic" rundown of the
controversy:
Of course, there's another powerful factor at play here: NIMBYism. No one
could put it better than fossil fuel magnate Bill Koch, owner of a $20 million
Cape Cod beachfront estate and donor of $1.5 million to ANS: "I don't want
this in my backyard. Why would you want to sail in a forest of windmills?"
Why indeed.
But Catherine Bowes, a senior analyst with the National Wildlife Federation,
says while there are legitimate concerns for wildlife, Cape Wind and
Deepwater have both bent over backwards to accommodate them. "I think
there's an attempt at hijacking" the wildlife message by the NIMBYers, she
says. "Wildlife issues are often used as a reason to oppose a project even by
those who have never cared about animals before." Many of the nation's
leading environmental organizationsincluding the NWF, Greenpeace, and
the Sierra Clubhave come out in favor of the project. It's easy to see why,
Bowes says: "We know that the biggest threat to wildlife is global warming."

Offshore wind is not competitive --- will kill investment

Taylor, 12 (8/10/2012, Phil, E&E reporter, OFFSHORE WIND: With advance
of tax credit and OCS leases, optimism builds in nascent U.S. industry,
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/08/10/1)

Still, skeptics of Interior's offshore wind energy program, known as "smart

from the start," include the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank led by
a former oil industry lobbyist, which last month criticized the cost of new
projects.
"It is 'dead in the water' because offshore wind energy is 3.4 times more
expensive than onshore wind energy," the group said in a July 26 blog post,
"making it not a prudent investment compared to other renewable
alternatives for electricity generation."

--- XT: No Installation Vessels

No U.S. ships to install offshore turbines
McDonnell, 13 (Tim, 2/28/2013, Why the US still doesn't have a single
offshore wind turbine; Here's a look at the top four reasons why offshore wind
remains elusive in the US,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/windpowerrenewableenergy, JMP)

3. Not a single ship in the Unites States is equipped to handle wind turbines:
Forget about whales and yacht routes. How the hell do you go about lodging
a 450-ton, over-400-foot tall turbine into the ocean floor? Answer: With one
massive mother of a boat.
But there's a problem, says Chris van Beek, Deepwater's president: "At this
point, there is not an existing vessel in the US that can do this job."
The world's relatively small fleet of turbine-ready ships500-foot, $200
million behemothsis docked primarily in Europe; an obscure 1920 law called
the Jones Act requires ships sailing between two US ports to be US-flagged,
and once the foundation of an offshore turbine is laid it counts as a "port."
Consequently, turbine installation ships cruising in from, say, Hamburg,
wouldn't be able to dock in the States.
On top of that, given the pittance of offshore projects in the works in the
United States, bringing the ships in from abroad can be cost-prohibitive.
Offshore turbines could find themselves all dressed up with nowhere to
go.
Weeks Marine of New Jersey is working to solve the problem by building the
first country's first turbine ship. They've completed the hull and hope to have
the boat seaworthy by 2014, possibly in time to chip in on putting up Cape
Wind.

--- XT: Offshore Wind Not Competitive

U.S. demand will be low --- natural gas and ample onshore
wind
North American WindPower, 12 (Report: U.S. Offshore Wind Energy
Progress Expected To Be 'Lackluster' Through 2016, 12/17/2012,
http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?
content.10836#.UNx7WcWgRGk)

Offshore wind energy installations are expected to achieve a compound

annual growth rate of 44% between 2011 and 2016, with 18 GW of
installations expected by the end of that period, according to a new analysis
from MAKE Consulting. Much of that growth can be attributed to favorable
policy in Europe and China, the firm notes.
MAKE Consulting expects that Europe will be the growth powerhouse for
offshore wind, with the continent accounting for 62% of total installations in
the 2011-2016 period. Of those European installations, 77% will be driven by
Germany and the U.K., which are striving toward their ambitious 2020
offshore wind targets of 18 GW and 10 GW, respectively.
Mirroring the upward swing in northern Europe, the Asia Pacific region is
expected to install 6.6 GW of offshore wind through 2016, representing 36%
of the global offshore wind energy market. Although China will remain the
largest offshore wind market in the Asia Pacific, the emergence of South
Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan will supplement growth during that period.
In sharp contrast, progress in the U.S. is expected to be lackluster, due to low
gas and electricity prices, an ample onshore resource and weak political
commitment to renewables, MAKE Consulting says.
Offshore wind asset ownership will remain dominated by European utilities
and developers, with Vattenfall and DONG Energy leading the way, according
to the firm. Currently, southern European utilities are not represented in the
top asset owners, due to a lack of offshore wind activity and challenging
economics in their home markets, but they do represent a sizable chunk of
the 185 GW pipeline.

AT: Warming Squo solves

Squo solves warming
---volcanoes
---their evidence overestimates because it ignores external cooling factors

Santer 14 PhD in Climatology, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory and former researcher at the University of East Anglia's
Climatic Research Unit
(Benjamin, Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric
temperature, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2098)//BB
Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global
mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming
since 1998 than previously1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Possible explanations for the slowdown include internal climate variability3, 4, 6, 7, external cooling
influences1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors12, 13. Several recent
modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-firstcentury volcanic eruptions1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we
present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on
tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model
simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between
observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based
estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top
of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the
effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the
tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more
realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences
between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the
period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the
magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of
eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as
improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate
model simulations.

---natural gas, shift to a service economy and EPA

regulations
Matthews 14 PhD @ UTD, resident scholar with the Institute for Policy
Innovation
(Merrill, The U.S. Has Taken Another Big Step in Reducing CO2 Emissions,
http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=56335&n=commentariesus-has-taken-another-big-step-reducing-co2-emissions)//BB
It's too early to break out the Champagne, but you might want to start icing
down the bottle. U.S. carbon emissions from electricity-generating power
plants dropped 3.8 percent in 2012, to their lowest level since 1994,
according to the federal government's Energy Information Administration

(EIA). The United States hasn't won the fight to reduce carbon emissions yet,
but it's headed in the right direction. That recent reduction is not an
anomaly: energy-related carbon emissions have declined in five of the last
seven years, for a 12 percent reduction between 2005 and 2012. The U.S.
decline appears to be part of a long -term trend due primarily to power
plants increasingly switching from coal to cheap and cleaner-burning natural
gas -- which emits about half the CO2 that coal does -- and to a shift from a
manufacturing economy to a service economy, which needs less energy to
produce its products. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
keeps pushing regulations that make it increasingly difficult and costly to use
coal. And that reduction trend may accelerate. While power plants are
the primary source of carbon emissions, vehicles also play a role. The
widespread availability of cheaper and cleaner natural gas also explains why
there is a growing effort to shift long-haul trucks to natural gas instead of
diesel fuel. Engine manufacturer Cummins has begun building and shipping
big-rig engines that run on natural gas. And United Parcel Service (UPS)
intends to expand its fleet of 18-wheelers that run on liquefied natural gas
(LNG) by nearly 800 percent by the end of 2014, according to the New York
Times. Transportation consultant Karl Ziebarth thinks the trucking industry
will have largely shifted to natural gas within five to eight years. He notes
another reason for the shift is being driven by EPA regulations that require
new pollution-control technology that's driving up the price of diesel engines.
Challenges remain, including the need for a refueling infrastructure, but he
says the growing demand will likely induce truck stop operators to make the
needed investment. Cars are also following suit, though the numbers are
small. The Washington Post cites Dave Hurst of Pike Research estimating that
out of 14.5 million passenger cars and trucks sold in the U.S. in 2012, a little
more than 20,000 ran on natural gas. But even more than long-haul trucks,
people will need a convenient refueling infrastructure before natural gaspowered cars catch on. And even trains may be headed down the same
track. BNSF Railway announced earlier this year that it is working on a new
engine that will run on LNG -- ironically, to transport what it hopes will be a
million barrels of oil a day, according to CNBC.

---wind power
Scheer 14 BA @ Harvard in Environmental Studies
(Roddy, Wind power still has a bright future as renewable energy resource,
http://www.thevindicator.com/news/article_e0dfae9a-998b-11e3-aefa001a4bcf887a.html)//BB
Hydroelectric sources of power dwarf other forms of renewable energy, but
wind power has been a dominant second for years, and continues to show
hockey stick growth moving forward. According to the Global Wind Energy
Council (GWEC), global cumulative installed wind capacitythe total amount
of wind power availablehas grown fifty-fold in less than two decades, from
just 6,100 megawatts (MW) in 1996 to 318,137 MW in 2013. And the future
looks brighter still. Analysts from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF)

predict that wind will account for the largest share30 percentof new
renewables added to the global power grid by 2030. That new renewables are
expected to account for as much as 70 percent of all new power sources over
the next 20 years means that wind is poised to become a major player on the
global energy scene. Here in the U.S., energy generated by domestic wind
farms has nearly tripled in just the past four years, despite a brief hiccup due
to a lapse in the Production Tax Credit, a renewable energy production
incentive that effectively subsidizes the creation of more wind farms. But
even despite this, wind represented about a third of all new power added to
the U.S. grid over the past five years. The Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), a leading environmental non-profit and wind power advocate,
forecasts that the U.S. will derive some 20 percent of its total electricity
production from wind by 2030. The U.S. industry has many reasons for
favorable long-term prospects, reports the American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA), a non-profit trade group representing the wind industry.
In addition to the record activity at the end of 2013, wind energy helped
keep the lights on and insulate against temporary price spikes during the
recent polar vortex cold weather snap, demonstrating the value of wind
power in a balanced energy portfolio. AWEA also points out recent reports
showing how incorporation of wind energy lowers costs for electric
consumers. And critical to some parts of the country facing continuing
drought, wind energy uses no water in its production, as well as releasing no
emissions, adds the group. The fact that wind energy in the U.S. avoids
some 100 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually is also good
news. AWEA adds that that number will grow as wind energy scales up to
20 percent of the grid and beyond making the addition of more wind power
one of the fastest, cheapest, and largest-scale ways for states to meet the
Administrations new goals for reducing carbon pollution from power plants.

The combined effect of these solutions are transforming

the entire economy
Nanowerk 14
(Natural gas, energy efficiency and renewable energy are leading America's
energy transformation,
http://www.nanowerk.com/news2/green/newsid=34329.php)//BB
The 2014 installment of the Sustainable Energy in America Factbook
produced for The Business Council for Sustainable Energy by Bloomberg New
Energy Finance has found that renewable energy, natural gas and energy
efficiency advancements are leading a transformation of Americas energy.
Despite ever-shifting political winds, the inherent business case for efficient
and sustainable energy sources has become even stronger over the past
year. The 2014 Factbook documents the upward trajectory of energy
efficiency, natural gas and renewable energy, using the latest data from
2013, and the edition adds yet another year of data to document the longterm transition to cleaner, lower-carbon sources of energy production.
Renewable energy provided 13 percent of U.S. electricity generation in 2013,

up from 12 percent in 2012 and just 8 percent in 2007. At the same time,
renewable energy costs reached all-time lows, allowing clean energy, with the
aid of incentives, to be cheaper than fossil fuel electricity in some parts of the
country. Small, distributed generators and off-grid installations, meanwhile,
began to emerge as a transformative force in the power industry. Financiers
who back small-scale solar systems have raised nearly $6.7 billion since
2008. The U.S. energy transformation that began in the mid-2000s gained
additional momentum in 2013, said Lisa Jacobson, president of The Business
Council for Sustainable Energy. The Factbook plays a vital role in chronicling
this fast-moving transformation, which is creating whole new industries and
thousands of new jobs in the energy efficiency, natural gas and renewable
energy sectors. The Business Council for Sustainable Energy commissioned
Bloomberg New Energy Finance to research and write the U.S. Sustainable
Energy in America 2014 Factbook in order to provide policy makers,
journalists and industry professionals with up-to-date, accurate market
intelligence. The complete report and associated materials are available at:
http://www.bcse.org/sustainableenergyfactbook.html. Energy efficiency
financing is on an upward trend. Spending by energy service companies and
by electric and gas utilities, often to comply with state efficiency resource
standards, totaled more than $12 billion in 2012. Meanwhile, 31 states and
the District of Columbia, representing 77 percent of the U.S. population, have
legislation in place to enable the financing of energy efficiency via propertyassessed clean energy programs (PACE). Technology for mart grid and for
smart homes is making its way into the market and has potential to be
pervasive in the future, driving even further efficiency gains in the years
ahead. The changes unfolding in the US energy industry have been
profound and, by the typical time scsale of the industry, abrupt, said
Michel Di Capua, Head of North American Analysis for Bloomberg New Energy
Finance. The effects of these changes will be felt in seemingly every nook
and cranny of the American economy, from military bases to
manufacturing plants, from homes to highways. 2013 saw some detours
from the long-term trends, but overall, it is clear that the long-term
transformation of how the US produces and consumes energy continues.

AT: Warming No solvency

Wind doesnt solve global warming
Burnett 4 - Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy
Analysis (NCPA)
(Sterling, Wind power: Not green, but red,
http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/news/wind-power-not-green-butred/article_dd3a5dc3-058a-5f5b-9bac-84c34897151e.html?mode=jqm)//BB
Wind powers environmental benefits are usually overstated, while its
significant environmental harms are often ignored. Promised air pollution
improvements have failed to materialize. Wind farms generate power only
when the wind is blowing within a certain range of speed. When there is too
little wind, wind towers dont generate power; but when the wind is too
strong, they must be shut down for fear of being blown down. Even when
they function properly, wind farms average output is less than 30 percent of
their theoretical capacity compared to 85 to 95 percent for combined-cycle
gas fired plants. Because of intermittency problems, wind farms need
conventional power plants to supplement the power they do supply. Bringing
a conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning
on a switch; therefore most redundant fossil fuel power stations must run,
even if at reduced levels, continuously. Accordingly, very little fossil-fired
electricity will be displaced and few emissions will be avoided because fossilfueled units (operating at less than their peak capacity and efficiency or
operating in spinning reserve mode which means they are emitting more
pollution per energy produced than if operating at peak efficiency, imagine a
car idling near train tracks in case the power goes out) must be kept
immediately available to supply electricity when the output from wind
turbines drop because wind speed slows or falls below minimums required to
power the turbines. Kilowatt-hours produced by wind turbines cannot be
assumed displace the emissions associated with an equal number of kWh
from fossil-fueled generating units. Combined with the pollutants emitted and
CO2 released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their
associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does not
improve air quality very much.

Wind power wont solve emissions

NRC 7
(National Research Council, May 2007, Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, pg.
65)//BB
Projections for future wind-energy contributions to air-pollution emissions
reductions in the United States also are uncertain. However, given that
current and future regulatory controls on emissions of NOx and SO2 from
electricity generation in the eastern United States involve total caps on
emissions, the committee concludes that development of wind-powered
electricity generation using current technology probably will not result in a

significant reduction in total emission of these pollutants from EGUs in the

mid-Atlantic region. Using the future projections of installed U.S. energy
capacity by the U.S. Department of Energy, we further conclude that
development of wind-powered electricity generation probably will contribute
to offsets of about 4.5% in emissions of CO2 from electricity generation
sources in the United States by the year 2020. In 2005, emissions of CO2
from electricity generation were estimated to be 39% of all CO2 emissions in
the United States.

Wind power actually increases C02 emissions

Lea, 12 --- director and economic adviser at the Arbuthnot Banking Group
(January 2012, Ruth, Electricity Costs: The folly of wind power,
http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf, JMP)

Wind-power is not effective in cutting CO 2 emissions

At first glance it could be assumed that wind-power could play a major part in
cutting CO 2 emissions. Once the turbines are manufactured (an energyintensive business in itself) and installed then emissions associated with the
electricity could be expected to be zero - as indeed for nuclear power.
But, as pointed out in chapter 2, wind-power is unreliable and intermittent
and requires conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind
is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) or with uncontrolled
variability (intermittency). Clearly the CO 2 emissions associated with using
back-up capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying wind
turbines. This is all the more relevant given the relatively high CO2 emissions
from conventional plants when they are used in a back-up capacity.
As energy consultant David White has written:5
... (fossil -fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working
in this supporting role because it is being used to balance a reasonably
predictable but fluctuating demand with a variable and largely unpredictable
output from wind turbines. Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this
mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating
normally.
... it seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such
extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required,
but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission,
while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation. 6
In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power,
Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on
normal windy days in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas)
consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation

with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. 7,8 Ironically and paradoxically the
use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared
with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full
power.
Conclusions
Britain has committed itself to draconian cuts in CO2 emissions. On the basis
of the costings discussed in chapter 2, nuclear power and gas-fired CCGT
were the preferred technologies for generating reliable and affordable
electricity. On the basis of the evidence presented above, these two
technologies are also the preferred technologies for reducing CO2 emissions.
Wind-power fails the test on both counts. It is expensive and yet it is not
effective in cutting CO2 emissions. If it were not for the renewables targets
set by the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained
as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting emissions. The
renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU.

--- XT: Doesnt Solve Warming

Germany proves that coal plants have to be constructed
to try and ensure grid stability
Rich, 13 --- author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government
(Howard, 3/14/2013, Germany's Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale
For World Leaders,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energydisaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/, JMP)

Merkels energy plan called for the addition of 25,000 megawatts of seabased wind turbine power by 2030. However through the first six months of
2012 only 45 megawatts had been added to Germanys existing 200megawatt supply, according to an industry analyst quoted by Reuters. And
despite massive subsidies funded by a household energy surcharge (which
currently comprises 14 percent of German power bills), major wind projects in
the North Sea are being delayed or canceled due to skittish investors.
The basic problem? Wind farms are notoriously unreliable as a power source.
Not only that, they take up vast amounts of space and kill tens of thousands
of birds annually.
Generating energy with wind involves extreme fluctuations because it
depends on the weather and includes periods without any recognizable
capacity for days, or suddenly occurring supply peaks that push the grid to its
limits, a 2012 report from Germany energy expert Dr. Guenter Keil notes.
There is a threat of power outages over large areas, mainly in wintertime
when the demand is high and less (power) gets delivered from abroad.
A typical 20-turbine wind farm occupies an area of 250 acres. So in order for
Merkel to achieve her objective, she would have to cover an area six times
the size of New York City with turbines. Not surprisingly the erection of all
those turbines along with the infrastructure needed to route their
inconsistent power supply back to the German heartland would be
astronomical.
The costs of our energy reform and restructuring of energy provision could
amount to around one trillion euros by the end of the 2030s, Germanys
environmental minister announced last month.
That sum could rise even higher, as last month a Harvard University study
revealed the extent to which the power generating potential of wind farms
has been overestimated.
The generating capacity of very large wind power installations may peak at
between 0.5 and 1 watts per square meter, the study concluded. Previous

estimates, which ignored the turbines slowing effect on the wind, had put
that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter.
Such are the shifting sands upon which Merkel has staked her countrys
energy future.
Because renewable power sources have been so unreliable, Germany has
been forced to construct numerous new coal plants in an effort to replace the
nuclear energy it has taken offline. In fact the country will build more coalfired facilities this year than at any time in the past two decades bringing an
estimated 5,300 megawatts of new capacity online. Most of these facilities
will burn lignite, too, which is strip-mined and emits nearly 30 percent more
carbon dioxide than hard coal.
In other words Germany is dirtying the planet in the name of clean
energy and sticking its citizens with an ever-escalating tab so it can
subsidize an energy source which will never generate sufficient power.
This is the cautionary tale of command energy economics one other nations
would be wise to heed.

Need for continued backup capacity prevents significant

CO2 reductions and increases costs of producing wind
power
Korchinski, 12 --- chemical engineer who has spent his career working
worldwide in the oil refining and chemical industries (October 2012, William,
The Limits of Wind Power, http://reason.org/files/thelimitsofwindpower.pdf,
JMP)

Existing estimates of the life-cycle emissions from wind turbines range from 5
to 100 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. This
very wide range is explained by differ-ences in what was included in each
analysis, and the proportion of electricity generated by wind. The low CO 2
emissions estimates are only possible at low levels of installed wind capacity,
and even then they typically ignore the large proportion of associated
emissions that come from the need for backup power sources (spinning
reserves).
Wind blows at speeds that vary considerably, leading to wide variations in
power output at different times and in different locations. To address this
variability, power supply companies must install backup capacity, which kicks
in when demand exceeds supply from the wind turbines; failure to do so will
adversely affect grid reliability. The need for this backup capacity
significantly increases the cost of producing power from wind. Since
backup power in most cases comes from fossil fuel generators, this
effectively limits the carbon-reducing potential of new wind capacity.

AT: Hegemony No solvency

Wind not key to manufacturing jobs
Platzer 11
Michaela D. Congressional Research Service, "U.S. Wind Turbine
Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry" 9/23/11 Cornell
University ILR School,
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1871&context=key_workplace, 8/21/12
Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share of the
11.5 million domestic manufacturing jobs in 2010, well under 1%. It seems
unlikely, even given a substantial increase in U.S. manufacturing capacity,
that wind turbine manufacturing will become a major source of
manufacturing employment. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy forecast
that if wind power were to provide 20% of the nations electrical supply in
2030, U.S. turbine assembly and component plants could support roughly
32,000 full-time manufacturing workers in 2026.82 AWEAs more optimistic
projection is that the wind industry could support three to four times as many
manufacturing workers as at present if a long-term stable policy environment
were in place, which implies a total of 80,000 jobs.83 Further employment
growth in the sector is likely to depend not only upon future demand for wind
energy, but also on corporate decisions about where to produce towers,
blades, nacelles, and their most sophisticated components, such as
gearboxes, bearings, and generators.

Wind not key to overall U.S. manufacturing --- parts will

just be imported
IER, 11 (11/14/2011, Institute for Energy Research, Rebutting Ms. Bodes
Wind Comments,
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/14/rebutting-bodes-20percent-by-2030/)

Current Wind Industry Jobs

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the number of wind
manufacturing jobs has remained relatively flat over the past 3 years at an
estimated 20,000 jobs. (See chart below.) The majority of the 75,000 jobs
(60 percent) that Ms. Bode quotes are in finance and consulting services,
contracting and engineering services, and transportation and logistics. Only
3,500 jobs were in construction and 4,000 in operations and maintenance
in 2010.
Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share (less than
1 percent) of the total manufacturing jobs (11.5 million) in the United

States in 2010. According to the DOE report that evaluated the 20 percent
wind energy in 2030, turbine assembly and component plants would supply
about 32,000 manufacturing jobs in 2026. But the American Wind Energy
Associations assessment is that the number would be 3 to 4 times that
amount under a long-term stable policy environment. As CRS notes, the real
number will be dependent not only on the demand for wind, but also on
corporate decisions of where to produce the needed components. Those
decisions could very well result in manufacturing jobs outside of the United
States. As CRS notes, imports of wind generating equipment increased from
$482.5 million in 2005 to $2.5 billion in 2008, held at $2.3 billion in 2009 and
decreased to $1.2 billion in 2010 due to lower relative demand for new wind
energy, declining prices, and new manufacturing plants in the United States.
While European suppliers were the leaders in wind equipment imports to the
United States, South Korea and China are now becoming players in the U.S.
market.

Wind components will be imported and wind job growth is

a net negative
OKeefe, 12 --- CEO, George C. Marshall Institute (12/31/2012, William,
Wind Tax Credit Advocacy: Blowing Smok,
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/12/should-congress-support-windt.php)

A number of the comments supporting extension of the wind production tax

credit are based on half truths, illusions, and special interest politics.
One argument is that eliminating it will cost 37,000 jobs or more. There are
two flaws in this argument. First, it assumes that there is no difference
between jobs created by inefficient subsidies and more efficient allocation of
resources. There is literature demonstrating that green subsidies
misallocate resources that cost more jobs than they create. A study
conducted by Spains Universidad Rey Juan Carlos concluded we find that
for every renewable energy job that the state manages to finance, Spains
experiencereveals with high confidencethat the U.S. should expect a loss
of at least 2.2 jobs on average . Second, most of the jobs created by wind
energy are in the manufacture of turbine blades and steel for wind towers,
most of which are imported.

AT: Hegemony --- Hurts Economy

Siphons off jobs from other more productive parts of the
economy
Green, 9 --- Resident Scholar at the AEI (2/23/2009, "Green" Illusions,
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/green-illusions/)

Let's review the reasons why governments cannot create jobs, and why
labelling them "green" doesn't change the basic dynamics.
Let's start with the fallacy that governments can create jobs. This fallacy was
exploded all the way back in 1845 by a French politician and political
economist named Frdric Bastiat. Bastiat pointed out that the only way
governments can create jobs is by first obliterating other jobs.
Sometimes, they obliterate other jobs by diverting taxpayer money away
from the economic uses the taxpayer would have pursued if they had kept
their taxes.
Other times, they obliterate jobs by imposing regulations that kill off one
industry in favour of another. In still other situations, they impose mandates,
such as using recycled paper to create an artificial market for recycled paper
which reduce jobs in fresh-paper production.
In the green energy case, they are doing all of the above: Taxpayer dollars
are being used to subsidize the renewable energy sector; damaging
regulations are being implemented on the traditional fossil fuel sector, and
mandates for the use of renewable energy are being issued, creating a false
market in wind power at the expense of fossil fuel and nuclear power.
Governments also invariably siphon off a good part of the money for
"administration," creating civil service jobs that pay comparatively higher
wages than the private sector for similar activity.
Inevitably, government efforts to create jobs cost the economy jobs and,
adding insult to injury, divert limited resources to inefficient uses, causing
economic underperformance.

Will destroy the economy with greater costs and

electricity prices --- Germany proves
OKeefe, 12 --- CEO, George C. Marshall Institute (12/22/2012, William,
The Wind Tax Credit: Green Welfare,
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/12/should-congress-support-windt.php?comments=expandall#comments, JMP)

Many European countries, especially Germany, have traveled the clean

energy road and by doing so have put their economies into a ditch. An
analysis of Germanys rush to renewables by the European Institute for
Climate and Energy warned of impending doom for the German
economy caused by the lemming like charge to the Green mirage of
affordable renewable energy. The report went on, The problem is that these
energy sources are weather-dependent and thus their sporadic supply is
starting to wreak havoc on Germanys power grid and is even now
threatening to destabilize power grids all across Europe! after tens of
billions of euros spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for
consumers, not a single coal or gas-fired power plant has been taken offline.
To the contrary, old inefficient German plants have been brought back into
service in an effort to stabilize the grid.
With an economy that increasingly is reliant on electric power generation, we
need to focus on abundant, reliable, and affordable sources of electric power
generation. For the foreseeable future, that source is natural gas.
There is a clear lesson from 40 years of energy industrial policy initiatives,
including the wind tax credit. It is simply not possible to create technological
short cuts by throwing money at alternative energy systems.

--- XT: Jobs Turn

Impact on jobs and economy will be a net negative
Schulz, 9 --- senior fellow at the Manhattan Institutes Center for Energy
Policy and the Environment (Winter 2009, Max, The Green-Jobs Engine That
Cant; Inefficient eco-friendly technologies destroy more jobs than they
create, http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_green-jobs.html, JMP)

The alternative technologies at the heart of Obamas plan, relying on more

such government handouts and mandates, will inevitably raise energy prices
and high power prices are job killers. Industries that make physical
products, whether cars or chemicals or paper cups, are energy-intensive and
will gravitate to low-energy-cost localeswhich is why California and New
York, with some of the highest electricity prices in the country, have lost
manufacturing jobs in droves. But its not just manufacturers that need cheap
electricity: Google, the poster child of Californias information-technology
economy, houses its massive server farms not in the Golden State but in
places with lower electricity costs, like North Carolina and Oregon. Policies
that drive up energy costs across the nation, as Obama intends, will drive
many of these jobs not elsewhere in the country but overseas.
Keep in mind, too, that the traditional industries currently supplying
Americans with reliable, affordable energy already employ millions of
workers. The American Petroleum Institute reports that the oil and gas
industry employs 1.6 million Americans. Coal mining directly and indirectly
supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, according to the National Mining
Association and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A radical plan to
transform our energy economy in favor of clean, renewable energy
technologies would put many of those men and women out of work.
But wont all those new green jobs make up for whatever economic hardship
results? Thats the contention of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman,
among the best-known and most influential evangelists for a green economy.
In his most recent bestseller, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green
Revolutionand How It Can Renew America, Friedman argues that a
government-directed green program would rebuild Americas national
strength and bolster our economy for the twenty-first centuryregardless of
whether global warming turns out to be a serious problem (which he believes
it is). Friedman likens his proposal to training for the Olympic triathlon. If you
make it to the Olympics, you have a much better chance of winning, because
youve developed every muscle, he writes. If you dont make it to the
Olympics, youre still healthier, stronger, fitter, and more likely to live longer
and win every other race in life.
Its a nice analogy, but Friedman, like Obama, sees only the upside. Danish
economist Bjrn Lomborg, author of books like The Skeptical Environmentalist

and Cool It, which decries climate-change alarmism, agrees that global
warming is real and man-made, but he differs with Friedmans response. It is
foolish to deny climate change, says Lomborg. But its also foolish to deny
climate economics, which Friedman does. Lomborg notes that Friedmans
argument simply fails to address the cost of his proposed solutions, and fails
to weigh those costs against the benefits.
Obama and Friedman have become the latest proponents of a common
economic fallacy. One version holds that the Second World War and its
aftermath were a boon for the American and European economies, since
militarizing in America and rebuilding Europe spurred much-needed economic
activity. Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman peddled
another version when, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, he suggested a possible
silver lining: the destruction of the World Trade Center would require new
construction and therefore reinvigorate economic activity downtown.
Such thinking was effectively debunked a century before World War II. The
nineteenth-century French economist Frdric Bastiat made an invaluable
contribution to modern economics by demolishing the notion that a broken
window is a good thing inasmuch as it provides work for the glazier. As
Bastiat observed, the money that goes to pay the glassmaker would, had the
window never been broken at all, have supported some other productive
enterprise. Society as a whole winds up poorer, even if the glassmaker
profits.
With his promise of 5 million new green jobs, Barack Obama heaves a brick
straight through Bastiats window. Yesterdays glazier is tomorrows solarpanel installer. The green-jobs promise amounts to killing jobs in efficient
industries to create jobs in inefficient oneshardly a recipe for economic
success. William Pizer, a researcher with Resources for the Future and a lead
author of the most recent report from the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, reinforced the point at a symposium last April: As
an economist, I am skeptical that [dealing with climate change] is going to
make money. Youll have new industries, but theyll be doing what old
industries did but [at] a higher net cost. . . . Youll be depleting other
industries. Consumers will be hurt, too, Pizer notes. Digging deeper each
month to pay for expensive renewable energy, they will have less to save or
spend in other areas of the economy.
There may be legitimate arguments for taking dramatic steps to fight climate
change. Boosting the economy isnt one of them.

--- XT: Energy Prices Turn

Wind substantially drives up electricity costs
Dismukes, 12 --- professor, associate executive director, and director of
Policy Analysis at the Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State
University(11/1/2012, David E., America Energy Alliance, Removing Big
Winds Training Wheels The Case for Ending the Federal Production Tax
Credit, http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/Dismukes-Removing-Big-Winds-Training-Wheels.pdf)

VI. Winds Intermittency Increases Costs, Distorts Markets, and Imperils

Reliability by Harming Conventional Generation
Wind is an intermittent, unreliable generation resource, exhibiting relatively
wide output swings and producing most of its electricity during off-peak
evening hours when power is least needed as opposed to during day-time
peaking hours when electricity demand is high, and when power is needed
the most.47Electricity grid operators must address numerous important
operational issues when integrating wind generation, including maintaining
power quality, meeting power availability requirements and expectations, and
supporting system reliability.48 While all generation must address these
important integration criteria, wind generations scale, intermittency, and
variability creates a number of unique challenges49 that impose
substantial additional costs on electricity consumers.50
One of the most immediate challenges associated with integrating increased
wind resources into regional power grids is the development of costly
transmission infrastructure to move electricity from very remote rural areas,
where wind speeds are usually at their highest, to locations where loads are
concentrated. Over the past five years alone, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) has approved over $15 billion in new transmission
investments simply to facilitate the movement of wind generation.51 These
investments translate into higher costs and higher rates for retail customers.

AT: Hegemony Impact defense

Decline will be peaceful and solves all their offenseonly
a risk of chain ganging
MacDonald and Parent 11Profs of Political Science @ Williams and
Miami
(Paul K. and Joseph M., Graceful Decline?, International Security, Spring 2k11,
Volume 35, Number 4, Muse)
In short, the United States should be able to reduce its foreign policy
commitments in East Asia in the coming decades without inviting Chinese
expansionism. Indeed, there is evidence that a policy of retrenchment could
reap potential benefits. The drawdown and repositioning of U.S. troops in
South Korea, for example, rather than fostering instability, has resulted in an
improvement in the occasionally strained relationship between Washington
and Seoul.97 U.S. moderation on Taiwan, rather than encouraging hard-liners
in [End Page 42] Beijing, resulted in an improvement in cross-strait relations
and reassured U.S. allies that Washington would not inadvertently drag them
into a Sino-U.S. conflict.98 Moreover, Washington's support for the
development of multilateral security institutions, rather than harming
bilateral alliances, could work to enhance U.S. prestige while embedding
China within a more transparent regional order.99 A policy of gradual
retrenchment need not undermine the credibility of U.S. alliance
commitments or unleash destabilizing regional security dilemmas. Indeed,
even if Beijing harbored revisionist intent, it is unclear that China will have
the force projection capabilities necessary to take and hold additional
territory.100 By incrementally shifting burdens to regional allies and multilateral
institutions, the United States can strengthen the credibility of its core
commitments while accommodating the interests of a rising China. Not least
among the benefits of retrenchment is that it helps alleviate an unsustainable
financial position. Immense forward deployments will only exacerbate U.S.
grand strategic problems and risk unnecessary clashes.101