1AC

1AC

InherencyContention 1 is inherency.

Lack of fed incentives and siting prevents the aff from happeningRoom ‘12

(Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its list of 100 "people who are reinventing America." Time named him a "Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential climate-change blogger." Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. “Offshore Wind Energy: The Benefits and the Barriers” JUNE 1, 2011 AT 9:59 AM, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/01/232901/offshore-wind-energy/)

Unfortunately, in the United States, lack of a clear regulatory structure, inconsistent messages from other ocean stakeholders, congressional budget battles, opposition to s pecific project siting, and instability in financial markets have all played a role in preventing domestic offshore wind from becoming a reality. No permitting process existed when America’s first offshore wind developer, Cape Wind, began efforts to build a wind farm off the New England coast. It was 2005 before Congress acted to define a clear permitting process for offshore wind facilities and to extend key financial incentives to help the industry develop. Then it was nearly six more years—over a decade in total—until Cape Wind at last received the final green light from the Department of Interior to begin construction. That decision was announced on April 19, perhaps not so coincidentally just one day before the first anniversary of the BP oil disaster. Yet, in a move achingly typical of the three-steps-forward-two-steps-back cycle that has plagued U.S. offshore wind development, the Department of Energy stepped in less than a month after getting the Interior Department’s green light to say

that the project’s application for a key piece of financial assistance would be put on hold, potentially stalling the project yet again. This brief will provide an overview of offshore wind permitting and financing in the United States, update the status of a few key projects, and ultimately make recommendations on how to clear a few of the remaining hurdles to promoting offshore wind development: Increase government investment in offshore wind to make it more financially palatable Shape transmission rules to allow for a robust offshore grid Ensure the federal “Smart from the Start” program, which is designed to expedite offshore wind, is smart through the finish

Engage stakeholders early in the process of identifying wind energy areas in “Smart from the Start” These recommendations will allow America to catch up to other nations currently at the vanguard of technological development. These countries are reaping the economic and employment rewards of creating a new industry while simultaneously reducing their carbon footprint and making great strides toward a clean, renewable energy future

Offshore wind will continue to be non-existent without a long term extension of tax creditsSalih 2014 (Swara; Will offshore wind pick up speed; Jul 2; www.huffingtonpost.com/swara-salih/will-offshore-wind-pick-u_b_5549967.html; kdf)

Offshore wind facilities could offer a cost-effective and efficient means of drawing a highly abundant source of energy for residential and commercial use. Conventional wind facilities on land, while essential for the renewable

energy sector, are troubled by the intermittency of wind strength. Sometimes the wind may blow too slowly, or it may not blow at all, casting public doubt on the reliability of terrestrial wind farms. Critics and skeptics have referenced (and often over exaggerated)

this particular issue, making it more difficult to incentivize developers. With the production tax credit (PTC) out of effect, investors may have less overall confidence in wind energy's continued growth. Yet wind power has maintained a steady growth rate. In 2013, wind supplied 4.13 percent of all electric capacity in the U.S., or roughly 61,108 megawatts (MW) nationwide. Iowa and South Dakota had 27.4 and 26 percent, respectively, of their total energy output coming from wind in 2013. Texas has the highest wind-

generating capacity of all the states, with around 12,355 MW installed, and holds six of the 10 largest wind farms in the U.S. However, this growth has still been slow, and depends heavily on the PTC, which Congress allowed to expire four times

in the past. This has put wind energy on what some experts call a "boom and bust" cycle: in the year following each expiration, construction of wind facilities fell by over 50 percent relative to the previous year. The lack of a tax credit, along with the intermittency and other factors, are roadblocks to the sector's development. However, the wind blows constantly off the coasts, removing the intermittency factor. Countries like Germany, England and the Netherlands generate hundreds of MW from this source. Yet there are no offshore wind facilities in the United States. In fact, the first offshore windmill was only installed last year. Studies indicate that the U.S. has simply failed to utilize potential capacity. The Department of Energy (DOE), for example, has run multiple studies that conclude that if we implement sufficient incentivizing measures now, and utilized all potential

capacity, including in the Great Lakes, offshore wind could provide the U.S. with over 4 million MW by 2030. Constructing any sort of energy infrastructure is expensive and lengthy, and the construction of these facilities and their maintenance are highly expensive (which the PTC helps to alleviate), but analysts have said that offshore wind's benefits could ultimately outweigh the costs. What's kept it from taking off? It appears to be an issue with the permitting process for the plants themselves. While there is a vested private and public interest in building the facilities, firms constantly run into

bureaucratic red tape that hinders their construction. The permitting process for wind farms can take two years or longer to complete, and so the uncertainty of the tax credit's extension often makes developers hesitate to begin. With no infrastructure in place for offshore wind farms, this makes receiving permits an exceedingly difficult task. Infrastructure is also expensive to construct, putting the price of a facility like Cape Wind in Massachusetts in the range of $2-3 billion, which makes permitting all the more less likely.

Thus the Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military development of the Earth’s oceans by expediting siting regulations of offshore wind projects in federal waters and negotiating long term power purchase agreements for offshore wind power.

Advantage 1 – GridThe first advantage is the grid.Windpower solves blackoutsPr Newswire 3

(“Wind Power Can Help Prevent the Next Blackout” August 21, Lexis)

As more than 50 million Americans and Canadians recover from the Blackout of 2003, conversations turn to the future and how to avoid this kind of disaster from happening again. At the Renewable Energy for Wyoming Conference beginning today in Douglas, Wyoming, discussions

will undoubtedly focus on how wind power and other sustainable energy sources can play a larger role in the prevention of future catastrophic blackouts.¶ According to New York-based developer Arcadia Windpower, Ltd. and its Wyoming partner, HTH

Wind Energy, Inc., a featured conference participant, wind power can help solve some of the problems that contributed to the blackout and can help reduce the likelihood of future blackouts.¶ "This first ever renewable energy conference in the state of Wyoming comes at a time of rising fossil fuel prices and concern about grid reliability. Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal deserves credit for his focus on renewables and their benefits to his state," said Dan Leach, CEO of HTH Wind Energy, Inc.

"With 140 megawatts of wind electricity generators spinning, wind in Wyoming will stimulate economic development, help stabilize electricity prices, and provide fuel diversity in the state's generation mix."¶ According to Peter D.

Mandelstam, founder and president of Arcadia Windpower, "Wind power , which is naturally clean, safe, and renewable, is also perfectly suited to strengthening the grid, which is what's important after a blackout like the one we

had last week. Wind power needs to be part of the short-term solution and long-term reliability of the grid."¶ Grid stability can be achieved through distributed generation -- placing generating facilities throughout the region's grid so that when one section of the grid goes down, the distribution facilities are able to keep the rest of the grid in operation. Wind farms are particularly suitable for this strategy because they are scalable in nature and therefore can be sized according to local energy needs. Fossil fuel plants, on the other hand, can work only as large-scale

power plants.¶ Additionally, wind farms, which can be plugged directly into a metropolitan area like New York City or a local pocket such as Long Island, can also ease transmission bottlenecks . The transmission bottlenecks north of New York City that likely contributed to the Blackout of 2003 could have been reduced had a wind farm in close proximity been in

place and operating -- such as the off-shore project currently proposed for the south shore of Long Island.¶ "One of the most attractive features of wind power and off-shore wind, in particular, is the ability to site a plant close to where the electricity will be used," said Tom Gray, Deputy Executive Director of the American Wind Energy Association. "The recent blackout makes a compelling case for a wind plant off of Long Island that can deliver electricity directly to neighboring communities and the region." ¶ Another benefit of wind power in a blackout situation is that as long as the grid is operating, a wind power facility can begin generating electricity almost immediately. In contrast, nuclear and fossil fuel plants must go through long restart and warm-up procedures of up to 48 hours. Time is also reduced in the development of wind power generating facilities, which can be built in just six to nine months. A conventional power plant generally cannot be completed from design to operation in less than two years.

Grid shutdown causes meltdowns – reactor fuel rods couldn’t be containedStein 12

Matthew Stein is a design engineer, green builder and author. “Why a Likely Natural Event Could Cause Nuclear Reactors to Melt Down and Our Grid to Crash” January 20, 2012 http://www.alternet.org/environment/153833/why_a_likely_natural_event_could_cause_nuclear_reactors_to_melt_down_and_our_grid_to_crash?page=entire

So what do extended grid blackouts have to do with potential nuclear catastrophes? Nuclear power plants are designed to disconnect automatically from the grid in the event of a local power failure or major grid anomaly, and once disconnected they begin the process of shutting down the reactor's core. In the event of the loss of

coolant flow to an active nuclear reactor's core, the reactor will start to melt down and fail catastrophically within a matter of a few hours at most. It was a short-term cooling system failure that caused the partial reactor core meltdown in March 1979 at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania. Similarly, according to Japanese authorities it was not direct damage from Japan's 9.0 magnitude Tohoku earthquake on March 11, 2011 that caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor

disaster, but the loss of electric power to the reactor's cooling system pumps when the reactor's backup batteries and diesel generators were wiped out by the ensuing tsunami. In the hours and days after the tsunami shuttered the cooling systems, the cores of reactors number 1, 2 and 3 were in full meltdown and released hydrogen gas, fueling explosions which breached several reactor containment vessels and blew the roof off the building housing the spent fuel storage pond of reactor number 4. Of even greater danger and concern than the reactor cores themselves are the spent fuel rods stored in on-site cooling ponds. Lacking a permanent spent

nuclear fuel storage facility, so-called "temporary" nuclear fuel containment ponds are features common to nearly all

nuclear reactor facilities. They typically contain the accumulated spent fuel from 10 or more decommissioned reactor cores. Due to

lack of a permanent repository, most of these fuel containment ponds are greatly overloaded and tightly packed beyond original design. They are generally surrounded by common light industrial buildings, with concrete walls and corrugated steel roofs.

Unlike the active reactor cores, which are encased inside massive "containment vessels" with thick walls of concrete and steel, the buildings surrounding spent fuel rod storage ponds would do practically nothing to contain radioactive contaminants in the event of prolonged cooling system failures. Since spent fuel ponds typically hold far greater

quantities of highly radioactive material then the active nuclear reactors, they present far greater potential for the catastrophic spread of highly radioactive contaminants over huge swaths of land, polluting the environment for hundreds of years. A study by the NRC determined that the "boil-down time" for spent fuel rod containment ponds runs from between four and 22 days after loss of cooling system power before degenerating into a Fukushima-like situation, depending upon the type of nuclear reactor and how recently its latest batch of fuel rods had

been decommissioned. Reactor fuel rods have a protective zirconium cladding, which if superheated while exposed to air will burn with intense self-generating heat, much like a magnesium fire, releasing highly radioactive aerosols and smoke. According to Arnie Gundersen -- former senior vice-president for Nuclear Engineering Services Corporation, now turned nuclear whistleblower -- once a zirconium fire has started, due to its extreme temperatures and high degree of

reactivity, contact with water will result in the water dissociating into hydrogen and oxygen gases, which will almost certainly lead to violent explosions . Gundersen says that once a zirconium fuel rod fire has started, the worst thing you could do is to try to quench the fire with water streams. Gundersen believes the massive explosion that blew the roof off the spent fuel

pond at Fukushima was caused by zirconium-induced hydrogen dissociation. Had it not been for heroic efforts on the part of Japan's nuclear workers to replenish waters in the spent fuel pool at Fukushima, those spent fuel rods would have melted down and ignited their zirconium cladding, which most likely would have released far more radioactive contamination than what came from the three reactor core meltdowns. Japanese officials estimate that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has already released into the local environment just over half the total radioactive contamination as was released by Chernobyl, but other sources estimate it could be significantly more.

Meltdown leads to extinctionWasserman 1

October 2001 (Harvey – senior editor of the Free Press, America’s Terrorist Nuclear Threat to Itself, p.http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2001/10/00_wasserman_nuclear-threat.htm)

The assault would not require a large jet. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible. One or more could be wiped out with a wide range of easily deployed small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the operating work force. Dozens of US reactors have repeatedly failed even modest security tests over the years. Even heightened wartime standards cannot guarantee protection of the vast, supremely sensitive controls required for reactor safety. Without continous monitoring

and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of

terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and

the river. Striking water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds from the north and west might initially drive these clouds of mass death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds ultimately shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery

torrent. At Indian Point, thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever . In nearby

communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Virtually all pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed offspring . Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions . Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinance,

sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions. A terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by the fliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and by victims caught in the downdrafts from

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description. Indeed, those who survived the initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and highways would become killing fields for those attempting to escape to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian Point, such missions would be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be doubtful as the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing ever more devastation into the eco-sphere. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up. They are dying in droves. Who would now volunteer for such an American task force? The radioactive cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast Ukraine and Belarus landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, surging

through the west coast of the United States within ten days, carrying across our northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back again. The radioactive clouds from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. The World Trade Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet crash at Indian Point than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital would be forever lost. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm

and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural eco- systems on which human and all other life depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed , Spiritually, psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New York City on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse now operating in the United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity, just 8% of our total energy. As with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact on life in New York. Already an extremely expensive source of electricity, the cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put nuclear energy even further off the competitive scale. Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually with increased efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect. Yet, as the bombs fall and the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass destruction, and then shielding from liability the companies that insist on

continuing to operate them? Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.

Advantage 2 – EconomyThe second advantage is the economy.The US Economy is growing slowly—on the verge of collapsingRugaber 7/11 (Christopher S; Economists lower forecasts for US growth; Jul 11, 14; abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/economists-downgrade-forecasts-us-growth-24516611; kdf)

U.S. business economists have sharply cut their growth forecasts for the April-June quarter and 2014, though they remain optimistic that the economy will rebound from a dismal first quarter . The average forecast for growth in the second quarter has fallen to 3 percent, according to a survey released Friday by the National

Association for Business Economics. That's down from 3.5 percent in a June survey. Growth in 2014 as a whole will be just 1.6 percent, they project, sharply below a previous forecast of 2.5 percent. If accurate, this year's growth would be the weakest since the Great Recession. The lower 2014 forecast largely reflects the impact of a sharp contraction in the first quarter. The economy shrank 2.9 percent at an annual rate, the biggest drop in five years. That decline will weigh heavily on the economy this year, even if growth resumes and stays at 3

percent or above, as most economists expect. The economists reduced their second-quarter forecast largely because they expect consumers spent at a much more modest pace. They now expect spending will grow just 2.3 percent at an annual rate in the second quarter, down from a 2.9 percent estimate in June. Spending rose just 1 percent in the first quarter, the smallest increase in four years, a sign consumers are still reluctant to spend freely.

Offshore wind is key to creating jobs in the United States and abroad in port economyHopkins 12

Robert B. Hopkins, Duane Morris LLP. "Offshore Wind Farms in US Waters Would Generate Both US and Foreign Maritime Jobs." Renewable Energy World. N.p., 12 July 2012. Web. 22 Aug. 2012. <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/07/offshore-wind-farms-in-u-s-waters-would-generate-both-u-s-and-foreign-maritime-jobs?cmpid=rss>.

With no offshore wind energy farms yet built off U.S. coastlines, various states over the last few years have proposed offshore wind energy legislation as a future investment in renewable energy as well as a vehicle for American job creation. The immediate future of U.S. offshore wind farms may depend on whether Congress renews certain tax credit and federal loan guarantee programs. In the event that offshore wind farms move forward, it is likely that both U.S. maritime and foreign maritime workers will be involved in construction and maintenance. A recent study by The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated the potential generating capacity from offshore wind farms located off U.S. coastlines to be 4 times the present total U.S. electrical generating capacity. The construction and maintenance of offshore wind farms to tap into even a small percentage of this potential will demand a robust and competent maritime workforce. The U.S. understandably wants to avoid the situation that occurred in England with the installation of the Thanet Wind Farm, currently the largest operating offshore wind farm in the world (300 megawatts). The Thanet project received criticism for its lack of significant British job creation. U.S. wind farm developers, green energy advocates and some U.S. politicians have stressed that offshore wind farms will create jobs for both U.S. maritime and U.S. shore-based workers . In addition, some have pointed to a federal statute known as the Jones Act, to assert that foreign-flagged vessels crewed by foreign maritime workers may not even be involved in U.S. offshore wind farm projects. However, such a broad statement is not entirely accurate, and the issue is somewhat complex. The Jones Act, which was

enacted in 1920, establishes a system for protecting American maritime jobs and requires that U.S.-flagged vessels be used to transport merchandise between points in U.S. territorial waters (i.e., up to 3 nautical miles off the coastline). Moreover, this requirement is extended 200 miles offshore to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) in certain scenarios involving man-made objects that are affixed to the seabed. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency that enforces the Jones Act, has issued a number of rulings that conclude that the Jones Act in certain situations does not apply to the actual installation of wind turbines by large-scale vessels known as jack-up lift vessels. Moreover, there has been some debate on whether the Jones Act would apply to vessels travelling to an established wind farm located over 3 miles off the coastline in the OCS for such things as maintenance and repair. A bill clarifying that the Jones Act would apply in this maintenance/repair scenario (HR 2360) has recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is now awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. Thus, at present, from a purely legal standpoint, foreign-flagged vessels would likely be able to participate in the installation of the proposed wind farms, but there is some uncertainty as to whether foreign-flagged vessels would be able to participate in maintenance/repair work. Complicating all of this is the dearth of U.S.-flagged jack-up lift vessels capable of undertaking much of the very heavy work involved in the installation of offshore wind turbines. To further confound matters, with a boom in offshore wind farm construction in Europe and China, many foreign-flagged jack-up lift vessels capable of such work are now booked for the next several years. Factoring in all of the above, it is likely that large foreign-flagged vessels will play a significant role in the initial installation of wind turbines off U.S. coastlines, with an opportunity for smaller U.S.-flagged vessels to render assistance. However, with the lack of available large scale foreign-flagged vessels, there are obvious long term investment opportunities for the construction of large U.S.-flagged vessels or for the conversion of other large U.S.-flagged vessels to undertake much of the above heavy work. One possible option is to convert U.S.-flagged vessels now working in the oil and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico for this purpose. Such investment opportunities will obviously become more attractive if a large number of wind farms move forward in the U.S.. As to certain maintenance/repair, which could be done by smaller U.S.-flagged vessels already in existence, if Congress passes HR 2360, U.S.-flagged vessels will be required to maintain and repair the wind turbines. Moreover from a practical standpoint, even if HR 2360 does not become law, it may not make economic sense to employ smaller foreign-flagged vessels for certain maintenance/repair work. Thus if U.S. offshore wind farms become a reality, U.S. maritime workers as well as foreign maritime workers will likely be involved in construction and maintenance

Offshore wind would revitalize weak US ports and shipyards and create millions of sustainable jobs DOE ‘11

[U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, “A National Offshore Wind Strategy Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States” 2.7.2011 <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf>//wyo-hdm]

Deployment of wind energy along U.S. coasts would also trigger direct and indirect economic benefits . According to NREL analysis and extrapolation of European studies, offshore wind would create

approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters (W. Musial 2010). Installing 54 GW of offshore wind capacity in U.S. waters would create more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs and would require more than 1.1 million job‐years to manufacture and install the turbines (W. Musial 2010). Many of these jobs would be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards, which could be revitalized as fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind provides an opportunity for revitalization of U.S. ports and heavy industry facilities . Due to the large scale of offshore wind turbine components, towers and foundation structures, it is generally advantageous to limit or eliminate overland transport from assembly and installation scenarios in order to maximize process efficiency and minimize logistics time and costs. In addition, European experience has clearly indicated that it will be necessary to create a purpose ‐ built installation, operations, and maintenance (IO&M) infrastructure for offshore wind, including specialized vessels and port facilities. To assist industry and regional port facilities in making informed decisions regarding design requirements for IO&M infrastructure, DOE will participate in collaborative studies of infrastructure needs and capabilities for the benefit of all national regions. A significant portion of the cost differential between land‐based and offshore wind energy systems lies in transport and installation requirements. European experience indicates that specialized wind system installation vessels, rather than adapted oil and gas vessels, will be required for cost‐effective, high‐ volume installation.

Ports are key to the overall economyFTU 12

Florida Times-Union, Newspaper, Feb 24, http://www.jaxport.com/about-jaxport/newsroom/news/lead-letter-ports-are-vital-economy-nation, Online 12

Our economy is linked to our waterways and international trade, and with proper strategic investment now, our full national recovery will come by sea. Consider the facts: - Every dollar invested in port facilities returns seven-fold. - Ships carry over 90 percent of all U.S. cargo, imports and exports. - International trade accounts for more than a quarter of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. - And 13 million Americans work in positions related to international trade . - The U.S. Department of Transportation projects that between 2001 and 2020 total freight moved through our ports will increase by more than 50 percent and the volume of international container traffic will at least double. Many of our nation’s most critical port projects are stuck in neutral because of overlapping bureaucracy and lukewarm commitment from Washington. Our future reputation will be based on whether we improve our gateways to the world.

Growth key to prevent warRoyal 10 — Jedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, M.Phil. Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010 (“Economic Integration, Economic Signalling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Edited by Ben Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, Published by Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 0857240048, p. 213-215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has

been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult [end page 213] to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing . Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other . (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions . Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels .5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external

conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. [end page 214] Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

Advantage 3 – WarmingThe third advantage is warming.

The best and most recent study has found that warming is anthropogenic with absolute certainty

Gleckler et al 2012 (P.J., B. D. Santer, C. M. Domingues, D.W. Pierce, T. P. Barnett, J. A. Church,

K. E. Taylor, K. M. AchutaRao, T. P. Boyer, M. Ishii and P. M. Caldwell [Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Antarctic and Climate Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre; Centre for AustralianWeather and Climate¶ Research andWealth from Oceans Flagship; Climate¶ Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Indian Institute of Technology; National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA; Climate Research Department,¶ Meteorological Research Institute]; Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales; DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1553; kdf)

Large-scale increases in upper-ocean temperatures are evident¶ in observational records1. Several studies have used¶ well-established detection and attribution methods to demonstrate¶ that the observed basin-scale temperature changes¶ are consistent with model responses to anthropogenic forcing¶ and inconsistent with model-based estimates of natural¶ variability2–5. These studies relied on a single observational¶ data set and employed

results from only one or two models.¶ Recent identification of systematic instrumental biases6 ¶ in expendable bathythermograph data has led to improved ¶ estimates of ocean temperature variability and trends 7– 9 and ¶ provide motivation to revisit earlier detection and attribution ¶ studies.We examine the causes of ocean warming using these ¶ improved observational estimates , together with results from¶ a large multimodel archive of externally forced and unforced¶ simulations. The time evolution of upper ocean temperature¶ changes in the newer observational

estimates is similar to¶ that of the multimodel average of simulations that include the¶ effects of volcanic eruptions. Our detection and attribution ¶ analysis systematically examines the sensitivity of results to ¶ a variety of model and data-

processing choices. When global ¶ mean changes are included, we consistently obtain a positive ¶

identification (at the 1% significance level) of an anthropogenic ¶ fingerprint in observed upper-ocean

temperature changes,¶ thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and ¶ attribution evidence. ¶ We examine volume average temperature anomalies (1T) for¶ the upper 700m of the global ocean (see Methods). Figure 1a¶

compares uncorrected observational 1T estimates ISH-UNCOR¶ (ref. 10) and LEV-UNCOR (ref. 11) with improved versions,¶ ISH (ref. 8) and LEV (ref. 9), which incorporate corrections for¶ expendable bathythermograph (XBT) biases. The bias-corrected¶ temperature analysis7 from a third group (DOM) is also shown.¶ Bias corrections have a substantial impact on the time evolution¶ of 1T, particularly during the 1970s–1980s, when

they markedly¶ reduce spurious decadal variability. ¶ As shown below, these bias adjustments have important ¶ implications for detection and attribution (D&A) studies . Although¶ there are no significant differences between the 1T trends (which¶ range from 0.022 to 0.028 ◦C per decade) in the three improved¶ observational data sets, Fig. 1a illustrates that substantial structural¶ uncertainties remain. The impact of different XBT bias corrections¶ is a major source of this uncertainty12. Another important component of observational uncertainty¶ relates to the sparseness of ocean temperature measurements and¶ to the different methods used to objectively infill data where¶ and when measurements are not available13–15. ISH and LEV use¶ objective mapping techniques to carry out infilling, generating¶ anomalies that are biased towards zero in data-sparse regions.¶ The infilling method of DOM employs statistics of observed¶ ocean variability estimated from altimeter data. We compare the¶ spatially complete infilled estimates (1TIF) with subsampled 1T¶

data (1TSS) restricted to available in situ measurements (see¶ Methods). Not surprisingly, the 1TSS variability in Fig. 1b is¶ greater than that of 1TIF, particularly at the times/locations of the¶ sparsest sampling (early in the record and in the southern oceans;¶ Supplementary Fig. S1).¶ We use results from phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercom-¶ parison Project (CMIP3; see Methods and Supplementary Informa-¶ tion) to obtain

information on the behaviour of 1T in unforced¶ (control) simulations and in externally forced twentieth-century¶ runs (20CEN). External forcing is by a variety of anthropogenic ¶ factors (primarily g reen h ouse g ase s and sulphate aerosols). In some ¶ models, the applied forcing also includes natural changes in volcanic ¶ aerosols and solar irradiance. The seven CMIP3 models (with the¶ data required for our analysis) incorporating the effects of volcanic¶ eruptions (VOL) in the 20CEN simulations uptake less heat than¶ the six that do not (NoV)16.

We’re at the tipping point of runaway warming- must act now to prevent the worst impactsAhmed 2013 (Dr. Nafeez [executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development]; James Hansen: Fossil fuel addiction could trigger runaway global warming; Jul 10; www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming; kdf)

The world is currently on course to exploit all its remaining fossil fuel resources , a prospect that would produce a "different, practically uninhabitable planet" by triggering a "low-end runaway greenhouse effect ." This is the conclusion of a new scientific paper by Prof James Hansen, the former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the world's best known climate scientist. The paper due to be published later this month by Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A) focuses less on modelling than on empirical data about correlations between temperature, sea level and CO2 going back up to 66 million years. Given that efforts to exploit

available fossil fuels continue to accelerate, the paper's principal finding - that "conceivable levels of human-made climate forcing could yield the low-end runaway greenhouse effect" based on inducing "out-of-control amplifying feedbacks such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates" - is deeply worrying. The paper projects that global average temperatures under such a scenario could eventually reach as high as between 16C and 25C over a number of centuries. Such temperatures "would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world", "diminish the stratospheric ozone layer", and "make much of the planet uninhabitable by humans." Hansen and his co-authors find that: "Estimates of the carbon content of all fossil fuel reservoirs including unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands, tar shale, and various gas reservoirs that can be tapped with developing technology imply that CO2 conceivably could reach a level as high as 16

times the 1950 atmospheric amount." They calculate that there is "more than enough available fossil fuels" to generate emissions capable of unleashing "amplifying feedbacks" that could trigger a "runaway" greenhouse effect "sustained for centuries." Even if just a third of potentially available fossil fuel resources were exploited, calculations suggest, this scenario

would still be guaranteed, meaning decisions we make this century will determine the fate of generations to come. "Governments are allowing and encouraging fossil fuel companies to go after every conceivable fuel", said Hansen, "which is an obtuse policy that ignores the implications for young people, future generations and nature. We could make substantial parts of the Earth uninhabitable." The conclusions of Hansen's latest paper are stark: "Most remaining fossil fuel carbon is in coal and unconventional oil and gas. Thus, it seems, humanity stands at a fork in the road. As conventional oil and gas are depleted, will we move to carbon-free energy and efficiency - or to unconventional fossil fuels and coal? ... It seems implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course as consequences of burning all fossil fuels become clearer. Yet strong evidence about the dangers of human-made climate change have so far had little effect. Whether governments continue to be so foolhardy as to allow or

encourage development of all fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity." The new paper by James Hansen is just the latest confirming that we are on the verge of crossing a tipping point into catastrophic climate change . Other recent scientific studies show that the current global emissions trajectory could within three years guarantee a 2C rise in global temperatures, in turn triggering irreversible and dangerous amplifying feedbacks. According to a scientific paper given at the Geological Society of London last month, climate records from Siberian caves show that temperatures of just 1.5C generate "a tipping point for continuous permafrost to start thawing", according to lead author Prof Anton Vaks from Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences. Conventional climate models

suggest that 1.5C is just 10-30 years away. Permafrost thawing releases sub-ice undersea methane into the atmosphere - a greenhouse gas twenty times more potent that carbon dioxide. In June, NASA's new five-year programme to study the Arctic carbon cycle, Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE), declared: "If just one percent of the permafrost carbon released over a short time period is methane, it will have the same greenhouse impact as the 99 percent that is released as carbon dioxide." Another paper suggests that conventional climate modelling is too conservative due to not accounting for complex risks and feedbacks within and between ecosystems. The paper published in Nature last Wednesday finds that models used to justify the 2C target as a 'safe' limit focus only on temperature rise and fail to account for impacts on the wider climate system such as sea level rise, ocean acidification, and loss of carbon from soils. It concludes that the 2C target is insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change. The

problem is that our current global emissions trajectory already commits us to a 2C rise anyway. Papers published by the Royal Society in 2011 showed that emissions pledges would still put the world on track for warming anywhere between 2.5C and 5C - and that a failure to deliver these pledges could see global temperatures rise by 7C by 2100. Amongst them, a Met Office study concluded that strong amplifying feedbacks - such as the oceans' reduced ability to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide leading to further warming - could see us reach 4C as early as 2060. But as Hansen explained in a recent interview: "Four degrees of warming would be enough to melt all the ice... you would have a tremendously chaotic situation as you moved away from our current climate towards another one. That's a different planet. You wouldn't recognise it... We are on the verge of creating climate chaos if we don't begin to reduce emissions rapidly." After the last round of climate talks in Doha, a report by Climate Action Tracker concluded that the world is currently on path to see warming of 3C by 2040, triggering the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic permafrost. This was corroborated last month by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which found that even with current climate policies in place, we are locked into a rise of between 2C and 5.3C. Two years ago, the IEA concluded that we had five years left to implement urgent energy reforms after which we would no longer be able to avoid dangerous climate change. We are now three years away from that point-of-no-return. To make matters worse, the IEA's analysis is based on conventional models which do not fully account for amplifying feedbacks such as methane releases from permafrost thawing. The IPCC's forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, like its predecessors, will specifically exclude the permafrost carbon feedback

from its projections. The implication is that policymakers are riding blind - we do not really know how close we

are to a tipping point into catastrophe. There is a solution. According to Hansen, we need to focus on a maximum target of 1C. "The goal of keeping warming close to 1C is to keep climate close to the Holocene range, thus avoiding any major amplifying feedbacks ," he said. "The 1C goal requires rapid phase out of fossil fuel emissions, which would require a rising carbon fee. To continue to burn every fuel that can be found is the opposite approach - they are day and night." Such a rapid fossil fuel phaseout was proposed to the Parliamentary Environment Audit Committee early last year in the form of complete decarbonisation of power by 2030. Unfortunately, the UK bill to that effect was narrowly defeated in the House of Commons last month. There is still hope - the bill is currently up for consideration by the House of Lords. If the bill eventually passes, Britain might still play a leading role in heralding the energy revolution that could help save the planet, while saving the nation up to £100 billion.

Warming is an existential threatMazo 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

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--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." 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.

SolvencyContention 2 is solvency.Offshore Wind has minimal downside and the cost-factors will be quickly resolved on a short learning curveSchroeder 10

Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p

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 environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects complain about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local property values.79 They also make related complaints about negative impacts on coastal recreational activities and tourism.80 However, studies have failed to show statistically significant negative aesthetic or property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts. 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.82 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.83 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.84 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.‖85A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult to install and maintain, than onshore wind farms.86 The cost of an offshore wind project is estimated to be at least 50 percent greater than the onshore equivalent.87 Short- and long-term technical improvements could help to lower offshore wind costs, however, and government assistance may help them occur more quickly.88

The plan solvesEnvironment Maryland Research & Policy Center ’12

(Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center is a state wide citizens powered organization that environment requires independent research. “What Offshore Wind Means for Maryland Environmental, Economic and Public Health Benefits Across the State” Release date: Friday, March 30, 2012). TKT

Policy Recommendations. Building its first offshore wind farm will mean that Maryland has taken an important step toward a better future with

resilient ecosystems, less air pollution, and a more robust economy. To capture the many benefits of offshore wind, Maryland and the United States should make a strong commitment to the development of wind energy off the mid-Atlantic coast. Specifically: • The Maryland Public Service Commission should solicit proposals for construction of wind-powered electricity generation off of Maryland’s coast, and should establish effective incentives to encourage offshore wind developers. •

State and federal governments should set bold goals for offshore wind development in the Atlantic, in order to

provide clear leadership and vision regarding the important role of offshore wind in America’s energy future and to demonstrate that it is a high

priority. • The U.S. Department of the Interior should expedite siting regulations for offshore wind projects in federal waters, while maintaining a high level of environmental protection. In so doing, they should maintain strong standards to make

sure that offshore wind facilities do not have major impacts on wildlife, shipping channels or military operations. • The federal government should use its buying power to facilitate the financing of offshore wind. The government should negotiate long term power purchase agreements with an offshore wind developer covering electricity purchases for military installations and other federal facilities.