GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

EU – COUNTERPLAN – OSWEU – COUNTERPLAN – OSW........................................................................................................1

NEG - 1NC.................................................................................................................................2NEG - 2NC – Tax Credit Key..................................................................................................4NEG - 2NC – Solvency..............................................................................................................5NEG - NB – Solvency................................................................................................................7NEG - NB – Impact...................................................................................................................9NEG – NB - AT: Ecosystem Resilient...................................................................................11NEG – NB - AT: Impact Defense...........................................................................................13NEG – NB - AT: Reversible...................................................................................................14

AFFIRMATIVE..............................................................................................................................15Neg – Ptx..................................................................................................................................16AFF – Hurts Ecosystems........................................................................................................19AFF – Grid Turn.....................................................................................................................21AFF – General Solvency.........................................................................................................24AFF – EU Solvency.................................................................................................................25AFF – NB – Imapct D.............................................................................................................26AFF – NB – Envi Resilient......................................................................................................28AFF – Links to ptx..................................................................................................................29

1

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG - 1NC TEXT: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE A THIRTY PERCENT INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 3,000 MEGAWATTS OF UNITED STATES’ OFFSHORE OCEAN WIND POWER.

DEVELOPING OFFSHORE WIND IS CRUCIAL TO US-EU RELATIONSStori ’14 (January 27, 2014 | by Val Stori, OWAP Project Director Trade Missions Critical in Building an Offshore Wind Industry)

State renewable energy agencies and local economic development councils who already are heavily invested in offshore wind-related infrastructure and who are looking to position themselves as leading US offshore wind players, are engaging with key European developers and political leaders through international trade missions . In 2013, two CESA members travelled to Germany and Denmark along with a contingent from economic development councils and port authorities as part of international trade missions. Both contingents returned to the US cognizant of the major challenges that lie ahead in building a domestic industry, yet aware of the tremendous opportunities for growth. After touring some of the world’s largest wind farms, visiting offshore wind-dedicated ports, and speaking with turbine OEMs, the US representatives returned home to champion for offshore wind. In the words of New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell, who travelled to Europe with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, “it is hard to avoid the adage that

seeing is believing.” But what other than awe at the industry’s huge potential is to be gleaned from these international missions? Beyond the fact finding and knowledge sharing lies

an integral component of these trade missions—the opportunity to build relationships and establish joint ventures . Dedicated matchmaking sessions and networking opportunities are critical to kick-starting efficient development off US shores. The opportunity to partner—whether a US contractor partners to operate in Europe and brings the experience back or a US project partners with an experienced European contractor—enables us to benefit from Europe’s learning curve. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every step of the way. In fact, to do so would likely be cost prohibitive at this point in the game. The US currently does not have the volume or the guaranteed market to develop a robust supply chain or to justify investment in domestic ventures that would support the nascent-at-best industry. Even in Germany, where nearly 400MW of offshore wind were installed in 2013, factories sit idle when demand is low despite investment of an estimated $1.3 billion for specialized ports and factories. Even though economic development and job creation are key goals for the states interested in building an offshore wind industry, until a sufficient pipeline of projects is established along the US Atlantic coast, the first few projects

will be supplied by European manufacturers. European developers and manufacturers are eager to work on this side of the Atlantic.

Recently, the Maryland Energy Administration was invited to attend the annual European Wind Energy Association’s conference at the request of European turbine manufacturers who recognize that Maryland may be the first state to deploy a large-scale project in the US. And in late December, Cape Wind contracted with Siemens to supply the project with Siemens’ 3.6MW turbines and an electrical services platform. The platform, in fact, has been contracted out by Siemens to Cianbro Corp.—a Massachusetts-based company, that will construct the offshore substation at its manufacturing facility in Brewer, Maine. While it may be too early for European

developers to establish significant facilities in the US at this stage, they are looking for project partners and prime locations to invest —especially if states set

offshore wind targets. It could be a win-win situation . Local content is lacking and would be a substantial hurdle causing major bottlenecks if US offshore developers chose to go “local only.”

Overseas cooperation with local industry will be key in getting the US offshore wind industry up and running, while providing a large opportunity for the established European players to get involved in US developments.

OFFSHORE WIND IS VITAL TO OCEAN ECOSYSTEMS AND FISHERIESLeonhard ’12 -- Project Manager and Analyst at Orbicon, Simon Blauenfeldt + Offshore Wind Farms – in harmony with fish, [Offshore Wind Farms Can Benefit the Ecosystem, July 18, 2012,]

The construction of offshore wind farms is rapidly expanding across Europe as a consequence of the increasing demand for renewable energy, but how does it affect life in the sea? Denmark has constructed several offshore wind farms to address and meet this demand. In order to investigate what effects wind

farms have on fish life, a study program was established in 2009 by means of a collaboration between Orbicon and DTU Aqua. Read more

about Orbicon and DTU on www.stateofgreen.com The study program concluded that offshore wind farms have a positive effect on local

ecosystems , and that they are beneficial for fish communities because they create new ecological niches and exclude

commercial fishing from the area by them becoming marine protected areas (MPAs). Read about offshore wind farms in the future on the Danish Energy

Agency webpage One of the world’s biggest offshore wind farms In Denmark there are 12 completed offshore wind farms, including one of the world’s largest offshore wind farms - Horns Rev 1. Horns Rev 1 is located in the North Sea, 14-20 km off the western cost of Denmark at Blaavands Huk, and comprises 80 windmills built to a depth of 20

meters. The Horns Rev 1 project was completed in 2002, and the study program was carried out in 2009 by Orbicon and DTU. The study showed that offshore wind farms have a positive effect on the fish community structure and many species of fish. The analysis also shows that offshore wind farms

may increase the number and diversity of fish in the North Sea by creating new habitats . Stone constructions - Artificial reefs The study program undertook

an analysis of changes in the fish community structure, spatial distribution and changes in sand eel assemblages, resulting from the establishment of the wind farm. The stone constructions function as artificial reefs, which provide good opportunities for the fish to thrive. Additionally, the reef attracts fish which would normally live near the sea bed. The positive effects of the stone foundations at Horns Rev 1 show that the fish population has increased . The effects of projecting

more wind farms in the area of Horns Rev 1 may increase the recruitment of reef habitat fish.

2

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

US OCEANS ARE SPECIFICALLY KEY- ONLY WAY TO SOLVE EXTINCTIONCraig ‘3 - Associate Dean for Environmental Programs @ Florida State University [Robin Kundis Craig, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review, Winter 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more

than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks

of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur , as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life .

Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity , "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of

the reef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide . Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about

causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the U nited States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world .

3

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG - 2NC – TAX CREDIT KEY A FEDERAL INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT FOR THE FIRST 3,000 MEGAWATTS IS KEY TO OFFSHORE WINDSavitz ’12 (Give Offshore Wind a Chance to Boom By Jacqueline Savitz Deputy Vice President, U.S. Campaigns at Oceana http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/boom-and-bust-renewable-energy.php#2209977

Offshore wind, while thriving in other parts of the world, is a brand new industry in the U.S. In fact, while offshore wind has thrived in Europe for the past twenty years, creating thousands of jobs and clean, renewable energy

for its citizens, the United States has yet to install its first offshore wind turbine. As a result, the offshore wind industry has not received any federal tax dollars for the advancement of its projects. This is in stark contrast to the oil and gas industry, which, since the early 1900s, has been the recipient of billions of dollars in federal tax subsidies, the purpose of which has been to increase domestic oil and gas reserves and production. Oil and gas subsidies are provided on a permanent and ongoing basis, meaning that these companies don’t have to appeal to

Congress every 1-2 years for an extension like renewables do. They will continue to receive their subsidies until Congress decides to repeal them whether they need them or not. The lack of a federal commitment to, and investment in offshore wind can scare off private investmen t. Take for example the recent decision by Gamesa to shelve its plans for an offshore wind prototype in Virginia, in favor of investments overseas. This is a shame because the U.S. has incredible offshore wind potential. According to the DOE, the total gross offshore wind potential of the U.S. is over 4,000 GW, which is approximately four times the generating capacity of the current U.S. electric power system. (See, “A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States.”) This is a huge domestic energy resource that we haven’t even begun to tap into. Offshore wind can help us reduce our reliance on polluting fossil fuels, both foreign and domestic, create long-term and good paying American jobs, combat climate change, and become leaders on the global clean energy stage. An Oceana report found that some Atlantic states could generate more electricity with offshore wind than they currently produce by all other sources. And this is energy that can help reduce emissions of carbon

dioxide which is driving climate change. There is no good reason not to invest in offshore wind. Yet, that’s exactly what we’re doing. The Investment Tax Credit ( ITC) is the single most important incentive to the growth of the offshore wind industry. However, under current law, the ITC for offshore wind expires at the end of this year. No offshore wind project can meet this deadline. Recognizing these realities, Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Reps. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) and Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) introduced the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act in both the House and the Senate. To keep in fiscally conservative , instead of extending the ITC for offshore wind to another year- based expiration date, the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act would provide a 30% ITC for the first 3,000 megawatts o f offshore wind placed in service. That limits the total expense and prevents a runaway subsidy , not that anything we do on clean energy is likely to be as wasteful as what we have done for oil and gas. This bill has a limited cost, but it rewards the first movers in the industry, incentivizes development , and sends a clear signal to investors and manufacturers all around the world that America is open for business and committed to producing clean and domestic energy. Extending the ITC for offshore wind, which would signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. is supportive of this nascent industry, is critical to the success of offshore wind . The U.S. can’t keep letting companies take their wind interests elsewhere, nor can we allow this job-creating clean energy industry to go bust before it is ever able to boom.

4

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG - 2NC – SOLVENCY OFFSHORE WIND ALIGNS US-EU ENERGY TRENDS AND SPARKS COOPERATIONLeone ‘11 (Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com (Steve, “For Offshore Wind to Thrive, Collaboration A Must,” July 28th, 2011)

New Hampshire, USA -- If the European Wind Energy Association projections prove accurate, offshore capacity across the continent will leapfrog past traditional onshore wind developments sometime after 2030. By 2050,

it predicts, offshore will be the dominant form of wind development . There's no reason to believe that this trend will play out any differently in other parts of the world as the

industry sets out to take wind energy farther and deeper than its ever been. If it’s true that the winds of change are coming to the wind industry, and that developments will move farther offshore behind technologies currently

in the research stage, the question remains: Who will lead this emerging sector of the industry? To answer that, start with the current leader — in this case, the United Kingdom.

According to a report from EWEA released in this week, Europe added 883 MW of offshore capacity in 2010, giving the continent 2,964 MW in total capacity. A bit less than half of that rests off the U.K. coast. The U.K. is the global leader with a total of 1341 MW, followed by Denmark (854 MW), The Netherlands (249), Belgium (195) and Sweden (164). While there’s a lot of capacity at stake, there’s also a lot of money on the table. The industry, according to the report, was worth €2.6 billion ($3.77 billion) in 2010. Again, this puts the U.K. in the driver’s seat as the rest of the world considers its offshore

future. But in the nascent industry, U.K. companies are marketing themselves as sources of experience for other European countries exploring offshore, such as France. More than anything, business leaders and government officials see the vast potential of the American market — particularly along the East Coast — as a way to

move the industry forward as a whole . U.K. Looking to U.S. In the U.S., there’s been a lot of talk and a lot of hope for a place where the industry has yet to install its first offshore wind

development. Still, U.K. companies have taken notice , and they see enormous potential in the waters that could eventually serve major markets like New York City, Washington and Boston . One U.K. company that has crossed the Atlantic is PMSS, a global renewable energy consulting firm that recently opened a New York office to better position itself in the new market. According to Mike Rosenfeld, a Los Angeles-based vice-consul with UK Trade & Investment — the U.K. government’s international business development agency — PMSS is already working in a consulting capacity with prospective developers interested in exploring offshore wind. Scotland-based SgurrEnergy has played a prominent role in the yet-to-be-built Cape Wind development — the project that has come to define America’s movement in offshore wind. Aside from individual companies looking to expand into American waters, Rosenfeld says it’s the unified vision of the two governments that has helped pique interest. Though the British government has traditionally been more supportive through policy, there have been some significant actions by American leaders to help kick-start offshore exploration. One of those — Smart from the Start — may have come later than some would have liked, but it has nonetheless laid the groundwork to facilitate siting, leasing and construction of new projects. “There is already collaboration between

the U.S. Department of Energy and the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change on how to accelerate deployment of offshore wind,” said Rosenfeld. “There’s no need to constantly reinvent the wheel. If there’s an opportunity to collaborate on how to get this offshore wind deployed faster, this is a good example of how

government to government collaboration will come into play.”

ENERGY IS THE LITMUS TEST- CURRENT COOPERATION IS INSUFFICIENT AND WITHOUT ENERGY ALIGNMENT OTHER COOPERATION WILL BE UNDERCUTKoryani, 11—Hungarian diplomat, former Undersecretary of State, foreign policy and energy expert. He is also the Deputy Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center of the Atlantic Council of the United State (David [Editor], Tranatlantic Energy Futures, 2011, http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/publications/books/Transatlantic_Energy_Futures/Transatlantic_Energy_Futures.pdf)Critical factors of divergence cannot be discounted either, as they have an almost equally strong pull. Differing climate change

perceptions and the lack of U.S. commitment and action is extremely dangerous , as it alienates Europeans, both policymakers and the wider public alike . These differences , if not solved, could drive a wedge for decades between the

partners, undermine trust, create a value gap and hinder cooperation not only in climate change and energy issues but in all other aspects as well . There is in fact a chance that U.S. and European energy markets could largely decouple in coming

years, due in part to differences regarding the need to tackle climate change, and in part to diverging geopolitical and domestic trends. The U.S. has edged closer to self sufficiency with respect to fossil fuels, with the extensive development of its vast unconventional gas resources and increasing reliance on Canadian oil sands. This could lead to a more isolationist stance in U.S. policy. Meanwhile unconventional gas faces mixed reactions in Europe; the EU, for example, plans to shun oil shales and tar sands in its impending Fuel Quality Directive. Friction in transatlantic perceptions on energy security and divergences over preferred courses of action are real dangers that must be addressed head on. Towards a Transatlantic Energy Alliance The systemic transformation of the world of energy, triggered by climate change and powered by new technologies, will likely cause the reorganization of our societies. The benefits and pitfalls of transatlantic cooperation are beyond doubt. Renewing the transatlantic community’s leadership is essential to lead the world to a sustainable, low carbon future. Transatlantic cooperation can contribute to provide secure and affordable

energy to people in the EU and the U.S., foster economic prosperity and create jobs. Current cooperation on a wide range of subjects is encouraging but inadequate . What we need is a new impetus, genuine political will, adequate resources and enhanced cooperation to advance a transatlantic green economy. Joint efforts in addressing climate change,

innovation and investment into clean energy technologies , risk sharing and cost reduction, joint RD&D and harmonized energy diplomacy must be the cornerstones of a Transatlantic Energy Alliance . A Transatlantic Energy Alliance is desirable and feasible, but not self-evident. Climate change and

energy cooperation will be the litmus test of converging or diverging European and American norms, values and interests in the 21st century. We have to bridge our differences and we have to do that quickly in order to remain in the driving seat. To amend Robert Kagan’s famous line, Americans may be from Mars and Europeans from Venus, but we shall all soon need to move to some other planet if we do not adjust course.

5

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

ALIGNING US ENERGY TOWARDS RENEWABLES IS CRUCIAL TO THE US-EU ALLIANCE AND SOLVING GLOBAL CONFLICTSKoranyi ‘12 (David Koranyi is the deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center and the editor of the book Transatlantic Energy Futures - Strategic Perspectives on Energy Security, Climate Change and New Technologies in Europe and the United States, September 4, 2012, “An Emerging Transatlantic Rift on Energy?”)American and European energy markets are on a diverging path . The US has edged closer to self-sufficiency with respect to fossil fuels, due mostly to the extensive

development of its unconventional resources. From 60 percent in 2005, net petroleum imports were down to 45 percent of the US supply last year. By 2020, this rate could be further reduced close to zero, excluding Canada and Mexico. Shale gas made the United States the number one natural gas producer in the world, overtaking Russia, and revitalized manufacturing and the chemical industry. Meanwhile, climate-conscious Europe's already

high energy import dependence continues to grow. Use of renewable resources mandated by the E uropean U nion are spreading dynamically , but will take time to mature. Indigenous unconventional gas faces mixed reactions in some member states. In the wake of the Fukushima accident, nuclear energy is on decline in most countries. Ironically, coal use has increased lately in Germany, due to the nuclear power plant closures and flaws in the EU's cap-and-trade system. Romney has proposed a plan that would widen the transatlantic gap further. He proposes to accelerate the development of America's considerable on- and offshore oil and natural resources by opening up federal lands and wildlife refuges, relaxing legislation, extending tax breaks, and approving Keystone XL that would carry shale oil from Canada; to rehabilitate coal by reverting the Environmental Protection Agency's prohibitive clean air standards introduced by the current administration; and to revitalize nuclear power by streamlining the permitting procedures. The underlying tenet of the plan is a complete disregard for the threat of climate change, a term the document does not use. Romney renounces the "myth of green jobs creation" and promotes new jobs in the oil, gas, and coal sectors instead. The plan also stipulates that renewables can compete with other resources on a "level playing field," and implies the cessation of government support for renewable energy projects. The plan, not to mention its implementation, will cause outrage in Europe. To most European policymakers, and the general public alike, shale oil and coal are anathemas, and the "drill baby drill" mentality is considered environmentally reckless. Brussels and other European capitals already resent that President Obama has not spent enough political capital on global climate change negotiations. Europeans worry that a Romney Administration would derail the timeframe agreed to in Cancun last December. Moreover, Europeans believe that a pursuit of US energy independence could prove both elusive and counter-productive. Even if complete self-sufficiency is achieved, oil

prices are determined on the global oil market. The U nited S tates might miss breakthroughs in technologies and business opportunities that are offered by the global scramble for renewables . While global challenges to stable energy markets prevail, an illusion of energy independence might prompt a more

isolationist stance in US foreign policy and a reduced commitment to strategic interests like Europe's energy security A transatlantic friction is looming . Would the U nited States

and Europe ultimately be able to reconcile their visions? The transatlantic partners share strategic interests and face common threats and challenges closely linked to energy issues , such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a resurgent Russia , an unstable Middle East , or China’s insatiable appetite for resources and its repercussions around the globe. The United States and Europe are

uniquely positioned to develop tech nology, leverage financing , and share experiences in legislative and regulatory developments. In times of austerity, identifying synergies and pooling resources is paramount.

6

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG - NB – SOLVENCY OFFSHORE WIND IS CRUCIAL TO OCEAN HEALTH AND FISHERIES---SOLVES POLLUTANTS , CREATES ARTIFICIAL REEFS , AND PREVENTS MASSIVE FISH DEATHS FROM WATER USE Nordman ’11 (Erik E., Grand Valley State University From the SelectedWorks of Nordman, December 2011, Offshore Wind Energy in Michigan: Implications for the Great Lakes Environment )Michigan’s Great Lakes ecosystems have supported human activities for centuries. The lakes provide clean drinking water, opportunities for fishing and recreation, and a means of transporting raw materials and manufactured goods. The waters of the Great Lakes basin are also used for electricity production. Hydroelectric dams on Great Lakes connecting channels and tributaries, pumped storage facilities, and thermal coal and nuclear plants currently use water and affect Great Lakes environments while producing electricity. In the future, offshore wind may be added to the list. Michigan’s Great Lakes offer world-class wind energy resources, but offshore wind technology presents its own set of environmental challenges. No offshore wind farms have been constructed in North America, so most of the science on its environmental effects come from offshore wind farms in European saltwater seas. This factsheet explores the potential positive and negative effects of traditional electricity production and offshore wind energy development in Michigan’s Great Lakes, including the potential impacts on water use, pollution, fish, birds and bats. Water Consumption and Pollutants While an offshore wind farm, if constructed, would by located in the Great Lakes, it does not use Great Lakes water in the same way as thermo-electric power plants. Almost all coal and nuclear and most natural gas power plants are thermo-electric, meaning fuel is used to heat water, producing steam that spins a turbine and drives an electrical generator. Producing the steam

and cooling the components requires water, and in Michigan, this water primarily comes from the Great Lakes. Thermo-electric generation is the largest user of Great Lakes water, accounting for 79 percent of total water withdrawals in Michigan [1]. These facilities withdraw more Great Lakes water than all other uses combined , including public drinking water , irrigation for farming , and industrial uses . Most of this water is returned (often warm) to the lakes, but the

total consumptive use (water lost to the system) for thermo-electric power is still greater than that used for the public water supply [1]. Michigan’s Great Lakes ecosystems are also impaired by mercury pollution from , among other sources, coal-fired power plants . Mercury pollution is one of the leading causes of fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes, and coal-fired power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury within the Great Lakes basin [2]. Over the long term, reducing

mercury pollution in the Great Lakes could reduce the need for fish consumption advisories due to mercury contamination. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that a nationwide electricity portfolio that includes 20 percent wind generation would replace 18 percent of coal consumption by 2030 [3]. The State of Michigan has a 10% renewable energy target, but it is unclear precisely how much coal-fired electricity generation

could be replaced by wind energy and other renewable electricity sources. This is an area of active research. Offshore wind energy offers the potential to generate electricity without consuming Great Lakes water and without emitting pollutants that harm the Great Lakes ecosystems, human health and the global climate. Fishing, both commercial and recreational, contributes substantially to the economies of Michigan’s coastal communities. In 2006, more than 1.4 million recreational anglers fished Michigan’s waters, including the Great Lakes, and contributed over $1 billion to Michigan’s economy [4] (Figure 1). Michigan citizens who attended Great Lakes Offshore Wind Council meetings held widely varying opinions regarding the pros and cons of wind energy development on Great Lakes fishing [5]. Many anglers, conservationists and coastal tourism industry representatives have raised concerns about potential negative effects of noise, habitat alteration and electromagnetic fields on fish populations, while others anticipate some benefit to fish populations. Short-term and Long-term Effects of Turbines The available science suggests that the detrimental effects on fish are mostly local and confined to the construction phase. Many fish species avoid areas of construction activity, especially during pile-driving. In one case, pile-driving noise during construction reduced herring numbers, which in turn affected reproduction of a sea bird that relied on the herring for prey [6]. In addition, sediments will be disturbed and associated contaminants may be released when submarine electric cables are buried beneath the lakebed [7]. During normal turbine operation, some noise will be transmitted through the tower and into the water, producing sound vibrations at levels similar to a small boat engine [8]. Off the coast of Cape Cod where there are plans to construct turbines 2,000 feet apart, underwater noise is expected to decline to background levels 328 feet from each turbine base [9]. Most studies conclude that turbine noise will not cause any physiological damage to fish, but potential impacts on fish behavior and communication are poorly understood. The hearing capability of fish species varies widely — for example carp are much more sensitive to noise that salmon — and some fish are expected to avoid the area within 13 feet of an operating turbine [9]. However, certain fish, such as cod and gobies, seem to congregate around existing turbine foundations in saltwater environments [9,11]. Submarine cables, like those connecting offshore wind farms to the land, can cause induced electro-magnetic fields in the areas immediately around the cable. These fields are not dangerous, but can affect how some species navigate [12]. Freshwater species like perch, pike, American eel, lake sturgeon and Chinook salmon may be sensitive to induced electro-magnetic fields, but it is unclear whether the induced fields from submarine cables actually affect the behaviors of these species [7,12]. Additional research is needed to understand the potential impact of electrical cables on fish. The footprint of a wind turbine foundation would result in the alteration of about 500 square yards of lakebed

habitat for each turbine in the wind farm [13]. The wind turbine foundation is typically covered with rocks, called scour protection (Figure 2). In the saltwater offshore wind farms of Europe, the scour protection

has been shown to act as an artificial reef . The boulder-style scour protection that was used increased surface area, crevices and hiding places for small creatures, especially in areas where such three-dimensional structure was lacking. For example, at the Nysted and Horns Rev offshore wind farms in Denmark , the abundance and biomass of mussels and other bottom-dwelling

organisms increased substantially compared to reference sites [14]. The presence of the offshore turbines increased fish

abundance and biomass in Sweden [11]. Though there are no wind turbines in the Great Lakes, there are underwater structures and artificial reefs from which we can make some

comparisons. A variety of game fish species are known to use artificial structures in the Great Lakes (Figure 3) [15]. The crevices of a turbine foundation’s scour protection would also provide ideal habitat for invasive species like zebra and quagga mussels and the round goby [7]. It is unclear whether these structures would actually increase the overall abundance of game fish, rather than just attracting them to a particular location. In many Great Lakes environments, water temperature fluctuates widely, and important game fish are likely to use artificial habitats only when temperature is ideal. Most of the studies reviewed for this fact sheet conclude that fish will actively avoid the area around a wind farm during construction due to significant underwater noise; However, if sited away from sensitive spawning grounds, normal turbine operations are likely to have minimal negative impacts on fish. There is no evidence of long-term declines in fish abundance around offshore wind farms, and there is limited evidence that abundance of certain fish and mussel species in salt water environments, both desirable and undesirable, may increase. Potential negative effects of construction noise, sediment disturbance and electrical cables should be carefully considered on a site-specific basis. Impacts of Traditional Power on Fish

The effect of existing energy sources upon fish populations is also an important consideration when evaluating alternative energy impacts. Coal and nuclear power require large amounts of water for cooling, and older plants with once-through cooling systems are particularly destructive to fish that are sucked into plant intake pipes or caught on screens [16]. New power and manufacturing plants are required to use better technologies to reduce fish kills under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Older plants that take in more than 2 million gallons per day may be required to adopt similar technologies in the future, but these existing plants now kill an estimated 86 billion fish per year [17]. This figure includes the death of fish at intake pipes and the loss of fish eggs and larvae that will not grow to

adulthood and benefit fisheries. During 2005-2006, a single power plan t on Lake Erie was found to trap and kill 46 million fish per year

and pull in in an additional 2.2 billion fish larvae annually [16]. Scientists estimate that 349,648 adult game fish are lost and commercial harvests are reduced by 346,000 pounds annually due to older Great Lakes power and

manufacturing intakes [17]. Researchers have reported that each megawatt (MW) of wind energy capacity can reduce the need for 0.7 -2.1 million gallons of cooling water [18]. Based on these estimates, a hypothetical 450 MW offshore wind farm could reduce the need for 315 to 945 million gallons of Great Lakes water each

year. If less water is withdrawn for thermo-electric generation, fewer fish may be killed.

7

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDOFFSHORE WIND HELPS SOLVE OVERFISHING & TRAWLING

EBERHARDT 06 B.A., 1998, Swarthmore (Biology); M.F.S., 2001, Harvard; J.D. Candidate, 2006, New York University School of Law. Senior Notes Editor, 2005-2006, New York University Environmental Law Journal [Robert W. Eberhardt, FEDERALISM AND THE SITING OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY FACILITIES, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 374]

Commercial fisheries are common-pool resources with government regulation justified to avoid overexploitation, and increasingly regulation has been extended to influence impacts on fisheries that result from activities other than direct capture. n124 In addition to general wildlife, habitat, and use value impacts described above, the development of an offshore wind farm could impact commercial fishing by limiting the waters open for fishing or by influencing commercial fish stocks. Depending on the spacing between turbines, it may or may not be possible for commercial boats employing particular types of fishing tackle to operate within the boundaries of the facility. Submarine cables also may prevent continued trawling operations in both the vicinity of the turbines and in areas around cables connecting the project to [*401] the grid. n125

Fish stocks may be affected by disruptions of bottom habitat during construction and habitat creation on the marine foundations of the turbines. n126 The invertebrate reef communities that develop on marine foundations may serve as habitat for particular fish species, which may benefit fishing industries if these species are exploited for commercial purposes but could hurt commercial fisheries if the artificial reefs support non-commercial competitors. n127Commercial fishery impacts have the potential for horizontal spillovers primarily when facilities are located near state borders or in interstate water bodies or when effects influence wide-ranging or highly migratory species. Impacts resulting from facility components on the outer continental shelf may represent vertical spillovers of significance to coastal states, because commercial fisheries can represent an important part of local economies. The extent to which fisheries impacts represent vertical spillovers would depend on whether facility components have the potential to influence commercial fishing activity or particular fisheries exploited by coastal residents.

MULTIPLE RECENT STUDIES CONFIRM – OFFSHORE WIND BENEFITS MARINE ECOLOGY – TRAWLING, REEFS, SHELTERCASEY 12 – 4 – 12 EWEA Staff Writer, Citing International and Swedish funded studies [Zoë Casey, Offshore wind farms benefit sealife, says study, http://www.ewea.org/blog/2012/12/offshore-wind-farms-benefit-sealife-says-study/]

Offshore wind farms can create a host of benefits for the local marine environment, as well as combatting climate change, a new study by the Marine Institute at Plymouth University has found.The Marine Institute found that wind farms provide shelter to fish species since sea bottom trawling is often forbidden inside a wind farm, and it found that turbine support structures can create artificial reefs for some species.A separate study at the Nysted offshore wind farm in Denmark confirmed this finding by saying that artificial reefs provided favourable growth conditions for blue mussels and crab species. A study on the Thanet offshore wind farm in the UK found that some species like cod shelter inside the wind farm.One high-profile issue covered by the Marine Institute study was that of organisms colliding with offshore wind turbines. The study, backed-up by a number of previous studies, found that many bird species fly low over the water, avoiding collision with wind turbine blades. It also found that some species, such as Eider ducks, do modify their courses slightly to avoid offshore turbines.When it comes to noise, the study found “no significant impact on behaviour or populations.” It noted that a separate study in the Netherlands found more porpoise clicks inside a Dutch wind farm than outside it “perhaps exploiting the higher fish densities found”.The study also said that offshore wind power and other marine renewable energies should be rolled out rapidly in order to combat the threats to marine biodiversity, food production and economies posed by climate change.“It is necessary to rapidly deploy large quantities of marine renewable energy to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning which are leading to ocean acidification, global warming and climatic changes,” the study published said.EWEA forecasts that 40 GW of offshore wind capacity will be online in European seas by 2020 which will offset 102 million tonnes of CO2 every year. By 2030, the expected 150 GW of offshore capacity will offset 315 million tonnes of CO2 annually – that’s a significant contribution to the effort to cut carbon.“It is clear that the marine environment is already being damaged by the increasingly apparent impacts of climate change; however it is not too late to make a difference to avoid more extreme impacts,” the study said.“If you bring all these studies together they all point to a similar conclusion: offshore wind farms have a positive impact on the marine environment in several ways,” said Angeliki Koulouri, Research Officer at EWEA. “First they contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions, the major threat to biodiversity, second, they provide regeneration areas for fish and benthic populations,” she added.

8

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG - NB – IMPACT OCEAN HEALTH KEY TO PREVENT EXTINCTION ---NONE OF THEIR DEFENSE APPLIES---BEST SCIENCE Rogers et al. ‘11 (University of Oxford conservation biology professor Alex, Ph.D. in marine invertebrate systematics and genetics, International Programme on State of the Ocean scientific director; Charles Sheppard, University of Warwick School of Life Sciences professor; Kristina M. Gjerde, IUCN Global Marine Programme high seas policy advisor; Jelle Bijma, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research Germany biogeosciences professor; Chris Yesson, Zoological Society of London Institute of Zoology postdoctoral research assistant; Kelly Rigg, Global Campaign for Climate Action executive director; Tony Pitcher, University of British Columbia Aquatic Ecosystems Research Laboratory professor, Matthew Gianni, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition policy advisor, et al, "Implementing the Global State of the Oceans Report," IPSO, June 2011)Every stretch of sea and ocean on the planet serves as part of the wider, global ocean. This network of marine life is linked by the great ocean conveyor, which comprises the currents that work together to form one of the key operating systems of our planet – what scientists describe as the earth System – and which in turn works to keep the planet habitable . The ocean creates more than half our oxygen; provides vital sources of protein, energy and minerals; drives weather systems and natural flows of energy and nutrients around the world; moderates the climate; modulates the chemical composition of the atmosphere ; and transports water masses many times greater than all the rivers on land combined. Yet at the earth System level the ocean is poorly understood and rarely considered. Without a better understanding we cannot understand the true value of ocean services to humankind – nor the full consequences of permitting widespread degradation to our ocean’s health. On the brink As with terrestrial ecosystems, humankind has been expending the natural

capitol of the ocean with little restraint. Although concealed beneath the waves, the evidence of wholesale degradation and destruction of the marine realm is clear, made manifest by the collapse of entire fisheries and the growth of deoxygenated dead zones, for example. The cumulative result of our actions

is a serial decline in the ocean’s health and resilience ; it is becoming demonstrably less able to survive the pressures exerted upon it, and this will become even more evident as the added pressures of climate change exacerbate the situation. Without significant changes in the policies that influence

human interactions with the marine environment, the current rate of ecosystem change and collapse will accelerate and direct consequences will be felt by all societies. Without decisive and effective action, no region or country will be immune from the socioeconomic upheaval and environmental catastrophe

that will take place – possibly with the span of the current generation and certainl by the end of the century. It is likely to be a disaster that challenges human civilisation .

A narrow window Humankind faces an immediate and pressing choice between exerting ecological restraint and allowing global ecological catastrophe . The belief among scientists is that the window of opportunity to take action is narrow. There is little time left in which we can still act

to prevent irreversible, catastrophic changes to marine ecosystems as we see them today. Failure to do so will cause such large-scale changes to the ocean, and to the overall planetary system it supports, that we may soon find ourselves without the natural capital and ecosystem services necessary to maintain sustainable economies and societies as we know them, even in affluent countries. New scientific methods are emerging that enable us to understand the ocean in ways we have never done before , from individual ecosystems to planet-wide functions and services. Critically, we can now undertake an entire earth System assessment of the state of the ocean and the impact of individual activities or policy

decisions upon it. We are able to open up a new understanding of how human kind impacts on the ocean, how the stresses exerted upon it

can be alleviated to restore ocean health, and the consequences of a failure to do so.

DECLINING FISHERIES WILL CAUSE A MASSIVE FOOD COLLAPSEFrezza ’12 (Bill, fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a Boston-based venture capitalist, 11/26/2012, “Regulatory Uncertainty Drives Fish Farmer to Foreign Waters)Feeding 7 billion people is no small challenge . As it has from time immemorial, high quality protein harvested from the sea plays a major role in avoiding Malthusian collapse . Commercial fishermen bring in a wild catch of roughly 90 million tons of fish each year, with another 70 million

tons coming from aquaculture.The latter number is the one to watch. While the world's wild fish catch has flattened over the past two decades, with many

fishing grounds facing depletion and certain species being threatened with extinction , fish farming continues to grow at a sharp clip, doubling over the

last decade. This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the very different economic incentives that prevail under the tragedy of the commons versus those that yield the bounty produced under private property regimes.

9

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDFOOD SHORTAGES CAUSE A NUCLEAR WORLD WAR 3FDI 12 (Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the University of Melbourne’s Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points,”)

There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of resources . Yet, in a

sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food . More recently,

Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired , at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more

food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a

result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” “Hunger feeds anarchy.” This view is also shared by

Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food , land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then

wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a

confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering , self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts .” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be

global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.” As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict.

Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A study by the I nternational P eace R esearch I nstitute indicates that where food

security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict . Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars . Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US C enter

for S trategic and I nternational S tudies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly

even nuclear war .

10

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG – NB - AT: ECOSYSTEM RESILIENT MARINE ECOSYSTEMS NOT RESILIENT AND ALT CAUSES ARE A BAD GAMBLE . BEST SCIENCE AND RISK FRAMING GOES AFF.

Langston ‘11(internally quoting Brad Warren, who directs the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s ocean acidification program. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP) is an NGO working to reshape the world of corporate responsibility through the creation of powerful information tools and a methodology that allows companies to directly engage with suppliers of natural resources. Jennifer Langston is a researcher on sustainability issues and Sightline Daily editor – Formerly an author at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. This post is part of the research project: Northwest Ocean Acidification – “Are You a Banker or a Gambler?” – July 27th – http://daily.sightline.org/2011/07/27/are-you-a-banker-or-a-gambler/)

Some might argue that oceans are resilient places, that nature abhors a vacuum, and that other kinds of algae or grasses that thrive in more acidic seas could replace losses at the bottom of the food web. In truth, we don’t yet know how complicated marine ecosystems will adapt to ocean acidification. The effects could range from minor to apocalyptic. In that sense, you get to choose how scared you want to be, says Brad Warren, who directs the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership’s ocean acidification program. But the most knowledgeable scientists tend to eschew the more optimistic view, he said. And a smart businessperson pays attention to signs of trouble, tries not to get caught behind the curve, and needs to rethink old strategies when they’re no longer working. In other words, says Warren: If you think of someone who has a fiduciary duty for the systems that feed us and provide jobs to half a billion people in the world—from subsistence hunting to those making a lot of money—one can view that with a gambler’s instinct or with a stewardship instinct. What would you rather be—a banker or a gambler—with this resource?

( ) RESILIENCE IS MISLEADING. RECOVERY IS POSSIBLE – BUT NOT IF WE CROSS FORTHCOMING TIPPING POINTS.

Ayers ‘13Internally quoting Dr. Sylvia Alice Earle – who is a marine biologist, explorer, author, and lecturer. Since 1998 she has been a National Geographic explorer-in-residence. Earle was the first female chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and was named by Time Magazine as its first Hero for the Planet in 1998. Jane Ayers is an independent journalist that has written pieces for USA Today, Los Angeles Times Interview, The Nation, SF Chronicle, Truthout. She is also Director of her own Media outlet. “Women Say 'Enough is Enough' to Climate Changes Worldwide” – NATION OF CHANGE – Published: Friday 11 October 2013 – http://www.nationofchange.org/women-say-enough-enough-climate-changes-worldwide-1381498329

Concerning the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Dr. Earle lamented, “Radioactivity is one more impact we have infected into the ocean system. Oceans are resilient but we are facing tipping points . With carbon at 400/ we have crossed the line. How much decline in plankton is acceptable? We all like to breathe but if we destroy the systems that make oxygen and that take up the carbon, then what? This is the last time we have to assert ourselves and make it right . Most oxygen is generated by creatures in the sea. Everyone has a stake in this. Yes, we need to take care of the water, but we also need to take care of the living parts of the water, i.e. the fish.” Pointing to a crossroads mankind is facing, Dr. Earle explained, “I joked at the International Women for Earth & Climate Summit that women can help find solutions to climate change by focusing on the oceans because half the fish in the ocean are female. But seriously, we are in a moment in time, at a crossroads, where we are facing global rising sea levels, floods increasing, etc. We are at a pivotal point in time , and I am emphasizing the role of oceans to governments, and the world. The plankton play a largely neglected role but they generate the oxygen that takes up the carbon. The plankton are most important to humankind surviving, and makes the planet function properly. “ Stating that the ocean keeps us alive, Dr. Earle explained, “Most people might think the ocean is only a source of recreation or fishing. But we must recognize that the ocean keeps us alive . It is a cornerstone of life’s system, and only now are we appreciating how important oceans are to every breath we take, to every drink of water we injest. We have impacted the oceans over the last fifty years, and now we have an unprecedented chance to solve some of these problems.”

11

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND( ) RESILIENCY NOT INFINITE. MUST REVERSE TRENDS NOW IN ORDER TO RECOVER FROM DAMAGE ALREADY-DONE.

Tulloch ‘9Internally quoting Ben Halpern, a scientists from the Zoological Society of London – James Tulloch – Editor at Allianz – Allianz November 18 th – 2009 – http://www.conocimiento.allianz.com.ar/?513/climate-change-and-overfishing-top-threats-to-oceans

The future looks bleak, but there is hope. “Oceans are resilient, says Halpern, “if we act soon they can recover.” Dead zones can be eliminated. Whales and seals hunted to near extinction did recover once protected. Some sectors are acting. Merchant shipping is cutting the risk of oil spills by banning single-hulled ships from 2010, and trying to reduce the spread of invasive species via ballast water. More stubborn is the fishing industry. The obvious answer is to fish less. As The Economist magazine points out, “nothing did so much good for fish stocks in northern Europe in the past 150 years as the Second World War”. Trawlers stuck in port allowed fisheries to revive. Abolishing government subsidies for fishing, and for trawler fuel, is one strategy. Individual transferable quotas, or ‘catch shares’, is another, giving partial ownership of a fish stock. This has worked in Iceland, New Zealand, and the western United States. “Fishers become very interested in making sure the stock is healthy and sustainable when their income depends on it,” says Halpern. It could also protect stocks in developing countries from marauding foreign factory ships. Marine reserves are a proven solution, argues Norris. “We have to move from hunter-gatherer mode to having the oceans more tightly managed.” Coral reef reserves in Indonesia and Kenya, and kelp forest reserves in New Zealand and South Africa, have successfully revived biodiversity. They would also maintain the seas as effective carbon sinks, says the United Nations, which wants a global ‘Blue Carbon’ regime (like REDD for forests) to protect ecosystems like mangroves and salt marshes. The oceans can no longer be a free-for-all. A combination of preservation, regulation, and ownership—‘marine planning’ or ‘ecosystem management’—is the best bet to save our seas. Otherwise the places where life started will become lifeless.

( ) RESILIENCY THESIS FALSE. ALT CAUSES JUST FEED THE BRINK.

Diwakar ‘10Dr. Prasoon Diwakar – Center for Materials Under eXtreme Environment, Purdue University. He holds a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. He is a former employee at the Center for Disease Control. He has an academic and research background in Mechanical Engineering, Analytical Chemistry, Environmental Engineering, and Environmental Chemistry – “The Deep Blue: World Ocean Day” – Science is Beautiful – June 9, 2010 – http://prasoondiwakar.com/wordpress/uncategorized/the-deep-blue-world-ocean-day

World Ocean day was celebrated yesterday, June 8th. The importance of protecting our Oceans and it’s ecosystem can not be emphasized more in the wake of BP oil spill disaster. But it’s not like we have not been polluting our Oceans before this spill. We keep doing that on a regular basis– industrial waters, overfishing, excessive usage of plastic bags ending up in ocean currents , Ocean acidification due to excessive anthropogenic CO2 and list goes on. It is likely that roughly one billion gallons of oil enters our oceans each year as a result of man’s activities. Only 8% of this input is believed to derive from natural sources. At least 22% is intentionally released as a function of normal tanker “operational discharges,” 12% enters from accidental tanker spills and another 36% from runoff and municipal and industrial wastes. [American Zoologist , 1993]. I keep hearing politicians and people talking about that our Oceans are resilient and it can tolerate any kind of garbage we put in. No it is not . It can do to a limit (depending on the type of waste we are putting in, amount of waste, and time available to the marine organisms to bounce back) and I think we have already crossed that limit. The Ocean ecosystem is very fragile due to all the mess we have put in there and I would prefer to see beautiful marine life rather see images of dark crude oil gushing out incessantly. I have stopped updating about BP spill because its beyond my comprehension now seeing the response of BP, politicians, News channels. It’s not the time to get political mileage out of the disaster. When BP should be concentrating on the spill and cleaning beaches, paying out affected locals, it’s busy in PR campaign to clean it’s image. Search for BP spill on Google and you will find first sponsored link from BP.. then Tony Hayward, CEO BP, talking about how he and BP will make things right in a new BP commercial with beaches shown in the background… Action is the best PR not mere words, telling lies and getting exposed is worst PR.. Brown pelicans drenched in crude oil exposes all the lies of the amount of spill.. Is it 5,000 gallons per day, 10,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 or more, no one knows. Is it that hard to estimate the amount of spill knowing the dimensions of pipe, flow rates, temperature, viscosity etc?

12

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG – NB - AT: IMPACT DEFENSE WE’RE REACHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL TIPPING POINT- NEW DISASTERS WILL BE UNIQUELY WORSE, CAUSE EXTINCTIONVince ’12 [Gaia, science and environmental writer for BBC News, “Earth: Have we reached an environmental tipping point?” http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120615-global-tipping-point]

If there’s one thing I hope this column achieves, it’s illustrating just how pivotal a point this is in human history. We are now living in the Anthropocene: humans are the main driver of planetary change. We're pushing global temperatures, land and water use beyond anything our species has experienced before. We’re polluting the biosphere, acidifying the oceans, and reducing biodiversity. At the same time, our global population will grow from seven billion to nine billion by 2050, and all will need food, water and clean air.¶ As if to illustrate the point further, last month Arctic monitors showed the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed 400 parts per million (before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm). New data shows the rate of climate change could be even

faster than thought.¶ Perhaps most worryingly of all, 22 scientists warned last week we are approaching a planetary tipping point, beyond which environmental changes will be rapid and unpredictable. Basing their alarming conclusion on studies of ecological markers from species extinction rates (currently 1,000 times the usual rate, and comparable to those experienced

during the demise of the dinosaurs) to changes in land use (more than 40% of land is dominated by humans and we affect a further 40%), these scientists fear we will enter a new, unknown state , and one which threatens us all .

THEIR IMPACT DEFENSE IS WRONG- WE’RE APPROACHING THE BRINK, TRY OR DIE TO PREVENT EXTINCTIONBlack ’10 [Richard, environmental correspondent at BBC News, 10/18/10, 'Ten years' to solve nature crisis, UN meeting hears,” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11563513?print=true]

The two-week gathering aims to set new targets for conserving life on Earth. Japan's Environment Minister Ryo Matsumoto said biodiversity loss would become irreversible unless curbed soon. Much hope is being pinned on economic analyses showing the loss of species and ecosystems is costing the global economy trillions of dollars each year. Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), described the meeting in Nagoya, Japan, as a "defining moment" in the history of mankind. "[Buddhist scholar] Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki said 'the problem of nature is the problem of human life'. Today, unfortunately, human life is a problem for nature," he told delegates in his opening speech. Referring to the target set at the UN World Summit in 2002, he said: "Let's have the courage to look in the eyes of our children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg promise made by 110 heads of state to substantially reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. "Let us look in the eyes of our children and admit that we continue to lose

biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, thus mortgaging their future." Earlier this year, the UN published a major assessment - the Global Biodiversity

Outlook - indicating that virtually all trends spanning the state of the natural world were heading downwards, despite conservation successes in some regions. It showed that loss and degradation of forests, coral reefs, rivers and other elements of the natural world was having an impact on living standards in some parts of the world - an obvious example being the extent to which loss of coral affects fish

stocks. In his opening speech, Mr Matsumoto suggested impacts could be much broader in future. "All life on Earth exists thanks to the benefits from biodiversity in the forms of fertile soil, clear water and clean air," he said. "We are now close to a 'tipping point' - that is, we are about to reach a threshold beyond which biodiversity loss will become irreversible, and may cross that threshold in the next 10 years if we do not make proactive efforts for conserving biodiversity." Climate clouds In recent years, climate change has dominated the agenda of environmental politics. And Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, suggested there is a lack of understanding at political levels of why tackling biodiversity is just important. "This is the only planet in this

Universe that is known to have this kind of life," he said. "This fact alone should give us food for thought, But more importantly, we are destroying the very foundations that sustain life on this planet ; and yet when we meet in these intergovernmental fora, society somehow struggles to understand and appreciate what it is what we're trying to do here, and why it matters."

13

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG – NB - AT: REVERSIBLE IT’S NOT REVERSIBLE - ASH, Deputy Director of UNEP's Division of Environmental Policy Implementation, 2005(Neville, No date, Millennium Assessment, “Ecosystems and Human Well-being”, http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf, 6/25/14, SJ)

Freedom of choice and action within the MA context refers to individuals having control over what happens and being able to achieve what they value (CF3). Loss of biodiversity often means a loss of choices. Local fishers depend on mangroves as breeding grounds for local fish populations. Loss of mangroves translates to a loss in control over the local fish stock and a livelihood

they have been pursuing for many generations and that they value. Another example is high-diversity agricultural systems. These systems normally produce less cash than

monoculture cash crops, but farmers have some control over their entitlements because of spreading risk through diversity. High diversity of genotypes, populations, species, functional types, and spatial patches decreases the negative effects of pests and pathogens on crops and keeps open possibilities for agrarian communities to develop crops suited to future environmental challenges and to increase their resilience to climate variability and market fl uctuations (C11). Another dimension of choices relates to the future. The loss of biodiversity in some instances is irreversible, and the value individuals place on keeping biodiversity for future generations— the option value—can be significant (CF6, C2). The notion of having choices available irrespective of whether any of them will be actually picked is an essential constituent of the freedom aspect of well-being. However, putting a monetary figure on option values is notoriously difficult. We can only postulate on the needs and desires of future generations, some of which can be very different from today’s aspirations.

14

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

AFFIRMATIVE

15

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

NEG – PTX DOI AVOIDS THE LINK – WON’T HOLD THE PRESIDENT RESPONSIBLE, HE CAN DODGE.MENDELSON 10 Professor of Law – University of Michigan Law School [Nina A. Mendelson, “Disclosing “Political” Oversight of Agency Decision Making,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 108, p.1127-1175, http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/7/mendelson.pdf]

Even if presidential supervision of agency decisions is well known to the voting population, holding a President accountable for particular agency decisions is hard enough, given the infrequency of elections, the number of issues typically on the agenda at the time of a presidential election, presidencies that only last two terms, and presidential candidates who are vague about how the administrative state would run. 175 It is all the more difficult if the public does not know what influence the President may have had or may end up having on particular agency decisions. “To the extent that presidential supervision of agencies remains hidden from public scrutiny , the President will have greater freedom to [assist] parochial interests.” 176 Calling for greater disclosure to the electorate is not to say that majoritarian preferences should dictate agency decision making. Increasing transparency regarding presidential influence on a particular agency decision may or may not make agency decision making simply a “handmaiden of majoritarianism,” as Bressman suggests. 177 Instead, it could facilitate a public dialogue where citizens are persuaded that the decision made, though not the first-cut “majoritarian preference,” is still the correct decision for the country. By comparison, submerging presidential preferences undermines electoral accountability for agency decisions and reduces the chances of a public dialogue on policy. One might respond that the public already knows that the President appoints agency heads and can remove them, and that White House offices review significant agency rules before they are issued. And the public knows the content of the agency’s decision. Shouldn’t that be sufficient to ensure democratic accountability through the electoral process? 178 That level of knowledge might suffice, but only if the public perceives federal agencies as indistinguishable from the President. Voters are sophisticated enough to know, however, that agencies represent large and sometimes unresponsive bureaucracies, a view sometimes promoted by Presidents themselves. Presidents certainly do not consistently foster the view that executive branch agencies are under their complete control. Instead, they have been known to blame the agencies for unpopular decisions and to try to distance themselves. 179 Bressman gives the example of the second Bush Administration distancing itself from the IRS, while at the same time quietly pressuring the agency to revise a proposed rule requiring domestic banks to reveal the identity of all depositors, including foreign ones. 180 Administrators may also “take the fall” for an unpopular decision that is influenced by the White House, as EPA Administrator Johnson appeared to do in denying

the California greenhouse gas waiver. 181 And as mentioned earlier, President Obama has selectively taken credit for federal agency actions relating to automotive greenhouse gas emissions, with his OMB only grudgingly backing an EPA proposed rule in response to political controversy. 182 Similarly, President George W. Bush distanced himself from an EPA report concluding that global warming was anthropogenic, even though that report had been reviewed by White House offices prior to its release. In answer to questions from reporters, President Bush commented, “I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.” 183 More recently, when news reports suggested that the White House was pressing the EPA to “edit” its climate change findings, the White House spokesman stated that the agency alone “ ‘determines what analysis it wants to make available’ in its documents.” 184 Finally, take the rash of resignations at the EPA in the mid-1980s, including Administrator Gorsuch and Assistant Administrator Lavelle, arising out of allegations of serious misconduct and conflicts of interest within the agency. President Reagan succeeded in distancing himself from the agency’s problems by presenting the agency as acting more or less

independently. 185 Despite issuing directives, 186 Presidents certainly have a significant incentive to keep influence on agency decisions low-

key and to maintain “deniability” with respect to agency actions . This minimizes the risk that influence can be characterized later as improperly motivated, that debate within the executive branch can fuel litigation over the ultimate decision, or that the President will have a political price to pay for guessing wrong about what option best serves the public interest. And, of course, keeping a low profile for presidential influence also allows more successful

presidential pressure that is the result of presidential capture. 187 All this amounts to reduced electoral accountability for actions taken by administrative agencies. 188

PREEMPTIVE ACTION AVOIDS POLITICSYOUNG 08 Professor of Law, Duke Law School [Ernest A. Young, SYMPOSIUM: ORDERING STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONS THROUGH FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE: EXECUTIVE PREEMPTION, Special Issue 2008, Northwestern University Law Review, 102 Nw. U.L. Rev. 869]

A final, minimal requirement would not limit the ability of Congress to delegate preemptive authority to agencies at all, but rather would insist that the agency actually exercise that authority before preemption can be found. One might think such an obvious requirement would go without saying. But in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, n166 the Court held (unanimously) that the mere delegation of authority to the President to preempt state trade sanctions signaled that such sanctions were in conflict with federal policy, even though the President had not actually exercised his preemptive [*900] authority. n167 That result has to be wrong. n168 When an executive official acts to preempt state law, she is not accountable to the states in the same way as a senator or a representative, but some level of political accountability remains. Indeed, the likely reason that the President had not acted to preempt

Massachusetts's sanctions on Burma in Crosby is that such an action would have been politically unpopular , perhaps especially with Massachusetts's own senators, who were important supporters of the President. That is simply the political safeguards of federalism at work. To say that the mere delegation of authority to act can have preemptive effect, without requiring a political decision to act for which the Executive may be held accountable, is to disembowel the notion of process federalism entirely.

16

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDPLAN POPULAR WITH THE PUBLICCaperton et all, 12(Richard, the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at American Progress. “Congress Needs To Push Targeted Incentives For Offshore Wind” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/13/403620/congress-incentives-offshore-wind/)

Public support isn’t the problem According to a nationwide survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute, about 7 in 10 Americans (71

percent) support “a shift of federal support for energy away from nuclear and towards clean renewable energy such as wind and solar .” In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, undeveloped land is difficult to find. That means renewable energy developers have to look further afield—in this case, to sea. In the early days of offshore wind, the obstacles to development in the United States were largely borne of ignorance—concerns that offshore turbines visible on the horizon would destroy property values; that noise, or safety, or storage of lubricating fluid for the turbines would pose unacceptable risks. As other countries around the world have moved ahead with offshore wind development and seen no ill effects from those factors, however, such concerns have dramatically abated. Support from coastal residents is fundamental to the potential success of offshore wind projects.

After all, these wind farms will effectively be built in their backyards. And recently, poll after poll has shown that coastal residents are highly supportive of offshore wind energy . According to a poll of New Jersey residents, offshore wind production is extremely popular among voters and its support cuts across party and geographic lines. The analysis demonstrates that 78 percent of all New Jersey voters and 77 percent of the state’s shore residents surveyed support the development of wind power 12 to 15 miles off their coast. Public support is strong in Delaware as well. According to a University of Delaware poll, general statewide support for offshore wind in Delaware is 77.8

percent, compared with an opposition of only 4.2 percent. In Maryland The Baltimore Sun reported in October 2011 that 62 percent of Marylanders favor wind turbine construction off the coast of Ocean City and would be willing to pay up to $2 more per month on electricity bills. Mike Tidwell, head of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said, “Marylanders understand that the benefits of offshore wind are more than worth a modest initial investment.”

NO LINK TO POLITICS ON SPENDING – SPUN AS JOBSSchroeder 10(Erica, J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. M.E.M., Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, October, “Turning Offshore Wind On,” 98 Calif. L. Rev. 1631 - Kurr)

While this revision would likely be the hardest of the three for Congress to swallow, particularly during an economic downturn, there is at least one compelling reason for Congress to consider it: offshore wind power development can create jobs, both regionally and nationally. n276 Indeed, President Obama has explicitly acknowledged the potential for clean energy to create new jobs, with particular urgency as the United States continues to see high rates of unemployment. n277 In addition, the President has acknowledged the importance of public spending to stimulate the economy. n278 In particular, he has promised to spend significantly on renewable energy, in part because of its job-creation potential. n279 Or, as with the other aforementioned revisions to the CZMA, these incentives might be tied into broader revisions to the Energy Policy Act or the creation of new climate change legislation. n280 While this idea might buck historical trends related to

federal involvement in Coastal Zone development, it is well within the realm of practical policies already being discussed.

PLAN FUNDS THE MANDATE AND CHECKS PRE-EMPTION VIA STATE PARTICIPATION IN THE CZMA Salkin 09(Patricia E., Raymond & Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law, Associate Dean and Director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School; “Can You Hear Me Up There? Giving Voice to Local Communities Imperative for Achieving Sustainability,” 4 Envt'l & Energy L. & Pol'y J. 257 – Kurr)

The Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA") was enacted in 1972, in part, "to encourage and assist states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as the needs for compatible development. [*288] . . ." n159 Enacted in 1972, the CZMA gives states the opportunity to work with local governments to achieve a shared land use vision for coastal resources. n160 Involvement in the program is not mandatory, but there are several incentives for the states to participate. n161 First, the states can receive increased control over federal actions and permit approvals in their coastal areas by preparing state coastal plans under the Act, because once a state's program has been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, federal activity and permits then must be consistent with the state's coastal policies. n162 In addition to the regulatory powers gained by creating a coastal zone management plan, states also receive federal funding if they participate in the program. n163

17

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDNo nimby opposition- New Jersey provesCaperton, 12Richard W. Caperton is the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at American Progress. “Encouraging Investment Is Key to U.S. Offshore Wind Development” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/01/12/10951/encouraging-investment-is-key-to-u-s-offshore-wind-development/, accessed 10/27/12,WYO/JFPublic support isn’t the problem According to a nationwide survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute, about 7 in 10 Americans (71 percent) support “a shift of federal support for energy away from nuclear and towards clean renewable energy such as wind and solar.” In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, undeveloped land is difficult to find. That means renewable energy developers have to look further afield—in this case, to sea. In the early days of offshore wind, the obstacles to development in the United States were largely borne of ignorance —concerns that offshore turbines visible on the horizon would destroy property values ; that noise, or safety, or storage of lubricating fluid for the turbines would pose unacceptable risks. As other countries around the world have moved ahead with offshore wind development and seen no ill effects from those factors, however, such concerns have dramatically abated. Support from coastal residents is fundamental to the potential success of offshore wind projects. After all, these wind farms will effectively be built in their backyards. And recently, poll after poll has shown that coastal residents are highly supportive of offshore wind energy. According to a poll of New Jersey residents, offshore wind production is extremely popular among voters and its support cuts across party and geographic lines. The analysis demonstrates that 78 percent of all New Jersey voters and 77 percent of the state’s shore residents surveyed support the development of wind power 12 to 15 miles off their coast. Public support is strong in Delaware as well. According to a University of Delaware poll, general statewide support for offshore wind in Delaware is 77.8 percent, compared with an opposition of only 4.2 percent. In Maryland The Baltimore Sun reported in October 2011 that 62 percent of Marylanders favor wind turbine construction off the coast of Ocean City and would be willing to pay up to $2 more per month on electricity bills. Mike Tidwell, head of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said, “Marylanders understand that the benefits of offshore wind are more than worth a modest initial investment.” This view is backed by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, but as The Washington Post reported earlier this week, his efforts to make his state a leader in offshore wind appear to be in jeopardy. Monday’s article quoted Democratic Del. Dereck E. Davis saying, “The situation has gotten worse — not better — for offshore wind since the last time it was up for debate.” So what has changed?

18

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

AFF – HURTS ECOSYSTEMS WIND FARMS DISRUPT MARINE ECOSYSTEMSMOORE 12”Nature Report: Threatening Turbines Raise Concerns” by Richard Moore Posted: 03.26.2012 at 5:40 AM Richard Moore hosts "The Nature Report" every Monday and Wednesday.An environmental impact statement or EIS has been ordered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to assess the potential impact of a massive wind turbine industrial complex proposed by Baryonyx Corporation just offshore from South Padre Island in 41,000 acres of Gulf of Mexico waters leased from the state of Texas. Thus far, no offshore wind farms have been built in the United States and many citizens believe that offshore from South Padre is the worst place in the country to erect hundreds of huge turbines fearing they will kill birds and cause extensive damage to the marine environment. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, poorly sited wind turbines kill approximately 440,000 birds each year, and this is undoubtedly a gross underestimate as the industry is largely self-regulated. Recent radar studies of bird migration along the lower Texas coast reveals it to be perhaps the most important migratory corridor in the world, and many of these birds fly directly across the Gulf of Mexico. In addition to threatening the 300 million dollar a year nature tourism industry in the Rio Grande Valley, the proposed offshore turbines also have recreational fishermen and shrimp boat owners alarmed. Walt Kittelberger, the president of the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation said, "Offshore it will have up to 25 square miles of area, and what is important for all the fishermen, whether they are commercial fishermen, shrimpers or just people who like to go out on their boats is that these things create what are called exclusion zones, where you cannot travel thru them." Carlton Reyes, the president of the Brownsville Port Isabel Shrimp Producers Association said, "Our concerns have to do with hazards to navigation and the potential loss of fishing area." If you would like to attend a public hearing and voice your concerns or support for the proposed offshore wind turbine project a meeting is set for Wednesday March 28th beginning at 6 pm at the Holiday Inn on North Expressway in Brownsville.

CONSTRUCTION DISRUPTS ECOSYSTEMSHALLOWELL 13Associate at Kelley, Drye and Warren, LLP & former in-house counsel to the Maine Lobstermen’s Association [Michele Hallowell, Wind farms: Ecosystem effects differ depending on species, seafloor features, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES NEWS • JUNE 2013, http://www.kelleydrye.com/publications/articles/1732/_res/id=Files/index=0/CFN%20June%202013%20Hallowell%20Wind%20farm%20effects.pdf]

As the siting of ocean wind energy projects continues along the East Coast, many fishermen are left wondering how wind energy development will affect fishing resources. What is involved in testing an area for a wind farm and installing the turbine array? How will the underwater drilling, jet plowing, cable laying, and turbine installation affect fish, lobsters, and shellfish in an area? How will the resource respond once installation is complete? What will be the overall harm and benefit of a wind farm – or many of them – to target species? Scientists and fishermen know the answers to some of these questions already. Yet some effects of wind farms are poorly understood. On a recent trip to England, fishermen there provided anecdotal evidence of what they have seen to date (see CFN May 2013 for trip background). Their experiences provide US fishermen insight on what they can expect should a wind farm be sited where they fish. Developers interested in constructing an ocean-based wind farm have to characterize the site before installation can begin. Site characterization involves conducting many surveys and tests. Drilling into the seafloor and removing cores of sediment help developers determine the type of bottom and depth of material in a given area. Surveys of the area are conducted by towing instruments from vessels across the proposed area and by using remotely operated vehicles to roam the ocean floor and take pictures. Weather buoys and other meteorological towers also are installed. Once a site is characterized and chosen for construction, installation will begin. Cables will be laid on top of or buried under the seafloor. Burial often requires jet plowing horizontally below the seafloor. If necessary, rocks or other heavy structures may be piled on top of the cables, known as “mattressing,” to ensure they don’t move. Wind turbines either will be drilled into the seafloor at great depths or they will sit on top of the seafloor. To reduce scour, the piles will be jacketed or have rocks piled at their base. The spinning blade will be affixed to the turbine after the base is installed. During site characterization and construction, fishermen can expect an increase in underwater noise, vibration, and disturbance of the ocean floor. They also can expect an increase in vessel traffic and possible closure of certain areas. Testing can occur over the course of years or in spurts of condensed activity. We expect mariners notices will be issued alerting fishermen to any activity that would affect their safety or operations.

19

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDWIND FARMS DESTROY LOCAL HABITAT – MAKES IT INHABITABLE, DEGRADES SOIL, AND AIRADAMS 06 J.D. 2006, Northwestern School of Law. Idaho Court of Appeals Clerk [Gregory M. Adams, Bringing Green Power to the Public Lands: The Bureau of Land Management's Authority and Discretion to Regulate Wind-Energy Developments, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 21 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 445]

The footprint a wind farm leaves on the land can be significant in undeveloped areas valued for their scenic attributes. n16 The footprint can include turbines, structures, power stations, roads, new transmission lines, and even on-site concrete-batching plants. n17

Construction requires digging and blasting holes for tower foundations thirty-five to forty feet deep and pouring dozens of cubic yards of

concrete per turbine. n18 Developers must also clear and compact up to three acres for a "staging area" to erect each turbine. n19 Even after on-site mitigation and restoration measures, construction and maintenance of the facilities leaves a footprint of five percent to ten percent of the acreage of the entire site for the life of the project. n20 Construction of roads to access the site also creates a significant footprint and a permanent [*451] alteration of a previously undeveloped area. n21 This can create significant environmental impacts including landscape degradation, unfavorable aesthetics, and noise, all of which can engender local opposition. n22Wind-farm footprints can significantly degrade the landscape. n23 In the past, groups have opposed wind farms in an effort to stop the industrialization of rural landscapes. n24 Of all the impacts to a rural landscape caused by wind farms, extensive road building can be the most significant. n25 If existing roads cannot be used, developers must remove massive amounts of soil and construct roads in hilly terrain typical of most wind-farm sites. n26 Such construction permanently scars the landscape. Extensive road construction and use can also cause fugitive dust to escape into the air, degrading air quality and visibility. n27 The footprint could also negatively affect cultural resources and values that the land may contain. n28Many people are also opposed to the aesthetic impairment of the landscape caused by a large group of wind turbines. n29 Wind farms are often industrial in appearance, a characteristic that is incompatible with natural landscapes typical of BLM lands. n30 While efforts can be made to blend turbines with the surrounding rural area, some people still find large, modern wind turbines offensive. n31 [*452] On BLM lands, these visual impacts can be especially difficult to avoid with mitigation measures because turbines are large and cannot be hidden easily in open spaces that are typical of BLM land. n32

20

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

AFF – GRID TURN AN INCREASE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION CAUSES GRID COLLAPSE Gloystein, 13 – (Henning Gloystein, Reuters, “Unreliable renewable energy is hitting quality”, http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/unreliable-renewable-energy-is-hitting-quality-245524.html)

Britain’s power grid is balanced around a frequency of 50Hz. Any major deviation above or below this level hits the quality of electric supplies, causing flickering of light bulbs and, in the worst case, blackouts. Maintaining a frequency of 50Hz has not been a big challenge in the past as Britain’s electricity was produced by a generation of gas, nuclear, and coal-fired power stations, controlled by a handful of utilities. But experts warn that the rise of decentralised and unreliable renewable capacity , such as wind, makes it more difficult to maintain a stable frequency, reducing the quality of supplies and potentially collapsing the grid . The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (Entsoe) said a subsidy-fuelled boom in renewable capacity across Europe had coincided in a quality drop of the power frequency. Entsoe also said a clash of low renewables with a major capacity outage such as the power link between France and Britain would pose “a severe risk for the system to collapse”. “As you put more renewables into the system you will lose flexibility and have more flickering and also increase the threat of frequency outages ,” said Andrew Jones, Europe’s managing director for US based S&C Electric, a provider of equipment and services for electric power systems. “All you need is an interconnector or a big station to go out at the same time as winds drop off and you will have a frequency-based outage,” Jones said. National Grid, which operates Britain’s power transmission system, has also warned of a drop in electricity quality. “The reduction in fault levels weakens the overall strength of the network which in turn can give rise to quality of supply issues such as large voltage steps, harmonics and flicker,” National Grid said. A decade ago, Britain had almost no renewable power capacity installed and instead relied on a mix of gas, coal, and nuclear generation. Today, it receives around 10% of its electricity from renewable sources, and by 2020 Britain’s share of installed renewable capacity is expected to reach 20%. Falling frequency is caused by a lack in power production, while rising frequency is triggered by a surplus of power. Dynamic Demand, a renewable energy consultancy, says that a frequency around 48.5Hz would result in local blackouts and a frequency of 52Hz or more would cause power stations to trip and forcefully shut do wn . National Grid says the last reportable frequency event occurred in 2008, when an unplanned loss of 1,714mW of power generation capacity cut system frequency to 48.15Hz. “These events resulted in the system frequency being outside of National Grid’s lower statutory limit of 49.5Hz for nine minutes,” National Grid said. There had been another frequency anomaly in the mid-1990s. Data from Entsoe shows that continental Europe has seen a strong rise in renewable capacity in the last 10 years, alongside a sharp rise in the duration and number of frequency events.

21

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDBLACKOUTS RISKS NUCLEAR MELTDOWNSCappiello, 11 (3/29/2011, Dina, “AP IMPACT: Long blackouts pose risk to US reactors,” http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/29/ap-impact-long-blackouts-pose-risk-to-us-reactors/)

WASHINGTON — It's a nightmarish scenario - a days-long blackout at a nuclear power plant leading to a radioactive leak . Though the odds of that happening are extremely remote, an Associated Press investigation has found that some U.S. plants are more vulnerable than others . Long before the nuclear emergency in Japan, U.S. regulators knew that a power failure lasting for days at an American nuclear plant, whatever the cause, could lead to a radioactive leak . Even so, they have only required the nation's 104 nuclear reactors to develop plans for dealing with much shorter blackouts on the assumption that power would be restored quickly. In one simulation presented by the N uclear R egulatory C ommission in 2009, it would take less than a day for radiation to escape from a reactor at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant after an earthquake, flood or fire knocked out all electrical power and there was no way to keep the reactors cool after backup battery power ran out. That plant, the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station outside Lancaster, has reactors of the same older make and model as those releasing radiation at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, which is using other means to try to cool the reactors. And like Fukushima Dai-ichi, the Peach Bottom plant has enough battery power on site to power emergency cooling systems for eight hours. In Japan, that wasn't enough time for power to be restored. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Institute trade association, three of the six reactors at the plant still can't get power to operate the emergency cooling systems. Two were shut down at the time. In the sixth, the fuel was removed completely and put in the spent fuel pool when it was shut down for maintenance at the time of the disaster. A week after the March 11 earthquake, diesel generators started supplying power to two other two reactors, Units 5 and 6, the

groups said. The risk of a blackout leading to core damage , while extremely remote, exists at all U.S. nuclear power plants , and some are more susceptible than others, according to an Associated Press investigation. While regulators say they have confidence that measures adopted in the U.S. will prevent or significantly delay a core from melting and threatening a radioactive release, the events in Japan raise questions about whether U.S. power plants are as prepared as they could and should be. As part of a review requested by President Barack Obama in the wake of the Japan crisis, a top Nuclear Regulatory Commission official said Tuesday that the agency will investigate whether the nation's nuclear reactors are capable of coping with station blackouts and whether regulatory requirements need to be strengthened. Bill Borchardt, the agency's executive director for operations, said an obvious question is whether nuclear plants need enhanced battery supplies, or ones that can last longer. "There is a robust capability that exists already, but given what happened in Japan there's obviously a question that presents itself: Do we need to make it even more robust," he said at a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "We didn't address a tsunami and an earthquake, but clearly we have known for some time that one of the weak links that makes accidents a little more likely is losing power," said Alan Kolaczkowski, a retired nuclear engineer who worked on a federal risk analysis of Peach Bottom released in 1990 and is familiar with the updated risk analysis. Risk analyses conducted by the plants in 1991-94 and published by the commission in 2003 show that the chances of such an event striking a U.S. power plant are remote, even at the plant where the risk is the highest, the Beaver Valley Power Station in Pennsylvania. These long odds are among the reasons why the U nited S tates since the late 1980s has only required nuclear power plants to cope with blackouts for four or eight hours. That's about how much time batteries would last. After that, it is assumed that power would be restored. And so far, that's been the case. Equipment put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could buy more time. Otherwise, the reactor's radioactive core could begin to melt unless alternative cooling methods were employed. In Japan, the utility has tried using portable generators and dumping tons of seawater, among other things, on the reactors in an attempt to keep them cool. A 2003 federal analysis looking at how to estimate the risk of containment failure said that should power be knocked out by an earthquake or tornado it "would be unlikely that power will be recovered in the time frame to prevent core meltdown." In Japan, it was a one-two punch: first the earthquake, then the tsunami. Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled plant, found other ways to cool the reactor core and, so far, avert a full-scale meltdown without electricity. "Clearly the coping duration is an issue on the table now," said Biff Bradley, director of risk assessment for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "The industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have to go back in light of what we just observed and rethink station blackout duration." David Lochbaum, a former plant engineer and nuclear safety director at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, put it another way: "Japan shows what happens when you play beat-the-clock and lose." At Tuesday's Senate committee hearing, he said the government and the nuclear power industry have to do more to cope with prolonged blackouts, such as having temporary generators on site - or at nearby military bases - that can recharge batteries. A complete loss of electrical power , generally speaking, poses a major problem for a nuclear power plant because the reactor core must be kept cool, and back-up cooling systems - mostly pumps that replenish the core with water- require massive amounts of power to work. Without the electrical grid, or diesel generators, batteries can be used for a time, but they will not last long with the power demands. And when the batteries die, the systems that control and monitor the plant can also go dark, making it difficult to ascertain water levels and the condition of the core. Eleven U.S. reactors are designed to cope with a station blackout lasting eight hours, while 93 are designed for

four-hour blackouts .

22

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDIMPACT IS ON PAR WITH NUCLEAR WARFARE – FALLOUT WILL BE MASSIVE AND GLOBALDrell, Professor emeritus of theoretical physics at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and Science Advisory Committee, 12(THE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE High-Consequence Accidents: How to Enhance Safety and Minimize Risks in Nuclear Weapons and Reactors, pg. 1-3)

We live in dangerous times for many reasons. Prominent among them is the existence of a global nuclear enterprise made up of weapons that

can cause damage of unimaginable proportions and power plants at which accidents can have severe , essentially unpredictable consequences for human life . For all of its utility and promise, the nuclear enterprise is unique in the enormity of the vast quantities of destructive energy that can be released through blast, heat, and radioactivity. We addressed just this subject in a conference in

October 2011 at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. The complete set of papers prepared for the conference is reproduced in this book. The conference included experts on weapons, on power plants, on regulatory experience, and on the development of public perceptions and the ways in which these perceptions influence policy7. The reassuring outcome of the conference was a general sense that the U.S. nuclear enterprise currently meets very high standards in its commitment to safety and security. That has not always been the case in all aspects of the nuclear enterprise. And the unsettling outcome of the conference was that it will not be the case globally unless governments, international organizations, industry7, and media recognize and address the nuclear challenges and mounting risks posed by a rapidly changing world. The acceptance of the nuclear enterprise is now being challenged by concerns about the questionable safety and security of programs primarily in countries relatively new to the nuclear enterprise, and the potential loss of control to terrorist or criminal gangs of fissile material that exists in such abundance around the world. In a number of countries, confidence in nuclear energy production was severely shaken in the spring of 2011 by the Fukushima nuclear reactor plant disaster. And in the military sphere, the doctrine of deterrence that remains primarily dependent on nuclear weapons is seen in decline due to the importance of non-state actors such as al Qaeda and terrorist affiliates that seek destruction for destruction's sake. We have two nuclear tigers by the tail. When risks and consequences are unknown, undervalued, or ignored, our nation and the world are dangerously vulnerable . Nowhere is this risk-consequence equation more relevant than with respect to the nucleus of the atom . The nuclear enterprise was introduced to the world by the shock of the devastation produced by two atomic bombs hitting Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern nuclear weapons are far more powerful than those early bombs, which presented their own hazards. Early research depended on a program of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. In the early years following World War II, the impact and the amount of radioactive fallout in the atmosphere generated by above-ground nuclear explosions was notfully appreciated. During those years, the United States and also the Soviet Union conducted several hundred tests in the atmosphere that created fallout. The recent Stanford conference focused on a regulatory weak point from that time that exists in many places today, as the Fukushima disaster clearly indicates. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was initially assigned conflicting responsibilities: to create an arsenal of nuclear weapons for the United States to confront a growing nuclear-armed Soviet threat; and, at the same time, to ensure public safety from the effects of radioactive fallout. The AEC was faced with the same conundrum with regard to civilian nuclear power generation. It was charged with promoting civilian nuclear power and simultaneously protecting the public. Progress came in 1963 with the negotiation and signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) banning all nuclear explosive testing in the atmosphere (initially by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom). With the successful safety7 record of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, domestic anxiety about nuclear weapons receded somewhat. Meanwhile, public attitudes toward nuclear weapons reflected recognition of their key role in establishing a more stable nuclear deterrent posture in the confrontation with the Soviet Union. The positive record on safety of the nuclear weapons enterprise in the United States—there have been accidents involving nuclear weapons, but none that led to the release of nuclear energy—was the result of a strong effort and continuing commitment to include safety as a primary criterion in new weapons designs, as well as careful production, handling, and deployment procedures. The key to the health of today's nuclear weapons enterprise is confidence in the safety7 of its operations and in the protection of special nuclear materials against theft. One can imagine how different the situation would be today if there had been a recognized theft of material sufficient for a bomb, or if one of the two four-megaton bombs dropped from a disabled B-52 Strategic Air Command bomber overflying Goldsboro, North Carolina, in 1961 had detonated. In that event, just one switch in the arming sequence of one of the bombs, by remaining in its "off position" while the aircraft was disintegrating, was all that prevented a full-yield nuclear explosion. A close call indeed! In the twenty-six years since Chernobyl, the nuclear power industry has strengthened its safety practices. Over the past decade, growing concerns about global warming and energy independence have actually strengthened support for nuclear energy in the United States and many nations around the world. Yet despite these trends, the civil nuclear enterprise remains fragile. Following Fukushima, opinion polls gave stark evidence of the public's deep fears of the invisible force of nuclear radiation, shown by public opposition to the construction of new nuclear power plants in close proximity. It is not simply a matter of getting better information to the public but of actually educating the public about the true nature of nuclear radiation and its risks. Of course, the immediate task of the nuclear power component of the enterprise is to strive for the best possible safety record with one overriding objective: no more Fukushimas. Another issue that must be resolved involves the continued effectiveness of a policy of deterrence that remains primarily dependent upon nuclear weapons, and the hazards these weapons pose due to the spread of nuclear technology and material. There is growing apprehension about the determination of terrorists to get their hands on weapons or, for that matter, on the special nuclear material—plutonium and highly enriched uranium—that fuels them in the most challenging step toward developing a weapon. The global effects of a regional war between nuclear-armed adversaries such as India and Pakistan would also wield an enormous impac t , potentially involving radioactive fallout at large distances caused by a limited number of nuclear explosions. This is true as well for nuclear radiation from a reactor explosion — fallout at large distances would have a serious societal impact on the nuclear enterprise. There is little understanding of the reality and potential danger of consequences if such an event were to occur halfway around the world. An effort should be made to prepare the public by providing information on how to respond to such an event.

23

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

AFF – GENERAL SOLVENCY OW TURBINES FAIL – EXT.Lau, Ma, and Pecht, 12 – (Bill Chun Piu Lau, Eden Wai Man Ma, and Michael Pecht, Centre for Prognostics and System Health Management City University of Hong Kong; Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering (CALCE) University of Maryland, College Park, 2012, “Review of Offshore Wind Turbine Failures and Fault Prognostic Methods”, http://www.prognostics.umd.edu/calcepapers/11.PDF)Electrical control, gearbox, yaw system, generator, hydraulic, grid and blades are rated (60% of the total failures) as the most common failure components of wind turbines (>1.5MW) in the study of Danish turbines [6] (Figure 2). Those challenges cause extra cost on emergency maintenance, component screening, physical designs and so forth. According to the failed components mentioned, a more details are provided in the following with the failure mechanism(s) and cause(s) of the components. Therefore, prognostic methods can be customized for the specific components. A. Electrical Control Failures Damages of generator windings, short-circuit and over voltage of electronics components, transformers (Figure 3) and wiring damages are the common failures of electrical control [7]. These failures are reported as the results of lightning, poor electrical installation, technical defects and resonances within resistor-capacitor (RC) circuits [8]. B. Yaw System Failures Yaw control system controls the nacelle rotation to place the blades facing the desired angle [9]. It was reported that the cracking of yaw drive shafts, fracture of gear teeth, pitting of the yaw bearing race and failure of the bearing mounting bolts are all categorized as Yaw System Failures [10]. Icing problem in extreme weather [11] and high vibration level during overload [12] are also claimed as the cause of the failures. C. Gearbox Failures Gearbox is usually found in the turbines nowadays. However, it was one of the most frequently damaged rotational components in turbine. The failures are usually wearing, backlash, and tooth breakage (Figure 4). They are claimed as the result of particle contaminations, frequent stoppage and starting and high loaded operation conditions [7]. D. Grid Failures The wind speed and direction always change time after time. It is impossible to predict them accurately. If the region is highly dependent on wind power without any backup power storage or other power generation system, wind grid may occur during high power consumption with low wind power generation [13]. E. Hydraulic Failures Hydraulic components are used in many high pressure connections located in pitch, yaw, braking system and gearbox lubrication system. The leakages of these components are called hydraulic failure. Since the offshore turbines are usually located in extreme environmental conditions, the failure may occur during high/low temperature, corrosion, vibration. The reasons behind are claimed as improper installation, poor system design, poor component quality and system abuse. The improper installation rated as 60% of the total failure causes [14]. F. Blade Failures Blades are the main rotors of wind turbine and they transfer wind power into up-lifting force by fluid dynamic physical design. Usually, any blade damages, cracks, breakups and bends are said as blade failures. Causes of the blade failures include turbulent wind, out-of-control rotation, lightning [15] and production defects [16]. [4] reported that a broken blade had travelled as far as 1.3km from its tower. Many countries, hence, set up regulations to forbid their civilians to get close to wind farms such as US and Germany [17].

24

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

AFF – EU SOLVENCY

TERMINAL SOLVENCY DEFICIT---NO US BARGES EXIST TO BUILD TURBINES AND LAW PREVENTS EUROPEAN VESSELS FROM DOING IT Giordano 10Offshore Windfall: What Approval of the United States' First Offshore Wind Project Means for the Offshore Wind Energy Industry [comments] University of Richmond Law Review , Vol. 44, Issue 3 (March 2010), pp. 1149-1172 Giordano, Michael P. 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149 (2009-2010)

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.9 For example, an increase in rotor diameter from ten meters to fifty meters "yields a 55-fold increase in yearly electricity output" be- cause of the increase of the tower height and the size of the swept area.60 Added costs due to the construction and operation of off- shore 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 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,"3 and United States law mandates that only United States-based vessels may work in United States waters, with little exception. 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 assemble turbines at nearby land locations just prior to installation in the seabed.

25

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

AFF – NB – IMAPCT D NO IMPACT – HUMANS CAN SURVIVE POST-COLLAPSE AND THERE’S NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SURVIVAL AND BIODIVERSITY – THEIR AUTHORS USE FLAWED DATA ANALYSISHough 14 [Rupert, Environmental Scientist with Expertise in Risk Modelling and Exposure Assessment and PhD from Nottingham University, February, “Biodiversity and human health: evidence for causality?” Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 23 No. 2, pg. 272-3/AKG]Large country-level assessments (e.g. MEA 2005; Huynen et al. 2004; Sieswerda et al. 2001) must be interpreted with some caution . Data measured at country-level are likely to mask regional and local-level effects . Apart from the fact that there are limitations to regression analysis in providing any proof of causality, least squares regression models assume linear relationships between reductions

in biodiversity and human health and thus imply a linear relationship between loss of biodiversity and the provision of relevant ecosystem goods and services . A number of authors, however, have suggested that ecosystems can lose a proportion of their biodiversity without adverse consequences to their functioning (e.g. Schwartz et al. 2000). Only when a threshold in the losses of biodiversity is reached does the provision of

ecosystem goods and services become compromised. These models also tend to assume a positive relationship between socio-economic development and loss of biodiversity. One problem with this expectation is that the loss in biodiversity in one country is not per definition the result of socio-economic developments in that particular country, but could also be the result of socio-economic developments in other parts of the world (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Furthermore, the use of existing data means researchers can only make use of available indicators. Unlike for human health and socio-economic development, there are no broadly accepted core-set of indicators for biodiversity (Soberon et al. 2000). The

lack of correlation between biodiversity indicators (Huynen et al. 2004) shows that the selected indicators do not measure the same thing,

which hinders interpretation of results . Finally, there is likely to be some sort of latency period between ecosystem imbalance and any resulting health consequences. To date, this has not been investigated using regression approaches. Finally, it is thought that provisioning services are more crucial for human health and well-being that other ecosystem services (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). Trends in measures of human well-being are clearly correlated with food provisioning services, and especially with meat consumption (Smil 2002). While *60 % of the ecosystem services assessed by the MEA were found to be in decline, most of these were regulating and supporting services, whereas the majority of expanding services were provisioning services such as crops, livestock and aquaculture (MEA 2005). Raudsepp-Hearne et al. (2010) investigated the impacts on

human well-being from decreases in non-food ecosystem services using national-scale data in order to reveal human well-being trends at the global scale. At the global scale, forest cover, biodiversity, and fish stocks are all decreasing; while water crowding (a measure of how many people shared the same flow unit of water placing a clear emphasis on the social demands of water rather than physical stress (Falkenmark and Rockstro¨m 2004)), soil degradation, natural disasters, global temperatures, and carbon dioxide levels are all on the rise, and land is becoming increasingly subject to salinization and desertification (Bennett and Balvanera 2007). However,

across countries, Raudsepp-Hearne et al. (2010) found no correlation between measures of wellbeing and the available data for non-food ecosystem services , including forest cover and percentage of land under protected-area status (proxies for many

cultural and regulating services), organic pollutants (a proxy for air and water quality), and water crowding index (a proxy for drinking water availability, Sieswerda et al. 2001; WRI 2009) This suggests t here is no direct causal link between biodiversity decline and health , rather the relationship is a ‘knock-on’ effect. I.e. if biodiversity decline affects mankind’s ability to produce food, fuel and fibre, it will therefore impact on

human health and well-being. As discussed in the introduction, the fact that humans need food, water and air to live is an obvious one. All these basic provisions can be produced in a diversity-poor environment. Therefore, to understand whether there is a potential causality relationship between

biodiversity in its own right and human health, we need to move beyond the basic provisioning services.

26

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDSPECIES LOSS EXAGGERATED – UN FIGURES PROVE.Dutton 01 - professor of philosophy at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand [Dennis Dutton. “Greener Thank You Think. ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World' by Bjorn Lomborg.” The Washington Post. October 21, 2001. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12789-2001Oct18]

<For a factual encyclopedia, the book has immense entertainment value, particularly in the way Lomborg traces the urban legends of the Green movement back to their sources. Consider the oft-repeated claim that 40,000 species go extinct every year. Such an annual loss of species, Lomborg points out, would be disaster for the future of life on earth, amounting perhaps to a loss of 25 to 50 percent of all species in the next half century. He manages,

however, to locate the source of the story -- an off-hand and completely unfounded guess made by a scientist in 1979. It's been repeated endlessly ever since --

and in 1981 was increased by arch-doomsayer Paul Ehrlich to 250,000 species per year. (Ehrlich also predicted that half the planet's species would be extinct by 2000.) Lomborg brings these unhinged forecasts back down to Earth by reminding us that the only actual scientific documentation for species loss is in United Nations figures , which show an actual loss of between a tenth of a percent and 1 percent of all species for all of the next 50 years. This includes beetles, ants, flies, worms, bacteria and fungi, which make up 99 percent of all species, plus a small but unknown number of mammals and birds. Extinction, Lomborg argues, is a problem to be realistically faced and solved, not a catastrophe to be bewailed. >

REALLY WE DON'T NEED BIODIVERSITYChild ‘9 (Matthew, Conservation Biologist, “Putting ‘Ecosystem Services’ in Their Place!”, January, http://www.conservationtoday.org/index.php?/Editorials/Matt-Child/Putting-the-ecosystem-services-argument-in-its-place.html)

Society can get along just fine without biodiversity. “What?! Are you high? What’s the matter with you?!” I hear you think to yourselves reservedly. But ponder it for a second: even if we were to live in a world in which there was no longer biodiversity but some minimum level of ‘biodeficiency’ (perhaps a few plants and a few sparrows and

whatever), technology and human industriousness could plausibly allow us to exist on this Earth for posterity . The advent of scenario planning has helped elucidate this possibility by imagining landscapes covered by ‘technogardens’, complete with control towers that mimic the necessities of the seasons1. In this kind of scenario, ecosystem services are created and controlled by the human endeavour. And ecosystems would be human products, subject to the same industrialisation as the panoply of our packaged lives. Such ‘efficiencies’ of land use would theoretically allow society the luxury of setting aside the remaining land for nature reserves and parks. But would we actually do that? Having finally been convinced that nature is merely utilitarian, ironically by those conservationists whose original intention was to demonstrate the opposite, it’s doubtful whether the public would put up much resistance if the remaining land were annexed by Technogarden Inc. (Whose slogan would probably be: Why leave nature to chance?) There is also no real precedent to believe that governments and industry leaders would stick to a ‘land sparing’ arrangement even if some people did decide that Wilderness (I capitalised to give it a mystical pronoun sort of feel) is invaluable. Take the contemporary example of developing-world agricultural systems: the question is whether to promote ‘wildlife friendly’ farming (a kind of integrated eco-agriculture) or ‘land sparing’ techniques (here: farm; there: nature). Research is beginning to show that land sparing is probably better for biodiversity (Ben Phalan, unpublished data), especially species sensitive to disturbance (which are most of the cool ones). So cordon off pieces of land, farm the living daylights out of it, and then leave the rest for wildlife. Well, yes. However, developing world citizens and their governments probably won’t see it that way. Just ‘leaving’ land alone for nature is anathema to anyone who doesn’t own an iPod. The truth of the matter is that, no matter how we spin it or how many justifications we give for land to be left alone to produce ‘services’, optimisation will only ever lead to optimisation. It’s the eerie way in which we’re wired: the evolutionary residue of our hoarding Pleistocene past interacting with the neon-emblazoned signs and symbols of society urge us to consume ever greater amounts. Such blatant obsession with material wealth only promulgates Thoreau’s dread observation that “fruit is not ripe until turned to dollars”. Inadvertently, the value-laden ecosystem service argument for conservation will only lead to a more

impoverished world. Search your feelings: you know this to be true. By reducing nature to dollar signs destined for the cold quarantine of appraisal, we slick the conveyer belts of industrial progress. There is no way we can create a paradigm shift in the consumer conscious if we concede that ecosystems and economics exist on the same scale. The problem is twofold: firstly, if we agree that species can be valued then it can be deduced that most species are not valuable. (That’s pretty catchy, right? Maybe it’ll become a marketing campaign for Technogarden Inc.). The majority of ecosystem services are provided by a core group of species that fulfil basic functional criteria2. And there’s no real naming of names when it comes to species and ‘services’. In practical terms, this means that most species can be substituted and the ‘services’ we so cherish will still be delivered. It also means that rare and endangered species are probably not worth the ‘cost’ of protecting because they fail to effectively (and consistently) produce an anthropocentric service. “But what about keystone species?!” I hear you cry in anguish, “They’re pretty cool and can’t really be substituted!” No, they can’t really. It’d be tricky at the very least. But I’m going to say something controversial right now, brace yourselves: the consequences of losing keystone species exists on a scale below the potential of the human endeavour to engineer solutions. Most species losses have severe ecological repercussions, this much is definitely true. But it’s probably a safe bet that, in reality, very few of these cases would translate into tangible disadvantages for humans. Don’t get me wrong, services like flood abatement, water purification, fibre production and so on are important. But their resilience and quality is mostly determined by sound land management (burning regimes, erosion control, stocking rates), and has little or nothing to do with what most people think of when they hear the word ‘biodiversity’: birds and animals. (The ‘charismatic megafauna’, to give it a buzz phrase spin). Ecosystems services are real and important but most of them can be produced and managed at the producer trophic level. Bird and animal diversity is far more important for sustaining and creating biodiversity (in terms of ensuring ecological relationships and maintaining evolutionary connections). This is an important argument if we recognise and want to convince others of our role as stewards of life. But it is dishonest and ultimately destructive to the conservation movement to try and shove the ‘biodiversity’ concept into what is already a pretty shallow economic framework. Unless we are, of course, speaking about (drum-roll) the greatest hoax of all: “Existence Value”!

27

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

AFF – NB – ENVI RESILIENTMARGINAL LOSSES DON’T ERODE ECOSYSTEM RESILIENCESagoff 8 (Mark, Senior Research Scholar @ Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy @ School of Public Policy @ U. Maryland, Environmental Values, “On the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services”, 17:2, 239-257, EBSCO)What about the economic value of biodiversity? Biodiversity represents natureʼs greatest largess or excess since species appear nearly as numerous as the stars except that ʻscientists have a better understanding of

how many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there are on Earthʼ.41 The ʻnextʼ or ʻincrementalʼ thousand species taken at random would not fetch a market price because another thousand are immediately available, and another thousand after that . No one has suggested an economic application, moreover, for any of the thousand species in the USA listed as threatened.42 To defend the ʻmarginalʼ value of biodiversity on economic grounds is to trade convincing spiritual, aesthetic and ethical arguments for bogus, pretextual and disingenuous economic ones.43 As David Ehrenfeld has written, We do not know how many [plant] species are needed to keep the planet green and healthy, but it seems very unlikely to be anywhere near the more than quarter of a million we have now. Even a mighty dominant like the American chestnut, extending over half a continent, all but disappeared without bringing the eastern deciduous forest down with it. And if we turn to the invertebrates, the source of nearly all biological diversity, what biologist is willing to find a value – conventional or ecological

– for all 600,000-plus species of beetles?44 The disappearance in the wild even of agriculturally useful species appears to have no effect on production. The last wild aurochs, the progenitor of dairy and beef cattle, went extinct in Poland in 1742, yet no one believes the beef industry is threatened. The genetic material of crop species is contained in tens of thousands of landraces and cultivars in use – rice is an example – and does not depend on the persistence of wild ancestral types. Genetic engineering can introduce DNA from virtually any species into virtually any other – which allows for the unlimited creation of biodiversity. A neighbour of mine has collected about 4,000 different species of insects on his two-acre property in Silver Spring, Maryland. These include 500 kinds of Lepidoptera (mostly moths) – half the number another entomologist found at his residence.45 When you factor in plants and animals the amount of ʻbackyard biodiversityʼ in suburbs is astounding and far greater than you can imagine.46 Biodiversity generates no price ʻat the marginʼ because nature provides far more of it than anyone could possibly administer. If one kind of moth flies off, you can easily attract hundreds of others. The price of a building lot in suburban Maryland, where I live, is a function of its proximity to good schools and to Washington, DC. The thousands of kinds of insects, weeds, microbes, etc. that nature lavishes on the typical suburban lot do not increase its price. No one wants to invest to see if any of these creatures contains a cancer-curing drug, although a raccoon in my attic did test positive for rabies.47 No one thinks that property values are a function of biodiversity; no one could suppose that a scarcity of critters looms that might create a competitive advantage for housing lots that are more generously endowed with deer, opossums, muskrats, raccoons, birds or beavers. (A neighbour who has a swimming pool plays unwilling summer host to a beaver who at night jumps off the diving board into the pool, swims around, and jumps again.) An astronomical variety of biodiversity is thrown in with every acre zoned for residential use. Buy an acre or two, and an immense amount of biodiversity is yours for nothing.

28

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WIND

AFF – LINKS TO PTX OFFSHORE WIND COSTS PC – OBAMA PUSHES DESPITE CONTROVERSYTodd Sperry, CNN correspondent, 8-16-2012 “Wind farm gets US approval despite controversy” http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/wind-farm-faa/index.html DA: 6/8/14

A massive offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has generated fierce political and legal controversy has cleared all federal and state regulatory hurdles. The Federal

Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape Wind project, the first of its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain conditions. Previous agency approvals were challenged in court, including a ruling

last year that forced the latest FAA safety evaluation. A leading opposition group said another legal challenge was possible. The Obama administration first approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for

more than a decade, in April 2010 despite opposition from residents. Opponents over the years have included the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family compound is in Hyannis Port. 125 years of wind power Critics

claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would threaten wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents also fear it will drive down property values.

The administration has pushed a "green energy" agenda nationally as a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil imports. That effort, however, has been sharply criticized by congressional Republicans who have said certain high-profile projects are politically driven. They also have skewered certain

Energy Department programs that extended millions in taxpayer loans and other aid to alternative energy companies or projects that faltered or did not meet

expectations. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the political assertions around Cape Wind as part of a broader review of "green

energy" projects supported by the administration. The panel's chairman, California's Darrell Issa, wrote President Barack Obama last week saying that White House interest in the Massachusetts project is "well known" and that the FAA had been under political pressure to approve it.

PLAN PERCEIVED AS PICKING WINNERS – TRIGGERS GOP BACKLASH AND SPILLS OVER TO NEW CONTROVERSY OVER OFFSHORE DRILLINGZack Coleman, E2 Wire THE HILL’s Environment and Energy Blog, 11-9-2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267041-gop-senators-press-interior-on-offshore-wind-deal DA: 6/11/14

GOP senators accuse Interior of playing favorites in offshore wind deal Two GOP senators are accusing the Interior Department of playing favorites

by offering Atlantic waters for wind farms but not oil and gas development. At issue is a lease for developing commercial wind power in federal waters off the Delaware coast. The area in question is off limits to oil-and-gas drillers in President Obama’s five-year offshore drilling plan.

GOP Sens. David Vitter (La.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) sent a letter Friday to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking him to evaluate the economics of the potential wind farm against a comparably sized oil-and-gas deal. “The administration has a habit of picking energy-

industry winners and losers , and we want an explanation. Secretary Salazar should at least be able to defend the economics of the lease sale for wind

energy. For example, the federal government receives significant revenue from royalties for offshore oil and gas production in the form of

rents, royalties, bonus bids and taxes. Can the same be said for this offshore wind project?” Vitter said in a Friday statement. The administration has cited environmental reasons for the restriction on Atlantic and Pacific offshore drilling. It says its plan still permits exploration for 75 percent of identified reserves. Obama revised his offshore drilling plan following the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. When Interior released the administration's final leasing plan in June, it described the blueprint as "responsible" and "cautious." Republicans in both the House and the Senate have criticized Interior for its handling of offshore drilling in response to the 2010 spill. They say Interior acted too quickly by imposing a drilling freeze in the Gulf of Mexico, and complain that rules instituted since then are overly

burdensome. GOP lawmakers say Obama's five-year offshore plan is too limited. They want to open the Atlantic and Pacific to drilling, saying drillers could unlock previously undiscovered reserves. Vitter and Alexander said increasing offshore oil-and-gas leases would generate new revenue that could help pay down the deficit. They said oil and gas firms would pay handsomely for the right to explore those areas, and noted they

would owe federal royalties on anything they dredge up. The senators wanted to compare that to what Interior offered NRG Bluewater Wind Delaware LLC

for the wind lease sale.

29

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDOFFSHORE WIND CAUSES CONTROVERSY – GOP AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS BACKLASH TO OBAMA PUSHDarrell Delamaide is a writer, editor and journalist with more than 30 years' experience. He is the author of three books and has written for magazines, newspapers, and online media. A specialist in business and finance, he lived in Europe for many years, has traveled widely, and has a master's degree from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. 4-30-2010 “U.S. Approval of Cape Cod Offshore Wind Project Will Not End Controversy” http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/U.S.-Approval-Of-Cape-Cod-Offshore-Wind-Project-Will-Not-End-Controversy.html DA: 6/8/14

The Obama administration approved the controversial Cape Wind project, which calls for a wind farm of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound and will be the first offshore wind

project in the country. But it is sure to generate more controversy as opposition was voiced by everyone from environmental groups to Native American tribes to Cape Cod residents, who are disturbed at the prospect that they will see the wind turbines as specks on the horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their closest point, and 14 miles and their most distant. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy opposed the project because the turbines will be visible from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, however, welcomed the project and was present at the Boston announcement of the federal government approval. The state wants to have 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar

made it clear that the decision is final and that the administration is confident it can withstand the court challenges that are sure to come. The project has been under review for nearly 10 years. There are about a dozen other offshore projects being contemplated, most of them off the Eastern seaboard north of Chesapeake Bay. A number of northern European countries are already operating offshore wind farms in the north Atlantic. The Cape Wind farm is expected to begin generating electricity by the end of 2012, pending the outcome of the legal challenges. It will provide sufficient electricity for three-quarters of the

225,000 residents of Cape Cod. An attempt to block the project by the American Council on Historical Preservation, which cited the historical value of the Kennedy compound and other sites on the Cape, was opposed by Patrick and governors from Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland. Environmentalists oppose the project because it interferes with habitats of numerous marine animals and birds, and because of its visual impact on the scenery.

30

GUSTAFSON TSDC OFFSHORE WINDOFFSHORE WIND FUNDING CAUSES CONTROVERSY – GOP BUDGET CONFLICTSJessica Goad et al is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progress’s Public Lands Project. Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center. Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project Director at the Center. 12-6-2012 “7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans” http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-ways-that-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-all-americans/ DA: 6/10/14

On January 2, 2013 a set of large, across-the-board spending cuts to nearly all federal agencies is set to take place in accordance with the Budget Control Act 2011. These massive slashes—known as the

“fiscal showdown” or “sequestration”—are a direct result of conservatives in Congress holding the American economy hostage in order to safeguard tax breaks for the

wealthiest Americans. While much has been written and said about what this would do to the economy, health care, national security, and other major domestic programs, one relatively unexplored issue is the effect it would have on some of America’s most treasured

assets: our oceans and public lands. The fiscal showdown is the latest in a series of budget conflicts that have come to a head over the last year. Because the Joint Select Committee on Deficit

Reduction—the “super committee”—was unable to come to an agreement on how to address the deficit, massive, automatic cuts to federal programs will take place unless Congress agrees by year’s end on an alternative set of budgetary measures to replace sequestration. If they fail to do so, federal spending will be automatically slashed by $1.2 trillion from 2013 through 2021, with approximately $109 billion in cuts coming in fiscal year 2013. Despite the fact that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) offered a plan with $800 billion in new revenue, he has not outlined any specific or realistic path to get there and wants to lower tax rates—a plan that heads in the wrong direction. As a result, the country is now in a precarious situation. Only an eleventh-hour deal will prevent cuts that former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—who served under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama—has said would have a “catastrophic effect” on national security. Sequestration’s impacts could be equally calamitous for the management of federal programs that safeguard American lives, fuel our economy, and provide treasured sites for rest and recreation. Sequestration will have a big—and negative—impact on land and ocean management agencies. Here’s how it’ll affect all Americans: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on your table Diminished maritime safety and security Congressional Republicans are beginning to wake up to the reality that our financial woes cannot be solved simply by slashing spending—additional sources of revenue must be part of the equation. Several conservatives have recently broken ranks from GOP taxation task-master, lobbyist Grover Norquist, who is most known for the pledge he convinced many in Congress to sign promising to reject any tax increases. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) recently suggested that he is not “obligated” to honor the pledge he made with Norquist to oppose tax increases. This is good news for the American people who enjoy government services—everything from a strong military to the interstate highway system to public education—because it means that an honest conversation about addressing the deficit that includes both new revenues and cuts can move forward. But

unless more conservatives join this trend, sequestration will be inevitable, in which case we are going to have to start making do without some of these vital services we now consider fundamental to our daily lives. In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what cutting these agencies might mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less fish on our tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year 2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel the impacts of such massive cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters, American-made energy, and hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionally—and perhaps most obviously—the cuts will likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security (weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving America’s shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose reducing conservation funds to balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy determined that 74 percent of voters say that, “even with federal budget problems, funding for conservation should not be cut.” And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation initiatives. As these statistics

clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to the American people, congressional Republicans must put forward a realistic plan that embraces both revenue increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands and ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the

economic and societal benefits they provide. Attempting to balance the budget and avoid the fiscal showdown simply by cutting spending without a plan to increase revenue means we will be less

prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer places to hunt, fish, and relax. Impact on public lands and oceans The White House Office of Management and Budget released a report in September determining that the “sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending.” All of the cuts described in this issue brief are nondefense discretionary, except for one account in the Coast Guard that has a defense function and would receive a 9.4 percent cut totaling $50 million in fiscal year 2013. It is important to note that the Office of Management and Budget does not provide much specificity about how these cuts would be administered to individual programs within agencies. It lists them only in terms of high-level budget line items where appropriations are tracked. For example, the analysis shows that the National Park Service operations budget will lose $183 million, but it does not specify which services or which parks will bear the brunt of this reduction—those decisions are left to the agencies and departments themselves. It is therefore difficult to guess what sort of cuts the agencies might make—for example, which areas might close, which programs might end, how many jobs will be lost, and other details. Nevertheless, we can easily assume that cuts on such a massive scale will have a major impact on a number of fronts, and that Americans will feel them with regard to the services and values that the agencies provide. Less accurate weather forecasts One of the most important and evident investments that the federal government makes is in weather prediction. But sequestration could threaten the government’s ability to provide accurate weather forecasting by cutting the budget for the agency where weather prediction is housed. If this happens, Americans will get less precise daily weather reports and will suffer through less accurate natural disaster predictions for hurricanes, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, and other weather events from the mundane to the catastrophic. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the central agency for critical weather prediction resources. Its National Weather Service is the nation’s primary source of the data and analysis, forming the basis of everything from the forecasts you receive from meteorologists on the morning news to the National Hurricane Center’s storm-tracking capabilities to the long-term projections of global climate change. Even the Weather Channel’s forecasts come from this agency’s data. The United States is already falling behind other nations when it comes to forecasting capabilities. As accurate as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency’s predictions of the track of Hurricane Sandy proved to be, European models predicted its landfall days before U.S. models did. As a result, when meteorologists sought to predict the arrival and intensity of the large storm that slammed into the New York/New Jersey area less than a week after Sandy, they frequently referenced the European model’s predictions to lend more credibility to their reports. Even though our domestic weather prediction capabilities trail the Europeans in many capacities, sequestration’s 8.2 percent cut would make them even worse. One specific example involves the ongoing effort to replace our nation’s aging weather monitoring satellites. The Government Accountability Office predicted that even at current spending levels, to buy replacement satellites, “there will likely be a gap in satellite data lasting 17 to 53 months”—the time it takes the old satellite to shut down and when its replacement can come online. During this time, the accuracy of advance warnings of impending weather disasters such as hurricanes and blizzards could decline by as much as 50 percent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency’s “Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction” account would face a $149 million reduction, according to the Office of Management and Budget’s projections. This would almost certainly extend the amount of time the

country will have to get by with lower-quality storm predictions and warnings, potentially causing more damage and fatalities due to inaccurate weather prediction. Slower energy development Energy development is an important and legitimate

use of our lands and oceans. Both onshore lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (lands owned by the U.S. that are underwater offshore) provide substantial natural resources used for energy. In fact, 32 percent of the oil, 21 percent of the natural gas, and

43 percent of the coal produced in the United States comes from federal lands and waters. Sequestration, however, could potentially hinder government agencies from planning, studying, and permitting this energy development by limiting their resources and available staff. Public lands and oceans also offer significant opportunities for renewable energy development. Recently, the Department of the Interior announced that it had approved 10,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy on public lands, more than all previous administrations combined. The agency is also making progress when it comes to offshore wind development. The Cape Wind project has received all its permits and is preparing to begin construction on the country’s first offshore wind farm, in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound. And after completing the first phase of its “Smart from the Start” initiative, which identifies areas off the Atlantic coast that will be offered to developers, the agency issued its first lease under the

program in October. But all of this progress could be drastically slowed under sequestration. Land and ocean management agencies face cuts to the programs that allow them to plan for, study, permit,

and help build fossil fuel and renewable energy projects on an efficient timeline. This means projects will take longer to get approved and set up, delaying the process of energy development and in some cases potentially stopping it completely. The stalling of energy development from our own public lands and oceans will also mean a greater reliance on foreign energy sources—an outcome we’ve been trying to get away from for years. Specifically, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management faces an $85 million cut to its “Management of Lands and Resources” account in fiscal year 2013 alone. Part of this account is devoted to energy and minerals management, including permit processing and environmental analyses of energy projects. The Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service also has funds that allow it to study the impacts of energy development on species and habitats, but the account that is in part devoted to this purpose—“Resource Management”—will be slashed by $105 million in 2013 under sequestration. These types of cuts

could delay the environmental review process, making it more difficult for renewable energy projects on public lands to actually get off the ground. In terms of offshore energy development, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be cut by $13 million in fiscal year 2013 if the sequester moves forward. This agency manages exploration, science, leasing, permitting, and development of offshore energy resources, both fossil and renewable. Such a large cut to this agency’s budget could slow down the recent progress made on offshore wind energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.

31