Neg cards

AT: Inherency__The DOE just handed out $141 million to expand offshore wind developmentBusiness Green, Staff Writer, May 8, 2014, “US awards $141m to innovative offshore wind farm projects,” Accessed 5/13/2014, http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2343636/us-awards-usd141m-to-innovative-offshore-wind-farm-projects

The US Department of Energy (DoE) has handed out $141m to three developers planning wind farms off the coasts of New Jersey, Oregon, and Virginia. The three projects are set to add 67MW of offshore wind capacity in US waters by 2017 and make use of new technologies designed to drive down costs for future wind farms, the DoE said in a statement. "Offshore wind offers a large, untapped energy resource for the United States that can create thousands of manufacturing, construction and supply chain jobs across the country and drive billions of dollars in local economic investment," said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in a statement. "The offshore wind projects announced today further this commitment - bringing more clean, renewable energy to our homes and businesses , diversifying our energy portfolio, and reducing costs through innovation."

__The Department of the Interior is increasing offshore wind nowBureau of Ocean Management, 2014, “Offshore Wind Energy,” http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Renewable-Energy-Guide/Offshore-Wind-Energy.aspx, Accessed 4/9/2014

The first offshore wind project was installed off the coast of Denmark in 1991. Since that time, commercial-scale offshore wind facilities have been operating in shallow waters around the world, mostly in Europe. With the U.S. Department of the Interior’s “Smart from the Start” initiative, wind power projects will soon be built offshore the United States. Newer turbine and foundation technologies are being developed so that wind power projects can be built in deeper waters further offshore.

__The DOE is already expanding offshore wind energy nowJosé Zayas, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, January 2014, “Advancing Ocean Renewable Energy In the United States,” Sea Technology Magazine, http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2014/0114/1.php, Accessed 4/11/2014

In 2013, the Energy Department finalized awards for support of the initial design and permitting phase of seven competitively selected offshore wind demonstration projects. Through cost-share funding, technical assistance and interagency coordination to accelerate the deployment of these projects, the Department intends to validate new technologies to reduce costs, eliminate uncertainties and mitigate risks to support growth of a robust offshore wind energy industry. In 2014, the Department plans to select up to three of the seven projects to support, with up to $47 million in additional funding each to progress through final design, fabrication, construction and, finally, to full operation. These projects are anticipated to be grid-connected by the end of 2017.

AT: Warming

Warming General

Offense – Increases Emissions__Rapid deployment increases emissions—manufacturing/installation increasesScience Daily '12

"Low-Carbon Technologies 'No Quick Fix'" May Not Lessen Global Warming Until Late This Century," 2/15/12 www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120216094801.htm AD 8/25/12

**Citing Nathan Myhrvold, PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics; Ken Caldeira, PhD in Atmospheric Sciences, atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science; in a pee-reviewed article in Environmental Research Letters**

ScienceDaily (Feb. 15, 2012) — A drastic switch to low carbon-emitting technologies, such as wind and hydroelectric power, may not yield a reduction in global warming until the latter part of this century, new research suggests. Furthermore, it states that technologies that offer only modest reductions in greenhouse gases, such as the use of natural gas and perhaps carbon capture and storage, cannot substantially reduce climate risk in the next 100 years. The study, published February 16, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, claims that the rapid deployment of low-greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies (LGEs) will initially increase emissions as they will require a large amount of energy to construct and install. These cumulative emissions will remain in the atmosphere for extended periods due to the long lifetime of CO2, meaning that global mean surface temperatures will increase to a level greater than if we continued to use conventional coal-fired plants.

__Production and installment offset emissions reductionsChapman et al '12

Jamie, PhD in Earth & Planetary Sciences, Adjunct Faculty in Dept of Civil and Envrnmntl Engineering at Texas Tech Chad Augustine, Ph.D. in chemical engineering, member of the Technology Systems and Sustainability Analysis Group in the Strategic Energy Analysis Center at NREL.; Lantz, E.; Denholm, P.; Felker, F.; Heath, G.; Mai, T.; Tegen, S. (2012). "Wind Energy Technologies," Chapter 11. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Renewable Electricity Futures Study, Vol. 2, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; pp. 11-1 – 11-63. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52409-2.pdf AD 8/16/12

Deployment of wind energy, averaging roughly 10 GW/yr153 to 30 GW/yr (depending on the scenario) over the next four decades (see Figure 11-17), is expected to result in a number of notable environmental and social impacts. For example, wind energy emits no GHG emissions or other air pollutants during power production. In addition, wind energy produces only small amounts of waste (e.g., consumed lubricants), requires very small amounts of water for periodic blade cleaning, and requires no mining for fuel. However, the manufacture and production of wind turbine equipment requires mining and does result in GHG and other emissions; the integration of wind into the grid can also modestly increase emissions from conventional equipment. Together, these partially offset the benefit of wind power generation having no emissions.

No Warming – Temperatures Stable__No runaway warming—global temperature has stabilized over the past decade despite massive increases in Co2Taylor 13—senior fellow for environment policy @ Heartland Institute

James, “As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit” [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/] March 6 //mtc

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit . The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis. NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures. This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions. Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse global warming crisis than they have been predicting. “The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped,” the Associated Press reported yesterday.

Actually, the fact that temperatures remain flat even as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise is a devastating rebuke to assertions that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are causing a global warming crisis. On a related front, the NOAA data amplify the futility of imposing costly carbon dioxide restrictions on the U.S. economy in the name of fighting global warming. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined 10 percent during the past decade, yet global emissions rose by more than 30 percent. Regardless of the future pace of ongoing reductions in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, global carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise. Even if the United States committed economic suicide by imposing all or most of the carbon dioxide restrictions advocated by global warming activists, the ensuing U.S. carbon dioxide reductions would amount to merely a drop in the bucket compared to the flood of emissions increases by the world as a whole and by developing nations such as China and India in particular. Fortunately, as the new NOAA data show, and as global warming ‘skeptics’ have observed all along, rising carbon dioxide emissions are having only a modest impact on global temperatures and are not creating a global warming crisis.

No Warming – Cooling Now __Cooling is coming now – it’s fast and outweighs the effects of warmingCarlin 11 – PhD in Economics from MIT

Alan Carlin, PhD in Economics, former Director @ EPA and fellow @ RAND, 3-2011, “ A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 8

On the contrary, the evidence is that during interglacial periods over the last 3 million years the risks are on the temperature downside, not the upside. As we approach the point where the Holocene has reached the historical age when a new ice age has repeatedly started in past glacial cycles, this appears likely to be the only CAGW effect that mankind should currently reasonably be concerned about. Earth is currently in an interglacial period quite similar to others before and after each of the glacial periods that Earth has experienced over the last 3 million years. During these interglacial periods there is currently no known case where global temperatures suddenly and dramatically warmed above interglacial temperatures, such as we are now experiencing, to very much warmer temperatures. There have, of course, been interglacial periods that have experienced slightly higher temperatures, but none that we know of that after 10,000 years experienced a sudden catastrophic further increase in global temperatures. The point here is that there does not appear to be instability towards much warmer temperatures during interglacial periods. There is rather instability towards much colder temperatures, particularly during the later stages of interglacial periods . In fact, Earth has repeatedly entered new ice ages about every 100,000 years during recent cycles, and interglacial periods have lasted about 10,000 years. We are currently very close to the 10,000 year mark for the current interglacial period. So if history is any guide, the main worry should be that of entering a new ice age, with its growing ice sheets, that would probably wipe out civilization in the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere—not global warming. The economic damages from a new ice age would indeed be large, and almost certainly catastrophic. Unfortunately, it is very likely to occur sooner or later.

Warming Inevitable __Warming is inevitable—peer reviewed study shows no plausible solution Kerr 11

Richard “Bleak Prospects for Avoiding Dangerous Global Warming” [http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/10/bleak-prospects-for-avoiding-dangerous.html] October 23

The bad news just got worse: A new study finds that reining in greenhouse gas emissions in time to avert serious changes to Earth's climate will be at best extremely difficult . Current goals for reducing emissions fall far short of what would be needed to keep warming below dangerous levels, the study suggests. To succeed, we would most likely have to reverse the rise in emissions immediately and follow through with steep reductions through the century. Starting later would be far more expensive and require unproven technology. Published online today in Nature Climate Change, the new study merges model estimates of how much greenhouse gas society might put into the atmosphere by the end of the century with calculations of how climate might respond to those human emissions. Climate scientist Joeri Rogelj of ETH Zurich and his colleagues combed the published literature for model simulations that keep global warming below 2°C at the lowest cost. They found 193 examples. Modelers running such optimal-cost simulations tried to include every factor that might influence the amount of greenhouse gases society will produce —including the rate of technological progress in burning fuels efficiently, the amount of fossil fuels available, and the development of renewable fuels. The researchers then fed the full range of emissions from the scenarios into a simple climate model to estimate the odds of avoiding a dangerous warming. The results suggest challenging times ahead for decision

makers hoping to curb the greenhouse. Strategies that are both plausible and likely to succeed call for emissions to peak this decade and start dropping right away. They should be well into decline by 2020 and far less than half of current emissions by 2050. Only three of the 193 scenarios examined would be very likely to keep the warming below the danger level, and all of those require heavy use of energy systems that actually remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. That would require, for example, both creating biofuels and storing the carbon dioxide from their combustion in the ground.

__Even if the aff ceased all emissions 4 degree warming is inevitable and would trigger their impacts Hamilton 10 – Professor of Public Ethics @ ANU

Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics in Australia, 2010, “Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change,” pg 27-28

The conclusion that, even if we act promptly and resolutely, the world is on a path to reach 650 ppm is almost too frightening to accept. That level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be associated with warming of about 4°C by the end of the century, well above the temperature associated with tipping points that would trigger further warming .58 So it seems that even with the most optimistic set of assumptions—the ending of deforestation, a halving of emissions associated with food production,

global emissions peaking in 2020 and then falling by 3 per cent a year for a few decades—we have no chance of preventing emissions rising well above a number of critical tipping points that will spark uncontrollable climate change. The Earth's climate would enter a chaotic era lasting thousands of years before natural processes eventually establish some sort of equilibrium. Whether human beings would still be a force

on the planet, or even survive, is a moot point. One thing seems certain: there will be far fewer of us. These conclusions arc alarming, co say the least, but they are not alarmist. Rather than choosing or interpreting numbers to make the situation appear worse than it could be, following Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows 1 have chosen numbers that err on the conservative side, which is to say numbers that reflect a more buoyant assessment of the possibilities. A more neutral assessment of how the global community is likely to respond would give an even bleaker assessment of our future. For example, the analysis excludes non-CO2, emissions from aviation and shipping. Including them makes the task significantly harder, particularly as aviation emissions have been growing rapidly and are expected to continue to do so as there is no foreseeable alternative to severely restricting the number of flights.v' And any realistic assessment of the prospects for international agreement would have global emissions peaking closer to 2030

rather than 2020. The last chance to reverse the trajectory of global emissions by 2020 was forfeited at the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009. As a consequence, a global response proportionate to the problem was deferred for several years.

Not Human Induced __Warming is not anthropogenic—comparative climate models prove a) the climate is not as sensitive as previously though and b) Co2 concentrations can’t explain past warmingSpencer 8 –former head climate scientist @ NASA

(Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, former senior scientist for climate studied at NASA and now leads the U.S. science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on NASA’s Aqua satellite. [http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/] “Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)”/December 29)

A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth’s radiative budget associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – including three-quarters of the warming trend. A mostly-natural source of global warming is also consistent with mounting observational evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than the IPCC’s climate models simulate. 1. INTRODUCTION The main arguments for global warming being manmade go something like this: “What else COULD it be? After all, we know that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are sufficient to explain recent warming, so what’s the point of looking for any other cause?” But for those who have followed my writings and publications in the last 18 months (e.g. Spencer et al., 2007; Spencer, 2008), you know that we are finding satellite evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) climate models suggest that it is. And if that is true, then mankind’s CO2 emissions are not strong enough to have caused the global warming we’ve seen over the last 100 years. To show that we are not the only researchers who have documented evidence contradicting the IPCC models on the subject of climate sensitivity, I made the following figure (Fig. 1) to contrast the IPCC-projected warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the warming that would result if the climate sensitivity is as low as implied by various kinds of observational evidence.The dashed line in Fig. 1 comes from our recent apples-to-apples comparison between satellite-based feedback estimates and IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks, all computed from 5-year periods (see Fig. 2). In that comparison, there were NO five year periods from ANY of the IPCC model simulations which produced a feedback parameter with as low a climate sensitivity as that found in the satellite data.The discrepancy between the models and observations seen in Figs. 1 and 2 is stark. If the sensitivity of the climate system is as low as some of these observational results suggest, then the IPCC models are grossly in error, and we have little to fear from manmade global warming. [I am told that the 1.1 deg. C sensitivity of Schwartz (2007) has more recently been revised upward to 1.9 deg. C.] But it also means that the radiative forcing caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is not sufficient to cause PAST warming, either. So, this then leaves a critical unanswered question: What has caused the warming seen over the last 100 years or so? Here I present new evidence that most of the warming could be the result of a natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns in the North Pacific, it is well known that such regional changes can also influence weather

patterns over much larger areas, for instance North America or the entire Northern Hemisphere (which is, by the way, the region over which the vast majority of global warming has occurred). The IPCC has simply ASSUMED that these natural fluctuations in weather patterns do not cause climate change. But all it would take is a small change in global average (or Northern Hemispheric average) cloudiness to cause global warming. Unfortunately, our global observations of cloudiness have not been complete or accurate enough to document such a change…until recently.

No Runaway Warming __No runaway warming—satellite data proves the climate system isn’t sensitive to human causes and would cause less than 1 degree of warmingSpencer 10—former head climate scientist @ NASA

(Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama and former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA. He now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on NASA’s Aqua Satellite “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists,” pg 100-102)

Don’t be discouraged if you don’t understand these plots of data and my interpretation of them. All this has just been a quantitative way of demonstrating that climate researchers have not accounted for clouds causing temperature changes (forcing) when trying to estimate how much temperature change causes clouds to change (feedback). In simple terms, they have mixed up cause and effect when analyzing cloud and temperature variations. As a result of this mix-up, the illusion of a sensitive climate system (positive feedbacks) emerges from their analysis. Thinking that the climate system is very sensitive, the climate modelers then built overly sensitive models that produce too much global warming. Or, to illustrate the issue another way, let's return to the question I had when I got involved in this line of research. When researchers have observed clouds decreasing with warming, they have claimed that this is evidence of positive feedback - a sensitive climate system. They have explained that the warming causes the clouds to decrease, which then amplifies the warming. But how did the researchers know that the warmer temperatures caused the clouds to decrease, rather than the reverse? In other words, how did they know they weren't mixing up cause and effect? It turns out they didn't know. We now have peer- reviewed and published evidence of decreases in cloud cover causing warmer temperatures, yet it has gone virtually unnoticed. I believe that this misinterpretation of how clouds really behave in the climate system helps explain why the scientific consensus is so sure that mankind is causing global warming. By confusing natural variability in clouds with positive feedback, researchers have been led to believe that the climate system is very sensitive. This, in turn, has led them to conclude that the small amount of forcing from humanity's greenhouse gas emissions is being amplified enough to explain most of the global warming that we have seen in the last fifty years or more. They claim that no natural explanation is needed for warming-that humanity's pollution is sufficient. By ignoring natural variations, they have concluded that they can ignore natural variations. The circular nature of their reasoning has not occurred to them. Furthermore, natural variability in clouds probably also explains why climate sensitivity estimates have been so variable when previous researchers have diagnosed feedbacks from satellite data. Depending on how much natural cloud variability was occurring when the satellites made their observations, a wide variety of feedback (climate sensitivity) estimates would result-- some bordering on a catastrophically sensitive climate system. And as long as the IPCC can claim that feedbacks in the real climate system are very uncertain, they can perpetuate their warnings that disastrous global warming cannot be ruled out. They tell us that the sensitivity of the climate system is high, but just how high isn't really known for sure. Therefore, we must prepare for catastrophic warming, just in case. One detail that 1 did not discuss in this chapter is how the infrared and solar parts of feedback behaved during the period for which we have satellite data. It turns out that the negative feedback seen by the satellites was entirely in the reflected solar component, which is most likely due to low clouds. The infrared portion of the feedback supported positive water vapor feedback, which is consistent with feedback estimates from other researchers. But it is the total feedback-solar plus infrared-that determines climate sensitivity. If negative feedbacks outweigh positive feedbacks,

then the net feedback is still negative. Even the IPCC recognized the uncertainty associated with reflected solar feedback from low clouds in their 2007 report when they concluded: "Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low cloud being the largest contributor." Taken together, all this evidence indicates that the climate models are too sensitive, which is why they predict so much global warming for the future. In contrast, the satellite evidence indicates that the climate system is quite insensitive, which means that it doesn't really care how big your carbon footprint is . Rather than 1·5 to 6 deg. C (or more) of warming as predicted by the IPCC, a careful examination of the satellite data suggests that manmade warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be less than 1 deg. C (1.8 deg. F)-possibly much less.

No Consensus

__Correction—97% of scientists agree warming is happening and humans have contributed to some extent—not that its dangerous or humans are the largest cause Taylor 13—senior fellow for environment policy @ Heartland Institute

James, “Alarmists Attack Scientists to Salvage Mythical Consensus” [http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/02/22/alarmists-attack-scientists-salvage-mythical-consensus] February 22

Additionally, an often misrepresented survey claiming 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are causing a global warming crisis (actually, the survey asked merely whether some warming has occurred and whether humans are playing at least a partial role – two questions to which I would answer yes) restricted its participant pool to government scientists and scientists working for institutions dependent on government grants. Scientists who work for – or are funded by – government institutions know their funding will dry up and their jobs will disappear if and when global warming stops being an asserted crisis.

__Consensus is non-existentArmstong 11 – Professor @ U Wharton School

J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing specializing in forecasting technology, 3-31-2011, “Climate Change Policy Issues,” CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis

The claim by alarmists that nearly all scientists agree with the dangerous manmade global warming forecasts is not a scientific way to validate forecasts. In addition, the alarmists are either misrepresenting the facts or they are unaware of the literature. International surveys of climate scientists from 27 countries, obtained by Bray and von Storch in 1996 and 2003, summarized by Bast and Taylor (2007), found that many scientists were skeptical about the predictive validity of climate models. Of more than 1,060 respondents, 35% agreed with the statement "Climate models can accurately predict future climates," while 47% percent disagreed. More recently, nearly 32,000 scientists have disputed the claim of "scientific consensus" by signing the "Oregon Petition"3.

AT: Computer Models __Warming models inaccurate—to many generalized assumptions and inputs Maslin et al 12 - Environment Institute and Department of Geography, University College London

Mike, Patrick Austin, 14 June 2012, International Weekly Journal of Science “Uncertainty: Climate models at their limit?” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/486183a.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureClimate

Why do models have a limited capability to predict the future? First of all, they are not reality. This is perhaps an obvious point, but it is regularly ignored. By their very nature, models cannot capture all the factors involved in a natural system, and those that they do capture are often incompletely understood. Science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, and her colleagues have argued convincingly that this makes climate models impossible to truly verify or validate1. The more-concrete, less-philosophical problems can be illustrated by following the path of cascading uncertainties that are building up in the models used today. One of the first inputs into any climate model is the expected accumulation of greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere by the end of the century. These projections are based on economic models that predict global fossil-fuel use over 100 years given broad assumptions about how green the global economy will become. The economic collapse of 2008 showed dramatically, and to our cost, how difficult it is to predict changes in the economy. And economic unpredictability is just the beginning. Another layer of uncertainty comes from how the global climate models are weighted. For example, in the most recent IPCC assessment, released in 2007, the economic scenarios were input into more than 20 general circulation models. Every model has its own design and parameterizations of key processes, such as how to include the effects of clouds; and every model and its output was assumed to be equally valid, even though some perform better than others in certain ways when tested against historic records. The differences between the models will be exacerbated in the 2013 IPCC assessment, because many, but not all, of the models have improved spatial resolution. The outputs from the circulation models are then often used to drive detailed regional climate models to predict local environmental variations. Such regional models have huge uncertainties, thanks largely to the fact that precipitation is highly variable over small scales of time and space. This leads to a large range of potential futures, some of which contradict others. For example, detailed hydrological modelling of the Mekong River Basin using climate model input from the UK Met Office's HadCM3 model projects changes in annual river discharge that range from a decrease of 5.4% to an increase of 4.5% (ref. 2). Changes in predicted monthly discharge are even more dramatic, ranging from a fall of 16% to a rise of 55%. Advising policymakers becomes extremely difficult when models cannot predict even whether a river catchment system will have more or less water. Projected regional changes are then used as a basis for 'impact models' that estimate the effect on the quality of human life. But these effects often depend more on the relative resilience of a given society than on the magnitude of environmental change. Even the most advanced socioeconomic models, which look at the monetary costs arising both in market and non-market sectors, often fail to account adequately for major aspects of human suffering that are hard to quantify3.

AT: Ocean Temperatures __Impossible to determine ocean temperature trend—varying measuring depths and limited measurement points over the last 100 years Spencer 10 —former head climate scientist @ NASA

(Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama and former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA. He now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on NASA’s Aqua Satellite “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists,” pg 11)

Thermometer data, available since 1900 or earlier, are clearly better than temperature proxies, but they are still rather limited in their geographic sampling. Until recently there have been very few measurements over two-thirds of the Earth: the oceans. Early measurements of ocean temperatures were taken from buckets dipped in the ocean from the decks of ships. Later, temperatures would be taken well below a ships water line, in the intake ports for water that cooled the ship's engine. Most recently, a global network of over a thousand drifting buoys has been deployed specifically for measuring sea surface temperature, salinity, currents, and weather. The differences between these various observing systems scattered through time mean that our estimates of ocean warming to a fraction of a degree over the last hundred years are, at best, uncertain.

AT: Positive Feedbacks __Feedbacks already triggered, developing countries outweigh, and methane releases cause the impactMims ’12 (Christopher, Science and technology correspondent – BBC and Grist, “Climate scientists: It’s basically too late to stop warming,” http://grist.org/list/climate-scientists-its-basically-too-late-to-stop-warming/, March 26, 2012)

If you like cool weather and not having to club your neighbors as you battle for scarce resources, now’s the time to move to Canada, because the story of the 21st century is almost written, reports Reuters. Global warming is close to being irreversible, and in some cases that ship has already sailed. Scientists have been saying for a while that we have until between 2015 and 2020 to start radically reducing our carbon emissions, and what do you know: That deadline’s almost past! Crazy how these things sneak up on you while you’re squabbling about whether global warming is a religion. Also, our science got better in the meantime, so now we know that no matter what we do , we can say adios to the planet’s ice caps. For ice sheets — huge refrigerators that slow down the warming of the planet — the tipping point has probably already been passed, Steffen said. The West

Antarctic ice sheet has shrunk over the last decade and the Greenland ice sheet has lost around 200 cubic km (48 cubic miles) a year since the 1990s. Here’s what happens next: Natural climate feedbacks will take over and, on top of our prodigious human-caused carbon emissions, send us over an irreversible tipping point. By 2100, the planet will be hotter than it’s been since the time of the dinosaurs, and everyone who lives in

red states will pretty much get the apocalypse they’ve been hoping for. The subtropics will expand northward, the bottom half of the U.S. will turn into an inhospitable desert, and everyone who lives there will be drinking recycled pee and struggling to salvage something from an economy wrecked by the destruction of agriculture, industry, and electrical power production. Water shortages, rapidly rising seas, superstorms swamping hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure: It’s all a-coming, and anyone who is aware of the political realities knows that the odds are slim that our government will move in time to do anything to avert the biggest and most avoidable disaster short of all-out nuclear war. Even if our government did act, we can’t control the emissions of the developing world. China is now the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet and its inherently unstable autocratic political system demands growth at all costs. That means coal. Meanwhile, engineers and petroleum geologists are hoping to solve the energy crisis by harvesting and burning the nearly limitless supplies of natural gas frozen in methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean, a source of atmospheric carbon previously considered so exotic that it didn’t even enter into existing climate models.

Positive feedbacks don’t exist—current models don’t account for natural cloud fluctuations Spencer 10 —former head climate scientist @ NASA

(Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama and former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA. He now leads the US science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on NASA’s Aqua Satellite “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists,” pg XXIV-XXV)

The research community’s confusion of forcing and feedback-cause and effect-is a major them of this book. In particular, the role of causation in cloud behavior is at the core of what I believe to be the greatest scientific faux pas in history. The mistake that researchers have made can best be introduced in the form of a question: When the Earth is observed to warm, and cloud cover

decreases with that warming, did the warming cause the clouds to decrease, or did the decrease in clouds cause the warming? In the big picture of climate change, cloud changes causing temperature changes would be called forcing, while temperature changes causing cloud changes would be called feedback. Both occur in nature all the time. Yet when researchers have estimated feedbacks by analyzing natural climate variations, they have assumed causation in only one direction. Because researchers have not accounted for natural cloud fluctuations forcing temperature variations, the illusion of a climate system dominated by positive feedback has emerged. 1had always suspected that researchers were mixing up cause and effect even before I got into this line of research, but until recently I was not able to prove it.

AT: Reducing Emissions __Arctic warming means even ending all emissions will not solveBobby Magill, Staff Writer, May 1, 2014, “Arctic Methane Emissions ‘Certain to Trigger Warming’,” Climate Central, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-methane-emissions-certain-to-trigger-warming-17374, Accessed 5/16/2014

Warming and thawing permafrost stimulate methane release, which enhances the greenhouse effect, creating a feedback loop, she said. “Even if we ceased all human emissions, permafrost would continue to thaw and release carbon into the atmosphere,” Turetsky said. “Instead of reducing emissions, we currently are on track with the most dire scenario considered by the IPCC. There is no way to capture emissions from thawing permafrost as this carbon is released from soils across large regions of land in very remote spaces.”

__Temperatures would be constant or increase for 50 years after we stopped CO2 emissionsThomas Lukas Frölicher, Et al, November 24, 2013, Environmental Physics, Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, and Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University, “Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage,” Nature Climate Change, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2060.html, Accessed 12/14/2013, JT

Recent studies have suggested that global mean surface temperature would remain approximately constant on multi-century timescales after CO2 emissions are stopped . Here we use Earth system model simulations of such a stoppage to demonstrate that in some models, surface temperature may actually increase on multi-century timescales after an initial century-long decrease. This occurs in spite of a decline in radiative forcing that exceeds the decline in ocean heat uptake—a circumstance that would otherwise be expected to lead to a decline in global temperature. The reason is that the warming effect of decreasing ocean heat uptake together with feedback effects arising in response to the geographic structure of ocean heat uptake overcompensates the cooling effect of decreasing atmospheric CO2 on multi-century timescales. Our study also reveals that equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates based on a widely used method of regressing the Earth’s energy imbalance against surface temperature change are biased. Uncertainty in the magnitude of the feedback effects associated with the magnitude and geographic distribution of ocean heat uptake therefore contributes substantially to the uncertainty in allowable carbon emissions for a given multi-century warming target.

AT: Extinction Impact __And, consensus of experts agree no impact to warmingHsu ‘10

Jeremy, Live Science Staff, July 19, pg. http://www.livescience.com/culture/can-humans-survive-extinction-doomsday-100719.html

His views deviate sharply from those of most experts, who don't view climate change as the end for humans. Even the worst-case scenarios discussed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change don't foresee human extinction. "The scenarios that the mainstream climate community are advancing are not end-of-humanity, catastrophic scenarios," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate policy analyst at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Humans have the technological tools to begin tackling climate change, if not quite enough yet to solve the problem, Pielke said. He added that doom-mongering did little to encourage people to take action. "My view of politics is that the long-term, high-risk scenarios are really difficult to use to motivate short-term, incremental action," Pielke explained. "The rhetoric of fear and alarm that some people tend toward is counterproductive." Searching for solutions One technological solution to climate change already exists through carbon capture and storage, according to Wallace Broecker, a geochemist and renowned climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York City. But Broecker remained skeptical that governments or industry would commit the resources needed to slow the rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, and predicted that more drastic geoengineering might become necessary to stabilize the planet. "The rise in CO2 isn't going to kill many people, and it's not going to kill humanity," Broecker said. "But it's going to change the entire wild ecology of the planet, melt a lot of ice, acidify the ocean, change the availability of water and change crop yields, so we're essentially doing an experiment whose result remains uncertain."

AT: Ocean Acidification Impact __No impact to ocean acidification and its not caused by anthropogenic warmingEschenbach 10

** cites Robert Byrne, Ph.D from University of Rhode Island, Professor of Seawater Physical Chemistry at the University of South Florida

Willis “The Electric Oceanic Acid Test” [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test/#more-20792 SJE] June 19

There is a recent and interesting study in GRL by Byrne et al., entitled “Direct observations of basin-wide acidification of the North Pacific Ocean“. This study reports on the change in ocean alkalinity over a 15 year period (1991-2006) along a transect of the North Pacific from Hawaii to Alaska. (A “transect” is a path along which one measures some variable or variables.) Here is the path of the transect: I love researching climate, because there’s always so much to learn. Here’s what I learned from the Byrne et al. paper.The first thing that I learned is that when you go from the tropics (Hawaii) to the North Pacific (Alaska), the water becomes less and less alkaline. Who knew? So even without any CO2, if you want to experience “acidification” of the ocean water, just go from Hawaii to Alaska … you didn’t notice the change from the “acidification”? You didn’t have your toenails dissolved by the increased acidity? Well, the sea creatures didn’t notice either. They flourish in both the more alkaline Hawaiian waters and the less alkaline Alaskan waters. So let’s take a look at how large the change is along the transect. Changes in alkalinity/acidity are measured in units called “pH”. A neutral solution has a pH of 7.0. Above a pH of 7.0, the solution is alkaline. A solution with a pH less than 7.0 is acidic. pH is a logarithmic scale, so a solution with a pH of 9.0 is ten times as alkaline as a solution with a pH of 8.0. Figure 2 shows the measured pH along the transect. The full size graphic is here. The second thing I learned from the study is that the pH of the ocean is very different in different locations. As one goes from Hawaii to Alaska the pH slowly decreases along the transect, dropping from 8.05 all the way down to 7.65. This is a change in pH of almost half a unit. And everywhere along the transect, the water at depth is much less alkaline, with a minimum value of about 7.25. The third thing I learned from the study is how little humans have changed the pH of the ocean. Figure 3 shows their graph of the anthropogenic pH changes along the transect. The full-sized graphic is here: The area of the greatest anthropogenic change over the fifteen years of the study, as one might imagine, is at the surface. The maximum anthropogenic change over the entire transect was -0.03 pH in fifteen years. The average anthropogenic change over the top 150 metre depth was -0.023. From there down to 800 metres the average anthropogenic change was -0.011 in fifteen years. This means that for the top 800 metres of the ocean, where the majority of the oceanic life exists, the human induced change in pH was -0.013 over 15 years. This was also about the amount of pH change in the waters around Hawaii. Now, remember that the difference in pH between the surface water in Hawaii and Alaskan is 0.50 pH units. That means that at the current rate of change, the surface water in Hawaii will be as alkaline as the current Alaskan surface water in … well … um … lessee, divide by eleventeen, carry the quadratic residual … I get a figure of 566 years. But of course, that is assuming that there would not be any mixing of the water during that half-millennium. The ocean is a huge place, containing a vast amount of carbon. The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatonnes of carbon in the form of CO2. The ocean contains about fifty times that amount. It is slowly mixed by wind, wave, and currents. As a result, the human carbon contribution will not stay in the upper layers as shown in the graphs above. It will be mixed into the deeper layers. Some will go

into the sediments. Some will precipitate out of solution. So even in 500 years, Hawaiian waters are very unlikely to have the alkalinity of Alaskan waters. The final thing I learned from this study is that creatures in the ocean live happily in a wide range of alkalinities, from a high of over 8.0 down to almost neutral. As a result, the idea that a slight change in alkalinity will somehow knock the ocean dead doesn’t make any sense . By geological standards, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is currently quite low. It has been several times higher in the past, with the inevitable changes in the oceanic pH … and despite that, the life in the ocean continued to flourish. My conclusion? To mis-quote Mark Twain, “The reports of the ocean’s death have been greatly exaggerated.”

AT: Biodiversity Impact __No biodiversity loss—historic extreme climate events prove Hof et al 11—professor @ Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate @ University of Copenhagen

Christian, “Rethinking species’ ability to cope with rapid climate change” Global Change Biology (2011) 17

Ongoing climate change is assumed to be exceptional because of its unprecedented velocity. However, new geophysical research suggests that dramatic climatic changes during the Late Pleistocene occurred extremely rapid, over just a few years. These abrupt climatic changes may have been even faster than contemporary ones, but relatively few continent-wide extinctions of species have been documented for these periods. This raises questions about the ability of extant species to adapt to ongoing climate change. We propose that the advances in geophysical research challenge current views about species’ ability to cope with climate change, and that lessons must be learned for modelling future impacts of climate change on species.

__Ice core samples prove Willis et al 10—researcher @ the institute of biodiversity @ Oxford

(K, RM Bailey, SA Bhagwat, HJB Birks. “Biodiversity baselines, thresholds and resilience: testing predictions and assumptions using palaeoecological data”)

Another critical question relating to future climate change is whether rates of predicted change will be too rapid for ecological processes to react and so prevent species and communities persisting. There is also the question of whether species will be able to migrate quickly enough to new locations with a suitable climate. Studies based on data from extant populations and modelling suggest that rapid rates of change could pose a serious threat for many species and communities unable to track climate space quickly enough, resulting in extensive extinctions [9,31]. But it is also known from fossil records that there have been numerous previous intervals of abrupt climate change [32,33]. What were the responses of past biodiversity to these previous intervals of rapid climate change? The existence of highly detailed evidence from ice-core records (Box 2) spanning the last full glacial cycle provides an ideal opportunity to examine biodiversity responses to rapid climate change . For example, ice-cores indicate that temperatures in mid to high latitudes oscillated repeatedly by more than 4oC on timescales of decades or less [34] (Box 2). Numerous records of biodiversity response from North America and Europe across this time-interval reflect ecological changes with a decadal resolution [35–37]. While they demonstrate clear evidence for rapid turnover of communities (e.g. Figure 2), novel assemblages, migrations and local extinctions , there is no evidence for the broad- scale extinctions predicted by models; rather there is strong evidence for persistence [25]. However, there is also evidence that some species expanded their range slowly or largely failed to expand from their refugia in response to this interval of rapid climate warming [38]. The challenge now is to determine which specific factors enable persistence during intervals of rapid climate change, since such information is crucial to conservation strategies for the future. Palaeoecological archives suggest that rapid rates of spread [39], realised niches broader than those seen today [40], landscape heterogeneity in space and time [41,42], and the occurrence of many small populations in locally

favourable habitats [29,37,43–44] might all have contributed to persistence during the rapid climate changes during the transition to interglacial conditions approximately 11 500 years ago.

AT: Economy Impact __Climate change won’t collapse the economy—most comprehensive study proves that even if we don’t act it would take a century Kenny 12— senior fellow at the Center for Global Development

Charles “Not Too Hot to Handle” [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/09/not_too_hot_to_handle] April 9

Start with the economy. The Stern Review, led by the distinguished British economist Nicholas Stern, is the most comprehensive look to date at the economics of climate change. It suggests that, in terms of income, greenhouse gasses are a threat to global growth, but hardly an immediate or catastrophic one. Take the impact of climate change on the developing world. The most depressing forecast in terms of developing country growth in Stern's paper is the "A2 scenario" -- one of a series of economic and greenhouse gas emissions forecasts created for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It's a model that predicts slow global growth and income convergence (poor countries catching up to rich countries). But even under this model, Afghanistan's GDP per capita climbs sixfold over the next 90 years, India and China ninefold, and Ethiopia's income increases by a factor of 10. Knock off a third for the most pessimistic simulation of the economic impact of climate change suggested by the Stern report, and people in those countries are still markedly better off -- four times as rich for Afghanistan, a little more than six times as rich for Ethiopia. It's worth emphasizing that the Stern report suggests that the costs of dramatically reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is closer to 1 (or maybe 2) percent of world GDP -- in the region of $600 billion to $1.2 trillion today. The economic case for responding to climate change by pricing carbon and investing in alternate energy sources is a slam dunk. But for all the likelihood that the world will be a poorer, denuded place than it would be if we responded rapidly to reduce greenhouse gases, the global economy is probably not going to collapse over the next century even if we are idiotic enough to delay our response to climate change by a few years. For all the flooding, the drought, and the skyrocketing bills for air conditioning, the economy would keep on expanding, according to the data that Stern uses.

AT: War Impact

__Warming won’t cause warLewis 10 – Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

[Marlo, “The Department of Defense Should Assess the Security Risks of Climate Change Policies”m April 20, http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/On%20Point%20-%20Marlo%20Lewis%20-%20Climate%20Change%20and%20National%20Security%20-%20FINAL.pdf]

Instability Accelerant: A Skeptical Perspective. The Quadrennial Defense Review cautions that climate change can weaken fragile

governments by increasing the frequency and severity of environmental stresses such as droughts, floods, and disease. Although climate change undoubtedly has this potential, the risks have been highly exaggerated. One of the principal ways in which climate change supposedly undermines stability is by intensifying droughts and water shortages, thus leading to crop failure, famine, and armed

conflict. Yet real-world evidence doesn’t support this gloomy prediction. Wendy Barnaby, editor of People & Science,

the journal of the British Science Association, wrote a fascinating essay in Nature magazine on this topic.6 But as Barnaby dug into her topic, she discovered that cooperation rather than conflict is the dominant response to shared water resources. Of 1,831 interactions over international fresh water resources spanning five decades, she could not find a single declared war —not even in the conflict-ridden, water-scarce Middle East. Egypt and Jordan have gone to war with Israel several times, but never over water. Rather than fight about water, they cooperate and import “virtual water” in the form of grain. Irrigated agriculture consumes far more water than people consume for personal use. By importing grain, Mideast nations free up scarce water supplies for drinking and bathing. More virtual water flows into the Mideast each year embedded in grain than flows She had been researching a book on the “coming century of water wars.” She assumed that water scarcity is already a significant source of conflict—a pervasive problem just waiting to be “threat multiplied” by climate change. down the Nile to Egyptian farmers. Barnaby concludes her essay by rejecting the fashionable notion that water wars are inevitable in a warming world.7 The most pessimistic (and influential) assessment of the impact of global warming on developing countries is the British government’s Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. 8 The Stern Review is famous for the assertion that climate change damages could “rise as high as 20 percent of GDP or more.” This estimate is an outlier in the climate economics literature.9 However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the Stern Review’s gloomy assessment is correct. Even then , climate change would likely be a bit player in the fate of nations. As economist Indur Goklany shows,10 even if we accept the Stern Review’s 95th-percentile GDP loss estimates under the warmest scenario presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, developing countries’ net welfare (after accounting for climate change) would increase from $900 per capita in 1990 to $61,500 in 2100 and $86,200 in 2200 (all in 1990 U.S. dollars). For perspective, Goklany notes that, in 2006, GDP per capita was $19,300 for industrialized countries, $30,100 for the United States, and $1,500 for developing countries. In addition to being

wealthier, future generations are bound to develop superior technologies in such critical endeavors as agriculture,

medicine, water resource management, disaster preparedness, and emergency response.11 Thus, regardless of climate change, it is very likely that global welfare will improve dramatically over the next two centuries, and developing

countries’ adaptive capacity will far surpass that of industrial countries today. Therefore, climate change is unlikely to become an important instability accelerant in the decades ahead.

__Warming doesn’t lead to war-no relationship between environmental degradation and war

Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLAJeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 38

Over the last 20 years, three broad research approaches to the nexus between environment and conflict have emerged: case-based methodologies used by the Toronto group around the Toronto Project on Environmental Change and Acute Conflict under Thomas Homer-Dixon and the Zurich group around the Environment and Conflicts Project

at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and the quantitative approach of the Oslo group around the International

Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) under Otto Gleditsch. The various approaches have produced broad agreement in a number of areas: Environmental factors are only one, and rarely the decisive, contribution to a complex interaction of other political, social and economic factors underlying conflict. The adaptive and

problem-solving capacity of a state or society is perhaps the most critical factor affecting whether environmental crises will lead to conflict.

There is no evidence to date that environmental problems have been a direct cause of inter-state warfare. Conflicts involving environmental factors occur predominantly within states, and where they do transcend state borders they tend to be sub-national rather man classic inter-state conflicts.

Offense – Biodiversity __Warming increases biodiversity—responsible for the existence for 1/7 organisms Zubrin 12—PhD and aerospace engineer

Robert, “Carbon Emissions Are Good” [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295098/carbon-emissions-are-good-robert-zubrin] April 3

Now let us consider the question of warming: If it is occurring — and I believe it is, based not on disputable temperature measurements but on sea levels, which have risen two inches in two decades — is it a good thing or a bad thing? Answer: It is a very good thing. Global warming would increase the rate of evaporation from the oceans. This would increase rainfall worldwide. In addition, global warming would lengthen the growing season, thereby increasing still further the bounty of both agriculture and nature. In other words, from any rational point of view, global warming would be a very good thing. By enriching the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere from its impoverished pre-industrial levels, human beings have increased the productivity of the entire biosphere — so much so that roughly one out of every seven living things on the planet owes its existence to the marvelous improvement in nature that humans have effected. Through our CO2 emissions we are making the earth a more fertile world.

Offense – CO 2 Good__CO2 increases forest and vegetative productivity that offsets warmingJames M. Taylor, J.D., Senior Fellow, The Heartland Institute; Managing Editor, Environment and Climate News, April 8, 2014, “Comprehensive Report Documents Beneficial Impacts of Global Warming,” http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/04/08/ comprehensive-report-documents-beneficial-impacts-global-warming, Accessed 5/18/2014

Biological Impacts documents increasing productivity of forests and grasslands as CO2 levels have increased both in recent decades and in centuries past, countering IPCC assertions to the contrary. The new volume also presents the scientific evidence that a more productive biosphere effectively sequesters much of the carbon dioxide IPCC claims will cause additional warming. “The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing a great greening of the Earth. All across the planet, the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has stimulated vegetative productivity. This observed stimulation, or greening of the Earth, has occurred in spite of many real and imagined assaults on Earth’s vegetation, including fires, disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation, and climatic change,” Biological Impacts reports.

__Studies prove CO2 is key to global agricultureCraig D. Idso, October 21, 2013, Ph.D. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, “The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production,” CO2 Science, http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf, Accessed 5/18/2014

Numerous studies conducted on hundreds of different plant species testify to the very real and measurable growth-enhancing, water-saving, and stress-alleviating advantages that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations bestow upon Earth’s plants. In commenting on these and many other CO2-related benefits, Wittwer (1982) wrote that “the ‘green revolution’ has coincided with the period of recorded rapid increase in concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and it seems likely that some credit for the improved [crop] yields should be laid at the door of the CO2 buildup.” Similarly, Allen et al. (1987) concluded that yields of soybeans may have been rising since at least 1800 “due to global carbon dioxide increases,” while more recently, Cunniff et al. (2008) hypothesized that the rise in atmospheric CO2 following deglaciation of the most recent planetary ice age, was the trigger that launched the global agricultural enterprise.

__CO2 key to the economy, the biosphere, and global food productionIdso 10

[Sherwood, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees are all from the University of Minnesota, **Keith, B.S. in Agriculture with a major in Plant Sciences from the University of Arizona and his M.S. from the same institution with a major in Agronomy and Plant Genetics. He completed his Ph.D. in Botany at Arizona State University, and **Craig Idso, B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University, his M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and his Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University, “Feeding the World in 2050”, Volume 13, Number 32: 11 August 2010, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N32/EDIT.php]

In a recent editorial in Science, Uma Lele (2010) -- a former senior advisor to the World Bank -- begins her short treatise on the subject of world food needs with the remarkable statement that "there are at least one billion poor people living with chronic undernourishment, and the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of substantially reducing the world's hungry by 2015 will not be met." Well, perhaps "remarkable" is not the best word to describe Lele's assessment of the world's future food outlook, considering the fact that the UN's Millennium Development Goal was little more than a lofty-sounding expression of wishful thinking by an organization that seems to specialize in making such noble pronouncements. But we digress. "The main battlegrounds for poverty reduction are Asia and Africa," according to Lele, where, as she continues, "97% of the world's food-insecure reside." And she adds that "according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [another creation of the United Nations], a 2°C increase in temperature could lead to a further 20 to 40% fall in cereal yields, mostly in Asia and Africa." Therefore, she states that "lifting a billion people out of poverty and feeding an extra 2.3 billion by 2050 will require increasing cereal production by 70%," which is equivalent to "doubling the output of developing countries," for which quantitative statements Lele cites the findings of the World Summit on Food Security held in Rome (Italy) in mid-November 2009, which was sponsored by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization -- yet another construct of that less-than-illustrious multi-country entity. So how are the tremendous food needs of the world's teeming masses to be met? Lele lists such things as improved access to knowledge, technologies and markets, as well as innovations involving natural resource management, restructuring the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, and "the 2009 pledge of the G8 countries of $20 billion in new aid to food and agriculture over the next three years, with a focus on Asia and Africa." This new listing of good intentions is, again, little more than a litany of lofty-sounding expressions of both wishful thinking and meddlesome tinkering, which leads us to wonder: Does anyone really believe that the United Nations' new lip service will prove any more effective than its old lip service? Fortunately, nature herself will come to our aid, as the air's CO2 content continues to climb ever higher, enhancing both the productivity and the water use efficiency of the world's crops, which sustain people, and the planet's natural vegetation, which sustains the rest of the biosphere ... if we let it. Unfortunately, we may not, as many in the world seem intent on turning back the clock on industrial and technological development by curtailing the use of fossil fuels to produce the energy we require to (1) sustain or improve our economies, (2) elevate or maintain our standard of living, and (3) protect and preserve what yet remains of wild nature. Will we the people do what we must do to save ourselves and the rest of the biosphere? ... and at one and the same time? Well, will we? The answer does not reside with us. It resides with you.

Offense – CO 2 Good for Agriculture__CO2 key to ag production and plant growth – peer reviewed meta-analysis of over 529 independent observations NIPCC 13—citing Vanuytrecht, PhD Researcher in ag and biology

***peer reviewed, Vanuytrecht, E., Raes, D., Willems, P. and Geerts, S. 2012. Quantifying field-scale effects of elevated carbon dioxide concentration on crops. Climate Research 54: 35-47

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, “Field-Scale Impacts of Elevated CO2 on the World's Major Crops” [http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2013/feb/19feb2013a2.html] February 19 //mtc

Working with peer-reviewed publications that report the results of Free-Air CO2-Enrichment (FACE) studies - which they acquired via searches of the ISI Web of Science citation database (Thomson) and the ScienceDirect citation database (Elsevier BV) - Vanuytrecht et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 529 independent observations of various plant growth responses to elevated CO2 that they obtained from 53 papers that contained relevant data in graphical or numerical format pertaining to the following major crops: wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), soybean (Glycine max L.), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.), as well as the two major pasture species of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Considered en masse, Vanuytrecht et al. determined that for an approximate 200-ppm increase in the air's CO2 concentration (the mean enhancement employed in the studies they analyzed), water productivity was improved by 23% in the case of aboveground biomass production per unit of water lost to evapotranspiration, and by 27% in the case of aboveground yield produced per unit of water lost to evapotranspiration, which two productivity increases would roughly correspond to enhancements of 34% and 40% for a 300-ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration. It is also important to note in this regard that although "the FACE technique avoids the potential limitations of (semi-) closed systems by studying the influence of elevated CO2 on crop growth in the field without chamber enclosure," as the team of Belgian researchers write, other studies have demonstrated a significant problem caused by the rapid (sub-minute) fluctuations of CO2 concentration about a target mean that are common to most FACE experiments, as described by Bunce (2011, 2012), who found most recently that total shoot biomass of vegetative cotton plants in a typical FACE study averaged 30% less than in a constantly-elevated CO2 treatment at 27 days after planting, while wheat grain yields were 12% less in a fluctuating CO2 treatment compared with a constant elevated CO2 concentration treatment. Looking toward the future, getting higher crop yields per unit of water used in the process of obtaining them will be a key element of mankind's struggle to feed our ever-increasing numbers over the next four decades, when our food needs are expected to double (Parry and Hawkesford, 2010); and with both land and water shortages looming on the horizon, we are going to need all of the help we can possibly get to grow the extra needed food. Fortunately, the results of this meta-analysis coming out of Belgium point to one important avenue by which such very substantial help can come, but it will only come if the air's CO2 content is allowed to rise unimpeded.

__Food insecurity independently collapses the environmentTrudell 5

J.D. Candidate 2006, Syracuse University College of Law [Robert H, “ARTICLE: FOOD SECURITY EMERGENCIES AND THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN: A DOMESTIC LEGAL TOOL TO TREAT A GLOBAL PROBLEM”, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Fall, lexis]

B. Want This: A Sustainable Environment In 1994, the United Nations Development Program, an organization dedicated to sustainable development in the developing world, identified seven main categories of threats to human security: economic, health, environmental, personal, community, political, and food security. 71 Certainly, food security is fundamental to each of the other listed threats because a population that cannot feed itself will not be able to thrive, will be increasingly unhealthy, and will destroy the environment of the land it depends upon in its desperate pursuit of food . [*288] The lack of food security in sub-Saharan Africa makes it one of the least stable regions of the world. 72 Such instability has a negative effect on global security, especially in the poorer countries of the world, which suffer from major violent conflicts. 73 One cause of this instability can be seen in the connection of food insecurity with the degrading sub-Saharan environment. 74 In the search for sustainable agriculture, the pressures of a growing population have resulted in a reduction of cropland. 75 In Africa, forests are cut down to make grazing pastures, then grazing pastures erode away and become deserts or areas of land incapable of producing any sustainable harvest because the soil has no more nutrients . 76 One commentator, writing about sub-Saharan Africa, noted: "the relationship that exists between human security and environmental degradation is best illustrated in the agricultural sector." 77 Many of the farmers in this region still use the "slash-and-burn" method of subsistence farming. 78 The forests of sub-Saharan Africa are cut down for agriculture because, as will be further discussed below, the African soil quickly loses its ability to sustain plant life so more and more land is needed to grow the same amount of food.

__Collapses civilization – bigger risk that nuclear war Trudell 5

J.D. Candidate 2006, Syracuse University College of Law [Robert H, “ARTICLE: FOOD SECURITY EMERGENCIES AND THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN: A DOMESTIC LEGAL TOOL TO TREAT A GLOBAL PROBLEM”, 33 Syracuse J. Int'l L. & Com. 277, Fall, lexis]

2. But, Is It Really an Emergency? In his study on environmental change and security, J.R. McNeill dismisses the scenario where environmental degradation destabilizes an area so much that "security problems and ... resource scarcity may lead to war." 101 McNeill finds such a proposition to be a weak one, largely because history has shown society is always able to stay ahead of widespread calamity due, in part, to the slow pace of any major environmental change. 102 This may be so. However, as the events in Rwanda illustrated, the environment can breakdown quite rapidly - almost before one's eyes - when food insecurity drives people to overextend their cropland and to use outmoded agricultural practices. 103 Furthermore, as Andre and Platteau documented in their study of Rwandan society, overpopulation and land scarcity can contribute to a breakdown of society itself. 104 Mr. McNeill's assertion closely resembles those of many critics of Malthus. 105 The general argument is: whatever issue we face (e.g., environmental change or overpopulation), it will be introduced at such a pace that we can face the problem long before any calamity sets in. 106 This

wait-and-see view relies on many factors, not least of which are a functioning society and innovations in agricultural productivity. But, today, with up to 300,000 child soldiers fighting in conflicts or wars, and perpetrating terrorist acts, the very fabric of society is under increasing world-wide pressure. 107 Genocide, anarchy, dictatorships, and war are endemic throughout Africa; it is a troubled continent whose problems threaten global security and challenge all of humanity. 108 As [*292] Juan Somavia, secretary general of the World Social Summit, said: "We've replaced the threat of the nuclear bomb with the threat of a social bomb." 109 Food insecurity is part of the fuse burning to set that bomb off. It is an emergency and we must put that fuse out before it is too late.

Impact Calculus – War Outweighs __Can adapt to warming, not warScheffran 9 - Professor at University of Hamburg, Chair of Research Group on Climate Change and Security for the World Future Council

Jurgen, “Climate Change, Nuclear Risks, and Nuclear Disarmament: From Security Threats to Sustainable Peace, http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/110517_WFC_Scheffran_Report.pdf

SPATIAL SCALE | Nuclear proliferation is a global problem like climate change, even though the sources and impacts of either problem occur on a local scale. Nuclear proliferation and terrorism are driven by regional security problems and power structures. Global warming is caused by local emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere to induce global change which in turn affects ecological and social systems locally. While an all-out nuclear war can lead to human extinction, this is more unlikely for global warming because the consequences can be moderated by adaptive capacities that reduce the vulnerability of affected systems. Despite large uncertainties about the magnitude, frequency and distribution of risks, climate change is now widely recognized, including the impact of human behaviour on it. The likelihood of nuclear war increases with nuclear proliferation and hawkish doctrines, but can hardly be quantified.

__Nuclear war is fasterScheffran 9 - Professor at University of Hamburg, Chair of Research Group on Climate Change and Security for the World Future Council

Jurgen, “Climate Change, Nuclear Risks, and Nuclear Disarmament: From Security Threats to Sustainable Peace, http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/110517_WFC_Scheffran_Report.pdf

A nuclear war would result from short-term decisions of a small group of political and military

leaders. It may be fought in a time span from hours to days and decisions are made within hours, even minutes. The consequences are felt within the same time span, e.g. a nuclear explosion can eradicate a whole city within seconds , but there are also long-term consequences spanning multiple generations, e.g. due to radioactive fallout. For comparison, climate change occurs over long timescales and gradually undermines the living conditions of humanity and other life on earth over an extended period. Decisions on climate change have an impact decades and centuries later and can hardly be attributed to anyone in particular. Nevertheless, extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornados or floods and landslides may occur on rather short notice and affect millions of people who are unable to get out of harm’s way in time. With the possibility of abrupt climate change, a sequence of cascading events and tipping points could make humanity feel the drastic changes within decades (Lenton, et al. 2008).

Impact Calculus – War = Climate Nuclear war leads to massive climactic shiftsScheffran 9 - Professor at University of Hamburg, Chair of Research Group on Climate Change and Security for the World Future Council

Jurgen, “Climate Change, Nuclear Risks, and Nuclear Disarmament: From Security Threats to Sustainable Peace, http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/110517_WFC_Scheffran_Report.pdf

Although US-Russian nuclear arsenals have been significantly reduced (by more than two-thirds since 1989) the total number of nuclear weapons in the world is still sufficient to destroy the planet multiple times over . A comprehensive nuclear attack would eject so much debris into the atmosphere that it could result in a drastic cooling on a global scale (―nuclear winter‖). Huge fires caused by nuclear explosions, in particular from burning urban areas, would lift massive amounts of dark smoke and aerosol particles into the upper parts of the atmosphere where the absorption of sunlight would further heat the smoke and lift it into the stratosphere. Here the smoke could persist for years and block out much of the sun’s light from reaching the earth’s surface, causing surface temperatures to drop drastically . Recent scientific studies on nuclear winter suggest that even a limited regional nuclear exchange could rapidly cool down the planet to temperatures not felt since the ice ages and significantly disrupt the global climate for years to come. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations (such as India and Pakistan) would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated that as much as five million tons of soot (impure carbon particles) would be released (Robock 2010)

Coral

Aff doesn’t SolveOverfishing and tourism are comparatively worse for coral than warmingAldred 2014 (Jessica; Caribbean coral reefs ‘will be lost within 20 years’ without protection; Jul 2; www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/02/caribbean-coral-reef-lost-fishing-pollution-report; kdf)

Most Caribbean coral reefs will disappear within the next 20 years unless action is taken to protect them, primarily due to the decline of grazers such as sea urchins and parrotfish, a new report has warned. A comprehensive analysis by 90 experts of more than 35,000 surveys conducted at nearly 100 Caribbean locations since 1970 shows that the region’s corals have declined by more than 50%. But restoring key fish populations and improving protection from overfishing and pollution could help the reefs recover and make them more resilient to the impacts of climate change, according to the study from the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the United Nations Environment Programme. While climate change and the resulting ocean acidification and coral bleaching does pose a major threat to the region, the report – Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012 – found that local pressures such as tourism, overfishing and pollution posed the biggest problems. And these factors have made the loss of the two main grazer species, the parrotfish and sea urchin, the key driver of coral decline in the Caribbean.

Overfishing=RCOverfishing does the most damage to coralRodgers 2014 (Paul; Solved! The mystery of the disappearing coral reefs; Jul 3; www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/07/03/tourism-and-fishing-not-climate-change-caused-coral-deaths/; kdf)

Blaming Caribbean coral reef destruction on global warming is leaving them vulnerable to overfishing, tourism, and the Panama Canal. Coral cover has more than halved since the 1970s and the reefs could be entirely dead within 20 years, warned the report, Status

and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012. Although global warming is expected to add to the problems faced by corals in the future, particularly by raising acidity in the oceans, making it harder for them to build their exoskeletons, more immediate threats are doing greater damage. “The threats of climate change and ocean acidification loom increasingly ominously for the future, but local stressors including an explosion in tourism, overfishing, and

the resulting increase in macroalgae [seaweed] have been the major drivers of the catastrophic decline of Caribbean

corals,” says the report, edited by Jeremy Jackson, Mary Donovan, Katie Cramer and Vivian Lam. Gustaf Lundin, the director of the global marine programme at the International Union for Conservation of Nature – which commissioned the review of 35,000 studies by 90 experts – told The Times that that climate change had become a “convenient truth”, a reference to former US vice president Al Gore’s Academy Award-

winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. “Some countries have said: ‘There is nothing we can do. If there isn’t global action on climate change, it’s all doomed’,” he said. “They have basically thrown in the towel. That’s a great mistake. There are always things you can do locally that enhance the resilience of the reefs and their ability to recover.” The report says the consequences of global warming “pale in comparison to the introduction of the unidentified pathogen that caused the die-off of Diadema antillarum”. D antillarum, a sea urchin, grazes on large seaweeds, preventing them from smothering the coral. A mysterious disease first noticed near the Caribbean end of the Panama Canal all but wiped it out in 1983-84. Because the Caribbean has been isolated for millions of years, its species are particularly vulnerable to new diseases introduced from the Pacific through the canal. The report compared them to “Native Americans after their first contact with Europeans”. The other creature that controls seaweed growth is the parrotfish, Scarus frenatus, which has been over-fished in recent decades. “The consequences have been catastrophic for coral reefs,” says the report. “Overfishing caused steep reductions in herbivores, especially large parrotfishes, which are the most effective grazers on Caribbean reefs.” The other big threat to corals comes from humans, both residents and tourists. In some cases human populations along the coast can reach as high as 25,000 per km2. The researchers found an inverse relationship between the number of people and the amount of live coral. The exceptions were Grand Cayman and Bermuda. “The exceptional situation at Bermuda most likely reflects progressive environmental regulations in place since the 1990s and the infrastructure required to make them work. “Otherwise, the harmful environmental costs of runaway tourism seem to be inevitable.”

Alt CauseReef decline inevitable – overfishing, pollution, agricultureHughes 3 (Center for Coral Reef Biodiversity @ James Cook University, August, Science, pg. 929)JFS

Coral reefs are critically important for the ecosystem goods and services they provide to maritime tropical and subtropical nations (1). Yet reefs are in serious decline; an estimated 30% are already severely damaged, and close to 60% may be lost by 2030 (2). There are no pristine reefs left (3–4). Local successes at protecting coral reefs over the past 30 years have failed to reverse regional scale declines, and global management of reefs must undergo a radical change in emphasis and implementation if it is to make a real difference. Here, we review current knowledge of the status of coral reefs, the human threats to them now and in the near future, and new directions for research in support of management of these vital natural resources. Until recently, the direct and indirect effects of overfishing and pollution from agriculture and land development have been the major drivers of massive and accelerating decreases in abundance of coral reef species, causing widespread changes in reef ecosystems over the past two centuries (3–5). With increased human populations and improved storage and transport systems, the scale of human impacts on reefs has grown exponentially. For example, markets for fishes and other natural resources have become global, supplying demand for reef resources far removed from their tropical sources (6) (Fig. 1). On many reefs, reduced stocks of herbivorous fishes and added nutrients from land-based activities have caused ecological shifts, from the original dominance by corals to a preponderance of fleshy seaweed (5, 7). Importantly, these changes to reefs, which can often be managed successfully at a local scale, are compounded by the more recent, superimposed impacts of global climate change.

AT: Solvency

Turns

Birds Link __Offshore wind projects destroy marine ecosystems and kills millions of migratory birdsAlliance to Protect Nantucket Sound 12

Cape Wind Threats: The Environment, http://www.saveoursound.org/cape_wind_threats/environment/

Offshore energy projects have a range of potential impacts on the coastal resource areas, including the shoreline, the sea itself, and the seabed, and on economically important species that depend on these habitats. Nantucket Sound is home to many different species of wildlife, including federally protected birds, turtles, and mammals. The Sound is also a component of a generalized region known as the Atlantic Flyway, one of the largest migratory bird routes in the world. Because its biological diversity is unique, protecting Nantucket Sound is of high importance. Numerous state and federal agencies have cautioned that the Cape Wind project must not move ahead without proper analysis or regulatory oversight. Among them, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries anticipates "direct negative impacts to fisheries resources and habitat." Many respected environmental groups are concerned about the Cape Wind proposal as well. Among these organizations are the Barnstable Land Trust, Humane Society of the United States , International Marine Mammal Project, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), The Oceans Public Trust Initiative of Earth Island Institute, Orenda Wildlife Trust, The Pegasus Foundation, Three Bays Preservation, and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Federal Concerns The proposed Cape Wind power plant has the potential of violating one or more federal laws, including: * Endangered Species Act: The power plant may adversely affect several protected species listed as federally endangered or threatened. * Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA): If the power plant construction or operation results in the killing, harming, or harassment of seals, dolphins, or whales, the project will violate the MMPA. * Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): If the power plant harms migratory birds, it would be in violation of the MBTA. * Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (FCMA): The area is a designated Essential Fish Habitat. Nantucket Sound Concerns Noise and disturbance from the wind farm during construction, operation, and maintenance may result in damage to or loss of habitat, changes in species behavior and usage, increased avian mortality, and overall changes in the Sound’s ecology, including water quality and species distribution. Oil Spill Threat In addition to the 40,000 gallons of unspecified transformer oil on the proposed 10 story electrical service platform (ESP), the Cape Wind project would contain an additional 24,700 gallons of oil in the 130 turbines (190 gallons in each turbine). What beaches and inlets would likely be affected if the tanks on the ESP were to rupture, or if there were a vessel collision with a turbine causing oil to spill into Nantucket Sound? Cape Wind’s own computer simulation of a spill reveals that oil would reach Cape Cod and Island beaches within 5 hours. An analysis commissioned by the Alliance showed significant adverse impacts to the Nantucket Sound ecosystem, including harmful impacts to wildlife and shellfish/fish from a spill incident. As many as six million birds migrate through the area in the spring and fall, usually at heights well above the turbine blades, except in foul weather when low cloud ceiling cause the birds to fly at altitudes at the same as the height of the rotors, creating the potential for an episodic catastrophic kill of migrating birds. The Sound also provides important habitat to sea and shorebirds with as many as 250,000 to 500,000 sea ducks wintering the Sound for approximately six months of the year. Biologically important numbers of endangered roseate terns

and piping plovers use the Sound as a breeding and feeding area in the summer months, and are known to migrate through Nantucket Sound in spring and fall. Each August, thousands of roseates congregate on Monomoy Island prior to migration and then leave in great flocks, flying southeast, south, and southwest. How many of these birds pass through the proposed Wind site has not been verified.

__Offshore wind turbines significantly reduce seabird population—displaced routes, bad weather, loss of habitat BLI 9

Birdlife International, Offshore wind farms are impacting seabirds and migrating passerines, http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/289

There is a growing political impetus to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions. Wind power has emerged as a leading renewable technology and is currently the fastest growing source of energy in the world. By the end of 2008, wind turbines were satisfying more than 1.5 % of the world’s electricity demand, generating 260 TWh annually (WWEA 2009). In Europe, there has been a rapid proliferation of wind farms in the marine environment, which may portend a global trend. Within European waters, there are currently some 160 offshore farms either in operation, under construction or being planned. At the forefront of this expanding industry is the United Kingdom with ten operational wind farms made up of 203 turbines, and plans for a further 7,000 turbines by 2020 (see figure). The United Kingdom, together with Germany, currently accounts for around 60 percent of the global offshore wind market (WAB 2009). Although more costly than their terrestrial counterparts, offshore wind farms have a number of advantages. Winds at sea tend to be stronger and more consistent, and weighty turbine components are more easily transported at sea permitting larger turbines to be constructed (European Commission 2008). In addition, offshore wind farms typically encounter less resistance from local

communities (Dolman et al. 2003). However, there are growing concerns that offshore wind farms can have detrimental impacts on wildlife. Birds are particularly vulnerable for three reasons. Firstly, seabirds are negatively impacted through the loss and modification of resting and foraging grounds. Secondly and most importantly, they are killed as a result of collisions with turbine blades: for example, significant fatalities have been reported at marine wind farms situated close to breeding colonies (Everaert and Stienen 2007). Also, during their seasonal migrations, huge numbers of passerines cross Europe’s seas mostly at night and at a low altitude. It is inevitable that birds will collide with turbines, particularly under adverse weather conditions with poor visibility (Hüppop et al. 2006). Thirdly, several studies have found that offshore wind farms act as barriers to travelling seabirds. Displacement from their favoured routes is likely to increase travel distances, causing greater energy expenditure and potentially impacting the survival of nestlings by lowering provisioning rates (Petersen et al. 2003, Fox et al. 2006). For example, at the Nysted offshore wind farm in Denmark, travelling birds (particularly seaduck) displayed profound avoidance behaviour, with the number of birds entering the area declining dramatically following the construction of the wind farm (Desholm and Kahlert 2005). It is vital that the design, position and alignment of future offshore wind farms take into account the distribution and sensitivity of seabird populations (Garthe and Hüppop 2004, Fox et al. 2006), whilst avoiding zones of dense migration (Hüppop et al. 2006).

__Studies don’t distinguish between onshore and offshore—all agree kills lots of birds

Sovacool 9

Benjamin K., Visiting Associate Professor at Vermont Law School and founding Director of the Energy Security & Justice Program at their Institute for Energy and Environment, “Avian mortality from wind power, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity”, 9/13, http://nukefree.org/news/avianmortalityfromwindpower,fossil-fuel,andnuclearelectricity

A survey conducted by the author found more than 600 studies, articles, and reports investigating avian deaths and wind farms published from 1998 to 2008. Studies have generally noted that onshore and offshore wind turbines present direct and indirect hazards to birds and other avian

species. Birds can smash into a turbine blade when they are fixated on perching or hunting and pass through its rotor plane; they can strike support structures; they can hit parts of towers; or they can collide with associated transmission and distribution (T&D) lines. These risks are exacerbated when turbines are placed on ridges and upwind slopes, built close to migration routes, or operated during periods of poor visibility such as fog, rain, and at night. Some species, such as bats, face additional risks from the rapid reduction in air pressure near turbine blades, which can cause internal hemorrhaging through a process known as barotrauma (Baerwald et al., 2008). Indirectly, wind farms can positively and negatively physically alter natural habitats, the quantity and quality of prey, and the availability of nesting sites (Fielding et al., 2006; National Wind Energy Coordinating Committee, 1999).

Turn: bird collisions__Only a site and species specific approach can avoid the risk of avian collisionsAnthony Bicknell, Ph.D., Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre at the Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University, et al., June 19, 2013, “Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries,” Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014

The impact of these non-lethal effects will be highly dependent on the species and location, size, and number of MRE installations. Wind-farms are of most concern as they are highly visible to birds and known to invoke strong avoidance responses in some species, but tidal and wave may still cause displacement from feeding habitat if badly located, especially during construction. A site- and species specific approach needs to be taken to assess the effects, but sensible development planning to avoid sensitive foraging areas and improve wind-farm design (e.g. spacing of turbines and flight corridors) will help mitigate possible population impacts.

Turn: Noise Pollution __Wind renewables generate noise pollution that is lethal to fishManuela Truebano, Ph.D., Lecturer in Marine Biology at the Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University, et al., June 19, 2013, “Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries,” Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 5/12/2014

Fish utilise biological noise to obtain information about the environment in terms of presence of prey and/or predators, communication and orientation using a number of morphological structures to detect sound (noise and vibrations). These hearing structures are extremely diverse among fishes, resulting in different auditory capacity and sensitivity and, consequently, different responses to noise between fish species. Different aspects of the construction and operation of MRE devices result in noise levels that could have a negative effect in some fish. During the construction phase, wind turbine foundation installation can generate acute noise (peak levels around 206 dB re 1 μPa), potentially leading to mortality, physical injury, hearing loss and avoidance responses. During wind farm operation, more subtle effects could be expected, including physiological and behavioural changes, such as impairment of aggressive and reproductive strategies through masking of communicative signals.

__Offshore wind construction causes noise pollution that harms endangered marine speciesThe University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Staff Writer, November 4, 2013, “Assessing impact of noise from offshore wind farm construction may help protect marine mammals,” http://www.umces.edu/cbl/release/ 2013/oct/16/assessing-impact-noise-offshore-wind-farm-construction-may-help-protect-marine-m, Accessed 5/18/2014

Growth in offshore wind generation is expected to play a major role in meeting carbon reduction targets around the world, but the impact of construction noise on marine species is yet unknown. A group of scientists from the United Kingdom and the United States have developed a method to assess the potential impacts of offshore wind farm construction on marine mammal populations, particularly the noise made while driving piles into the seabed to install wind turbine foundations. Their work is published in the November issue of Environmental Impact Assessment Review. “Pile-driving during the construction of offshore wind farms produces an incredible amount of noise,” said Helen Bailey, one of a group of scientists at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science who are studying the impacts of wind turbines on the environment. “This is potentially harmful to marine species and has been of greatest concern to marine mammal species, such as protected populations of seals, dolphins and whales.”

Solvecny Proper

GenericEven with the tax credit offshore wind can’t compete- 2 reasons-1) Expensive energy to produce 2) No private investors

Phillips 2014 (Matthew; Government money is not a silver bullet for Cape Wind's offshore project; Jul 11; www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-11/goverment-money-is-not-silver-bullet-for-cape-wind-offshore-project; kdf)

The Department of Energy has given a $150 million loan guarantee to what could end up being the first offshore wind farm

built in the U.S.—the Cape Wind project slated for construction in the middle of Nantucket Sound. While it’s certainly a nice chunk of

money, Cape Wind had initially sought $500 million from the DOE. The loan is contingent on Cape Wind securing the total $2.6 billion in financing it needs. So far it has raised about half that. Cape Wind is the brainchild of its chief executive, Jim Gordon, who has spent the past decade (and tens of millions of his own money) fighting a pitched political battle over the project. Lined up against him was a cast of opponents, from Cape Cod elites, such as the Kennedys, to commercial fishermen, to even a handful of environmentalists concerned about the impact the project’s 100-plus turbines will have on migratory birds. But Gordon has pretty much beaten them all. Cape Wind has racked up 26 legal victories. The latest came in May, when a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the agreements that Cape Wind has signed to sell power to two Massachusetts utilities, NSTAR Power (NST) and National Grid (NGG). Cape Wind got through a crucial hurdle at the

end of 2013, signing a deal to buy turbines from Siemens (SIE:GR), thus qualifying for an expiring federal tax credit. Now the project faces what is arguably a much bigger challenge: raising money from the private sector. In March, Gordon scored a big win in securing $400 million in debt financing from French, Dutch, and Japanese banks. But debt was always going to be the easiest

piece to line up. The real challenge is finding equity investors. This sets up a tricky challenge for Gordon: The returns that equity investors typically look for in a big, renewable project such as this exceed what Cape Wind may be able to produce legally. The power purchase agreements (PPAs) Cape Wind has with NStar and National Grid cap the amount of total return the project is able to generate. That protects ratepayers from getting gouged by high power bills, but it also puts a squeeze on Gordon’s ability to promise returns to investors. At a

certain point, the project is obligated to give money back to its customers rather than to investors. The DOE loan guarantee could help Cape Wind raise the amount of return it offers its equity investors, but the company is still going to have a hard time attracting the money it needs, says Amy Grace, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “It’s helpful, but it’s not a silver bullet,” Grace wrote in an e-mail. “It could lower their cost of debt, which would give more upside to the equity, but it’s still

a challenge.” Only about 10 to 20 investors buy equity in large renewable energy projects, and they have a lot to choose from around the world, plenty of which are much less risky than a $2.6 billion offshore wind farm. “These investors are very risk averse,” says Grace. “There are certainly comparable returns to be had for a lot less risky onshore wind projects.” To attract the kind of equity it needs, Grace says Cape Wind will have to bank on a business thinking beyond the pure risk-return calculation and invest based on the altruism of renewable energy. “The only one I can think of who might be interested is Google (GOOG),” says Grace. “They have a clean energy agenda, but they’re not going to make a dumb investment.” And Cape Wind needs a big share of what is a relatively small pie of clean energy tax equity investment (which benefits from special tax credits). The peak year was 2012, when total tax equity investment hit $6 billion,

says Grace. Cape Wind alone needs about $1 billion. The project still has its detractors, who point out that the Energy Information Agency recently scored offshore wind as the second-most expensive source of power . Still, interest in ocean-based wind farms is starting to creep south down the East Coast. Maryland’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, has spent years pushing for offshore development in his state’s waters. Last year the Maryland legislature passed a bill to levy a $1.50 monthly charge on the state’s ratepayers to finance a wind project if one gets built. Dominion Virginia Power (DRU) has started drilling test borings off the coast of Virginia Beach.

SQ Solves- Onshore Wind High – Solves Better__Onshore wind high now and solves--comparatively better than offshore because of grid connections, environmental backlash and technical concerns

Ailworth 12

Erin, “Wind farms on land grow with few critics,” http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/07/08/while-cape-wind-debated-land-based-development-wind-power-takes-off/GOQ1U1WEvFocPkOARGNgkO/story.html

Despite controversy that has slowed the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound, land-based wind farms are expanding rapidly in the region. One company alone, First Wind Holdings LLC of Boston, has installed enough turbines in the Northeast over the past few years to generate nearly as much power as the long-awaited offshore wind farm. Other companies, too, have developed wind projects in New England states. Driving this growth are technological advances reducing the cost of wind turbines and increasing their efficiency, making wind power more competitive with traditional power sources — particularly in the Northeast, where electricity costs can run as much as 60 percent above the national average. Turbine prices have dropped about 30 percent over the past few years, and new turbines are able to generate electricity at lower wind speeds. Related Graphic: The expansion of First Wind in the Northeast Meanwhile, average electricity prices in the Northeast can top 15 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to a US average of 9.52 cents. New wind technology can generate power at an average cost of about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, excluding subsidies, according to the US Energy Department. “Some of the states in the Northeast have been some of the fastest-growing markets,” said Elizabeth Salerno, director of industry data and analysis at the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group in Washington. “Power prices are relatively high [there], so by delivering wind projects, you can develop a pretty affordable source of generation.” First Wind has built wind farms in eight locations in Maine, Vermont, and upstate New York. With the 34 megawatts that will be added when the company completes its wind farm near Eastbrook, Maine, First Wind’s projects will have the capacity to generate nearly 420 megawatts of electricity, compared to Cape Wind’s 468 megawatts. In addition, Quincy-based Patriot Renewable operates two wind farms in Maine and one in Buzzards Bay, with a total generating capacity of about 25 megawatts. The Berkshire Wind Power Cooperative Corp., a consortium of 14 municipal utilities and the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co., owns a 15-megawatt wind farm in Hancock that went online last year. A megawatt of wind-generated electricity can power about 300 homes. Despite the growth of land-based projects, the discussion about developing the region’s wind resources has often focused on offshore projects such as Cape Wind and a proposed “wind energy area” that would encompass nearly 165,000 acres of federal waters off the coasts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Last week, US officials completed an

environmental review of the wind energy area, an important step in opening the area to development. Still, it could be years before any turbines are built offshore, meaning that more land-based projects will be needed to achieve renewable energy goals set by several states seeking alternatives to fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas. In Massachusetts, for example, the state has set a goal of installing 2,000 megawatts of wind-energy capacity in the state by 2020 and has required utilities to get 15 percent of their power from wind, solar, and other renewable sources in that same time frame. Today, there are 61 megawatts of installed wind power capacity in the state. This has created opportunities for companies like First Wind. Founded a decade ago, the company had its first project up and running in Hawaii in 2006, and its second operating in Maine in 2007. Today, First Wind has 16 projects — totaling 980 megawatts of generating capacity — operating or under construction in the United States. Four went online in 2011, and another followed this year. The latest project in the region, Bull Hill wind farm near Eastbrook, Maine, will produce power for NStar, one of the largest utilities in Massachusetts. The company’s other New England customers include ISO New England, the region’s grid operator, and Harvard University. “Massachusetts is way ahead of everybody [with its clean energy goals] so, from a practical point of view, the demand is being created by Massachusetts,” said First Wind chief executive Paul Gaynor. That’s because wind power generated in other states is being bought by Massachusetts utilities and others to help meet the state’s renewable energy goals. Although offshore wind is stronger and therefore an abundant and steady

source of power, it has proved much harder to site projects in the ocean for a variety of environmental and technical reasons, including how to connect offshore turbines to the onshore power grid.

AT: Wind Solves Warming __Emissions reductions insignificant—crowds out gas, not coalCullen '12

Joseph PhD Economics,Measuring the Environmental BenefitsofWind-Generated Electricityconducted with financial support from the University of Arizona and the Harvard Univer -sity Center for the Environment. June 2012 www.josephcullen.com/resources/measuringwind.pdf AD 8/30/12

Renewable energy subsidies have been a politically popular program over the past decade. These subsidies have led to explosive growth in wind power installations across the US, especially in the Midwest and Texas. Renewable subsidies are largely motivated by their

environmental benefits as they do not emit CO2, NOx, SO2, or other pollutants which are produced by fossil fuel generators. Given the lack of a national climate legislation, renewable energy subsidies are likely to be continued to be used as one of the major policy instruments for mitigating carbon dioxide emissions in the near future. As such, a better understanding of the impact of subsidization on emissions is imperative. This paper introduces an approach to directly measure the impact of wind power on emissions using observed generating behavior. The quantity of pollutants offset by wind power depends crucially on which generators reduce production when wind power comes online. By exploiting the quasi-experimental variation in wind power production driven by weather fluctuations, it is possible to 40 The identify generator specific production offsets due to wind power. Importantly, dynamics play a critical role in the estimation procedure. Failing to account for dynamics in generator operations leads to overly optimistic estimates of emission offsets. Although a static model would indicate that wind has a significant impact on the operation of coal generators, the results from a dynamic model show that wind power only crowds out electricity production fueled by natural gas . The model was used to estimate wind power offsets for generators on the Texas electricity grid. The results showed that one MWh of wind power production offsets less than half a ton of CO2, almost one lb of NOx , and no discernible amount of SO2 . As a benchmark for the economic benefits of renewable subsidies, I compared the value of offset emissions to the cost of subsidizing wind farms for a range of possible emission values. I found that the value of subsidizing wind power is driven primarily by CO2 offsets, but that the social costs of CO2, would have to be greater than $42/ton in order for the environmental benefits of wind power to have outweighed the costs of subsidies.

__No solvency –trades off with hydro and nuclearVan Kooten '09

G. Cornelius PhD University of Victory Economics "Wind Power: The Economic Impact of Intermittency," Lett Spat Resour Sci (2010) 3: 1–17 Nov 21 09 www.springerlink.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/content/n33m8m15230876h0/ AD 8/30/12

The presence of large-scale nuclear and hydro facilities militates against the use of wind to address climate change as wind power simply displaces hydroelectric and nuclear power, both of which have very low life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. As our model indicates, the costs of reducing CO2 emissions are unacceptably large in such cases (and would theoretically be infinite if wind power displaces a carbon-free alternative one-for-one). A generating mix that might best be suited to greater deployment of wind farms is one that relies principally on fossil fuels yet has enough hydroelectric capacity to enable wind-generated power to be stored in hydro reservoirs. This is an issue that has not been explored here as it requires more detailed information than currently available.

__Offshore wind doesn’t reduce GHG---only a risk backup power sources increase emissions Tuerck et al 11

David Tuerck, PhD, Paul Bachman, MSIE, Ryan Murphy, B.S. (PhD candidate), The Cost and Economic Impact of New Jersey’s Offshore Wind Initiative, Beacon Hill institute, June

When wind power reduces fossil fuel use, it also indirectly contributes to cleaner air through lower emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The reduced emissions of CO2 are believed to reduce the greenhouse effect and thereby moderate the effects of global warming, although the strength of these effects is a matter of considerable debate. The main benefit of lower emissions of SOx, NOx and CO2 is a reduction in human mortality and morbidity. It is not easy to put a dollar value on these effects, and so estimates vary widely. We use the numbers

reported by Muller et al. and value CO2 using the most recent futures auctions from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for New Jersey, or $2.04 per tonne of CO2.16 However, coal is the largest marginal producer for the mid-Atlantic region, according to the market report for the PMJ. In this case, it is unclear that the use of renewable energy resources, especially wind, significantly reduces GHG emissions. Due to their intermittency, wind requires significant backup power sources that are cycled up and down to accommodate the variability in their production. As a result, a recent study found that wind power could actually increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions when coal represents a large portion of the marginal electricity produced for New Jersey.17 Thus the case for the heavy use of wind to generate “cleaner” electricity is undermined in terms of replacing coal. Therefore, we assume that the resources used as the marginal producer will only reduce emissions for the portion of the marginal production from natural gas and oil and not from coal. Table 4 displays the calculations.

__Offshore wind won’t tradeoff with fossil fuels---they’re required as backup source of energy Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound 12

Cape Wind Threats: The Environment, http://www.saveoursound.org/cape_wind_threats/environment/

Myth: Cape Wind would markedly reduce local air pollution and presents a solution to global warming. Fact: Cape Wind would not make a significant contribution to the effort to reduce pollution emissions, and, in fact, could aggravate the problem by causing dirty power plants to run more often in order to be ready to generate power instantly when the wind stops blowing. Despite the claims of some Cape Wind supporters, the Cape Wind project would not shut down local fossil fuel burning power plants. Due to the unreliable nature of wind power, back up sources of power - including fossil fuel burning plants - must always be running to compensate for the possible lack of wind. Moreover, since much of the air pollution in Southern New England originates in the Mid-West, Cape Wind would have little impact on local air quality. At a minimum, Cape Wind used questionable data and assumptions in arriving at its claims for air quality benefits of the project. Beyond ignoring the issue of dirty back up power, Cape Wind's approach generally ignores the effect of a capped SO2 and NOx emissions system, in which neither Cape Wind nor any other new generating source would reduce emissions below the cap in the long run. While pushing the allegedly "green" Cape Wind project, Cape Wind developer Jim Gordon is simultaneously proposing a diesel burning power plant just yards from an elementary school in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Not surprisingly, this proposal has been met with strong local opposition in Chelsea.

Offense – Increases Warming __Doesn’t scale and up and leads to warming – newest evidenceScience Daily 13

Rethinking Wind Power, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225121926.htm

People have often thought there's no upper bound for wind power -- that it's one of the most scalable power sources," says Harvard applied physicist David Keith. After all, gusts and breezes don't seem likely to "run out" on a global scale in the way oil wells might run dry. Yet the latest research in mesoscale atmospheric modeling, published February 25 in the journal Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated . Each wind turbine creates behind it a "wind shadow" in which the air has been slowed down by drag on the turbine's blades. The ideal wind farm strikes a balance, packing as many turbines onto the land as possible, while also spacing them enough to reduce the impact of these wind shadows. But as wind farms grow larger, they start to interact, and the regional-scale wind patterns matter more. Keith's research has shown that the generating capacity of very large wind power installations (larger than 100 square kilometers) may peak at between 0.5 and 1 watts per square meter. Previous estimates, which ignored the turbines' slowing effect on the wind, had put that figure at between 2 and 7 watts per square meter. In short, we may not have access to as much wind power as scientists thought. An internationally renowned expert on climate science and technology policy, Keith holds appointments as Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and as Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Coauthor Amanda S. Adams was formerly a postdoctoral fellow with Keith and is now assistant professor of geography and Earth sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "One of the inherent challenges of wind energy is that as soon as you start to develop wind farms and harvest the resource, you change the resource, making it difficult to assess what's really available," says Adams. But having a truly accurate estimate matters, of course, in the pursuit of carbon-neutral energy sources. Solar, wind, and hydro power, for example, could all play roles in fulfilling energy needs that are currently met by coal or oil. "If wind power's going to make a contribution to global energy requirements that's serious, 10 or 20 percent or more, then it really has to contribute on the scale of terawatts in the next half-century or less," says Keith. If we were to cover the entire Earth with wind farms, he notes, "the system could potentially generate enormous amounts of power, well in excess of 100 terawatts, but at that point my guess, based on our climate modeling, is that the effect of that on global winds, and therefore on climate, would be severe -- perhaps bigger than the impact of doubling CO2." "Our findings don't mean that we shouldn't pursue wind power -- wind is much better for the environment than conventional coal -- but these geophysical limits may be meaningful if we really want to scale wind power up to supply a third, let's say, of our primary energy," Keith adds. And the climatic effect of turbine drag is not the only constraint; geography and economics matter too. "It's clear the theoretical upper limit to wind power is huge, if you don't care about the impacts of covering the whole world with wind turbines," says Keith. "What's not clear -- and this is a topic for future research -- is what the practical limit to wind power would be if you consider all of the real-world constraints. You'd have to assume that wind turbines need to be located relatively close to where people actually live and where there's a fairly constant wind supply, and that they have to deal with environmental constraints. You can't just put them everywhere." "The real punch line," he adds, "is

that if you can't get much more than half a watt out, and you accept that you can't put them everywhere, then you may start to reach a limit that matters." In order to stabilize Earth's climate, Keith estimates, the world will need to identify sources for several tens of terawatts of carbon-free power within a human lifetime. In the meantime, policymakers must also decide how to allocate resources to develop new technologies to harness that energy. In doing so, Keith says, "It's worth asking about the scalability of each potential energy source -- whether it can supply, say, 3 terawatts, which would be 10 percent of our global energy need, or whether it's more like 0.3 terawatts and 1 percent." "Wind power is in a middle ground," he says. "It is still one of the most scalable renewables, but our research suggests that we will need to pay attention to its limits and climatic impacts if we try to scale it beyond a few terawatts."

__Your studies don’t include relevant field data – observational evidence is keyZhang et al 13

Wei Zhang, Corey D Markfort and Fernando Porté-Agel - Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, and Wind Engineering and Renewable Energy Laboratory Switzerland, “Experimental study of the impact of large-scale wind farms on land–atmosphere exchanges,” Environmental Research Letters Volume 8 Number 1

Modeling studies of the influence of utility-scale wind farms on regional and global climate have shown that the impacts may be substantial (Ivanova and Nadyozhina 2000, Baidya Roy et al 2004, Keith et al 2004, Baidya Roy and Traiteur 2010, Barrie and Kirk-Davidoff 2010, Baidya Roy 2011, Wang and Prinn 2011, Fitch et al 2012, Zhou et al 2012). For instance, Baidya Roy (2011) found that wind farms significantly affected near-surface air temperature and humidity as well as surface sensible and latent heat fluxes. The signs of the impacts (i.e., increase or decrease), are reported to depend on static stability and total water mixing ratio lapse rates of the atmosphere. Recent high-resolution large-eddy simulation (LES) studies are able to resolve detailed fluid dynamics and heat transport within and over wind farms as well as near the land surface (Calaf et al 2010, 2011, Lu and Porté-Agel 2011, Porté-Agel et al 2011, Wu and Porté-Agel 2011). Lu and Porté-Agel (2011) reported that the surface momentum and heat fluxes in a very large wind farm underwent substantial reduction of more than 30% and 15% respectively, relative to that of the stable boundary-layer flow without wind turbines. In contrast, Calaf et al (2011) found surface heat flux increased by 10%–15% and a reduction of the momentum flux, from their LES study of wind-farm flows subjected to a neutral boundary layer with temperature as a passive scalar. It is not clear what key factors lead to the different results of the surface heat flux change. So far most studies on near-surface temperature and fluxes altered by large-scale wind farms have been carried out by numerical simulations. In fact, rarely are these studies validated against observational evidence (Baidya Roy and Traiteur 2010). The computational results are dependent on the accuracy of the models employed and the realism of the methods applied to parameterize wind turbines (e.g., Barrie and Kirk-Davidoff 2010, Wang and Prinn 2010). In particular, the validity of representing the impacts of wind-turbine arrays on momentum transport by the widely applied added roughness length models needs further study, evidenced by Markfort et al (2012). Therefore, new observations in the field and laboratory are in high demand to advance our understanding of turbulent wakes and scalar transport in wind farms and for numerical model development.

Barges/Vessels__Terminal solvency deficit---no US barges exist to build turbines and law prevents European vessels from doing it Giordano 10

Offshore 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.

Rare Earth Mineral Shortage __REMs critical to offshore wind production will be gone by 2015---no alternatives Bourzac 11

Katherine, Technology Review's material science editor, MIT Science Writing program; The Rare-Earth Crisis, May, http://www.technologyreview.com/contributor/katherine-bourzac/

With worldwide demand for the materials exploding, the site's owner, Molycorp Minerals, restarted mining at Mountain Pass last December. It is now the Western Hemisphere's only producer of rare-earth metals and one of just a handful outside of China, which currently produces 95 percent of the world's supply. Last September, after China stopped exporting the materials to Japan for two months, countries around the world began scrambling to secure their own sources. But even without Chinese restrictions and with the revival of the California mine, worldwide supplies of some rare earths could soon fall short of demand. Of particular concern are neodymium and dysprosium, which are used to make magnets that help generate torque in the motors of electric and hybrid cars and convert torque into electricity in large wind turbines. In a report released last December, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that widespread use of electric-drive vehicles and offshore wind farms could cause shortages of these metals by 2015. What would happen then is anyone's guess. There are no practical alternatives to these metals in many critical applications requiring strong permanent magnets—materials that retain a magnetic field without the need for a power source to induce magnetism by passing an electric current through them. Most everyday magnets, including those that hold notes on the fridge, are permanent magnets. But they aren't very strong, while those made from rare earths are tremendously so. Alloys of neodymium with iron and boron are four to five times as strong by weight as permanent magnets made from any other material. That's one reason rare-earth magnets are found in nearly every hybrid and electric car

on the road. The motor of Toyota's Prius, for example, uses about a kilogram of rare earths. Offshore wind turbines can require hundreds of kilograms each. New mining activity, not only at Mountain Pass but also in Australia and elsewhere, will increase supplies—but not enough to meet demand for certain critical metals, particularly dysprosium, in the next few years. And the limited capacity of the new mining operations is not the only problem. Because rare earths make such excellent magnets, researchers have put little effort since the early 1980s into improving them or developing other materials that could do the job. Few scientists and engineers outside China work on rare-earth metals and magnet alternatives. Inventing substitutes and getting them into motors will take years, first to develop the scientific expertise and then to build a manufacturing infrastructure. The United States "lost expertise" when its mines closed and magnet manufacturing relocated to Asia to be near operating mines and less expensive labor, says George Hadjipanayis, chair of physics and astronomy at the University of Delaware. As a result, there were few incentives for researchers or companies to work on magnets. Now, he says, "there is not much funding and no industry around."

__Scarcity of rare earth materials makes offshore wind impossible Pell 11

Elza Holmstedt, Environmental Finance, Rare Earth Shortages - A Ticking Timebomb for Renewables?, 12/12, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Rare-Earth-Shortages-A-Ticking-Timebomb-For-Renewables.html

A global scarcity of rare earth metals over the next five years could be “ a ticking timebomb ” for renewables and clean-tech, according to consultancy PwC. Hybrid cars, rechargeable batteries and

wind turbines are among the sectors which could be affected by a shortage of these metals, which include cobalt, lithium and platinum, says PwC’s report Minerals and metals scarcity in manufacturing: A ‘ticking timebomb’. Rare earth metals are a key element for producing gearless wind turbines using permanent magnet generators, said Daniel Guttmann, London-based director for renewables and clean-tech at PwC. Manufacturers favour gearless turbines increasingly as they are more reliable than geared turbines, which are heavier and have more moving parts. “This is a real headache for the industry and may negatively impact the cost-curve of offshore wind, ” he said.

Guttman added that two ways that automotive manufacturers expect to meet tightening emission regulations are electric vehicles and reducing vehicle weight, and rare earth metals are required to construct batteries of the right cost, weight and size.

Timeframe __Turbines don’t generate power until 7 years after plan proposed because of the bureaucratic permit process Craig 11

Michael, Americans for Energy Leadership, 3/2, Offshore Wind in the United States: The Next Big Thing?, http://leadenergy.org/2011/03/offshore-wind-in-the-united-states-the-next-big-thing/, online 12

Obtaining the necessary permits and licenses for an offshore wind farm is a process that spans multiple agencies and potential stumbling blocks. The poster boy of this grueling process is Cape Wind, which has been in the works for over a decade due to lawsuits, permitting inefficiencies, and other problems. While its struggle can be partly blamed on its contentious location, it nonetheless serves as a stark warning to other investors. The major permitting agency for most offshore wind farms is the newly-formed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (previously the Minerals Management Service), which

presides over all development in the Outer Continental Shelf. Specifically, BOEMRE issues leases and permits to all wind farms located beyond state waters, i.e. greater than 3 nautical miles (nm) off shore. The Army Corps of Engineers must also issue a permit under the Clean Water Act for construction operations, and FERC must approve all connections to the grid. As is the case with other renewable sectors, projects must also comply with a host of other less significant federal and, where applicable, state regulations. Obtaining the required permits is estimated to currently take about 7 years. Because of the long duration from inception to construction, a great deal of uncertainty surrounds offshore wind farms. The electricity market, for one, can shift greatly over the course of 7 years, as aptly demonstrated over the course of the recent recession. Lawsuits can also be brought against the farm which could further delay completion or even stop the project. Finally, policies favorable to offshore wind that may currently exist could very well be discontinued by the time a farm comes to fruition, a situation the onshore wind industry can painfully identify with due to volatility in the Production Tax Credit. Although uncertainty is not prohibitive in and of itself – onshore wind construction does occur when the PTC is defunct, just at a slower rate – its combination with large capital costs for offshore wind makes any endeavor a risky proposition. Cape Wind, for instance, is projected to cost $2.5 billion excluding financing costs, while other projects range between hundreds of millions to billions depending on their capacity. Unplanned delays, e.g. from lawsuits, drive costs up even further, not to mention the necessary transmission infrastructure.

__Takes 15 years to have a pilot project builtZeller 13 – Contributor @ RE World

Tom, “Cape Wind: Regulation, Litigation and the Struggle to Develop Offshore Wind Power in the U.S.,” RE world, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/cape-wind-regulation-litigation-and-the-struggle-to-develop-offshore-wind-power-in-the-u-s

"Contemplate this depressing change in America's can-do spirit," the editorial suggested. "The 6.6 million-ton Hoover Dam that tamed the mighty Colorado River was finished in 1936 after a mere five years. Yet 130 offshore wind turbines , a pioneering project of President Obama's 'new energy economy,' may take three times as long to complete ."

__Long time frameS and P 12

Standard and Poor’s Credit Week, “Offshore Wind Arrives. Will Renewables Prosper?,” http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/swf/cw/cw_0512/data/document.pdf

Offshore wind projects offer a potentially vast source of clean energy, especially near large northeastern population centers. Many states along the Eastern Seaboard are very interested in exploiting this energy potential and reaping the benefits from the port, marine, and supply industries that would follow. But, offshore wind technology is much more expensive than onshore applications and has a long and costly development cycle that is not well-suited to short-term federal support

schemes. Offshore wind in the U.S. also lacks a well-functioning and timely regulatory approval process (see “Policy Framework Background For Key Countries,” in the article titled, “Strong Growth Of Global Offshore Wind Power Provides Big Opportunities For Project Finance,” published May 16, 2012, on RatingsDirect, on the Global Credit Portal).

No Investors __High cost will stop investment in the status quoEdwards 11

Ian Edwards 4th Feburary 2011Overcoming Challenges for the Offshore Wind Industry and Learning from the Oil and Gas Industry http://www.power-cluster.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HjLomsTZQtU%3D&tabid=317&mid=1364 (Report by – Natural Power - NATURAL POWER IS AN INDEPENDENT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANCY AND PRODUCTS PROVIDER WITH OVER TWO DECADES OF UNIQUE INDUSTRY EXPERTISE. WE PROVIDE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, ECOLOGY & HYDROLOGY, TECHNICAL, CONSTRUCTION & GEOTECHNICAL, ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DUE DILIGENCE SERVICES LOCALLY ACROSS ONSHORE WIND, OFFSHORE WIND, WAVE, TIDAL AND BIOMASS SECTORS GLOBALLY.)

Recent consultants’ reports indicate that offshore wind has one of the highest costs of any energy generating technology which is currently available on a commercial scale, this still seems to be true even when the estimated costs of carbon capture and storage are included in the cost of fossil fuel powered thermally generated electricity. The high cost of energy generated by offshore wind farms is probably the biggest single challenge facing offshore wind and it is imperative that the industry reduces these costs as rapidly as possible. There is no “magic bullet” which will reduce the cost of offshore wind energy, it can only be achieved by optimizing every stage of development, manufacture, installation and operation. However, because wind energy does not require the purchase of a fuel, the anticipated increase in the cost of fossil fuels, caused by market forces and carbon taxes, is likely to make offshore wind power more competitive in the future.

__Poor reliability means investors see offshore wind as too riskyEdwards 11

Ian Edwards 4th Feburary 2011Overcoming Challenges for the Offshore Wind Industry and Learning from the Oil and Gas Industry http://www.power-cluster.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HjLomsTZQtU%3D&tabid=317&mid=1364 (Report by – Natural Power - NATURAL POWER IS AN INDEPENDENT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANCY AND PRODUCTS PROVIDER WITH OVER TWO DECADES OF UNIQUE INDUSTRY EXPERTISE. WE PROVIDE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, ECOLOGY & HYDROLOGY, TECHNICAL, CONSTRUCTION & GEOTECHNICAL, ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DUE DILIGENCE SERVICES LOCALLY ACROSS ONSHORE WIND, OFFSHORE WIND, WAVE, TIDAL AND BIOMASS SECTORS GLOBALLY.)

The ability to raise the capital to build offshore wind farms is also hindered by the legacy of poor reliability for some early offshore wind farms, which makes offshore wind look “too risky” to investors, and the constraints resulting from the recent global financial crisis. Although the offshore wind industry cannot control the financial markets, it can and must improve the reliability of offshore wind farms and reduce the cost of energy, making it less reliant on subsidies. This is likely to be difficult to achieve because of the inherent conservatism of the financial community who like to see many years of successful track record, the incremental approach to the development of offshore wind farm technology which is still rooted in an onshore paradigm, and the absence of long term testing of new designs in the marine environment.

PTC Fails __Higher costs for offshore wind make short-term federal support like PTC failPratt 12

Terry, S&P Credit Analyst, U.S. Offshore Wind Investment Needs More Than A Short-Term Production Tax Credit Fix, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services CreditWeek | May 23

The U.S. wind power industry is dealing with the same issue and trying to get Congress to continue the main source of federal support, the production tax credit (PTC), beyond the end of 2012. This sup- port has enabled rapid industry growth in onshore wind during the past decade. Without the PTC, investment drops quickly. A new element to the debate is how to

pro- vide support for investment in offshore wind projects, which can provide substan- tial amounts of clean energy but at a high cost. The difficult permitting process and long development cycle of offshore wind do not match well with a short-term PTC extension. Policymakers need to consider other options of funding if they want to see the role of offshore wind expand. Offshore wind projects offer a poten- tially vast source of clean energy, espe- cially near large northeastern population centers. Many states along the Eastern Seaboard are very interested in exploiting this energy potential and

reaping the ben- efits from the port, marine, and supply industries that would follow. But, offshore wind technology is much more expensive than onshore applications and has a long and costly development cycle that is not well-suited to short-term federal support schemes. Offshore wind in the U.S. also lacks a well-functioning and timely regulatory approval process (see “Policy Framework Background For Key Countries,” in the article titled, “Strong Growth Of Global Offshore Wind Power Provides Big Opportunities For Project Finance,” pub- lished May 16, 2012, on RatingsDirect, on the Global Credit Portal). In sharp contrast, several European countries have adopted a number of policies that have led to large growth in offshore wind, and the U.K. and Germany have the most new construc- tion and potential (see chart).

__Uncertainty of long term availability and susceptibility to boom and bust cycles make PTC fail for offshore wind projects Pratt 12

Terry, S&P Credit Analyst, U.S. Offshore Wind Investment Needs More Than A Short-Term Production Tax Credit Fix, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services CreditWeek | May 23

But the PTC as enacted is not as helpful to offshore wind projects. One major drawback of the PTC is the uncertainty of its availability. The PTC is usu- ally enacted for a short period, usually about two years. Sometimes, Congress extends it before it expires, but Congress has also let it lapse and then renewed it a few months later. In effect, the PTC is more unpredictable than wind itself. Onshore wind projects can deal with this

short tenor because of quick approval and short construction times. But, this uncertainty leads to rapid project devel- opment and construction before the PTC’s expiration, which introduces some risk about how well construction was performed and whether it went over budget in the rush to chase scarce resources. It also leads to boom-and- bust investment cycles that discourage major foreign equipment suppliers from investing in domestic manufacturing and spare parts, which then results in con- tinued reliance on import availability and foreign exchange risk. This keeps costs high when they need to decline. The uncertainty aspect also leads to massive spending on lobbying the gov- ernment every couple of years to con- tinue the program rather than on R&D to improve technology and reduce unit costs, which would then reduce reliance on subsidies . Finally, if the wind resource falls short of expectations, the PTC value does too,

creating uncertain returns to investors. Another limitation of the PTC is that it limits the developer pool and, more important, the investor pool. The boom- and-bust nature of the industry results in large firms, which

can withstand bust cycles, crowding out small developers that often initially develop the deals that are then sold to larger

players. The investor aspect is more complex. Projects usually do not have enough tax exposure to gain the full value of the PTC. So, projects turn to—and become dependent on—tax equity investors. This limits the investor pool to entities with tax exposure, which eliminates a much-needed wider investor base. The early Danish model required local invest- ment, a key reason behind wind power’s wide acceptance there now. The financial crisis in the U.S. led to a great reduction in tax equity investment pools because wind projects were not willing to

pay the higher returns the tax equity pools wanted. When the PTC expires, the tax equity pool dries up, and investment declines. When financial markets contract, most tax equity evaporates, and the same thing occurs. Tax equity

monetization also creates additional legal and structural complexity for wind projects, which costs time and money and adds to cost. It is also not so attractive to capital market investors, who want stable cash flow allocation.

ITC Fails __Uncertainty of long term support and reliance on small investor base Pratt 12

Terry, S&P Credit Analyst, U.S. Offshore Wind Investment Needs More Than A Short-Term Production Tax Credit Fix, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services CreditWeek | May 23

The investment tax credit has similar strengths and weaknesses. A project gets an ITC up to a certain amount based on the actual cost of the project. This sup- port scheme has been used recently as a temporary stimulus tool for wind projects. An advantage of the ITC is that it provides a known tax value, which can be beneficial for offshore wind, given its greater uncertainty of production (and therefore PTC value) because of new tur- bine technology and uncertain wind farm performance. Ironically, the ITC is the current federal support scheme for solar projects, which have more predictable revenue streams than wind power. The downside of the ITC is the uncertainty of its availability over the long term and the reliance on the tax equity base. The ITC also does not encourage use of the best wind resources.

Technology Fails __New tech developments and planning are required before offshore wind powerJosé Zayas, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, January 2014, “Advancing Ocean Renewable Energy In the United States,” Sea Technology Magazine, http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2014/0114/1.php, Accessed 4/11/2014

To effectively develop the vast U.S. offshore wind resource, technology innovations are needed to lower system costs and address site-specific requirements, such as hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, icing in the Great Lakes, and deep waters in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast. In addition, environmental impact assessments, multiuser planning and transmission grid interconnection strategies are required.

__The technology is not ready and there are too many barriersWalter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power, L.L.C., September 2010, “Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014

The opportunities for advancing offshore wind technologies are accompanied by significant challenges. Turbine blades can be much larger without land-based transportation and construction constraints; however, enabling technology is needed to allow the construction of a blade greater than 70-meters in length. The blades may also be allowed to rotate faster offshore, as blade noise is less likely to disturb human habitations. Faster rotors operate at lower torque, which means lighter, less costly drivetrain components. Challenges unique to the offshore environment include resistance to corrosive salt waters, resilience to tropical and extra-tropical storms and waves, and coexistence with marine life and activities. Greater distances from shore create challenges from increased water depth, exposure to more extreme open ocean conditions, long distance electrical transmission on high-voltage submarine cables, turbine maintenance at sea, and accommodation of maintenance personnel.

No Infrastructure __We don’t have the infrastructure for development or capability for operation and maintenanceMichael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014

The infrastructure required to install offshore wind farms, such as purpose-built ports and vessels, does not currently exist in the United States. There is also insufficient capability for domestic operation and maintenance. While turbine installation and maintenance vessels exist in other countries, legislation such as the Jones Act may limit the ability of these foreign vessels to operate in U.S. waters. These issues also apply to transmission infrastructure for offshore wind.

__We only have about 2,000 megawatts in development nowWalter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power, L.L.C., September 2010, “Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014

Although the United States has built no offshore wind projects so far, about 20 projects representing more than 2,000 MW of capacity are in the planning and permitting process. Most of these activities are in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, although projects are being considered along the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Coast. The deep waters off the West Coast, however, pose a technology challenge for the near term.

Too Costly __Offshore wind is the second costliest energy source aroundThe Daily Caller News Foundation, Staff Writer, February 27, 2014, “Study claims giant offshore wind turbines will blow away hurricanes,” Red Alert Politics, http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/02/27/study-claims-giant-offshore-wind-turbines-will-blow-away-hurricanes/, Accessed 5/14/2014

There is also the issue of cost. Wind power costs have been coming down in recent years, but are still significantly higher than traditional energy sources like coal or natural gas. Offshore wind is one of the costliest energy sources, according to the Energy Information Administration, costing about $222 per megawatt hour — onshore wind only costs $86 per megawatt hour. The only source of energy that’s more costly to generate than offshore wind is solar thermal energy at $261 per megawatt hour.

__Investors still perceive it too risky to sign onMichael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014

Offshore wind has higher financing costs, due to the heightened perceived risk. Since it is not yet a mature industry, investors still perceive offshore wind as risky, due to regulatory and permitting issues, construction and installation risk, and long-term reliability of energy production. As a result, insurance and warranty premiums remain high. There are also extremely high risks to early-stage capital, given the uncertainty around the price and availability of future off-take agreements for offshore wind.

West Coast __Plan doesn’t effect the west coastGalbraith 9 – NYT Analyst

Kate, “Prospects Distant for Offshore Wind in West,” http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/prospects-distant-for-offshore-wind-in-west/

Eastern states from North Carolina to Maine are working on plans for offshore wind power. N.R.E.L.

Winds off the coast of California are strong, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, but wind development is stalled because the water is too deep. Click map to enlarge. Why is nothing happening off the West Coast, where the winds also blow strong? The main problem, experts say, is topography. Whereas the continental shelf extends for miles off the East Coast, the bedrock drops off sharply just beyond the West Coast –- making it too deep to anchor the turbines with current technology. A second difficulty is power prices. Electricity in California, while expensive relative to the middle of the country, is still cheaper than in most of New England. This makes offshore wind projects less economical. (Electricity in Washington and Oregon is cheaper still.) Western states also have an abundance of what Easterners do not: land. “We have a huge endowment of land-based wind resources (on gigantic open spaces not available in the East) that are going to get developed before we need to go offshore,” Elliot Mainzer of the Bonneville Power Administration, said in an e-mail message. For projects off California, there would also be an “additional side concern of the earthquakes,” said Peter Mandelstam, the president of Bluewater Wind, a developer that plans to put offshore turbines off the Delaware coast.

AT: Economy

Econ Up __U.S. and global economic growth will grow this yearMoody's Investors Service, Staff Writer, May 8, 2014, “Advanced economies likely to drive global growth in 2014-15 as emerging markets slow down,” Global Credit Research, https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Advanced-economies-likely-to-drive-global-growth-in-2014--PR_298858, Accessed 5/18/2014

Moody's notes that reforms and accommodative monetary policy in the aftermath of the global financial and the euro area crises are slowly bearing fruit in advanced economies. After a soft patch at the start of the year, US economic activity is set to pick up during 2014 on the back of strong corporate balance sheets, favourable financing conditions, a smaller fiscal drag and strong price competitiveness. Moreover, after two years of recession, the euro area will contribute positively to global growth in 2014 as exporters benefit from competitiveness-improving reforms and as constraints on households' budgets ease.

__Global economic growth will be steady this yearMoody's Investors Service, Staff Writer, May 8, 2014, “Advanced economies likely to drive global growth in 2014-15 as emerging markets slow down,” Global Credit Research, https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Advanced-economies-likely-to-drive-global-growth-in-2014--PR_298858, Accessed 5/18/2014

Overall, positive developments in advanced economies will raise global growth this year to around 3%. For emerging markets, growth in 2014 is likely to be lower than in 2013. In 2015, as stronger trade spills over to improved domestic activity in most countries, global growth is expected to rise further, to reach close to 3.5% for the G20 economies, in line with historical averages.

AT: U.S. Key __China will outpace the U.S. role in global growth this yearThe Economic Times, Staff Writer, April 30, 2014, “China poised to overtake US economy: World Bank ranking,” http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/china-poised-to-overtake-us-economy-world-bank-ranking/articleshow/34433509.cms, Accessed 5/18/2014In 2005, on a PPP basis, Chinese output amounted to about 43.0 percent of US GDP, but in 2011 this had risen to nearly 87.0 percent, doubling its relative performance. China has been catching up for several years, since it became a player across the global economy. It now looks possible that in the course of this year, the Asian behemoth will overtake the United States in terms of output on a purchasing-power basis.

__China will surpass the U.S. this year as the most important economyKevin Lamarque, Staff Writer, May 02, 2014, “No longer #1? China may replace US as biggest economy this year – World Bank,” RT, http://rt.com/business/155892-china-overtake-us-economy/, Accessed 5/18/2014

Sometimes size DOES matter. China may pass the US and become the world’s most important economy this year, according to the World Bank. It would take the position the US has held since 1872. Previous studies have suggested China could become the world's biggest economy by 2019. Ever since the 2008 financial crisis, the Chinese economy has contributed a quarter of total global growth. Between 2011-2014, China’s economy will account for 24 percent, according to IMF estimates.

AT: Impacts __Economic doomsaying deters investment and lending, which hurts the economyZachary Karabell, Guest contributor and a money manager, May 1, 2014, “Cassandras Everywhere,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/ articles/business/the_edgy_optimist/2014/05/global_economic_collapse_the_cassandras_who_are_predicting_a_crash.html, Accessed 5/18/2014

The cult of doom has been thriving ever since the meltdown of 2008. With so many having been caught off guard by the cascading crisis triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, a never-again mentality took hold, especially in the United States. Europe had its own reckoning over the euro soon after, and has been mired not just in stagnant growth but pessimism ever since. The reasons for today’s caution verging on paranoia are understandable, but the effects are no less destructive. Trillions of dollars sit on corporate balance sheets unused as companies and their CEOs wonder whether now is a good time to spend. Banks, trying to preserve capital provided to them largely by government, have been reluctant to lend, though they are certainly doing so more now than in the immediate aftermath of 2008–2009. Believing that the financial system is imperiled by a Fed out of control and by trillions in debt, wide swaths of the political class emboldened by the Tea Party continue to sound the klaxon of austerity, forcing ever more shrinkage of what little government spending there is on infrastructure, science, and investment.

__Economic decline does not lead to warRobert Jervis, Adlai E. Stevenson Professor of International Politics in the Department of Political Science, and a Member of the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, July 2011, “Force in Our Times,” Saltzman Working Paper No. 15, http://www.siwps.com/news.attachment/saltzmanworkingpaper15-842/SaltzmanWorkingPaper15.PDF, Accessed 5/18/2014

Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening of the current economic difficulties, which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy, and bring back old-fashioned beggar-thy-neighbor economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a pre-existing high level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen such

a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.

AT: Jobs __Offshore wind won’t generate new jobs—accounts for less than 1% of total manufacturing jobs Platzer '11

Michaela D. Congressional Research Service, "U.S. Wind Turbine Manufacturing: Federal Support for an Emerging Industry" 9/23/11 Cornell University ILR School, http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1871&context=key_workplace, 8/21/12

Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share of the 11.5 million domestic manufacturing jobs in 2010, well under 1%. It seems unlikely, even given a substantial increase in U.S. manufacturing capacity, that wind turbine manufacturing will become a major source of manufacturing employment. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy forecast that if wind power were to provide 20% of the nation’s electrical supply in 2030, U.S. turbine assembly and component plants could support roughly 32,000 full-time manufacturing workers in 2026.82 AWEA’s more optimistic projection is that the wind industry could support three to four times as many manufacturing workers as at present if a long-term stable policy environment were in place, which implies a total of 80,000 jobs.83 Further employment growth in the sector is likely to depend not only upon future demand for wind energy, but also on corporate decisions about where to produce towers, blades, nacelles, and their most sophisticated components, such as gearboxes, bearings, and generators.

__Empirics prove all the jobs will go overseas even with massive stimulusStewart 10

Brandon, “Solar Subsidies Fail to Create Green Jobs, Again” [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/10/solar-subsidies-fail-to-create-green-jobs-again/] February 10

As we reported in today’s Morning Bell, ABC News reports that despite massive amounts of stimulus funding being spent on wind farms—nearly $2 billion—the vast majority (80%) of it has been spent on overseas companies. ABC contacted Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop who suggested that the project has resulted in nearly 6,000 jobs for overseas manufacturers and only a few hundred over here.

__Offshore wind developed overseas—no domestic jobs ASBC '11

American Sustainable Business Council, "American Sustainable Business Council White House Briefing: Creating Jobs and Building a Sustainable Economy," 6/2/11 http://www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/news/recent-articles/10-11/paper-asbc.pdf AD 8/19/11

Despite its hardships, American manufacturing still represents a considerable share of the U.S. economy. The sector’s gross output in 2005 was $4.5 trillion, and it still supports nearly 13 million jobs, or nearly 10 percent of total non-farm employment. The clean energy sector is projected to reach $226 billion annually by 2016. Demand for solar and wind power will continue to expand over the next twenty years, and upwards to 80% of these new jobs will be in the manufacturing sector. Clean energy manufacturing offers an opportunity to strengthen and expand America’s middle class. But there’s one big problem: we don’t make most of these systems here in the U.S. Fully half of America’s existing wind turbines were manufactured overseas. We rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components, even though the solar cell was born in America. The fact that other countries are prepared to deliver these products — and we are not — means that every new American bill creating demand for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency services actually creates new jobs overseas, even though we the US has a robust manufacturing infrastructure and skilled workforce.

AT: Jobs - Bad Methods __Their evidence exaggerates; jobs estimates use faulty methodologyLinowes 12

Lisa Linowes, blogger for MasterResource.com. Lisa Linowes is cofounder and executive director of the Industrial Wind Action Group, a national advocacy group focusing on the impacts and public policy associated with industrial-scale wind energy development. Ms. Linowes, who holds a B.S. in computer science and an MBA, has served as technical advisor for Laura Israel’s Windfall, the award-winning documentary on the impact of large-scale wind development on rural communities. “Wind Energy Jobs: Mysterious Numbers from AWEA (75,000 claim bogus)” 7/12/2012

The numero uno goal of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) is extending the Production Tax Credit (PTC) beyond its current expiration date of December 31, 2012. Documents available on the trade group’s website show that about $4 million of AWEA’s 2012 budget ($30 million) was directed toward PTC lobbying. With job growth the top political issue in this election season, AWEA’s strategic plan calls for rebranding of the wind industry as an economic engine that will produce steady job growth, particularly in the manufacturing sector. But therein lies a problem: the wind industry’s own record on job growth lacks credibility. Public information suggests that AWEA has inflated its overall job numbers. Section 1603 Job Inflation: Seventy-five percent of the Section 1603 largesse was lavished on big wind, yet, despite billions of taxpayer dollars, this sector experienced a loss of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2010. This lowers AWEA’s reported total to 75,000 jobs. [1] In April, the DOE subsidiary National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released its estimates of direct and indirect jobs created by wind projects receiving 1603 funding. The agency relied on the JEDI (‘Jobs and Economic Development Impacts’) model to estimate gross jobs, earnings, and economic output supported through the construction and operation of large wind projects. But an investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations rightly objected to NREL’s conclusions. The Subcommittee found that NREL overstated the number of jobs created under 1603, that it failed to report on the more important net job creation, and ignored potential jobs that would be created given alternative spending of federal funds. The key sticking point was that NREL did not validate its models using actual data from completed projects. The Subcommittee concluded that models like JEDI which are used to estimate job creation were no substitute for actual data and added: The Section 1603 grant program was sold to the American people as a necessary stimulus jobs program, and yet, the Treasury and Energy Departments do not have the numbers to back up the Obama Administration’s claims of its success in creating jobs. JEDI Magic: Since NREL’s JEDI model provides a gross analysis only, it does not consider how building a renewable energy facility might displace energy or associated jobs, earnings, and output related to other existing or planned energy generation resources (e.g., jobs lost or gained related to changes in electric utility revenues and increased consumer energy bills, among other impacts). In other words, the model is one-sided, considering only the benefit side of a cost-benefit comparison and ignoring everything else.

AT: Jobs - No New Employment __People won’t work on offshore wind projects---qualified people choosing fossil fuel jobs Edwards 11

Ian Edwards 4th Feburary 2011Overcoming Challenges for the Offshore Wind Industry and Learning from the Oil and Gas Industry http://www.power-cluster.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HjLomsTZQtU%3D&tabid=317&mid=1364 (Report by – Natural Power - NATURAL POWER IS AN INDEPENDENT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANCY AND PRODUCTS PROVIDER WITH OVER TWO DECADES OF UNIQUE INDUSTRY EXPERTISE. WE PROVIDE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, ECOLOGY & HYDROLOGY, TECHNICAL, CONSTRUCTION & GEOTECHNICAL, ASSET MANAGEMENT AND DUE DILIGENCE SERVICES LOCALLY ACROSS ONSHORE WIND, OFFSHORE WIND, WAVE, TIDAL AND BIOMASS SECTORS GLOBALLY.)

A large offshore wind industry will require engineers and technicians to install and operate them. There is a concern over the availability of suitably qualified people which leads to a requirement to establish education and training courses to provide a supply of qualified personnel. There is an associated concern that because many of the basic qualifications required for the offshore wind industry are very similar to the offshore oil and gas industry there will be competition between the two industries for personnel. Operators of offshore wind farms are already reporting a migration of skilled workers from the offshore wind sector to the offshore oil and gas sector, because this sector is offering better pay and conditions. In the long term both industries have to attract more young people to offshore industries and to encourage them to take science and engineering subjects at school and university. A joint approach to this problem, coordinated by a group of trade and industry associations, is more likely to be successful and should aim to promote common courses in basic offshore technology, safety systems and survival techniques are offered, because it would provide young people with career options, before they have to take a specialist course in a particular technology.

AT: Manufacturing – High Now __US manufacturing trending toward an industrial revolution now---multiple different stats show US taking lead from China Monan 12Zhang Monan, contributor for China Daily and economics researcher for Chinese State Information Center, “Wake-up call for industry”, August 20, 2012 http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-08/20/content_15688515.htm

The speed with which the US is "returning" to manufacturing poses a major challenge to China's size-focused manufacturing sector, large as it may be. The "factor dividend" has long been the largest driving force behind China's fast-growing economy. The world's largest population and its demography have not only supplied sufficient labor for China's economic growth, but also created favorable conditions for its high accumulation rate and enormous capital inputs. Because of its abundant resources and their comparatively low prices, China's marginal return ratio on capital has usually

been higher than that in developed countries. As a result, global production capital allocation has favored China under the principle of profit maximization and made it the world's "manufacturing workshop". However, this situation is undergoing some delicate changes with the change in China's factor prices, especially the weakening of its "demographic dividend". Latest data show that the gap between the production costs in China and the US is narrowing because of a decline in the US' manufacturing labor cost, although China's labor cost is far below that of the US average. In 2010, the US' manufacturing productivity increased by 6.1

percentage points and its labor cost per unit of output fell by 4.2 percentage points, according to official data. In fact, its labor cost per unit of manufacturing output fell by an accumulated 10.8 percent from 2002 to 2010. In comparison, the growth rate of labor cost in China has been much faster than that of its productivity over the past years. Figures show that workers' pay in China on average grew 19 percent year-on-year from 2005 to 2010,

compared to just 4 percent in the US. An ever-growing labor cost will pose a major challenge to China's manufacturing that has long been profiting from cheap labor. To make its manufacturing sector more attractive to overseas capital, the US has taken measures to reduce tax burdens through some policy adjustments and is trying to make temporary tax cuts a permanent affair. The Obama administration is also trying to review and revise the North America Free Trade Agreement and its agreements with Colombia and the Republic of Korea for setting up a free trade area with

them. With these, the US aims to repeal the preferential policies that American companies were offered to shift their businesses overseas and make them return to the US. Apart from the ever-narrowing labor cost with

the US and various stimulus measures that Washington has taken, China also faces the challenge of promoting innovation in and development of its manufacturing technologies. The US has vowed to continue leading high-end manufacturing and seems well poised for a new "industrial revolution ". This will lay the foundation for the US to achieve more technological breakthroughs in manufacturing, and ensure faster economic growth and increase in competitiveness. To push forward its "re-industrialization" strategy, the US is aiming to promote industrial upgrade and raise its high-end manufacturing level. As concrete steps toward this goal, the US has released a high-end manufacturing plan and expedited the flow of funds and technological inputs into nanotechnology, high-grade

batteries, energy materials, bio-manufacturing, new-generation microelectronics and advanced robots. The US expects these moves to boost the development of high-end technologies and help it become the leader in high-end manufacturing technologies. The US' "re-industrialization" strategy, which coincides with changes in and upgrade of China's

industrial structure, will result in some direct competition between the two countries in the manufacturing sector. Given that the US is on the threshold of a new "technological and industrial revolution", China should change its manufacturing strategy in order to overcome its insufficient technological innovation capacity and low competitiveness.

__Manufacturing industry making huge recovery now---growing faster than any other industry, jobs and manufacturers coming back to US prove Kotkin 12

Joel Kotkin, contributor for Forbes, “Cities Leading An American Manufacturing Revival”, May 24, 2012 http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/24/seattle-is-leading-an-american-manufacturing-revival/

In this still tepid recovery, the biggest feel-good story has been the resurgence of American manufacturing. As industrial production has fallen in Europe and growth has slowed in China, U.S. factories have continued an expansion that has stretched on for over 33 months. In April, manufacturing growth was the strongest in 10 months. There are a number of reasons for this revival. Rising wages in China – up from roughly one-third U.S. levels to half that in a decade — and problems associated with protection of trademarks and other issues have led many U.S. executives to look back home. Some 22% of U.S. product manufacturers surveyed by MFGWatch reported moving some production back to America in the fourth quarter of 2011, and one in three said they were studying the proposition. Certainly how long this expansion can last is an open question, particularly given weakness in Europe and the slowdown in formerly fast-growing developing countries. But one thing is clear: the industrial resurgence is reshaping the economic and employment map in often unexpected ways. Now rather than being pulled down by manufacturing, our Best Cities For Jobs survey, conducted by Pepperdine University’s Michael Shires, found that many industrial regions are benefiting from their prowess. From 2010 through March, manufacturers added 470,000 jobs and enjoyed a rate of job growth 10% faster than the rest of the private economy . In the past many areas suffered from having too many industrial workers. Now it looks like we will have too few skilled ones, even in hard-hit sectors like the auto industry. In 2011 there were 50,000 unfilled U.S. job openings in industrial engineering, welding, and computer-controlled machine tool operating, according to the forecasting firm EMSI. If the revival continues, this shortage could worsen.

AT: Manufacturing – No IL __ We have to rebuild the manufacturing base before we can start on windMichael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014

Offshore wind turbines are currently not manufactured in the United States. Domestic manufacturing needs to be in place in the United States in order for the industry to fully develop. The absence of a mature industry results in a lack of experienced labor for manufacturing, construction, and operations. Workforce training must therefore be part of the upfront costs for U.S. projects.

AT: Manufacturing – Industry Exports Now __US turbine exports growing now David and Fravel '12

Andrew S., Dennis, and Monica Reed analysts with the Office of Industries of the U.S. International Trade Commission, "U.S. Wind Turbine Export Opportunities in Canada and Latin America" July 2012 http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wind-Export-working-paper-ID-032-final-080312.pdf AD 8/21/12

U.S. exports of wind ‐ powered generating sets 17 rose substantially during 2007–11, with Canada and Latin America accounting for the largest share of exports (figure 3 and table 2).18 The increase in U.S. exports is driven principally by three factors: the increase in the number of firms producing in the United States and the related growth in U.S. production capacity; growing markets in Canada and Latin America; and the competitiveness of U.S. firms in nearby markets. A majority of U.S. nacelle producers have exported in the past and those that have not exported have indicated that they intend to supply foreign market from their U.S. plants (table 1). Despite the increase in U.S. exports, they accounted for only 8 percent of global exports of wind‐powered generating sets in 2011.19

AT: Manufacturing – Wind Not Key Clean energy doesn’t boost manufacturing—developed overseasASBC '11

American Sustainable Business Council, "American Sustainable Business Council White House Briefing: Creating Jobs and Building a Sustainable Economy," 6/2/11 http://www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/news/recent-articles/10-11/paper-asbc.pdf AD 8/19/11

Despite its hardships, American manufacturing still represents a considerable share of the U.S. economy. The sector’s gross output in 2005 was $4.5 trillion, and it still supports nearly 13 million jobs, or nearly 10 percent of total non-farm employment. The clean energy sector is projected to reach $226 billion annually by 2016. Demand for solar and wind power will continue to expand over the next twenty years, and upwards to 80% of these new jobs will be in the manufacturing sector. Clean energy manufacturing offers an opportunity to strengthen and expand America’s middle class. But there’s one big problem: we don’t make most of these systems here in the U.S. Fully half of America’s existing wind turbines were manufactured overseas. We rank fifth among countries that manufacture solar components, even though the solar cell was born in America. The fact that other countries are prepared to deliver these products — and we are not — means that every new American bill creating demand for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency services actually creates new jobs overseas, even though we the US has a robust manufacturing infrastructure and skilled workforce.

AT: Manufacturing – Not Key to Economy Manufacturing not key to US economy Hemphill and Perry '12

Thomas A., Ph.D. in Business Administration associate professor of Strategy, Innovation, and Public Policy in the School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint. Mark J., Ph.D. in Economics professor of Economics and Finance in the School of Management University of Michigan, isiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute "A U.S. Manufacturing Strategy for the 21st Century: What Policies Yield National Sector Competitiveness?," Business Economics (Journal," April 2012 www.palgrave-journals.com/be/journal/v47/n2/abs/be20124a.html Academic OneFile AD 8/19/12

Manufacturing output as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) An important issue related to the dramatic increases in manufacturing-worker productivity is the decrease in the manufacturing sector's value as a share of GDP. From a postwar high of 28.3 percent in 1953, manufacturing's share of U.S. GDP has gradually decreased over time, falling to an historic low of 11.2 percent in 2009 before increasing to 11.7 percent in 2010. The 0.5 percent increase in manufacturing's share of GDP in 2010 was the largest annual increase since a 0.6 percent increase back in 1976. At the same time, the share of private services-producing industries increased from 47.3 percent of GDP in 1953 to 68.5 percent in 2010. Over the same period. manufacturing jobs as a percent of total U.S. payroll employment fell from 32 percent to less than 9 percent. whereas service sector jobs increased from 61 percent to 86.3 percent of total payroll employment. Manufacturing's decreasing shares of total output and total employment have also supported the public's perception that America's manufacturing sector is in a state of decline. However. there are two key points to be made here about the declining share of manufacturing in the total U.S. economy.

AT: Grid Add-on

Frontline1. No impact- quick recovery and redundancies solve

Ghosh 9 How Vulnerable Is the Power Grid? By Bobby Ghosh / Washington Wednesday, Apr. 15, 2009 Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891562,00.html#ixzz29iWUOFHa , mmm/uco

The power grid is far from perfect. On any given day, 500,000 Americans experience an outage, says Arshad Mansoor of the Electric Power Research Institute, which is funded by the utility industry. Why is this a good thing? Because it means the grid deals with breakdowns all the time, and the industry knows how to fix them. The grid has built-in redundancies and manual overrides that allow for restoration of supply. Mansoor is careful to point out that these are "not defenses against cyberattacks, but for dealing with the consequence of such attacks." The larger point is that in most cases, damage done to the power supply can be undone. "In the banking system, if someone hacks the system and steals information about 500,000 credit cards, it's incredibly tough to undo that damage," says Mansoor. "But if a section of the power grid goes down, we start it up again."

2. No risk of cascading grid failureMazur and Metcalf 12 America's three electric grids: Are efficiency and reliability functions of grid size? Allan Mazur, , Todd Metcalfe Maxwell School, Syracuse University, 435 Crouse-Hinds Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA Electric Power Systems Research Volume 89, August 2012, Pages 191–195, mmm/uco

There is a slight fiction in portraying the three U.S. grids as wholly separated entities. More accurately, each grid is an internally synchronized 60 Hz network, out of synchronization with the other grids. It is possible to send electricity from one grid to another at junction points where AC from the sending grid is converted to DC, which is then converted back to AC in phase with the receiving grid. It is highly improbably that cascading outages could cross DC junctions. Unsynchronized grids can also be connected with variable frequency transformers (VFT), which allow a controlled flow of electricity while isolating the independent AC frequencies on each side of the junction. Today the Eastern Interconnection is tied to the Western Interconnection with six DC ties in the U.S. and another through Canada, to the Texas Interconnection with two DC ties, and to the Québec Interconnection with four DC ties and a VFT. There is no direct tie between the Western Interconnection and ERCOT.

Smart grids exist now, Sandy proves their claims are falseSmart Grid News 10/30 (Why Sandy Makes the smart grid more important than ever; www.smartgridnews.com/artman/publish/Delivery_Grid_Optimization/Why-Sandy-makes-the-smart-grid-more-important-than-ever-5230.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_content=email&utm_campaign=Why+Sandy+makes+the+smart+grid+more+important+than+ever&utm_term=T-Why+Sandy+makes+the+smart+grid+more+important+than+ever&cm_mmc=Act-On+Software-_-email-_-Why+Sandy+makes+the+smart+grid+more+important+than+ever-_-T-Why+Sandy+makes+the+smart+grid+more+important+than+ever#.UJK7y8U8CSp; kdf)

It would be unfair to send utility workers out in the storm without raingear and tools. It is increasingly unfair to send them out without the protection and assistance of automation. Here are five examples of ways that utilities are getting more resilient through the application of

smart grid technologies.¶ ¶ · Chattanooga EPB's self-healing grid uses a high level of smart grid automation. Earlier this year it completed installation of S&C Electric's IntelliRupter PulseCloser technology, which is expected to cut power outage duration by 40%. ¶ · Long Island Power Authority is transitioning to a new outage computer system, but it won't be in place until next year, according to Newsday. However, since Tropical Storm Irene, the utility has made significant upgrades to its existing outage reporting system and made automated outreach calls to most customers in advance

of Sandy.¶ · Commonwealth Edison has made grid hardening and reliability a cornerstone – though not yet installed --of its massive smart grid modernization effort which is currently stalled by the Illinois Commerce Commission.¶ · Entergy Louisiana improvements after Hurricane Katrina devastation and later storms focused on a number of areas, including using smart grid technology to reroute power when feeder lines go down.¶ · Western Massachusetts Electric Co. added advanced automation to reinforce its electric grid after

last fall’s nor’easter, which saw more than 140,000 of its customers losing power.¶ ¶ East Coast utilities bring in reinforcements¶ Even the smartest electric grid can't totally outmaneuver Mother Nature. Major disasters like Sandy will still require emergency responders who risk life and limb in the worst of circumstances to restore power . Over the weekend we started to see a steady stream of announcements like these:¶ ¶ · Additional line crews deployed to Jersey Central Power & Light service areas in advance of Hurricane Sandy-- With Hurricane Sandy expected to slam New Jersey as early as Monday, Jersey Central Power & Light's (JCP&L) 400 linemen and 1,200 additional line personnel from as far away as Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio will help restore customers who could be without power from seven to 10 days as a result of anticipated damage from the storm. Restoration work will begin as soon as the storm passes and it is safe for utility workers.¶ · Oncor sends crews to help Northeast after Hurricane Sandy-- Oncor crews departed North Texas for Baltimore, MD, this morning to assist with potential outages that Hurricane Sandy is expected to leave in its wake in the next couple of days.¶ · EMCs send crews to help restore power-- Approximately 85 electric linemen and a large contingent of equipment from 11 electric cooperatives in Georgia are headed to Maryland to help restore power in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

1NC A2: CyberattacksNo risk of grid failure from cyber-attackGhosh 9 How Vulnerable Is the Power Grid? By Bobby Ghosh / Washington Wednesday, Apr. 15, 2009 Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891562,00.html#ixzz29iWUOFHa , mmm/uco

No national power grid anywhere in the world has been brought down by a cyberattack. And it's worth keeping in mind that most countries have much fewer defenses from cyberattacks than the U.S. "It's virtually impossible to bring down the entire North American grid," says Major General (Rtd) Dale Meyerrose, a cybersecurity expert who recently retired as chief information officer for the Director of National Intelligence. The electricity-distribution system is highly decentralized, and there's no central control system; at worst, cyberattackers may be able to damage sections of the grid.

1NC A2: Military BasesMilitary has infinite backup capabilitiesGhosh 9 How Vulnerable Is the Power Grid? By Bobby Ghosh / Washington Wednesday, Apr. 15, 2009 Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891562,00.html#ixzz29iWUOFHa , mmm/uco

The most critical power users — the military, hospitals, the banking system, phone networks, Google's server farms — have multiple contingencies for uninterrupted power supply and backup generation. In the event of a cyberattack on the grid, they would be able to operate for long periods — days, weeks and, in some cases, indefinitely — without much difficulty.

1NC Grid Turn to Decentralized Power SourcesThe aff’s distributed power generation makes the grid more vulnerableGaeta 12 11. Electricity and the Grid Maria Gaeta1 (1) ENEA—Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, C.R. Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy Maria Gaeta Fuel Cells in the Waste-to-Energy Chain, 2012 Distributed Generation Through Non-Conventional Fuels and Fuel Cells Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012 http://www.springerlink.com/content/n66kml18l156496l/fulltext.html, mmm/uco

In fact, any inefficiency or transmission and distribution loss results in an increase of emissions per unit of useful energy consumed. Today, energy and environmental policy aims to achieve globally shared goals for energy security, economic development and climate change mitigation, limiting global warming to 2°C4 above preindustrial levels. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions related to electricity generation, and to reduce fuel imports, have led to a significant increase in the deployment of variable and distributed generation technology [9]. Increasing use of renewable energy sources and small combined heat and power plants implies a significant departure from the traditional network model characterized by power flows mainly going one way from the substations to the consumers. The main features of this kind of generation are: relatively small power, variability of renewable primary energy, closeness of the distribution to end-users, reduction of peak power requirement and the free localization in the network area. In this new scenario, it becomes increasingly difficult to ensure the reliable and stable management of electricity systems relying solely on conventional grid architectures and limited flexibility.

Ext to #1 No Impact to Failuremassive blackouts occuring now and the impact is empericaly deniedCraig Lewis, Chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and R. James Woolsey, Executive director of the Clean Coalition, “Securing the Nation's Power Grid,” May 25, 2012, (http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9301-securing-the-nations-power-grid accessed 9/15/12)

Large-scale power outages are by no means uncommon in the United States . In fact, last September's blackout was caused by a number of the same issues that triggered a massive 2003 outage which affected more than 50 million Americans in the Northeast

and Midwest. Moreover, fears of another blackout loom in Southern California as regulators scramble to find replacement power generation for the troubled San Onofre nuclear plant, which has been offline for more than three months.¶ When blackouts occur, our nation's economic engine grinds to a halt. A study by the Galvin Electricity Initiative found that blackouts cost Americans an estimated $150 billion in economic losses annually. In addition to disrupting our economy, grid failures also jeopardize public safety by impairing critical services, such as water, sewage treatment, heating and cooling. As a result, blackouts during severe

winter weather or extreme heat conditions can cause life-threatening situations. ¶ To avert future costly blackouts, the United States must modernize its energy system. Currently, the nation's power grid is based on a 100-year old approach that centralizes power generation. Under this increasingly outdated approach, electricity is generated at remote, large-scale power stations and then transmitted long distances to population centers where the energy is actually used. As a result, this highly centralized system is vulnerable to massive failures. Any disruption in centralized power generation or transmission lines, whether from severe weather, mechanical malfunction, human error, or terrorist attack, can result in power failures affecting entire regions of the country.¶ Rather than continuing to invest billions of dollars to expand this brittle

system, policymakers should embrace a more reliable, decentralized electrical system. Distributed generation of clean energy integrated with intelligent grid solutions will result in a far more efficient and resilient electrical system. Clean, local energy production mitigates the impact of any single power station or power line failing. Intelligent grid solutions, such as demand response and energy storage, significantly increase grid reliability by enabling local balancing of

supply of and demand for energy. Together, distributed generation and intelligent grid solutions allow for the creation of micro-grids that remain as functional "islands" during widespread grid failures and continue to provide power for essential services. This was demonstrated at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) during the Southwest blackout of September 2011 - UCSD's microgrid allowed the campus to disconnect from the larger grid and continue normal operations.

Summer blackouts prove no risk of worst case scenariosBirch 12 former foreign correspondent for the Associated Press and the Baltimore Sun who has written extensively on technology and public policy ARGUMENT PRINT | TEXT SIZE Share on email | EMAIL | SINGLE PAGE Forget Revolution What would really happen if the lights went out. BY DOUGLAS BIRCH | OCTOBER 1, 2012 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/01/forget_revolution?page=full, mmm/uco

According to an August report by the U.S. Department of Energy, 4.2 million homes and businesses lost power as a result of the storm, with the blackout stretching across 11 states and the District of Columbia. More than 1 million customers were still without power five days later, and in some areas power wasn't restored for 10 days. Reuters put the death toll at 23 people as of July 5, all killed by storms or heat stroke. The second incident occurred in late July, when 670 million people in northern India, or about 10 percent of the world's population, lost power in the largest blackout in history. The failure of this huge chunk of India's electric grid was attributed to higher-than-normal demand due to

late monsoon rains, which led farmers to use more electricity in order to draw water from wells. Indian officials told the media there were no reports of deaths directly linked to the blackouts. But this cataclysmic event didn't cause widespread chaos in India -- indeed, for some, it didn't even interrupt their daily routine. "[M]any people in major cities barely noticed the disruption because localized blackouts are so common that many businesses, hospitals, offices and middle-class homes have backup diesel generators," the New York Times reported. The most important thing about both events is what didn't happen. Planes didn't fall out of the sky. Governments didn't collapse. Thousands of people weren't killed. Despite disruption and delay, harried public officials, emergency workers, and beleaguered publics mostly muddled through. The summer's blackouts strongly suggest that a cyber weapon that took down an electric grid even for several days could turn out to be little more than a weapon of mass inconvenience. "Reasonable people would have expected a lot of bad things to happen" in the storm's aftermath, said Neal A. Pollard, a terrorism expert who teaches at Georgetown University and has served on the United Nation's Expert Working Group on the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes. However, he said, emergency services, hospitals, and air traffic control towers have backup systems to handle short-term disruptions in power supplies. After the derecho, Pollard noted, a generator truck even showed up in the parking lot of his supermarket. The response wasn't perfect, judging by the heat-related deaths and lengthy delays in the United States in restoring power. But nor were the people without power as helpless or clueless as is sometimes assumed.

Extension #2 No Massive Grid FailureEven if there is a risk of blackouts the risk is too low to matterKoerth-Baker 12 Blackout: What's wrong with the American grid By Maggie Koerth-Baker at 6:06 am Friday, Aug 3 http://boingboing.net/2012/08/03/blackout-whats-wrong-with-t.html, mmm/uco

Let’s get one thing out of the way right up front: The North American electric grid is not one bad day away from the kind of catastrophic failures we saw in India this week. I’ve heard a lot of people speculating on this, but the folks who know

the grid say that, while such a huge blackout is theoretically possible, it is also extremely unlikely. As Clark Gellings, a fellow at the Electric Power Research Institute put it, “An engineer will never say never,” but you should definitely not assume anything resembling an imminent threat at that scale. Remember, the blackouts this week cut power to half of all Indian electricity customers. Even the 2003 blackout—the largest blackout in North America ever—only affected about 15% of Americans. We don’t know yet what, exactly, caused the Indian blackouts, but there are several key differences between their grid and our grid. India’s electricity is only weakly tied to the people who use it, Gellings told me. Most of the power plants are in the far north. Most of the population is in the far south. The power lines linking the two are neither robust nor numerous. That’s not a problem we have in North America. Likewise, India has considerably more demand for electricity than it has supply. Even on a good day, there’s not enough electricity for all the people who want it, said Jeff Dagle, an engineer with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Advanced Power and Energy Systems research group. “They’re pushing their system much harder, to its limits,” he said. “If they have a problem, there’s less cushion to absorb it. Our system has rules that prevent us from dipping into our electric reserves on a day-to-day basis. So we have reserve power for emergencies.” None of this means the North American grid is a perfect, or even an ideal, system. The electric grids that exist today evolved, they weren’t designed by anybody. Every electric grid on Earth is flawed, but

they’re all flawed in different ways. So we can talk about serious problems with the North American grid—but that doesn’t mean that you should be stocking up on home generators and canned peas in preparation for an India-like event. The scale is different, and the problems are different, too.

would take too much to make the grid failWashington Times; August '12; “Lights out for the U.S. Power grid?”; www.communities.washingtontimes.com; http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/energy-harnassed/2012/aug/1/can-us-grid-blackout/

NEW YORK, August 1, 2012 — In terms of number of people affected, the largest power grid failure in history occurred in India this week, and it

raises a question for America: Is the U.S power grid susceptible to a nationwide collapse? ¶ To answer that question, we must understand the layout of the North American power grid. It is divided into four regional power systems, called interconnections, as depicted in the main picture above. On the west coast there is the Western interconnection. On the east coast, you guessed it, the Eastern interconnection, as well as the Quebec interconnection. The last is the ERCOT interconnection (the Electric Reliability Council of Texas). Texans always seem to do things their way, and electricity is no different. They chose to operate differently than the rest of the grid, and that decision has been both an asset and a liability. But that is another story.¶ These three main interconnections (Western, Eastern and ERCOT) are electrically isolated from each other. They are electrical “islands,” with no wires making connections between each region. If the Western Interconnection were to blackout, it would not have an impact on the ERCOT or Eastern interconnections. If ERCOT were to go dark, only the Texans would complain. The Eastern interconnection has had its share of difficulties over the last 60 years because it is so highly interconnected (this explains why the Eastern interconnection system frequency was affected by the loss of transmission lines in Florida), but again, there is no tie operationally and its operations do not affect the Western or ERCOT interconnections. This inherent isolation is the saving grace of our power network, but it was born that way out of logistical hurdles, not ingenious forethought. Crossing the north-south running Rocky Mountains with east-west transmission lines would prove too costly to build and maintain in the long run, creating a “natural” segregation in

the power grid.¶ Outside of the isolation of the regions, the U.S. has plenty of generating capacity online, and plenty of capability on standby called "operating reserves." The grid operators have a reserve margin calculation and keep approximately 14 to 17 percent of the forecasted peak load available as generation on standby, in case a large transmission line or a large generator unexpectedly shuts down, or “trips.” Grid operators look at these large facilities and model them in their networks as contingencies that must be taken into consideration at all times. They must know how the system would react if a tornado took down a large transmission tower that was delivering massive amounts of power, or knocked a large generating station, like Indian Point Energy Center, offline. ¶ It will take some time to discover the cause of the blackouts in India, just as it did

to discover the cause of the August 2003 blackout which rendered much the northeast powerless. Some blackouts are necessary to avoid equipment failure, and some can be prevented by proper communication and operations . As a result

of the August 2003 blackout that left some 50 million Americans without power, the National Electric Reliability Corporation mandated that

companies follow reliability protocols that were, up until the blackout, voluntary. ¶ If the entire U.S. were to go dark, it would not be the result of regional connectivity, or cascading interconnection issues. All three interconnections, along with Quebec would have to suffer a catastrophic failure simultaneously. Could it

happen? Yes, anything is possible. Is it likely to happen? No, not likely at all.

Extensions to CyberterrorismTerror attack cannot take down the gridAmin 12 By S. Massoud Amin and Anthony M. Giacomoni january/february 2012 Safe, Secure, Self-Healing7977/11/$31.00©2012 IEEE IEEE power & energy magazine http://central.tli.umn.edu/IEEE_P%26E_1-2012-amin.pdf, mmm/uco

The size and complexity of the North American electric power grid makes it impossible both financially and logistically to physically protect the entire infrastructure. There currently exist more than 450,000 mi of 100-kV or higher transmission lines and many more thousands of miles of lower-voltage lines. As an increasing amount of electricity is generated from distributed renewable sources, the problem will only be exacerbated; the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that generating 20% of all electricity with land-based wind installations will require at least 20,000 square miles. Thus it is probable that a well-organized, determined group of terrorists could take out portions of the grid as they have previously done in the United States, Colombia, and other locations around the globe. Several such incidents in the United States have been publicly reported during the last 30 years, including saboteurs operating in the Pacifi c Northwest and those using power lines and transformers for target practice on the East Coast. Colombia, for example, has faced up to 200 terrorist attacks per year on its transmission infrastructure over the last 11 years, as reported in a recent IEEE Power & Energy Magazine article by Corredor and Ruiz. Such attacks, although troublesome and costly to the local region, affect only a small portion of the overall grid, however. To cause physical damage equivalent to that from a small to moderate-size tornado would be extremely difficult, even for a large, well-organized group of terrorists. Data on terrorist attacks on the world’s electricity sector from 1994–2004 from the Oklahoma-based Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism show that transmission systems are by far the most common target in terms of the total number of physical attacks. Figure 2 shows the percentage of terrorist attacks aimed at each of the major grid components.

No risk of cyber attack impacts- it is all hypeHallinan 12 Cyber war: hype or reality? Print Email to a Friend by: CONN HALLINAN january 23 2012 columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus, “A Think Tank Without Walls, and an independent journalist. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley http://peoplesworld.org/cyber-war-hype-or-reality/

According to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in his New Yorker article "The Online Threat," the potential for cyber mayhem has "been exaggerated" and the Defense Department and cyber security firms have blurred the line between cyber espionage and cyber war. The former is the kind of thing that goes on, day in and day out, between governments and industry, except its medium is the Internet. The latter is an attack on another country's ability to wage war, defend itself, or run its basic infrastructure. Most experts say the end-of-the-world scenarios drawn up by people like Clarke are largely fiction. How could an enemy shut down the U.S. national power grid when there is no such thing? A cyber attack would have to disrupt more than 100 separate power systems throughout the nation to crash the U.S. grid. Most financial institutions are also protected. The one example of a successful cyber attack in that area was an apparent North Korean cyber assault this past march on the South Korean bank Nonghyup that crashed the institution's computers. But an investigation found that the bank had been extremely

remiss in changing passwords or controlling access to its computers. According to Peter Sommer, author of "Reducing Systems Cybersecurity Risk," the cyber threat to banks "is a bit of nonsense." However, given that many Americans rely on computers, cell phones, I-Pads, smart phones and the like, any hint that an "enemy" could disrupt access to those devices is likely to get attention. Throw in some scary scenarios and a cunning enemy-China-and it's pretty easy to make people nervous. But contrary to McConnell's statement, the U.S. is more advanced in computers than other countries in the world, and the charge that the U.S. is behind the curve sounds suspiciously like the "bomber gap" with the Russians in the '50s and the "missile gap" in the 1960s. Both were illusions that had more to do with U.S. presidential elections and arms industry lobbying than anything in the real world.

No IT knowledge – less than 2% of violent Jihadis can pull it offConway, 11 – Lecturer in International Security in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University [February, Maura, “Against Cyberterrorism: Why cyber-based terrorist attacks are unlikely to occur”, Communications of the ACM, Volume 54, Number 2, p. 26-28, AL]

Violent jihadis’ IT knowledge is not superior . For example, in research carried out in 2007, it was found that of a random sampling of 404 members of violent Islamist groups , 196 (48.5%) had a higher education, with information about subject areas

available for 178 individuals. Of these 178, some 8 (4.5%) had trained in computing, which means that out of the entire sample, less than 2% of the jihadis came from a computing background. (3) And not even these few could be assumed to have mastery of the complex systems necessary to carry out a successful cyberterrorist attack . Real-world attacks are difficult enough. What are often viewed as relatively unsophisticated real-world attacks undertaken by highly educated individuals are routinely unsuccessful. One only has to consider the failed car bomb attacks planned and carried out by medical doctors in central London and at Glasgow airport in June 2007.

They wouldn’t hire hackers eitherConway, 11 – Lecturer in International Security in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University [February, Maura, “Against Cyberterrorism: Why cyber-based terrorist attacks are unlikely to occur”, Communications of the ACM, Volume 54, Number 2, p. 26-28, AL]

Hiring hackers would compromise operational security . The only remaining option is to retain “outsiders” to undertake such an attack. This is very operationally risky. It would force the terrorists to operate outside their own circles and thus leave them ripe for infiltration. Even if they successfully got in contact with “real” hackers, they would be in no position to gauge their competency accurately; they would simply have to trust in same. This would be very risky.

Attacks aren’t perceived – means no terrorist motiveConway, 11 – Lecturer in International Security in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University [February, Maura, “Against Cyberterrorism: Why cyber-based terrorist attacks are unlikely to occur”, Communications of the ACM, Volume 54, Number 2, p. 26-28, AL]

In 2004, Howard Schmidt, former White House Cybersecurity Coordinator, remarked to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary regarding Nimda and Code Red that “we to this day don’t know the source of that. It could have very easily been a terrorist.”(4) This observation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and purposes of terrorism, particularly its attention-getting and communicative functions . A terrorist attack with the potential to be hidden , portrayed as an accident, or otherwise remain unknown is unlikely to be viewed positively by any terrorist group . In fact, one of the most important aspects of the 9/11 attacks in New York from the perpetrators viewpoint was surely the fact that while the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center could have been accidental, the appearance of the second plane confirmed the incident as a terrorist attack in real time. Moreover, the crash of the first plane ensured a

large audience for the second plane as it hit the second tower.

It’s media hypeConway, 11 – Lecturer in International Security in the School of Law and Government at Dublin City University [February, Maura, “Against Cyberterrorism: Why cyber-based terrorist attacks are unlikely to occur”, Communications of the ACM, Volume 54, Number 2, p. 26-28, AL]

Given the high cost —not just in terms of money, but also time, commitment, and effort— and the high possibility of failure on the basis of manpower issues, timing, and complexity of a potential cyberterrorist attack , the costs appear to me to still very largely outweigh the potential publicity benefits . The publicity aspect is crucial for potential perpetrators of terrorism and so the possibility that an

attack may be apprehended or portrayed as an accident, which would be highly likely with regard to cyberterrorism, is detrimental. Add the lack of spectacular moving images and it is my belief that cyberterrorism,

regardless of what you may read in newspapers, see on television, or obtain via other media sources, is not in our near future. So why then the persistent treatment of cyberterrorism on the part of journalists? Well, in this instance, science fiction-type fears appear to trump rational calculation almost every time. And I haven’t even begun to discuss how the media discourse has clearly influenced the pronouncements of policymakers.

It’s empirically denied – US infrastructure is subject to constant cyber-attacksCNN, 10 – respected news source [2/16, “Fact Check: Cyberattack threat”, CNN News, http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-16/tech/fact.check.cyber.threat_1_cyberattack-infrastructure-threat?_s=PM:TECH, AL]

Fact Check: Is there consensus on the likelihood of a cyberattack against the United States? -- According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), " Critical infrastructure owners and operators report that their networks and control systems are under repeated cyberattack, often from high-level adversaries like foreign nation-states. " Sixty

percent of U.S. Internet technology and infrastructure executives questioned in a recent CSIS survey expect to see a "major cyberincident" (an outage of at least 24 hours, a loss of life or a failure of a company) within two

Extension to Grid TurnRenewables lead to grid collapse collapsing the economyHolehouse 11 By Matthew Holehouse4:55PM GMT 23 Nov 2011 Green energy could trigger 'catastrophic' blackouts http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/8909585/Green-energy-could-trigger-catastrophic-blackouts.html, mmm/uco

Solar panels and wind turbines are a "volatile" source of power with fluctuations in the electricity supply risking "grid instabilities" and triggering wide-scale blackouts. Ageing infrastructure and increasingly cross-border electricity networks have heightened the likelihood of a devastating collapse of power supplies lasting months and covering several continents,

according to the joint report by Allianz and the Chief Risk Officer Forum. In eastern Germany, turbines in strong wind can produce more than all German coal and gas plants put together, while the need to switch off turbines in high winds causes a drop-off in electricity of 12GW - equal to two nuclear power plants. Outages are likely if there is too little demand or storage capacity to accommodate the jumps in supply. Leading risk analysts modelled a worst-case scenario

in which transformers are knocked out in the United States, causing outages to cascade through the grid into Canada, Russia and Scandanavia. Credit cards and cash machines would stop immediately, and petrol pumps and refineries would shut-down within six hours. Back-up generators powering hospitals, stock exchanges, emergency services and sewerage plants could run

out of fuel within days. Industry would grind to a halt, cooling equipment would fail and homes would go without food supplies,

water or heating, leaving families spending winter around open fires. Allianz predict it would take a year to get the transformers back online. The cost to insurers would top one trillion dollars and chronic power shortages would continue for up to a decade. "Blackouts during the last ten years in Europe and Northern America have demonstrated an increasing likelihood of supra-national blackouts with accompanying large economic losses," the analysts wrote. "Traditional scenarios only assume black-outs for a few days and losses seem to be moderate, but if we are considering longer lasting blackouts... the impacts on society and economy might be significant," the report said.