OMEGA Case Neg

AT Energy Advantage

Energy T/O TurnTurn—Biofuels stop other energy alternatives and don’t solve emissions- plant burning and petroleum still used in the process to make themDeGraff 12 Marra DeGraff. Peninsula Press. “Stanford researchers question whether biofuel is the answer to U.S. energy independence.” http://peninsulapress.com/2012/05/14/stanford-researchers-question-whether-biofuel-is-the-answer-to-u-s-energy-independence/

The oil and corn price correlation stems in part from the fact that every time you fill up your tank, a percentage of what you are pumping into your vehicle — ethanol blended with the gasoline — is actually made from corn. The growth and transport of corn depend on petroleum products, too, from diesel fuel to petroleum-based fertilizers. In essence, gas and grain have become one and the same, and the implications of this relationship affect everything from commodity prices here in the United States to the conditions of agricultural workers in Sub-Saharan Africa.¶ Addressing a room of Stanford affiliates and a remote audience of policymakers in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, Food Security and the Environment Director Rosamond Naylor and colleague Siwa Msangi described the evolution of the biofuels industry from its hopeful past to what they believe is a more sinister present. While the original motivations behind expanding the use of corn-based ethanol and other biofuels were good, the speakers said that the negative effects are becoming increasingly apparent as the industry matures and grows.¶ Some of the original intentions have indeed come to fruition. As Naylor explained, the expansion of biofuels use has created jobs, income opportunities and an entire export industry in Sub-Saharan Africa. Msangi said that promoting biofuels here in the United States may help us to break free from our crippling and costly dependence on fossil fuels and move towards arguably cleaner, less politically-charged, and more renewable energy sources.¶ However, a slew of negative effects of the biofuels industry has also cropped up since the United States entered the market in 2005. Economically, increasing demand for corn has led to increasing food prices, and the use of corn in fuel has reduced the amount available for export as feed or food to such places as Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Ecologically, deforestation and other destructive practices in the name of agricultural expansion have ruined ecosystems.¶ Greater agricultural demands have also had significant social implications for families and households in Sub-Saharan Africa. Many traditionally matriarchal households are changing as increased demand for agricultural workers encourages women to move from the home to the field.¶ Is all this change worth it? Studies have shown that, all things considered, emissions tied to renewable fuels are not even significantly less than those from fossil fuels. Indeed, some practices tied to biofuel production, like the burning of cleared vegetation, have resulted in major increases in carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere.¶ Despite its shortcomings, the biofuels industry has continued to grow. Some of the most important factors keeping renewable fuels alive are U.S. and European Union policies mandating increased incorporation of these fuels into gasoline. These mandates, Naylor asserted, are the root of most of the problems associated with the industry. And as David Lobell, who studies the interactions between food production, food security, and the environment at Stanford, pointed out, “one of the risks with biofuels is that alternatives don’t get explored; biofuels are sustaining our liquid fuel economy.”

Turn—Energy independence doesn’t work and trades off with energy security;Roberts 08 Paul Roberts. Mother Jones. “The Seven Myths of Energy Independence.” http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/seven-myths-energy-independence?page=3

Given America's tectonic pace toward energy security, the time has come for tough love. Most credible proposals call for some kind of energy or carbon tax. Such a tax would have two critical effects. It would keep the cost of oil high and thus discourage demand, as it has in Europe, and it would generate substantial revenues that could be used to fund research into alternatives, for example, or tax credits and other incentives to invest in the new energy technologies.¶ To be sure, higher fuel taxes, never popular with voters, would be even less so with gasoline prices already so high. Indeed, many energy wonks are still bitter that President Bush didn't advocate for a fuel tax or other demand-reduction measures in the aftermath of 9/11, when oil prices were relatively low and Americans were in the mood for sacrifice. Bush "could have gotten any set of energy measures passed after 9/11 if he had had an open and honest dialogue with America about how bad things were," says Edward Morse, an energy market analyst and former State Department energy official.¶ Instead, Bush urged Americans to...go shopping. Seven years later, with oil prices soaring and the economy hurting, swaying the electorate will take a politician who is politically courageous, extraordinarily articulate—and willing to dispense with the sweet nothings of energy independence.¶ And higher energy taxes are just the first dose of bitter medicine America needs to swallow if it wants real energy security. For no matter how aggressively the United States cuts oil demand both at home and abroad, it will be years and perhaps decades before any meaningful decline. The 12-year fleet-replacement scenario outlined above, for example, assumes that efficient new cars are being mass-produced worldwide and that adequate new volumes of electricity can be brought online as the fleet expands—assumptions that at present are wildly invalid. A more reasonable timetable is probably on the order of 20 years.¶ During this transition away from oil, we will still need lots and lots (and lots) of oil to fuel what remains of the oil-burning fleet. If over those 20 years global oil demand were to fall from the current 86 million barrels a day to, say, 40 million barrels a day, we'd still need an average of 63 million barrels a day, for a total of 459 billion barrels, or almost half as much oil as we've used since the dawn of humankind.¶ And here we come to two key points. First, because the transition will require so much old energy, we may get only one chance: If we find ourselves in 2028 having backed the wrong clusters of technologies or policies, and are still too dependent on oil, there may not be enough crude left in the ground to fuel a second try. Second, even if we do back the right technologies, the United States and the world's other big importers will still need far too much oil to avoid dealing with countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia—no matter how abhorrent we find their politics.¶ In one of the many paradoxes of the new energy order, more energy security means less energy independence.

Turn—Energy independence is impossible in the near term and trades off with energy security. The impact is national security and food supply.Roberts 08 Paul Roberts. Mother Jones. “The Seven Myths of Energy Independence.” http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/seven-myths-energy-independence?page=3

In a word, everything. Despite its immense appeal, energy independence is a nonstarter—a populist charade masquerading as energy strategy that's no more likely to succeed (and could be even more damaging) than it was when Nixon declared war on foreign oil in the 1970s. Not only have we no realistic substitute for the oceans of oil we import, but many of the crash programs being touted as a way to quickly develop oil replacements—"clean coal," for example, or biofuels—come at a substantial environmental and political cost. And even if we had good alternatives ready to deploy—a fleet of superefficient cars, say, or refineries churning out gobs of cheap hydrogen for fuel cells—we'd need decades, and great volumes of energy, including oil, to replace all the cars, pipelines, refineries, and

other bits of the old oil infrastructure—and thus decades in which we'd depend on oil from our friends in Riyadh, Moscow, and Caracas. Paradoxically, to build the energy economy that we want, we're going to lean heavily on the energy economy that we have. ¶ None of which is exactly news. Thoughtful observers have been trying to debunk energy independence since Nixon's time. And yet the dream refuses to die, in no small part because it offers political cover for a whole range of controversial initiatives. Ethanol refiners wave the banner of independence as they lobby Congress for massive subsidies. Likewise for electric utilities and coal producers as they push for clean coal and a nuclear renaissance. And it shouldn't surprise that some of the loudest proponents of energy liberation support plans to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other off-limits areas to oil drilling—despite the fact that such moves would, at best, cut imports by a few percentage points. In the doublespeak of today's energy lexicon, says Julia Bovey of the Natural Resources Defense Council, "'energy independence' has become code for 'drill it all.'"¶ Yet it isn't only the hacks for old energy and Archer Daniels Midland who are to blame. Some proponents of good alternatives like solar and wind have also harped on fears of foreign oil to advance their own sectors—even though many of these technologies are decades away from being meaningful oil replacements.¶ Put another way, the "debate" over energy independence is not only disingenuous, it's also a major distraction from the much more crucial question—namely, how we're going to build a secure and sustainable energy system. Because what America should be striving for isn't energy independence, but energy security—that is, access to energy sources that are reliable and reasonably affordable, that can be deployed quickly and easily, yet are also safe and politically and environmentally sustainable. And let's not sugarcoat it. Achieving real, lasting energy security is going to be extraordinarily hard, not only because of the scale of the endeavor, but because many of our assumptions about energy—about the speed with which new technologies can be rolled out, for example, or the role of markets—are woefully exaggerated. High oil prices alone won't cure this ill: We're burning more oil now than we were when crude sold for $25 a barrel. Nor will Silicon Valley utopianism: Thus far, most of the venture capital and innovation is flowing into status quo technologies such as biofuels. And while Americans have a proud history of inventing ourselves out of trouble, today's energy challenge is fundamentally different. Nearly every major energy innovation of the last century—from our cars to transmission lines—was itself built with cheap energy. By contrast, the next energy system will have to contend with larger populations and be constructed using far fewer resources and more expensive energy. ¶ So it's hardly surprising that policymakers shy away from energy security and opt instead for the soothing platitudes of energy independence. But here's the rub: We don't have a choice. Energy security is nonnegotiable, a precondition for all security, like water or food or defense. Without it, we have no economy, no progress, no future. And to get it, we'll not only have to abandon the chimera of independence once and for all, but become the very thing that many of us have been taught to dread—unrepentant energy globalists.

NQEnergy dependence inevitable- biofuel solvency long term at bestCordesman 13 Anthony Cordesman. Center for Strategic and International Studies. “American Strategy and US ‘Energy Independence.’” http://csis.org/publication/american-strategy-and-us-energy-independence

Nonpetroleum liquid resources remain a small but increasing source of liquids supply in the IEO2013 Reference case. Production of nonpetroleum liquids, such as biofuels, CTL, and GTL, is spurred by sustained high prices in the Reference case (Figure 32). However, biofuels development also relies heavily on country-specific programs or mandates [23]. World production of nonpetroleum liquids, which in 2010 totaled only 1.6 million barrels per day (less than 2 percent of total world liquids production), increases to 4.6 million barrels per day in 2040, when it accounts for about 4 percent of total world liquids production. (EIA, International Energy Outlook, 2013, pp. 23-24.)

At the same time, the EIA estimates that US will still be the second largest petroleum consumer in the world although the EIA projects that the rate of increase in demand will drop over time as transportation becomes more efficient and substitutes are found for petroleum liquids,

‘The United States is the largest liquid fuels consuming nation in the OECD, and it remains so through 2040. Over the course of the projection, increases in vehicle fuel economy offset growth in transportation activity in the United States, resulting in a decline in the use of petroleum and other liquids even as consumption of liquid biofuels increases. Biofuels, including biodiesel blended into diesel, E10, E15, and higher ethanol blends used in flex-fueled vehicles, account for 6 percent of all U.S. petroleum and other liquids consumption by energy content in 2040.

Total liquid fuels consumption in the United States rises from 18.9 million barrels per day in 2010 to 19.5 million barrels per day in 2020, after which it falls to 18.7 million barrels per day in 2030 and 18.6 million barrels per day in 2040. (EIA, International Energy Outlook, 2013, pp. 26-27)

No SolvencyNo Solvency—Algae biofuel is too expensive to be competitive—Inefficient, expensive, unsustainablePyle 12 Thomas J. Pyle is the president of the Institute for Energy Research. US News. “The Navy's Use of Biofuels is Inefficient and Costly.” http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2012/07/19/the-navys-use-of-biofuels-is-inefficient-and-costly

The Navy has a contract with Dynamic Fuels LLC and Solazyme, Inc. who will be providing fuel made from chicken fat and algae oil, respectively. The Navy claims that buying fuel from chicken fat and algae protects national security by reduce our dependence on the volatile global oil market. Their argument might make a modicum of sense if oil prices were $1,000 a barrel, but oil "only" costs $100 a barrel. (A barrel of oil is 42 gallons and this biofuel is $26 a gallon, therefore $26 a gallons x 42 gallons = $1,092 a barrel.)¶ Even with the volatility in the oil market, oil is nowhere near the $1,000 a barrel of these exotic biofuels. Instead, Brent Crude Oil is hovering around $100 and West Texas Intermediate is $86 a barrel. There is little reason to believe that these biofuels will cost near what oil costs in any foreseeable future. That's because biofuel is old technology. Some of the first automobiles, as in the ones made in the 1800s, ran on ethanol and other biofuels and during World War I, a commercial cellulosic ethanol plant was operating in the United States. But biofuel production declined over time not because it was new, but because it was inefficient, expensive, and ultimately unsustainable.

Algae ethanol is too expensive to produce yet- private companies can’t support the costs and the government alone can’t produce nearly enoughBaird 7/14/14 Joel Banner Baird. Burlington Free Press. “Algae oil touted as Vermont's next fuel crop.” http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/life/green-mountain/2014/07/13/algae-oil-vermont-fuel-crop/12541139/

The high cost of production will remain a sticking point, maybe for decades, said Todd Campbell, energy advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. ¶ Recently developed North American sources of petroleum, such as tar-sand oil, shale oil and natural gas, might conspire to keep fossil fuel prices low for a while longer, Campbell said — but at the expense of climate stability.¶ His agency, along with the Department of Defense, view less-disruptive fuels as a measure of national security.¶ On a kilowatt-per-acre basis, Campbell said, algae delivers the goods more effectively than any other biofuel. A recent joint military exercise demonstrated that algae oil can keep a fleet steaming and fighters aloft — but at the unsustainable rate of $27 per gallon. ¶ Your local refinery¶ The goal, everyone present agreed, is cost parity with fossil fuels, as well as carbon neutrality — the absorption and release of greenhouse gases at a steady rate.¶ The financial and environmental balance sheet is "a tantalizing possibility," said Richard Altman, director emeritus of the nonprofit Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative.¶ Algae-oil's carbon emissions "can't please everyone," Altman added. But consumers — passengers — might catch a more direct glimpse of how each of us pollute if we live on (or near) an algae refinery.¶ "The goal is to bring end-customers into closer involvement with production, with the entire production chain," he said. "And the goal here is to get on the case immediately."¶ Hooray for hydrocarbons?¶ The case has been open for decade after decade. Researchers around the world are still struggling for a formula to farm one of the Earth's oldest organisms for the benefit of energy-hungry humanity.¶ In April 2013, one

algae-minded business, Burlington-based Carbon Harvest Energy, went bankrupt after years of promising progress.

No immediate solvency—5-10 years before algae affects oil prices—Need to integrate tech and markets to accommodate large scale algaeSilverstein 12 Ken Silverstein. Forbes. “Will Algae Biofuels Hit the Highway?” http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/05/20/will-algae-biofuels-hit-the-highway/

In a phone interview, Heliae’s Chief Executive Dan Simon explained to this writer that the company’s ultimate goal is to produce transportation fuels. To get to that point, though, it will focus on near-term aims that are more attainable: chemicals, cosmetics and healthy foods. As it develops, the enterprise will then expand overseas and into the Asia Pacific region.¶ “We will never take our eyes off the transportation fuels,” says Simon. “But there are stepping stones to get us there. Production costs have to come down. Right now, the economics don’t work. It will be 5 to 10 years before all of this will affect the price at the pump.” ¶ Simon continues, saying that “good science takes time” and that by first picking the “low hanging fruit” the company will drive revenues and efficiencies, and bring down production costs. Among the key goals the company is working towards: Ensuring that the process has a “positive energy impact,” meaning that it can’t take more energy to grow the algae than the amount of carbon dioxide that the algae would absorb.¶ Critics maintain that the recycling of carbon lends credence to the burning of fossil fuels and in the end, more carbon is emitted than is captured. The journal of Environmental Science and Technology, furthermore, looked two years ago at the life cycle of algae compared to other bio-fuels such as corn and switch-grass. It concluded that using conventional crops to create fuels will result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions and less water consumption than if algae is used to do the same thing.

Biofuel doesn’t solve energy independence; unseating major suppliers causes transition warsBiofuel.org 10 “Energy Independence.” http://biofuel.org.uk/energy-independence.html

Despite this utopian ideal, the reality of biofuel energy independence is not so clear cut. First, not every country has the resources needed to grow biofuels. Many countries do not have the land area, access to water, or ability to produce fertilizer for crops and thus would still need to rely on others for their fuel to some degree.

As a second point, the shift in power could have a highly disruptive effect. First, national economies around the world depend on oil revenue to survive. Many Middle Eastern countries have a vested interest in ensuring that oil remains important and profitable given that as much as 90% of government revenue in these places comes from oil exports. To compound this problem, most of these countries would go from net energy exporters to net energy importers, further damaging their economies and forcing them to completely shift their industrial and commercial focuses.

Finally, other countries with vast land resources and access to good growing conditions stand to become new hotbeds of conflict. It is unlikely that the fight over energy will cease given that the location of suppliers will change and not everyone will be able to meet their energy needs from biofuels

Alt causes to Mideast InvolvementEnergy independence won’t get the US out of the Middle East- WMDs, terror, democracy, development, and IsraelBlackwill and Slocombe 11 Robert D. Blackwill and Walter B. Slocombe. Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Israel: A Strategic Asset for the United States.” http://www.cfr.org/israel/israel-strategic-asset-united-states/p26300

While accurate and indispensably important, this characterization¶ of the core basis of the U.S.-Israel relationship is¶ incomplete because it fails to capture a third, crucial aspect:¶ common national interests and collaborative action to advance ¶ those interests. Shared values and moral responsibility remain¶

unshakable foundations of those ties, but the relationship stands¶ equally on this underappreciated third leg.¶ For some, this is a controversial assertion. Within the U.S.¶ foreign policy, defense, and business communities, some leaders¶ and analysts have traditionally viewed the U.S. relationship with¶ Israel primarily as a one-way street, in which the United States¶ protects Israel diplomatically and provides the means for Israel to¶ defend itself militarily but Israel itself contributes little or nothing¶ to American national interests.¶ We reject that analysis. To the contrary, we believe that the ¶ United States and Israel have an impressive list of common national ¶ interests; that Israeli actions make substantial direct contributions to these U.S. interests; and that wise policymakers and people¶ concerned with U.S. foreign policy, while never forgetting the¶ irreplaceable values and moral responsibility dimensions of the¶ bilateral relationship, should recognize the benefits Israel provides¶ for U.S. national interests. As a global power, the United States has national interests that¶ range far beyond the greater Middle East, but that region is¶ among the most critical for our country. U.S. interests that especially¶ involve this vast area include:¶ preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,¶ especially nuclear weapons;¶ combating terrorism and the radical Islamist ideology from¶ which it is spawned;¶ promoting an orderly process of democratic change and ¶ economic development in the region;¶ opposing the spread of Iranian influence and that of Iran’s¶ partners and proxies;¶ ensuring the free flow of oil and gas at reasonable prices;¶ resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute through a process of¶ negotiations; and ¶ protecting the security of Israel.

The US has interests in Iran- relations, proliferation, and stabilityNPR 9 “What Are U.S. Interests When It Comes To Iran?” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113352297

So, what are U.S. interests when it comes to Iran? And what should Washington be prepared to abide in pursuit of those interests? Well, joining us to give his answers to those questions and others is former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Welcome to the program, once again.¶ Mr. ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI (Former National Security Advisor): It's good to be with you.¶ SIEGEL: Let's assume that the U.S. actually can have constructive negotiations with Iran. What our are core interests with Iran?¶ Dr. BRZEZINSKI: I think our ultimate interest is to have Iran as a stabilizing regional power: a power that is not hostile to the United States, a power that can be a friendly partner, a power that can incidentally can also return to the status of a friend of Israel. I think that is the long-range interest. The more immediate interest is to avoid either an Iranian nuclear bomb, which contributes to instability in the region, or more generalized hostility between Iran and the United States.¶ SIEGEL: Where in the set of our interests in Iran do such things as its treatment of minorities, its treatment of women, its ability or

inability to run a fair election, where do those things figure?¶ Dr. BRZEZINSKI: They are as important in that relationship as they are in some relationships, whether it be, for example, with China or as was in the past decades with the Soviet Union. That is to say these are things we don't forget about, that we try to help, but they don't dictate the nature of their external relationship with the country, because the external relationship with a country involves more fundamental issues of stability and security.

AT- Desalination Advantage

Desalination bad Turn—Desalination damages the environment and biodiversity—creates concentrated salt water as a by-productScientific American 09 Jan 20, 2009 Fred Kuepper is a staff writer for the Scientific American, which is an American popular science magazine. It has a long history of presenting scientific information on a monthly basis to the general educated public, with careful attention to the clarity of its text “The Impacts of Relying on Desalination for Water” Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-impacts-of-relying-on-desalination/

Beyond the links to climate problems, marine biologists warn that widespread desalinization could take a heavy toll on ocean biodiversity; as such facilities' intake pipes essentially vacuum up and inadvertently kill millions of plankton, fish eggs, fish larvae and other microbial organisms that constitute the base layer of the marine food chain. And, according to Jeffrey Graham of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography's Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, the salty sludge leftover after desalinization for every gallon of freshwater produced, another gallon of doubly concentrated salt water must be disposed of can wreak havoc on marine ecosystems if dumped willy-nilly offshore. For some desalinization operations, says Graham, it is thought that the disappearance of some organisms from discharge areas may be related to the salty outflow.

Turn—Algae desalination contaminates water—harmful algae blooms continue to go untreatedMuscat 2014 Oman Muscat (Oman is the head of the Oman National Commission for Education, Culture and Science) April 16-17, 2014 “Harmful Algal Blooms and Desalination” http://hab.ioc-unesco.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:conference-harmful-algal-blooms-and-desalination&catid=25&Itemid=2

In many arid regions, countries are increasingly reliant on seawater desalination to supply drinking water for rapidly growing coastal populations. There are currently more than 14, 000 desalination plants in more than 150 countries worldwide. An emerging threat to the desalination industry is from harmful algal blooms (HABs, commonly called red tides). High biomass HABs can restrict fl ow in desalination plants by clogging fi lters, but other impacts include fouling of surfaces due to dissolved organic materials that can also compromise the integrity of reverse osmosis (RO) membranes. A recent HAB of the dinofl agellate Cochlodinium is a clear example of the risk posed by these phenomena. That outbreak, which lasted nearly eight months in the Gulf-Arabian Sea region in 2008/2009, closed or restricted the operation of multiple desalination plants, one for as long as 55 days. With little reserve water storage or alternative sources, this was a major threat to the region. Recognition of potential problems that HABs may pose to desalination is new and has, so far, largely been speculative. Toxic blooms in the vicinity of desalination plants are often unrecognized events, and plant operators are generally unaware of the threat that algal toxins pose. As a result, no measurements of marine algal toxins before and after desalination have been made at any large-scale desalination plant.

No Solvency—Algae hurt desalination—Infect water with harmful toxins and cake-over membranesLadner, Seng and Clark 2010 2010 David A. Ladner (Dr. Ladner's research is geared toward making membrane-based water treatment processes more sustainable.) Esvina Litia Choo Mei Seng (Seng is a Ph. D who teaches civil engineering at the University of Illinois) Mark M. Clark (Clark is a Clinical Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northwestern University) “Membrane Fouling by Marine Algae in Seawater Desalination” http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/4201.pdf

One potentially severe membrane foulant for seawater desalination is algae introduced to the feed water during a bloom. Marine algal blooms are caused by a few classes of phytoplankton, dinoflagellates being the most common. The dinoflagellate species Lingulodinium polyedrum has been the cause of massive red tide events in coastal California (Kahru and Mitchell 1998; Moorthi et al. 2006). In the Gulf of California, Dinophysis caudate and Alexandrium catenella have been identified (Lechuga-Deveze and Morquecho-Escamilla 1998). Karenia brevis (previously known as Gymnodinium breve and Ptychodiscus brevis) is a dinoflagellate causing toxic red-tide blooms in coastal Florida (Kirkpatrick et al. 2004; Kirkpatrick et al. 2006). Heterocapsa pygmaea, Prorocentrum minimum, and many others, have been identified (Johnsen et al. 1997; Trigueros and Orive 2000; Heil et al. 2005; Maso and Garces 2006). Even in waters where blooms are rarely seen, like the San Francisco Bay, dinoflagellate species can sometimes find just the right water quality and weather conditions to make a cameo appearance (Cloern et al. 2005). ©2010 Water Research Foundation and Arsenic Water Technology Partnership. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4 | Membrane Fouling by Marine Algae in Seawater Desalination Blooming dinoflagellates are in a size range (10 to 50 μm) that would easily pass through inlet screens. Their neutral buoyancy and ability to swim also make settling chamber removal impractical, though certain types of coagulation/flocculation or floatation-based methods may be worth considering (Edzwald 1993; Sengco et al. 2001; Pierce et al. 2004; Sengco and Anderson 2004). Dinoflagellates are easily rejected by microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes, but a bloom with high cell concentration (on the order of 105 cells per ml) will quickly form a thick cake layer and impede water passage. If cells are damaged, either through natural death cycles, or through shear in the pumping system, they may release organic matter that passes through the pretreatment system to the RO membranes. Organic matter can directly foul the RO membrane and/or serve as substrate for bacterial species in biofouling. As an algal bloom life cycle peaks and decays, a significant amount of organic material is released upon cell death (Whipple et al. 2005). Bacteria feed on the decaying material and release their own extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) that has the potential to foul pretreatment and RO membranes (Asatekin et al. 2006; Rosenberger et al. 2006). It is possible that the material from decomposition could have more of an impact on membrane fouling than the algal cells themselves.

No Impact—Doesn’t solve water wars—areas like Middle East and

Framing TurnTurn—Framing Water Wars as existential issue causes mistrust between states and distracts from environmental issues of water scarcityJulien 2013 Frederic Julien December 15, 2013 (Frederic Julien is a graduate student at Ottawa University, and this article received second prize for the Global Water Forum 2013 Emerging Scholars Award.) “Explaining the persistent appeal of ‘water wars’ scenarios” http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2013/12/15/explaining-the-persistent-appeal-of-water-wars-scenarios/

The NBI may be progressing slowly, but it is a genuinely positive development in regard to regional peace.20,21,22 This is not to say that everything is for the best on the blue planet. Rather, one should not reason in hydrocentric terms and ‘[…] conceptually jump from the necessity for water in human life to water as the determining factor in all decision-making and political choices. There is no particular reason to focus on water scarcity as one of the main risk factors for future wars. Worse, framing water as a ‘national security issue’ can only nourish mistrust and rigidity between states and distract us from the actual consequences of water scarcity: socioeconomic hardship and ecological degradation.24 These problems are serious and urgent enough without any extra sensationalism.

No Water wars impactsNo Impact—States won’t do water waters—Status Quo Desalination is less expensive, less risky, and they don’t care about waterJulien 2013 Frederic Julien December 15, 2013 (Frederic Julien is a graduate student at Ottawa University, and this article received second prize for the Global Water Forum 2013 Emerging Scholars Award.) “Explaining the persistent appeal of ‘water wars’ scenarios” http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2013/12/15/explaining-the-persistent-appeal-of-water-wars-scenarios/

States can adapt if they reach a point where it is not possible anymore to withdraw additional water from nature for environmental or geopolitical reasons. Without even mentioning the possibility of ‘creating’ fresh water via desalination or water recycling and reuse, a state facing scarcity can try to control the demand for water with policies encouraging a more efficient (more crop or goods per drop) and profitable (more jobs or dollars per drop) use of water. By creating more economic value from its water endowment, a country can generate sufficient revenues to pay for the importation of food or other goods whose production is water intensive. A final level of adaptation refers to social and cultural changes, such as a shift towards a low-meat diet, leading to a more sustainable use of water.12,13 Of course, the adaptation process just described is easier wished for than implemented. Any attempt to reallocate water resources between different use(r)s will create ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ and will thus foster resistances.14 Change means social stress and, in theory, a state could be tempted to externalise this stress by trying to increase its share of a transboundary water source. As demanding as adaptation may be though, war remains the most expensive and uncertain way to ‘manage’ water scarcity. The late Avraham Tamir, an ex-Major-General in the Israeli army, is eloquent on this point: ‘Why go to war over water? For the price of one week’s fighting, you could build five desalination plants. No loss of life, no international pressure, and a reliable supply you don’t have to defend in hostile territory15’. More cynically, governments all over the world have proven that they can simply ‘tolerate’ important levels of water misery without reacting much… Admittedly, the decision to go to war is not reducible to such dry cost-benefit analysis. Water wars might still be conceivable on some political or ideological ground. In practice however, states are not obsessed with water the way thirsty individuals are (and have to be). Although often dubbed ‘our most precious resource16’, water is not the new oil; water is not at the centre of world capitalism.17 In the Middle East, where water wars are supposedly more probable than anywhere else, researcher Jan Selby even observed that ‘[…] with the waning economic importance of agriculture, water has become (and will continue to become) less and less central to the political economy18’.

1. This is an excellent card that defeats the water wars Advantage, which is the only substantial impact to desalination. It’s comprehensive and categorical, and responds to all the arguments the Aff would use for a waters wars argument; economic necessity, keeping social order, and for ideological reasons.

2. In a debate I would use this card as 1NC case Defense. Since there are so many warrants in this card, I wouldn’t need to read any other cards, giving me more time to spend on areas I might

need more evidence, like Dead Zones. The 2NC or 1NR could shut down the Advantage by extending the warrants and reading one or two more cards, giving a DA or Advantage CP a both less to deal with and more time to deal with it. (the Aff’s remaining Advs.)

No Impact—Water wars will never happen—Even Pakistan and India will co-op because they gain nothing from impeding each otherConnell 10 April 10, 2010 Dr. Daniel Connell (Dr. Daniel Connell works at the Crawford School of Public Policy and at the Australian National University) “Water wars, maybe, but who is the enemy” http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2013/04/10/water-wars-maybe-but-who-is-the-enemy/

The statement by Dr Serageldin was presumably made to emphasize the seriousness of water problems. However many people disagreed and pointed to the historical record which showed few examples of actual warfare despite the large number of international basins subject to conflicts. But did this indicate that water problems are not really that serious? In this commentary I argue that the real reason that water conflicts are unlikely to result in warfare is not because the threats are not real or serious but that they manifest themselves in ways that cannot be resolved through traditional military responses. Some of the critics of the water wars thesis even argued that water conflicts have actually encouraged cooperation between states. From this perspective the Indus River, shared by two countries with nuclear weapons that have fought three major wars with each other, provides dramatic evidence that a problem can lead to cooperation of sorts despite their differences. One factor preventing water wars despite serious differences lies in the nature of water and river management systems. There are many ways in which countries can harm their neighbours by damaging their water management infrastructure but there are few scenarios where doing so would benefit the aggressor in any practical sense given the exposed nature of their own water assets in most cases. A serious water war would probably be one of mutual destruction. That does not mean that water conflicts are not a major challenge to world peace. The nature of the threats that can come from water problems has been well studied in recent years. Sources of ‘water insecurity’ were discussed in earlier contributions to this series. It was argued that the potential sources of threat were almost as numerous as the links between water and the human species and that there are many ways in which people can experience harm through the disruption of those connections and relationships.

AT Dead Zones Advantage

Algae cause DZ TurnOMEGA makes dead zones worse- rise in meat production and fertilizer devastates algae, destroying oxygenWFS 9 World Future Society. “Oceans’ Dead Zones on the Rise.” http://www.wfs.org/node/1003

Dead zones are so named because they lack sufficient oxygen to support fish, crustaceans, and other forms of marine life. The World Resources Institute (WRI) recently labeled them a “rapidly growing environmental crisis.” More than 400 have been identified worldwide, and researchers have spotted one in the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Mississippi River that’s roughly the size of a small country — 7,500 square miles and growing.¶ A major contributor to the problem is industrial agriculture, according to WRI. Too much animal manure and crop fertilizer is entering into and contaminating freshwater and coastal ecosystems. The nitrogen and phosphorous they contain overfertilize the algae and phytoplankton that grow on or near the surface of the water, causing the plants to grow at an unnaturally high rate. The unusually large amounts of algae inevitably die and sink to the bottom of the gulf. As the plant matter decomposes, it exhausts much of the oxygen from the surrounding water. This process is known as eutrophication.¶ Since much of the manure from factory farms runs off into freshwater streams before being transported out to sea, the problem it isn’t limited to coastal waters. Eutrophication may be the primary reason for freshwater problems in the United States, WRI claims. And eutrophication doesn’t just impact the environment — it affects human health and economic systems as well.¶ Global consumption of meat is expected to increase by more than 50% within the next 25 years. WRI reports that a surge in livestock production in particular would have serious repercussions for developing countries that lack strong, enforceable environmental regulations.¶ The situation isn’t much better in the developed world. In the United States, manure from cows, pigs, and chickens does not legally have to be treated (unlike human sewage), so it mostly isn’t. The industry has repeatedly blocked and resisted any regulation of runoff and waste.

Algae are the cause of dead zones because of chemical fertilizer- guts solvency and turns the advantageLeahy 10 Stephen Leahy. “Growing Dead Zones in the Ocean -- Are We Aware of the Implications?” http://www.alternet.org/story/147727/growing_dead_zones_in_the_ocean_--_are_we_aware_of_the_implications

Phytoplankton or plankton are very small algae that live near the surface of oceans and form the basis of the marine food web. The unheralded plankton tribe may be the hardest- working group of organisms on the planet. Not only do they feed nearly everything living in the oceans, they absorb and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, they also play a key role in cloud formation.¶ Plankton give off dimethyl sulfide, a chemical which floats to the ocean's surface, evaporates, breaking down into sulfur compounds that become the nuclei around which clouds form.¶ Without plankton, the Earth would be a very different planet.¶ The researchers spent three years analysing and synthesising an unprecedented collection of historical and recent oceanographic data involving nearly half a million measurements of the transparency of sea water over the past 120 years. Previously, the "big picture" regarding plankton globally only went as far back as 1997 with the launch of special satellites.¶ Worm, Lewis and colleague

Daniel Boyce found that most phytoplankton declines occurred in polar and tropical regions, and in the open oceans where most phytoplankton production occurs. There was a direct correlation between rising sea surface temperatures and the decline in phytoplankton growth over most of the globe, especially close to the equator, they determined.¶ "With ocean temperatures increasing we had been wondering what the impacts might be," Worm told IPS in an interview in Potsdam, Germany.¶ In addition to the declines in plankton, declines in the numbers of species in tropical waters and increases in the number of species in temperate waters have been observed, he said. As on land, some marine species are exquisitely sensitive to temperature and will move if a region becomes too warm.¶ Another related mega-change in the oceans is the dramatic increase in number and size of dead zones - areas too low in oxygen to support life. Fertiliser and sewage run-off cause huge growth of plankton, which then quickly die and are consumed by bacteria that deplete waters of oxygen. The Gulf of Mexico has a 22,000 square kilometre dead zone every spring due to run-off from the Mississippi River.

Turn—Additional algae causes dead-zones—the excess algae dies and absorbs all the oxygen in the waterNOAA 2014 Jan. 23, 2013 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (The NOAA is a federal agency that focuses on reporting the quality of the Nation and the globe’s Air and Water qualities) “"Dead zone" is a more common term for hypoxia, which refers to a reduced level of oxygen in the water” National Ocean Service http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html

Hypoxic zones (dead zones) can occur naturally, but scientists are concerned about the areas created or enhanced by human activity. There are many physical, chemical, and biological factors that combine to create dead zones, but nutrient pollution is the primary cause of those zones created by humans. Excess nutrients that run off land or are piped as wastewater into rivers and coasts can stimulate an overgrowth of algae, which then sinks and decomposes in the water. The decomposition process consumes oxygen and depletes the supply available to healthy marine life.

Turn—Excessive algae is the primary cause of dead zones—Nutrients cause them to grow out of controlKling 2014 Catherine Kling (Catherine Kling is a professor of economics and head of Resource and Environmental Policy at CARD) Center for Agriculture and Rural Development “Costs and Benefits of Fixing Gulf Hypoxia” http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_08/article4.aspx

Each spring and summer in the Gulf of Mexico, nutrient-rich effluent from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers stimulates algae growth. The rates of growth are typically so high that when the algae die and decompose, they consume more dissolved oxygen than can be replenished by the ocean. The Gulf hypoxic zone or "dead zone" is created when dissolved oxygen levels become too low to support sea life. The extent of the 2008 hypoxic zone is shown in the chart.

No SolvencyNo Solvency—Dead zones inevitable absent reduced runoff from farmsPhilpott 13 Tom Philpott. Climate Desk. “Why This Year’s Gulf Dead Zone Is Twice As Big As Last Year’s.” http://climatedesk.org/2013/08/why-this-years-gulf-dead-zone-is-twice-as-big-as-last-years/

First, the good news: The annual “dead zone” that smothers much of the northern Gulf of Mexico—caused by an oxygen-sucking algae bloom mostly fed by Midwestern farm runoff—is smaller this year than scientists had expected. In the wake of heavy spring rains, researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had been projecting 2013 s fish-free region of the Gulf to be at least 7,286 ′square miles and as large as 8,561 square miles—somewhere between the size of New Jersey on the low end to New Hampshire on the high end. Instead, NOAA announced, it has clocked in at 5,840 square miles—a bit bigger than Connecticut. It’s depicted in the above graphic.

Now, for the bad news: This year’s “biological desert” (NOAA’s phrase) is much bigger than last year’s, below, which was relatively tiny because Midwestern droughts limited the amount of runoff that made it into the Gulf. At about 2,900 square miles, the 2012 edition measured up to be about a third as large as Delaware.¶ NOAA. Data source: Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON)¶ Smaller than expected though it may be, this year’s model is still more than twice as large as NOAA’s targeted limit of less than 2,000 square miles. Here’s how recent dead zones stack up—note that the NOAA target has been met only once since 1990. Low years, like 2012 and 2009, tend to marked by high levels of drought, and high years, like 2008, by heavy rains and flooding.¶ Dead zones over time NOAA¶ Why such massive annual dead zones? It’s a matter of geography and concentration and intensification of fertilizer-dependent agriculture. Note that an enormous swath of the US landmass—41 percent of it—drains into the Mississippi River basin, as shown below. It’s true that even under natural conditions, a river that captures as much drainage as the Mississippi is going to deliver some level of nutrients to the sea, which in turn will generate at least some algae. But when US Geological Survey researchers looked at the fossil record in 2006, they found that major hypoxia events (the technical name for dead zones) were relatively rare until around 1950—and have been increasingly common ever since. The mid-20th century is also when farmers turned to large-scale use of synthetic fertilizers. Now as much a part of Mississippi Delta life as crawfish boils, the Gulf dead zone wasn’t even documented as a phenomenon until 1972, according to NOAA.¶ Source: LUMCON¶ ¶ The very same land mass that drains into the Gulf is also the site of an enormous amount of agriculture. The vast majority of US corn production—which uses titanic amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus, the two main nutrients behind the dead zone—occurs there. ¶ US Department of Agriculture¶ The region is also where we shunt much of our factory-scale meat farms. This Food and Water Watch map depicts concentration of beef cow, dairy, hog, chicken, and egg farms—the redder, the more concentrated.¶ Big Ag interests like to deflect blame for the annual dead zone, claiming that other factors, like runoff from lawns and municipal sewage, drive it. But the US Geological Service has traced flows of nitrogen and phosphorus into the Gulf, and there’s no denying the link to farming. “In total, agricultural sources contribute more than 70 percent of the nitrogen and phosphorus delivered to the Gulf, versus only 9 to 12% from urban sources,” the USGS reports.¶ The Gulf of Mexico isn’t the only water body that bears the brunt of our concentrated ag production. Much of the eastern edge of the Midwest drains into the Great Lakes, not the Gulf. And they, too, are experiencing fertilizer-fed algae blooms—particularly Lake Erie. The below satellite image depicts the record-setting, oxygen-depleting bloom that smothered much of Lake Erie in 2011, which peaked at 2,000 square miles

(about Delaware-size). “That’s more than three times larger than any previously observed Lake Erie algae bloom, including blooms that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when the lake was famously declared dead,” a University of Michigan report found. The culprit: severe storms in the spring, plus “agricultural practices that provide the key nutrients that fuel large-scale blooms.”¶ University of Michigan¶ Then there’s the Chesapeake Bay region, site of a stunning concentration of factory-scale chicken facilities (Food and Water Watch map)…¶ Food and Water Watch¶ …and a massive annual dead zone. “Livestock manure and poultry litter account for about half of the nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay,” the Chesapeake Bay Program reports:¶ Source: NOAA¶ ¶ All of which raises the question: Are dead zones inevitable, a sacrifice necessary to feeding a nation of 300 million people? Turns out, not so much. A 2012 Iowa State University study found that by simply adding one or two crops to the Midwest’s typical corn-soy crop rotation, farmers would reduce their synthetic nitrogen fertilizer needs by 80 percent, while staying just as productive. And instead of leaving fields bare over winter, they could plant them with cover crops—a practice that, according to the US Department of Agriculture, “greatly reduces soil erosion and runoff” (among many other ecological benefits)—meaning cleaner streams, rivers, and ultimately, lakes, bays, and gulfs. Moreover, when animals are rotated briskly through pastures—and not crammed into factorylike structures where their manure accumulates into a dramatic waste problem—they, too, can contribute to healthy soil that traps nutrients, protecting waterways from runoff.

No Solvency--Dead zones exist all over the worldNBC News 2004 March 29 2004 NBC News “150 ‘deadzones’ counted in the ocean” Environment on NBC http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4624359/ns/us_news-environment/t/dead-zones-counted-oceans/#.U8WcuGcg-84

Toepfer noted that 146 dead zones — most in Europe and the U.S. East Coast — range from under a square mile to up to 45,000 square miles. "Unless urgent action is taken to tackle the sources of the problem," he said, "it is likely to escalate rapidly." The program noted that some of the earliest recorded dead zones were in Chesapeake Bay, the Baltic Sea, Scandinavia's Kattegat Strait, the Black Sea and the northern Adriatic Sea. The most infamous zone is in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Mississippi River dumps fertilizer runoff from the Midwest. Others have appeared off South America, China, Japan, southeast Australia and New Zealand, the program said.

Impact DefNo Impact—Ocean Acidification isn’t possible—CO2 levels have been 10 times higher without the ocean turning acidic, and fish are resiliant Arizona Daily Independent 2014 Feb 1, 2014 -(Jonathan DuHamel is a staff-writer at the Arizona Daily independent) “The Myth of Ocean Acidification of Carbon Dioxide”http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/01/28/the-myth-of-ocean-acidification-by-carbon-dioxide/

The specter of acidification seems irrelevant to carbonate-shelled animals, according to the evidence. What offish and fish larvae? A study by Munday et al. (7) found C02 acidification had no detectable effect on embryonic duration, egg survival and size at hatching. As for adult fish: they found that most shallow-water fish tested to date appear to compensate fully their acid-base balance within several days of exposure to elevated C02 concentrations. Recent claims by climate alarmists have raised the possibility that terrestrial ecosystems and particularly the oceans have started losing part of their ability to absorb a large proportion of man-made C02 emissions. However, a study combining data from ice cores, direct atmospheric measurements, and emission inventories shows that the fraction of human emitted C02 that remains in the atmosphere has stayed constant over the past 160 years, at least within the limits of measurement uncertainty.(8) In other words, Nature compensates for our emissions. By the way, according to the Energy Information Administration, human C02 emissions comprise less than 3 percent of total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Can the oceans ever become actually acidic? There is no evidence that the oceans were ever acidic during the past 500 million years, even when atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was more than 10 times current levels. This implies that besides temperature and partial-pressure, there is a third controlling factor. That factor is the buffering effect of the reaction between basaltic oceanic crustal rocks with carbon dioxide (carbonic acid). This reaction uses up excess carbonic acid thereby keeping the pH of ocean water within strict limits.

No Impact—The Coastal oceans will adapt to acidification—Switch from Net heterotrophy to net autotrophy solves for excess ocean carbonOCB ’14 2014 Ocean Carbon Biochemistry (The Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Group seeks to to establish the evolving role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle in the face of environmental degradation.) “From source to sink: The changing face of the coastal carbon cycle” http://www.us-ocb.org/index.html

A widely held view is that in response to anthropogenic nutrient inputs, coastal systems have shifted from net heterotrophy to net autotrophy, resulting in increased drawdown of atmospheric CO2 in coastal waters. Using literature-based estimates and a mass balance approach, the authors propose a mechanism involving no net change in the metabolic state of the coastal ocean, but rather an increased physical uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the surface ocean, consistent with much greater measured increases in atmospheric CO2 levels relative to coastal surface water CO2 levels. This mechanism yields a large increase in DIC export to the open ocean relative to preindustrial time, and, if verified by additional field studies, will have important ramifications for ocean CO2 uptake and ocean acidification research.

No Terminal Impact—Marine life won’t be wiped out—Resilience, Marine Protected areas, and Status Quo environmental developmentJoyce ‘14 July 15, 2014 Christopher Joyce (Christopher Joyce is a correspondent on the science desk at NPR. Joyce won the 2001 American Association for the Advancement of Science excellence in journalism award.) “Underwater Meadows Might Serve As Antacid For Acid Seas” http://www.npr.org/2014/07/15/330440072/underwater-meadows-might-serve-as-antacid-for-acid-seas

Kroeker recently reviewed 228 studies of ocean acidification and says there's a lot of variety in how marine organisms respond to acidity. Some do OK, others don't. And that's somewhat hopeful, she says. It has led scientists to find out which plants and animals are the hardiest, and how to protect those that aren't. In California they've found nearly ideal places to do that: the nation's largest network of coastal reserves. There are 124 protected marine areas along the California coast. Some hug the shore, and some are miles out to sea. You can't drill or develop in any of them, and you can't fish in about half of them. Mark Carr, an ecologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, says these areas were intended to be fish nurseries and aquatic wilderness. "You're protecting the sources of young that are replenishing those populations along the coast," he explains. So far, the network seems to be helping some species — lobster and blue rockfish, for example. But now Carr and other scientists say these protected areas also can be natural laboratories where scientists can study the global threat of ocean acidification. Here's why: When something affects marine life in the ocean, it's often hard for scientists to pinpoint the cause. "When they see changes in the size of fish populations," Carr says, "to what extent is that driven by fishing, or to what extent is that driven by changes in the ocean climate?" But if fishing is prohibited, as it is in some reserves, then scientists know to look for some other cause of the decline or shift in the type of marine life. Maybe acidification is affecting a link in the food chain — intervening anywhere from plankton at the bottom, up to tuna at the top. The value of reserves isn't lost on fishermen, either. Some who first fought the idea of reserves, like Bruce Steele, now embrace them. Steele has dived for sea urchins for 40 years in California waters. "You have to have someplace to look where you can filter out the fishing influence," he says. "Otherwise, it's so much easier to just blame us. You could just say, 'It's just the fishermen, we're not really going to take care of these problems.' "

No Terminal Impact—Acidification won’t cause extinction—Sea grass sustains at least pockets of marine lifeOCB ’14 2014 Ocean Carbon Biochemistry (The Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry Group seeks to to establish the evolving role of the ocean in the global carbon cycle in the face of environmental degradation.) “From source to sink: The changing face of the coastal carbon cycle” http://www.us-ocb.org/index.html

I joined them aboard the Shearwater, a 55-foot catamaran operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They're focusing on the region around Santa Cruz Island, which is surrounded by several protected areas. Why this island? Because the underground meadows of sea grass here (also called eel grass), do something very curious: They seem able to neutralize acidity. "Sea grass beds absorb CO2 and they can buffer acidification," says UCSB biologist Jay Lunden. "And that's why ... we want to know where the sea grasses actually are." The scientists hope the meadows could be refuges for sea life trying to escape acidic water.

AT Environmental Leadership Advantage

No Solvency—China No Internal link to leadership—Won’t overcome Chinese environmental leadership—Hundreds of City scale sustainability and renewables projects equal to half the worlds’ construction Liu ‘13 September 10, 2013 Peggy Liu (Peggy Liu, Chairperson of JUCCCE, is internationally recognized for her expertise on China‘s sustainability landscape and for fostering international collaboration with China. JUCCCE is a non-profit organization dedicated to accelerating the greening of China, because a green China is the key to a healthy world. JUCCCE is a leader in creating systemic change in sustainable cities, sustainable consumerism and smart grid, and most noted for its multi-sector convening power.) China Is a Model for Going Green (Despite What You Read) http://ensia.com/voices/china-is-a-model-for-going-green-despite-what-you-read/

Even though China’s skies are gray and waters run red, there is cause for hope that the country’s “long green march” will have a blue sky ending — thanks to the unique way China deploys new clean technologies and practices. Since opening to the West, China has developed a refined process of piloting at city scale. Today these local piloting efforts allow China, more than any other country, to quickly try new environmental and sustainable initiatives and move successful ones toward wider implementation. The history of these efforts dates back to 1979, when China introduced three economic development zones that experimented locally with ideas such as local elections and internationalization of currencies. The success of those initial three zones led to the expansion of the zones to 14 cities in 1984. Today there are 253 economic development zones across the country. Such city-level experimentation has driven progress across China, and is now being used for a broad range of sustainable technology and policy pilots. And this has all taken place during a 40-year urbanization spurt. China is now building the equivalent of every building in Canada each year — or half the new construction worldwide (about 2 billion square meters annually).

NQ--US leadership highNon-Unique—America is a world leader in CO2 emission reduction—Outperforming Europe while still growing economicallyHayward 08 February 2008 Steven F. Hayward (Steven F. Hayward was previously the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at AEI. He is the author of the Almanac of Environmental Trends, and the author of many books on environmental topics.) “The United States and the Environment: Laggard or Leader?” http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/the-united-states-and-the-environment-laggard-or-leader/

The consistent improvement in America's energy efficiency is an untold and underappreciated long-term story and can be best understood by breaking down the most popular greenhouse gas emissions reduction target that is on the table today. One way of grasping this story is displayed in table 8, which compares U.S. energy use and economic output in the year 1910, which, according to historic Department of Energy data, was when U.S. fossil fuel CO2 emissions were 80 percent below the level of 1990--which is the target most frequently mentioned as the one we should set for the year 2050. In 1910, the nation's population was only 92 million people, per-capita income (in current 2007 dollars) was only $5,964, and total GDP (also in current 2007 dollars) was about $551 billion--about one-twentieth the size of the U.S. economy today. While the economy has grown more than twenty-fold in real terms since 1910, fossil fuel energy consumption only grew six-fold, and per-capita CO2 emissions only doubled--from 10.9 tons to 19.4 tons. This is not the profile of a nation that is profligate with energy. The U.S. energy story is far from over. In fact, some evidence suggests the United States is currently outperforming Europe in reducing energy intensity (the amount of energy used per unit of economic output) and greenhouse gases. According to the Department of Energy's latest annual report on the subject, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell by 1.5 percent in 2006, the first time they have fallen in a nonrecessionary year.[19] It is likely that the United States is the only industrialized nation whose greenhouse gas emissions fell in 2006 (2006 emissions data for other nations are not yet available).

Non-Unique—Despite perceptions the US is an environmental world leader now—Massive improvements tech and culture improvementsHayward 08 February 2008 Steven F. Hayward (Steven F. Hayward was previously the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at AEI. He is the author of the Almanac of Environmental Trends, and the author of many books on environmental topics.) “The United States and the Environment: Laggard or Leader?” http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/the-united-states-and-the-environment-laggard-or-leader/

To borrow the blunt language of Generation X and the "Millennials," does the United States suck when it comes to the environment? Contrary to the perception expressed in the epigraphs above, the answer turns out to be a resounding No; the United States remains the world's environmental leader and is likely to continue as such. But to paraphrase the old slogan of the propagandist, if a misperception is repeated long enough, it will become an unshakeable belief. Environmental improvement in the United States has been substantial and dramatic almost across the board, as my annual Index of Leading

Environmental Indicators and other books and reports like it have shown for more than a decade.[3] The chief drivers of this improvement are economic growth, constantly increasing resource efficiency, innovation in pollution control technology, and the deepening of environmental values among the American public that have translated into changed behavior and consumer preferences.

Measures of US Environmental standards is skewed—The US has larger homes, a higher standard of living, and it’s size requires more driving, Hayward 08 February 2008 Steven F. Hayward (Steven F. Hayward was previously the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at AEI. He is the author of the Almanac of Environmental Trends, and the author of many books on environmental topics.) “The United States and the Environment: Laggard or Leader?” http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/the-united-states-and-the-environment-laggard-or-leader/

It is precisely because the United States is highly energy efficient that we are able to afford and consume more energy than European nations on a per-capita basis. The United States is the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases on a per-capita basis.[13] In 2004--the most recent year for which complete international data are available for comparison--the United States emitted 19.9 tons of CO2 per capita, compared to the G8 average (excluding the United States) of 10.1 tons. Americans also use substantially more energy than European nations on a per capita basis, whether measured in oil equivalent (one of the World Bank's measures) or in kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity. Americans consume 7,920 kilograms oil equivalent per capita, compared to the European G8 nation average of 4,060. Per capita electricity consumption in the United States is 13,351 kWh, compared to a European G8 average of 6,483. This comparison requires a closer look. Even on the World Bank's metric of energy use per dollar of economic output, the United States does not finish last as it does in the EPI. As Table 4 shows, the United States ranks sixth among the G8 nations, ahead of only Canada and Russia.[14] Among a wider pool of industrialized countries, the U.S. energy-output ratio is superior to Sweden and Finland, both of whom rank considerably higher than the United States on the EPI. The lower ratio of energy/GDP for these northern nations, like Canada, probably owes much to the harsh winter climate where more energy is necessary for basic heat. Three important differences between the United States and our G8 competitors that account for our higher greenhouse gas emissions need to be more adequately recognized and factored into analysis of these issues. First, one reason for higher U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is that more of our energy infrastructure is fossil fuel-based--though with the notable exceptions of France and Canada, not vastly higher. (In fact, Britain and Italy generate a higher proportion of their electricity from fossil fuels than the United States does.) Table 5 displays the proportion of electricity generated with fossil fuels in the G8 nations. Second, American per-capita emissions are higher than European per-capita emissions in part because America's standard of living is considerably higher than the European standard of living. U.S. per-capita income is one-fourth higher than the average for European G8 nations (Russia excluded); the World Bank's Little Green Data Book has the U.S. 2005 per-capita income at $43,560, while the six other main G8 members are at an average of $34,833. If U.S. GDP were one-fourth lower, our greenhouse gas emissions per-capita would be about fifteen or sixteen tons per person instead of nearly twenty. One way of appreciating the differences in the U.S. emissions inventory is to look at energy use just in the industrial sector of the economy. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial sector are actually down 1.7 percent since 1990 and almost 5

percent since 1970. Most of the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions has come from the residential and transportation sectors--each up 25 percent since 1990. U.S. energy use in the industrial sector is not far out of line with European averages. Table 6 displays industrial sector output for the year 2004 and shows the United States lagging behind Japan and the UK; coming close to France; and outperforming Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland--all nations that rank higher than the United States on the EPI. Third, even if U.S. GDP were one-quarter lower, U.S. per-capita emissions would still be substantially higher than the G8 average because of larger homes and longer transportation distances in the United States. The average dwelling unit in the United States is about 2,400 square feet today (up from 1,500 square feet in 1970), while the average dwelling unit in western Europe is about half that (800 square feet in Italy, 1,300 square feet in France, and 1,200 square feet in Germany, for example[15]). Because of Europe's milder summer climate, most homes are not air-conditioned. Over 60 percent of American housing units are air-conditioned, and in recently constructed housing, the number approaches 90 percent. Less than 10 percent of housing units and only 27 percent of commercial buildings in Europe have air conditioning, compared with 80 percent of commercial buildings in the United States.[16]

General AT Solvency

4 major obstacles to OMEGATrent 12—Ames Bioengineering Scientist [Jonathon Trent, Ph.D. in Biological Oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, spent 6 years @ Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Germany, the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and the University of Paris at Orsay, established a biotechnology group at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, “The A.I.M Interview with Jonathon Trent,” Interview done by David Schwartz, August 21, 2011, http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/nasas-omega-scientist-dr-jonathan-trent/]

I think that there are four major areas with formidable hurdles some of which apply to all algae systems and some of

which are particularly true for OMEGA because it’s not an established technology. Those four “obstacle” areas (in

no specific order of importance) are: Biology, which includes finding the right strains of algae that grow well in wastewater and form a stable community. For OMEGA, they also have to die in seawater. Engineering, which is a problem in the OMEGA system because the marine environment is daunting both in terms of materials and corrosion as well as strength and longevity with 5, 10, and 100 year storms. This depends on where you are, but even in places like the North Sea there is some pretty amazing engineering going on to pursue oil in deep water. In addition to deepwater oil drilling platforms, there are plans for large floating airports and even floating cities, being developed in Holland to anticipate sea level rise. I somehow think our engineering ingenuity is up to the challenge of developing OMEGA systems at least in protected bays for now, in the new bays that

will form in the future with sea-level rise, and maybe someday in the open ocean. Economics, the OMEGA project itself is facing an economic crisis of sorts because we are going to run out of money at the end of this calendar year and we are looking for funding for our next Phase, but that’s not relevant to the overarching economic challenge. In general, the economics of large-scale algae cultivation for a commodity like biofuel, is considered a major issue. I would argue that the economics of an OMEGA system will be based on the integrated system of both products and services. The products include algae biofuels, biogas, fertilizer, and aquaculture harvests. The services include wastewater treatment and carbon sequestration and to some degree environmental remediation, if

OMEGA can be used like the “turf scrubber” system. Environmental obstacles, which have environmental impact and social components. The marine component is how OMEGA impacts the local marine environment. The fact that it’s going to clean up

wastewater outfalls is a positive impact, but there are open questions about marine mammals and sea birds, and shading the local eco systems. I think the overall impact will be positive, but that remains to be determined. The “social environment” component involves obtaining permits, and jurisdiction, and competition for space with stakeholders like shipping companies, fishermen, and recreational boaters . All these issues depend on where we are and how sensitive we are to the conditions in the marine environment.

OMEGA is not economically competitiveTrent 12—Ames Bioengineering Scientist [Jonathon Trent, Ph.D. in Biological Oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, spent 6 years @ Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Germany, the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and the University of Paris at Orsay, established a biotechnology group at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, “TEDGlobal 2012: How to make algae biofuels competitive,” Open Knowledge, http://knowledge.allianz.com/mobility/alternative_fuels/?1962/tedglobal-2012-how-to-make-algae-biofuels-competitive, July 12th 2012]

So why are algae biofuels problematic economically? The biggest single problem is how to build a scalable system that is non-competitive with agriculture. We know how to do the chemistry: the choice of strains, the domestication of

algae, the lipid production, the harvesting and extraction of oils. Scaling up the system is the biggest single problem. For algae to become competitive we are talking about a cost of just 50 cents a kilo because existing fossil fuels are so inexpensive and so heavily subsidized. This is a 150-year old, five trillion-dollar industry which literally owns governments.

Microalgae is not cost competitiveChen et al. 9—Director at Center for Biorefining, Univ. of Minnesota [Paul Chen, Min Min, YiFeng Chen, Liang Wang, Yecong Li, Qin Chen, Chengguang Wang, Yiqin Wan, “REVIEW OF BIOLOGICAL AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF ALGAE TO FUELS APPROACH,” International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering(IJABE), Vol 2, No 4 (2009)] *Note: Microalgae are the subject of this review. The terms “microalgae” and “algae” will be used interchangeably throughout this article.

6.3 Cost analysis Several key economic concerns of the mass algal production system considered are: (a) the cost of the resources such as nutrients needed for growing algae, CO2 and water availability, (b) cost of construction and maintenances of the culture system, (c) the capital and operational costs of harvesting systems , and (d) downstream processing and refining cost. The cost of large scale cultivation varies with algal species, growth rate, lipid content, plant location, and type of culturing system. When algal cultivation is combined with municipal and animal wastewater treatment, CO2 usage from ethanol plant or utilization of flu gas, the cost of resources can be reduced considerably. Figure 8 indicates that the costs for producing a gallon of algal oil differ greatly with different production systems and conditions. The average cost is US$109/gal with a wide variability (Std. Dev. = US$301/gal). The variability arises largely from the uncertainties in facility and operating costs while land cost is either not considered or small in most sources relative to total capital cost (Figure 9) [142] . This information suggests that facility and operation are where technological innovations have potential to reduce costs substantially. General Atomics, a US company, estimated the costs for algal oil are in the range of $20.0 to $32.8 based on an open pond algae farming system[4] . The cost breakdown is shown in Table 7. The growth cost accounts for 60%-75% of the total costs In a case study based on a 63-ha raceway located in west Australia, the total capital cost, including site preparation, culture system, engineering fee, contingency and land, was Aus$18.4M. The total annual productivity of P. carterae for the plant is about 1 170- 1 480 tons per year in which the nutrient cost Aus$298K per year. The labor cost Aus$942 500 per year and power cost Aus$3.9M per year. By using 12 years return the calculated costs is about 5.3 Aus$ kg-1 P. carterae at unregulated pH[143] . Algae biomass production cost for raceway system and tubular PBR were summarized by Shen et al.[24] (Table 8). Downstream processing that include harvesting, drying and oil extraction accounts for 40% of the total cost, which is about the same as algae culture cost. It is estimated that 14%, 10%, and 16% of total

production costs come from harvesting, drying, and oil extraction, respectively[24] . Due to the high production cost, producing biodiesel from algae still not economically feasible today.

Too many structural challenges to OMEGA Trent 10—Ames Bioengineering Scientist [Jonathon Trent, Ph.D. in Biological Oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, spent 6 years @ Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Germany, the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and the University of Paris at Orsay, established a biotechnology group at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, “A–NAVY: NASA–NAVY: a strategic planning discussion,” March 25th 2010, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100036715.pdf]

OMEGA faces the intrinsic challenges of all algae cultivation systems and some of its own. These challenges include biological, engineering, economic, and environmental challenges. Biological challenges include algal growth rates, invasive (weed) species, pest control, and the effects of pathogens. Engineering challenges

include the and above all economics. OMEGA also has its own unique challenges associated with its offshore deployment. These include materials and designs that can withstand the rigors of the marine environment, logistics for filling and harvesting OMEGA modules under varying conditions, and finding

locations for large OMEGA farms required for biofuels that will not impact the aesthetics of our coastal areas, fishing, and ship traffic of all kinds. While these challenges are formidable and the rates of social and environmental

change suggest we do not have a lot of time to meet them—perhaps less than ten years.

Farmers DA LinkLink (Agriculture DA)—Plan sets agenda which leads to initiatives to restrict farming—Farmers produce the nutrients that cause Dead zonesKling 2014 Catherine Kling (Catherine Kling is a professor of economics and head of Resource and Environmental Policy at CARD) Center for Agriculture and Rural Development “Costs and Benefits of Fixing Gulf Hypoxia” http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_08/article4.aspx

Because agriculture is the primary source of nutrients that cause Gulf hypoxia, those involved in agriculture would need to take action in any clean-up program. The main sources of lost nutrients are nitrogen losses from leaching and run-off, phosphorus in eroded soil, and animal manure runoff. Focus on control of nutrients in the Upper Midwest is warranted because most of the cropland that contributes to Gulf hypoxia is located in this region.

Link UQ—Farmers can’t afford restrictions for deadzones—Uniquely high competition nowKling 2014 Catherine Kling (Catherine Kling is a professor of economics and head of Resource and Environmental Policy at CARD) Center for Agriculture and Rural Development “Costs and Benefits of Fixing Gulf Hypoxia” http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_08/article4.aspx

Definitive research that demonstrates either that the benefits of reducing Gulf hypoxia exceed the costs or that the costs exceed the benefits simply does not exist. And while economists have made great strides in their ability to estimate benefits and costs, such definitive research for a problem as complex as Gulf hypoxia may not be forthcoming. Furthermore, recent high prices for agricultural commodities signal farmers that more fertilizer needs to be applied to crop land, not less. Both the uncertainty about costs and benefits and the current need to maintain high production levels gives advocates of the status quo the upper hand in the Gulf hypoxia debate. But the evidence seems quite strong that our inability to keep fertilizer nutrients on the farm is doing significant damage to many coastal waters. Over time, as food shortages recede, we may decide to move to a common-sense approach to managing farmland and livestock production. By locating livestock in nutrient-deficient crop locations, by controlling soil erosion to maintain long-term soil health, and by reducing soil nitrogen losses or by treating nitrogen-rich runoff before it enters streams and rivers, we should be able to achieve both healthy coastal waters and profitable farms.

Macroalgae CP

Plan text: The USFG should develop Macroalgae

Solvency OMEGA is micro-algae Lillie 12—ex-High Energy Particle Physicist [Ben Lillie, “Algae, a platform for producing energy and more: Jonathan Trent at TEDGlobal 2012,” TEDBlog, June 27, 2012, http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/27/algae-a-platform-for-producing-energy-and-more-jonathan-trent-at-tedglobal-2012/]

This is the basic idea behind OMEGA, Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae, an audacious project started by Trent

and his colleagues. How does it work? First, why use micro-algae? Micro-algae could contribute between 2,000 and 5,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year (as opposed to soybean’s 50 gallons).

Macroalgae can compete with other energy sources—financial allocations disable perm solvency Langlois et al 12—PhD student at Montpellier SupAgro and graduated as an agronomist [Juliette Langlois, Jean-François Sassi, Gwenaelle Jard, Jean-Philippe Steyer, Jean-Philippe Delgenes and Arnaud Hélias, “Life cycle assessment of biomethane from offshore-cultivated seaweed,” BioFPR, Volume 6, Issue 4, pages 387–404, July/August 2012, Wiley Online]

The results emphasized the fact that ecodesign and change in the source of energy could make macroalgal biomethane competitive with natural gas in terms of environmental -performance. Significant improvements resulted in climate change (-21.9% and -54.2%), fossil depletion (-58.6% and -68.7%), and ozone depletion (-70.6% and -31.1%). In scenario (A) there were even environmental benefits concerning marine eutrophication. Nevertheless, impacts were significantly higher in relation to human, terrestrial and freshwater toxicity, metal and water depletion, urban and agricultural land occupation. Environmental impacts of digestion of extraction -residues were lower than for

untransformed macroalgae (A): in the case of (A), ecodesign results were less efficient -concerning 10 impact categories. Nevertheless, -considering the -variability of the results due to the financial -allocation, it is hard to -determine which system is the most efficient. Conclusion Macroalgal biomethane from fresh algae appears to be an interesting biofuel from an environmental point of view. With conventional techniques, its impacts are still higher than those of natural gas. Nevertheless, after ecodesign steps and considering technical improvement, its production can present high levels of efficiency, especially in the case of climate change and of fossil depletion . This is possible by designing the systems with a clean and efficient source of electricity (offshore wind farms) on site and to heat the digesters. In scenario (A), using untransformed, whole, macroalgae for anaerobic digestion, the remaining impacts where efforts have to be made are the offshore infrastructures, mainly because of steel and concrete. In scenario (B), using macroalgal residues from alginate extraction, the -

remaining improvements are linked to the biomolecule extraction -process itself. Choice of financial allocation strongly influences the results, notably depending on the alginate price. This type of allocation depends on the functions given to the biorefinery: producing energy (scenario A) or reducing impacts of waste treatment (scenario B). A realistic scenario is a combination of both kinds of feedstock, giving more flexibility to the production system.

Microalgae is still in the R&D stages—it can’t compete with other energy sourcesRajkumar et al 14—Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University Kebangsaan Malaysia [Renaganathan Rajikumar, Zahira Yaakob, Mohd Sobri Takriff, Potential of Micro and Macro Algae for Biofuel Production: A Brief Review, BioResources, Vol 9, No 1 (2014), BioResources]

These extraction methods are still on a laboratory scale and none of them has been demonstrated to be practical and economical for commercial production (Chen el al. 2009). Currently, most of the lipid extraction methods are facing many problems with high costs coupled with water removal and difficulties with

disrupting the algal cellular system to make lipids efficiently accessible. In spite of the high productivity, biodiesel from microalgae still has not yet become economical; algal biodiesel has been priced at US S1.25/lb, whereas petroleum-

based diesel has been priced at US S0.43/lb (Li et at. 2011). The expenditure for the algae-derived biodiesel is proportional to the algal species-specific efficiency to carbon dioxide sequestration as lipids.

Macroalgae can be cultivated offshore and is more suitable for mass growth Rajkumar et al 14—Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University Kebangsaan Malaysia [Renaganathan Rajikumar, Zahira Yaakob, Mohd Sobri Takriff, Potential of Micro and Macro Algae for Biofuel Production: A Brief Review, BioResources, Vol 9, No 1 (2014), BioResources]

Macroalgae are generally fast growing and are able to reach sizes up to 60 m in length (McHugh 2003).

Growth rates of macroalgae far exceed those of terrestrial plants. For example, brown algae biomass of the average productivity was approximately 3.3 to 11.3 kg dry weight m~2yr~' for non-cultured algae and up to 13.1 kg dry weight m~2 over 7 month for

cultured algae compared with 6.1 to 9.5 kg fresh weight m~2 yr-1 for sugar cane, a most productive land plant (Kraan 2010). They are seasonally available in the natural water basins. Cultivation of macroalgae at sea, which does not require arable land and fertilizer, offers a possible solution to the energy crisis. Macroalgae are mainly utilized for the production of food and the extraction of hydrocolloids, and it is possible to produce ethanol from algae (Goh and Lee 2010). Macroalgal biomass contains high amounts of sugars (at least 50%), which can be used in ethanol fuel production (Wi el al. 2009).

Tech exists for macroalgal production—it provides more biomass than microalgae and has other unique benefitsRajkumar et al 14—Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University Kebangsaan Malaysia [Renaganathan Rajikumar, Zahira Yaakob, Mohd Sobri Takriff, Potential of Micro and Macro Algae for Biofuel Production: A Brief Review, BioResources, Vol 9, No 1 (2014), BioResources]

The world production of macroalgae reached 8 million tons in 2003 (McHugh 2003). Many countries have now embarked on establishing large scale macroalgae cultivation in their territories. Recent research

(www.unbsj.ca/sase/biology/chopinlab) has shown the potential of macroalgae for large-scale culture in the Atlantic waters of Canada, France (Kaas 2006), Germany (Buck and Buchholz 2004), Ireland (Kraan et al. 2000), Isle of Man, UK (Kain et al. 1990), and

Spain (Peteiro and Freire 2009). In Asian countries such as China, India, Philippines, South and North Korea, Indonesia, and Japan,

macroalgae is being cultivated for various needs such as food, feed, chemicals, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products (Carlsson et al. 2007). Importance of Microalgae Biomass With substantial processing required for fossil fuels and the higher cost of vegetable oils, there has been a great deal of interest in the algal culture. Apart from that, algal biofuel production

presents the following advantages: 1. Production of biofuel from the macroalgae cultivation in seawater is a new approach, since 70% of the earth's surface is covered by water. Macroalgae possess a unique life cycle. They are more productive in view of the fact that more than five harvests can be made in a year . 2. In addition, macroalgae can succeed in salty water with only sunlight and available nutrients from the seawater. They do not

need any chemical fertilizer. Thus, large amounts of energy and money could be saved. These characteristic features favor the sustainability of the production of macroalgae-based bioethanol. 3. Production of bioethanol from terrestrial plants leaves a large impact on the environment in general and on human beings in particular due to eutrophication, acidification, and ecotoxicity. This is

mostly caused by agricultural practices by the generation of waste water (Luo et al. 2009). 4. In general, macroalgae can live in a variety of environmental conditions. There is a wide range of organisms that grow along the coastal areas. With the advancement of genetic engineering, it is now possible to develop a suitable species of macroalgae for bioethanol production

(Goh and Lee 2010). Genetically engineered macroalgae would need to be cultivated in enclosed bioreactors. These characters bring about high confidence for future improvement of macroalgae in renewable energy area such as bioethanol. 5. Converting the microalgae biomass to ethanol rather than using terrestrial plant biomass

have some important benefits, i.e. no negative impact on the food security. The relatively high sugar content and lower lignin content than lignocelluloses facilitates high mass production (Adams et al 2009; Wi et al 2009) 6. Algal biomass can be cultivated in the unused vast ocean of the coastal area within the limited economic zone. In fact, utilization of sea water for the algal biomass production has great potential to relieve the water crisis. As for the ecology, macroalgae supplies oxygen to the sea and helps reduce the accumulation of carbon dioxide in atmosphere (Goh and Lee 2010). 7. Several algae species are Known ior tneir anility to remove Heavy metals from water, which can be useful to the environment (Aderhold et al. 1996). Certain algal species have the ability to produce high amounts of carbohydrates instead of lipids as preserved polymers. These are the ideal candidates for bioethanol production, as carbohydrates from algae can be extracted and then converted to fermentable sugars. 8. Apart from bioethanol production, algal biomass can be used for the production of an enormous variety of supplementary products i.e., protein, pigments, plastics, etc. (Reith et al. 2005; Wiiffels 2009). In addition to replacing fossil fuels, thereby mitigating climate alteration, algal biomass can also serve in the recycling of heavy nutrients in the near and

inshore waters (Kraan 2010). 9. Macroalgae provides a promising bioethanol feedstock owing to their high biomass yield with a superior production relative to various terrestrial crops (John el al. 2011). In light of the considerations just

mentioned, there is a need to develop large-sized culture areas in the open sea (off-shore) for the resources of biofuel production. In this context, the biofuel from the macro algae offers an excellent alternative to the currently used fossil fuels. Thus, the cultivation and engineering of the macro algae have drawn the world's attention in view of their value as a substitute for the conventional fossil fuels which are fast becoming depleted. Composition and

Processing of Macroalgae Biomass Macroalgae biomass has a great potential both in quantity as well as in quality for the production of variety of specific bioenergy components. Previous studies (Reith el al. 2005) have shown that

growing macroalgae can be efficient and feasible if the production processes of the bioenergy and bio-based products are combined. Certain products from the algal industry have long been used for the production of various products, i.e., agars, alginates, and carrageenan’s (McHugh 2003). These polymers are storage materials located either in the cell walls or within the cells.

Net-Benefit Stuff Negative effects from macroalgae are an effect of microLeftley and Hannah 9 [Dr. J.W. Leftley and Dr. F. Hannah, “A Literature review of the potential health effects of marine microalgae and macroalgae,” Environment Agency, October 2009, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291150/scho1009brgc-e-e.pdf]

7.1 Microalgae associated with seaweeds Recorded health problems associated with seaweeds appear to be as a result of epiphytic micro-algae or cyanobacteria rather than caused by the macroalga per se. An example of this is

respiratory illness associated with blooms of the normally epiphytic dinoflagellate Ostreopsis spp. in the Mediterranean Sea (see sect. 5.3). Prorocentrum lima, a toxic epibenthic dinoflagellate, is common in UK waters but there are no reports of it causing symptoms in humans due to direct contact with intact cells (see sect. 4. and notes 5 and 6 in Table 6).

Macroalgae is good—transfers nutrients, increase habitat complexity, and biodiversity Lyons et al. 7/4/14—University College Dublin Ecology [Devin A. Lyons, nChristos Arvanitidis, Andrew J. Blight, Eva Chatzinikolaou, Tamar Guy-Haim, Jonne Kotta, Helen Orav-Kotta, Ana M. Queirós, Gil Rilov, Paul J. Somerfield, Tasman P. Crowe, “Macroalgal blooms alter community structure and primary productivity in marine ecosystems,” Global Change Biology, European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, Wiley Online]

Much of the literature on macroalgal blooms focuses on their negative effects on individual species, communities,

and ecological processes, but macroalgal blooms also have several effects that may be considered beneficial. Macroalgal blooms increase transfer of nutrients from the water column to the sediments and other macroalgae, thereby reducing nutrient levels in eutrophic waters (Thybo-Christesen et al., 1993; Hardison et al., 2010).

Accumulations of macroalgae can also increase habitat complexity, enhance dispersal of other species, and provide animals with food and shelter (Wilson et al., 1990; Holmquist, 1994, 1997). As a result, macroalgal blooms may actually enhance, rather than reduce, biodiversity and secondary production in some ecosystems (Holmquist, 1997; Bolam & Fernandes, 2002; Dolbeth et al., 2003). Several qualitative reviews of macroalgal blooms' ecological impacts have been published in the past (e.g. Fletcher, 1996; Raffaelli et al., 1998). However, elucidating the net impact of blooms' varied positive and negative effects remains an important challenge.

Microalgae results in algal blooms—directly effects human health and food webs Seubert 12—University of Southern California, Joint Education Project, United States, Marine Biology and Microbiology [Erica, “Seasonal and annual dynamics of harmful algae and algal toxins revealed through weekly monitoring at two coastal ocean sites off southern California, USA,” Environ Sci Pollut Res, 10 December 2012, http://www.evergreen.edu/mes/docs/research/runyanpaper.pdf]

Substantial increases in microalgal biomass in planktonic ecosystems, generally observed as increases in chlorophyll a concentrations or cell abundances, serve as the foundation of highly productive oceanic food webs, spawning productive fisheries and foraging areas for marine

mammals, birds, and other large predators (Legendre 1990). However, toxic or harmful algal blooms (HABs) produced by a few species of microalgae can have negative impacts on local food webs as well as threaten human health. Nearly 300 of the >4,000 currently described species of marine microalgae are considered capable of forming HABs and approximately 80 of those species are known to be capable of producing compounds

that are toxic to co-occurring marine species and/or humans (Sournia 1995). HAB events are highly diverse in their taxonomic composition, spatiotemporal distributions, and detrimental effects, complicating the understanding of their ecology, reducing the accuracy of predicting outbreaks, and impeding the development of successful management strategies (Smayda 1997; Zingone and Enevoldsen 2000; Anderson et al. 2012).

Anthropogenically influenced changes in climate, and nutrient loading is, in part, responsible for the global increase in the incidence, magnitude, and duration of HAB events (Paerl 1997; Van Dolah 2000; Anderson et al. 2002; Glibert et al. 2005; Heisler et al. 2008; Kudela et al. 2008; Paerl and Paul 2012). The impact anthropogenic driven change will have on a given region will be determined by the HAB organisms present and the magnitude of the change experienced in environmental conditions responsible for local HAB initiation, maintenance, and demise.

Farm Regulations CP

Text: The USFG should place regulations on farmers to reduce nutrients run-offsSolvency—Regulations solve Nitrogen run-off and are profitable for farmers

Kling 2014 Catherine Kling (Catherine Kling is a professor of economics and head of Resource and Environmental Policy at CARD) Center for Agriculture and Rural Development “Costs and Benefits of Fixing Gulf Hypoxia” http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_08/article4.aspx

But the evidence seems quite strong that our inability to keep fertilizer nutrients on the farm is doing significant damage to many coastal waters. Over time, as food shortages recede, we may decide to move to a common-sense approach to managing farmland and livestock production. By locating livestock in nutrient-deficient crop locations, by controlling soil erosion to maintain long-term soil health, and by reducing soil nitrogen losses or by treating nitrogen-rich runoff before it enters streams and rivers, we should be able to achieve both healthy coastal waters and profitable farms.

(Notes) NB needs to be a direct turn on the Aff, probably not politics or Farms DA

Solvency—Farmers are the root cause Dead zones—Nutrients run-offsKling 2014 Catherine Kling (Catherine Kling is a professor of economics and head of Resource and Environmental Policy at CARD) Center for Agriculture and Rural Development “Costs and Benefits of Fixing Gulf Hypoxia” http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_08/article4.aspx

Because agriculture is the primary source of nutrients that cause Gulf hypoxia, those involved in agriculture would need to take action in any clean-up program. The main sources of lost nutrients are nitrogen losses from leaching and run-off, phosphorus in eroded soil, and animal manure runoff. Focus on control of nutrients in the Upper Midwest is warranted because most of the cropland that contributes to Gulf hypoxia is located in this region.

Solvency—The best way to fight Dead zones is restricting the flow of nutrients from farms to the seaKling 2014 Catherine Kling (Catherine Kling is a professor of economics and head of Resource and Environmental Policy at CARD) Center for Agriculture and Rural Development “Costs and Benefits of Fixing Gulf Hypoxia” http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_08/article4.aspx

Nutrient losses from agriculture occur in a variety of ways. Heavy rainfall events leach soil nitrogen into tile lines that discharge into ditches and streams. Eroded soil that is rich in phosphorus finds its way into rivers and streams. Rainfall can wash surface-applied manure off farm fields. The evidence is overwhelming that extensive Gulf hypoxia would not occur if all farm-applied nutrients stayed on the farm and were used by crops or were stored in wetlands or other natural sinks.