AFF

1AC

Advantage 1 Hegemony

U.S. hegemony declining nowShor, Wayne State University Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Professor, 11*[Fran, 2011, Stateofnature, Declining U.S. Hegemony + Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for Conflict?, http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=4541, Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF]

A defining historical feature of the decline of specific empires in the world capitalist system has been the conflict surrounding the emergence of a successor. The United States and Germany engaged in a protracted struggle in the first half of the twentieth century to determine which country would replace Great Britain as the dominant hegemon. After Germanys second defeat in a world war in 1945, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. contended for global hegemony even though the U.S. was the pre-eminent power in economic and military terms throughout the four decades of the Cold War. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has attempted to use its unrivaled military power as a weapon to retain an eroding hegemony. However, given extensive internal and external contradictions, the U.S. Empire faces global competition and realignment, especially, but not exclusively, as a consequence of the rise of Chinese power. [1] This essay will focus on those sites of U.S./China conflict in the present period and project, albeit tentatively, where such conflict may lead in the future.While it may be that global capital has, to a certain extent, delinked itself from the nation-state, in the case of the United States, in particular, the state and state apparatus, especially in the form of military neo-imperialism, still perform essential geostrategic functions. [2] A fully realized deterritorialized and decentered global system, whether envisioned by Hardt and Negri on the left or Thomas Friedman on the right, does not yet exist. Indeed, the dialectical relation between territorial and capitalist logics of power, which David Harvey identifies as the defining characteristic of the new imperialism, still persists. [3] That persistence of territorial logic, described by Chalmers Johnson as an empire of bases, [4] i.e., military neo-imperialism, more than a predetermined inter-imperialist rivalry or an emergent transnational capitalist class, underscores the growing geopolitical conflict between the U.S. and China. Nonetheless, it is necessary to account for both elements in Harveys dialectic in order to demarcate those sites of US/Chinese competition and conflict.While the United States no longer dominates the global economy as it did during the first two decades after WWII, it still is the leading economic power in the world. However, over the last few decades China, with all its internal contradictions, has made enormous leaps until it now occupies the number two spot. In fact, the IMF recently projected that the Chinese economy would become the worlds largest in 2016. In manufacturing China has displaced the US in so many areas, including becoming the number one producer of steel and exporter of four-fifths of all of the textile products in the world and two-thirds of the worlds copy machines, DVD players, and microwaves ovens. Yet, a significant portion of this manufacturing is still owned by foreign companies, including U.S. firms like General Motors. [5][NOTE: *Last date cited]

Growth maintains U.S. hegemony key to preventing escalatory conflicts and great power warsKhalilzad, Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and former ambassador to the UN, 11(Zalmay, 3-8-11, National Review Online, The Economy and National Security http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad, Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF)

Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers.The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years.Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments.We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation.The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world warsAmerican retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.

Offshore wind promotes growth more jobs than fossil fuels and other renewablesTodd et al, International Economic Development Council Economic Development Associate, 13[Jennifer, Jess Chen a research fellow and PhD candidate at American University, Frankie Clogston is an IEDC consultant and a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University, 10-1-13, IEDC, Creating the Clean Energy Economy, http://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/IEDC_Offshore_Wind.pdf, accessed 6-25-14, AKS]

There is evidence that offshore wind energy will create new jobs and economic investment. Offshore wind generates more jobs per megawatt than onshore wind and other fossil fuels due to the labor associated with manufacturing, operating, and servicing the wind farms. As the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) states, the offshore wind industry has an additional employment effect due to the higher cost of installing, operating, and maintaining offshore wind turbines than land-based ones.1It is also likely that offshore wind job creation will come at a time and to those places where it is particularly needed. As the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) indicates, many of the jobs for the new offshore industry will potentially be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards. These locations will serve as fabrication and staging areas for manufacture, installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines.2 These areas can particularly stand to gain jobs in a new offshore wind industry, since they have experienced a double blow from the downturn in manufacturing and the recent recession.

Jobs key to sustained economic growthScarpetta, OECD Directorate for Employment, Labor and Social Affairs Director, 14(Stefano, 2014, OECD, Jobs are key for inclusive growth, http://www.oecd.org/employment/jobs-are-key-for-inclusive-growth.htm, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

High unemployment cannot be addressed without a return to sustained growth. But growth alone does not guarantee adequate job creation, as recent spates of jobless growth testify. More and better jobs with decent prospects are needed to kick-start a virtuous circle of rising confidence in the future and sustainable growth. A broad range of structural reforms is also needed to increase competition and enhance productivity, as are labour and social policies that orientate workers towards more productive jobs, and provide support to jobseekers and vulnerable groups.Helping youths get off to a good start in their careers is an absolute priority. This is why we have devised an Action Plan for Youth, launched at our OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in May 2013, which combines short-term measures to boost job creation for youth with more in-depth reforms to enhance access to jobs, improve education and strengthen the skills match.Promoting inclusive growth requires both higher participation in the workforce and more productive and rewarding jobs that draw people to the labour market. An important aim should be to increase female participation rates, for instance, and to make sure women do not feel confined to low-paid/low-productivity employment with dim prospects of improvement, but can access better-paid, full-time jobs too. Nor should women feel forced to take on unprotected informal jobs, as is frequently the case in emerging markets. With labour forces set to shrink in many OECD and partner countries over the next 20 years, and with women increasingly outperforming men on several fronts in education, policies that boost female labour force participation and tear down long-standing structural obstacles to their employment would yield widespread benefits, while making economies more resilient and societies more inclusive. This applies not only to women but to other groups that are underrepresented in the labour market, such as youths, disabled people, low-skilled workers and older unemployed people.

Sufficient to reverse decline major boon to job marketNdolo, Camoin Associates, associate principal, 10[Michael, Fall 2010, Camoin Associates, Offshore Development Can Yield Economic Benefits, http://www.camoinassociates.com/pdf/CAWindarticle.pdf, p. 1,2, 7-2-14, AAZ]

Wind power is a job-creation engine. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the wind industry supported over 85,000 jobs in 2009 alone. Most of these jobs were in manufacturing, an area of the U.S. labor force that has been declining rapidly for years. The wind energy industry represents a significant opportunity for turning this decline around. Although wind power industry clusters exist in North America, there are many specifics to offshore wind that differentiate it from its onshore cousin. Requirements such as installation vessels, unique turbine components, specialized research focus, and professional and technical experience are not yet present in the North American workforce skill set. All of these unique requirements represent an economic opportunity for job creation, ranging from research, design and manufacturing to operations and maintenance. Vessels. Highly specialized installation vessels must be built, operated, repaired and docked during the off-season. The newest generation of such vessels under development in Europe can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to construct and can require a small army of workers in ports with sufficient ship-building capacity. In addition, other smaller vessels are necessary for ongoing maintenance and repair operations. The Jones Act requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports are carried in U.S.-flagged ships that are constructed in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by permanent residents of the U.S. Although some developers have been successful in requesting an exception, allowing them to use foreign vessels, the Jones Act creates a significant barrier for off-shore developers. Investing and developing a domestic vessel industry to serve the offshore market would significantly increase the attractiveness of a region to offshore developers and investors, in addition to creating jobs to support the new industry. Components. Offshore components tend to he larger and bulkier. Certain components are either unique to (foundations) or modified for (hermetically sealed nacelles, seaworthy substations, nacelle-mounted or substation-mounted helicopter pads for maintenance, and corrosion-resistant materials) offshore use. One of the largest portions of the installed cost of a typical offshore wind farm is directly attributable to the manufacturing and pro-assembly of turbine and foundation components. In regions where a high level of wind component manufacturing currently exists, there is significant opportunity tor creating offshore wind component manufacturing clusters. Installation. Turbines and foundations must be assembled in a staging area, loaded onto a vessel and installed. There are limitations on the ability of any one state or province to service both coasts, but it is reasonable to assume, for example, that an installation cluster in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. could provide installation capacity for a number of projects on the East Coast.

Advantage 2 Warming

Warming is real and human causedProthero, California Institute of Technology Geobiology lecturer, 12(Donald R., Professor of Geology at Occidental College and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, 1-3-12, Skeptic, "How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused", http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/, accessed: 6-29-14, CLF)

How do we know that global warming is real and primarily human caused? There are numerous lines of evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase. Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. Mann et 3. (1999) compiled the past 900 years' worth of temperature data from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even 10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in the 1700s and 1800s. But the magnitude and rapidity of the warming represented by the last 200 years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More revealing, the timing of this warming coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil. 2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. The polar icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an alarming rate. In 2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid for at least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),'' but now the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less them half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer.^ As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March 2002, the Larsen B ice shelfover 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and typical of nearly all the ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 yearsyet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a rate never before seen in geologic history. 3. Melting Glaciers. Glaciers are all retreating at the highest rates ever documented. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend uponyet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The implications are staggering. The permafrost that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer has now thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to the North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again, killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their environments change.^ Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now places that once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate warms and allows them to breed further north. 4. Sea Level Rise. All that melted ice eventually ends up in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in the geologic past. At present, the sea level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has occurred over the past 3000 years. Geological data show that the sea level was virtually unchanged over the past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people, until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130 cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's low-elevation cities, such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their entire population will have to move someplace else.' Even a small sea level rise might not drown all these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m (20 feet), most of the world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida, and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned. Most of the world's population lives in low-elevation coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Miami, and Shanghai. All of those cities would be partially or completely under water with such a sea level rise. If all the glacial ice caps melted completely (as they have several times before during past greenhouse episodes in the geologic past), sea level would rise by 65 m (215 feet)! The entire Mississippi Valley would flood, so you could dock an ocean liner in Cairo, Illinois. Such a sea level rise would drown nearly every coastal region under hundreds of feet of water, and inundate New York City, London and Paris. All that would remain would be the tall landmarks such as the Empire State Building, Big Ben, and the Eiffel Tower. You could tie your boats to these pinnacles, but the rest of these drowned cities would lie deep underwater.

Warming causes extinction preponderance of evidence proves it's real, anthropogenic, and outweighs other threatsDeibel, National War College Foreign Affairs Professor, 7(Terry, "Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft," Page: 387, CX)

Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to het the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.

Wind power is sufficient to curb emissions zero emissions and fossil fuel cutback Ziza, New England School of Law JD, 8[Iva, Spring 2008, New England School of Law, SITING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES AND ADVERSARIAL LEGALISM: LESSONS FROM CAPE COD, http://www.nesl.edu/userfiles/file/lawreview/Vol42/2-3/Ziza.%20Final.pdf, p.1, AAZ]The atmospheric concentration of carbon-dioxide, which is released by fossil fuel consumption, has been rapidly increasing since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. n38 In the last few years, the most widely debated consequence of fossil fuel consumption is global warming, an increase of temperatures worldwide due to the trapping of greenhouse gases in the [*598] Earth's atmosphere. n39 Global warming in turn causes what is commonly referred to as "climate change." n40Despite some political and media attempts to paint the issue as inconclusive, the notion that the burning of fossil fuels raises global temperatures has by now been accepted by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists worldwide. n41 Rising global temperatures have, in turn, been linked to the melting of permafrost and ice sheets, rapid species extinction, rise in global sea levels, damage to coral reefs and aquacultures, heat waves and droughts, and increased hurricane intensities. n42 Additionally, the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to lung cancers and other respiratory problems, both in children and in adults. n43 Specifically, emissions of particulate matter due to the burning of fossil fuels are linked to a nationwide increase in asthma and allergy instances. n44In West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and other states, coal companies use a technique known as mountaintop removal, which essentially destroys mountain peaks with all their vegetation to collect low-sulfur coal, forever changing the landscape in these areas. n45 The practice inflicts terrific damage on local communities, wildlife, and local streams and rivers. n46 [*599] B. Case for Wind EnergyReplacing fossil fuels with sources of cleaner, renewable energy would alleviate most of the problems addressed above. One of the most convenient and readily available sources of renewable power is wind, a solar power whose kinetic energy can be converted into mechanical power through the use of wind turbines. n47 Historical records indicate that men used wind power as early as the third or second century B.C.E., and by the eleventh or twelfth century windmills were an established part of the European landscape. n48In 2005, wind energy generated more than 2,400 megawatts, enough to produce electricity for more than half a million American homes. n49 According to the wind energy industry, wind has the potential to satisfy twenty percent of the nation's energy needs. n50Wind is a clean source of energy that produces zero emissions. n51 It is highly affordable, domestically produced, and virtually inexhaustible. n52 The encouragement of the wind energy industry has already resulted in energy security, pollution reduction, and the creation of high-tech jobs. n53 The greatest disadvantage of wind power is the fact that it is intermittent. n54 [*600] Although measures such as raising automobile fuel efficiency standards are also a step in the right direction, the deployment of alternative, reliable energy sources is the most effective means to actually solve the current climate crisis. n55 As of January 2008 all the proposed and existing wind projects in the United States have so far produced 16,818.78 megawatts of energy. n56 Yet the United States, where wind power served nearly three million households at the end of 2006, is far behind Europe, where the wind power is projected to satisfy residential needs of 195 million Europeans by the year 2020. n57If constructed, Cape Wind would displace approximately 802 tons of sulfur-dioxide, 497 tons of nitrous-oxide, and 733,876 tons of carbon-dioxide, significantly improving air quality of southeastern Massachusetts and areas upwind from the farm. n58

Wind turbines key to reduce carbon emissions and solve warmingShahan, Cleantechniaand Planetsave director, 13[Zach, bachelors degree in environmental studies and sociology and a masters degree in city and regional planning, 10-31-13, The Energy Collective, Wind Energy Has Dramatically Cut Global Warming Pollution In The US, http://theenergycollective.com/zachshahan/294891/wind-power-has-dramatically-cut-global-warming-pollution-us, accessed 6-27-14, CLF]

First and foremost, reiterating arecent statement by the International Energy Agency, it seems that energy efficiency and energy conservation did. However, the other main contributor to the cut in global warming pollution was clearly renewable energy generation, especially generation fromwind energy. Wind power plants contributed a significant17.7 million MWh of additional electricity generation in 2012.If you are under the odd impression that more wind power doesnt equal less global warming pollution, please use some common sense and also check out a recent study we reported on that showshow little backup power is actually needed for wind power, even at relatively high penetration levels. In other words, accept the fact that wind power is extremely effective at cutting global warming pollution.AsREVEnotes: What lesson can we draw from this data? While some of the emissions reductions noted by the EPA are fleeting,wind energy is a key contributorto the long-lasting strategy for reducing U.S. carbon emissions.

Acting to solve climate change now is keyinvisible thresholdChestney, Reuters Staff Writer, 13(Nina, January 13, Huffington Post, " Climate Change Study: Emissions Limits Could Avoid Damage By Two-Thirds", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/climate-change-study-emissions-limits_n_2467995.html accessed: 6-29-14, CLF)

The world could avoid much of the damaging effects of climate change this century if greenhouse gas emissions are curbed more sharply, research showed on Sunday.The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first comprehensive assessment of the benefits of cutting emissions to keep the global temperature rise to within 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, a level which scientists say would avoid the worst effects of climate change.It found 20 to 65 percent of the adverse impacts by the end of this century could be avoided."Our research clearly identifies the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - less severe impacts on flooding and crops are two areas of particular benefit," said Nigel Arnell, director of the University of Reading's Walker Institute, which led the study.In 2010, governments agreed to curb emissions to keep temperatures from rising above 2 degrees C, but current emissions reduction targets are on track to lead to a temperature rise of 4 degrees or more by 2100.The World Bank has warned more extreme weather will become the "new normal" if global temperature rises by 4 degrees.Extreme heatwaves could devastate areas from the Middle East to the United States, while sea levels could rise by up to 91 cm (3 feet), flooding cities in countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, the bank has said.The latest research involved scientists from British institutions including the University of Reading, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, as well as Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.It examined a range of emissions-cut scenarios and their impact on factors including flooding, drought, water availability and crop productivity. The strictest scenario kept global temperature rise to 2 degrees C with emissions peaking in 2016 and declining by 5 percent a year to 2050.FLOODINGAdverse effects such as declining crop productivity and exposure to river flooding could be reduced by 40 to 65 percent by 2100 if warming is limited to 2 degrees, the study said.Global average sea level rise could be reduced to 30cm (12 inches) by 2100, compared to 47-55cm (18-22 inches) if no action to cut emissions is taken, it said.Some adverse climate impacts could also be delayed by many decades. The global productivity of spring wheat could drop by 20 percent by the 2050s, but the fall in yield could be delayed until 2100 if strict emissions curbs were enforced."Reducing greenhouse gas emissions won't avoid the impacts of climate change altogether of course, but our research shows it will buy time to make things like buildings, transport systems and agriculture more resilient to climate change," Arnell said.Plan Text

Draft Version of Plan:

The United States federal government should expand necessary incentives permitting, and siting to facilitate offshore wind power in the United States ocean Exclusive Economic Zones.Solvency

Offshore wind can power all of AmericaBureau of Ocean Energy Management, 12[BOEM, last cited NREL Technical report form 2012, BOEM, Offshore Wind Energy, http://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy-program/renewable-energy-guide/offshore-wind-energy.aspx, accessed 6-27-14, CLF]Offshore wind turbines are being used by a number of countries to harness the energy of strong, consistent winds that are found over the oceans. In the United States, 53% of the nations population lives in coastal areas, where energy costs and demands are high and land-based renewable energy resources are often limited. Abundant offshore wind resources have the potential to supply immense quantities of renewable energy to major U.S. coastal cities, such as New York City and Boston.Offshore winds tend to blow harder and more uniformly than on land. The potential energy produced from wind is directly proportional to the cube of the wind speed. As a result, increased wind speeds of only a few miles per hour can produce a significantly larger amount of electricity. For instance, a turbine at a site with an average wind speed of 16 mph would produce 50% more electricity than at a site with the same turbine and average wind speeds of 14 mph. This is one reason that developers are interested in pursuing offshore wind energy resources. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides a number of maps showing average wind speed data through itsResource Assessment & Characterizationpage and through National Renewable Energy Laboratorys (NREL)MapSearch.Wind resource potential is typically given in gigawatts (GW), and1 GW of wind power will supply between 225,000 to 300,000 average U.S. homes with power annually. In a July 2012Technical Report, NREL estimates a gross wind power resource of 4,223 GW off the coast of the United States. That is roughly four times the generating capacity of the current U.S. electric grid. Even if only a fraction of that potential is developed, clearly there is enough offshore wind resource to power a substantial portion of our nations energy needs.

Long term incentive program ensures development federal support jumpstarts the industryGallucci, InsideClimate News,clean economy reporter, 11[Maria, 10-10-11, Truth Out Loud org, Never-Used Tax Credit Could Jumpstart US Offshore Wind Energyif Renewed, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111108/offshore-wind-energy-deepwater-bluewater-rhode-island-delaware-investment-tax-credit, accessed 6-25-14, AZ]

Congress is considering overhauling a never-used tax credit for offshore wind energy instead of letting it expire at the end of next year, as was originally scheduled.The U.S. still doesn't have a single turbine in its waterscompared to the 1,250 turbines spinning at nearly 50 offshore wind farms in Europe. Several U.S. industry leaders and analysts told InsideClimate News this is unlikely to change unless the untapped incentive is renewed.The tax break, available since 2009, gives offshore wind developers a credit worth 30 percent their project costs if they begin construction by 2012. It was meant to help the dozen or so proposed wind parks get off the ground after the credit markets seized up.But no wind developer has been able to take advantage of it because they don't have approvals required under federal law to start building. An uncertain permitting process in Washington has left projects in regulatory limbo for as much as a decade.In part due to the permitting snags, "no bank has stood up and said they'll finance offshore wind" in the U.S., said Peter Mandelstam, founder and president of NRG Bluewater Wind, a subsidiary of New Jersey power producer NRG Energy.NRG Bluewater is now one of a handful offshore wind developers that's literally banking on Congress to preserve the tax credit as the Obama administration moves faster to approve projects. His firm has been trying to build a $1 billion-plus, 450-megawatt wind park off the coast of Delaware for five years now. Strong and steady winds at sea can generate more carbon-free electricity than wind blowing on land, but offshore turbines are expensiveat least 50 percent more to build than those on land.Our project is "not financeable" without a government kickstart, Mandelstam said.Capping Megawatts, Scrapping End DatesA new bipartisan bill, introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate, would keep the credit without any penalty for offshore permitting hiccups. And it would do so by scrapping the subsidy's expiration date and offering the same tax break for building America's first 3,000 megawattshowever long that takesenough to power more than one million typical U.S. homes. (The U.S. has nearly 43,500 megawatts of installed wind capacity, second behind China and all from turbines on land.)Capping megawatts, rather than setting a cutoff date, ensures that developers "are not under the gun in making it through a regulatory process that we largely do not control," said Jeffrey Grybowski, chief administrative officer at Providence, R.I.-based Deepwater Wind. The wind developer has proposed building three 1,000-megawatt wind parks along the Atlantic Coast and a 30-megawatt demonstration installation, known as Block Island, off Rhode Island."No project has made it into construction in the United States, so we are still very much uncertain about how long the regulatory process will take us all," he said.Cape Wind might be the most famous example of the industry's regulatory mess. The 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound, Mass., still bears its ten-year-old tagline "America's First Wind Farm," though many doubt if it will live up to its name.Despite landing a "power purchase" agreement last year with the regional utility National Grid to buy half of Cape Wind's electricityand becoming the first project to get all of its federal permits in January in the face of powerful local oppositionit continues to be saddled with regulatory woes. Most recently, a federal appeals court overturned the Federal Aviation Administration's conclusion that the turbines pose no threat to planes.Other projects, like NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park, may fare better on the regulatory front in the end, experts say.NRG Bluewater lined up a buyer for half its electricity in 2008, though getting all its permits is still a few years away. Nor has NRG Bluewater raised enough money from private investors, whose participation is key in covering the 70 percent financing gap left by the tax credit.Matt Kaplan, a North American wind analyst at IHS Emerging Energy Research, said removing the tax credit's end date could help lure investors by guaranteeing the government's support even if projects gets held up by bureaucracy or politics."Having a long-term incentive for offshore wind would help ... investors to feel a bit more comfortable with knowing what they can expect out of these projects," he said.But even if the bill passes Congress, attracting financing will remain a challenge for never-before-seen wind farms in America, said Amy Grace, a North American wind analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Most financiers prefer to invest only after the first generation of projects proves successful, she said. "Most banks want to be the first to invest in your second project."Still, the subsidy gives the industry at least a shot, she said. "The tax credit won't guarantee investment in the industry. But not having the tax credit will guarantee no investment in the industry."Why The Legislation May Have a ChanceSen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) introduced the Senate bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in July, in part to support NRG Bluewater's planned Delaware wind park.Carper, who chairs the Senate finance committee, said last month that he would meet with all six Senate members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to discuss the bill. The panel is tasked with creating a plan to curb $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit by Thanksgiving. Clean energy supporters in Congress have appealed to committee members in recent months to secure or extend tax credits for cleantech manufacturing and R&D.In the House, Reps. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) have proposed a companion bill that they say would help a 25-megawatt project by Fishermen's Energy get built off New Jersey's coastline.The 3,000-megawatt incentive would cost the U.S. Treasury roughly $1.5 billion, according to estimates provided to InsideClimate News by Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition, a lobbying group. The current tax credit, which the federal stimulus approved in 2009 for offshore and land-based wind, geothermal, biomass and other clean energy projects, costs roughly $3 billion.Grybowski of Rhode Island's Deepwater said he's optimistic the investment tax credit will be approved by Congress, despite the ideological resistance from some Republicans to continue Obama's green energy subsidies in the wake of the collapse of solar firm Solyndra, which received a $535 million federal loan."We have lots of strong support on both sides of the aisle," he said.One possible reason is that payments to the large-scale projects won't begin for five years. "We think it will take 10 years before those first 3,000 [megawatts] are used up," explained Lanard. He and other advocates of the bills hope this will sway a spending-averse Congress to okay the measure.Another selling point is jobs. Mandelstam of NRG Bluewater said the first 200 megawatts of its Delaware project would create 500 construction and supply chain jobs over three yearsa point he aims to drive home to lawmakers.According to the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Obama administration's goal to deploy 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity in the next decade and 54,000 megawatts by 2030, would create more than 43,000 permanent jobs and generate around $200 billion in new economy activity.A large chunk of that growth would come from luring global turbine and equipment manufacturers to set up shop along the Atlantic Coast, developers say. Lanard noted that making one offshore wind turbine requires some 8,000 parts from hundreds of different companies.Mandelstam, who also heads the offshore group of the American Wind Energy Association, said he often plays "matchmaker" between European manufacturers and legislators and governors in coastal states, in an effort to entice them to open factories in the U.S. But manufacturers aren't likely to follow until turbines are out at sea, he said. "The supply chain will follow the projects."Along with creating jobs, a domestic network of suppliers and skilled technicians could significantly cut the cost of building an offshore wind farm in the U.S., which right now "is higher than it would be for a comparable project in northern Europe, where there's a developed supply chain," Deepwater's Grybowski said.Who Will Build the First Offshore Wind Farm?Meanwhile, the race to build America's first floating wind farm is on. At this point Deepwater's proposed 30-megawatt Block Island demo installation off Rhode Island appears to be leadingin part because it doesn't need government financing.The tax credit is "less critical for the Block Island wind farm because it is a smaller project," Grybowski said. The project, which includes an underwater network of transmission cables to carry electricity from wind turbines to the mainland, is expected to cost around $250 million. Permits could be wrapped up by 2013, and the turbines, which would produce enough power for 12,000 homes on the island, could go up that same year."We are confident that we will have a financing package in place to allow the project to proceed," Grybowski said. But for larger wind farms, he added, federal support is "critical."For now it's still anyone's guess which utility-scale wind part will be up and running firstand by when.If the tax credit is extended, the first payments for big projects would likely be dispensed in five years or later and divvied up among the leadersCape Wind, NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park and Deepwater's trio of 1,000-megawatt projects.Cape Wind and NRG Bluewater are the furthest along. NRG Bluewater says it expects to wrap up all the necessary permitting by 2014. It could sign a lease even sooner from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which is expected to start leasing blocks off the coasts of Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia by the end of this year. (The developer is also seeking to build an additional 2,000 megawatts off Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.)Theoretically, winds blowing off the Atlantic Coast's Outer Continental Shelf could provide more than 1,000 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power 800 million average homes. But it's not just the Atlantic states that are vying for offshore renewable energy.Ohio wants to build a 20-megawatt demo on Lake Erie. Off the coast of Galveston, Tex., developer Coastal Point Energy is proposing a 12-megawatt project. It suffered a setback this summer after utility Austin Energy turned down the developer's proposal for a power purchase agreement. Eventually, Coastal Point hopes to build 300 megawatts at the site and 2,100 more megawatts throughout the area.The key for the entire U.S. offshore wind industry will be consistent government support, say the developers. "Stability in tax and regulatory policies will go a long way toward helping this industry develop in the United States," Grybowski said.

Strong federal mandate is key to development an aggressive mandate overcomes barriers blocking developmentSchroeder, University of California-Berkeley, School of Law JD, 10[Erica, October 2010, University of Cal, Berkeley, School of Law, Turning Offshore Wind On, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=californialawreview, p.1, AAZ]

Both state and federal governments share control over offshore wind project siting approval and permitting. Geography determines the jurisdiction of each: state governments control their respective Coastal Zones, from the baseline of their shores out three nautical miles, n92 and the federal government controls the Outer Continental Shelf beyond that. n93 Offshore wind turbines are typically located on the Outer Continental Shelf; n94 thus, the federal government sites and permits this component of an offshore wind project. n95 To get the electricity to consumers on land, however, offshore wind projects must necessarily include transmission lines from the turbines, through state waters and onto land. State governments control the siting and permitting of these [*1643] transmission lines. n96 Both federal and state jurisdiction are described in more detail later, along with the CZMA. The CZMA provides the primary mechanisms for balancing state and federal interests in coastal waters. n97 It leaves states with substantial discretionary power and no federal mandate regarding offshore wind power development, despite its undertones of environmental protection.A. Federal JurisdictionFederal jurisdiction begins more than three nautical miles from the shore, along the Outer Continental Shelf, and ends two hundred nautical miles out to sea. n98 Analyses of offshore wind capacity typically assume that wind farms will be built in federal waters, more than five miles from the coast. n99 Thus, federal jurisdiction covers the generation component of an offshore wind project, mainly the turbines. n100 This includes site approval and permitting for project construction. n101Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 grants the Department of the Interior (DOI) primary authority over offshore wind farm approval and permitting. n102 Section 388 specifies that the Minerals Management Service (MMS), a branch of DOI, controls the offshore wind facility permitting process; the Secretary of the Interior makes the final permitting decision. n103 This grant of authority extends MMS's existing authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which gives it management rights over the Outer Continental Shelf primarily for offshore fossil fuel extraction. n104 Because of MMS's experience with managing offshore oil and gas extraction, Congress deemed it the proper body for offshore wind permitting as well. n105 Opponents of the decision have been concerned with MMS's lack of experience with marine habitat regulation and protection. n106 Fortunately, MMS appears receptive to coordinating with other agencies with relevant experience, like the Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Coast Guard, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well [*1644] as appropriate state actors. n107Section 388 came in response to controversy over which federal agency had permitting authority during the early stages of the Cape Wind project, which is described in more detail in Part IV. While Section 388 does not resolve all of the issues relating to federal jurisdiction over offshore wind, n108 its designation of MMS as the primary permitting agency marks Congress's first step toward a unified review process for offshore alternative energy. n109 Nonetheless, the current federal regulatory environment for offshore wind remains confusing. In April 2009, President Obama took a first step toward remedying some of that confusion by announcing a coordinated program, headed by DOI, for federal offshore renewable energy permitting. The program will cover not only offshore wind power generation, but also other offshore renewable energy, such as electricity generated from ocean currents. n110 Despite this progress toward an improved federal regulatory program, barriers to offshore wind power still exist, largely due to the absence of a strong and effective federal mandate promoting offshore wind power development and the powers that states retain over project siting. n111B. State JurisdictionUnder the Submerged Lands Act, state jurisdiction generally covers ocean territory three miles or less from the coast, n112 an area known as the Coastal Zone. n113 As noted previously, any electricity generated in an offshore facility must be transmitted to land through the state controlled Coastal Zone. Therefore, state - and sometimes local - authorities ultimately have a role to play in any offshore wind project through the siting and permitting of transmission cables that are necessary to bring electricity from the turbines to land. Although state and localities may only exert direct control over the permitting of transmission cables, they will almost certainly consider the impact of the generation turbines on their aesthetic view environment. They know that denying transmission permits effectively stalls or destroys the construction of generation facilities. States will also likely consider such [*1645] aesthetic and environmental considerations in the federal consistency review process, with which they may also block federal activities and permits. n114 Federal consistency review is a component of the CZMA, and will be described in more detail below.Because most of the costs of offshore wind power development are local, there is a strong argument for state and local control over offshore wind project siting: because localities must deal with the downsides of offshore wind projects, they should control where those projects are placed. n115 On the other hand, there are broader, positive effects of offshore wind power development - such as energy security improvement and environmental benefits like climate change mitigation - that imply a need for stronger federal intervention to balance appropriately the costs and benefits of offshore wind. n116 The CZMA attempts to provide a formal structure for such balancing, but it ultimately leaves the states with too much power, and the federal government and offshore wind farm proponents with no formal federal encouragement or support.C. The Coastal Zone Management Act: Attempting to Reconcile Local Interests with National PrioritiesThe overarching goal of the CZMA is "to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations." n117 The CZMA mentions the development of energy facilities in the Coastal Zone, but its language is vague, and generally requires only that states undertake "adequate consideration of the national interest" in siting energy facilities, and "give consideration" to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program. n118 The CZMA also mentions energy with regard to funding for development: "The national objective of attaining a greater degree of energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by providing Federal financial assistance to meet state and local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activity in or affecting the coastal zone." n119 However, the CZMA does not mention offshore wind energy or renewable energy at all.Although the CZMA acknowledges the "national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone," n120 it allows states substantial discretion over their coastal zone management through CZMPs, which the Secretary of Commerce oversees. n121 As noted previously, the Submerged Lands Act defines state coastal zones as [*1646] three miles from the shoreline. n122 The CZMA mechanism of federal consistency review extends state power further, past their coastal zones, by allowing states to review and sometimes overrule federal actions and permits in federal waters. n123Before the CZMA was promulgated, the coastal zone had long been subject to decentralized management. n124 The CZMA continues this tradition with its own approach to federalism, explicitly encouraging cooperation between local, state, and federal levels of government in their management of coastal resources. n125 Specifically, under the CZMA, each state makes its own CZMP. n126 The CZMA provides a variety of policy considerations for states to incorporate into their management programs. Prioritizing construction of certain facilities, specifically energy facilities, in states' coastal zones is one of several listed considerations. n127 Others include protecting natural resources; minimizing the loss of life and property to flooding and sea level rise; improving coastal water quality; allowing public recreational access to the coast; restoring urban waterfronts and preserving coastal features; coordinating and simplifying governmental management procedures for coastal resources; consulting and coordinating with federal agencies; giving timely and effective notice for public and local participation in governmental decision making; comprehensive planning for marine resource preservation; and studying sea level rise and land subsidence. n128 The Secretary of Commerce examines states' CZMPs, making sure they are in accordance with the CZMA's policy considerations and other mandates, and any other federal regulations. n129 In particular, the CZMA requires that states adequately consider the national interest in "siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of greater than local significance. In the case of energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the State has given consideration to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program." n130 Once approved by the Secretary of Commerce, however, state CZMPs are subject to very little federal constraint under the CZMA, leaving states with nearly complete discretion within their coastal zones.State control is expanded by federal consistency review, n131 a mechanism unique to the CZMA. Consistency review allows a state to review a federal agency activity or permit within or outside of the coastal zone for compatibility [*1647] with the state's CZMP when the activity or permit affects the state's coastal zone. n132 Under this mechanism, the federal agency must submit a "consistency determination" (for an activity) or "consistency certification" (for a permit) to the state before moving forward with the project. n133 For federal permits, which would be more relevant to offshore renewable development than federal actions, the state then has the opportunity to concur with or object to the agency's certification. n134 "No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state ... has concurred with the applicant's certification." n135 Thus, a coastal state's control extends beyond its own coastal zone into federal waters, as it has the ability to review - and potentially block - any project that affects their coastal zone. In the end, however, the Secretary of Commerce - by her own initiative or in response to an appeal - can overrule the state's protest by finding that a permit is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or otherwise in the interest of national security. n136Since the passage of the CZMA in 1972 until March 2010, states had filed 141 appeals with the Secretary protesting federal permits affecting their coastal zones. n137 States settled their issues with the federal government in 64 instances, or 45 percent of these cases. n138 The Secretary dismissed or overrode state appeals in 32 instances, or 23 percent of these cases. n139 Of the remaining 45 appeals that the Secretary considered for their substance, the Secretary overrode the state's objection in 14 cases, or 31 percent of the time, and accepted the state's objection in 30 cases, or 67 percent of the time. n140 Only 19 of the 45 appeals related to energy facilities, but all of these related to oil or natural gas projects; the Secretary overrode these appeals about half of the time. n141 Although states do not choose to use their federal consistency review power over federal permits frequently, as these numbers show, it is nonetheless a powerful tool that extends their power beyond their coastal zones.Ultimately, the CZMA, with its focus on decentralized, state control over coastal-zone management, leaves the federal government and offshore wind proponents with minimal recourse in their struggle to develop offshore wind [*1648] projects. The CZMA allows states near-complete control over their coastal zones through their CZMPs, with almost no role for the federal government in promoting offshore wind energy (or any kind of renewable energy). Because electricity transmission lines must necessarily run through states' coastal zones to reach consumers, states therefore have significant control over offshore wind projects. Through federal consistency review, their direct control can even extend into federal waters; though states have not often employed this process, the Secretary of Commerce has seemed willing to give them some deference when they do. Given a policy of such strong local control, and the absence of a firm federal mandate for offshore wind power development, local interests have been able to stall both federal and state permitting processes, often through litigation. Proponents of offshore wind have little federal support, and no guaranteed source of state support, on which to rely. Cape Wind presents a compelling and frustrating illustration of this problem.

Federal preemptions solves current regulatory system avoids delay and still maintains environmental regulationsEberhardt, Harvard JD, 6[Robert W., 2006, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 374, FEDERALISM AND THE SITING OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY FACILITIES, p.1, Lexis, AAZ]

Changes to regulatory regimes that govern the use of submerged lands likely will play a central role in state policy development on offshore wind energy. Apart from withholding approval of proposed amendments to a state's coastal management program, the federal government has limited recourse under current law to prevent states from adopting overly-restrictive siting policies that provide for inadequate consideration of positive interstate spillovers such as air quality improvements or greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The coordination problems and international dimensions of climate change present particularly acute theoretical concerns about the ability of states to implement welfare-maximizing policies. n185 Accordingly, federal legislation may be required to insure full consideration of the environmental benefits promised by would-be developers of offshore wind energy facilities.States generally have demonstrated an ability to consider horizontal spillovers in their policies towards offshore wind energy that cuts against calls for federal legislative action at this time. New York has taken the particularly aggressive step of actively participating in the development process of the Long Island Offshore Wind Farm, and notwithstanding the controversy surrounding Cape Wind, legislative proposals in Massachusetts leave open the possibility of development of offshore wind energy [*418] facilities in state waters. n186 New Jersey's approach, which has included a temporary moratorium on development, raises concerns, but final judgment must be reserved until the state's Blue Ribbon Panel on Development of Wind Turbine Facilities in Coastal Waters has issued its final recommendations and the political branches have responded. n187 Furthermore, the general posture of state and federal climate change policies does not indicate that coordination problems dissuade state action on climate change generally. n188 On the contrary, if anything the states poised to host offshore wind energy facilities in the near future have been more aggressive than the federal government in attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. n189In the future, if states definitively show inattention to positive horizontal spillovers, then Congress should consider legislation on offshore wind energy facilities that preempts state regulation of submerged lands. Section 311 of the EPAct of 2005, which addresses siting of liquefied natural gas ("LNG") terminals, represents one model for future legislation that has garnered recent congressional support. Section 311 provides that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") "shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal." n190 This language likely preempts more restrictive state health, safety, or welfare laws that regulate siting or construction of LNG facilities, although Section 311 explicitly reserves the rights afforded to states under several federal environmental laws (including the CZMA) and provides states with opportunities to consult with FERC on safety concerns related to pending applications. n191Section 311 clearly illustrates the ability for federal legislation to strip states of regulatory authority given sufficient political support at the national level. The uniform regulatory regimes that result from such federal action provide for less geographic [*419] variation in environmental preferences, but they have a theoretical basis if they address failures by states to consider positive horizontal spillovers. If states fail to adequately consider positive spillovers that potentially result from offshore wind energy facilities, federal legislation akin to Section 311 would be justified.ConclusionThe growing general interest in wind energy development and the dispute surrounding Cape Wind has spurred considerable commentary and legislative activity that stands to shape the extent and direction of offshore wind energy development in the United States. There will be additional opportunities to evaluate theoretical assumptions underlying the environmental regulation of this promising clean energy technology as policies continue to mature through future legislative and administrative activity and as sponsors seek approval to develop additional projects. In this dynamic context, this Note attempts to begin a discussion about how issues of federalism will influence and should inform the environmental regulation of offshore wind energy development. As a descriptive matter, states in the short term will continue to play a central role in determining which projects ultimately obtain the necessary regulatory approvals. As a normative matter, a prominent state role is theoretically justified (at least for near-shore projects), on the basis of a generalized analysis of the environmental impacts expected to result from offshore wind energy projects. However, important environmental impacts - reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, in particular - that may result from offshore wind energy projects provide strong justifications for federal oversight, particularly in the event that states fail to consider out-of-state environmental benefits as they design regulatory regimes and make siting decisions. In light of these claims, the federal government should adopt policies that encourage siting decisions that consider interstate spillovers while at the same time reflect individual coastal states' particular environmental priorities. Federal agencies can implement such policies in the context of the Department of the Interior's imminent rulemaking pursuant to Section 388 of the EPAct of 2005, although future federal legislation with preemptive effects ultimately may be necessary in the event that the state regulatory regimes develop that fail to consider positive interstate spillovers.

On-CaseInherency

Regulatory Reforms Necessary

Status quo doesnt solve too many regulations prevent plan from being effectivePuliafico, Ullian & Associates Lawyer, 12[Amy, 2011, Suffolk University Law School, Offshore Wind: What Steps Need to be Taken to Ensure it has a Future in America, https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/jhtl_publications/pulicafico.pdf, Accessed 6-30-14, CX, Page 364]

The first issue with the current federal regulatory scheme is the lack of uniformity and clarity of procedure and policy across the government branches and agencies. According to the Department of Energy, there are at least six other government organizations with policies on wind siting. The Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are the key players involved in the process. The sheer amount of agencies with an opinion and regulatory authority over offshore wind creates a complicated problem. In addition to the agencies and departments, other federal opinions have a significant impact on wind energy development. President Obama, in his 2011 State of the Union address, made green energy a priority. He set an ambitious goal of producing eighty percent of Americas electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. In order to achieve that goal, there will need to be a clear government permitting and development plan for this type of energy. As a first step the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy signed a Memorandum of Understanding in June 2010. The agreement focuses on commercialscale offshore wind energy and provides the outline for a working relationship so the departments can develop it efficiently. Noticeably absent from the discussion is Congress. There is currently no federal legislation governing offshore wind energy development. Cape Wind proves that Congress needs to enact a regulatory scheme including an affirmative statement by Congress of its position on offshore wind energy development, a defined coordinate permitting procedure... and an expedited regulatory process for future projects. There are too many agencies with divergent objectives currently; Congress needs to outline the federal governments role and policies.

Status quo wind policy fails we need streamlined permitting and leasing processPuliafico, Ullian & Associates Lawyer, 12[Amy, 2011, Suffolk University Law School, Offshore Wind: What Steps Need to be Taken to Ensure it has a Future in America, https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/jhtl_publications/pulicafico.pdf, Accessed 6-30-14, CX, Page 361]

Cape Wind has somehow overcome ten years of litigation and found its way through unchartered state and federal permitting process to become the nations first permitted offshore wind farm. Hopefully this tumultuous process will provide the motivation and incentive to fix the system. Currently there is no real permitting or leasing process, which is slowing down the development of this green energy. States need to develop ocean plans with designated areas for offshore green energy, along with a concise system of permitting with clear standards and process for judicial review. The federal government has attempted many of these suggestions through the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. If the BOEM continues to become more efficient and begins to speak for the rest of the government agencies, as well as the President and Congress, then progress will be likely. Finally states need to work with the federal government and each other in an efficient manner. Offshore wind farms can become a prominent future in the United States if the government makes the changes to keep up with this new technology.

AT Enough Wind Now

Offshore wind has yet to take roots in the U.S.Wald, New York Times Energy Reporter, Cardwell, New York Times Business and energy reporter, 14(Matthew & Diane, 5-7-14, NYT, U.S. Awards 3 Wind Power Grants, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/business/energy-environment/us-awards-3-wind-power-grants.html?_r=0, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)The long-promised potential of offshore wind development along American coastlines took a step toward fruition on Wednesday as the Department of Energy pledged up to $47 million each to three projects it previously supported.The grants are intended to help the projects, off the coasts of New Jersey, Oregon and Virginia, begin delivering electricity by 2017.Offshore wind offers a large, untapped energy resource for the United States that can create thousands of manufacturing, construction and supply chain jobs across the country and drive billions of dollars in local economic investment, Ernest J. Moniz, the energy secretary, said in a statement.The announcement represents the next phase of an Energy Department push to invigorate the industry by promoting innovation to help bring the cost of offshore wind power into line with that of conventional electricity production.It came on the same day that Siemens said it would move the headquarters of its power-generating operations to the United States, not only to capitalize on the booming oil and gas industries but also with an eye on the potential growth of the offshore wind industry.Far more advanced in Europe, the harnessing of offshore wind has yet to take root in the United States. It has been stymied by engineering, permitting and financing challenges, as well as political and community opposition in some corners.

AT Cape Wind Solves

Cap Wind is not enough to solve affonly power 10,000 homes in Massachusetts BOEM, Ocean Management Governmental Organization, 13*(BOEM, 2013*, BOEM, Cape Wind, http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Studies/Cape-Wind.aspx, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)The project footprint will occupy approximately 25 square miles of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and consist of 130, 3.6 megawatt (MW) wind turbine generators mounted on monopole foundations, each with a maximum blade height of 440 feet. The total capacity of the project is 468 MWs, and with an average anticipated output of 183MW, is projected to generate 1,600 gigawatt-hours/year. At average expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough energy to power tens of thousands of homes in Massachusetts. Each of the wind turbine generators will generate electricity independently, and solid dielectric inner-array cables will funnel the electricity from each wind turbine generator to an electrical service platform located in the middle of the array. The electrical service platform will collect all of the power and send it to a landfall location in the Town of Yarmouth, Massachusetts via two 115 kV submarine transmission cables. The electricity generated from the project will help satisfy demand in Massachusetts and other New England States. In fact, the average expected production from the wind facility could provide about 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod and the Islands of Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket. The renewable energy generated from the project also will assist in satisfying the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires a certain percentage of total State electricity generation to come from renewable energy resources.[NOTE *Last Date Cited]Solvency

Certainty

Uncertain federal support is the only thing holding offshore wind back-plan solves investment Mahan, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy renewable energy manager, et al., 10[Simon, Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana senior campaign director, Isaac Pearlman, Oceana climate campaign intern, 9-10, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can Deliver Cleaner, More Affordable Energy and More Jobs Than Offshore Oil, http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 5, accessed 6-30-14, AKS]

Renewable energy projects and manufacturers are more likely to proceed if there are consistent, predictable signals from governments and private markets to stimulate investments. Over the past several decades, onshore wind energy in the United States has periodically had access to tax benefits. Unfortunately, these have been short-term commitments, renewed annually, which provide inadequate assurance to those considering long-term investments. When these renewals end, the industry will likely constrict. As a result, fewer planned projects have been completed than what might otherwise occur with a more consistent signal from the government.106 This boom-and-bust, year-to-year uncertainty harms the onshore wind industry and must not be allowed to extend offshore. In order to create a consistent and predictable environment for offshore wind energy, the United States must:Increase and make permanent the tax credit for investment in advanced energy property outlined in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. This legislation extends the 30 percent credit for investment in qualified property used in a qualified advanced energy manufacturing project, but ends in 2012.107 In addition,, these tax credits should be extended to manufacturers of offshore wind turbine components and turbine installation vessels.Increase and make permanent the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program for opening, expanding or modernizing facilities to manufacture offshore wind turbine components and extend this program to turbine installation vessel manufacturing.Use policy mechanisms that increase the long-term demand for and supply of renewable energies, such as a robust Renewable Electricity Standard or Feed-in Tariffs, Production and Investment Tax Credits, Loan Guarantee programs for renewable energy projects and technology manufacturers and training programs.Accelerate the electrification of the transportation fleet through incentives to automobile manufacturers and purchasers and by building the needed infrastructure such as charging stations to allow maximal use of this new technology.

Regulatory Reform

Empirically, regulatory processes with offshore wind energy are flawedPowell, Boston University Law School JD Candidate, 13(Timothy, 2013, REVISITING FEDERALISM CONCERNS IN THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY IN LIGHT OF CONTINUED LOCAL OPPOSITION TO THE CAPE WIND PROJECT, http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume92n4/documents/POWELL.pdf Pg. 2053, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

The experience of Cape Wind has demonstrated that the current regulatory scheme for offshore wind energy is flawed. The policy of the federal government is to promote wind energy, and there is great potential for offshore wind energy development throughout the United States. Yet the test case for U.S. offshore wind energy, to which the eyes of all potential developers are fixed, remains stuck in regulatory limbo. The federal government, perhaps overeager in its approval of the Cape Wind project at every turn, has found its decisions challenged aggressively by local opposition groups and even in one instance overruled by the judiciary. The proposal presented in this Note acknowledges the reality of the predominately local impact of offshore wind facilities and suggests that the interests of potential developers and local citizens alike would be better served with permitting power in the hands of the states instead of the federal government. There is nothing intrinsic to this proposal that would lead to an increase in offshore wind development. Indeed, the Cape Wind project itself may very well not be approved if Massachusetts were to fully control the permitting process. But potential developers would face less uncertainty and fewer wasted resources with permitting power vested in the states. State legislatures could craft their own policies reflecting their citizens interests in pursuing offshore wind energy, allowing for more efficient management of local opposition. Offshore wind energy developers, in turn, could choose among the states that offer the most favorable environment for development. The result would be more certainty surrounding the expected costs of development, and thus a more efficient allocation of the nations offshore wind energy resources.

Tax Incentives

Long term incentive program ensures development federal support jumpstarts the industryGallucci, InsideClimate News Clean Economy Reporter , 2011[Maria, 10-10-11, Truth Out Loud org, Never-Used Tax Credit Could Jumpstart US Offshore Wind Energyif Renewed, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111108/offshore-wind-energy-deepwater-bluewater-rhode-island-delaware-investment-tax-credit, accessed 6-25-14, AZ]

Congress is considering overhauling a never-used tax credit for offshore wind energy instead of letting it expire at the end of next year, as was originally scheduled.The U.S. still doesn't have a single turbine in its waterscompared to the 1,250 turbines spinning at nearly 50 offshore wind farms in Europe. Several U.S. industry leaders and analysts told InsideClimate News this is unlikely to change unless the untapped incentive is renewed.The tax break, available since 2009, gives offshore wind developers a credit worth 30 percent their project costs if they begin construction by 2012. It was meant to help the dozen or so proposed wind parks get off the ground after the credit markets seized up.But no wind developer has been able to take advantage of it because they don't have approvals required under federal law to start building. An uncertain permitting process in Washington has left projects in regulatory limbo for as much as a decade.In part due to the permitting snags, "no bank has stood up and said they'll finance offshore wind" in the U.S., said Peter Mandelstam, founder and president of NRG Bluewater Wind, a subsidiary of New Jersey power producer NRG Energy.NRG Bluewater is now one of a handful offshore wind developers that's literally banking on Congress to preserve the tax credit as the Obama administration moves faster to approve projects. His firm has been trying to build a $1 billion-plus, 450-megawatt wind park off the coast of Delaware for five years now. Strong and steady winds at sea can generate more carbon-free electricity than wind blowing on land, but offshore turbines are expensiveat least 50 percent more to build than those on land.Our project is "not financeable" without a government kickstart, Mandelstam said.Capping Megawatts, Scrapping End DatesA new bipartisan bill, introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate, would keep the credit without any penalty for offshore permitting hiccups. And it would do so by scrapping the subsidy's expiration date and offering the same tax break for building America's first 3,000 megawattshowever long that takesenough to power more than one million typical U.S. homes. (The U.S. has nearly 43,500 megawatts of installed wind capacity, second behind China and all from turbines on land.)Capping megawatts, rather than setting a cutoff date, ensures that developers "are not under the gun in making it through a regulatory process that we largely do not control," said Jeffrey Grybowski, chief administrative officer at Providence, R.I.-based Deepwater Wind. The wind developer has proposed building three 1,000-megawatt wind parks along the Atlantic Coast and a 30-megawatt demonstration installation, known as Block Island, off Rhode Island."No project has made it into construction in the United States, so we are still very much uncertain about how long the regulatory process will take us all," he said.Cape Wind might be the most famous example of the industry's regulatory mess. The 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound, Mass., still bears its ten-year-old tagline "America's First Wind Farm," though many doubt if it will live up to its name.Despite landing a "power purchase" agreement last year with the regional utility National Grid to buy half of Cape Wind's electricityand becoming the first project to get all of its federal permits in January in the face of powerful local oppositionit continues to be saddled with regulatory woes. Most recently, a federal appeals court overturned the Federal Aviation Administration's conclusion that the turbines pose no threat to planes.Other projects, like NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park, may fare better on the regulatory front in the end, experts say.NRG Bluewater lined up a buyer for half its electricity in 2008, though getting all its permits is still a few years away. Nor has NRG Bluewater raised enough money from private investors, whose participation is key in covering the 70 percent financing gap left by the tax credit.Matt Kaplan, a North American wind analyst at IHS Emerging Energy Research, said removing the tax credit's end date could help lure investors by guaranteeing the government's support even if projects gets held up by bureaucracy or politics."Having a long-term incentive for offshore wind would help ... investors to feel a bit more comfortable with knowing what they can expect out of these projects," he said.But even if the bill passes Congress, attracting financing will remain a challenge for never-before-seen wind farms in America, said Amy Grace, a North American wind analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Most financiers prefer to invest only after the first generation of projects proves successful, she said. "Most banks want to be the first to invest in your second project."Still, the subsidy gives the industry at least a shot, she said. "The tax credit won't guarantee investment in the industry. But not having the tax credit will guarantee no investment in the industry."Why The Legislation May Have a ChanceSen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) introduced the Senate bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in July, in part to support NRG Bluewater's planned Delaware wind park.Carper, who chairs the Senate finance committee, said last month that he would meet with all six Senate members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to discuss the bill. The panel is tasked with creating a plan to curb $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit by Thanksgiving. Clean energy supporters in Congress have appealed to committee members in recent months to secure or extend tax credits for cleantech manufacturing and R&D.In the House, Reps. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) have proposed a companion bill that they say would help a 25-megawatt project by Fishermen's Energy get built off New Jersey's coastline.The 3,000-megawatt incentive would cost the U.S. Treasury roughly $1.5 billion, according to estimates provided to InsideClimate News by Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition, a lobbying group. The current tax credit, which the federal stimulus approved in 2009 for offshore and land-based wind, geothermal, biomass and other clean energy projects, costs roughly $3 billion.Grybowski of Rhode Island's Deepwater said he's optimistic the investment tax credit will be approved by Congress, despite the ideological resistance from some Republicans to continue Obama's green energy subsidies in the wake of the collapse of solar firm Solyndra, which received a $535 million federal loan."We have lots of strong support on both sides of the aisle," he said.One possible reason is that payments to the large-scale projects won't begin for five years. "We think it will take 10 years before those first 3,000 [megawatts] are used up," explained Lanard. He and other advocates of the bills hope this will sway a spending-averse Congress to okay the measure.Another selling point is jobs. Mandelstam of NRG Bluewater said the first 200 megawatts of its Delaware project would create 500 construction and supply chain jobs over three yearsa point he aims to drive home to lawmakers.According to the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Obama administration's goal to deploy 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity in the next decade and 54,000 megawatts by 2030, would create more than 43,000 permanent jobs and generate around $200 billion in new economy activity.A large chunk of