Offshore Wind Affirmative and Negative - JDI 2014

Offshore Wind Starter PackOffshore Wind Starter Pack1Affirmative51AC6Contention 1: Inherency7Contention 2: Warming8The Plan13Contention 3: Solvency14Contention __: Economy17Inherency Extensions21Regulatory Uncertainty22Investment Low Now23Must Invest Capital24ITC25Solvency Extensions26Generic27Fossil Fuels28ITC29Warming31Jobs33Manufacturing34Output35Sustainability37Biodiversity38Coral Reefs/Fish39Federal Policy41Federal Permits42Federal Loan Guarantees43Government Investment Key44AT: Infrastructure Destruction45AT: Construction Hurts Biodiversity46AT: Proximity and Transmission47AT: Onshore48AT: Other Renewables49AT: Birds50AT: Noise Pollution52AT: General Case Turns54AT: Case Outweighs55Warming Extensions56Warming is Real - Rahmstorf57Warming is Real - Scientific Consensus60Must Act Now62Prefer our Science63Brink65Internals Economy66Internals Feedbacks67Internals Ocean Feedbacks68Internals Biodiversity70Internals Ocean Biodiversity72Impacts Extinction73Impacts Biodiversity74Impacts War75Modelling Solvency77AT: Ice Age/Cooling78AT: CO2/Agriculture Turn80AT: Warming doesnt Kill Oceans81AT: Warming Inevitable82AT: Models Flawed83Ocean Biodiversity Brink84Ocean Biodiversity Plankton85Ocean Acidification86Ocean Acidification Biodiversity87Ocean Acidification AT: Not Anthropogenic88Economy Extensions89Uniqueness90Ports No Investment Now91Internals Manufacturing Sector92Internals Competiveness94Internals Electricity Prices95Impacts Nuclear War96Impacts Biodiversity97AT: Offcase98AT: States CP99AT: Federalism DA104AT: Disadvantage / Turn Uniqueness109AT: Politics Bipartisan Support110AT: Agency CPs111Negative112AT: Inherency113AT: Warming114No Warming Temperatures Stable115No Warming Cooling Now116Warming Inevitable117Not Human Induced118No Runaway Warming119No Consensus120AT: Computer Models121AT: Ocean Temperatures122AT: Positive Feedbacks123AT: Reducing Emissions124AT: Extinction Impact125AT: Ocean Acidification Impact126AT: Biodiversity Impact127AT: Economy Impact128AT: War Impact129Offense Biodiversity130Offense CO2 Good131Offense CO2 Good for Agriculture133Impact Calculus War Outweighs135Impact Calculus War = Climate136Wind Xs Biodiversity Avian Collisions137Wind Xs Biodiversity Noise Pollution138AT: Economy139Econ Up140AT: U.S. Key141AT: Impacts142AT: Jobs143AT: Jobs - Bad Methods144AT: Jobs - No New Employment145AT: Manufacturing High Now146AT: Manufacturing No IL148AT: Manufacturing Industry Exports Now149AT: Manufacturing Wind Not Key150AT: Manufacturing Not Key to Economy151AT: Solvency152General Solvency Answers153AT: Wind Solves Warming154Barges/Vessels156Rare Earth Mineral Shortage157Timeframe159Cables Takeout160No Investors161PTC Fails162ITC Fails164Technology Fails165No Infrastructure168Too Costly169Onshore Wind High Solves Better170West Coast171Offense Increases Warming172Offense Increases Emissions174Offcase175States Solve RPS176States Solve Maryland177Politics Link - Generic178Politics Link Financial Incentives179Politics Link GOP Hates the Plan182Birds Link183

Affirmative1ACContention 1: InherencyA. Cost competitiveness is the primary barrier to development current tax credits are necessary but not sufficient to solve.Hahn and Gilman 13Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman, principal investigators for Navigant Consulting, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis: Annual Market Assessment, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdfFor the U.S. to maximize offshore wind development, the most critical need continues to be stimulation of demand through addressing cost competitiveness. In 2013, this critical need was partially addressed through an extension of the U.S. Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC), the Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC), and the 50 percent first-year bonus depreciation allowance. In addition, the U.S. DOE announced seven projects that will receive up to $4 million each to complete engineering and planning as the first phase of the Offshore Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Program. On the state level, the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 established Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Credits for up to 200 MW, requiring consideration of peak load price suppression and limiting rate impacts. B. Private investment is unlikely without federal financing and long term regulatory stability.Hahn and Gilman 13Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman, principal investigators for Navigant Consulting, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis: Annual Market Assessment, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdfAs independent power producers (IPPs) predominantly drive the development of offshore wind projects in the United States, offshore developers in the United States are unlikely to self-finance projects through balance sheet financing and will therefore need access to project financing. The banks likely to participate in U.S. offshore projects initially will be those European banks that have offshore project financing experience in Europe. They will likely assess U.S. projects in the same way that they assess European ones. However, pricing and other market conditions may be subject to the terms of the U.S. wind project finance market, which at times have deviated from European terms and conditions. Given the size of proposed offshore wind projects in the United States, the support of government agencies could be critical, via loans or loan guarantees. As discussed in Section 2, offshore wind investors and lenders in Europe rely on support schemes that provide long-term revenue stream stability, either directly through feed-in tariffs (FiTs) or public payments, such as green certificates, or indirectly through long-term PPAs made possible by the underlying regime. Projects in the United States to date, such as those in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, rely upon income received from regulated PPAs that provide a fixed price per MWh produced that is well above the wholesale price. Another support regime that has been proposed in New Jersey is the Offshore Wind Renewable Energy Certificate (OREC) system, which, as a contract for differences, is not that different from a FiT. Both systems are expected to be bankable, as they provide sufficient price support to make projects economically viable. The European experience shows that many different regulatory regimes can be successful, as long as the overall price level is compatible with the current installation costs of offshore wind and there is sufficient regulatory stability to cover the relatively long development and construction process.

Contention 2: WarmingA. Warming is real and human caused-4 reasons Prothero 12(M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in geological sciences from Columbia University, and a B.A. in geology and biology from the University of California, Riverside, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused Skeptic. Altadena: 2012. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; pg. 14, 10 pgs, proquest)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 al. (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 die 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, die 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),4 but now the entire ice sheet is breaking up so fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less than half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the summer.5 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 shelf - over 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and 220 m (700 feet) thick- broke up in just a few months, a story 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 years- yet 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 upon - yet 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 die 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.6 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.7 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 die 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. B. Warming is an existential threatMazo 10 PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLAJeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it, pg. 122The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2C (O'9""1.5C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.C. Warming causes rapid ocean destruction causes extinction immediate action key Harvey 13 citing the International Programme on the State of the Ocean Fiona, Rate of ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years [http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ocean-acidification-carbon-dioxide-emissions-levels] October 2, 2013 //mtc The oceans are becoming more acidic at the fastest rate in 300m years, due to carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, and a mass extinction of key species may already be almost inevitable as a result, leading marine scientists warned on Thursday. An international audit of the health of the oceans has found that overfishing and pollution are also contributing to the crisis, in a deadly combination of destructive forces that are imperilling marine life, on which billions of people depend for their nutrition and livelihood. In the starkest warning yet of the threat to ocean health, the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) said: "This [acidification] is unprecedented in the Earth's known history. We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction may have already begun." It published its findings in the State of the Oceans report, collated every two years from global monitoring and other research studies. Alex Rogers, professor of biology at Oxford University, said: "The health of the ocean is spiralling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth." Coral is particularly at risk. Increased acidity dissolves the calcium carbonate skeletons that form the structure of reefs, and increasing temperatures lead to bleaching where the corals lose symbiotic algae they rely on. The report says that world governments' current pledges to curb carbon emissions would not go far enough or fast enough to save many of the world's reefs. There is a time lag of several decades between the carbon being emitted and the effects on seas, meaning that further acidification and further warming of the oceans are inevitable, even if we drastically reduce emissions very quickly. There is as yet little sign of that, with global greenhouse gas output still rising. Corals are vital to the health of fisheries, because they act as nurseries to young fish and smaller species that provide food for bigger ones. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by the seas at least a third of the carbon that humans have released has been dissolved in this way, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and makes them more acidic. But IPSO found the situation was even more dire than that laid out by the world's top climate scientists in their landmark report last week. In absorbing carbon and heat from the atmosphere, the world's oceans have shielded humans from the worst effects of global warming, the marine scientists said. This has slowed the rate of climate change on land, but its profound effects on marine life are only now being understood. Acidification harms marine creatures that rely on calcium carbonate to build coral reefs and shells, as well as plankton, and the fish that rely on them. Jane Lubchenco, former director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a marine biologist, said the effects were already being felt in some oyster fisheries, where young larvae were failing to develop properly in areas where the acid rates are higher, such as on the west coast of the US. "You can actually see this happening," she said. "It's not something a long way into the future. It is a very big problem." But the chemical changes in the ocean go further, said Rogers. Marine animals use chemical signals to perceive their environment and locate prey and predators, and there is evidence that their ability to do so is being impaired in some species. Trevor Manuel, a South African government minister and co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission, called the report "a deafening alarm bell on humanity's wider impacts on the global oceans". "Unless we restore the ocean's health, we will experience the consequences on prosperity, wellbeing and development. Governments must respond as urgently as they do to national security threats in the long run, the impacts are just as important," he said. Current rates of carbon release into the oceans are 10 times faster than those before the last major species extinction, which was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum extinction, about 55m years ago. The IPSO scientists can tell that the current ocean acidification is the highest for 300m years from geological records. They called for strong action by governments to limit carbon concentrations in the atmosphere to no more than 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent. That would require urgent and deep reductions in fossil fuel use. No country in the world is properly tackling overfishing, the report found, and almost two thirds are failing badly. At least 70 per cent of the world's fish populations are over-exploited. Giving local communities more control over their fisheries, and favouring small-scale operators over large commercial vessels would help this, the report found. Subsidies that drive overcapacity in fishing fleets should also be eliminated, marine conservation zones set up and destructive fishing equipment should be banned. There should also be better governance of the areas of ocean beyond countries' national limits. The IPSO report also found the oceans were being "deoxygenated" their average oxygen content is likely to fall by as much as 7 per cent by 2100, partly because of the run-off of fertilisers and sewage into the seas, and also as a side-effect of global warming. The reduction of oxygen is a concern as areas of severe depletion become effectively dead.

D. Oceans are key to life on EarthSpencer 09Ben Spencer Reporter for the West Australian The Oceans of Life http://benspencer.hubpages.com/hub/The-Oceans-Of-LifeEver since the Earth was formed, life has depended on our oceans to survive. This is where life on Earth began, and without the ocean, life as we know it would no longer exist. The water on Earth came in the form of steam, as the Earth was cooling down; steam from under the Earths crust was released through volcanic eruptions, along with many other gases. It then came down in the form of rain, the Earth rained for thousands of years, filling up the oceans. However, this only accounted for about 50% of the water on Earth today. The remaining body of water that is found on the earth came from comets. Because the solar system was still forming, thousands of debris was flying around and the Earth was constantly hit by comets. A comet is a small solar system body, most commonly known for its tail. Comets are made up of collections of dust and rocky particles but most importantly, a comet is made up of about 50% ice. This was discovered when NASA purposefully crashed a probe into a comet, witnessing a magnificent sight as thousands of litres of water sprayed out into space. Given that these comets can range from a few hundred metres to tens of kilometres, when they travel into the Earths atmosphere, there is a lot of potential water for our oceans. Comets travel an extremely elongated orbit around our sun. When the comet flies close enough to the sun, we are able to see them. This is because the heat vaporises some of the ice which then causes a fuzzy atmosphere effect. This effect gives the comet its tail and makes it viewable by the naked eye. Without this effect, comets can only be seen through a telescope, and even then, they are still very hard to spot. With the combination of steam from under the Earths crust and the excessive amounts of comets which would have been hitting the Earth as it was forming, this explains the origin of Earths oceans. However, this does not explain why they are so important to life on Earth. There are many reasons as to explain why the ocean is essential to life. There are two of the main reasons for this; one of them is ocean currents. The oceans current plays such a major part on how the Earth functions that without it, life on Earth would suffer severely. We know this because it has happened before. The oceans current basically circulates life around the globe, achieved by its ability to carry heat and cycle nutrients throughout the globe. Warm water from the equator gets carried along the top of the water to the Arctic, where the water is frozen. It then is dropped to the bottom of the ocean where it follows the ocean floor back down to the Equator. Then it heats back up, rising to the surface and gets carried back to the Arctic. This is an endless cycle. Ocean currents are responsible for the warmer temperature in Western Europe, as well as the Antarcticas ability to support plant and animal life in such large numbers. A disruption of these currents would likely cause mass extinction. The second reason used to explain the oceans importance in maintaining Earth life, is perhaps the worlds most important creature, Phytoplankton. Phytoplanktons importance lies in its ability to produce oxygen. Like plants, Phytoplankton takes in energy through the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a process used by phytoplankton and land vegetation that converts carbon dioxide in to organic compounds, (mostly sugar), using the energy from sunlight. By using this process, these organisms have the ability create there own food, as long as they are in contact with sunlight. Then they release oxygen as a waste product, therefore, making it vital for all life on Earth. Most people believe that plants produce most of the oxygen on Earth. In actual fact, around 50% of the oxygen produced from photosynthesis comes from Phytoplankton. From this we can understand, that the loss of the Phytoplanktons habitat, being the ocean, would devastate all life on Earth due to a massive oxygen shortage. A possible event that could cause this destruction of the Phytoplanktons habitat lays in the oceans currents. If global warming continues, the Arctic will heat up enough so that it is unable to cool the water sufficiently. This would prevent the water sinking to the bottom of the ocean, and hence the oceans current would stop. This would be what is known as a stagnant ocean. Simply put, water stagnation occurs when water stops flowing. Some creatures prefer stagnant water conditions, including sulphuric bacteria, mosquito larvae and some species of frog. However, there is also a more dangerous chemical which can be produced from stagnant water. It is known as hydrogen sulphide and it is believed to be the culprit for the biggest known extinction in Earths history. Hydrogen sulphide is a highly toxic and flammable gas. It tends to accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces, such as the bottom of a stagnant ocean, as it is denser than air. It is a very pungent chemical at first; however, it quickly deadens the sense of smell which can catch its victims unaware. It was this chemical that scientists believe caused the Permian Mass Extinction 250 million years ago. The Permian is a geological period beginning 299 million years ago and ending 48 million years later. It was just after the Carboniferous period and is most famous for its end which was caused by a mass extinction event. The continents back then were all in one land mass called Pangaea. Because of this, the interior land mass became hot and dry because it was so far away from the sea. The climate was also considered hotter due to an increase in volcanic activity. The creatures that lived during the Permian period were very diverse. A great evolutionarily expansion was taking place during this time because the Earth was gradually getting warmer. The communities began to become increasingly complex and there was much variety. Unfortunately, a lot of this quick and intricate development would be in vain. The survivors of this period would live on to become the first dinosaurs in the Triassic period. What happened in between the Permian and the Triassic period is known as the Permian Mass Extinction, believed to have been caused by the ocean currents stopping and the ocean becoming stagnant. This turned the entire ocean floor in to a producer of hydrogen sulphide. As it filled the oceans, it poisoned everything, killing 95% of all marine life in the Permian period. Then rising out of the ocean it continued on to the land and began to devastate life on land. The Earth became a toxic and inhospitable wasteland where even the air was deadly. The sulphide also severely weakened the ozone layers and exposed life on Earth to extremely high levels of UV radiation. 70% of all life on land was killed. For the next 500,000 thousand years the Earth was very quiet and almost empty. After such a radical impact on the life on Earth it took 6-7 million years for the Earth to recover. There was very little range in diversity and scarce food sources for the life left on Earth. The reason the oceans stopped and caused this massive destructive wave on all life on Earth is because of the warming during the Permian period. This caused it to eventually stop the water from cooling and stop the ocean currents. This is a clear indication of the deadly effects that can result from Global Warming. Out of all the mass extinction phases to come to Earth, by far the worst was the one caused by Global Warming. Today, humans are increasing the temperature of the globe from activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation, which then increases concentrations of greenhouse gases. What happened in the Permian period is an obvious signal of the dangers behind global heating. If we continue to abuse our planet, it wont be long before the same thing happens again. Without the ocean, there is no life.The PlanPLAN: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase federal tax credits and loan guarantees for offshore wind projects.Contention 3: SolvencyA. Assistance from the federal government is key to Offshore Wind Hahn and Gilman 13Michael Hahn, Patrick Gilman, principal investigators for Navigant Consulting, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis: Annual Market Assessment, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_economic_analysis_10_2013.pdfFor larger projects, the support of government or quasi-government agencies has long been critical. Most offshore projects that have been project financed in Europe have received support from some combination of the EIB; the Danish export credit agency, EKF; the German export credit agency, Euler Hermes (EH); and, most recently, the Green Investment Bank (GIB) in the United Kingdom. The export credit agencies could facilitate the financing of U.S.-based projects by supporting turbine manufacturers, such as Vestas, Siemens, and REpower. The availability of 5 billion from the KfW has facilitated financing for offshore wind projects in Germany. This financing complements other sources, such as the EIB, export credit agencies, and commercial banks. The proposed Meerwind wind farm, mentioned above, is the first offshore project to reach financial closing under the KfWs program. The project is unique in that it did not include EIB funding. In 2012, the 367-MW Walney project in the United Kingdom became the first project to receive funding from the United Kingdoms GIB. The bank contributed approximately one-fifth of the amount needed for the refinancing of the project. As the offshore wind market matures, it will require less help from public finance institutions. In 2012, the 270 MW Lincs project in the United Kingdom received financing from a group of 10 commercial banks but did not leverage a public finance institution. B. Financial incentives are key to creating sustainable energy leadership through Offshore Wind multiple industry executives and EPA agreeEnvironment America et Al 12A Bunch of Environmental NGOs, EPA, Multiple State Governments, http://environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/resources/Offshore_wind_letter_to_President_Obama_-%20Final%20072412.pdf, online 12Support federal financial investments to spur offshore wind development until this new technology is mature and well established. Offshore wind energy needs a long-term extension of its Investment Tax Credit, continued DOE support for research and development, and investments in data collection for better permitting. Set a bold goal for offshore wind development in the Atlantic, in order to provide clear leadership and vision regarding the important role of offshore wind in Americas energy future and demonstrate that this is a high priority for the Administration. Ensure that offshore wind projects are sited, constructed and operated responsibly in order to avoid, minimize, and mitigate conflict with local marine life and other uses. Wind energy development should be coordinated with state and regional coastal and marine spatial planning efforts and be done in a manner that is consistent with the goals of your historic National Ocean Policy. Permitting must also take into account the benefits to the environment from the proposed project. Provide DOI and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management with sufficient staff and resources to manage the learning curve required to handle multiple renewable energy leases along the coast, in order to prevent disruption of current efforts to promote an efficient leasing process, and avoid subsequent impairment of needed financing and power off-take agreements. Prioritize coordination to secure a market for offshore wind power, including convening coordination among the U.S. Departments of Defense, Energy, and Commerce and state and regional economic development, energy, and commerce agencies to identify incentives and develop commitments to purchase offshore wind power.

C. Offshore wind solves for greenhouse gasses Shroeder 10Erica Shroeder California Law Review, Volume 98 | issue 5, Article 5. Turning offshore wind on 10/31/2010- Erica Schroeder, Turning Offshore Wind On, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 1631 (2010). Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol98/iss5/4Once a wind project is built, it involves only minimal environmental impacts compared to traditional electricity generation. Wind power emits negligible amounts of traditional air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. 62 Lower emissions of traditional air pollutants mean fewer air quality-related illnesses locally and regionally. 63 Lower greenhouse gas emissions will help to combat climate change, effects of which will be felt locally and around the world.64 According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of climate change will include melting snow, ice, and permafrost; significant effects on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater plant and animal species; forced changes to agricultural and forestry management; and adverse human health impacts, including increased heat-related mortality and infectious diseases.65 The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States emits 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, and it expects emissions to increase to 7.9 billion metric tons by 2030, with 40 percent of emissions coming from the electric power sector. 66 Thus, if the United States can get more of its electricity from wind power, it will contribute less to climate change, and help to mitigate its negative impacts. Furthermore, wind power does not involve any of the additional environmental costs associated with nuclear power or fuel extraction for traditional electricity generation, such as coal mining and natural gas extraction.67 Wind power generation also does not require the water necessary to cool traditional coal, gas, and nuclear generation units.68D. Offshore Wind farms directly trade off with CO2 from fossil fuels- substantially better than onshore turbines DOE 11Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement February 7, 2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdfOn average, one gigawatt of installed offshore wind power capacity can generate 3.4 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity annually. Generating the same amount of electricity with fossil fuels would consume 1.7 million tons of coal or 27.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas and would emit 2.7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually (S. Dolan 2010). Because offshore winds generally blow more strongly and consistently than onshore winds, offshore wind turbines operate at higher capacity factors2 than wind turbines installed on land. In addition, daily offshore wind speed profiles tend to correspond well to periods of high electricity demand by coastal cities, such that the strongest winds (and thus highest potential energy generation) correspond to the periods of greatest electricity demand(W. Musial 2010).

E. United States federal domestic action on climate change key to global climate leadershipTalbott 12Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution, and John-Michael Arnold, special assistant to the President at Brookings, 5-25-2012, Its the Climate, Stupid! Brookings,http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/5/25%20americas%20role%20talbott/0525%20americas%20role%20talbott.pdfAnd then theres climate change, the most urgent, most consequential, most dangerous issue of these times. Climate change is also the ultimate example of the nexus between U.S. domestic and foreign policy. As long as the United States is tied up in knots at home, it cant lead the world. American voters today have an unprecedentedly onerous distinction: they are both the first generation to realize that they live in the era of global warming and also the last generation with a chance to do something about it. The human enterprise must cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by 50 percent in the coming decades, a period when population is projected to grow by 50 percent. That means in the next five years people have got to begin bending the curve of emissions that drives global warmingotherwise it will probably be too late to head off an irreversibly catastrophic tipping point somewhere around midcentury. In meeting this daunting challenge, the United Stateswhich has pumped almost a third of total global carbon emissions into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution is uniquely able to catalyze international consensus and action. Whether that is called a window of opportunity or a window of obligation, it is closing. During his campaign for the presidency four years ago and in the afterglow of being elected, Obama seemed ideal for the role and responsibility of catalyst. His identity and biography were like a parable of the United States as an artifact of globalization at its best. In his statements on the campaign trail in 2008, in his victory speech in Grant Park, and in his inaugural address, he gave priority to rescuing what he called a planet in peril, and he vowed to put new emphasis on cooperative solutions to global threats, particularly climate change. In 2009 he undertook a rescue mission to prevent a debacle at the Copenhagen conference on climate change. Back home, he was still pushing hard for cap-and-trade legislation only to see it eventually collapse in the Senate. Since then, the climate issue has been the most conspicuous symptom of 2013itis. The looming question of the 2012 campaign is whether that disease, as its nickname suggests, can be cured after the election. Will a reelected Obama succeed in his second term where he failed in his first? Or will a President Mitt Romney, if he survives the lingering resistance to his nomination within the GOP and goes on to triumph in November, muster the political will to make up for all these lost years? It wont be easy. Both men have demonstrated an awareness of the challenge and its urgency in the past. During Romneys governorship, Massachusetts imposed mandatory carbon emission limits on power plants. But that was six years ago. Now, in a concession to the skeptics who hold sway in his party, Mitt Romneys position is that we dont know whats causing climate change. As for how 2012 will end, no one yet knows who will win the election and how the Earths fever chart will look, but they can be sure of this: not only will the United States score zero progress on the climate/energy issue, but there will be backsliding in terms of the public debate and education surrounding it. Thats in part because outright deniers of the science and opponents of corrective action have the upper hand in that debate, but also its because of the widespread antipathy in the American electorate to any new taxes, notably including a carbon tax by that or any other name. One must hope that both those factors recede in 2013 and that its not too late for the United States to make the transition from being a huge part of the problem to becoming a significantand leadingpart of the solution.Contention __: EconomyA. Despite recent gains in the job market, more are needed to secure the recoveryCNN, 6/6http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/06/investing/may-jobs-report/It took two years to wipe out 8.7 million American jobs but more than four years to gain them all back. That's according to the Department of Labor's latest jobs report, which shows the U.S. economy added 217,000 jobs in May. With that job growth, there are now more jobs in the country than ever before. The last time we were near this point was January 2008, just before massive layoffs swept throughout the country, leading the unemployment rate to spike to 10%. The unemployment rate is unchanged at 6.3% for May, and much has improved since the worst of the crisis. Yet, this isn't the moment to break out the champagne. Given population growth over the last four years, the economy still needs more jobs to truly return to a healthy place. How many more? A whopping 7 million, calculates Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. President Obama's administration was quick to point out that the recovery is still incomplete by their standards. "We're moving in the right direction, but we have a lot more work to do," said Secretary of Labor Tom Perez. "There are way too many people who are still on the sidelines." As of May, about 3.4 million Americans had been unemployed for six months or more, and 7.3 million were stuck in part-time jobs although they wanted to work full-time. Both these numbers are still elevated compared to historic norms, and are of concern to Federal Reserve officials, who will meet in two weeks to re-evaluate their stimulus policies. Overall, this has been the longest jobs recovery since the Department of Labor started tracking jobs data in 1939. Economists surveyed by CNNMoney predict it will take two to three more years to return to "full employment," which they define as an unemployment rate around 5.5%.B. Offshore wind is key to creating jobs in the United States and abroad in port economyHopkins 12Robert B. Hopkins, Duane Morris LLP. "Offshore Wind Farms in US Waters Would Generate Both US and Foreign Maritime Jobs." Renewable Energy World. N.p., 12 July 2012. Web. 22 Aug. 2012. .With no offshore wind energy farms yet built off U.S. coastlines, various states over the last few years have proposed offshore wind energy legislation as a future investment in renewable energy as well as a vehicle for American job creation. The immediate future of U.S. offshore wind farms may depend on whether Congress renews certain tax credit and federal loan guarantee programs. In the event that offshore wind farms move forward, it is likely that both U.S. maritime and foreign maritime workers will be involved in construction and maintenance. A recent study by The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimated the potential generating capacity from offshore wind farms located off U.S. coastlines to be 4 times the present total U.S. electrical generating capacity. The construction and maintenance of offshore wind farms to tap into even a small percentage of this potential will demand a robust and competent maritime workforce. The U.S. understandably wants to avoid the situation that occurred in England with the installation of the Thanet Wind Farm, currently the largest operating offshore wind farm in the world (300 megawatts). The Thanet project received criticism for its lack of significant British job creation. U.S. wind farm developers, green energy advocates and some U.S. politicians have stressed that offshore wind farms will create jobs for both U.S. maritime and U.S. shore-based workers. In addition, some have pointed to a federal statute known as the Jones Act, to assert that foreign-flagged vessels crewed by foreign maritime workers may not even be involved in U.S. offshore wind farm projects. However, such a broad statement is not entirely accurate, and the issue is somewhat complex. The Jones Act, which was enacted in 1920, establishes a system for protecting American maritime jobs and requires that U.S.-flagged vessels be used to transport merchandise between points in U.S. territorial waters (i.e., up to 3 nautical miles off the coastline). Moreover, this requirement is extended 200 miles offshore to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) in certain scenarios involving man-made objects that are affixed to the seabed. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency that enforces the Jones Act, has issued a number of rulings that conclude that the Jones Act in certain situations does not apply to the actual installation of wind turbines by large-scale vessels known as jack-up lift vessels. Moreover, there has been some debate on whether the Jones Act would apply to vessels travelling to an established wind farm located over 3 miles off the coastline in the OCS for such things as maintenance and repair. A bill clarifying that the Jones Act would apply in this maintenance/repair scenario (HR 2360) has recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is now awaiting a vote in the U.S. Senate. Thus, at present, from a purely legal standpoint, foreign-flagged vessels would likely be able to participate in the installation of the proposed wind farms, but there is some uncertainty as to whether foreign-flagged vessels would be able to participate in maintenance/repair work. Complicating all of this is the dearth of U.S.-flagged jack-up lift vessels capable of undertaking much of the very heavy work involved in the installation of offshore wind turbines. To further confound matters, with a boom in offshore wind farm construction in Europe and China, many foreign-flagged jack-up lift vessels capable of such work are now booked for the next several years. Factoring in all of the above, it is likely that large foreign-flagged vessels will play a significant role in the initial installation of wind turbines off U.S. coastlines, with an opportunity for smaller U.S.-flagged vessels to render assistance. However, with the lack of available large scale foreign-flagged vessels, there are obvious long term investment opportunities for the construction of large U.S.-flagged vessels or for the conversion of other large U.S.-flagged vessels to undertake much of the above heavy work. One possible option is to convert U.S.-flagged vessels now working in the oil and gas fields in the Gulf of Mexico for this purpose. Such investment opportunities will obviously become more attractive if a large number of wind farms move forward in the U.S.. As to certain maintenance/repair, which could be done by smaller U.S.-flagged vessels already in existence, if Congress passes HR 2360, U.S.-flagged vessels will be required to maintain and repair the wind turbines. Moreover from a practical standpoint, even if HR 2360 does not become law, it may not make economic sense to employ smaller foreign-flagged vessels for certain maintenance/repair work. Thus if U.S. offshore wind farms become a reality, U.S. maritime workers as well as foreign maritime workers will likely be involved in construction and maintenanceC. Offshore wind would revitalize weak US ports and shipyards and create millions of sustainable jobs DOE 11[U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, A National Offshore Wind Strategy Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States 2.7.2011 //wyo-hdm]Deployment of wind energy along U.S. coasts would also trigger direct and indirect economic benefits. According to NREL analysis and extrapolation of European studies, offshore wind would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters (W. Musial 2010). Installing 54 GW of offshore wind capacity in U.S. waters would create more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs and would require more than 1.1 million jobyears to manufacture and install the turbines (W. Musial 2010). Many of these jobs would be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards, which could be revitalized as fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind provides an opportunity for revitalization of U.S. ports and heavy industry facilities. Due to the large scale of offshore wind turbine components, towers and foundation structures, it is generally advantageous to limit or eliminate overland transport from assembly and installation scenarios in order to maximize process efficiency and minimize logistics time and costs. In addition, European experience has clearly indicated that it will be necessary to create a purposebuilt installation, operations, and maintenance (IO&M) infrastructure for offshore wind, including specialized vessels and port facilities. To assist industry and regional port facilities in making informed decisions regarding design requirements for IO&M infrastructure, DOE will participate in collaborative studies of infrastructure needs and capabilities for the benefit of all national regions. A significant portion of the cost differential between landbased and offshore wind energy systems lies in transport and installation requirements. European experience indicates that specialized wind system installation vessels, rather than adapted oil and gas vessels, will be required for costeffective, high volume installation. D. Ports are key to the overall economyFTU 12Florida Times-Union, Newspaper, Feb 24, http://www.jaxport.com/about-jaxport/newsroom/news/lead-letter-ports-are-vital-economy-nation, Online 12Our economy is linked to our waterways and international trade, and with proper strategic investment now, our full national recovery will come by sea. Consider the facts: - Every dollar invested in port facilities returns seven-fold. - Ships carry over 90 percent of all U.S. cargo, imports and exports. - International trade accounts for more than a quarter of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. - And 13 million Americans work in positions related to international trade. - The U.S. Department of Transportation projects that between 2001 and 2020 total freight moved through our ports will increase by more than 50 percent and the volume of international container traffic will at least double. Many of our nations most critical port projects are stuck in neutral because of overlapping bureaucracy and lukewarm commitment from Washington. Our future reputation will be based on whether we improve our gateways to the world.E. Growth key to prevent warRoyal 10 Jedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, M.Phil. Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010 (Economic Integration, Economic Signalling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Edited by Ben Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, Published by Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 0857240048, p. 213-215)Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult [end page 213] to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. [end page 214] Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.Inherency ExtensionsRegulatory Uncertainty__Current federal policy does not establish uniform authority over the permitting and development of offshore wind capabilities.Vann 12Adam, Legislative Attorney, CRS Reports, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting, 10.17Prior to enactment of EPAct in 2005, the Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) took the lead role in the federal offshore wind energy permitting process, claiming jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA),28 as amended by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).29 The Corps has jurisdiction under these laws to permit obstructions to navigation within the navigable waters of the United States and on the OCS.30 The Corps jurisdiction over potential offshore wind projects had never been made explicit, however. Section 388 of EPAct sought to address some of the uncertainty related to federal jurisdiction over offshore wind energy development by amending the OCSLA to specifically establish legal authority for federal review and approval of various offshore energy-related projects. The provision amended the OCSLA by adding a new subsection that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with other federal agencies, to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the OCS for certain activitieswind energy development among themnot authorized by other OCSLA provisions, the Deepwater Port Act, the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act, or other applicable law.31 A memorandum of understanding between the Department of the Interior and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signed in April of 2009 confirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, exercised through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEM),32 an agency within DOI, over the production, transportation, or transmission of energy from non-hydrokinetic renewable energy projects on the OCS. EPAct also makes clear that federal agencies with permitting authority under other federal laws retain their jurisdiction, despite enactment of this subsection.33 Thus, the Corps continues to permit offshore development pursuant to the RHA, and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over issues related to energy development, such as species impacts, are similarly unaffected. The legislative language does not clearly dictate which agency should take the lead role in coordinating federal permitting and responsibility for preparing analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).34 However, several provisions within Section 388 suggest that DOI is charged with primary responsibility. The law directs the Secretary of the Interior to consult with other agencies as a part of its leasing, easement, and right-of way granting process.35 DOI is also responsible for ensuring that activities carried out pursuant to its new authority provide for coordination with relevant federal agencies.36 The law also directs the Secretary to establish a system of royalties, fees, rentals, bonuses, or other payments that will ensure a fair return to the United States for any property interest granted under this provision.37Investment Low Now__The oil lobby prevents significant Congressional investment in offshore wind Robert Bowen, Staff Writer, March 5, 2014, Can offshore wind farms also reduce damage from hurricanes?, The Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/can-offshore-wind-farms-also-reduce-damage-from-hurricanes, Accessed 5/14/2014There currently are no offshore wind farms in the U.S. althougheleven are under construction. Wind farms are providing clean energy in many other nations, however, without incident. One reason for this is that our lobbyist-owned Congress believes in off- shore oil drilling, but not offshore wind generation. The laws, regulations, permitting processes, and the tax subsidy system is totally geared to encourage off shore oil wells even post-BP and the huge profits they produce. They are stacked against wind farms, however.

__Low United States investment in Offshore Wind now limited projectsCampbell 11Richard J, Congressional Research Service, China and the United States, A Comparison of Green Energy Programs and Policies, Digital Commons, Online 12Offshore wind power in the United States is a fledgling industry, having just received federal authority in 2010 to go ahead with the first U.S. offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound, off the Massachusetts coast. Known as the Cape Wind project, it will involve 130 turbines (from the German firm, Siemens AG) with a total capacity of 420 mw.113 The overall potential for U.S. offshore wind power production capacity was estimated at 908 gw in 2005.114__Offshore wind will remain non-competitive until the u.s creates financial incentives- then international investment and developent can occurMusail et Alt 2010Walter Musial, NRELLarge-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS September 2010-National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Produced by DOECurrently, capital costs for offshore projects are nearly double those for land-based wind projects. These higher costs accrue from, for example, the offshore turbine support structures, offshore electrical infrastructure construction, the high cost of building at sea, O&M warranty risk adjustments, turbine cost premiums for marinization, and a decommissioning contingency. These costs can be partially offset by increased energy production. In comparison with land-based wind, however, offshore wind is also immature and its costs are higher because less deployment and experience has not allowed for full realization of the learning curve, by which product costs in new industries are known to decline as a function of production quantity. Further cost uncertainty and upward cost pressure may be introduced because of U.S. dollar/euro exchange rates. High cost is one of the primary deterrents for would-be developers of offshore wind. Current projects in the United States depend on policy incentives to offset some of the high costs, but there are no guarantees that the necessary incentives will be available when a project is approved and permitted. Developing innovative offshore wind technology, accelerating U.S. offshore wind deployment, and implementing regulatory and operational supports to reduce the risks associated with offshore wind investments can all have a downward influence on the future costs of offshore wind. Section 6 covers offshore costs and economics in greater detail. Must Invest Capital__Must start investing capital into Offshore Wind we have entered a period of make or break for the United States in relation to Offshore must act strongly by 2016IHS 12Global Offshore Wind Energy Markets and Strategies: 20122025 June 2012 Market Study Excerpt http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emerging-energy.com%2FuploadDocs%2FExcerpt_GlobalOffshoreWindEnergyMarketsandStrategies2012.pdf&ei=Ipc0UJjtFsq7qAGE3YDIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHjQnFq0_5qV7MpvnrSVTlfWIJtXA&sig2=Wxrm5YxGejL3_tSxj6ZQxgOffshore wind is increasingly faced with pressure to deliver capacity on a large scale while proving it is capable of reducing costs prior to projects in deeper waters, further from shore become the norm. During this make or break window leading up to around 2016, the industry will either have had to position itself for sustained build-out, or face a rapid decline as a non-competitive technology. Currently, an overwhelming majority of projects are installed within a relative comfort zone of up to 30 meters water depth and at 30 km distance from shore; 93% of European and nearly 100% of Asia Pacific capacity. The industrys challenge in the longer term will be to increase capacity additions at lowered costs, but in more difficult conditions. For now, interest in the offshore sector continues to grow, with investor commitments, policy support, and technological innovations driving the industry forward. The global offshore market is expected to reach nearly 95 GW of installed wind energy capacity by 2025. This represents 13% of total global wind additions between 2012 and 2025. However, costs remain high and financial backing for capital intensive projects is needed as the next generation of offshore projects heads for uncharted territory.

__Offshore wind is need massive Rand D to become commercially viable Musail et Al 2010Walter Musial, NRELLarge-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS September 2010-National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Produced by DOEThe near-term technology is still immature, which is an obstacle to offshore wind development. High cost of wind energy can, in part, be addressed directly with technology innovations that increase reliability and energy output and lower system capital expenses. The current technology limits the domain for offshore machines to shallow-water sites at a cost premium that is reflective of the industrys early state. New technology is needed to lower costs, increase reliability and energy production, solve regional deployment issues, expand the resource area, develop infrastructure and manufacturing facilities, and mitigate known environmental impacts. Because of the high up-front investment costs required to explore new technology innovation and the long timeline that is usually required to reap the full benefits of high-risk game-changing innovations, many companies may not be motivated to invest in R&D for offshore wind technology solutions.ITC__The Senate Finance vote supporting the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) added momentum, but Congress has not extended credits essential to significant offshore wind expansionDaniel Hess, Staff Writer, April 4, 2014, Senate Finance Committee Votes to Extend the ITC for Offshore Wind, Oceana, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/04/senate-finance-committee-votes-to-extend-the-itc-for-offshore-wind, Accessed 5/14/2014The Senate Finance committee gave a strong bipartisan show of support for domestic offshore wind energy yesterday by voting to extend the critical investment tax credit. This vote resurrects a crucial incentive for this nascent clean energy industry and offers a great chance to catapult the industry into the mainstream and allow companies to plan successful projects that take advantage of the nations vast offshore wind potential. The vote also shows that the United States is finally getting serious about transitioning to a clean and domestically produced energy future that mitigates the effects of global climate change and creates thousands of good-paying American jobs in the process. Todays action adds to the momentum being felt by the offshore wind industry. The federal government is now holding multiple competitive lease sales along the Atlantic Coast, the Cape Wind and Block Island projects are moving forward, and an Oregon floating wind project recently received approval to develop its offshore wind resources. While this is a great victory, the fight to extend the ITC is far from over. Now is not the time to let up our efforts. Contact your Representatives and Senators and make sure they know how important an extension of the ITC is for the future of offshore wind, and of clean and domestic energy in the United States!__ITC extension was included in the EXPIRE Act, which hasnt made it to the Senate floorMary Kate Francis, Staff Writer, April 11, 2014, Keeping the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit in perspective, http://aweablog.org/blog/post/keeping-the-renewable-energy-production-tax-credit-in-perspective, Accessed 5/18/2014The Committee later approved, via voice vote, theExpiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency (EXPIRE) Act of 2014. This bill includes an extension of therenewable energy production tax credit (PTC) and investment tax credit (ITC) which wouldlet wind energy developers qualify for the tax credits if they start construction on their wind projects by the end of 2015. The next step will be for the EXPIRE Act to move to the Senate floor for consideration.__Senate Republicans just shut down the Expire ActLisa Desjardins, CNN Capitol Hill Reporter, May 16, 2014, Strange times: Republicans block tax credits -- as a protest, CNN.com, http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/15/politics/republicans-tax-credits/, Accessed 5/18/2014It is a rare, strange day when Senate Republicans vote to block billions in tax cuts. But that's what happened Thursday when they chose to freeze a massive tax credit package in order to protest how Democrats are running the chamber. By a vote of 53-40, the EXPIRE Act, which would extend $85 billion in tax credits, failed to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Only one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, voted with Democrats to advance the measure. The rest of the GOP votes were "no," as Republicans vented anger that Democrats have refused to allow votes on their amendments to this and most other bills in the past year.

Solvency ExtensionsGeneric__Offshore Wind has minimal downside and the cost-factors will be quickly resolved on a short learning curveSchroeder 10Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Turning Offshore Wind On, California Law Review, pWhereas many of the benefits of offshore wind power are national or even global, the costs are almost entirely local. The downsides to offshore wind that drive most of the opposition to offshore wind power are visual and environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects complain about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local property values.79 They also make related complaints about negative impacts on coastal recreational activities and tourism.80 However, studies have failed to show statistically significant negative aesthetic or property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts. In addition, opponents frequently cite offshore wind powers environmental costs. These costs are site specific and can involve harm to plants and animals, and their habitats.82 This harm includes impacts on birds, which can involve disruption of migratory patterns, destruction of habitat, and bird deaths from collision with the turbine blades.83 However, these adverse impacts are generally less dramatic than those associated with fossil fuel extraction and generation, and in a well-chosen site they can be negligible.84 A recent, exhaustive study of the environmental impact of major offshore wind farms in Denmark concluded that offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.85A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult to install and maintain, than onshore wind farms.86 The cost of an offshore wind project is estimated to be at least 50 percent greater than the onshore equivalent.87 Short- and long-term technical improvements could help to lower offshore wind costs, however, and government assistance may help them occur more quickly.88 Fossil Fuels__Offshore wind costs less than fossil fuelsAnthony Watts, Staff Writer,February 27, 2014, Claim: Offshore Wind Turbines for Taming Hurricanes, WUWT, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/27/claim-offshore-wind-turbines-for-taming-hurricanes/, Accessed 5/10/2014Jacobson and study co-author Willett Kempton, professor in UDs College of Earth, Ocean and Environment, weighed the costs and benefits of offshore wind farms as storm protection. The net cost of offshore wind farms was found to be less than the net cost of generating electricity with fossil fuels. The calculations take into account savings from avoiding costs related to health issues, climate change and hurricane damage, and assume a mature offshore wind industry. In initial costs, it would be less expensive to build seawalls, but those would not reduce wind damage, would not produce electricity and would not avoid those other costs thus the net cost of offshore wind would be less.__Wind will compete with fossil fuels in coastal areasWalter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power, L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014Provide clean power to its coastal demand centers. High winds abound just off the coasts of 26 states. More specifically, suitable wind resources exist near large urban areas where power demand is steadily growing, electric rates are high, and space for new, land-based generation and transmission facilities is severely limited. These characteristics provide favorable market opportunities for offshore wind to compete effectively in coastal regions. __Offshore wind can displace fossil fuels for electricity because costs will be lowerWalter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power, L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014Increasing the percentage of renewable energy generation in our nations fuel mix has the potential to significantly reduce harmful emissions. Although offshore wind projects have high capital costs, they have no fuel costs and low operating costs. These characteristics allow the turbines to produce energy at a much lower marginal cost than fossil-fuel power plants. As a result, offshore wind turbines displace power that otherwise would have been generated by the fossil-fuel plants and avoid any emissions that would have resulted from the combustion of the fuel. The specific type of displaced generation will vary by region and is dependent on the mix of generation in the area.ITC__Extending the Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind creates over 200,000 jobs and can drive investments over $70 billion by 2030Oceana, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, 2014, Petition: Give Clean Offshore Wind a Chance, https://takeaction.takepart.com/actions/give-clean-offshore-wind-a-chance, Accessed 5/14/2014The Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind is the single most important incentive for stimulating investment in this clean energy industry and must be included in any tax extenders package the U.S. Senate votes on. According to the Department of Energys estimates, the U.S. has more than 4,000 gigawatts of offshore wind power potential, which is enough to power the U.S. four times over. The DOE also estimates that the offshore wind industry could support up to 200,000 manufacturing, construction, operation, and supply chain jobs across the country and drive more than $70 billion in annual investments by 2030. If the U.S. wants to take advantage of this incredible potential, we must extend the ITC and create a more certain regulatory environment so the industry can plan successful projects that operate efficiently and bring clean energy and good-paying jobs to our shores.__Extending the ITC for offshore wind will reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels, create jobs, and combat climate changeOceana, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, 2014, Petition: Give Clean Offshore Wind a Chance, https://takeaction.takepart.com/actions/give-clean-offshore-wind-a-chance, Accessed 5/14/2014Momentum is steadily building in the U.S. offshore wind industry. Even with promising developments, the U.S. still lags far behind the rest of the world in developing this clean, safe, and abundant technology. Not only is Europe well on its way to having more than nine gigawatts of offshore wind energy spinning off its shores, but China is also rapidly getting in on the game. The long-term availability of the ITC is crucial to continuing this strong momentum and will give the industry a much needed boost so that the U.S. can finally realize all of the environmental and economic benefits of this clean, domestic industry and become a leader on the global clean energy stage. Do not let the offshore wind industry get phased out before it ever gets phased in. I urge you to capitalize on the offshore wind industrys momentum and spearhead the nations transition to a clean and renewable energy source that will reduce our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, create long-term domestic jobs, combat global climate change, and save our oceans. Please vote to extend the Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind.__ITC Extension is essential to reap the benefits of offshore windOceana, the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, 2014, Petition: Give Clean Offshore Wind a Chance, https://takeaction.takepart.com/actions/give-clean-offshore-wind-a-chance, Accessed 5/14/2014Clean offshore wind energy could power millions of homes and help save our planet from more burning fossil fuels and oil spills. But this new industry needs a boost. The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) extension has just passed the Senate Financial Committee. This tax credit helps take some of the financial pressure off of new offshore wind projects, and can help this industry take off. But there are still hurdles to pass. Do not let offshore wind get phased out before it is phased in. Take action today to make sure your senators know you support extending the ITC and the promising future of offshore wind in the United States!

__The new DOE projects are insignificant. Congress must immediately renew the ITC for offshore wind to jumpstart the industryDaniel Hess, Staff Writer, May 8, 2014, DOE Gives Huge Boost to Clean Energy by Awarding Nearly $150 Million to Three Offshore Wind Projects, Oceana, http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/05/doe-gives-huge-boost-to-clean-energy-by-awarding-nearly-150-million-to-three-offshore-wind-projects, Accessed 5/14/2014Oceana ocean advocate Nancy Sopko lauded the news: "We applaud the Department of Energys announcement awarding nearly $150 million to three regionally and technologically diverse offshore wind projects, an announcement which represents the continued forward motion of U.S. offshore wind. These awards provide much-needed support to a growing and promising industry that will provide clean, renewable energy, while helping to slow the effects of global climate change, creating thousands of good-paying domestic jobs, and making us leaders in the global clean energy market." This announcement continues the growing momentum weve seen in the U.S. offshore wind industry over the past few years. However, the continued uncertainty surrounding the availability of the critically-important Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind puts a promising clean energy future in jeopardy. "This announcement sends a clear signal that the administration is committed to developing this clean energy, job-creating industry. But the administration cannot do this alone. Congress must renew the Investment Tax Credit for offshore wind immediately to stimulate private investment and jumpstart a thriving domestic offshore wind industry so that we can finally begin to reap all of the environmental and economic benefits of this domestic clean energy resource," said Sopko.__Extending the ITC is essential to galvanize the offshore wind industryZack Colman, Staff Writer, March 7, 2014, Offshore wind lobbies for credit to keep industry from blowing away, Washington Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/offshore-wind-lobbies-for-credit-to-keep-industry-from-blowing-away/article/2545151, Accessed 5/14/2014Companies looking to build an offshore wind industry are lobbying lawmakers to extend a key tax incentive as a larger onshore wind credit faces congressional headwinds. No wind power is currently generated off U.S. coasts, though the Obama administration is hoping to change that. It already has proposed three commercial leases in Maryland, Virginia and Rhode Island. More are likely on the way the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory says U.S. coasts could yield 429,000 megawatts of offshore wind electricity. Electricity capacity totaled roughly 1.1 million megawatts in 2011, according to the Energy Information Administration. Locking up financing is another story. Without the tax credit, one industry source said, projects might never come to fruition. That's why the industry is pounding the marbled pavement of Capitol Hill in hopes of including a one-year extension of aninvestment tax creditin a possible tax extenders package. The credit, which gives developers up to 30 percent of the project cost in cash up front, expired last year. The industry's boosters say they are being realistic. While they want a long-term extension, they know the GOP is even reluctant to renew an onshore production tax credit. Companies are trying to convince Republicans that the offshore credit, like the onshore one, is a jobs issue.Warming__Investing in offshore wind brings four times as much electricity without greenhouse pollution and mitigates hurricanesRobert Bowen, Staff Writer, March 5, 2014, Can offshore wind farms also reduce damage from hurricanes?, The Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/can-offshore-wind-farms-also-reduce-damage-from-hurricanes, Accessed 5/14/2014The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) says that offshore wind farms can generate four times as much electricity as all the power plants in the nation without the air pollution and greenhouse gas emitted by burning fossil fuels. As remarkable as that is, there may be another reason for the United States to build offshore wind farms: they reduce the damage from hurricanes. A ground-breakingstudy says that construction of offshore wind farms can actually tame hurricanes. Mark Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford University completed a study last September, and published it online in Nature Climate Change magazine last week. The study concludes that installation of wind turbines offshore could reduce wind speed from hurricanes up 56-92 MPH, and reduce storm surge between 6 percent and 79 percent.__Large-scale offshore wind reduces pollution from fossil fuels and generate four times as much electricityWendy Koch, Staff Writer, February 26, 2014, Offshore wind farms can tame hurricanes, study finds, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/26/offshore-wind-farms-tame-hurricanes/5813425/, Accessed 5/10/2014Jacobson says large offshore wind farms can be a more cost-effective way to generate power than fossil fuels, given the additional benefits of reducing pollution and hurricane damage. He says even existing turbines can withstand wind speeds of up to 112 mph typical of a Category 2 or 3 hurricane -- and a large array could slow the wind enough to prevent turbine damage from a more powerful storm. The U.S. Department of Energy, which is promoting offshore wind development along the coasts and the Great Lakes, says it's capable of generating four times as much electricity as do all current U.S. power plants.__Increasing offshore wind energy development could substantially reduce climate changing emissionsDepartment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February 2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014Increasing the use of renewable energy for electricity generation is crucial to mitigate the risks of climate change and to shift the nation to a longterm, lowcarbon economy. In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama called for 80% of the nations electricity to be generated from clean energy sources, including wind, by the year 2035. In the North American Leaders Declaration of Climate Change and Clean Energy, the Obama Administration supported the global goal of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 50% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because offshore wind power generates electricity without emitting CO2, gigawattscale offshore wind deployment could contribute significantly to a national climate change mitigation strategy. Previously, a scenario analyzed in the EERE report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 found that the United States could generate 20% of its electricity from wind energy by 2030, with offshore wind providing 54 GW of capacity. This analysis clearly shows the potential for wind energy, and offshore wind in particular, to address the daunting challenge of reducing CO2 emissions in a rapid and costeffective manner.__Offshore wind creates energy security and reduces climate emissions with four times the production valueWalter Musial, Principal Engineer, National Wind Technology Center at NREL and Bonnie Ram, Ram Power, L.L.C., September 2010, Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States, Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NERL), http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/40745.pdf, Accessed 5/10/2014In common with other clean, renewable, domestic sources of energy, offshore wind power can help to build a diversified and geographically distributed U.S. energy mix, offering security against many energy supply emergencieswhether natural or man-made. Wind power also emits no carbon dioxide (CO2) or other harmful emissions that contribute to climate change, ground-level pollution, or public health issues. The United States offshore wind energy resources can significantly increase the wind industrys contribution to the nations clean energy portfolio. The United States is fortunate to possess a large and accessible offshore wind energy resource. Wind speeds tend to increase significantly with distance from land, so offshore wind resources can generate more electricity than wind resources at adjacent land-based sites. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that U.S. offshore winds have a gross potential generating capacity four times greater than the nations present electric capacity. While this estimate does not consider siting constraints and stakeholder inputs, it clearly indicates that the U.S. offshore wind capacity is not limited by the magnitude of the resource.__Increasing offshore wind power prevents millions of tons of CO2 emissions and meets electricity needsDepartment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February 2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014On average, one gigawatt of installed offshore wind power capacity can generate 3.4 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity annually. Generating the same amount of electricity with fossil fuels would consume 1.7 million tons of coal or 27.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas and would emit 2.7 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually. Because offshore winds generally blow more strongly and consistently than onshore winds, offshore wind turbines operate at higher capacity factors than wind turbines installed on land. In addition, daily offshore wind speed profiles tend to correspond well to periods of high electricity demand by coastal cities, such that the strongest winds (and thus highest potential energy generation) correspond to the periods of greatest electricity demand . Jobs__Expanding offshore wind creates millions of jobs and revitalizes shipyardsDepartment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February 2011, A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 4/13/2014Deployment of wind energy along U.S. coasts would also trigger direct and indirect economic benefits. According to NREL analysis and extrapolation of European studies, offshore wind would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters. Installing 54 GW of offshore wind capacity in U.S. waters would create more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance (O&M) jobs and would require more than 1.1 million jobyears to manufacture and install the turbines. Many of these jobs would be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards, which could be revitalized as fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines.__The plan could create 43,000 new permanent jobs and millions in job years. These new jobs will not be outsourcedWalte