Offshore Wind Affirmative - MSDI 2014

MSDI 2014 Offshore Wind Starter Aff#debatelikeabearOffshore Wind Affirmative

1AC Inherency21AC Plan31AC Solvency41AC Economy Advantage61AC Global Warming Advantage121AC Shipbuilding Advantage18Inherency Extension22Solvency Extension tax credits24Solvency extension Electricity28Solvency extension - Tech29A2 Land is better for wind30Global Warming Adv Ext Offshore wind reduces warming31Global Warming Adv Ext Warming is real & anthropogenic33Global Warming Adv Ext Fossil fuels key34Econ Adv Ext Offshore wind boosts economy35Econ Adv Extension A2 Econ resilient37Econ Adv Ext Econ decline causes war39Shipbuilding Adv Ext Offshore wind key to it42Shipbuilding Adv SCS scenario43A2 Electricity Prices DA45A2 Politics Plan is bipartisan48A2 Biodiversity DA501AC Inherency

Congress is lagging on extending federal tax credits for wind now.Richard A. Kessler Friday, May 23 2014Updated: Friday, May 23 2014 US Senate recesses without PTC vote http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/article1363234.eceThe US Senate recessed through the end of May without a vote on extending several dozen federal tax credits for a range of industries including two that have driven growth in onshore and offshore wind. Leaders of clean energy groups and industries that serve the sector lamented the move although lawmakers inaction came as little surprise. A group of Republican senators last week ago had halted movement on the so-called bipartisan EXPIRE Act unless they could strip out the renewable electricity production tax credit (PTC) for wind. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat closely allied with the White House, refused to go along and the bill stalled. He did not schedule a vote after the Senate resumes work in June.

1AC Plan

Plan: the United States federal government should provide long-term extensions of tax credits for offshore wind.

1AC Solvency

New and more permanent investment tax credit key to the future of offshore wind development.Clean Energy Leadership Institute, Boosting Off-Shore Wind: S. 401 Incentivizing Off-Shore Wind Power Act December 2, 2013 http://www.cleanenergyleaders.org/#!Boosting-Off-Shore-Wind--S-401-Incentivizing-Off-Shore-Wind-Power-Act-/cakg/F75C0686-B9CC-4B06-979E-DBBD6E6AE488Off-shore wind is an enormous untapped renewable energy resource for the United States. Just as the production tax credit is boosting on-shore wind farms, the off-shore wind market is in need of a federal tax incentive to spur this emerging industry. The Incentivizing Off-Shore Wind Power Act (S. 401) would extend the investment tax credit (expiring at the end of 2013) for the production of electricity from offshore wind and incentivize key projects just ramping up. Off-shore wind power on the Great Lakes and U.S. coastlines provides an untapped resource four times the energy potential of the entire U.S. electric power system.[1] The Obama Administration has made commitments to offshore wind through the National Offshore Wind Strategy and Climate Action Plan, but federal policy can also play a role through legislation. S. 401 Incentivizing Off-Shore Wind Power Act will: allow a 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for the first 3 GW of qualifying offshore wind projects provide a tax credit, that once awarded, will allow companies five years to install the project.[2] The Department of Energy identifies one of the key industry challenges for off-shore wind as the high capital cost of deployment.[3] Off-shore wind development faces the double challenges of high initial capital cost and longer development timelines (roughly five to seven years). Most projects, scheduled to come online in 2017, are at the beginning stages of securing financing. [4] Such long-term investment requires separate incentive from the on-shore production tax credit (PTC). Offshore wind investment tax credits are considered vital for this new industry because of long lead times and construction of wind turbines.[5] There are thirteen in-progress U.S. offshore wind projects. Located in ten states on the Atlantic, Pacific, Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico coasts, none of these projects is currently in operation. On the Atlantic coast, off-shore wind has the capability to provide peak productivity at peak demand hours outside of key urban areas. Offshore wind projects are also well placed to enter into power purchase agreements with neighboring utilities. The Cape Wind Project in Massachusetts has already partnered with NSTAR Electric. Between 2006 and 2012, DOE provided $300 million in funding for off-shore wind projects (72 separate grants, partnering with 30 private industry firms).[6] The Department of Interior has begun holding competitive leases for off-shore wind projects in federal waters as a part of the Climate Action Plan. However, executive actions cannot be the only factors in helping off-shore wind succeed. Stable federal tax policy will help reduce costs and speed up deployment. According to the Department of Energys National Offshore Wind Strategy, the U.S. offshore wind industry has the potential to support 200,000 manufacturing, construction, operation, and supply chain jobs and spur $70 billion in annual investments by 2030.[7] In order to do so, federal policy must be in place to provide certainty rather than lurching from year-to-year extensions.

Investment tax credit extension necessary to the future of offshore wind.Ned Haluzan 2013 US offshore wind needs prolonged incentiveshttp://www.renewables-info.com/energy_news_and_reports/us_offshore_wind_needs_prolonged_incentives.htmlEU is currently leading the way in offshore wind energy development while China is also looking to make the most of it. In United States there are several offshore wind projects in development in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey but so far US still hasn't installed a single offshore wind turbine. The key to the future of US offshore wind energy industry will be the availability of investment tax credit. Under the current regulations, at the end of 2012, the US investment tax credit for offshore wind will expire making the financing of expensive offshore wind projects extremely difficult. US offshore wind industry therefore needs new bill and Senator Thomas Carper has already proposed the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act under which wind energy producers would obtain a tax credit of 30 percent of qualified investments for the first 3,000 MW of offshore wind facilities placed into service. It is up to the Congress to make the final decision. The offshore wind energy projects have several important advantages over wind energy projects on land. They are able to produce more electricity because of more frequent and powerful offshore winds and do not kill migratory birds and bats. The only real downside of offshore wind facilities is their high construction costs. Why does US need strong offshore wind energy sector? Many energy analysts agree that the future of wind energy lies offshore and if United States wants to be an important player in global clean energy map offshore wind energy is certainly one of the best ways to go. Offshore wind energy is not only good for environment but also for economy because it is capable producing thousands of new jobs and spurring economic growth along the way.

1AC Economy AdvantageAdvantage: EconomySluggish economic growth and lack of jobs and growth will doom potential economic recovery must act.MEGHAN FOLEY GOOGLE+ TWITTER | MORE ARTICLES Is the Job Market Really Back to Its 2008 Peak?JUNE 06, 2014 Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/is-the-job-market-really-back-to-its-2008-peak.html/?a=viewall#ixzz34MEkRdyHPredictions were off. May hiring did not slow as much as forecast and, contrary to expectations, the unemployment rate did not budge from Aprils 6.3 percent. The Department of Labors Employment Situation Report showed that U.S. employers expanded payrolls by 217,000 jobs last month a slightly greater gain than the average of 214,000 jobs added per month in 2014. May also marked the fourth consecutive month in which job creation surpassed 200,000, a benchmark for the health of the economy. Now, people will start accepting that the labor market is working better than people think it is, IHS Global Insight chief U.S. economist Doug Handler told The Washington Post. Indeed, the labor market has achieved an important goal; Mays employment gains mean all the jobs lost during the recession have been recaptured, leaving employment at an all time high of 138.4 million people, just above the previous peak of 138.4 million, which came in January 2008. Of course, in the five years of the recovery, the U.S. population has grown, and so the percentage of Americans that are employed remains smaller than before the recession began. According to an analysis conducted by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, more than 7.1 million jobs need to be created to fill that gap. That reality indicates to the think tanks economist Heidi Shierholz that the United States is far, far from healthy labor market conditions.

Economy is growing; but many new jobs will be necessary to sustain the transition.Columbia Tribune, U.S. job gains extend trend Unemployment rate holds steady. Friday, June 6, 2014 at 2:00 pm http://www.columbiatribune.com/business/u-s-job-gains-extend-trend/article_61219a40-ed93-11e3-b757-10604b9f6eda.htmlWASHINGTON (AP) U.S. employers added 217,000 jobs in May, notching a substantial gain for a fourth-straight month and fueling hopes the economy will accelerate after a grim start to the year.The figure is down from 282,000 in April, which was revised slightly lower, the Labor Department said today. But job gains have now averaged 234,000 in the past three months, up from only 150,000 in the previous three. The unemployment rate, which is calculated from a separate survey, remained 6.3 percent. The job market has reached a significant milestone. Nearly five years after the Great Recession ended, the United States has finally regained all the jobs lost in the downturn. Yet that's hardly cause for celebration: The population has grown nearly 7 percent since then. Economists at the liberal Economic Policy Institute estimate that 7 million more jobs would have been needed to keep up with population growth. Average wage growth is still below the levels that would be typical of a healthy economy. Wages have grown roughly 2 percent a year since the recession ended, below the long-run average annual growth rate of about 3.5 percent. One reason for the weak pay gains: Many of the jobs added since the recession ended in June 2009 have been in lower-paying industries. Last month saw a similar pattern. Hotels, restaurants and entertainment companies added 39,000 jobs. Retailers gained 12,500. Construction firms, meanwhile, added just 6,000 jobs, while manufacturers gained 10,000. Many economists predicted late last year that growth would finally pick up in 2014 from the steady but modest pace that has persisted for the past four years. But the economy actually contracted in the first three months of this year as a blast of cold weather shut down factories and kept consumers away from shopping malls and car dealerships. The U.S. economy shrank at a 1 percent annual rate in the first quarter, its first contraction in three years. So far, employers have shrugged off the winter slowdown and have continued to hire. That should help the economy rebound because more jobs mean more paychecks to spend. Most economists expect annualized growth to reach 3 percent to 3.5 percent in the current second quarter and top 3 percent for the rest of the year. Recent economic figures suggest that growth is accelerating.

Lack of jobs is still preventing true economic growth. Rob Nichols - 06/10/14 07:08 PM EDT Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/208903-not-too-early-for-a-growth-agenda#ixzz34LrEcwFc Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on FacebookWith the midterm elections just months away, the limitations of the congressional calendar, and a contentious political environment, conventional wisdom suggests that little is likely to become law between now and November. Acknowledging these headwinds, its not too early to think about what Washington should focus on to accelerate economic growth and job creation once the environment is right. Five years into the post-recession recovery, economic growth remains subpar and more than 20 million Americans remain out of work, underemployed, or have left the workforce, discouraged. Working together, Congress and the business community can and must do more.

Global economic crisis causes war---strong statistical supportalso causes great power transitionsRoyal 10 Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214Less 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 Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of 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, 10981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 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). Seperately, Polllins (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, Copelands (1996,2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavior 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 expectation of future trade decline, particularly for difficult 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. 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 create a rally round 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 Kisanganie 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.. Sustaining economic growth is vital to generate the resources needed to solve multiple global problems, like environmental destruction, disease, and other conflicts.Silk 93 Leonard Silk, Distinguished Professor of Economics at Pace University, Senior Research Fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and former Economics Columnist with the New York Times, 1993 (Dangers of Slow Growth, Foreign Affairs)Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the firs of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world. Economic hardship is not the only cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on economic development. They also undermine efforts to deal with such global problems as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues. Growth will not solve all those problems by itself. But economic growth and growth alone creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societiesEconomic growth is vital to prevent the collapse of U.S. hegemony.Khalilzad 11 Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as the director of policy planning at the Defense Department during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, 2011 The Economy and National Security, National Review, February 8th, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024Today, 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 wars. American 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. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive territorial claims and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the worlds GDP. American institutions particularly those providing enforceable rule of law set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obamas debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction but also to the geopolitical implications. As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. While Chinas economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done. Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. Chinas military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on Chinas periphery particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam in ways that complicate Beijings strategic calculus. Chinas mercantilist policies and currency manipulation which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijings over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China. Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.U.S. withdrawal would leave behind a power vacuum, spurring terrorism, economic turmoil and multiple nuclear wars.Niall Ferguson, July/August 2004 A World Without Power, FOREIGN POLICY Issue 143So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous-roughly 20 times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of aids and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.

1AC Global Warming AdvantageThe best science proves its anthropogenicMuller, 2012 [Richard, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all]CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Im now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earths land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural. Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earths surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Nio and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the flattening of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Anthropogenic warming causes extinction mitigating coal in the electric power industry is key to solve.Mudathir F. Akorede et. al, June 2012, M.Eng degree at Bayero University Kano in Electrical Engineering, tutelage engineer in the Chad Basin Development Authoritys, lectureship appointment in the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Ilorin, professional engineer with the Council for Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN), reviewer for a number of reputable international journals, Hashim Hizam, Department of Meterology and Atmospheric Sciences, faculty, University of Putra Malaysia, M.Sc in Electrical Engineering, Polytechnic University of Brooklyn, New York, M. Z. A. Ab Kadir and I. Aris, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering University Putra Malaysia, S.D. Buba professor of Climatology University of Putra Malaysia, Ph.D. paleoclimatology, University of Oxford, M.Eng at the University of Putra Malaysia, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 16 Issue 5, Mitigating the anthropogenic global warming in the electric power industry, p. 1, Ebsco HostOne of the most current and widely discussed factors that could lead to the ultimate end of mans existence and the world at large is global warming. Global warming, described as the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century, is the increase in the average global air temperature near the surface of the Earth, caused by the gases that trap heat in the atmosphere called greenhouse gases (GHGs). These gases are emitted to the atmosphere mostly as a result of human activities, and can lead to global climate change. The economic losses arising from climate change presently valued at $125 billion annually, has been projected to increase to $600 billion per year by 2030, unless critical measures are taken to reduce the spate of GHG emissions. Globally, the power generation sector is responsible for the largest share of GHG emissions today. The reason for this is that most power plants worldwide still feed on fossil fuels, mostly coal and consequently produce the largest amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Mitigating CO2 emissions in the power industry therefore, would significantly contribute to the global efforts to control GHGs. This paper gives a brief overview of GHGs, discusses the factors that aid global warming, and examines the expected devastating effects of this fundamental global threat on the entire planet. The study further identifies the key areas to mitigate global warming with a particular focus on the electric power industry.

Offshore wind would make significant impact against global climate change, reducing global warming.Karnik, Rudhdi. (2013, Dec. 12). Offshore wind energy could power 14 million Americanhomes if . . . Retrieved Apr. 8, 2014 from http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2013/12/offshore-wind-energy-could-power-14-million-american-homes-if.html.The development of offshore wind will dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and make a significant impact in acting against global climate change. Investing in offshore wind would result in huge payoffs: according to the Department of Energy, the U.S. has enough offshore wind energy potential to power the country four times over. The Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is critical to kick offshore wind energy development into high gear. America has some of the best offshore wind resources in the world, and it's time to tap into that powerful potential. Over 1,300 gigawatts of energy generation potential have been identified along the Atlantic coast. Harnessing even a fraction of that potential could power over 14 million American homes with local, carbon-free energy and generate over $200 billion in revenues for local economies. Now those are some wind energy statistics to blow anyone away! Implementing a long-term tax incentive would make offshore wind energy an affordable, viable option for American consumers and would launch this powerful energy source from margins to mainstream. Americans would benefit from the thousands of new jobs that would be created, healthier air and water for their children and communities, and a significant impact against global climate change. The potential is there along with the incentives all Congress has to do is vote YES.

Not too late every reduction keyNuccitelli 12[Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html]We're not yet committed to surpassing 2C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However, 2C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2C and 3C, between 3C and 4C, and anything greater than 4C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.). But we're not stuck on that track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is the best summary of scientific evidence available, and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).

ExtinctionTickell 2008Oliver Tickell, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, August 11, 2008, On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechangeWe need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.

Anthropogenic warming causes rapid sea level rise and collapse in biodiversity.Kathy J. Willis et. al, 2010, holds the Tasso Leventis Chair of Biodiversity, is Director of the Biodiversity Institute (BIO) in the Zoology Department and a Professorial Fellow at Merton College, Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in Plant Sciences, held a Selwyn College Research Fellowship and then a NERC Postdoctoral Fellowship in the department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Royal Society University Research Fellowship in the Godwin Institute for Quaternary Research, University of Cambridge, University Lectureship in the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Keith D. Bennett is a professor in the School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology at Queens University, Belfast, Professor of Late-Quaternary Environmental Change, Responsible for Quaternary Geology program, Senior Assistant in Research at the University of Cambridge, NSERC Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Toronto, Shonil A. Bhagwat has a D.Phil. in Tropical Forest Diversity and Conservation and MSc in Forestry and its Relation to Land Use from the University of Oxford, Senior Research Fellow, Course Director BCM, co-ordinating a project that examines Human Adaptation to Biodiversity Change, and John B. Birks professor in the Department of Biology and Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research University of Bergen, editorial boards of Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology; Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, and Palaeoecology; Grana; Journal of Paleolimnology; Acta Palaeobotanica; Journal of Biogeography; Ecology and Plant Diversity, and Perspectives in Plant Ecology, and Evolution, Systematics and Biodiversity, Vol. 8 Issue 1, 4 C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?, p. 3, Ebsco HostOf the many predictions for climate change in the next cen-tury, a general consensus is emerging that global tempera-tures will increase by 24 C and possibly beyond (Mein-shausenet al., 2009), sea levels will rise (1m0.5 m), and atmospheric CO2 will increase by up to 1000 ppmv (Solomonet al., 2007). It is also widely suggested that the magnitude and rate of these changes will result in many plants and animals going extinct, for example within the next century, over 35% of some biota will have gone ex-tinct (Thomaset al., 2004; Solomonet al., 2007) and there will be extensive die-back of the tropical rainforest due to climate change (e.g. Huntingford et al., 2008). These predictions, based predominantly on models constructed using the present-day static distribution of species in rela-tion to present-day climate, paint a depressing picture. And it is these predictions that pervade the scientific and non-scientific literature to highlight the potential perils of future climate change and leading to the oft-cited sentiment that future climate change poses an equal or greater extinction threat to global biodiversity than land-use change (Parme-san & Yohe, 2003; Thomaset al., 2004).

Biodiversity loss causes extinction.Ruth Young, 2-9-2010, Ph.D. specialising in coastal marine ecology, Biodiversity: what it is and why its important, http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/Biodiversity/Biodiversity-what-and-why/ Different species within ecosystems fill particular roles, they all have a function, they all have a niche. They interact with each other and the physical environment to provide ecosystem services that are vital for our survival. For example plant species convert carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and energy from the sun into useful things such as food, medicines and timber. A bee pollinating a flower (Image: ClearlyAmbiguous Flickr) Pollination carried out by insects such as bees enables the production of of our food crops. Diverse mangrove and coral reef ecosystems provide a wide variety of habitats that are essential for many fishery species. To make it simpler for economists to comprehend the magnitude of services offered by Biodiversity, a team of researchers estimated their value it amounted to $US33 trillion per year. By protecting Biodiversity we maintain ecosystem services Certain species play a keystone role in maintaining ecosystem services. Similar to the removal of a keystone from an arch, the removal of these species can result in the collapse of an ecosystem and the subsequent removal of ecosystem services. The most well known example of this occurred during the 19th century when sea otters were almost hunted to extinction by fur traders along the west coast of the USA. This led to a population explosion in the sea otters main source of prey, sea urchins. Because the urchins graze on kelp their booming population decimated the underwater kelp forests. This loss of habitat led to declines in local fish populations. Sea otters are a keystone species once hunted for their fur (Image: Mike Baird) Eventually a treaty protecting sea otters allowed the numbers of otters to increase which inturn controlled the urchin population, leading to the recovery of the kelp forests and fish stocks. In other cases, ecosystem services are maintained by entire functional groups, such as apex predators (See Jeremy Hances post at Mongabay). During the last 35 years, over fishing of large shark species along the US Atlantic coast has led to a population explosion of skates and rays. These skates and rays eat bay scallops and their out of control population has led to the closure of a century long scallop fishery. These are just two examples demonstrating how Biodiversity can maintain the services that ecosystems provide for us, such as fisheries. One could argue that to maintain ecosystem services we dont need to protect Biodiversity but rather, we only need to protect the species and functional groups that fill the keystone roles. However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. First of all, for most ecosystems we dont know which species are the keystones! Ecosystems are so complex that we are still discovering which species play vital roles in maintaining them. In some cases its groups of species not just one species that are vital for the ecosystem. Second, even if we did complete the enormous task of identifying and protecting all keystone species, what back-up plan would we have if an unforseen event (e.g. pollution or disease) led to the demise of these keystone species? Would there be another species to save the day and take over this role? Classifying some species as keystone implies that the others are not important. This may lead to the non-keystone species being considered ecologically worthless and subsequently over-exploited. Sometimes we may not even know which species are likely to fill the keystone roles. An example of this was discovered on Australias Great Barrier Reef. This research examined what would happen to a coral reef if it were over-fished. The over-fishing was simulated by fencing off coral bommies thereby excluding and removing fish from them for three years. By the end of the experiment, the reefs had changed from a coral to an algae dominated ecosystem the coral became overgrown with algae. When the time came to remove the fences the researchers expected herbivorous species of fish like the parrot fish (Scarus spp.) to eat the algae and enable the reef to switch back to a coral dominated ecosystem. But, surprisingly, the shift back to coral was driven by a supposed unimportant species the bat fish (Platax pinnatus). The bat fish was previously thought to feed on invertebrates small crabs and shrimp, but when offered a big patch of algae it turned into a hungry herbivore a cow of the sea grazing the algae in no time. So a fish previously thought to be unimportant is actually a keystone species in the recovery of coral reefs overgrown by algae! Who knows how many other species are out there with unknown ecosystem roles! In some cases its easy to see who the keystone species are but in many ecosystems seemingly unimportant or redundant species are also capable of changing niches and maintaining ecosystems. The more Biodiversityiverse an ecosystem is, the more likely these species will be present and the more resilient an ecosystem is to future impacts. Presently were only scratching the surface of understanding the full importance of Biodiversity and how it helps maintain ecosystem function. The scope of this task is immense. In the meantime, a wise insurance policy for maintaining ecosystem services would be to conserve Biodiversity. In doing so, we increase the chance of maintaining our ecosystem services in the event of future impacts such as disease, invasive species and of course, climate change. This is the international year of Biodiversity a time to recognize that Biodiversity makes our survival on this planet possible and that our protection of Biodiversity maintains this service.

4 degree warming causes deep ocean acidification destroys natural resiliencePotsdam Institute, 2012 (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4C Warmer World Must be Avoided, A report for the World Bank, November, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)The high emission scenarios would also result in very high carbon dioxide concentrations and ocean acidification, as can be seen in Figure 25 and Figure 26. The increase of carbon dioxide concentration to the present-day value of 390 ppm has caused the pH to drop by 0.1 since preindustrial conditions. This has increased ocean acidity, which because of the logarithmic scale of pH is equivalent to a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity (concentration of hydrogen ions). The scenarios of 4C warming or more by 2100 correspond to a carbon dioxide concentration of above 800 ppm and lead to a further decrease of pH by another 0.3, equivalent to a 150 percent acidity increase since preindustrial levels. Ongoing ocean acidification is likely to have very severe consequences for coral reefs, various species of marine calcifying organisms, and ocean ecosystems generally (for example, Vzina & Hoegh-Guldberg 2008; Hofmann and Schellnhuber 2009). A recent review shows that the degree and timescale of ocean acidification resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions appears to be greater than during any of the ocean acidification events identified so far over the geological past, dating back millions of years and including several mass extinction events (Zeebe 2012). If atmospheric CO2 reaches 450 ppm, coral reef growth around the world is expected to slow down considerably and at 550 ppm reefs are expected to start to dissolve (Cao and Caldeira 2008; Silverman et al. 2009). Reduced growth, coral skeleton weakening, and increased temperature dependence would start to affect coral reefs already below 450 ppm. Thus, a CO2 level of below 350 ppm appears to be required for the long-term survival of coral reefs, if multiple stressors, such as high ocean surface-water temperature events, sea-level rise, and deterioration in water quality, are included (Veron et al. 2009). Based on an estimate of the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and surface ocean acidity (Bernie, Lowe, Tyrrell, and Legge 2010), only very low emission scenarios are able to halt and ultimately reverse ocean acidification (Figure 26). An important caveat on these results is that the approach used here is likely to be valid only for relatively short timescales. If mitigation measures are not implemented soon to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then ocean acidification can be expected to extend into the deep ocean. The calculations shown refer only to the response of the ocean surface layers, and once ocean acidification has spread more thoroughly, slowing and reversing this will be much more difficult. This would further add significant stress to marine ecosystems already under pressure from human influences, such as overfishing and pollution.Extinction Kristof 6 (NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, American journalist, author, op-ed columnist, and a winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, Scandal Below the Surface, Oct 31, 2006, http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/opinion/31kristof.html?_r=1,)If you think of the earths surface as a great beaker, then its filled mostly with ocean water. It is slightly alkaline, and thats what creates a hospitable home for fish, coral reefs and plankton and indirectly, higher up the food chain, for us. But scientists have discovered that the carbon dioxide (CO2) were spewing into the air doesnt just heat up the atmosphere and lead to rising seas. Much of that carbon is absorbed by the oceans, and there it produces carbonic acid the same stuff found in soda pop. That makes oceans a bit more acidic, impairing the ability of certain shellfish to produce shells, which, like coral reefs, are made of calcium carbonate. A recent article in Scientific American explained the indignity of being a dissolving mollusk in an acidic ocean: Drop a piece of chalk (calcium carbonate) into a glass of vinegar (a mild acid) if you need a demonstration of the general worry: the chalk will begin dissolving immediately. The more acidic waters may spell the end, at least in higher latitudes, of some of the tiniest variations of shellfish certain plankton and tiny snails called pteropods. This would disrupt the food chain, possibly killing off many whales and fish, and rippling up all the way to humans. We stand, so to speak, on the shoulders of plankton. There have been a couple of very big events in geological history where the carbon cycle changed dramatically, said Scott Doney, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. One was an abrupt warming that took place 55 million years ago in conjunction with acidification of the oceans and mass extinctions. Most scientists dont believe were headed toward a man-made variant on that episode not yet, at any rate. But many worry that were hurtling into unknown dangers. Whether in 20 years or 100 years, I think marine ecosystems are going to be dramatically different by the end of this century, and thatll lead to extinction events, Mr. Doney added. This is the only habitable planet we have, he said. The damage we do is going to be felt by all the generations to come. So that should be one of the great political issues for this century the vandalism were committing to our planet because of our refusal to curb greenhouse gases. Yet the subject is barely debated in this campaign. Changes in ocean chemistry are only one among many damaging consequences of carbon emissions. Evidence is also growing about the more familiar dangers: melting glaciers, changing rainfall patterns, rising seas and more powerful hurricanes. Last year, the World Health Organization released a study indicating that climate change results in an extra 150,000 deaths and five million sicknesses each year, by causing the spread of malaria, diarrhea, malnutrition and other ailments. A report prepared for the British government and published yesterday, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, warned that inaction could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. If emissions are not curbed, climate change will cut 5 percent to 20 percent of global G.D.P. each year, declared the mammoth report. In contrast, it said, the costs of action reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change can be limited to around 1 percent of global G.D.P. each year. Some analysts put the costs of action higher, but most agree that it makes sense to invest far more in alternative energy sources, both to wean ourselves of oil and to reduce the strain on our planet. We know what is needed: a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, a post-Kyoto accord on emissions cutbacks, and major research on alternative energy sources. But as The Timess Andrew Revkin noted yesterday, spending on energy research and development has fallen by more than half, after inflation, since 1979.

1AC Shipbuilding AdvantageThriving OSW industry jumpstarts shipbuilding - leadership is crucial to avoid the downgrade in US shipping industriesBondaref 12Joan, analyst with Blank Rome LLP, Is the Time Right to Expedite Offshore Wind, North American Wind Power, July, p. http://www.nawindpower.com/digitaleditions/Main.php?MagID=2&MagNo=31 Europe has been at the forefront of renewable energy and, in particular, offshore wind. Like the DOD, Europe has made a commitment to renewable energy and set a more ambitious goal of having 20% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Each member of the European Union (EU) has a national action plan to achieve this goal, and Europe is well on its way to meeting its objective. In 2009, wind constituted 7.7% of renewable energy sources in Europe. This has also resulted in the creation of over 1 million new jobs, according to a recent report by market research firm EurObservER. One burgeoning market in Europe that the U.S. should emulate is the offshore supply and support vessel industry. Innovative designs for new support vessels, such as catamarans and crew-transfer vessels that can perform well in high-sea states, have come online and can be deployed rapidly to new and existing offshore wind farms. One U.K. company is building 25 crew-transfer vessels a year. Smart U.K. boat builders that are working in the offshore wind industry have also entered into licensing agreements with U.S. boat builders, which not only will bring jobs to a flagging industry, but also should enhance support for offshore wind. Similarly, European port owners and operators are reaping the benefits of offshore wind farm projects. How European ports have positioned themselves as epicenters of offshore wind operations and support bases is discussed at length in the September 2011 issue of y North American Windpower (U.S. Ports Model Themselves After European Counterparts, page 50). Instead of working to stymie offshore wind farms for fear of interference with shipping traffic, U.S. ports should focus on the new jobs and financial opportunities that would be created by similar projects in the U.S. To ensure that these high-tech, high-paying jobs come to the U.S., it requires leadership at the federal and state levels. The U.S. should do what it can to bring about the development of this clean industry, and not sit by while other regions such as the EU, India and China take over what could be a strong manufacturing base and job market for years to come.

Commercial building key to naval innovation and surge capacityICAF 2010 (Industrial College of the Armed Forces Report, CAPT Jose Casados-Ortiz, Mexican Navy Mr. Randall Culpepper, Dept of the Air Force Ms. Rebecca Gonzales, Dept of State Mr. Charles Hall, Dept of the Navy Mr. Bruce Matthews, Dept of State LtCol Kari Mostert, US Air Force CDR Manuel Picon, US Navy Col Robert Ricci, US Air Force Mr. Todd Rollins, Dept of the Navy Mr. James Ruocco, Dept of the Navy Mrs. Patricia Schaefer, Dept of State COL Lisa Schleder-Kirkpatrick, US Army Mr. Patrick Snellings, Dept of the Navy COL Jeffrey Vieira, US Army Dr. Linda Brandt, Faculty CAPT David Meyers, US Navy, Faculty Dr. Mark Montroll, Faculty Dr. Seth Weissman, Faculty, Spring 2010, Final Report: Shipbuilding Industry, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, http://www.ndu.edu/es/programs/academic/industry/reports/2010/pdf/icaf-is-report-shipbuilding-2010.pdf) There is no debate regarding whether or not Americas shipbuilding industrial base is a critical part of our National Security Strategy (NSS). Unfortunately, there is no coherent and comprehensive defense shipbuilding industrial base strategy tied to the current NSS and other related strategies. That fact aside, the military shipbuilding industry is a key part of the defense industrial base and must be maintained. Where private shipbuilders are functioning in a competitive market, there are great opportunities for lower prices and there is potential for greater innovation and continuous improvement. A competitive, open market also creates opportunities for more efficient management and technical processes, as well as the potential for application of commercial best practices. Finally, maintaining the private sector shipbuilding industry allows a mechanism for potential surge capacity in times of national emergency. All of these benefits have a single underpinning element a competitive marketplace.Naval decline unleashes numerous nuclear conflictsEaglen 2011 (Mackenzie Eaglen, research fellow for national security at the Heritage Foundation, and Bryan McGrath, former naval officer and director at Delex Consulting, Studies and Analysis, May 16, 2011, Thinking About a Day Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/thinking-about-a-day-without-sea-power-implications-for-us-defense-policy)Global Implications. Under a scenario of dramatically reduced naval power, the United States would cease to be active in any international alliances. While it is reasonable to assume that land and air forces would be similarly reduced in this scenario, the lack of credible maritime capability to move their bulk and establish forward bases would render these forces irrelevant, even if the Army and Air Force were retained at todays levels. In Iraq and Afghanistan today, 90 percent of material arrives by sea, although material bound for Afghanistan must then make a laborious journey by land into theater. Chinas claims on the South China Sea, previously disputed by virtually all nations in the region and routinely contested by U.S. and partner naval forces, are accepted as a fait accompli, effectively turning the region into a Chinese lake. China establishes expansive oil and gas exploration with new deepwater drilling technology and secures its local sea lanes from intervention. Korea, unified in 2017 after the implosion of the North, signs a mutual defense treaty with China and solidifies their relationship. Japan is increasingly isolated and in 20202025 executes long-rumored plans to create an indigenous nuclear weapons capability.[11] By 2025, Japan has 25 mobile nuclear-armed missiles ostensibly targeting China, toward which Japans historical animus remains strong. Chinas entente with Russia leaves the Eurasian landmass dominated by Russia looking west and China looking east and south. Each cedes a sphere of dominance to the other and remains largely unconcerned with the events in the others sphere. Worldwide, trade in foodstuffs collapses. Expanding populations in the Middle East increase pressure on their governments, which are already stressed as the breakdown in world trade disproportionately affects food importers. Piracy increases worldwide, driving food transportation costs even higher. In the Arctic, Russia aggressively asserts its dominance and effectively shoulders out other nations with legitimate claims to seabed resources. No naval power exists to counter Russias claims. India, recognizing that its previous role as a balancer to China has lost relevance with the retrenchment of the Americans, agrees to supplement Chinese naval power in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to protect the flow of oil to Southeast Asia. In exchange, China agrees to exercise increased influence on its client state Pakistan. The great typhoon of 2023 strikes Bangladesh, killing 23,000 people initially, and 200,000 more die in the subsequent weeks and months as the international community provides little humanitarian relief. Cholera and malaria are epidemic. Iran dominates the Persian Gulf and is a nuclear power. Its navy aggressively patrols the Gulf while the Revolutionary Guard Navy harasses shipping and oil infrastructure to force Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries into Tehrans orbit. Russia supplies Iran with a steady flow of military technology and nuclear industry expertise. Lacking a regional threat, the Iranians happily control the flow of oil from the Gulf and benefit economically from the protection provided to other GCC nations. In Egypt, the decade-long experiment in participatory democracy ends with the ascendance of the Muslim Brotherhood in a violent seizure of power. The United States is identified closely with the previous coalition government, and riots break out at the U.S. embassy. Americans in Egypt are left to their own devices because the U.S. has no forces in the Mediterranean capable of performing a noncombatant evacuation when the government closes major airports. Led by Iran, a coalition of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq attacks Israel. Over 300,000 die in six months of fighting that includes a limited nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. Israel is defeated, and the State of Palestine is declared in its place. Massive refugee camps are created to house the internally displaced Israelis, but a humanitarian nightmare ensues from the inability of conquering forces to support them. The NATO alliance is shattered. The security of European nations depends increasingly on the lack of external threats and the nuclear capability of France, Britain, and Germany, which overcame its reticence to military capability in light of Americas retrenchment. Europe depends for its energy security on Russia and Iran, which control the main supply lines and sources of oil and gas to Europe. Major European nations stand down their militaries and instead make limited contributions to a new EU military constabulary force. No European nation maintains the ability to conduct significant out-of-area operations, and Europe as a whole maintains little airlift capacity. Implications for Americas Economy. If the United States slashed its Navy and ended its mission as a guarantor of the free flow of transoceanic goods and trade, globalized world trade would decrease substantially. As early as 1890, noted U.S. naval officer and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan described the worlds oceans as a great highwaya wide common, underscoring the long-running importance of the seas to trade.[12] Geographically organized trading blocs develop as the maritime highways suffer from insecurity and rising fuel prices. Asia prospers thanks to internal trade and Middle Eastern oil, Europe muddles along on the largesse of Russia and Iran, and the Western Hemisphere declines to a new normal with the exception of energy-independent Brazil. For America, Venezuelan oil grows in importance as other supplies decline. Mexico runs out of oilas predictedwhen it fails to take advantage of Western oil technology and investment. Nigerian output, which for five years had been secured through a partnership of the U.S. Navy and Nigerian maritime forces, is decimated by the bloody civil war of 2021. Canadian exports, which a decade earlier had been strong as a result of the oil shale industry, decline as a result of environmental concerns in Canada and elsewhere about the fracking (hydraulic fracturing) process used to free oil from shale. State and non-state actors increase the hazards to seaborne shipping, which are compounded by the necessity of traversing key chokepoints that are easily targeted by those who wish to restrict trade. These chokepoints include the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran could quickly close to trade if it wishes. More than half of the worlds oil is transported by sea. From 1970 to 2006, the amount of goods transported via the oceans of the worldincreased from 2.6 billion tons to 7.4 billion tons, an increase of over 284%.[13] In 2010, $40 billion dollars [sic] worth of oil passes through the worlds geographic chokepoints on a daily basisnot to mention $3.2 trillionannually in commerce that moves underwater on transoceanic cables.[14] These quantities of goods simply cannot be moved by any other means. Thus, a reduction of sea trade reduces overall international trade. U.S. consumers face a greatly diminished selection of goods because domestic production largely disappeared in the decades before the global depression. As countries increasingly focus on regional rather than global trade, costs rise and Americans are forced to accept a much lower standard of living. Some domestic manufacturing improves, but at significant cost. In addition, shippers avoid U.S. ports due to the onerous container inspection regime implemented after investigators discover that the second dirty bomb was smuggled into the U.S. in a shipping container on an innocuous Panamanian-flagged freighter. As a result, American consumers bear higher shipping costs. The market also constrains the variety of goods available to the U.S. consumer and increases their cost. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report makes this abundantly clear. A one-week shutdown of the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports would lead to production losses of $65 million to $150 million (in 2006 dollars) per day. A three-year closure would cost $45 billion to $70 billion per year ($125 million to $200 million per day). Perhaps even more shocking, the simulation estimated that employment would shrink by approximately 1 million jobs.[15] These estimates demonstrate the effects of closing only the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports. On a national scale, such a shutdown would be catastrophic. The Government Accountability Office notes that: [O]ver 95 percent of U.S. international trade is transported by water[;] thus, the safety and economic security of the United States depends in large part on the secure use of the worlds seaports and waterways. A successful attack on a major seaport could potentially result in a dramatic slowdown in the international supply chain with impacts in the billions of dollars.[16] Dominance renders great power wars obsoleteEaglen 2011 (Mackenzie Eaglen, research fellow for national security at the Heritage Foundation, and Bryan McGrath, former naval officer and director at Delex Consulting, Studies and Analysis, May 16, 2011, Thinking About a Day Without Sea Power: Implications for U.S. Defense Policy, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/thinking-about-a-day-without-sea-power-implications-for-us-defense-policy)The U.S. Navys global presence has added immeasurably to U.S. economic vitality and to the economies of Americas friends and allies, not to mention those of its enemies. World wars, which destroyed Europe and much of East Asia, have become almost incomprehensible thanks to the nuclear taboo and preponderant American sea power. If these conditions are removed, all bets are off. For more than five centuries, the global system of trade and economic development has grown and prospered in the presence of some dominant naval power. Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and now the U.S. have each taken a turn as the major provider of naval power to maintain the global system. Each benefited handsomely from the investment: [These navies], in times of peace, secured the global commons and ensured freedom of movement of goods and people across the globe. They supported global trading systems from the age of mercantilism to the industrial revolution and into the modern era of capitalism. They were a gold standard for international exchange. These forces supported national governments that had specific global agendas for liberal trade, the rule of law at sea, and the protection of maritime commerce from illicit activities such as piracy and smuggling.[4] A preponderant naval power occupies a unique position in the global order, a special seat at the table, which when unoccupied creates conditions for instability. Both world wars, several European-wide conflicts, and innumerable regional fights have been fueled by naval arms races, inflamed by the combination of passionate rising powers and feckless declining powers.

Inherency ExtensionTax credit extensions for offshore wind are being blocked in the status quo.Andrew Lee and Karl-Erik Stromsta Friday, May 16 2014Updated: Friday, May 16 2014 http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/article1362286.eceEfforts to revive the US Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind power ran into a political roadblock when a group of Republican senators halted a bill that included a two-year extension to the key federal incentive. The procedural blockage prompted by a row over amendments stalled a bipartisan tax-extenders bill that the US industry hoped would carry the PTC and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) to renewal through 2015 along with a range of other measures. As recently as 10 days ago the American Wind Energy Association said it was optimistic about the prospects for the tax-extenders. But some Senate Republicans declined to support the tax-extenders package, which includes dozens of tax breaks for a variety of industries, unless they could strip out.

Wind energy production is stalling in the United States lack of long term tax subsidies from the federal government deters investors from investing in new projects. USA Today, 2014(US wind industry slammed by tax uncertainty, fracking, USA Today, April 19, Online: http://www.htrnews.com/viewart/20140420/MAN03/304200220/US-wind-industry-slammed-by-tax-uncertainty-fracking)

Once a booming industry, U.S. wind power saw its growth plummet 92 percent last year as it wrestled with tax uncertainties and cheap natural gas. The industry is still growing but not nearly as fast, says a report by the American Wind Energy Association. It added a record 13,131 megawatts of power in 2012 but that fell to only 1,087 MW last year the lowest level since 2004. One reason was investors uncertainty that Congress would renew a federal wind tax subsidy. People didnt know it would be passed ... so they werent creating new projects early last year, says AWEAs president Tom Kiernan. He says it takes about nine months to plan a wind farm, so the one-year extension in January 2013 didnt trigger a flurry of new wind farm construction until the second half of 2013. He expects this year will see a rebound in new capacity but how much will depend on whether Congress extends the tax subsidy, which expired in January. An extension is pending in the Senate. Retailer IKEA has announced Thursday that its building a wind farm in Hoopeston, Ill., slated to open in early 2015. The AWEA report is the latest to show the challenges confronting the clean energy sector. Last year, investments in renewable energy fell 14percent globally and 10 percent in the United States, according to an analysis by the United Nations Environment Programme. It says U.S. investments in wind were $13.3 billion, down from $14.5 billion in 2012.

Senate has failed to extend tax credits for windThe Energy Collective, Senate Gridlock Continues as Tax Extenders, Shaheen-Portman Fall ShortPosted May 24, 2014 http://theenergycollective.com/tom-carlson/386731/federal-senate-gridlock-continues-tax-extenders-shaheen-portman-fall-shortIn the last couple of weeks, the U.S. Senate failed to advance two pieces of legislation the advanced energy industry has been waiting for: a bill to extend tax credits that expired at the close of last year (S.2260) and the energy efficiency bill (S. 2262) sponsored by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Rob Portman (R-OH). While the extenders bill is expected to return to the Senate Floor, the prospects for the Shaheen-Portman bill have grown dim for 2014. Last Thursday, May 15, the extenders bill failed to obtain the 60 votes needed for cloture on the Senate floor with, 53 Senators voting in favor and 40 against. The vote was largely among party lines, though Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) voted with Democrats in favor and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) voted no in order to be able to bring the bill back to the floor for reconsideration. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), a strong supporter of the package, which includes extension of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind power, said that he voted against the measure due to a disagreement with Sen. Reid over whether amendments would be considered on the floor. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) is expected to work with Finance Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on a list of tax-related amendments to be considered, though the timing remains unclear. The extenders package was approved with bipartisan support by the committee last month and includes a number of advanced energy provisions.

Solvency Extension tax credits

Tax credits are vital for the development of offshore wind, which will reduce global warming and create jobsCarper, Feb 28 2013 http://www.carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=c42c5c89-2018-4414-bdb2-bf57f0d578b2 Bipartisan Senators and Congressmen Introduce Legislation to Spur Offshore Wind Industry Bills would extend key investment tax credits for offshore projectsWASHINGTON Today, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Susan Collins (R-Me.) introduced the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act to provide critical financial incentives for investment in offshore wind energy. Congressmen Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. These bills provide the offshore wind industry with enhanced stability by extending investment tax credits for the first 3,000 Megawatts of offshore wind facilities placed into service, which is an estimate of 600 wind turbines. These tax credits are vital for this new clean energy technology because of the longer lead time for the permitting and construction of offshore wind turbines, compared to onshore wind energy. Once awarded a tax credit, companies would have five years to install the offshore wind facility. Companies would not be able to receive other production or investment tax credits in addition to the offshore wind investment tax credit. "Developing wind energy off our nation's shores, especially in places like my home state of Delaware, is a critical part of boosting American energy independence and jumpstarting our clean energy economy," said Sen. Carper. "Offshore wind is a true 'win-win-win' it is cleaner for our environment, reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign energy, and helps create jobs. If we want to harness this untapped, domestic energy source, providing investment tax incentives for our country's first offshore wind projects is essential. Our bill would do just that. Additionally, it would help spur an industry that can be an engine for new, good-paying jobs in manufacturing, construction, maintenance and production. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation and encouraging the growth of the American offshore wind industry." "There is enormous potential in offshore wind, which is why I am delighted that Maine is actively working to develop deepwater offshore wind technology," said Sen. Collins. "America must become a leader in offshore wind energy. This bill would create rewarding incentives for the first offshore wind projects, which could help diversify our energy supply, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create thousands of new American jobs." "In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, we must do everything we can to encourage investment in new and exciting clean energy technologies, like offshore wind, that will reduce our dependence on the carbon based fuels that cause climate change," stated Rep. Pascrell. "Offshore wind offers an enormous potential for producing domestic, clean energy close to the large population centers of the northeast. The Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act will give tax certainty to the seed investors this industry needs to jumpstart installations, encourage the development of manufacturing facilities, create good paying jobs, and reduce costs for future projects and consumers." The legislation defines offshore facilities as any facility located in the inland navigable waters of the United States, including the Great Lakes, or in the coastal waters of the United States, including the territorial seas of the United States, the exclusive economic zone of United States, and the outer Continental Shelf of the United States. Offshore wind offers enormous potential for producing clean domestic energy and helping create good jobs in areas located close to large population centers along the coasts. Because offshore wind blows faster and more uniformly at sea than the wind on land, it is a huge untapped resource for clean American power. According to the University of Delaware, the winds off the Atlantic Coast have the potential of generating 330 Gigawatts of power. That is enough power to replace about 300 dirty, large coal plants and enough power to support nine states from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Additionally, building and operating these wind farms would create economic opportunities along our coasts. Learning from European countries, who have seen over 50 offshore wind projects deployed since 1991, we know an offshore wind project can create up to 1,500 jobs in construction and operation and maintenance alone.

Congress should renew tax incentives for offshore wind to spur development, resolve warming and boost the economy.The Hill, June 10, 2014, 12:00 pm Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/208538-nothing-partisan-about-renewing-american-wind-power#ixzz34LfQvvDq Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on FacebookAt a time when Congress needs to demonstrate to the American people that it can still get important things done, it has a unique opportunity to do exactly that by renewing its commitment to critical wind energy incentives. We urge the Senate to pass its package of tax incentives that includes key credits for renewable energy. In doing so, Congress can show it is still focused on priorities that matter most to the publicencouraging the creation of good-paying jobs and spurring private sector investment. As mayors of New Bedford, Massachusetts and Virginia Beach, Virginia, a Democrat and a Republican, we are not interested in partisan politics. We believe that effective job-creation strategies are critical for our cities to remain good places to work, live and raise families. We also believe that our local economies, and those of other communities from coast to coast, are primed to become the beneficiaries of thousands of new jobs from a new national renewable energy industry that has the capacity to power millions of homes offshore wind. Simply put, the offshore wind opportunity is real and we cannot afford to miss it. With Congress advancing bipartisan, job-creating tax incentives, cities big and small across the country can experience the economic development benefits of the offshore wind industry. These jobs are already becoming a reality in the City of New Bedford. In the 19th century, New Bedford was the whaling capital of the world, and residents sailed to the far reaches of every ocean in a hunt for energy. Today, New Bedford is working to reclaim its title as The City that Lit the World by aggressively pursuing opportunities in the emerging American offshore wind industry. A forward-looking state investment has made New Bedford, the nations top-grossing fishing port, the new home of the nations first purpose-built marine terminal for offshore wind, and the entire community has undertaken a concerted effort to prepare students, workforce and businesses for the green energy jobs of the future. Terminal construction has already created nearly 100 jobs. New Bedford is ramping up its preparations to stage the nations first off shore wind project, Cape Wind. And the City is doing the long-term strategic planning necessary to maximize our role in the generation of offshore wind projects to follow Cape Wind. In short, New Bedford is doing everything it can to position itself as an ideal location for the industry to build its future. What it needs is a federal government partner. Virginia Beach is likewise seizing the offshore wind opportunity. The Navy has given its assurance that properly-placed turbines can go hand-in-hand with critical military operations off the coast. The Hampton Roads area has the largest concentration of military bases and facilities of any metropolitan area in the world. The area is also home to the nations largest shipbuilding industry an industry well versed in producing the materials that can weather the rugged marine environment where offshore wind turbines will be erected. Both New Bedford and Virginia Beach have the know-how and skilled workforces that can make them manufacturing hubs for the over 8,000 parts in a wind turbine. Offshore wind energy can preserve the traditions that have made both communities special while strengthening our economy, energy security, and natural resources for future generations. And we are very anxious to get started. European and Asian observers are scratching their heads wondering why we are not seizing this opportunity. Over the course of two decades European leaders have installed more than 2,000 offshore wind turbines that provide clean renewable energy to millions of homes and businesses while supporting nearly 60,000 jobs. China and Japan have offshore wind projects online, with big plans for future development. The hardworking men and women of our communities deserve the same opportunities for good paying jobs. Our children, our wildlife, and future generations of both deserve clean air and clean water. There is nothing partisan about any of this. Renewing incentives for offshore wind power will provide the financial stability our federal government has historically offered to many emerging industries. The private sector needs predictability to justify the billions of dollars in investment that will bring Americas offshore wind power opportunities to fruition including, most importantly, the tens of thousands of manufacturing and maritime jobs that will keep it running. Thats where New Bedford and Virginia Beach come in. Congress, lets put our cities to work building a cleaner future, and l