Otec Negative - Hss 2014-2

Case Defense

Solvency Answers

FrontlineLockheed Martin proves status quo confidence solves the aff Censer 13 --came to the Washington Post and its local business publication Capital Business in April 2010 to cover government contracting. She previously worked as managing editor of Inside the Army, an independent newsletter that covers Army procurement, budget and policy issues. She also worked as a reporter at the Carroll County Times in Westminster, Md, and the Princeton Packet in Princeton, N.J. A Fairfax native, she graduated from Princeton University. (Marjorie “As federal dollars shrink, Lockheed fishes for new revenue streams” April 21st 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/as-federal-dollars-shrink-lockheed-fishes-for-new-revenue-streams/2013/04/21/dcd36b42-a6a3-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html)//CS

Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin is known as the largest defense contractor in the world , building military aircraft, satellites and ships. Now it wants to be a power company .¶ As government contractors see pressure on government spending, they’re taking another look at the technology and capabilities they have and finding ways to redirect those skills.¶ Lockheed, for instance, announced last week that it h as partnered with a Chinese firm to build a power plant off the coast of southern China . And McLean-based contracting giant Booz Allen Hamilton has formed a strategic innovation group to consider what new technology or products it might move into.¶ At Lockheed, the power plant project has been managed by Dan Heller, who heads the company’s new ventures unit. The unit was established in 2008 and includes the power plant as well as Perforene, a water purification technology that Lockheed patented this year.¶ Heller said Lockheed has been experimenting with o cean t hermal e nergy c onversion — which will power the plant — for decades but has increased its investment in the past five years. The technology uses the temperature difference between the warm surface water of the ocean and the cold water much lower to create an electricity-generating cycle.¶ Lockheed’s partner in the project, the Beijing-based Reignwood Group, invests in a range of industries, from energy to aviation to luxury products.¶ The plant Lockheed is designing will supply the power needed for a Reignwood-developed green resort , the company said, and the agreement could allow for developing several more power plants . Still, the company’s focus is on building a new market . Heller said Lockheed has identified 83 countries that would be able to use the tech nology. ¶ “ We will start to market the [o cean t hermal e nergy c onversion] system globally before we’re even through the construction phase , ” said Heller, adding that the company expects to complete the plant within about four years. “ We’re trying to look far beyond the pilot plant.” ¶ Booz Allen is also planning for the future, creating a 1,700-employee strategic innovation group tasked with applying the company’s technologies and services to new areas. The unit will also manage research and development into new technologies.¶ The company has appointed Karen Dahut, who previously ran Booz Allen’s analytics unit, to head the group. She said the company, which has invested $40 million in the group, is resisting the temptation to stop investing in research and new ideas, given the pressure on government spending.¶ “The thought behind this was .   .   . really to capitalize on the market that we hope to be in five to eight years from now,” Dahut said. ¶ For instance, the group is looking into how it can translate its predictive intelligence work with government intelligence organizations to business with financial institutions. The company combines cyber-protection services with analysts monitoring Internet data to help clients

identify potential cyberthreats.¶ Booz Allen is also considering adding more data feeds, such as financial data, Dahut said.¶ Still, the move into new areas can be daunting for contractors, said August Cole, an adjunct fellow at the American Security Project, which counts Lockheed among its donors.

Commercialization fails *note: this card only works if the aff does not defend spending money (“financial incentives”) for OTEC

DOE 13 (US Department of Energy “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Basics” August 16th 2013, http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-basics)//CS

OTEC power plants require substantial capital investment upfront. OTEC researchers believe private sector firms probably will be unwilling to make the enormous initial investment required to build large-scale plants until the price of fossil fuels increases dramatically or national governments provide financial incentives. Another factor hindering the commercialization of OTEC is that there are only a few hundred land-based sites in the tropics where deep- ocean water is close enough to shore to make OTEC plants feasible.

OTEC is too expensive and only works in tropical regions Quick 13 --Managing Editor at Gizmag (Darren, “World’s largest OTEC power plant planned for China” http://www.gizmag.com/otec-plant-lockheed-martin-reignwood-china/27164/)//CS

Tropical regions are considered the only viable locations for OTEC plants due to the greater temperature differential between the shallow and deep water . Unlike wind and solar power, OTEC can produce electricity around the clock, 365 days a year to supply base load power. OTEC plants also produce cold water as a by-product that can be used for air conditioning and refrigeration at locations near the plant.¶ Despite such advantages, and even though demonstration plants were constructed as far back as the 1880s, there are still no large-scale commercial OTEC plants in operation. This is largely due to the costs associated with locating and maintaining the facility off shore and drawing the cold water from the ocean depths. But the time may finally be right.

Extension – Squo SolvesStatus quo private projects should solve the affStrickland 13 --an associate editor for the international technology magazine IEEE Spectrum, Strickland has reported on the environment, science, and technology for 12 years. She has worked as the online news editor for the science magazine Discover, and as a contributing writer for Wired’s website.(Eliza, “Lockheed Martin Pioneers Ocean Energy in China” July 25th 2013, http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/geothermal-and-tidal/lockheed-martin-pioneers-ocean-energy-in-china)//CS

Just a few years ago, Lockheed Martin was working to build a pilot plant to demonstrate a renewable energy technology called ocean thermal energy conversion ( OTEC ) near the Hawaiian island of Oahu. The company wanted to get funding from the U.S. Navy for the pioneering project and to cable the electricity it produced straight to the naval base at Pearl Harbor.¶ Now Lockheed is designing that 10-megawatt pilot plant —but not in American waters. Instead, the facility will be off the coast of southern China, and Lockheed’s customer is a private Chinese company that develops resorts and luxury housing.¶

Over the years Lockheed has approached various potential partners, says Rob Varley, the company’s OTEC project manager. Building an offshore energy station at commercial scale is an expensive proposition, particularly when it’s the first time the technology is being tried out. Lockheed won’t release the cost of the project, but outside experts estimate that a 10-MW facility would cost roughly US $300 million to $500 million. However, experts say that a full-scale 100-MW plant would be more competitive at just $1.2 billion.¶ “The biggest challenge has been to get the gold and start the project,” says Varley, but in terms of engineering, he says, “I don’t see any showstoppers at this point.” ¶ That’s not surprising, since the company has been working on OTEC since the 1970s, and the technology hasn’t changed drastically since then. OTEC systems make use of the temperature differential in tropical areas between warm surface water and cold deep water. In most systems, ammonia, which has a very low boiling point, passes through a heat exchanger containing the warm water. The ammonia is vaporized and used to turn a turbine, and then it’s cycled past the cold water to recondense. This is a renewable energy technology with the rare capacity to supply base-load power, as water temperatures are fairly stable.¶ The ammonia passes through a closed loop, while the water comes and goes through massive pipes. The project in China may pump cold water up from a depth of about 1000 meters, using a pipe that’s 4 meters across. Varley says that some of the infrastructure can be borrowed from the offshore drilling industry: “We showed them our requirements for the platform, and they yawned and said, ‘Is that all you got?’ ” he says. “But then we showed them the pipe.” Attaching the massive pipe to a relatively small floating platform creates unusual stresses, Varley says. Lockheed also had to find materials for the pipes and the heat exchangers that could withstand the harsh marine environment.¶ Lockheed’s client is Reignwood Group, a Chinese company whose diverse portfolio includes resort and housing developments. According to a company press release, Reignwood Group wants the 10-MW plant to supply all the power for a large-scale environmentally sound resort community that the company will build in southern China. A Reignwood spokesperson did not respond to requests for more details by press time. A Lockheed spokesperson says the companies are currently working on site selection and that they’ll start designing a facility this year to suit the specific conditions at that site.¶

The China project isn’t the only OTEC project going ahead. Baltimore-based OTEC International is

negotiating the terms of a 1-MW demonstration plant in Hawaii, and t he company is planning much bigger facilities in Hawaii and the Caribbean . Both OTEC International and Lockheed Martin see their current plans as steps toward a much more ambitious goal: utility-scale OTEC plants . “Going from a PowerPoint to a 100-MW would be too big a leap,” says Lockheed’s Varley. OTEC advocates have been trying to build megawatt-scale facilities for decades, but several ambitious projects have failed to materialize. So why should it be different this decade? Eileen O’Rourke, president of OTEC International, says there’s a convergence of favorable conditions. “Island jurisdictions like Hawaii have very high energy prices and limited alternatives for base-load power, and OTEC fits with their desire to be energy independent and green,” she says. Add in mature technology from the offshore oil industry, she says, and “we just think the time is right for OTEC.”

International interest in OTEC solves all their global impacts Friedman 14 -- Becca, citing Harvard Political Review, writing for the Ocean Energy Council (“EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION” March 2014 http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)//CS

In fact, as the U.S. government is dragging its feet, other countries are moving forward with their own designs and may well beat American industry to a fully-functioning plant. In India , there has been significant academic interest in OTEC , although the National Institute of Ocean Technology project has stalled due to a lack of funding. Japan , too, has run into capital cost issues, but Saga University ’s Institute of Ocean Energy has recently won prizes for advances in refinement of the OTEC cycle. Taiwan and various European nations have also explored OTEC as part of their long-term energy strategy. Perhaps the most interest is in the Philippines , where the Philippine Department of Energy has worked with Japanese experts to select 16 potential OTEC sites.

Extension – No CommercializationOTEC is too vulnerable for commercialization Friedman 14 -- Becca, citing Harvard Political Review, writing for the Ocean Energy Council (“EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION” March 2014 http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)//CS

Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed . The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “ We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty ,” Penney told the HPR.¶ Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating . In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.

Too many barriers to commercialized OTEC, but international governments solve the aff IRENA 14--(IRENA) is an intergovernmental organisation that supports countries in their transition to a sustainable energy future, and serves as the principal platform for international co-operation, a centre of excellence, and a repository of policy, technology, resource and financial knowledge on renewable energy. IRENA promotes the widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy, including bioenergy, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, solar and wind energy, in the pursuit of sustainable development, energy access, energy security and low-carbon economic growth and prosperity. (International Renewable Energy Agency“ OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION” July 1st 2014, http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/Ocean_Thermal_Energy_V4_web.pdf)//CS

OTEC seems most suitable, and economically viable for island countries and remote island states in tropical seas where generation can be combined with other functions, as e.g., air-conditioning and fresh water production. Several countries are actively pursuing large-scale deployment of OTEC. For example, companies and governments in France, Japan, the Philippines and South Korea have developed roadmaps for OTEC

development (Brochard, 2013; Marasigan, 2013; Kim and Yeo, 2013; Okamura, 2013). Furthermore, Indonesia is mapping its OTEC potential (Suprijo, 2012), Malaysia is proposing a new law on ocean thermal energy development (Bakar

Jaafar, 2013), and the Philippines has been considering feed-in tariffs for OTEC (NREB, 2012). Moreover, the technical concept

for a 10 MW plant has been proven and the economics for scale-up of plants are promising. The advantage over other type of renewables as solar and wind is that

OTEC is continuous and can also produce without direct availability of sun or wind. However, there are some challenges that still need to be overcome. For current plants, there are some issues with construction in fragile marine environments , sealing of the different parts of the installation against sea water, maintenance of material in the sea environment, and bio-fouling of the pipes and other parts of the installation. For larger installations, e.g., 10 MW or even 100 MW, the pipes

are of considerable width – from 4 m to 20 m – which may impact the coastal structure, and more importantly, the transfer of the cold water up and the discharge in the warmer water could affect the marine life in the vicinity of the plant (e.g., exhaust water at 3 degrees below surface water temperature could cause algae bloom). Thus, water effluent needs to be discharged at a certain depth, as the discharged cold water at the surface could influence the temperature of the surface water required for power production. impact could be compared with the temperature issues of, for example, a gas-fired power plant. ¶ A second area that still

presents some challenges is the environmental impact. The siting of OTEC projects combined with protection of marine bio-diversity and recreational activities and tourism can create problems . Furthermore, there is unknown risk for marine lif e at the seabed due to the large scale upward transfer of cold water with high nutrients content. The same applies for marine life at higher surface waters. Another environmental aspect to be considered is fish entrapment although,

this could be resolved by fencing. Some of the problems can be solved by locating the larger installations farther off the coast. The US Department of Energy (DOE) has recently brought out a more detailed study regarding the ecological aspects of OTEC (DOE, 2012). This study, which is based on computational models, suggests that OTEC plants with discharge at 70 meters of depth or more have no effect on the upper 40 meters of the ocean’s surface, and that the effect on picoplankton in

the 70-110 meter depth layer is well within naturally occurring variability. ¶ The third challenge is from a financial/planning perspective. Large scale OTEC plants require high up-front capital costs , and the current prices per kWh are not competitive with other mainland energy generation technologies. A new development is that some companies are now offering bankable turnkey

projects (Brochard, 2013; Johnson, 2013). Land planning issues may also create a problem . On the positive side, however, OTEC could

be used as flexible base-load in a system with a large amount of intermittent renewables. A combination of different renewables in hybrid technologies can have positive impacts on the investment prospects.

Private companies wont invest in large scale OTEC Muralidharan 2012 -- Master of Science in Engineering and Management at Pondicherry University – Mechanical Engineering school (Shylesh. “Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion” February 2012, http://dw.crackmypdf.com/0744224001401970561/824363276.pdf,This study has shown that investments in OTEC become more favorable with scale, as costs are projected to decrease by more than one-fifth with every doubling of plant output. But the capital intensive nature of OTEC projects will be a deterrent to immediate large-scale investment, especially by private investors . Energy technologies such as wind and solar might be seen as less risky renewable energy investment options, given their proven costs and performance . Also, as these technologies are currently ahead of OTEC in market maturity, their levelized cost of energy might continue to decrease significantly in the coming years. These other available options for renewable electricity generation may impede investments in OTEC . The engineering feasibility of open-cycle and closed-cycle OTEC plants has been assessed by many independent investigators in recent years. Engineering design and development for OTEC is supposed to be a relatively easy task us documented in several reports. Individual component demonstrations have been conducted in the past, with moderate success. The missing link is the conversion of these tests into operational large-scale demonstration projects . Though there have been several short-term prototypes of the technology, none have succeeded in attracting large investments in working plants. Commercialization of this technology will require focused effort from all interested stakeholders in the system the scientists, engineers, government

authorities, and the investor community. Most energy consumers and investors have traditionally indicated a bias towards land-based plants and a resistance to water-based power plantsl67J . Their degree of participation will depend upon the projected cost of power, the capital investment required and the degree of risk involved.

Extension – Only TropicsOTEC has accessibility problems – only works in tropical areasCombs 8 –Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Susan, “The Energy Report 2008”, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/20-OceanPower.pdf,)

Finally, ocean thermal energy conversion ( OTEC) is the least accessible form of ocean power, and perhaps the least useful for the U.S. To work, OTEC needs an optimal temperature difference between warm water on the surface and colder water below of about 36°F—a range found only in tropical coastal areas near the equator . In the U.S., OTEC research and testing is taking place in Hawaii. The cold water is brought to the surface by a deeply

submerged intake pipe.¶ Researchers have developed two different types of OTEC and a third that is a hybrid of the other two; all use the thermal energy stored in seawater to power a steam turbine. Closed-cycle OTEC uses warm seawater to vaporize a low-boiling point liquid that then drives a turbine to generate electricity. (This approach is similar to the binary cycle method of geothermal generation.) The vaporized liquid then is cooled and condensed back to liquid with cold seawater, and the cycle repeats. Open-cycle OTEC gets warm seawater to boil through lowered pressure and uses the resulting steam to drive the turbine. Once again, cold water from the deep con- verts the steam back to (now desalinated) water.¶ The hybrid method uses the steam from boiled sea- water to vaporize a low-boiling point liquid, which then drives the turbine.11 In concept, these systems are quite simple, but in practice the depths and scale that are required to effectively harness OTEC have been prohibitive.

Hydrogen Economy Answers

FrontlineStatus quo solves – new extraction techniques – OTEC not keyPietrowski 13 (Alex, staff writer, April 4, 2013, “Another Breakthrough in Hydrogen Energy Challenges Fossil Fuel Dominance,” http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/04/04/another-breakthrough-in-hydrogen-energy-challenges-fossil-fuel-dominance/, alp)

Researchers at Virginia Tech have developed a new process that extracts large quantities of hydrogen gas from plants in a renewable and eco-friendly way, offering us another potential alternative to ending our dependence on fossil fuels. After 7 years of research, Y.H. Percival Zhang, an associate professor at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech, and his team have developed a new method of using customized enzymes to produce high quantities of hydrogen out of xylose, a simple sugar present in plants. Zhang and his team have succeeded in using xylose, the most abundant simple plant sugar, to produce a large quantity of hydrogen that previously was attainable only in theory. Zhang’s method can be performed using any source of biomass. This new environmentally friendly method of producing hydrogen utilizes renewable natural resources, releases almost no zero greenhouse gasses, and does not require costly or heavy metals. Previous methods to produce hydrogen are expensive and create greenhouse gases. [Science Daily]

Alt cause – lack of refueling infrastructureHoffmire 13 (John, Deseret News, November 11, 2013, “John Hoffmire: Electric cars and the hydrogen economy,” http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865590339/Electric-cars-and-the-hydrogen-

economy.html?pg=all, alp)

However, these entries into the hydrogen market are relatively small, deliberate and mostly theoretical efforts at the moment. While the technology exists, widespread production and adoption face significant challenges. These challenges are only made more difficult with the advance and promotion of electric cars. The main pain point focuses on infrastructure development. Both electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles require refueling stations. In a classic example of the chicken and the egg paradox, businesses do not want to provide alternative fuel vehicles to a market with low demand, while consumer demand is low due to the impracticality of a new technology due to a lack of alternative fuel stations. Recent steps have been taken in many states to provide electric charging stations, beginning to build up the infrastructure needed for electric vehicles, while hydrogen is largely ignored. This poses a significant threat that could delay the entry of hydrogen vehicles for many years.

OTEC wont solve energy independence, the hydrogen economy is infeasible Dodge and Baird 14 --*researcher and writer about technology and market based solutions for energy and climate problems. **Owner of the company called Global Warming Mitigation Method, claimed by some the state-of-the-art and most viable solution to the problem of nuclear waste, BS in Chemistry at The University of Calgary, Works with organizations such as United Nations Sustainable Development, Environmental Services Professionals in Western Canada, and Aquaculture Projects. (Ed and Jim, Dodge and Baird are having a moderated debate in the comments of an article written by Nordhaus and Shellenberg, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are leading global thinkers on energy, climate, security, human development, and politics. “Moderate Environmentalists Go Nuclear”, May 9th 2014 http://theenergycollective.com/michaelshellenberger/378026/moderate-environmentalists-go-nuclear)//CS

Edward Dodge says:¶ "O cean t hermal e nergy c onversion can replace all fossil fuels ." C'mon Jim, this comment is fantasy. I'm all for OTEC, don't get me wrong, but proponents of various renewables have been making these grandiose claims for years. They were wrong in the 1970s and they are still wrong today . ¶ If you are going to use OTEC to produce synthetic hydrocarbons you might have an argument, but you are going to be hard pressed to make the economics work compared to all the fossil fuels that are lying at our feet. And nukes will probably be a better way to produce synthetics . ¶ The supplies of coal, oil and gas are incredibly vast , they are not going to run out in centuries. And coal specifically is easy to access . And what happens to the price of coal as substitutes are brought to market? It gets cheaper, and hence more desirable . ¶ And on the demand side, diesel and jet fuel are the most energy dense carriers we have available, outside of nuclear, so for any type of vehicle that is high horsepower and requires lots of fuel, liquids are where its at . Engineering performance and cost drives demand, not anyone's moral persuasions.¶ When the US Air Force says they have something better than jet fuel I will believe it, until then I will focus my efforts on clean fuels and zero waste.

Jim Baird says:¶ Edward, currently we get about 14TW from fossil fuels whose reverses according to BP estimates will last 52.9 years for oil, 55.7 years for natural gas and 109 years for coal.¶ As pointed out below, Nihous points to 14TW of OTEC potential which will last ad infinitum. ¶ As to energy density, by weight hydrogen is about three times better than diesel or jet fuel and it would be required to bring offshore produced energy to shore. By converting liquid ocean volume to weight you reduce sea level rise another way.¶ The OECD estimates $35 trillion in assets will be at risk to storm surge and sea level rise in the world's port cities by 2070 and this is only one of eight climate risks identified by the IPCC.¶ Burning cheap coal, NG or oil is nothing more than robbing Peter and the rest of his family to pay Paul.¶ As to the Air Force, the national security implications of climate change are well established and only OTEC addresses both the cause as well as the effect of this threat.

Edward Dodge says:¶ Jim,¶ Those numbers from BP are for today's proven economic reserves, but as we have seen from recent history with shale gas and oil, technology innovation can rapidly transform uneconomic reserves into marketable commodities . ¶ There are 16,000 Trillion Cubic Feet of high purity natural gas in one single deposit of methane hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico and that is but one deposit among hundreds spread across the globe. All it takes is one engineering breakthrough, similar

to hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, to bring these unbelievably vast reserves to market. That is a pretty big prize that I am confident some clever engineer will seize.¶ I share everyone's concerns about climate change and the need to keep CO2 from accumulating in the atmosphere. And I am suppportive of any new technologies that can be proven to work and I think OTEC offers some interesting possibilities, but I don't believe for a second it is a broadly applicable silver bullet. ¶ We need to address CO2 by capturing it and putting it to useful purposes.¶ Hydrogen may be more dense by weight but it is certainly not more dense by volume. Hydrogen requires much bigger tanks for the same BTU than diesel. Hydrogen does not compress nicely, it requires much colder temperatures than LNG to liquify, it embrittles metals so we would need stainless steel or other expensive materials for pipelines, and it is flat out dangerous to handle. I do not share the vision that we will ever build a big hydrogen infrastructure for average citizens to interact with. Hydrogen has long been used in industry and will continue to be used there. The military was using hydrogen air ships back in the 1920's, if hydrogen was really superior from an operational perspective we would have been using it all along, but instead it was abandoned prior to WWII.¶ Energy security means being able to field competitive industry and an Army, Navy and Air Force that can defeat the enemy in combat. We can not (and will not) sacrifice operational performance for environmental reasons or else competitors that do not share our moral virtues will defeat us using the very same fuels we left lying on the ground. All the military literature I've seen points towards synthetic hydrocarbons and nuclear for the long term future of fuels.

No transition – fuel cells are nonsensically expensiveZubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books, co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, “The Hydrogen Hoax,” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)

There are many kinds of fuel cells, including alkaline, phosphoric acid, and molten carbonate systems, but for purposes of motor vehicle use the only kind that is suitable and being pursued for development is the proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC). These, for example, are the kind used by all vehicle fuel cell engines manufactured by the Ballard Power company, of Vancouver, British Columbia, which for the past decade has produced nearly 80 percent of all fuel cell engines worldwide. PEMFCs use a platinum catalyst, which is very expensive, and despite billions of dollars of R&D efforts to reduce the amount required, it has proven impossible to cut the cost of such systems below about $7,000/kW. This is very unfortunate, because an electric car with a 100-horsepower motor needs about 75 kilowatts of electricity to make it go. At this price, the cost for just the fuel cell

stack powering the car would be about half a million dollars. Actual costs for complete Ballard fuel cell engine systems have been well over a million dollars each. Then there’s still the rest of the car to pay for, although with the propulsion system costing this much, the additional cost would seem like a rounding error. That, however, is not even the worst of it. Operating under road conditions in the real atmosphere, which contains such powerful catalyst poisons (chemicals that will reduce the effectiveness of the fuel cell) as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia that can permanently incapacitate a PEMFC, the operating lifetimes of fuel cell stacks have been shown to be less than 20 percent those of conventional diesel engines. As the trenchant industry analyst F. David Doty pointedly put it: We’re still waiting to see a fuel-cell vehicle driven from Miami to Maine via the Smoky Mountains in the winter — even one time, with a few stops and restarts in Maine. Then, we need to see one hold up to a forty-minute daily commute for more than two years (preferably at least fifteen years) with minimal maintenance, and come through a highway accident with less than $200,000 in damages.... When lifetime and maintenance are considered, one can argue that vehicle-qualified PEMFCs are currently 400 times more expensive than diesel engines.

No oil shocks – Libya, Egypt, and Syria crises prove regional disturbance isn’t a trigger – prefer predictive evidenceKrauss 13 (Clifford, New York Times energy correspondent, New York Times, October 8, 2013, “Oil Shocks Ahead? Probably Not,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/energy-environment/oil-shocks-ahead-probably-not.html?pagewanted=all, alp)

HOUSTON — OVER the last few months, as an Egyptian government fell in a coup, the United States considered an attack on Syria and disgruntled Libyan terminal guards blocked oil exports, the only predictable news was the rise in oil prices to levels not seen in more than two years. It all seemed distressingly similar to previous oil shocks. That is, until the higher prices suddenly retreated, along with President Obama’s plans to retaliate for Syria’s apparent use of chemical weapons. What is the lesson of the summer minispike? Are we poised to return to $145-a-barrel oil and $4.50-a-gallon gasoline? The answer from most energy experts is probably not, because the fundamental global oil demand and supply equation has changed so drastically over the last three years. Even before the collapse of plans to attack Syria and the new overtures of Iran to improve relations with the West, the financial company Raymond James published a report forecasting a lowering of oil prices from $109 in 2013 to $95 in 2014 and $90 in 2015. Some analysts are predicting even lower prices, and not only because of the frenzy of shale drilling in the United States and rapid oil sands development in Canada. “Oil prices at about $100 a barrel is at a sweet spot,” said Paul Bledsoe, senior fellow in the Climate and Energy Program at the German Marshall Fund. “It’s high enough to incentivize remarkable investment in new production techniques and equally large

investments in efficiency improvements. And the underlying factor of relatively modest economic growth seems to be with us for quite a while.” Predictions about oil and gasoline prices are precarious when there are so many political and security hazards. But it is likely that the world has already entered a period of relatively predictable crude prices. Even at their highest point in late summer, oil prices remained roughly 25 percent below levels of five years ago, not counting inflation, and gasoline prices on Labor Day weekend were at multiyear lows. And while oil slightly above $100 a barrel oil and nearly $3.50-a-gallon gasoline are high by historical measures, they are at a surprisingly benign level given the on-and-off disruptions in the Middle East and North Africa over the last three years.

Doesn’t solve warming – can’t sequester carbon effectively because deep waters are already saturated – also trades off with energy productionBarry 08 (Christopher D., naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers’ ad hoc panel on oceanic renewable energy, July 01, 2008, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2-sequestration-52762, alp)

The actual effectiveness of OTEC in raising ocean fertility and thereby sequestering carbon still has to be verified, and there has to be a careful examination of other possible harmful environmental impacts — an old saying among engineers is "it seemed like a good idea at the time." The most important issue is that the deep water already has substantial dissolved carbon dioxide, and so an OTEC plant may actually release more carbon than it sequesters, or it might just speed up the existing cycle, sending down as much as it brings up with no net effect. This question has to be answered before OTEC is implemented. It may also be possible to optimize sequestration by being selective about the depths that water is drawn from, or possibly by adding other trace nutrients, especially those that enhance species that sequester carbon in shells. An OTEC plant optimized for ocean fertility will also probably be different than one optimized to generate power, so any OTEC-based carbon scheme has to include transfer payments of some sort — it won't come for free. Finally, who owns the ocean thermal resource? Most plants will be in international waters, though these waters tend to be off the coasts of the developing world.

Asia pollution offsets any US action – global warming is inevitableKnappenberger 12 – Mr. Paul Knappenberger is the Assistant Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. He holds an M.S. degree in Environmental Sciences (1990) from the University of Virginia as well as a B.A.

degree in Environmental Sciences (1986) from the same institution.His over 20 years of experience as a climate researcher have included 10 years with the Virginia State Climatology Office and 13 years with New Hope Environmental Services, Inc. June 7th, 2012, "Asian Air Pollution Warms U.S More than Our GHG Emissions (More futility for U.S. EPA)" www.masterresource.org/2012/06/asian-air-pollution-warming/

“The whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions…. So, what’s the point of forcing Americans into different energy choices?”¶ A new study provides evidence that air pollution emanating from Asia will warm the U.S. as much or more than warming from U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The implication? Efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (and otherwise) to mitigate anthropogenic climate change is moot . ¶ If the future temperature rise in the U.S. is subject to the whims of Asian environmental and energy policy, then what sense does it make for Americans to have their energy choices regulated by efforts aimed at mitigating future temperature increases across the country—efforts which will have less of an impact on temperatures than the policies enacted across Asia?¶ Maybe the EPA should reconsider the perceived effectiveness of its greenhouse gas emission regulations —at least when it comes to impacting temperatures across the U.S.¶ New Study¶ A new study just published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters is authored by a team led by Haiyan Teng from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado. The paper is titled “Potential Impacts of Asian Carbon Aerosols on Future US Warming.”¶ Skipping the details of this climate modeling study and cutting to the chase, here is the abstract of the paper:¶ This study uses an atmosphere-ocean fully coupled climate model to investigate possible remote impacts of Asian carbonaceous aerosols on US climate change. We took a 21st century mitigation scenario as a reference, and carried out three sets of sensitivity experiments in which the prescribed carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over a selected Asian domain are increased by a factor of two, six, and ten respectively during the period of 2005–2024.¶ The resulting enhancement of atmospheric solar absorption (only the direct effect of aerosols is included) over Asia induces tropospheric heating anomalies that force large-scale circulation changes which, averaged over the twenty-year period, add as much as an additional 0.4°C warming over the eastern US during winter and over most of the US during summer. Such remote impacts are confirmed by an atmosphere stand-alone experiment with specified heating anomalies over Asia that represent the direct effect of the carbon aerosols.¶ Usually, when considering the climate impact from carbon aerosol emissions (primarily in the form of black carbon, or soot), the effect is thought to be largely contained to the local or regional scale because the atmospheric lifetime of these particulates is only on the order of a week (before they are rained out). Since Asia lies on the far side of the Pacific Ocean—a distance which requires about a week for air masses to navigate—we usually aren’t overly

concerned about the quality of Asian air or the quantity of junk that they emit into it. By the time it gets here, it has largely been naturally scrubbed clean.¶ But in the Teng et al. study, the authors find that, according to their climate model, the local heating of the atmosphere by the Asian carbon aerosols (which are quite good at absorbing sunlight) can impart changes to the character of the larger-scale atmospheric circulation patterns . And these changes to the broader atmospheric flow produce an effect on the weather patterns in the U.S. and thus induce a change in the climate here characterized by “0.4°C [surface air temperature] warming on average over the eastern US during winter and over almost the entire US during summer” averaged over the 2005–2024 period.¶ While most of the summer warming doesn’t start to kick in until Asian carbonaceous aerosol emissions are upped in the model to 10 times what they are today, the winter warming over the eastern half of the country is large (several tenths of a °C) even at twice the current rate of Asian emissions.¶ Now let’s revisit just how much “global warming” that stringent U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions may avoid averaged across the country.¶ In my Master Resource post “Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)” I calculated that a more than 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by the year 2050 would result in a reduction of global temperatures (from where they otherwise would be) of about 0.05°C. Since the U.S. is projected to warm slightly more than the global average (land warms faster than the oceans), a 0.05°C of global temperature reduction probably amounts to about 0.075°C of temperature “savings” averaged across the U.S., by the year 2050.¶ Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions .¶ And even if the traditional form of air pollution (e.g., soot) does not increase across Asia (a slim chance of that), greenhouse gases emitted there certainly will. For example, at the current growth rate, new greenhouse gas emissions from China will completely subsume an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emission in just over a decade. Once again, pointing out that a reduction in domestic greenhouse gases is for naught, at least when it comes to mitigating climate change.¶ So, what’s the point, really, of forcing Americans into different energy choices? As I have repeatedly pointed out, nothing we do here (when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions) will make any difference either domestically, or globally, when it comes to influences on the climate. What the powers-that-be behind emissions reduction schemes in the U.S. are hoping for is that 1) it doesn’t hurt us too much, and 2) that China and other large developing nations will follow our lead.¶ Both outcomes seem dubious at time scales that make a difference.

Warming does not cause extinction – their models are flawedStockwell 11 – David Stockwell 11, Researcher at the San Diego Supercomputer Center, Ph.D. in Ecosystem Dynamics from the Australian National University, developed the Genetic Algorithm for Rule-set Production system making contributions modeling of invasive species, epidemiology of human diseases, the discovery of new species, and effects on species of climate change, April 21, 2011, “Errors of Global Warming Effects Modeling,” online: http://landshape.org/enm/errors-of-global-warming-effects-modeling/

Predictions of massive species extinctions due to AGW came into prominence with a January 2004 paper in Nature called Extinction Risk from Climate Change by Chris Thomas et al.. They made the following predictions: ¶ “we predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’.¶ Subsequently, three communications appeared in Nature in July 2004. Two raised technical problems, including one by the eminent ecologist Joan Roughgarden. Opinions raged from “Dangers of Crying Wolf over Risk of Extinctions” concerned with damage to conservationism by alarmism, through poorly written press releases by the scientists themselves, and Extinction risk [press] coverage is worth the inaccuracies stating “we believe the benefits of the wide release greatly outweighed the negative effects of errors in reporting”.¶ Among those believing gross scientific inaccuracies are not justified, and such attitudes diminish the standing of scientists, I was invited to a meeting of a multidisciplinary group of 19 scientists, including Dan Bodkin from UC Santa Barbara, mathematician Matt Sobel, Craig Loehle and others at the Copenhagen base of Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. This resulted in Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity published in 2007 BioScience. We were particularly concerned by the cavalier attitude to model validations in the Thomas paper, and the field in general: ¶ Of the modeling papers we have reviewed, only a few were validated. Commonly, these papers simply correlate present distribution of species with climate variables, then replot the climate for the future from a climate model and, finally, use one-to-one mapping to replot the future distribution of the species, without any validation using independent data. Although some are clear about some of their assumptions (mainly equilibrium assumptions), readers who are not experts in modeling can easily misinterpret the results as valid and validated. For example, Hitz and Smith (2004) discuss many possible effects of global warming on the basis of a review of modeling papers, and in this kind of analysis the unvalidated assumptions of models would most likely be ignored.¶ The paper observed that few mass extinctions have been seen over recent rapid climate changes , suggesting something must be wrong with the models to get such high rates of extinctions. They speculated that species may survive in refugia, suitable habitats below the spatial scale of the models.¶ Another

example of an unvalidated assumptions that could bias results in the direction of extinctions, was described in chapter 7 of my book Niche Modeling.¶ When climate change shifts a species’ niche over a landscape (dashed to solid circle) the response of that species can be described in three ways: dispersing to the new range (migration), local extirpation (intersection), or expansion (union). Given the probability of extinction is correlated with range size, there will either be no change, an increase (intersection), or decrease (union) in extinctions depending on the dispersal type. Thomas et al. failed to consider range expansion (union), a behavior that predominates in many groups. Consequently, the methodology was inherently biased towards extinctions.¶ One of the many errors in this work was a failure to evaluate the impact of such assumptions.¶ The prevailing view now, according to Stephen Williams, coauthor of the Thomas paper and Director for the Center for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change, and author of such classics as “Climate change in Australian tropical rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe”, may be here.¶ Many unknowns remain in projecting extinctions, and the values provided in Thomas et al. (2004) should not be taken as precise predictions. … Despite these uncertainties, Thomas et al. (2004) believe that the consistent overall conclusions across analyses establish that anthropogenic climate warming at least ranks alongside other recognized threats to global biodiversity. ¶ So how precise are the figures? Williams suggests we should just trust the beliefs of Thomas et al. — an approach referred to disparagingly in the forecasting literature as a judgmental forecast rather than a scientific forecast (Green & Armstrong 2007). These simple models gloss over numerous problems in validating extinction models , including the propensity of so-called extinct species quite often reappear. Usually they are small, hard to find and no-one is really looking for them.

Turn – Hydrogen Econ Bada) Transportation costs – it’s prohibitively expensiveShinnar 03 – Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of

Engineering (Reuel, “The Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars,” Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455-476)//js

3.2. Fallacy B: It is easier and more efficient to transport hydrogen than natural gas over large distances We have available numbers based on long-terrn experience for both electricity and natural gas, which are given in Table 2. The energy losses for transportation of hydrogen in pipelines depend on the design and cost. It has been proposed to use present pipelines designed for natural gas, although there remain

severe questions whether it is safe to do so because of the potential leaking of hydrogen though the valves. For H; we need to triple the volume to supply the same energy as natural gas . Therefore, if we were to use existing pipelines, the velocity in the pipe would have to be tripled (pressure drop increases by a factor of nine), which makes H2 transport much less eflicient than either electricity or natural gas in the national distribution system . The transport losses of methane and electricity over large distances are fairly equal at 5-770 (with electricity

having a slight advantage for long distances). With hydrogen, using the same pipelines for hydrogen could increase the losses to 20% (see Table 3). In reality, it is very doubtful that we

would use natural gas pipelines or local distri- bution systems for H3. Hydrogen requires various dilferent fittings and pipe specifi- cations. It would also require installation of much more powerful compressors. We would probably need a totally new distribution system both nationally and into the houses, a very high cost- Additional electricity can be

gradually introduced and the grid can be expanded as needed- While it is true that H; could be shipped in a liquid form, this is prohibitively expensive and energy intensive (based on available cost of shipping methane)' as H, is more expensive to liquefy and much more expensive to ship.

b) Safety – facilitates terrorism and public outcry over hazards turns the caseShinnar 03 – Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of

Engineering (Reuel, “The Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars,” Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455-476)//js

3.3. Fallacy C: H2 is safe . It diffuses faster into the air than it can ignite. The Hindenburg disaster was not

caused by hydrogen While H2,like nitroglycerin,can be safely handled,it is the most dangerous of all fossil fuels known to man. It is true that H2 did not self-ignite to cause the burning of the Hindenburg,and that some of what burned was the aircraft fuel aboard and the cabin and skin of the dirigible. It is also true that some of the hydrogen may have burned without exploding and sent heat mainly upwards. But if the Hindenburg had been filled with helium,nothing so rapid or serious would have happened. Like nitroglycerin,

hydrogen does not explode by itself. It needs an energy release (a spark, for example) to ignite or explode a hydrogen-oxygen mix- ture. However, for hydrogen the minimum energy required is very small. All fuels mixed with air can cause explosions or large fires and have done so. The question is the likelihood and the severity of the

safety measures that have to be taken to prevent a fire or explosion. The flammability or explosion limits of H2 are much wider than for any other fuel, and the minimum energy required for ignition or explosions is by a magnitude lower than for methane (see

Table 4). This limits the maximum amount that can be safely stored and demands special expertise of the personnel handling it . Safety instructions for handling compressed hydrogen are distributed by Air Products, Inc." i5.,a..,t_'ugl_..,..,tl1an. gasoline, which is safer than natural gas, which is safer than H; notwithstanding some assertions to the con- natural gas and propane, have caused explosions, of the hazald, we strongly limit the size of propane dtiiiiks One is not allowed to transport even a reason- ably small propane cylinder for a camping stove through a tunnel despite the fact that the maximum explosive force of a propane cylinder for a camping stove is between 40 to 100 lb of TNT. By comparison, the explosive force of a H2 container as proposed by the car companies is 220 lb of TNT (equal to five suicide

bombers). Furthermore, the probability of a fuel tank for a hydrogen car to explode is an order of magnitude larger than that of a propane tank. A bus has a much larger potential explosive force than a propane tank. For a H; storage tank of the size used in a bus, one would normally recommend a protected special room with a blow out wall into a safe area with no people or any

combustibles (see footnote 5). In a bus this blowout wall is into the bus itself. An accident in one bus in a tunnel would put the tunnel out of use for months. There is also a critical post-September ll

problem. H3 cars can be easily modified to become an undetectable bomb for a suicide bomber . All one has to do is to equip the hydrogen tank with a release valve and a delayed detonator. If 10% of the cars were H2 cars, less than five cars exploding at the same time in rush hour in a confined space, such as the Lincoln Tunnel in New York, might kill more people than

on September ll, and make the tunnel unusable for a year. Whenever accidents can happen they will ultimately happen regardless of safety measures . Therefore one has to limit the impact of the largest reasonably possible accident even if it has a low probability to occur. No safety measures can compen- sate for the physical properties of hydrogen (very wide combustion limits of H2 air mixtures and low minimum ignition energy) nor can safety measures compensate for the fact that H2 is the most dangerous fuel known to man. The question

is, why introduce it, especially as it is not an energy resource, only an energy carrier? And if it were introduced. the public outcry after the first few catastrophic explo- sions would shut down any large-scale use of hydrogen.

c) Low storage efficiencyShinnar 03 – Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of

Engineering (Reuel, “The Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars,” Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455-476)//js

3.4. Fallacy D: Hydrogen is storable, electricity is not Actually both H2 and electricity are

storable. The question is efficiency and cost. Electricity has several options for storage. For a thermal solar plant, there is an option to store the heat transfer fluid. While this is relatively cheaper and involves no efficiency losses, cost limits storage to 1 day for load

following. The cheapest storage is hydraulic, but it still has an efliciency of at best

80%. The same is true for batteries. Hydrogen storage by liquefaction is even more expensive and has lar- ger efficiency losses . But if we include the efficiency losses of making the hydrogen from electricity, it is clearly more costly and much less efficient . H2 storage has one advantage. It requires much less weight, which is important for cars. However, in a car with present fuel cells, H2 would require three times as much electricity tn manufacture the vehicle compared to an electric car. The best is to reduce this by a factor of two (H2 generation from elec- 't_t_.°i¢i1_'.y'v;1includjngcornpression has very optimistically an efficiency of 70%, but 55% ;'at: fuel cell itself 60% (40% at present) [4,8].

d) Generation causes methane emissions – turns warmingShinnar 03 – Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of

Engineering (Reuel, “The Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars,” Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455-476)//js

3.5. Fallacy E: Hydrogen is a clean fuel widely available and environmental] y beneficial As said before, hydrogen is not an energy resource, but an energy delivery sys- tem. Therefore, while hydrogen just like electricity is clean, the impact on the environment in both cases depends on the primary energy source used. If Hz were made from a fossil fuel such as natural gas, the inherent loss of efliciency would cause a large increase in greenhouse gases compared to direct use of the fossil fuel (double or higher).

Furthermore, if the hydrogen is generated in small-distributed generators, instead of a large central plant, the increase in greenhouse emissions could be much larger. Small units are hard to tightly supervise, and as the catalyst ages the unit could have significant emissions of methane, which has a 20 times lar- ger global warming effect

than carbon dioxide. Therefore, the hydrogen economy could have a strong negative impact on the environment especially if distributed energy is used . It is claimed that if we build large Hg plants from fossil fuels, we could sequester the CO2. But the same is true for electricity generation.

We could even sequester CO; from some of the existing coal power plants. However, it is by no means sure that we have the capability to safely sequester such tremendous amounts of CO2 for ever. At present we already recover about 50 million tons of CO; from hydro- gen plants and another hundred million tons a year from natural gas and ammonia plants, and release this CO; with no attempt to sequester it. If we were to intro- duee solar power plants, we could have an immediate impact on greenhouse

emis- sions; whereas a hydrogen economy would not only cost more than three times as much, but any significant impact on CO2 emissions would have to wait until we have built a national distribution system.

e) Can’t switch distribution systemsShinnar 03 – Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of

Engineering (Reuel, “The Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars,” Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455-476)//js

4. Phasing in an alternative energy supply system One problem with all radically new alternative energy systems is how to switch to a new source, which requires a new distribution system. This is prohibitively dif- ficult in a developed economy in which there are large investments in the infrastructure of delivery for natural gas, electricity, gasoline and diesel. While ultimately one could think of using the natural gas pipelines (at high conversion

costs) for hydrogen, it could not be done while natural gas is still in use. Since hydrogen may leak out of natural gas pipelines, and requires different fittings and compressors, they might never be used for hydrogen. The same is true for all alternative liquid fuels. Unless they mix with gasoline or diesel, a dedicated distribution system is needed.

Therefore, switching is impractical unless one designs the new energy source to be so compatible that it can simultaneously use the existing distribution system. Localized generation of hydrogen by alternative energy is impractical. If the hydrogen is generated from methane or electricity, this is thermally inefficient and involves a and cost, but possibly also in global from small local plants. -;~As electricity is the only energy that can be generated from alternative energy sources on a large scale and that can be phased in to slowly replace fossil fuels. It can be directly used replacing fossil fuels, which is such a decisive advantage that it overshadows all other arguments even for mobile uses , especially as direct use of alternative electricity is much cheaper. The ability to phase in slowly is essential , as we do not have the resources to switch such large critical systems in a reasonably short time . It also allows society to learn from its mistakes, which radically reduces the cost. The hydrogen economy has no advantages to compensate for this major difficulty.

Extension – Hydrogen Economy BadElectrolysis produces even more CO2Behar 6- His articles have appeared in more than 25 national publications including Outside, Wired, Newsweek, OnEarth, Men’s Journal, Men’s Health, Mother Jones, Best Life, Skiing, Popular Science, The Economist, Backpacker, National Geographic Adventure, Discover, Air & Space, and Smithsonian. Michael is a featured writer on Byliner. He also contributed to the book Imagine, Design, Create: How Designers, Architects, and Engineers Are Changing Our World, with a chapter about the X-Prize Foundation and its founder, Peter Diamandis (Michael, 3/24/06, “Warning: The Hydrogen Economy May Be More Distant Than It Appears”, Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2006-03/warning-hydrogen-economy-may-be-more-distant-it-appears, accessed 7/22/14)//GZ

Unlike internal combustion engines, hydrogen fuel cells do not emit carbon dioxide. But extracting hydrogen from natural gas, today's primary source, does. And wresting hydrogen from water through electrolysis takes tremendous amounts of energy. If that energy comes from power plants burning fossil fuels, the end product may be clean hydrogen, but the process used to obtain it is

still dirty. Once hydrogen is extracted, it must be compressed and transported, presumably by machinery and vehicles that in the early stages of a hydrogen economy will be running on fossil fuels. The result: even more C02. In fact, driving a fuel cell car with hydrogen extracted from natural gas or water could produce a net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. "People say that hydrogen cars would be pollution-free," observes University of Calgary engineering professor David Keith. "Lightbulbs are pollution-free, but power plants are not." In the short term, nuclear power may be the easiest way to produce hydrogen without pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Electricity from a nuclear plant would electrolyze water-splitting H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. Ballard champions the idea, calling nuclear power "extremely important, unless we see

some other major breakthrough that none of us has envisioned." Critics counter that nuclear power creates long-term waste problems and isn't economically competitive. An exhaustive industry analysis entitled "The Future of Nuclear Power," written last year by 10 professors from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, concludes that "hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water depends on low-cost nuclear power." As long as electricity from nuclear power costs more than electricity from other sources, using that energy to make hydrogen doesn't add up.

Leaks turn warmingBehar 6-His articles have appeared in more than 25 national publications including Outside, Wired, Newsweek, OnEarth, Men’s Journal, Men’s Health, Mother Jones, Best Life, Skiing, Popular Science, The Economist, Backpacker, National Geographic Adventure, Discover, Air & Space, and Smithsonian. Michael

is a featured writer on Byliner. He also contributed to the book Imagine, Design, Create: How Designers, Architects, and Engineers Are Changing Our World, with a chapter about the X-Prize Foundation and its founder, Peter Diamandis, internally quoting Robert Uhrig, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee and former vice president of Florida Power & Light. (Michael, 3/24/06, “Warning: The Hydrogen Economy May Be More Distant Than It Appears”, Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2006-03/warning-hydrogen-economy-may-be-more-distant-it-appears, accessed 7/22/14)//GZ

Hydrogen gas is odorless and colorless, and it burns almost invisibly. A tiny fire may go undetected at a leaky fuel pump until your pant leg goes up in flames. And it doesn't

take much to set compressed hydrogen gas alight. "A cellphone or a lightning storm puts out enough static discharge to ignite hydrogen," claims Joseph Romm, author of The Hype about Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate and founder of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions in Arlington, Virginia. A fender bender is unlikely to spark an explosion, because carbon-fiber-reinforced

hydrogen tanks are virtually indestructible. But that doesn't eliminate the danger of leaks elsewhere in what will eventually be a huge network of refineries, pipelines and fueling stations. "The obvious pitfall is that hydrogen is a gas, and most of our existing petrochemical sources are liquids," says Robert Uhrig, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at the University of Tennessee and former vice president of Florida Power & Light. "The infrastructure required to support high-pressure gas or cryogenic liquid hydrogen is much more complicated. Hydrogen is one of those things that people have great difficulty confining. It tends to go through the finest of holes." To calculate the effects a leaky infrastructure might have on our atmosphere, a team of researchers from the California Institute of Technology and the Jet Propulsion

Laboratory in Pasadena, California, looked at statistics for accidental industrial hydrogen and natural gas leakage-estimated at 10 to 20 percent of total volume-and then predicted how much leakage might occur in an economy in which everything runs on hydrogen. Result: The amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere would be four to eight times as high as it is today. The Caltech study "grossly overstated" hydrogen leakage, says Assistant Secretary David Garman of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy. But whatever its volume, hydrogen added to the atmosphere will combine with oxygen to form water vapor, creating noctilucent clouds-those high, wispy tendrils you see at dawn and dusk. The increased cloud cover could accelerate global warming.

It’s not financially viableBehar 6- His articles have appeared in more than 25 national publications including Outside, Wired, Newsweek, OnEarth, Men’s Journal, Men’s Health, Mother Jones, Best Life, Skiing, Popular Science, The Economist, Backpacker, National Geographic Adventure, Discover, Air & Space, and Smithsonian. Michael is a featured writer on Byliner. He also contributed to the book Imagine, Design, Create: How Designers, Architects, and Engineers Are Changing Our World, with a chapter about the X-Prize Foundation and its founder, Peter Diamandis (Michael, 3/24/06, “Warning: The Hydrogen Economy May Be More Distant Than It Appears”, Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2006-03/warning-hydrogen-economy-may-be-more-distant-it-appears, accessed 7/22/14)//GZ

Simply mass-producing fuel cell cars won't necessarily slash costs. According to Patrick Davis, the former leader of the Department of Energy's fuel cell research team, "If you project today's fuel cell technologies into high-volume production-about 500,000 vehicles a year-the cost is still up to six times too high." Raj Choudhury, operations manager for the General Motors fuel cell program, claims that GM will have a commercial fuel cell

vehicle ready by 2010. Others are doubtful. Ballard says that first there needs to be a "fundamental engineering rethink" of the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell, the type being

developed for automobiles, which still cannot compete with the industry standard for internal combustion engines-a life span of 15 years, or about 170,000 driving miles. Because of membrane deterioration, today's PEM fuel cells typically fail during their first 2,000 hours of operation. Ballard insists that his original PEM design was merely a prototype. "Ten years ago I said it was the height of engineering arrogance to think that the architecture and geometry we chose to demonstrate the fuel cell in automobiles would be the best architecture and geometry for a commercial automobile," he remarks. "Very few people paid attention to that statement. The truth is that the present

geometry isn't getting the price down to where it is commercial. It isn't even entering into the envelope that will allow economies of scale to drive the price down."

Can’t solve for a hydrogen economy in time, too many hurdles.Romm 13- Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT (Joseph J., “The Hype about Hydrogen”, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/20-3/romm/, accessed 7/22/14)//GZ

Yet for all the hype, a number of recent studies raise serious doubts about the prospects for hydrogen cars. In February 2004, a study by the National Academies’ National Academy of Engineering and National Research

Council concluded, “In the best-case scenario, the transition to a hydrogen economy would take many decades, and any reductions in oil imports and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are likely to be minor during the next 25 years.” Realistically, a major

effort to introduce hydrogen cars before 2030 would actually undermine efforts to reduce emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as CO2. As someone who helped oversee the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) program for clean energy, including hydrogen, for much of the 1990s–during which time hydrogen funding was increased by a factor of 10–I believe that continued research into hydrogen remains important because of its

potential to provide a pollution-free substitute for oil in the second half of this century. But if we fail to limit greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade, and especially if we fail to do so because we have bought into the hype about hydrogen’s near-term prospects, we will be making an unforgivable national blunder that may lock in global warming for the United States of 1 degree Fahrenheit per decade by midcentury. Hydrogen is not a readily accessible energy source like coal or wind. It is bound up tightly in molecules such as water and natural gas, so it is expensive and energy-intensive to extract and purify. A hydrogen economy–a time in which the economy’s primary energy carrier would be hydrogen made from sources of energy that have no net emissions of greenhouse gases–rests on two pillars: a pollution-free source for the hydrogen itself and a fuel cell for efficiently converting it into useful energy without generating pollution. Fuel cells are small, modular electrochemical devices, similar to batteries, but which can be continuously fueled. For most purposes, you can think of a fuel cell as a “black box” that takes in hydrogen and oxygen and puts out only water plus electricity and heat. The most promising fuel cell for transportation uses is the proton exchange membrane (PEM),

first developed in the early 1960s by General Electric for the Gemini space program. The price goal for transportation fuel cells is to come close to that of an internal combustion engine, roughly $30 per kilowatt. Current PEM costs are about 100 times greater. It has taken wind and solar power each about 20 years of major government and private-sector investments in R&D to see a 10-fold decline in prices, and they still each comprise well under 1 percent of U.S. electricity generation. A major

technology breakthrough is needed in transportation fuel cells before they will be practical. Running a fuel cell car on pure hydrogen, the option now being pursued by most automakers and fuel cell companies,

means the car must be able to safely, compactly, and cost-effectively store hydrogen onboard. This is a major technical challenge. At room temperature and pressure, hydrogen takes up some 3,000 times more space than gasoline containing an equivalent amount of energy. The DOE’s 2003 Fuel Cell Report to Congress notes that, “Hydrogen storage systems need to enable a vehicle to travel 300 to 400 miles and fit in an envelope that

does not compromise either passenger space or storage space. Current energy storage technologies are insufficient to gain market acceptance because they do not meet these criteria.” The most mature storage options are liquefied hydrogen and compressed hydrogen gas. Liquid hydrogen is widely used today for storing and transporting hydrogen. Indeed, for storage and fueling, liquids enjoy considerable advantages over gases: They have high energy density, are easier to transport, and are

typically easier to handle. Hydrogen, however, is not typical. It becomes a liquid only at 423 degrees Fahrenheit, just a few degrees above absolute zero. It can be stored only in a superinsulated cryogenic tank. Liquid hydrogen is exceedingly unlikely to be a major part of a hydrogen economy because of the cost and logistical problems in handling it and because liquefaction is so energy-intensive. Some 40 percent of the energy of the hydrogen is required to liquefy it for storage.

Liquefying one kilogram (kg) of hydrogen using electricity from the U.S. grid would by itself release some 18 to 21 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, roughly equal to the CO2 emitted by burning one gallon of gasoline. Nearly all prototype hydrogen vehicles

today use compressed hydrogen storage. Hydrogen is compressed up to pressures of 5,000 pounds per

square inch (psi) or even 10,000 psi in a multistage process that requires energy input equal to 10 to 15 percent of the hydrogen’s usable energy content. For comparison, atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi. Working at such high pressures creates overall system complexity and requires materials

and components that are sophisticated and costly. And even a 10,000-psi tank would take up

seven to eight times the volume of an equivalent-energy gasoline tank or perhaps four times the volume for a comparable range (because the fuel cell vehicle will be more fuel efficient than current cars).

Hydrogen not viable for decadesRomm 13- Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT (Joseph J., “The Hype about Hydrogen”, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/20-3/romm/, accessed 7/22/14)//GZ

A key problem with the hydrogen economy is that pollution-free sources of hydrogen are unlikely to be practical and affordable for decades. Indeed, even the pollution-generating means of making hydrogen are currently too expensive and too inefficient to substitute for oil. Bridging the gap between current

hydrogen technologies and the marketplace will require revolutionary conceptual breakthroughs. Natural gas (methane, or CH4) is the source of 95 percent of U.S. hydrogen. The overall energy efficiency of the steam CH4 reforming process (the ratio of the energy in the hydrogen output to the energy in the natural gas fuel input) is about 70 percent. According to a 2002 analysis for the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory by Dale Simbeck and Elaine Chang, the cost of producing and delivering hydrogen from natural gas, or producing hydrogen onsite at a local filling station, is $4 to $5 per kg (excluding fuel taxes), comparable to a gasoline price of $4 to $5 a

gallon. (A kg of hydrogen contains about the same usable energy as a gallon of gasoline.) This is more than three times the current untaxed price of gasoline. Considerable R&D is being focused on efforts to reduce the cost of producing hydrogen from natural gas, but fueling a significant fraction of U.S. cars with hydrogen made from natural gas makes little sense, either economically or environmentally, as discussed below. Water can be electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen by a process that is extremely energy-intensive. Typical commercial electrolysis units require about 50 kilowatt-hours per kg, an energy efficiency of 70 percent. The cost today of producing and delivering hydrogen from a central electrolysis plant is estimated at $7 to $9 per kg. The cost of onsite production at a local filling station is estimated at $12 per kg. Replacing one-half of U.S. ground transportation fuels in 2025 (mostly gasoline) with hydrogen from electrolysis would require about as much electricity as is sold in the United States today. From the perspective of global

warming, electrolysis makes little sense for the foreseeable future. Burning a gallon of gasoline releases about 20 pounds of CO2. Producing 1 kg of hydrogen by electrolysis would generate, on average, 70 pounds of CO2. Hydrogen could be generated from renewable electricity, but that would be even more expensive and, as discussed below, renewable electricity has better uses for the next few decades.

Hydrogen economy not commercially viable and practical use is decades awayRomm 13- Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American

Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT (Joseph J., “The Hype about Hydrogen”, Issues in Science and Technology, http://issues.org/20-3/romm/, accessed 7/22/14)//GZ

Another key issue is the chicken-and-egg problem. At the National Hydrogen Association annual conference in March 2003, Bernard Bulkin, British Petroleum’s chief scientist, said that, “if hydrogen is going to make it in the mass market as a transport fuel, it has to be available in 30 to 50 percent of the retail network from the day the first mass-manufactured cars hit the showrooms.” Yet a 2002 analysis by Argonne National Laboratory found that

even with improved technology, “the hydrogen delivery infrastructure to serve 40 percent of the light duty fleet is likely to cost over $500 billion.” Major breakthroughs in hydrogen production and delivery will be required to reduce that figure significantly. Who will spend the hundreds of billions of dollars on a wholly new nationwide infrastructure to provide ready access to hydrogen for consumers with fuel cell vehicles until millions of hydrogen vehicles are on the road? And who will manufacture and market such vehicles until the infrastructure is in place to fuel those vehicles? Will car companies and fuel providers be willing to take this chance before knowing whether the public will embrace these cars? I fervently hope to see an economically, environmentally, and politically plausible scenario for how this classic chasm can be bridged; it does not yet exist. Centralized production of hydrogen is the ultimate goal. A pure hydrogen economy requires that hydrogen be generated from CO2-free sources, which would almost certainly require centralized hydrogen production closer to giant wind farms or at coal/biomass gasification power plants in which CO2 is extracted for permanent underground storage. That will require some way of delivering massive quantities of hydrogen to tens of thousands of local fueling stations. Tanker trucks carrying liquefied hydrogen are commonly used to deliver hydrogen today, but make little sense in a hydrogen economy because of liquefaction’s high energy cost. Also, few automakers are pursuing onboard storage with liquid hydrogen. So after delivery, the fueling station would still

have to use an energy-intensive pressurization system. This might mean that storage and transport alone would require some 50 percent of the energy in the hydrogen delivered, negating any potential energy and environmental benefits from hydrogen. Pipelines

are also used for delivering hydrogen today. Interstate pipelines are estimated to cost $1 million per mile or more. Yet we have very little idea today what hydrogen generation processes will win in the marketplace during the next few decades, or whether hydrogen will be able to successfully compete with

future high-efficiency vehicles, perhaps running on other pollution-free fuels. This uncertainty makes it unlikely anyone would commit to spending tens of billions of dollars on hydrogen pipelines before there are very high hydrogen flow rates transported by other means and before the winners and losers at both the production end and the vehicle end of the marketplace have been determined. In short, pipelines are unlikely to be the main hydrogen transport means until the post-2030 period. Trailers carrying compressed hydrogen canisters are a flexible means of delivery but are relatively expensive because hydrogen has such a low energy density. Even with technology advances, a 40-metric-ton truck might deliver only about 400 kg of hydrogen into onsite high-pressure storage. A 2003 study by ABB researchers found that for a delivery distance

of 300 miles, the delivery energy approaches 40 percent of the usable energy in the hydrogen delivered. Without dramatic improvement in high-pressure storage systems, this approach seems impractical for large-scale hydrogen delivery. Producing hydrogen onsite at local fueling stations is the

strategy advocated by those who want to deploy hydrogen vehicles in the next two decades. Onsite electrolysis is impractical for large-scale use because it would be highly expensive and inefficient while generating large amounts of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The hydrogen would need to be generated from small CH4 reformers. Although onsite CH4 reforming seems viable for limited demonstration and pilot projects, it is impractical and unwise for large-scale

application, for a number of reasons. First, the upfront cost is very high: more than $600 billion just to provide hydrogen fuel for 40 percent of the cars on the road, according to Argonne. A reasonable cost estimate for the initial hydrogen infrastructure, derived from Royal

Dutch/Shell figures, is $5,000 per car. Second, the cost of the delivered hydrogen itself in

this option is also higher than for centralized production. Not only are the small reformers

and compressors typically more expensive and less efficient than larger units, but they also will likely pay a much higher price for the electricity and gas to run them. A 2002 analysis put the cost at $4.40 per kg (equal to $4.40 per gallon of gasoline). We should not pursue a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in transportation that would undermine efforts to reduce emissions in electric generation. Third, “the risk of stranded investment is significant, since much of an initial compressed hydrogen station infrastructure could not be converted later if either a noncompression hydrogen storage method or liquid fuels such as a gasoline-ethanol combination proved superior” for fuel cell vehicles. This was the conclusion of a 2001 study for the California Fuel-Cell Partnership, a Sacramento-based public-private partnership to help commercialize fuel cells. Most of a CH4-based investment would also likely be stranded once the ultimate transition to a pure hydrogen economy was made, because that would almost certainly rely on centralized production and not make use of small CH4 reformers. Moreover, it’s possible that the entire investment would be stranded in the scenario in which hydrogen cars simply never achieve the combination of popularity, cost, and performance to triumph in the marketplace. In the California analysis, it takes 10 years for investment in infrastructure to achieve a positive cash flow, and to achieve this result requires a variety of technology advances in components and manufacturing. Also, even a small tax on hydrogen (to make up the revenue lost from gasoline taxes) appears to delay positive cash flow indefinitely. The high-risk and long-payback nature of this investment would seem far too great for most investors, especially given the history of alternative fuel vehicles. The United States has a great deal of relevant

experience in the area of alternative fuel vehicles that is often ignored in discussions about hydrogen. The 1992 Energy Policy Act established the goal of having alternative fuels replace at least 10 percent of petroleum fuels in 2000 and at least 30 percent in 2010. By 1999, some one million alternative fuel vehicles were on the road, only about 0.4 percent of all vehicles. A 2000 General Accounting Office report explained the reasons for the lack of success, concluding that, ” Fundamental economic impediments–such as the relatively low price of gasoline, the lack of refueling stations for alternative fuels, and the additional cost to purchase these vehicles–explain much of why both mandated fleets and the general public are disinclined to acquire alternative fuel vehicles and use alternative fuels.” It seems likely that all three of these problems will hinder hydrogen cars. Compared to other alternative fuels, such as ethanol and natural gas, the best analysis today suggests that hydrogen will have a much higher price for the fuel, the fueling stations, and the vehicles. The fourth reason that producing hydrogen on-site from natural gas at local fueling stations is impractical is that natural gas is simply the wrong fuel on which to build a hydrogen-based transportation system. The United States consumes nearly 23 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas today and is projected to consume more than 30 tcf in 2025. Replacing 40 percent of ground transportation fuels with hydrogen in 2025 would probably require an additional 10 tcf of gas, plus 300 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, or 10 percent of current power usage. Politically, given the firestorm over recent natural gas supply constraints and price spikes, it seems very unlikely that the U.S. government and industry would commit to natural gas as a substitute for even a modest fraction of U.S. transportation energy. In addition, much if not most

incremental U.S. natural gas consumption for transportation would likely come from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG is dangerous to handle, and LNG infrastructure is widely viewed as a likely terrorist target. Yet one of the major arguments in favor of alternative fuels has

been their ability to address concerns over security and import dependence. Finally, natural gas has too much economic and environmental value to the electric utility, industrial, and building sectors to justify diverting significant quantities to the transportation sector, thereby increasing the price for all users. In fact, using natural gas to generate significant quantities of hydrogen for transportation would, for the foreseeable

future, undermine efforts to combat global warming.

Extension – Infrastructure Alt CauseAlt cause – no vehicular storage capacityPeplow 13 (Mark, Chemistry World, March 14, 2013, “Hydrogen's false economy,” http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/03/hydrogen-economy-clean-

energy, alp)

Storing hydrogen on board a car also requires expensive pressure vessels or cryogenic systems. Chemists and engineers have worked hard to find alternatives, such as adsorbing hydrogen onto porous materials, or using hydrogen-dense molecules to release hydrogen on demand. For example, Matthias Beller at the University of Rostock, Germany, recently unveiled a ruthenium catalyst that can generate hydrogen from methanol at a relatively mild 65–95°C. But while the ruthenium catalyst is a lovely bit of chemistry, it is not a breakthrough for the hydrogen economy: the reaction releases carbon dioxide, which is much harder to capture from millions of cars than it is at a single power station; the catalyst turnover frequency reached 4700h–1, many orders of magnitude from practicability; and it relies on ruthenium, global stocks of which are thought to be only about 5,000 tonnes.

Their method is comparatively sufficient BUT alt cause – no infrastructure for the hydrogen economyPietrowski 13 (Alex, staff writer, April 4, 2013, “Another Breakthrough in Hydrogen Energy Challenges Fossil Fuel Dominance,” http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/04/04/another-breakthrough-in-hydrogen-energy-challenges-fossil-fuel-dominance/, alp)

Zhang’s method of hydrogen production will need to find its way into commercial markets, which could happen in about 3 years, before any significant impact on the alternative energy market is possible. Even though Zhang’s process addresses the previous obstacles to hydrogen gas production, including high process costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and low quality of the end product, large investment in technology development and infrastructure would still be necessary to transition to hydrogen fuel cars.

Studies go negMorris 03 (David, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, AlterNet, February 23, 2003, “A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea,” http://www.alternet.org/story/15239/a_hydrogen_economy_is_a_bad_idea, alp)

There is another energy-related problem with hydrogen. It is the lightest element, about eight times lighter than methane. Compacting it for storage or transport is expensive and energy intensive. A recent study by two Swiss engineers concludes, "We have to accept that [hydrogen's] ... physical properties are incompatible with

the requirements of the energy market. Production, packaging, storage, transfer and delivery of the gas ... are so energy consuming that alternatives should be considered."

Extension – OTEC doesn’t solveElectrolysis is an awful way to produce hydrogenZubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books, co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, “The Hydrogen Hoax,” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)

Hydrogen is only a source of energy if it can be taken in its pure form and reacted with another chemical, such as oxygen. But all the hydrogen on Earth, except that in hydrocarbons, has already been oxidized, so none of it is available as fuel. If you want to get plentiful unbound hydrogen, the closest place it can be found is on the surface of the Sun; mining this hydrogen supply would be quite a trick. After the Sun, the next closest source of free hydrogen would be the atmosphere of Jupiter. Jupiter is surrounded by radiation belts so intense that they are deadly to humans and electronics. It also has a massive gravity field that would severely impair hydrogen export operations. These would also be complicated by the 2.5-year Jupiter-to-Earth flight transit time (during which any liquid hydrogen launched would probably boil away), and the fact that upon re-entry at Earth, the imagined hydrogen shipping capsule would face heat loads about eight times higher than those withstood by a space shuttle returning from orbit. So if we put aside the spectacularly improbable prospect of fueling our planet with extraterrestrial hydrogen imports, the only way to get free hydrogen on Earth is to make it. The trouble is that making hydrogen requires more energy than the hydrogen so produced can provide. Hydrogen, therefore, is not a source of energy. It simply is a carrier of energy. And it is, as we shall see, an extremely poor one. The spokesmen for the hydrogen hoax claim that hydrogen will be manufactured from water via electrolysis. It is certainly possible to make hydrogen this way, but it is very expensive — so much so, that only four percent of all hydrogen currently produced in the United States is produced in this manner. The rest is made by breaking down hydrocarbons, through processes like pyrolysis of natural gas or steam reforming of coal.

It’s not commercially viable – too expensive

Zubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books, co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine

rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, “The Hydrogen Hoax,” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)

Neither type of hydrogen is even remotely economical as fuel. The wholesale cost of commercial grade liquid hydrogen (made the cheap way, from hydrocarbons) shipped to large customers in the United States is about $6 per kilogram. High purity hydrogen made from electrolysis for scientific applications costs considerably more. Dispensed in compressed gas cylinders to retail customers, the current price of commercial grade hydrogen is about $100 per kilogram. For comparison, a kilogram of hydrogen contains about the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. This means that even if hydrogen cars were available and hydrogen stations existed to fuel them, no one with the power to choose otherwise would ever buy such vehicles. This fact alone makes the hydrogen economy a non-starter in a free society.

Liquefaction is inefficientZubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books, co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, “The Hydrogen Hoax,” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)

The situation is much worse than this, however, because before the hydrogen can be transported anywhere, it needs to be either compressed or liquefied. To liquefy it, it must be refrigerated down to a temperature of 20 K (20 degrees above absolute zero, or -253 degrees Celsius). At these temperatures, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics make refrigerators extremely inefficient. As a result, about 40 percent of the energy in the hydrogen must be spent to liquefy it. This reduces the actual net energy content of our product fuel to 792 kilocalories. In addition, because it is a cryogenic liquid, still more energy could be expected to be lost as the hydrogen boils away during transport and storage.

Extension – No TransitionPipelines and truck-based transportation don’t work Zubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books, co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, “The Hydrogen Hoax,” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)

As an alternative, one could use high pressure pumps to compress the hydrogen as gas instead of liquefying it for transport. This would only require wasting about 20 percent of the energy in the hydrogen. The problem is that safety-approved, steel compressed-gas tanks capable of storing hydrogen at 5,000 psi weigh approximately 65 times as much as the hydrogen they can contain. So to transport 200 kilograms of compressed hydrogen, roughly equal in energy content to just 200 gallons of gasoline, would require a truck capable of hauling a 13-ton load. Think about that: an entire large truckload delivery would be needed simply to transport enough hydrogen to allow ten people to fill up their cars with the energy equivalent of 20 gallons of gasoline each. Instead of steel tanks, one could propose using (very expensive) lightweight carbon fiber overwrapped tanks, which only weigh about ten times as much as the hydrogen they contain. This would improve the transport weight ratio by a factor of six. Thus, instead of a 13-ton truck, a mere two-ton truckload would be required to supply enough hydrogen to allow a service station to provide fuel for ten customers. This is still hopeless economically, and could probably not be allowed in any case, since carbon fiber tanks have low crash resistance, making such compressed hydrogen transport trucks deadly bombs on the highway. In principle, a system of pipelines could, at enormous cost, be built for transporting gaseous hydrogen. Yet because hydrogen is so diffuse, with less than one-third the energy content per unit volume as natural gas, these pipes would have to be very big, and large amounts of energy would be required to move the gas along the line. Another problem with this scheme is that the small hydrogen molecules are brilliant escape artists. Hydrogen can not only penetrate readily through the most minutely flawed seal, it can actually diffuse right through solid steel itself. The vast surface area offered by a system of hydrogen pipelines would thus afford ample opportunity for much of the hydrogen to leak away during transport. As hydrogen diffuses into metals, it also embrittles them, causing deterioration of pipelines, valves, fittings, and storage tanks used throughout the entire distribution system. These would all have to be constantly monitored and regularly inspected, tested, and replaced. Otherwise the distribution system would become a continuous source of catastrophes.

You literally turn all cars into car-bombsZubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books, co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, “The Hydrogen Hoax,” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)

The Queen in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass says that she could believe “six impossible things before breakfast.” Such an attitude is necessary to discuss the hydrogen economy, since no part of it is possible. Putting aside the intractable issues of fundamental physics, hydrogen production costs, and distribution show stoppers, let us proceed to discuss the problems associated with the hydrogen cars themselves. In order for hydrogen to be used as fuel in a car, it has to be stored in the car. As at the station, this could be done either in the form of cryogenic liquid hydrogen or as highly compressed gas. In either case, we come up against serious problems caused by the low density of hydrogen. For example, if liquid hydrogen is the form employed, then storing 20 kilograms onboard (equivalent in energy content to 20 gallons of gasoline) would require an insulated cryogenic fuel tank with a volume of some 280 liters (70 gallons). This cryogenic hydrogen would always be boiling away, which would create concerns for those who have to leave their cars parked for any length of time, and which would also turn the atmospheres in underground or otherwise enclosed parking garages into explosive fuel-air mixtures. Public parking garages containing such cars could be expected to explode regularly, since hydrogen is flammable over concentrations in air ranging from 4 to 75 percent, and the minimum energy required for its ignition is about one-twentieth that required for gasoline or natural gas. Compressed hydrogen is just as unworkable as liquid hydrogen. If 5,000 psi compressed hydrogen were employed, the tank would need to be 650 liters (162 gallons), or eight times the size of a gasoline tank containing equal energy. Because it would have to hold high pressure, this huge tank could not be shaped in an irregular form to fit into the vehicle’s empty space in some convenient way. Instead it would have to be a simple shape like a sphere or a domed cylinder, which would make its spatial demands much more difficult to accommodate, and significantly reduce the usable vehicle space within a car of a given size. If made of (usually) crash-safe steel, such a hydrogen tank would weigh 1,300 kilograms (2,860 pounds) — about as much as an entire small car! Lugging this extra weight around would drastically increase the fuel consumption of the vehicle, perhaps doubling it. If, instead of steel, a lightweight carbon fiber overwrapped tank were employed to avoid this penalty, the car would become a deadly explosive firebomb in the event of a crash.

Failure of past subsidy programs provesZubrin 07 (Robert, BA in mathematics from the University of Rochester, MS in nuclear engineering, MS in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, author of over 200 technical and non-technical papers and 5 books, co-inventor on a US patent for a hybrid engine rocket, founder of Pioneer Energy, a research and development firm focusing on developing mobile Enhanced Oil Recovery systems headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado, The New Atlantis, Winter 2007, “The Hydrogen Hoax,” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, alp)

Despite these inconvenient facts, the U.S. Department of Energy has continued to hand out billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money to major auto companies and their fuel-cell development partners to produce hydrogen-powered auto-show display vehicles. The agency issues repeated predictions claiming that tens of thousands of these cars will soon be appearing on America’s highways, when in fact the Department’s past projections of the growth of hydrogen vehicles have all been at least two orders of magnitude higher than reality. As a result, stocks in all the major fuel-cell companies, pumped high by such hype at the expense of naïve investors, are currently selling at less than one-tenth their peak values. Eventually, real markets catch up with reality; hype and hoaxes can only take us so far.

Extension – No Price ShocksStructural factors check price explosionKrauss 13 (Clifford, New York Times energy correspondent, New York Times, October 8, 2013, “Oil Shocks Ahead? Probably Not,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/energy-environment/oil-shocks-ahead-probably-not.html?pagewanted=all, alp)

No doubt there will still be bumps like this summer’s. But there are reasons to believe the inevitable tensions in oil-producing countries will be manageable over at least the next few years, because the world now has sturdier shock absorbers than at any time over at least the last decade. The new oil equation combines multiple factors that span the globe, and most promise to be more permanent than the lackluster performance of the global economy, which no doubt has suppressed energy demand. On the supply side, more oil production in the United States, Canada, Iraq and Saudi Arabia has compensated for the loss of exports from Iran, Libya and other trouble spots. The spread of American shale-drilling technology and skill to developing countries promises to raise oil production around the world, particularly in non-OPEC countries with large untapped shale fields like Mexico, Argentina, China, Australia and Russia. That may not be good news for the environment, but it could soften pressure on corporate and consumer budgets, at least in the short term. More friendly to the environment have been changes on the demand side of the energy equation. Auto fuel efficiency is improving by an average of 3 or 4 percent a year because of improved designs and tougher government regulation. New standards in the United States since 2007 have been followed by mandates in Europe, Japan and Canada. Most important, new standards will take effect in China in 2015, which is critical since its vehicle fleet continues to expand at a rapid rate.

Supply diversification is the biggest internal link to price stabilityKrauss 13 (Clifford, New York Times energy correspondent, New York Times, October 8, 2013, “Oil Shocks Ahead? Probably Not,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/energy-environment/oil-shocks-ahead-probably-not.html?pagewanted=all, alp)

Note: William M. Colton is Exxon Mobil’s vice president for corporate strategic planning

Mr. Colton was nearly as sanguine about the future for oil supplies. “When we talk about stability, the key is to have a diversity of supplies to meet the global need for energy, and I would say the world is moving toward having more sources from more places and that tends to bring more stability.” Such price stability will bring

with it winners and losers. Several producing countries like Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, which depend heavily on oil earnings to finance their governments and social programs, may be in for a shock. That could strengthen the position of the United States and even China, but more instability in places like the Middle East could have unpredictable consequences for the world at large. Countries with large shale oil resources, like Argentina, Australia and Pakistan, stand to benefit. Mexico is particularly well positioned, now that the government is rewriting its oil laws to encourage foreign investment, potentially increasing its ability to pump 25 percent more oil out of the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and onshore oil shale fields.

Reject their appeal to empiricism – oil prices have seen stabilityKrauss 13 (Clifford, New York Times energy correspondent, New York Times, October 8, 2013, “Oil Shocks Ahead? Probably Not,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/energy-environment/oil-shocks-ahead-probably-not.html?pagewanted=all, alp)

Just as there have been several periods of extreme oil price turbulence since the 1960s, there have also been periods — the last one being between 1987 and 2004 — when drivers drove into their corner gas station with little to complain about. It is easy to forget that low oil prices were once taken for granted, encouraging families to “see the U.S.A. in your Chevrolet.” After World War II, the United States had an abundance of oil and little reason to conserve it, and if anybody supported its price at all it was the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulated the output of America’s giant oil patch. But by the early 1970s, United States oil production had peaked and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries began to impose its will on global oil markets with boycotts and production quotas.

Massive domestic supply ensures we can control prices via releasing strategic reservesKrauss 13 (Clifford, New York Times energy correspondent, New York Times, October 8, 2013, “Oil Shocks Ahead? Probably Not,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/energy-environment/oil-shocks-ahead-probably-not.html?pagewanted=all, alp)

“There is enough oil,” said Miguel Galluccio, chief executive of YPF, the Argentine national oil company. “If tomorrow you have major military action in the Middle East, the speculators will panic and push the price to $130 a barrel, but then it will come back down again. The source of supply is there.” In fact, American oil supplies increased at the height of this summer’s Middle East crisis and driving season, allowing many refineries to ramp up production to meet demand without a

hitch. The United States continues to consume more than 20 percent of world oil supplies, but now, once again, it also produces an increasing share of world supplies even as Russia and Saudi Arabia pump more. Just as the Arab boycotts of an earlier era spurred robust exploration in Alaska and the development of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the recent oil price spike from 2004 to 2008 spurred an even more impressive expansion of domestic drilling across Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana and in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. American oil production alone has mushroomed by roughly three million barrels a day in the last six years to the highest levels in nearly a quarter of a century, and it should continue to grow from a current 7.6 million barrels a day to 9 million barrels a day by the end of the decade, Faisal Khan, managing director of Citi Research, told a Senate committee this summer. Turner, Mason & Company, a Dallas-based engineering consulting firm, projects a low-case forecast of 9.5 million barrels produced domestically by 2022, which would be just short of the record of 9.6 million barrels produced in the United States in 1970. But its high forecast is 12 million barrels, potentially making the United States the world’s biggest producer. Higher American production means Washington has greater flexibility to release strategic reserves should prices begin to rise in a way that threatens Western economies.

Status quo solves – US is trending towards lower domestic oil consumptionKrauss 13 (Clifford, New York Times energy correspondent, New York Times, October 8, 2013, “Oil Shocks Ahead? Probably Not,” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/energy-environment/oil-shocks-ahead-probably-not.html?pagewanted=all, alp)

And while the United States is producing more oil, it is consuming less year after year. The United States currently consumes a little more than 18 million barrels of oil a day — more than 2 million barrels below peak consumption in 2005. High unemployment is a major reason but far from the only one. Federal mandates for biofuel use have replaced nearly 10 percent of oil in gasoline production over the last five years, although corn ethanol production also burns fuel. Natural gas is chipping away at oil use for heating in the Northeast. Energy experts note that more people are shopping online, more employees are telecommuting, and young adults are attracted to an urban lifestyle where work and play are closer to home. The American car fleet is gradually being replaced with autos that will be far more efficient under the new fuel mileage standards. By 2018, the Paris-based International Energy Agency projects American oil demand could fall by more than a half million barrels a day, an additional decline of nearly 3 percent from current consumption. And that could be conservative, especially if cheap natural gas replaces more oil as a transportation fuel. There are currently eight million heavy

and medium-weight trucks on American roads consuming three million barrels of oil a day — about 15 percent of total American oil consumption. With big transportation companies like United Parcel Service making the switch and natural gas stations spreading over the last few years, energy experts project that 30 percent of the fleet could shift from diesel to gas by the end of the decade.

Extension – Doesn’t Solve WarmingNo solvency – can’t sequester carbon effectively because deep waters are already saturated – also trades off with energy productionBarry 08 (Christopher D., naval architect and co-chair of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers’ ad hoc panel on oceanic renewable energy, July 01, 2008, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/07/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2-sequestration-52762, alp)

The actual effectiveness of OTEC in raising ocean fertility and thereby sequestering carbon still has to be verified, and there has to be a careful examination of other possible harmful environmental impacts — an old saying among engineers is "it seemed like a good idea at the time." The most important issue is that the deep water already has substantial dissolved carbon dioxide, and so an OTEC plant may actually release more carbon than it sequesters, or it might just speed up the existing cycle, sending down as much as it brings up with no net effect. This question has to be answered before OTEC is implemented. It may also be possible to optimize sequestration by being selective about the depths that water is drawn from, or possibly by adding other trace nutrients, especially those that enhance species that sequester carbon in shells. An OTEC plant optimized for ocean fertility will also probably be different than one optimized to generate power, so any OTEC-based carbon scheme has to include transfer payments of some sort — it won't come for free. Finally, who owns the ocean thermal resource? Most plants will be in international waters, though these waters tend to be off the coasts of the developing world.

OTEC can’t solve warming – oceans just release the heat later onBaird 13 (Jim, 1AC author, The Energy Collective, September 3, 2013, “OTEC Can Be a Big Global Climate Influence,” http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence, alp)

Asked if the oceans will come to our climate rescue he said, “That’s a good question, and the answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no.” The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record. Since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes. “They probably can’t go for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the

end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” Trenberth says.

Extension – Warming InevitableAsia pollution offsets any US action – global warming is inevitableKnappenberger 12 – Mr. Paul Knappenberger is the Assistant Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. He holds an M.S. degree in Environmental Sciences (1990) from the University of Virginia as well as a B.A. degree in Environmental Sciences (1986) from the same institution.His over 20 years of experience as a climate researcher have included 10 years with the Virginia State Climatology Office and 13 years with New Hope Environmental Services, Inc. June 7th, 2012, "Asian Air Pollution Warms U.S More than Our GHG Emissions (More futility for U.S. EPA)" www.masterresource.org/2012/06/asian-air-pollution-warming/

“The whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions…. So, what’s the point of forcing Americans into different energy choices?”¶ A new study provides evidence that air pollution emanating from Asia will warm the U.S. as much or more than warming from U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The implication? Efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (and otherwise) to mitigate anthropogenic climate change is moot . ¶ If the future temperature rise in the U.S. is subject to the whims of Asian environmental and energy policy, then what sense does it make for Americans to have their energy choices regulated by efforts aimed at mitigating future temperature increases across the country—efforts which will have less of an impact on temperatures than the policies enacted across Asia?¶ Maybe the EPA should reconsider the perceived effectiveness of its greenhouse gas emission regulations —at least when it comes to impacting temperatures across the U.S.¶ New Study¶ A new study just published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters is authored by a team led by Haiyan Teng from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado. The paper is titled “Potential Impacts of Asian Carbon Aerosols on Future US Warming.”¶ Skipping the details of this climate modeling study and cutting to the chase, here is the abstract of the paper:¶ This study uses an atmosphere-ocean fully coupled climate model to investigate possible remote impacts of Asian carbonaceous aerosols on US climate change. We took a 21st century mitigation scenario as a reference, and carried out three sets of sensitivity experiments in which the prescribed carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over a selected Asian domain are increased by a factor of two, six, and ten respectively during the period of 2005–2024.¶ The resulting enhancement of atmospheric solar absorption (only the direct effect of aerosols is included) over Asia induces tropospheric heating anomalies that force large-scale circulation changes which, averaged over the twenty-year period, add as much as an additional 0.4°C warming over the eastern US during winter and over most of the US during summer. Such remote impacts are confirmed by an atmosphere stand-alone

experiment with specified heating anomalies over Asia that represent the direct effect of the carbon aerosols.¶ Usually, when considering the climate impact from carbon aerosol emissions (primarily in the form of black carbon, or soot), the effect is thought to be largely contained to the local or regional scale because the atmospheric lifetime of these particulates is only on the order of a week (before they are rained out). Since Asia lies on the far side of the Pacific Ocean—a distance which requires about a week for air masses to navigate—we usually aren’t overly concerned about the quality of Asian air or the quantity of junk that they emit into it. By the time it gets here, it has largely been naturally scrubbed clean.¶ But in the Teng et al. study, the authors find that, according to their climate model, the local heating of the atmosphere by the Asian carbon aerosols (which are quite good at absorbing sunlight) can impart changes to the character of the larger-scale atmospheric circulation patterns . And these changes to the broader atmospheric flow produce an effect on the weather patterns in the U.S. and thus induce a change in the climate here characterized by “0.4°C [surface air temperature] warming on average over the eastern US during winter and over almost the entire US during summer” averaged over the 2005–2024 period.¶ While most of the summer warming doesn’t start to kick in until Asian carbonaceous aerosol emissions are upped in the model to 10 times what they are today, the winter warming over the eastern half of the country is large (several tenths of a °C) even at twice the current rate of Asian emissions.¶ Now let’s revisit just how much “global warming” that stringent U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions may avoid averaged across the country.¶ In my Master Resource post “Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)” I calculated that a more than 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by the year 2050 would result in a reduction of global temperatures (from where they otherwise would be) of about 0.05°C. Since the U.S. is projected to warm slightly more than the global average (land warms faster than the oceans), a 0.05°C of global temperature reduction probably amounts to about 0.075°C of temperature “savings” averaged across the U.S., by the year 2050.¶ Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions .¶ And even if the traditional form of air pollution (e.g., soot) does not increase across Asia (a slim chance of that), greenhouse gases emitted there certainly will. For example, at the current growth rate, new greenhouse gas emissions from China will completely subsume an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emission in just over a decade. Once again, pointing out that a reduction in domestic greenhouse gases is for naught, at least when it comes to mitigating climate change.¶ So, what’s the point, really, of forcing Americans into different energy

choices? As I have repeatedly pointed out, nothing we do here (when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions) will make any difference either domestically, or globally, when it comes to influences on the climate. What the powers-that-be behind emissions reduction schemes in the U.S. are hoping for is that 1) it doesn’t hurt us too much, and 2) that China and other large developing nations will follow our lead.¶ Both outcomes seem dubious at time scales that make a difference.

Extension – No Impact to Warming

No impact – warming will take centuries and adaptation solvesMendelsohn 9 – Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf

These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences . The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential ” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long ‐ range climate risks . What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.

2NC Framing - Doesn’t Solve Fast EnoughCan’t solve oil wars within a reasonable timeframeGresser and Cusumano, 1AC evidence, 05 – Julian Gresser, Founder of the Alliances for Discovery, Chairman of Energy Voyager & Founding Member of the Green India Consortium. Julian Gresser is an international attorney, negotiator, inventor, and recognized expert on Japan, James A. Cusumano, holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, former chairman of Catalytica Inc., March/April 2005 (“Hydrogen and the New Energy Economy,” The Futurist, Ebsco, alp)

Currently, more than 20% of the world’s oil is in the hands of nations known to sponsor terrorism, and are under sanctions by the United States and/or the United Nations. As a re- sult, oil-producing nations in the Middle East will gain an influence on world affairs previously unthink- able by energy and political strate- gists. These nations will continue to increase their arms, leading to greater instability in that region and worldwide. Massive wealth will flow to terrorist organizations as the free world indirectly rewards their sponsors through the purchase of oil at increasingly higher prices. Fixed supplies, stalled discoveries, and sharply increased consumption will drive prices in the near future to an oil-price tipping point. The wisest way to anticipate and mitigate this risk would be to implement an immediate “quantum jump” into energy conservation and hydrogen development. This will help us avoid, or at least minimize, the dislocations of the oil-price tip- ping point, while achieving an orderly and smooth transition to a Hydrogen Economy in later stages of the program. To be sure, even this quantum jump strategy will likely require 15 to 20 years to achieve broad displacement of current oil sources by hydrogen.

Ocean Ranch Answers

FrontlineFood insecurity doesn’t cause conflictSalehyan 7 – Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas. (Idean, 6-14 “The New Myth About Climate Change Corrupt, tyrannical governments—not changes in the Earth’s climate—will be to blame for the coming resource wars.” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/08/13/the_new_myth_about_climate_change)

First, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity

and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that 5 million people in Malawi have been experiencing chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-wracked Malawi has yet to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in

recent history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to

armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.

No water wars—their ev is hype.Katz 11—Lecturer of Geography and Environmental Studies @ University of Haifa [Dr. David Katz (PhD in Natural Resource Policy & MA in Applied Economics @ University of Michigan), “Hydro-Political Hyperbole: Examining Incentives for Overemphasizing the Risks of Water Wars,” Global Environmental Politics, Volume 11, Number 1, February 2011, pp. 12-35]

Evidence and Perception In sum, despite some instances of violent conflict over water, there is little systematic evidence of war over water resources. Evidence for a deterministic relationship between

water scarcity and the outbreak of armed conflict is particularly weak . Less ambitious claims that

water shortages will contribute to insecurity, which can, in turn, lead to violent conflict, have more empirical support. Even here, however, the importance of water as a causal variable is questionable. Several studies have found that variables such as regime type and institutional capacity are much more important indicators of conflict potential, 43 and may have mitigating effects on any water-

conflict link . As a consequence of accumulated research , many scholars have concluded that risks of

water wars are low , 44 and others have toned down or qualified their statements about the likelihood

of future water wars.45 Some governmental reports have limited their contentions to highlighting that water scarcity can aggravate conflicts and increase insecurity,46 and many studies now emphasize

water as a tool for cooperation .47 Warnings and predictions of imminent water wars continue to be

commonplace, however. In a review of published academic literature, Gupta and van der Zaag find that articles on water conflict outnumber those on cooperation by nearly three to one, and are five times more likely to be cited.48 This article will now turn to offering possible explanations for the persistence and popularity of such declarations despite the bulk of expert opinion downplaying the risks of water wars. Incentives to Stress a Water War Scenario Incentives Presented in Existing Literature Observers

have noted that various actors may have incentives to stress or even exaggerate the risks of water

wars. Lonergan notes, for instance, that in “many cases, the comments are little more than media

hype ; in others, statements have been made for political reasons .”49 Beyond mere

acknowledgement of the possibility of such incentives, however, little research has attempted to understand what these incentives are and how they may differ between actors. An understanding of the different motivations of various groups of actors to stress the possibility of imminent water wars can help explain the continued seemingly disproportionate popularity of such messages and help to evaluate such warnings more critically.pg. 17-18 //1nc

Alt cause – global shift to commodity crops displaces food crops Sustainable Table 14

Various political-agricultural practices contribute to food insecurity worldwide. These include substituting commodity crops for food crops (e.g., growing corn instead of vegetables) and heavy exportation of food crops at the expense of food security of the exporting country. In addition, the recent demand for biofuels, currently produced primarily from corn and soy, has further decreased the amount of viable arable land being used for food production. ¶ The United States overproduces commodity crops (particularly corn, wheat, and soy) in part due to government subsidization; healthful food and sustainable agriculture has not been historically promoted in US food and farming policy. The FAO’s definition of food security includes a provision describing access to “nutritious” food; however, in many low-income areas, it is easier to access cheap, unhealthful food (such as fast food), often produced primarily from commodity crops. In addition, the US exports a high proportion of its commodity crops to the rest of the world. For example, in 2010, over 53 percent of all corn exports in the world were from the US. The exportation of these commodity crops affects farmers in the rest of the world – especially small farmers with limited resources. A large influx of commodity crops from the US can affect local food security, as small farmers cannot compete with less expensive (subsidized) US-produced agricultural products. ¶

Offshore aquaculture stymied by a number of factors Klinger & Naylor, 12 --- *Ph.D. student in Stanford's Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environmental and Resources, AND **professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford (Dane & Rosamond, “Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course,”

http://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/searching%20for%20solutions%20in%20aquaculture.pdf, JMP)

Nonetheless, offshore aquaculture systems also present significant social, economic, and ecological challenges. Land-based aquaculture is typically located on private land, but marine aquaculture is often located in public coastal waters, creating use conflicts and equity issues with other public and private users, including the privatization of historical commons (129–131). The analyses of profitability of offshore aquaculture under present conditions are mixed (127, 132–135). Offshore operations are capital intensive and have high production costs, which must be recouped in productivity or price increases if operations are to be economically viable (120, 122, 126). Investment is currently stymied by regulatory and operational uncertainties, including permitting, structural engineering, remote feeding tools, mortality retrieval systems, and communications and monitoring systems that allow operations to function offshore (120, 121, 131).

New regulations and public support are resolving overfishingNewman 6/24, David Newman is an Oceans Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, (“Fish Stocks on the Rebound”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/fish-stocks-on-the-rebound.html?_r=0, 6/24/2014) Kerwin

In “Why Are We Importing Our Own Fish?” (Sunday Review, June 22), Paul Greenberg raises salient questions about how the globalization of seafood markets has untethered us from any connection to the source of seafood and the well-being of our undersea ecosystems on which the fish — and we — depend. Luckily, there’s one action that’s already helping us restore and reconnect with the American seafood we bring to our shores. Thanks to the American fisheries law, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, many American fish populations, including summer flounder and black sea bass, have recovered from depletion and are being managed sustainably for the first time in more than a generation. Since 2000, 34 commercially important fish populations have recovered; overfishing has been cut in half over the last eight years; and commercial catch and revenues in 2011 were the highest in 14 years. Yet this success is threatened by shortsighted efforts in Congress to weaken these safeguards. Fortunately, many fishermen and others citizens are resisting these rollbacks, advocating that the future of American seafood depends on a strong fisheries law.

No impact uniqueness – food security is rising in the areas most prone to resource warsDanfeshkhu 3/28, Scheherazade Daneshkhu is a Consumer Industries Editor at Financial Times, (“Boost for global food security”, http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/05/boost-for-global-food-security/, 3/28/2014) Kerwin

Some good news for a change. Food security - the availability and affordability of food – has got better, according to research published on Wednesday. The 66-page report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by DuPont, the chemicals company, found that despite last year’s freak weather patterns - drought in California, heatwaves in Australia and floods in Russia – food security improved in

almost three-quarters of the world’s countries. Food security is a growing concern, given the expectation that the world’s population is likely to peak at 10bn mid-century, meaning an extra 3bn mouths to feed. The biggest improvements were in countries with the worst food security problems, namely sub-Saharan Africa, where only two – South Africa and Botswana – have a global food security index of more than 50 per cent. This has led to a narrowing of the gap with the most food-secure countries – headed by the US – where improvements were slower. Lower wheat and rice prices were behind the improvement, as was a better world economy. The EIU report backs up the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s recent research showing a fall in the number of hungry people from 868m in 2010-12 to 842m – still 12 per cent of the global population.

Extension – No Food WarsWars are mostly regional – won’t escalate internationallyAllouche 11 – fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at Brighton, UK (Jeremy, "The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade" Food Policy, Volume 36, Supplement 1)

This article has provided an overview of the current and future challenges in terms of global food and water systems. The major focus of the argument has been on how resource scarcity is a contested and

subjective concept which cannot fully explain conflict , political instability or food insecurity . The

politics of inequality and allocation are much more important variables in explaining water and food insecurity. This is particularly true for conflicts. Although resource scarcity has been linked to

international wars, the current data shows that most conflict over water and food are much more

local. But there again, although resource scarcity can be linked to malnutrition, hunger and water

insecurity, in the majority of cases, water and food insecurity are rarely about competition over resources but rather reflect the politics of allocation and inequality. In this respect, war and conflicts aggravate these insecurities not just on the short term but also on the long term. At the global level, food security has considerably improved and provides the means to address these insecurities. Trade can certainly be seen as a way to address access for countries that are under severe stress in terms of food and water and provides logical grounds for questioning the various water and food wars scenarios. Although global trade and technological innovation are key drivers in providing stable and resilient global systems, the most destabilizing global water-related threat is increasing food prices and hunger. Overall, decision-makers should show greater concern for the human beings who make their living in agriculture, so that those at risk of livelihood and food-security failures, especially under anticipated scenarios of climate change, will be less deprived. Current debates linked to global food security and climate fail to address the political dimension of resource scarcity which is primarily linked to the politics of inequality, gender and power.

War causes resource scarcity – not the other way aroundAllouche 11 – fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at Brighton, UK (Jeremy, "The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade" Food Policy, Volume 36, Supplement 1)

Armed conflict is the main cause of emergency food insecurity in the world today (FAO, 2000) and,

hunger is routinely used as a weapon or a political tool during conflicts. In Ethiopia for example, the government attempted to deny food to rebel forces and their supporters – livestock, farms and food stores in Tigre and Eritrea were systematically bombed (Keller, 1992, p. 620). More generally, it has been estimated that approximately 24 million people in 28 countries across the world are hungry and in need of humanitarian assistance due to war (Messer et al., 2001). The most affected people are usually refugees and internally displaced persons of which women and children are a large majority. The impact of armed conflict on food production and food availability is important especially in the African

context where most people earn at least a part of their livelihood through agriculture or livestock keeping. One study estimated that food production in 13 war-torn countries of Sub-Saharan Africa during 1970–1994 was on average 12.3% lower in war years compared to peace adjusted values (Messer et al., 1998). In another study covering all developing countries the FAO estimated that from 1970 to 1997 conflict induced losses of agricultural output totalled $121 billion in real terms (or an average of $4.3 billion annually) (FAO, 2000). These impacts are not just on food production but there is also a devastating human dimension in terms of hunger and malnutrition. So far the emphasis has been on the impacts of armed conflict on food security but there is also an important post-conflict dimension. A number of studies have shown how violent conflict in Africa plays a decisive role in the creation of conditions leading to famine ([De Waal, 1990], [De Waal, 1993] and [Macrae and Zwi, 1994]), and point to the changing nature of the relationship between conflict and vulnerability to famine. As highlighted by a recent FAO study (2008), food shortages linked to conflict set the stage for years of long-term food emergencies, continuing well after fighting has ceased. These situations can be characterized as chronic entitlement failures where communities, households and individuals who have had their assets stripped through conflict, lack the income and livelihood resources to access food and assure their food security, even where food is available (see Macrae and Zwi, 1994). The impact of war on water is also a serious issue. Ensuring safe water and decent sanitation for civilians in conflict zones is crucial in the sense that diseases have an even large impact in terms of mortality than military casualties during conflicts. The provision of water and sanitation is of utmost priority in post-conflict states. Unsafe water equates directly with poor health, but the lack of adequate public revenues, government capacity, and investor interest often results in failure to re-establish access to basic infrastructural services (Allouche, 2010). Overall, it seems clear that perceived resource scarcity is not an adequate explanation for war at the international level. At the national level, water and food insecurity are relatively important factors in the causes of civil wars. At the local level, water scarcity and food insecurity may lead to local political instability and sometimes violent forms of conflict. Armed conflict creates situation of emergency food and water insecurity and has a long-term impact on post-conflict societies. In the near future, it seems that despite climate change, international resource wars are unlikely and resource

allocation will be settled through diplomatic negotiation and perhaps most importantly international

trade as will be discussed in the next section.

No risk of resource warsPinker 11—Harvard College Professor, Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University (Steven, © 2011, The Better

Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined, RBatra)

Once again it seems to me that the appropriate response is “maybe, but maybe not.” Though climate change can cause plenty of misery and deserves to be mitigated for that reason alone, it will not necessarily lead to armed conflict. The political scientists who track war and peace, such as Halvard Buhaug, Idean Salehyan, Ole Theisen, and Nils Gleditsch, are skeptical of the popular idea that people fight wars over scarce resources .290 Hunger and resource shortages are tragically common in sub- Saharan countries such as Malawi, Zambia, and Tanzania, but wars involving them are not . Hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tsunamis (such as the disastrous one in the Indian Ocean in 2004) do not generally lead to armed conflict. The American dust bowl in the 1930s, to take another example,

caused plenty of deprivation but no civil war. And while temperatures have been rising steadily in Africa during the past fifteen years, civil wars and war deaths have been falling. Pressures on access to land and water can certainly cause local skirmishes, but a genuine war requires that hostile forces be organized and armed, and that depends more on the influence of bad governments, closed economies, and militant ideologies than on the sheer availability of land and water. Certainly any connection to terrorism is in the imagination of the terror warriors: terrorists tend to be underemployed lower-middle-class men, not subsistence farmers.291 As for genocide, the Sudanese government finds it convenient to blame violence in Darfur on desertification, distracting the world from its own role in tolerating or encouraging the ethnic cleansing.

In a regression analysis on armed conflicts from 1980 to 1992, Theisen found that conflict was more likely if a country was poor, populous, politically unstable, and abundant in oil, but not if it had suffered from droughts, water shortages, or mild land degradation. (Severe land degradation did have a small effect.) Reviewing analyses that examined a large number (N) of countries rather than cherry- picking one or two , he concluded, “ Those who foresee doom, because of the relationship between resource scarcity and violent internal conflict, have very little support in the large-N literature.” Salehyan adds that relatively inexpensive advances in water use and agricultural practices in the developing world can yield massive increases in productivity with a constant or even shrinking amount of land, and that better governance can mitigate the human costs of environmental damage, as it does in developed democracies. Since the state of the environment is at most one ingredient in a mixture that depends far more on political and social organization, resource wars are far from inevitable, even in a climate-changed world.

Their neo-Malthusian claims are false – food scarcity doesn’t cause war Allouche 11 – fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at Brighton, UK (Jeremy, "The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade" Food Policy, Volume 36, Supplement 1)

The question of resource scarcity has led to many debates on whether scarcity (whether of food or water) will lead to conflict and war. The underlining reasoning behind most of these discourses over food and water wars comes from the Malthusian belief that there is an imbalance between the economic availability of natural resources and population growth since while food production grows linearly, population increases exponentially. Following this reasoning, neo-Malthusians claim that finite natural resources place a strict limit on the growth of human population and aggregate consumption; if these limits are exceeded, social breakdown, conflict and wars result. Nonetheless, it seems that

most empirical studies do not support any of these neo-Malthusian arguments . Technological change

and greater inputs of capital have dramatically increased labour productivity in agriculture. More generally, the neo-Malthusian view has suffered because during the last two centuries humankind has

breached many resource barriers that seemed unchallengeable . Lessons from history: alarmist

scenarios, resource wars and international relations In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number of alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use of water resources and food insecurity with wars .

The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international organizations (UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that ‘water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict’ (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and conflict are here used for raising water/food as key policy priorities at the international level. In the Middle East, presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers have also used this bellicose rhetoric. Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; ‘the next war in the Middle East will be over water, not politics’ (Boutros Boutros-Gali in Butts, 1997, p. 65). The question is not whether the sharing of transboundary water sparks political tension and alarmist declaration, but rather to what

extent water has been a principal factor in international conflicts. The evidence seems quite weak .

Whether by president Sadat in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan, none of these declarations have been

followed up by military action . The governance of transboundary water has gained increased attention

these last decades. This has a direct impact on the global food system as water allocation agreements determine the amount of water that can used for irrigated agriculture. The likelihood of conflicts over water is an important parameter to consider in assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food systems. None of the various and extensive databases on the causes of war show water as a casus belli . Using the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set and supplementary data from the University of Alabama on water conflicts, Hewitt, Wolf and Hammer found only seven disputes where water seems to have been at least a partial cause for conflict (Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In fact, about 80% of the incidents relating to water were limited purely to governmental rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001, p. 18). As shown in The Basins At Risk (BAR) water event database, more than two-thirds of over 1800 water-related ‘events’ fall on the ‘cooperative’ scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes into account a much longer period, the following figures clearly demonstrate this argument. According to studies by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), organized political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more than 3600 water-related treaties, and approximately 300 treaties dealing with water management or allocations in international basins have been negotiated since 1945 ([FAO, 1978] and [FAO, 1984]). The fear around water wars have been driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates scarcity with violence, conflict and war. There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and transboundary conflict. Most specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se but rather the allocation of water resources between the different riparian states (see for example [Allouche, 2005], [Allouche, 2007] and [Rouyer, 2000]). Water rich countries have been involved in a number of disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example India/Pakistan or Brazil/Argentina). The perception of each state’s estimated water needs really constitutes the core issue in transboundary water relations. Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality, perceptions of the amount of available water shapes people’s attitude towards the environment (Ohlsson, 1999). In fact, some water experts have argued that scarcity drives the process of co-operation among riparians ([Dinar and Dinar, 2005] and [Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006]). In terms of international relations, the threat of water wars due to increasing scarcity does not make much sense in the light of the recent historical record. Overall, the water war rationale expects conflict to occur over water, and appears to suggest that violence is a viable means of securing national water supplies, an argument which is highly contestable. The debates over the likely impacts of climate

change have again popularised the idea of water wars. The argument runs that climate change will precipitate worsening ecological conditions contributing to resource scarcities, social breakdown, institutional failure, mass migrations and in turn cause greater political instability and conflict ([Brauch, 2002] and Pervis and Busby, 2004 Pervis, Nigel, Busby, Joshua, 2004. The Security Implications of Climate Change for the UN System. Environmental Change and Security Project Report 10, pp. 67–73.[Pervis and Busby, 2004]). In a report for the US Department of Defense, Schwartz and Randall (2003) speculate about the consequences of a worst-case climate change scenario arguing that water shortages will lead to aggressive wars (Schwartz and Randall, 2003, p. 15). Despite growing concern that climate change will lead to instability and violent conflict, the evidence base to substantiate the connections is

thin ([Barnett and Adger, 2007] and [Kevane and Gray, 2008]).

Extension – No Water WarsTheir evidence is hypeKatz, Enviro Studies Prof at Tel Aviv, ’11 (David, February, “Hydro-Political Hyperbole: Examining Incentives for Overemphasizing the Risks of Water Wars” Global Environmental Politics, Vol 11 No 1, ProjectMuse)

Incentives to Stress a Water War Scenario Incentives Presented in Existing Literature Observers have noted that various actors may have incentives to stress or even exaggerate the risks of water wars. Lonergan notes, for instance, that in “many cases, the comments are little more than media hype; in others, statements have been made for political reasons.”49 Beyond mere acknowledgement of the possibility of such incentives, however, little research has attempted to understand what these incentives are and how they may differ between actors. An understanding of the different motivations of various groups of actors to stress the possibility of imminent water wars can help explain the continued seemingly disproportionate popularity of such messages and help to evaluate such warnings more critically.

Mueller offers a general explanation for a focus on violence in public discourse by postulating that, following the end of the Cold War, policy-makers, the press, and various analysts seek to fill a “catastrophe quota.”50 According to this theory, various actors seek out new areas of potential violence to justify fears that had become commonplace during the Cold War period.

Simon, while not specifically addressing environmental conflict, suggests four possible reasons for academic researchers to offer what he claimed were overly gloomy scenarios resulting from resource scarcity.51 The first reason is that international funding organizations are eager to fund research dealing with crises, but not work that produces good news. The second is that bad news sells more newspapers and books. The third is a psychological predisposition to focus on bad news or worst-case scenarios. The fourth is a belief that sounding alarm bells can mobilize action to improve environmental issues.

Haas offers two reasons why “exaggerated beliefs about resource scarcity and their possible threats to environmental security persist.” The first is “the absence of any consensual mechanism for reconciling inter-discourse (or interparadigm) disputes.” This, Haas argues, allows for ideological disputes to continue [End Page 18] unresolved. “The second reason is the elective affinity between environmental and security discourses on the one hand, and other dominant discourses in social discussions . . . on the other hand. Consequently self-interested political actors can borrow from discourses that are similar in their ontology and structure and that justify pre-existing political ambitions.”52 Trottier, addressing the risks of water wars specifically, suggests that certain private-sector actors in the water industry may stress the risks of water wars in order to promote water-related infrastructure.53

Tech solvesBBC News ‘4

October 19, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3747724.stm

New technology can help, however, especially by cleaning up pollution and so making more water useable, and in agriculture, where water use can be made far more efficient. Drought-resistant plants can also help. Drip irrigation drastically cuts the amount of water needed, low-pressure sprinklers are an improvement, and even building simple earth walls to trap rainfall is helpful. Some countries are now treating waste water so that it can be used - and drunk - several times over. Desalinisation makes sea water available , but takes huge quantities of energy and leaves vast amounts of brine. The optimists say "virtual water" may save the day - the water contained in crops which can be exported from water-rich countries to arid ones.

Extension – Alt CausesAlt cause – lack of investment in agriculture, natural disasters, displacement, and food wastage WFP ‘14

World Food Programme is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger, as well as the United Nations frontline agency. “Hunger: What Causes Hunger?”. 2014. http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes

The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people. And yet, one person in eight on the planet goes to bed hungry each night. In some countries, one child in three is underweight. Why does hunger exist? There are many reasons for the presence of hunger in the world and they are often interconnected. Here are six that we think are important. Poverty trap People living in poverty cannot afford nutritious food for themselves and their families. This makes them weaker and less able to earn the money that would help them escape poverty and hunger. This is not just a day-to-day problem: when children are chronically malnourished, or ‘stunted’, it can affect their future income, condemning them to a life of poverty and hunger. In developing countries, farmers often cannot afford seeds, so they cannot plant the crops that would provide for their families. They may have to cultivate crops without the tools and fertilizers they need. Others have no land or water or education. In short, the poor are hungry and their hunger traps them in poverty. Lack of investment in agriculture. Too many developing countries lack key agricultural infrastructure, such as enough roads, warehouses and irrigation. The results are high transport costs, lack of storage facilities and unreliable water supplies. All conspire to limit agricultural yields and access to food. Investments in improving land management, using water more efficiently and making more resistant seed types available can bring big improvements. Research by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization shows that investment in agriculture is five times more effective in reducing poverty and hunger than investment in any other sector. Climate and weather. Natural disasters such as floods, tropical storms and long periods of drought are on the increase -- with calamitous consequences for the hungry poor in developing countries. Drought is one of the most common causes of food shortages in the world. In 2011, recurrent drought caused crop failures and heavy livestock losses in parts of Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya. In 2012 there was a similar situation in the Sahel region of West Africa. In many countries, climate change is exacerbating already adverse natural conditions. Increasingly, the world's fertile farmland is under threat from erosion, salination and desertification. Deforestation by human hands accelerates the erosion of land which could be used for growing food. War and displacement. Across the globe, conflicts consistently disrupt farming and food production. Fighting also forces millions of people to flee their homes, leading to hunger emergencies as the displaced find themselves without the means to feed themselves. The conflict in Syria is a recent example. In war, food sometimes becomes a weapon. Soldiers will starve opponents into submission by seizing or destroying food and livestock and systematically wrecking local markets. Fields are often mined and water wells contaminated, forcing farmers to abandon their land. Ongoing conflict in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo has contributed significantly to the level of hunger in the two countries. By

comparison, hunger is on the retreat in more peaceful parts of Africa such as Ghana and Rwanda. Unstable markets. In recent years, the price of food products has been very unstable. Roller-coaster food prices make it difficult for the poorest people to access nutritious food consistently. The poor need access to adequate food all year round. Price spikes may temporarily put food out of reach, which can have lasting consequences for small children. When prices rise, consumers often shift to cheaper, less-nutritious foods, heightening the risks of micronutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition. Food wastage. One third of all food produced (1.3 billion tons) is never consumed. This food wastage represents a missed opportunity to improve global food security in a world where one in 8 is hungry. Producing this food also uses up precious natural resources that we need to feed the planet. Each year, food that is produced but not eaten guzzles up a volume of water equivalent to the annual flow of Russia's Volga River. Producing this food also adds 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, with consequences for the climate and, ultimately, for food production.

Alt causes - climate change CFS 2/27/14 (Center for Food Safety is a non-profit organization working to advocate environmental reform to advance human health through regulating harmful food production and promoting sustainable organic agriculture, “New Report Connects Climate Change & Food Insecurity” – February 27, 2014 – http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2948/new-report-connects-climate-change-and-food-insecurity)

Underscores Organic Agriculture's Climate Resilience Food security requires a stable climate and, according to a new report released today by Center for Food Safety’s Cool Foods Campaign, this security is being jeopardized by climate change. The report, “Food and Climate: Connecting the Dots, Choosing the Way Forward,” outlines the climate requirements for successful food production, and examines two competing food production methods – industrial and organic – to reveal how they contribute to the climate problem, how resilient they are in the face of escalating climate shocks, and how organic agriculture can actually help to solve the climate crisis. “It isn’t widely discussed, but the industrialization of our food supply is a major driver of global climate change, and, ironically, this is undermining our future ability to produce an adequate supply of food” said Cool Foods Campaign director Diana Donlon. “In fact, taken in the aggregate, the global food system is responsible for approximately half of all greenhouse gases.” Droughts and heat waves in 2012 in the U.S. alone affected approximately 80 percent of agricultural land, causing an estimated $30 billion in damages. Already in 2014, California, which produces nearly half the nation’s fruits and vegetables, is experiencing the worst drought in its 153 year history. In the report, Center for Food Safety examines how industrial agriculture – the dominant method of food production in the U.S. – externalizes many social and environmental costs while relying heavily on fossil fuels. Organic farming, by comparison, requires half as much energy, contributes far fewer greenhouse gasses, and, perhaps most surprisingly, is more resilient in the face of climate disruption. “While our current climate trajectory is daunting, a future defined by food insecurity and climate chaos is not inevitable. We can still alter our course. Regenerative, organic agriculture has tremendous, untapped potential to strengthen food security while adapting to climate uncertainties and even helping to mitigate them,” said Donlon.

Many causes of food insecurity – aff can’t solve because there are too many factors such as climate change, corruption, diseases, and population growthHarvest Help ’12 (Harvest Help is a website designed to detail food crises, international response, causes of food insecurity, and ways to aid in these problems, specifically in Africa and third-world countries. “Causes of Food Insecurity in African and Other Third World Countries” – 2012 – http://www.harvesthelp.org.uk/causes-of-food-insecurity-in-african-and-other-third-world-countries.html)

The majority of the severest food crises after the second half of the 20th century were caused by a combination of several factors. The most common causes of food insecurity in African and other Third World countries were: Drought and other extreme weather events. The comparison of the severest food crises in the later history reveals that all were preceded by drought or other extreme weather events. They resulted in poor or failed harvests which in turn resulted food scarcity and high prices of the available food. Pests, livestock diseases and other agricultural problems. In addition to extreme weather events, many failed harvests in African and other Third World countries were also caused by pests such as desert locusts. Cattle diseases and other agricultural problems such as erosion, soil infertility, etc. also play a role in food insecurity. Climate change. Some experts suggest, that drought and extreme weather in regions affected by food crises in the recent decades could be a result of climate change, especially in the West and East Africa which have problems with recurrent extreme droughts. Military conflicts. Wars and military conflicts worsen food insecurity in African and other Third World countries. They may not be directly responsible for food crises but they exacerbate scarcity of food and often prevent the aid workers from reaching the most affected people. Lack of emergency plans. History of the severest food crises shows that many countries were completely unprepared for a crisis and unable to resolve the situation without international aid. Corruption and political instability. In spite of criticism lately, the international community has always send help in the form of food supplies and other means which saved millions of lives in the affected regions. However, the international aid often did not reach the most vulnerable populations due to a high level of corruption and political instability in many Third World countries. Cash crops dependence. Many African and Third World governments encourage production of the so-called cash crops, the income from which is used to import food. As a result, countries which depend on cash crops are at high risk of food crisis because they do not produce enough food to feed the population. AIDS. The disease which is a serious public health concern in the sub-Saharan Africa worsens food insecurity in two ways. Firstly, it reduces the available workforce in agriculture and secondly, it puts an additional burden on poor households. Rapid population growth. Poor African and Third World countries have the highest growth rate in the world which puts them at increased risk of food crises. For example, the population of Niger increased from 2.5 million to 15 million from 1950 to 2010. According to some estimations, Africa will produce enough food for only about a quarter population by 2025 if the current growth rate will continue.

Extension – Aquaculture FailsNumber of barriers for aquacultureNaylor, 6 --- Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University (Spring 2006, Rosamond L., “Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture,” http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/, JMP)

The technology is in place for marine aquaculture development in the United States, but growth

remains curtailed by the lack of unpolluted sites for shellfish production , competing uses of coastal

waters , environmental concerns , and low market prices for some major commodities such as

Atlantic salmon. Meanwhile, the demand for marine fish and shellfish continues to rise more rapidly than domestic production, adding to an increasing U.S. seafood deficit (now about $8 billion annually).

Can’t solve --- number of factors are driving aquaculture companies away from the U.S.Knapp, 12 --- Professor of Economics at the Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage (Gunnar, “The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture,” http://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf, JMP)

According to a review in a recent study of why some aquaculture companies were leaving the U nited

S tates to invest in other countries, “previous research indicates that strict regulatory environment,

cost uncertainties, weak government advocacy, strong local decision-making authority, large number of coastal land owners’ opposition, environmental constraints, poor marketing” were factors (Chu, 2009, citing Lockwood, 2001b; Anderson and Bettencourt, 1993; National Research Council, 1992).

Aquaculture will be used to produce luxury goods – doesn’t solve food insecurity – empirics prove TWN Feb 1, 2001 (Third World Network, non-profit international network of organizations and individuals involved in issues relating to developing countries, “The negative impacts of aquaculture: Locals deprived.” Feb 1, 2001. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/pact-ch.htm 6/28/14)

One of the basic tenet s of aquaculture is to increase food production . The important question is, for whom? Aquaculture, which has been hailed as THE answer to cheap production food for the millions in the poor Third World countries has instead been utilised to produce luxury delicacies such as fat prawns for the consumption of the already over-fed, affluent and wasteful societies in developed countries such as Japan and US. It has also brought a huge amount of profits to industrialists and investors who deal with high-technology gadgetry in pellet fishfood and vaccine research and production, ice production, processing, transport, etc.¶ Meanwhile, the small-time fishermen and fish farmers lose out and the diet of local people gets impoverished . In Malaysia, tiger prawn is sold for about 32 ringgit (US$13) per kg,

double the cost of a kg of beef, out of reach for the general local population.¶ It is ironic then, that most of the world's top suppliers and exporters of shrimps and fish are countries where most of its own people are undernourished : Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and India.

Extension – Squo SolvesStatus quo solves – Indonesia The Fish Site, 6/27/14 ( Indonesia – TheFishSite Business Directory is a growing international database of those companies who support the global fish industry. “Indonesia Plots Master Plan for Aquaculture Development” - http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/23509/indonesia-plots-master-plan-for-aquaculture-development)

INDONESIA - The development of fish farming in Indonesia is increasingly playing an important role in the world's fishing industry¶ Because aquaculture production supplies about 45 per cent of fishery products consumed worldwide and the rapid global demand for fishery products continues to grow, while the supply through traditional sources is stagnant, the Indonesian government said it is continuing in its efforts to promote the sustainability of the supply and demand of fishery products in the future through the development of environmentally friendly and sustainable cultivation technology.¶ Secretary General of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Sjarief Widjaja speaking in Jakarta, said that in addition to the technology development, the government is inviting stakeholders to participate actively in fishing and collaborate to construct a fisheries policy that contribute to build a secure supply of fishery products in a sustainable manner . ¶ "Therefore, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries has called on WorldFish, an international non-profit organization in Asia, to put together a master plan for national aquaculture by 2020, through the Future Indonesian Aquaculture research projects that will be implemented over 18 months", said Sjarief.¶ Sjarief said, Indonesia Aquaculture Futures is a collaborative project between the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and WorldFish that will provide a great opportunity to comprehensively seek to increase the value of consumption and production of the fishery sector.¶ The project is expected to develop scenarios of supply and demand for fishery products for the future, and to build an understanding of the opportunities and challenges to foster sustainable aquaculture in Indonesia.¶ "The results of this project is important to us and will be constructive as additional input and continuous efforts in ensuring sustainable growth of aquaculture development as well as production and consumption of fishery products in Indonesia", said Sjarief.¶ Sjarief added, according to a report from the World Bank and FAO, in 2030 it is estimated that almost two-thirds of the consumption of fishery products in all over the world will come from aquaculture.¶ The Asian region including South Asia, South East Asia, China and Japan are projected to make up 70 per cent of the global fish demand.

Asia produces enough fish now – over 90% global productionAllison Dec 5, 2011 (Edward H. Allison, marine biology degree, a PhD in fisheries assessment and management, Professor at the University of Washington Seattle · School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, Director and principal scientist - Policy, Economics and Social Science WorldFish Center, “Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security.” Dec 5, 2011 http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf Page 40. 7/4/14 J.M.)

Asia has long traditions in aquaculture of carps, but the rapid growth and diversification of the industry has ¶ largely taken place within the last 40 years, when growth has often exceeded 10 percent annually

and now ¶ contributes more than 90 percent of global production . This growth has been driven by rising demand from ¶ growing and urbanizing populations, stagnating supplies from capture fisheries, investment in education and ¶ technology research, a dynamic private sector and high levels of public investment in infrastructure to support ¶ agricultural development. The past fifteen years has seen the emergence of a vibrant SME sector, particularly in ¶ China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, which targets both domestic and international markets ¶ (Beveridge et al., 2010). ¶ The aggregate data on Asian aquaculture all show increases in the volume and value of trade, increased ¶ contribution of production to agricultural GDP, and, in some cases, increased availability of fish in domestic ¶ supply as well (e.g. Figure 8, section 3.2). That this translates into improved food security and reduced incidence ¶ or prevalence of poverty is then often simply assumed, although this is not necessarily the case if revenues ¶ accrue largely to a small number of wealthy people, or the growing middle classes in Asian cities increase their ¶ fish consumption, but nothing changes for the poor and hungry. Once again, deeper analysis is needed before ¶ causal linkages can be inferred and poverty and food security benefits for aquaculture can be claimed.

Obama already pushing to strengthen food security Tullo, 14 , Michelle Tullo is a veteran journalist with Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency. “US turns attention to ocean conservation, food security” (http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/en/features/green/34162-u-s-turns-attention-to-ocean-conservation-food-security)

A first-time US-hosted summit on protecting the oceans has resulted in pledges worth some $800 million to be used for conservation efforts. ¶ During the summit, held here in Washington, the administration of President Barack Obama pledged to massively expand US-protected parts of the southern Pacific Ocean. ¶ In an effort to strengthen global food security, the president has also announced a major push against illegal fishing and to create a national strategic plan for aquaculture. ¶ “If we drain our resources, we won’t just be squandering one of humanity’s greatest treasures, we’ll be cutting off one of the world’s leading sources of food and economic growth, including for the United States,” President Obama said via video on Tuesday morning.¶ The “Our Ocean” conference, held on Monday and Tuesday at the US State Department, brought together ministers, heads of state, as well as civil society and private sector representatives from almost 90 countries.¶ The summit, hosted by Secretary of State John Kerry, focused on overfishing, pollution and ocean acidification, all of which threaten global food security. ¶ In his opening remarks, Kerry noted that ocean conservation constitutes a “great necessity” for food security. ¶ “More than 3 billion people, 50 percent of the people on this planet, in every corner of the world depend on fish as a significant source of protein,” he said.¶ Proponents hope that many of the solutions being used by US scientists, policymakers and fishermen could serve to help international communities.¶ “There is increasing demand for seafood with diminished supply…. We need to find ways to make seafood sustainable to rich and poor countries alike,” Danielle Nierenberg, the president of FoodTank, a Washington think tank, told IPS. ¶ “For instance, oyster harvesters in the Gambia have really depleted the oyster population, but a US-sponsored project has been able to re-establish the oyster beds—by leaving them alone for a while. The same strategy—to step back a bit—worked with lobster fishers in New England.”¶ Nierenberg predicted that with

diminishing wild fish, the future of seafood would be in aquaculture.¶ “What aquaculture projects need to do now is learn from the mistakes made from crop and livestock agriculture,” she said. “It doesn’t always work—for instance, maize and soybeans create opportunities for pest and disease. Overcrowding animals creates manure.”

AT: Solves OverfishingCan’t change feeding practices – the science isn’t ready and it’s not economical Folke et al. Nov 13, 2006 (Lisa Deutsch- Director of Studies and center researcher, researches ecological effects of globalization of food production systems and national policy, PhD in Natural Resource Management at the Department of Systems Ecology, Sara Gräslund- Junior Professional Officer, International Waters, Global Environment Facility, Carl Folke- Director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Director of the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Max Troell- Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist. Researcher at the Beijer Institute and Stockholm University, Miriam Huitric- PhD Programme Director Social-Ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development, Nils Kautskya- PhD Marine Systems Ecology, Professor Marine Ecotoxicology, Louis Lebeld- Ph.D Zoology from University of Western Australia, “Feeding aquaculture growth through globalization: Exploitation of marine ecosystems for fishmeal” Global Environmental Change Volume 17, Issue 2, May 2007, Pages 238–249. Available online 13 November 2006. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378006000719 6/28/14)

While significant research is underway to reduce the percentage of fishmeal in feed, the success of these efforts is unclear (Hardy, 1999; Tacon, 2004). In general, fishmeal protein has not proven highly substitutable (Sugiura et al., 2000 cited in Hardy and Tacon, 2002; Webster et al., 1999). Various alternatives to fish protein in feeds are being evaluated, including waste from seafood processing plants; terrestrial animal by-product meals (Tacon, 2002); synthetic amino acids (as used in livestock feed (Deutsch and Björklund, unpublished manuscript); agricultural by-products, such as palm kernal expellents (Tacon, 2002); or unicellular bacteria, fungi and algae (Tacon, 2002). However, it remains to be seen whether these alternatives are economical and can actually be used in commercial aquaculture; some present potential human health risks, for example fish wastes often contain toxic contaminants (Hites et al., 2004). While industry acknowledges the problem and the portion of fishmeal in feed is in fact decreasing in several species —increases in production volumes, especially for such dominant species as carp, has meant that efficiency increases have been more than counterbalanced by growth in production (Goldburg et al., 2001).¶ The aquaculture industry does not perceive increased demands for fishmeal as a potentially insurmountable problem. It is predicted instead that aquaculture will increase its use of fishmeal at the expense of pig and poultry production because these animals can substitute vegetable proteins, such as soybeans, in their diets (Seafeeds, 2003) and use synthetic amino acids. This has indeed been the pattern of development historically, since the amount of fishmeal used in the animal feed industries has remained relatively constant between 25 and 34 Mt (Tacon, 2003c), while the aquaculture sector has continuously increased its use of fishmeal (see Box 1).

Leadership Answers

FrontlineScience diplomacy fails, scientists and policy makers can’t work togetherMarlow 12 (Jeffery, Writer for wired.com, “The Promise and Pitfalls of Democracy”, Wired.com, 12/11/12, http://www.wired.com/2012/12/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-science-diplomacy/, CTC)

On July 17th, 1975, Alexei Leonov and Tom Stafford did something extraordinary: they shared a meal of canned beef tongue and black bread. It may not have been the most delicious culinary experience the men had ever had, but the setting of the meal was slightly more noteworthy: outer space, where two spacecraft had docked and were orbiting the earth at nearly 18,000 miles per hour. The two men and their crews conducted scientific observations, exchanged gifts, and spoke intermittently in English, Russian, and “Oklahomski,” the Soviet commander’s description of Stafford’s drawl. Far below Leonov and Stafford, their political leaders – Leonid Brezhnev and Gerald Ford, respectively – were embroiled in the maneuverings of the Cold War. Diplomatic tensions ran deep, but with the Space Race to the Moon in the rearview mirror, joint missions seemed to operate above the fray of political discourse. The Apollo-Soyuz episode was a unique moment in American space exploration history, a pivot from antagonism and competition to measured cooperation that previewed a similar move toward engagement in the political arena over a decade later. Indeed, crosstalk between members of supposedly clashing countries is a common feature of the scientific enterprise. These sorts of collaborations may not directly solve the issues at the heart of tense diplomatic situations, but they do get parties on either side talking. The very neutrality of the subject matter – the pursuit of “truth” – may actually help the process, allowing mistrust to thaw and preconceptions to crumble while engaging in a shared aim. This notion of science as a diplomatic tool – its use as an entry point to a recalcitrant society that simultaneously breaks down politically steeped preconceptions and offers tangible benefits – is a promising mode of development and a constructive brand of international relations. The Obama Administration understands the value of science diplomacy; last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the expansion of the Science Envoy program, appointing Barbara Schaal of Washington University in St. Louis, Bernard Amadei of the University of Colorado, and Susan Hockfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the position. These prominent scientists represent the third class of envoys – the program began in 2009 and has sponsored visits to nearly 20 countries. The philosophy behind the envoy program is noble, but its current directive is a bit vague. As noted in the State Department’s official release, “the science envoys travel in their capacity as private citizens and advise the White House, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. scientific community about the insights they gain from their travels and interactions.” A recent assessment of the program by envoy Elias Zerhouni noted the challenge of following through on

initiatives predicated on the personal credibility and contacts of the individual envoys. Leveraging the networks of world-renowned scientists within the framework of a coherent policy of international relations is difficult, particularly when funding for longer-term projects is uncertain. The trust of international partners requires a predictable political and financial environment. When President Obama launched the program during a speech in Cairo, he said that the envoys would “collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.” Whether these programs are mandated by the executive branch or are the responsibility of the envoys is unclear. A more explicit structure could allow science diplomats to be more effective, building on the strong record of science as an invaluable tool in the soft power arsenal.

Alt-Cause: Science leadership is impossible as long as fracking is prevalent in the U.S.Magill 13 (Bobby Magill is an award-winning science, environment and energy journalist who is currently the senior science writer covering energy and climate change for Climate Central in New York City. My work has appeared in Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, Bloomberg News, the Guardian, Huffington Post, Salon, USA Today, High Country News, New West.net, and daily newspapers throughout Colorado, “Fracking hurts US climate change credibility, say scientists”, The Guardian via Climate Central, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/11/fracking-us-climate-credibility-shale-gas, N.O.)

“ As we produce more, we burn more, and we send more CO2 per person into the atmosphere than almost any other country,” said Susan Brantley, geosciences professor and director of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University. “We are blanketing our world with greenhouse gas, warming the planet.” Several years ago in Pennsylvania, scientists were talking about carbon sequestration in shale formations deep underground, she said. “However, since 2005, we have been fracking shales and have drilled 6,000 shale gas wells,” she said. “This extraordinary rate of development is good for our country in terms of jobs and energy prices, but bad in that we are not worrying as much about the greenhouse gas problem as we are about exploiting gas with hydrofracking. “It is hard for us to have credibility in global discussions of greenhouse gas unless we can use this new source of gas a transitional fuel that bridges us from hydrocarbons to renewable, non-carbon fuels,” she said. Even among advocates for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, there is disagreement about what the U.S. role as chief oil and gas producer means for America’s credibility on climate change. “Those who already see the U.S. as a major bad actor will continue to do so, and cite this hydrocarbon boom as further evidence,” said Armond Cohen, executive director of the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force. “By contrast, if the U.S. took a more progressive global stance on overall emissions

control, increased domestic production would be probably irrelevant; the world would be relieved to see U.S. leadership.”

The USA is incapable of projecting leadership beyond its own hemisphereMearsheimer 10 (John, Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago, “The Gathering Storm: China’s Challenge to US Power in Asia”, 2010, http://cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/4/381.full, N.O)

When people talk about hegemony these days, they are usually referring to the United States, which they describe as a global hegemon. I do not like this terminology, however, because it is virtually impossible for any state—including the United States—to achieve global hegemony. The main obstacle to world domination is the difficulty of projecting power over huge distances, especially across enormous bodies of water like the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The best outcome that a great power can hope for is to achieve regional hegemony, and possibly control another region that is close by and easily accessible over land. The United States, which dominates the Western Hemisphere, is the only regional hegemon in modern history. Five other great powers have tried to dominate their region—Napoleonic France, Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union—but none have succeeded.

China’s STEM related degrees statistics prove China is the leader for the long run Friedman, 14 (Lauren, Senior Health Reporter at Business Insider and has written for many places including Scientific American Scientific American Mind, 3 Charts That China’s Scientific Dominance Over The US is a Done Deal, Business Insider, June 19, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientific-dominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6, TS)

While China and the U.S. currently award science and engineering degrees to an equivalent proportion of their populations, China has sharply increased the number of graduates in these fields — and the U.S. does not seem poised to catch up anytime soon. Chinese students also receive more American doctoral degrees in science and engineering than any other foreign students. Between 1987 and 2010, there was a threefold increase in the number of Chinese students in these programs (from 15,000 to 43,000).

China can’t challenge the US

Kaplan & Kaplan ‘11

Robert D. Kaplan, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and Stephen S. Kaplan, former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, March/April 2011, “America Primed,” National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/america-primed-4892

AMERICA’S MACROSTRATEGIC environment is chockablock with assets

unavailable to any other country. If nothing else, the United States has an often-overlooked and oft-

neglected bulwark of allies: the Anglosphere. This is Washington’s inner circle of defense ties, and it finds no equivalent in its competitor nations’ strategic arsenals. The Anglosphere is perennially—and incorrectly—declared dead or in decline by the media and

politicians. Nevertheless, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the United States remain extremely close in their military and intelligence relations and exchange vast volumes of sensitive information daily, as they have for decades. On terrorism, virtually anything and everything is shared. The National Security Agency and Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters have been nearly inextricable since World War II. The same is largely true of the CIA and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service. The various English-speaking nations, in practical terms, even assign individual parts of the world to each other, and each worries about the others’ security equities. The linguistic and other cultural links between the United States and these other English-speaking countries are so deep that the sharing of sensitive information 24-7 is practically an afterthought, even as the media and politicians highlight the narcissism of comparatively small differences. Of course, the values and national purposes of the individual countries are unique, owing to different geographies and historical experiences; yet that is something America can quietly manage. Given how close the United States is to the Anglosphere in most ways, when these allies resist what America is attempting to do, that should constitute a warning that perhaps the policy coming out of Washington is either outright wrong or needs adjustment. (Canada’s balking in the face of U.S. bullying to hop on board the Iraq War train is an obvious case in point.) The Anglosphere, in addition to everything else it provides, is a reality check that can facilitate American policy making. With a

combined population of 420 million, with strategic locations off the continent of Europe (Great

Britain), near the intersection of the Indian Ocean and western Pacific sea-lanes

(Australia), and in the Arctic and adjacent to Greenland’s oil and gas (Canada), the Anglosphere, if not abused

or ignored, will be a substantial hard-power asset for the United States deep into the twenty-first century. China and Russia enjoy nothing comparable.

China is committed to working peacefully with the US – most recent trip proves

Zhang and Shi ‘13

[Yuhan Zhang is an energy professional in a multinational energy company based in the United States and a former researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Lin Shi is an energy professional in a multinational energy company based in the United States and a former consultant at the World Bank. “Conflict between China and the US is not inevitable,” East Asia Forum, 4/13/2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/04/13/conflict-between-china-and-the-us-is-not-inevitable/]

President Xi Jinping’s official visit to the United States in February 2012 — as China’s then vice president — suggests that conflict between the two states is not inevitable. This goes against the ideas of American offensive realists, who have publicly argued that conflict is an unavoidable consequence of the will to survive, which requires large states to maximise power and pursue hegemony

in their own regions. But Xi’s visit saw China and the United States reach consensus on a number of important issues . They agreed to prioritise shared interests and mutual respect as a means of ushering in an era of win–win cooperation between China

and the U nited S tates .¶ Xi’s visit had three main goals: first, to strengthen trust between the two powers through an

official visit; second, to familiarise American leaders with the basic political, economic, ideological and diplomatic style of China’s

next leader; and, third, to consolidate Sino–US trade relations.¶ The timing of Xi’s visit coincided with the 40th anniversary of President Nixon’s visit to China and the publication of the Sino–US joint communiqués, which played a critical role in normalising relations between the two states. Upon his

arrival, Xi met with a number of former secretaries, including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright and former secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson. Xi also met with many policy makers from the current administration,

including President Barack Obama.¶ His visit laid a good foundation for the positive development of China-US political and economic relations for at least the next decade. There are two key reasons for this. The first is that the visit successfully delivered the message that China is willing to

engage in political communication and economic cooperation with the United States. During meetings with current and former politicians, business people and the media, Xi repeatedly stressed the importance of cooperation and friendship between China

and the United States.¶ This message is necessary to reduce the possibility of future strategic misunderstandings , especially because the United States, as a representative Western capitalist power, has been seen as ideologically prejudiced against China since the Cold War. ¶ It is also timely because China’s rapid economic growth in the past decades

has arguably aroused envy and fear in the United States and some European countries, which have been suffering from the consequences of the global financial crisis and the European debt crisis. These anxieties have hardly been assuaged by statements from a growing pool of commentators who predict that China will soon equal the United States in economic power, and will eventually supplant its hegemony.¶ But this prediction fails to account for the philosophical grounding of Chinese leaders, which indicates that China has neither the intention nor the capacity to challenge America’s hegemony. As Mao Zedong pointed out in the early 1960s, ‘We [China] are a socialist country. We do not invade other countries, not in 100 years or 1000 years’. Mao’s successors have consistently reiterated this principle and repeated many times that China will never seek hegemony. Xi’s visit served as another reminder that China’s and America’s interests are in many ways aligned, and that there is considerable scope for the largest advanced economy and the largest emerging economy in the world to establish a new type of partnership.¶

Secondly, Xi’s visit helped to further China-US trade and economic relations. In recent years, as part of China’s ‘going out’ strategy, more and more state-owned enterprises and private companies in China have engaged in mergers and acquisitions activities in North America and Europe, with the intention of absorbing Western advanced

technologies and management techniques.¶ After Xi’s visit to the US, hundreds of accompanied Chinese entrepreneurs have now moved closer to possessing an accurate understanding of local policies and the investment environment in America. This deepening of China-US relations will encourage more Chinese enterprises to invest in the United States. High-tech, clean energy and manufacturing industries are bound to become new hotbeds of bilateral cooperation in the

next few years. The trade orders signed in Iowa and California by Xi’s team also included preferential agricultural policies for American farmers, which have been welcomed and endorsed by the federal government, state governments and the American public.¶ Admittedly, the 2012 US presidential election campaign saw candidates from both the Democratic and the Republican

parties score political points by criticising many of China’s policies, including its exchange rate and trade policies. But, overall, Xi’s visit indicated that the future of China-US relations under his presidency will be shaped by cooperation, despite the intrusion of domestic politics.

Extension – Science Leadership FailsNo impact to science diplomacy – cooperation is limited to science Dickson 9 | David Dickson was the founding director of SciDev.Net and spent many years at Nature, as its Washington correspondent and later as news editor. He also worked on the staffs of Science and New Scientist, specializing in reporting on science policy. He started a career in journalism as a sub-editor, following a degree in mathematics, The limits of science diplomacy, 6/27/14, http://www.scidev.net/global/capacity-building/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html, Accessed 6/27/14, CCHS-AY

Using science for diplomatic purposes has obvious attractions and several benefits. But there are limits to what it can achieve. The scientific community has a deserved reputation for its international perspective — scientists often ignore national boundaries and interest s when it comes to exchanging ideas or collaborating on global problems. So it is not surprising that science attracts the interest of politicians keen to open channels of communication with other states. Signing agreements on scientific and technological cooperation is often the first step for countries wanting to forge closer working relationships. More significantly, scientists have formed key links behind-the-scenes when more overt dialogue has been impossible. At the height of the Cold War, for example, scientific organisations provided a conduit for discussing nuclear weapons control. Only so much science can do Recently, the Obama administration has given this field a new push, in its desire to pursue "soft diplomacy" in regions such as the Middle East. Scientific agreements have been at the forefront of the administration's activities in countries such as Iraq and Pakistan. But — as emerged from a meeting entitled New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy, held in London this week (1–2 June) — using science for diplomatic purposes is not as straightforward as it seems. Some scientific collaboration clearly demonstrates what countries can achieve by working together. For example, a new synchrotron under construction in Jordan is rapidly becoming a symbol of the potential for teamwork in the Middle East. But whether scientific cooperation can become a precursor for political collaboration is less evident. For example, despite hopes that the Middle East synchrotron would help bring peace to the region, several countries have been reluctant to support it until the Palestine problem is resolved. Indeed, one speaker at the London meeting (organised by the UK's Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science) even suggested that the changes scientific innovations bring inevitably lead to turbulence and upheaval. In such a context, viewing science as a driver for peace may be wishful thinking. Conflicting ethos Perhaps the most contentious area discussed at the meeting was how science diplomacy can frame developed countries' efforts to help build scientific capacity in the developing world. There is little to quarrel with in collaborative efforts

that are put forward with a genuine desire for partnership. Indeed, partnership — whether between individuals, institutions or countries — is the new buzzword in the "science for development" community. But true partnership requires transparent relations between partners who are prepared to meet as equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit role: to promote and defend their own countries' interests. John Beddington, the British government's chief scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when he told the meeting that a diplomat is someone who is "sent abroad to lie for his country". But he touched a raw nerve. Worlds apart yet co-dependent The truth is that science and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the other. Politicians need science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or — unfortunately — military; scientists need political support to fund their research. But they also occupy different universes. Politics is , at root, about exercising power by one means or another. Science is — or should be — about pursuing robust knowledge that can be put to useful purposes. A strategy for promoting science diplomacy that respects these differences deserves support. Particularly so if it focuses on ways to leverage political and financial backing for science's more humanitarian goals, such as tackling climate change or reducing world poverty. But a commitment to science diplomacy that ignores the differences — acting for example as if science can substitute politics (or perhaps more worryingly, vice versa), is dangerous . The Obama administration's commitment to "soft power" is already faltering. It faces challenges ranging from North Korea's nuclear weapons test to domestic opposition to limits on oil consumption. A taste of reality may be no bad thing. David Dickson Director, SciDev.Net

Science diplomacy isn’t a substitution for regular diplomacyDickson 10 (David, Director of SciDev.net, “Science in diplomacy: ‘On tap but not on top’ ”, SciDev.net, 28/6/2010, http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-place-of-science-in-diplomacy-%E2%80%9Con-tap-but-not-on-top%E2%80%9D/, CTC)

There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective. There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or diplomatic goals at the international level. Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science. These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world. The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of “public

diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick approach”, as a participant described it). Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader concept of “innovation diplomacy”, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific exchange and technology transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective. Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries. There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the increasing number of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the core of science diplomacy should be about. Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of opium to wheat. Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions. Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world alike. Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the development of modern science. Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER). Less positively, increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions. The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change negotiations, and in particular the

work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action. But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking. It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific ideas would have. Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility SESAME in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey). The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region. But others cautioned that, however successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues coming from other political contexts. Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects, particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another. Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of political realities. Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities. “Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives – and benefit from diplomatic agreements – but cannot provide the solutions to either. “On tap but not on top” seems as relevant in international settings as it does in purely national ones. With all the caution that even this formulation still requires.

The positive effects of scientific diplomacy are contestable; the potential to backlash is always present, results are unpredictable, and scientists have limited ability to influence politicsSmith 14 (Frank, Professor at the Centre of International Security Studies at the University of Sydney,

“Advancing science diplomacy: Indonesia and the US Naval Medical Research Unit”, Sage Journals , June 17,

2014, http://sss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/16/0306312714535864.full N.O.)

Finally, the mechanisms through which science diplomacy creates international cooperation are underspecified, providing little confidence that it will not backfire. Science diplomacy is related to public diplomacy, but merely citing public opinion polls about the popularity of science and technology does not explain how this attraction is leveraged to build goodwill abroad. While their products might be popular, are scientists and technicians typically movers and shakers of mass public opinion? Maybe, but this seems unlikely when they are compared with celebrities or other public figures, especially if we consider variation in the public understanding of science and efficacy of science communication. In addition, like propaganda, public diplomacy that aims to improve mass public opinion can have the opposite effect and inadvertently undermine trust (Goldsmith and Horiuchi, 2009).

Extension – Alt CauseImpacts should have already happened, the USA is no longer the world science leader Alternative tagline: US Science leadership fallen behind and already structurally destined to fall regardless of oceansLowrey 14 (Anne, political and economic writer for the New York Times, “U.S. Dominance in Science Faces Asian Challenge”, New York Times, February 13 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/us-dominance-in-science-faces-asian-challenge.html?_r=0, N.O.)

At the same time, the share of research done by Asian countries grew to 34 percent from 25 percent, with China’s share alone growing to 15 percent from 2 percent in 2000. As a result, the Asian economies now perform a larger share of global research and development than the United States does. China carries out about as much high-tech manufacturing as the United States does, the report found. But the report also highlights some important market sectors where the United States appears to be falling behind. For instance, emerging economies invested about $100 billion in clean energy in 2012, with China alone investing more than $60 billion. The United States spent only $29 billion. More worryingly, the report finds that the United States might be lagging in the research and development spending that scientists say is the most important fuel for future innovation.

Extension – China Rise InevitableChinese scientists paid more than Americans—more incentive and more scientists=more success Friedman, 14 (Lauren, Senior Health Reporter at Business Insider and has written for many places including Scientific American Scientific American Mind, 3 Charts That China’s Scientific Dominance Over The US is a Done Deal, Business Insider, June 19, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-scientific-dominance-is-a-done-deal-2014-6, TS)

People who pursue science in China have much better earning potential than their counterparts in the U.S. Chinese scientists are paid better than their highly educated peers , while in the U.S., the reverse is true . U.S. lawyers , for example, go to school for less time than Ph.D. scientists, but make much more money . "When talented youth

face alternative career options, everything else being equal, more Chinese would be attracted to science than Americans," because of the pay the researchers write. The PNAS researchers identify " four factors [ that] favor China's continuing rise in science: a large population and human capital base, a labor market favoring academic meritocracy, a large diaspora of Chinese-origin scientists, and a centralized government willing to invest in science. "Still, scientists

in the United States have some serious advantages, since, as the researchers note, "China's science faces potential difficulties due to political interference and scientific fraud."

Extension – No ChallengeThe US is the leader in science and technology now – this non-uniques all of your DA’s – there’s only a risk of a China rise in the future that the plan solvesHSNW 08, Homeland Security News Wire is the homeland security industry’s largest online daily news publication, (“U.S. remains the dominant leader in science and technology worldwide”, http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/us-remains-dominant-leader-science-and-technology-worldwide, 6/15/2008) Kerwin

Perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding, the United States remains the world’s undisputed leader in science and technology; the key factor enabling U.S. science and engineering workforce to grow: inflow of foreign students, scientists, and engineers Good news for the United States: We have written about a growing perceptions that the United States is losing its

competitive edge, but a RAND Corporation study issued the other day says the United States remains the dominant leader in

science and technology worldwide. The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total world’s spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners, and is home to three-quarters of the world’s top 40 universities. An inflow of foreign students in the sciences — as well as scientists and engineers from overseas — has helped the United States build and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other nations increase their spending on research and development. Continuing this flow of foreign-born talent is critical to helping the United States maintain its lead, according to the study. “Much of the concern about the United States losing its edge as the world’s leader in science and technology appears to be unfounded,” said Titus Galama, co-author of the report and a management scientist

at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure

the nation maintains or even extends its standing.” U.S. investments in research and development have not lagged in recent years, but instead have grown at rates similar to what has occurred elsewhere in the

world — growing even faster than what has been seen in Europe and Japan. While China is investing heavily in research and development, it does not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe, and Japan, according to RAND researchers. Other nations, however,

are rapidly educating their populations in science and technology. For instance, the European Union and China each are graduating more university-educated scientists and engineers every year than the United States. Policymakers often receive advice from ad hoc sources. Although their viewpoints are valuable, they should be balanced by more complete and critical assessments of U.S. science and technology, said report co-author James Hosek, a RAND senior economist. The absence of a balanced assessment can feed a public misperception that U.S. science and technology is failing when in fact it remains strong, even preeminent. “There is a pressing need for ongoing, objective analyses of science and technology performance and the science and technology workforce. We need this information to ensure that decision makers have a rigorous understanding of the issues,” Hosek said. Among the study’s recommendations: Establish a permanent commitment to fund a chartered body that would periodically monitor and analyze U.S. science and technology performance and the condition of the nation’s science and engineering workforce Make it easier for foreigners who have graduated from U.S. universities with science and engineering degrees to stay indefinitely in the United States Make it easier for highly skilled labor to immigrate to the United States to ensure the benefits of expanded innovation are captured in the United States and to help the United States remain competitive in research and innovation Increase the U.S. capacity to learn from science centers in Europe, Japan, China, India and other

countries Continue to improve K-12 education in general, and science and technology education in particular The inflow of foreign students, scientists, and engineers has been a key factor that has enabled the U.S. science and engineering workforce to grow faster than the number of U.S.-graduating

native-born scientists and engineers would have otherwise allowed, according to the report. Researchers found that foreign-born

scientists and engineers are paid the same as native born, suggesting their quality is on par. A recent reduction in the cap on skilled immigrant visas (H1-B), however, has the potential to reduce the inflow of foreign science and engineering workers, and the report argues that curtailing the supply of these scientists and engineers can lead U.S. firms to outsource more research and development to foreign countries and locate new facilities overseas. Rather than protecting jobs, this could lead to reduced investment and employment at home. Among potential weaknesses faced by the United States are the persistent underperformance of older, native-born K-12 students in math and science and the heavy focus of federal research funding on the life sciences versus physical sciences. Another unknown is whether an increasing U.S. reliance on foreign-born workers in science and engineering makes the U.S. vulnerable. In recent years, about 70 percent of the foreign scientists and engineers who receive Ph.D.s from U.S. universities choose to remain here, but the stay rate could fall as research conditions and salaries improve abroad.

Extension – No US-China War( ) US-China war won’t escalate

Dobbins ‘12

James Dobbins, directs the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, previously served as American Ambassador to the European Community and Assistant Secretary of State, August/September 2012, “War with China,” Survival, Vol. 54, No. 4, p. 7-24

It is important to begin any such analysis by recognising that China is seeking neither territorial aggrandisement nor ideological sway over its neighbour s . It shows no interest in matching US military expenditures, achieving a comparable global reach , or assuming defence commitments beyond its immediate periphery . Such intentions might change, but if so, the United States would probably r eceive considerable warning,

given the lead times needed to develop such capabilities. Despite cautious and pragmatic Chinese

policies, the risk of conflict with the United States remains, and this risk will grow in consequence and perhaps in probability as China’s strength

increases. Among the sources of conflict most likely to occasion a China–US military clash over the next 30 years, listed in descending order of probability, are changes in the status of North Korea and Taiwan,

Sino-American confrontation in cyberspace, and disputes arising from China’s uneasy relationships with Japan and India. All these

sources are on China’s immediate periphery, where Chinese security interests and capabilities seem likely to remain focused. It is important to stress that a China–US military conflict is not probable in any of these cases, but that judgement is based on the view that the United States will retain the capacity to deter behaviour that could lead to

such a clash throughout this period.

( ) Recent Summit solved military relations

Rudd ‘13

[Kevin Rudd, former prime minister of Australia, “A subtle defrosting in China’s chilly war with America” Financial Times, June 10, 2013, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/594776d2-d1ba-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html#axzz2WXapvlZM]

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. ¶ In Beijing analysts still struggle to define the precise state of the China-US relationship. As one said to me recently: “Bu shi rezhan, bu shi lengzhan; er shi liangzhan.” Or, in the Queen’s English: “It’s not a hot war, it’s not a cold war; it’s more like a chilly war.”¶ The problem for leaders, diplomats and analysts is that the relationship defies simple definition. Variants range from “strategic engagement”, “strategic co-operation” and “strategic

competition” to “China as a responsible global stakeholder”.¶ The problem with these ideas is that they mean very little to the Chinese. The phrase that hits home in both capitals these days is “strategic trust deficit” – a gap between China and the US which, if left unchecked, could destabilise the entire Asia-Pacific region.¶ Such a deficit is potentially disastrous for both parties. We see it in the world of cyber espionage and cyber warfare; in escalating tensions in the East and South China Seas, where hundreds of naval and air assets are deployed; in escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula; and in the UN Security Council stalemate over Syria.¶ That is why the working summit between presidents Barack Obama of the US and Xi Jinping of China at the weekend was so important . There had been no high-level political mechanism for the two sides to manage these and other apparently intractable challenges facing the regional and global order.¶ With this summit, with more to follow, we at last have the capacity to build such a mechanism. The fact is, unless the Chinese president himself (simultaneously chairman of the Central Military Commission and general secretary of the Communist party) engages personally in negotiations with his US counterpart, China’s political system is geared to the defence of the status quo. In the US, the secretaries both of state and defence are able to make some strategic calls in negotiations. But their Chinese counterparts are not even among the 250 most senior officials in the party hierarchy. Only the president, in consultation with the other six members of the Politburo Standing Committee, can make the genuinely big calls.¶ Despite opposition in both capitals, both presidents decided to depart from the diplomatic conventions that have governed relations for the past 40 years and convened a working summit, free of the pomp normally associated with state visits. This is a success in its own right. More importantly, both camps are privately delighted by the tone, depth and content of this first engagement, with neither expecting a laundry list of deliverables. Nobody present saw this as the “cyber summit” described in the US media.¶ So, what are the outcomes? First, the agreement to establish a regular military-to-military dialogue is critical . It could contribute to rules of the road on cyber security ; crisis management for the Korean peninsula; the management of incidents at sea and in the air as well as creating a mechanism to develop basic confidence and security-building measures for the region.¶ Second, the summit represented the first systematic engagement and calibration between the two nations on the future of North Korea, including their reported public commitment to prevent Pyongyang acquiring nuclear weapons. Third, there was agreement on climate change, perhaps reflecting the start of a commitment to make the global rules-based order more effective.¶ No one should expect Chinese policy to change quickly. Much could go wrong. But, without a programme of working bilateral summitry, there is little prospect of getting much of strategic importance right. After 20 years of drift in the relationship – following the elimination of the Soviet threat, which for the previous 20 years provided the underlying rationale for co-operation – this meeting could mark the start of a new period of detente. We were headed towards strategic competition – or worse. We may now have the capacity to build sufficient trust in

the relationship, creating a framework to manage the growing complexity of bilateral, regional and global challenges the nations face.¶ It could even lead to what Mr Xi himself described as “a new model of great power relations” for the future, one that does not mindlessly replicate the bloody history of the rise and fall of great powers in centuries past.

Add-on Answers

AT: Econ addon No reverse causal internal link – no ev the economy’s declining or that industrial stimulus solves.

Royal concludes negRoyal 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)

CONCLUSION The logic of ECST supports arguments for greater economic interdependence to reduce the likelihood of conflict . This chapter does not argue against the utility of signalling theory. It does, however, suggest that when considering the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises, ECST logic is dubious as an organising principle for security policymakers. The discussion pulls together some distinct areas of research that have not yet featured prominently in the ECST literature. Studies associating economic interdependence, economic crises and the potential for external conflict indicate that global interdependence is not necessarily a conflict suppressing process and may be conflict-enhancing at certain points. Furthermore, the conditions created by economic crises decrease the willingness of states to send economic costly signals , even though such signals may be most effective during an economic crisis. These two points warrant further consideration in the debate over ECST and, more broadly, theories linking interdependence and peace. The debate takes on particular importance for policymakers when considering the increasingly important US-China relationship and the long-term prospects for peace in the Asia-Pacific. Recent US policy towards China, such as the ‘responsible stakeholder’ approach, assumes that greater interdependence with China should decrease the likelihood for conflict. Some have even suggested that the economic relationship is necessary to ensure strategic competition does not lead to major war (see, e.g., Kastner, 2006). If US or Chinese policymakers do indeed intend to rely on economic interdependence to reduce the likelihood of conflict, much more study is required to understand how and when interdependence impacts the security and the defence behaviour of states. This chapter contributes some thoughts to that larger debate. NOTES I. Notable counterarguments include Barbieri (1996). Gowa (I994), and Levy and Ali I998 . 2.‘ Offi<):ial statements have focused on this explanation as well. See, for example, Bernanke (2009). 3. For a dissenting study. see Elbadawi and Hegre (2008). 4. Note that Skaperdas and Syropoulos (2001) argue that states will have a greater incentive to arm against those with which it is interdependent to hedge against coercion. This argument could be extended to

include protectionism in extreme cases. Creseenzi (2005) both challenges and agrees with Copeland’s theory by suggesting that a more important indicator is the exit costs involved in terminating an economic relationship. which could be a function of the availability of alternatives. 5. There is also substantial research to indicate that periods of strong economic growth are also positively correlated with a rise in the likelihood of conflict . Pollins (2008) and Pollins and Schweller (I999) provide excellent insights into this body of literature.

Crisis won’t cause war Barnett 9—senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC (Thomas, The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis, 25 August 2009, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx, AMiles)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predate s the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture : the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast).

Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: •No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); •The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); •Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); •No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); •A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and •No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up

and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order.

AT: Oil Dependence addonPentagon resource modernization solves dependence nowBurke 14 (Sharon E., assistant secretary of defense for operation energy plans and programs, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, “Powering the Pentagon: Creating a Lean, Clean Fighting Machine,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141207/sharon-e-burke/powering-the-pentagon, alp)

The U.S. military’s fuel demands may not seem problematic today. But they will be in a future in which a range of potential adversaries could target supply lines with precision, thanks to advanced weapons. To confront that risk, the Pentagon hopes to transform the U.S. military from an organization that uses as much fuel as it can get to one that uses only as much as it needs. It plans to build a force that requires less energy to operate and can adapt its use of various energy supplies and technologies to fit the needs of different contingencies and campaigns. The Pentagon still has a long way to go before it can realize these goals. But from bases in Afghanistan that have cut their energy use by a quarter to the development of more efficient engines, the U.S. military has already begun improving its energy security in ways that make economic, environmental, and strategic sense. The stakes are also high for the civilian economy. The International Energy Agency has estimated that the world will need to invest some $37 trillion in new energy technologies by 2030 in order to meet rising global demand. Therefore, a more energy-efficient U.S. military may well help drive the innovation so urgently needed in the civilian economy, too.

R&D solves – ensures greater fuel efficiencyBurke 14 (Sharon E., assistant secretary of defense for operation energy plans and programs, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, “Powering the Pentagon: Creating a Lean, Clean Fighting Machine,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141207/sharon-e-burke/powering-the-pentagon, alp)

The U.S. military will always need energy, and supply lines are always attractive targets during times of war. One way to limit the military’s vulnerability would be simply to use less fuel -- to reduce risk by reducing reliance. To that end, the Pentagon plans to invest $9 billion over the next five years to boost the efficiency and protect the energy supplies of U.S. military equipment. Almost 90 percent of these funds will go toward reducing the demand for fuel in combat, mostly by improving the efficiency of everything from battleships to fighter jets. The remaining ten percent of the Pentagon’s energy investment will be aimed at diversifying its fuel supplies and making them more reliable. That includes testing and evaluating advanced fuels for use in military equipment. The Pentagon has

already certified for use blends of fuel made from petroleum mixed with coal, natural gas, or renewable biomass, which means that U.S. forces will be able to buy such fuel on the commercial market in the future. These investments will also support a larger national goal to develop domestic low-carbon liquid fuels. The Pentagon is already applying energy innovations in the field. Since 2012, a U.S. Army program known as Operation Dynamo has supplied about 70 U.S. bases and outposts in Afghanistan, including Jaghato, with more energy-efficient generators, shelters, and lighting, as well as improved energy-storage and electricity-distribution equipment. At Jaghato, the upgrades cut the outpost’s total fuel demand by a quarter, allowing the military to make an estimated 45 fewer air deliveries of fuel over the course of a year.

Multiple ongoing projects prove the status quo solves the internal linkBurke 14 (Sharon E., assistant secretary of defense for operation energy plans and programs, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, “Powering the Pentagon: Creating a Lean, Clean Fighting Machine,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141207/sharon-e-burke/powering-the-pentagon, alp)

These changes may not bode well for the Pentagon’s energy use in the short term, but some encouraging signs are emerging. One project, the Adaptive Engine Technology Development program, promises to make a fighter jet engine that uses 25 percent less fuel, which could mean an increased strike radius, fewer refueling missions, and lower operating costs. The Department of Defense is developing a flexible, wearable battery that would conform to soldiers’ body armor. Along with the Department of Energy, it is also working on developing “hybrid energy storage modules,” which include a variety of improved energy-storage devices for military use. A number of research projects are under way on “tactical microgrids,” which control and optimize the distribution of electricity on the battlefield to improve the reliability of generators and reduce their wear and tear. Meanwhile, lighter-weight, lower-drag materials have the potential to improve the energy performance of everything from bullets to vehicles to airplanes. Investments in other technologies could tap localized or renewable energy supplies, such as waste products, portable solar cells, and even the kinetic energy troops generate when they walk.

Domestic electricity self-sufficiency can’t solve – transportation sector means we’ll import even if we’re net self-sufficientColgan 13 (Jeff D., professor at American University’s School of International Science, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, October 2013, “"Oil, Conflict, and U.S. National Interests",” http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23517/oil_conflict_and_us_national_interests.html, alp)

Understanding the eight mechanisms linking oil to international security can help policymakers think beyond the much-discussed goal of energy security, defined as reliable access to affordable fuel supplies. Achieving such an understanding is important in light of recent changes in the United States. As hydraulic fracturing—"fracking"—of shale oil and gas accelerates, energy imports are projected to decline, and North America could even achieve energy independence, in the sense of low or zero net overall energy imports, in the next decade. Yet the United States will continue to import large volumes of oil, and the world price of oil will continue to affect it. Moreover, so long as the rest of the world remains dependent on global oil markets, the fracking revolution will do little to reduce many oil-related threats to international security. The emergence of aggressive, revolutionary leaders in petrostates would likely continue to pose threats to regional security. Petrostates will continue to be weakly institutionalized and thus subject to civil wars, creating the kind of security problems that demand responses by the international community, as occurred in Libya in 2011. Petro-financed insurgent groups such as Hezbollah will persist, as will threats to the shipping lanes and oil transit routes that supply important U.S. allies, such as Japan. In sum, energy autarky is not the answer. Self-sufficiency will bring economic benefits to the United States, but few gains for national security. So long as the oil market remains globally integrated, national oil imports matter far less than total consumption. Rather than viewing energy self-sufficiency as a panacea, the United States should contribute to international security by making long-term investments in research and development to reduce oil consumption and provide alternative fuel sources in the transportation sector. In addition to the economic and environmental benefits of reducing oil consumption, substantial evidence exists that military and security benefits will accrue from such investments.

China Rise Good

Neg – China rise peacefulChina is rising peacefully – pessimistic arguments cherry pick evidence Levine 13 – (Steven I., “The China Fallacy: How the US Can Benefit from China’s Rise and Avoid Another Cold War”, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43:4, 729-731, DOI: 10.1080/00472336.2013.802613)//js

Unfortunately, Gross goes considerably too far in arguing his case. He depicts China as a fundamentally conservative power, securely and happily enmeshed in the existing international order, benign in its intentions, and pursuing a purely defensive military build-up. Beijing is ready to co-operate with Washington in constructing a peaceable and co-operative structure of power in the Asia Pacific region if only the USA would alter its hegemonic behaviour and accept China as an equal partner in what in effect would be, in Gross’s telling though he does not

employ the term, a Sino-American condominium. To make his points, Gross seriously exaggerates the extent to which Beijing has behaved co-operatively, for example, with regard to the North Korean nuclear issue and its maritime disputes with its neighbours. In his zeal to attack the China hawks, Gross reveals himself to be something of a China ostrich. Gross’s modus operandi is to cherry pick a large number of extended quotations from a host of other analysts whose arguments serve his purpose. These sources are mostly contemporary newspaper and journal articles and think-tank studies. He throws together pieces from the 1990s with ones of more recent vintage as if there had been no significant changes in Chinese behaviour during a 20-year time period. The effect is to produce a work that reads like a senior thesis based on secondary English-language sources. After the hard upward slog through the thickets of Gross’s repetitive argument, one finally reaches the lofty summit, namely, his proposal for a US-China Framework Agreement that would be based on the unquestionably commendable principles of reciprocal restraint and mutual accommodation. At this altitude, as if suffering from the thinness of the air, the “China Fallacy” turns into what might better be called a “China Fantasy.” In the framework agreement, China would eliminate its short-range missiles facing Taiwan, reduce its air and naval forces in the vicinity of Taiwan, increase military transparency, make a binding commitment not to employ force against Taiwan, submit its maritime disputes to binding international adjudication, and step up security co-operation Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 18:55 23 July 2014 with the USA. In return, the USA would cease close-in surveillance and patrolling of Chinese territorial waters, reduce the level of US forces in the Asia Pacific region, sharply cut arms sales to Taiwan, and pledge not to use force against the PRC (159–160). This smacks of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 that outlawed war. How such a halcyon agreement would be arrived at is not explained. But from it, we are told, would flow a cornucopia of benefits, including long-term security for an autonomous and democratic Taiwan, an improved environment for human rights and democratic change in China, greater opportunity for the USA to exert positive influence on China’s foreign and security policies as well as its domestic political evolution, and, as if that were not enough, the resolution of conflict on the Korean peninsula and an amelioration of Sino-Japanese relations. All of these would ostensibly flow from the premise that once the perceived threat from the USA would cease, Beijing’s leaders would relax their internal repression and be much more willing to co-operate with the USA and other powers in addressing such global issues as climate change, world poverty, humanitarian assistance, and so forth. Left out of Gross’s equation is Beijing’s concern with foreign powers other than the USA that it perceives as unfriendly, such as Japan and India, to say nothing of the domestic forces – dissidents, ethnic minorities, displaced farmers, and the like – that China’s communist leaders see as threats to their continued rule. Although conceding that the reform of China’s

political system must come from within, at the same time Gross suggests that once the security environment is stabilised, the USA will be able, apparently with the acquiescence of

China’s leaders, to play an important role in nudging China toward the long-term American goal of a democratic and pluralist China. Yet from Beijing’s perspective such regime change is anathema. Gross commits the classic error of overestimating the extent to which the course of Chinese politics is amenable to foreign influence and manipulation. Unfortunately, because of its outlandish propositions,

questionable assertions, and general cockeyed optimism about the possibility of a dramatic improvement in US- China relations if only Gross’s nostrums were implemented, his book is likely to be ignored rather than engaged. That is too bad, because the subject he addresses – how to ensure that the worst case scenario of the China hawks, a war between the USA and China, does not come to pass – is of vital concern not only in the two countries involved, but throughout the Asia Pacific region and the world in general.

China won’t challenge the international order

a) Regional bipolarity solves conflictPeou 14 – Professor and Chair of Politics Department at University of Winnipeg,

Ph.D. in International Relations (Sorpong, “Why China’s Rise May Not Cause Major Power-Transition War: A Review Essay”, Asian Politics & Policy 6.1 (2014): 121-131)//js

Another optimistic perspective, which is somewhat close to neoclassical realism, is that China has been and will be constrained by the current interna- tional system characterized as unipolar—that is, dominated by the United States. Operating within this hierarchical system, China is reluctant to challenge the United States because of both systemic and domestic constraints that are inter- preted to reinforce Chinese strategic restraint. This is the thesis advanced by Zhu Feng in Chapter 2. The Asia-Pacific has become stable because of regional bipolarity. Robert Ross and Zhu Feng see stability in the Asia-Pacific in terms of regional bipolarity. Initially advanced by Ross (1999), the thesis is that the region has become

stable because neither the United States nor China is in a position to dominate the other. China has emerged as the dominant player in the landmass of Southeast Asia, North Korea, and Asia’s interior regions. With its blue-water naval superi- ority, the United States maintains its dominance over the

maritime states of Southeast Asia and Japan. Global unipolarity and regional bipolarity help “ease the likelihood of power transition war” (p. 298). This reaffirms the thesis that China is reluctant to challenge the United States with the aim of achieving world hegemonic status.

b) Engagement on economic and institutional fronts solve Peou 14 – Professor and Chair of Politics Department at University of Winnipeg,

Ph.D. in International Relations (Sorpong, “Why China’s Rise May Not Cause Major Power-Transition War: A Review Essay”, Asian Politics & Policy 6.1 (2014): 121-131)//js

Democratic states have now engaged in the process of countering the threat of China. The United States seeks to strengthen its relations with other democracies with the aim of forming a counterweight to the Asian state. According to Carlyle Thayer (2011), “U.S. strategic interests in Southeast Asia have remained relatively constant over the past 65 years,” including maintaining “a security order based on alliances, designed to prevent any power, regional or external, from exerting hegemony over the region” (p. 316). He cites the 2010 U.S. National

Security Strategy, which states that “alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Thailand [all of which are democratic states to varying degrees] are the bedrock of security in Asia and a foundation of prosperity in the Asia- Pacific region” (Thayer,

2011, p. 329). Chinese leaders are no doubt well aware of how states in the region will respond if it chooses to pursue hegemonic-power status aggressively. They made no substantial politico-strategic gains by supporting communist insurgencies that threatened the security of political regimes in Asia during the Cold War, nor will its current threatening behavior advance its future geostrategic

interests. The fact that states in the region have adopted multiple strategies to manage the rise of China as evident in the two publications under review shows how China has been kept in check. We are thus likely to see a rising China that wants to throw its weight around from time to time because of its need to prove to the world that it is a power to be reckoned with. In the end, Beijing is most likely to take careful steps toward preventing backlashes that undermine its interests and great-power status. If war breaks out in the region, it will not be one between the United States and China, even if the former wants to wage a preventive war against the latter. A series of proxy wars is more likely, as happened during the Cold War.2

But states in Asia seem to have grown more self-confident and more secure because of their economic development and growing military strength. They are likely to maintain a multipronged strategy toward China and the United States by engaging them on the economic and institutional fronts, but getting the United States to help keep China

at bay militarily. Future stability in the Asia-Pacific will be based on neither a Sino-centric world order nor American hegemony.3 In short, the rise of China is likely to remain a

great source of controversy and debate in the years and decades to come. Still, evidence shows that the giant

Asian state is likely to pursue its interests driven by certain hegemonic ambitions as its material power grows and as it becomes more status-conscious. However, its rise has been, and will be, limited by various constraints, one of which is a pattern of prudent responses from other states in the Asia-Pacific. The region is thus bound to remain stable, China rising but without enjoying the luxury of providing leadership for peaceful regional community building, at least not until it becomes a liberal democracy.4

Relations are continuously stabilizing – there is strong momentum for compromiseFingar and Fan 13 – Thomas Fingar is the Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies and former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Fan Jishe is a Senior Fellow in the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) (Thomas & Jishe, Ties that Bind: Strategic Stability in the U.S.–China Relationship, The Washington Quarterly, 36:4, 125-138, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2013.861718)//js

The strategic relationship between China and the United States has remained remarkably stable for more than four decades despite the end of the Cold War, dramatic changes and five leadership transitions in China, eight changes of administration in the United States,

and fundamental transformation of the international system. During that time, the declaratory policies of both countries have remained essentially the same, both with respect to one another and toward international relationships in general. Changes in both

countries, most notably those in China, have made us more alike. The process of convergence continues. Neither will ever become just like the other, but similarities, compatibilities, and mutual understanding will continue to increase absent an unexpected shock to the relationship. Trend lines are moving in the direction of greater stability. Both sides have learned to address issues and resolve problems. Not all of them, but more than enough to acquire a reservoir of experience and larger stake in the relationship. The issues that have been resolved, at least temporarily, have involved increasingly central or fundamental matters. Examples include de-linking trade and human rights issues in the 1990s and the decreasing importance of

ideological differences. Moreover, the relationship has become more stable despite failure to completely resolve a number of issues important to one or both sides, including

U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and human rights. To say that protests and public statements regarding any of these issues have become pro forma declarations of principle would be highly inaccurate. But both sides have learned to manage their disagreements. Moreover, both recognize that “managing” issues is not making them worse. Cross-Strait relations are deeper and better than ever, and the danger of a military confrontation between China and the United States triggered by developments involving Taiwan is far less than it was even a few years ago. Much the same can be said about progress on human rights in China. Many in both countries are unhappy about the failure to completely resolve what they regard as fundamental issues of principle or “core interests,” but both governments recognize that some problems that are too difficult to be solved right

now may become easier in the future. Both sides have learned to avoid making questions on which they disagree into litmus tests for the overall relationship, and to refrain from casting issues as “matters of principle” on which they cannot be seen to compromise. In

short, both the United States and China have learned how to manage issues and to manage the relationship in ways that isolate and limit the impact of disagreements, sustain momentum, and strengthen strategic stability.

Neg – Too far aheadThe US has naval superiority – Chinese actions are results of defensive realismAcharya 14 – professor of international relations at American University, Washington, D.C., where he holds the UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance at the School of International Service, and serves as the chair of the ASEAN Studies Center. (Amitav, “Power Shift or Paradigm Shift? China’s Rise and Asia’s Emerging Security Order”, International Studies Quarterly 58.1 (2014): 158-173)//js

China poses the most powerful challenge to Asia’s balance of power. But despite its growing economy

(likely to be the number 1 in the world in the next decade) and military spending (Figure 7), the United States remains and is likely to remain for a long time, the preeminent military player in Asia.15 While China’s naval build-up gives it an increasing capacity for denying areas close to its shore to the United States and its allies, any effort by it to dominate the sea lanes of Asia and the Indian Ocean can be coun- tered by the naval forces of the United States, in coopera- tion with Japan and India. The balancin g between China and the United States is consistent with defensive realism , rather than offensive realism (which would imply aggres- sive expansionism and power maximization by China and preemptive containment by the United States). The United States’ strategic concepts of “hedging” and “pivot” (renamed as “rebalancing”) support this. In 2006, the Uni- ted States outlined a policy of “encouraging China to play a constructive, peaceful role in the Asia-Pacific region” while creating “prudent hedges against the possibility that coop- erative approaches by themselves may fail to preclude future conflict”

(Stewart 2009). This strategy involved deploying six carrier battle groups in the Pacific and 60% of its attack submarine fleet (the Washington Times 2006). Under “rebalancing,” the US navy would shift by 2020 from a 50/50 % split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to a 60/40 % split , including six aircraft carriers. The aim of rebalancing is to “maintain a nuanced balance” against China while averting “the potential for a...slip- pery slope toward growing confrontation with China” (The Brookings Institution 2012: 9). While the new US strategy faces budgetary challenges, it also has significant bipartisan support.

Neg – Can’t contain

US can’t exert military influence in Asia Tellis 13 – (Ashley J., “Balancing without Containment: A U.S. Strategy for Confronting China's Rise”, The Washington Quarterly 36.4 (2013): 109-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2013.861717)//js

The U.S. armed forces face some serious challenges in this context. The most obvious problem , and one that receives publicity currently because of frayed politics in Washington, is the impact of sequestration . Even apart from the dangers of these slash- and-burn cuts, the larger question still remains: what should the defense budget focus on? Confronted by dangers such as global terrorism, failing states, weapons of mass destruction, conventional warfare, and the evolving Chinese challenge, U.S. policymakers have attempted to confront these hazards in parallel rather than by creating an ordered hierarchy. They have failed to lay out key strategic priorities around

which other, subsidiary policies could revolve. Other problems include the growing costs of major weapons systems (which often limit capacity), rising personnel expenses (especially involving healthcare), improving administrative practices and lessening bureaucracy, and eliminating redundancies in military capability across the armed services while concurrently emphasizing their technological transformation.11 Even

as the United States grapples with these larger issues, it faces the more pressing challenge of dealing with the “asymmetric threats” posed by China in the Asia– Pacific region . Such asymmetric threats include investments in “ anti-access/area-denial ” (A2/AD)

capabilities, manifested in the formidable land-based “ reconnaissance-strike complex” that China has assiduously built during the last two decades. This complex is anchored in an extensive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

(ISR) system that includes terrestrial and space-based sensors to detect, track, and target mobile U.S. military systems operating at great distances from Chinese territory, as well as activities at fixed U.S. bases throughout the Pacific. The resulting information, supplemented by other intelligence collected by Chinese naval and air elements, is then disseminated to various offensive components—land-based ballistic and cruise missile regiments, land- based (and eventually sea-based) airpower, and surface and subsurface naval platforms— through a national command-and-control grid. Both targeting data and weapons are thus combined to support the different kinds of attacks on U.S. and allied

terrestrial, maritime, and airborne targets that would materialize in times of war. Beijing’s current military modernization has thus been explicitly designed to keep the United States entirely out of its “near seas.” By controlling access to their farther approaches through a variety of

stand-off attacks, Beijing aims to transform the western Pacific into a contained enclosure where Chinese dominance is assured because of its ability to neutralize U.S. military power. Even as Beijing has steadily improved its capacity to meet this goal, it has sustained a wider military modernization aimed at improving its larger warfighting capabilities. This is true across all combat arms (land, air, and sea) and in every dimension (manpower, technology, training, doctrine, organization,

logistics, and command and control). China has also demonstrated dramatic improvements at tilizing critical enablers: space, electronic warfare, cyberwarfare, and nuclear weaponry and their associated delivery systems . As the U.S. Department of Defense warned as

early as 2005, these investments “provide China with a force capable of prosecuting a range of military operations in Asia —well beyond Taiwan—potentially posing a credible

threat to modern militaries operating in the region.”12 China’s ongoing military modernization therefore not only “put[s] regional military balances at risk,”13 but just as problematically threatens the U.S. military’s ability to operate in proximity to the Asian land mass. This potentially decouples the United States from its regional friends and undermines the larger structure of post-World War II regional stability, which was built on U.S. hegemony. The United States cannot lose its ability to protect its allies in this region, which represents the material core of the evolving international order.

Neg – Containment TurnStatus quo has a balance of power but attempting to prevent China’s rise causes security dilemmasAcharya 14 – professor of international relations at American University, Washington, D.C., where he holds the UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance at the School of International Service, and serves as the chair of the ASEAN Studies Center. (Amitav, “Power Shift or Paradigm Shift? China’s Rise and Asia’s Emerging Security Order”, International Studies Quarterly 58.1 (2014): 158-173)//js

Second, stability in a consociation comes from “equilib- rium among the segments ” (Bogaards 1998: 480). Unlike a security community, a consociational order does not transcend security

competition (Bogaards 1998: 492). Instead, groups engage in coalitional politics to deny hegemony to any particular group . The key to consocia- tional stability thus is the existence of “multiple balances of power.”6 This assumption echoes defensive realism . Unlike offensive realists who argue that states go for “all they can get” with hegemony as their ultimate goal (Me- arsheimer 2001), defensive realists maintain that states are generally satisfied with the status quo if their own security is not challenged and thus concentrate on main- taining a balance of power (Glaser 1996;

Tang 2010). Structural conditions such as anarchy do not invariably lead to expansionism; but the fear of triggering a security dilemma, calculations of the balance of power, and domestic politics induce states to abstain from pre-emp- tive war and engage in reassurance policies.

China rise is inevitable but attempting to prevent it creates an enemyNye 13 – Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor (Joseph S., "Work With China, Don't Contain It", New York Times, January 25, 2013, http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/22698/work_with_china_dont_contain_it.html)//js

CITING an escalating dispute over islands in the East China Sea, The Economist warned last week that "China and

Japan are sliding toward war." That assessment may be too alarmist, but the tensions have bolstered the efforts of some American analysts who have urged a policy to "contain" China. During

a recent visit to China, I was struck by how many Chinese officials believe such a policy is already in place and is the central purpose of President Obama’s “pivot” toward Asia. "The pivot is a very stupid choice," Jin Canrong, a professor of international relations,

declared publicly. "The United States has achieved nothing and only annoyed China . China can’t be contained," he added. Containment was designed for a different era, and it is not what the United States is, or should be, attempting now. At the start of the cold war, containment meant economic isolation of the Soviets and regional alliances like NATO to deter Moscow's military expansion. Later, to the chagrin of George F. Kennan, the father of containment, the doctrine led to the "domino effect" theory behind the escalation of the Vietnam War. Cold war containment involved virtually no trade and little social contact. But

China now is not what the Soviet Union was then. It is not seeking global

hegemony, and the United States not only has an immense trade with China but also huge exchanges of students and tourists. When I worked on the Pentagon's East Asia

strategy in 1994, during the Clinton administration, we rejected the idea of containment for two reasons. If we treated China as an enemy, we were guaranteeing a future enemy. If we treated China as a friend, we kept open the possibility of a more peaceful future. We devised a strategy of "integrate but hedge" — something like Ronald Reagan's "trust but verify." America supported China's membership in the World Trade Organization and accepted Chinese goods and visitors. But a 1996 declaration reaffirmed that the postwar United States–Japan security treaty was the basis for a stable and prosperous East Asia. President Clinton also began to improve relations with India to counterbalance China's rise. This strategy has enjoyed bipartisan support. President George W. Bush continued to improve relations with India, while deepening economic ties with China. His deputy secretary of state, Robert B. Zoellick, made clear that America would accept the rise of China as a "responsible stakeholder." Mr. Obama's "rebalancing" toward Asia involves moving naval resources to the Pacific, but also trade, human rights and diplomatic initiatives. As his national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, said in November, the American-Chinese relationship "has elements of both cooperation and competition." Asia is not a monolith, and its internal balance of power should be the key to our strategy. Japan, India, Vietnam and other countries do not want to be dominated by China, and thus welcome an American presence in the region. Unless China is able to attract allies by successfully developing its "soft power," the rise in its "hard" military and economic power is likely to frighten its neighbors, who will coalesce to balance its power. A significant American military and economic presence helps to maintain the Asian balance of power and shape an environment that provides incentives for China to cooperate. After the 2008–9 financial crisis, some Chinese mistakenly believed that America was in permanent decline and that this presented new opportunities. A result was that China worsened its relations with Japan, India, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines — a

misstep that confirmed that "only China can contain China." But America's rebalancing toward Asia should not be aggressive. We shoul d heed Mr. Kennan's warning against overmilitarization and ensure that China doesn't feel encircled or endangered . The world's two largest economies have much to gain from cooperation on fighting climate change, pandemics, cyberterrorism and nuclear proliferation. With China becoming more dependent on Middle Eastern energy, we should discuss maritime regulations to ensure free passage of ships and include China in Pacific naval exercises.

We should help China develop domestic energy resources like shale gas and encourage China and Japan to revive their 2008 plan for joint undersea gas exploitation. And we should make clear that if China meets certain standards, it can join the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free-trade

agreement around the Pacific Rim. Containment is simply not a relevant policy tool for dealing with a rising China . Power is the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants, and sometimes America's power is greater when we act with others rather than merely over others.

Neg – Containment Turn (Security)Characterizing China rise as a threat creates a self-fulfilling prophecyFingar and Fan 13 – Thomas Fingar is the Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow at Stanford University’s Institute for International Studies and former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Fan Jishe is a Senior Fellow in the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) (Thomas & Jishe, Ties that Bind: Strategic Stability in the U.S.–China Relationship, The Washington Quarterly, 36:4, 125-138, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2013.861718)//js

The most serious threat to continued stability may be the conviction that China’s “rise” inevitably challenges U.S. preeminence and will spark a contest for supremacy.18 John Mearsheimer has characterized the propensity for conflict between rising and status quo nations as the tragedy of great power politics;19 a Chinese proverb reflects the same idea in its observation that

“one mountain cannot be shared by two tigers.” Conviction that conflict is inevitable shapes perceptions and behavior. For example, many Chinese reflexively interpret any action by the United States that could have negative implications for China as having been adopted specifically for that purpose. Bolstering alliances with the ROK and Japan in the wake of DPRK provocations, access arrangements in Central Asia to support troops in Afghanistan, and even improved relations with Myanmar are construed to prove that the United States seeks to encircle China in preparation for military conflict.20 Similarly, U.S. academics, popular media, and politicians regularly assert that China’s military modernization and political activism have the real but unstated goal of challenging U.S. preeminence.21 Leaders on both sides seem

determined to prevent the situation from getting out of hand, but public opinion is difficult to manage, and at times appears to press governments to take actions more likely to increase than decrease strategic distrust and the potential for conflict. We acknowledge the utility of realist theory for explaining the rise and fall of great powers in earlier eras, but assess that globalization, interdependence, and the explicit intention of both countries to avoid conflict have changed the nature of great power relationships.22 We also acknowledge that ours is a minority view and worry that widespread expectations that conflict is inevitable could lead to attitudes and actions that make it more likely. In

other words, there is a significant danger that realist fatalism will become a self- fulfilling prophecy.23

AT: Alliances Key

Alliances are strong – no uniqueness for the affTaylor 14 – Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian

National University (Brendan, “The South China Sea is Not a Flashpoint, The Washington Quarterly”, 37:1, 99-111, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2014.893176)//js

Yet, despite the fact that Washington ultimately refused to side with the Philippines during the April 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff, there is little evidence to suggest any such crisis of confidence amongst America’s closest Asia–Pacific allies.

In its May 2013 Defense White Paper, for example, Canberra characterizes Australia’s alliance with the United States as being “our most important defence relationship” and “a pillar of Australia’s strategic and security arrangements.”44 The United States was certainly swift to demonstrate the credibility of its alliance commitment to Seoul following the March 2010 sinking of the Cheonan, undertaking a series of high-profile military exercises with South Korea in waters proximate to China and in the face of strong opposition from Beijing.45

Likewise in November 2013, Washington sent a strong signal of support for Tokyo by flying two B-52 bombers through China’s newly announced “Air Defense Identification Zone” without informing Beijing in advance.46 U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel backed up this show of defiance with unequivocal confirmation that Article V of the U.S.–Japan Mutual Defense Treaty extends to the Senkaku Islands.47

Impact defense – SCS

1NC – SCS DefenseSouth China Sea isn’t a flashpointTaylor 14 – Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian

National University (Brendan, “The South China Sea is Not a Flashpoint, The Washington Quarterly”, 37:1, 99-111, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2014.893176)//js

It is hard to envisage a credible scenario where a skirmish in the South China Sea could erupt into a conflict of similar proportions. The nationalist foundations of these disputes are fundamentally different from those underpinning East Asia’s traditional flashpoints. By way of example, recent polling suggests that 87 percent of the Chinese public view Japan negatively, whilst 50 percent anticipate a military dispute with Japan.13 Reflecting this sentiment, when Tokyo announced its decision to purchase contested Islands in the East China Sea from their private owner in September 2012, this sparked widespread anti-Japanese

protests across China that spread to more than 100 cities.14 Such public displays of nationalist sentiment stand in marked contrast to June 2013 anti-China protests in Hanoi following Vietnamese allegations that a Chinese vessel had rammed and damaged a Vietnamese fishing boat.

Subsequently, a mere 150 protesters gathered in the city center.15 Crowds of comparable size have attended anti-Chinese protests in the Philippines. For instance, a March 2012 protest outside the Chinese Embassy in Manila that organizers expected to draw 1,000 protesters attracted barely half

that number.16 The strategic geography of the South China Sea also militates against it being a genuine flashpoint . Throughout history, large bodies of water have tended to inhibit the willingness and ability of adversaries to wage war . In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, for instance, John Mearsheimer refers to “the stopping power of water,” writing of the limits that large bodies of water place on the capacity of states to project military power—relative, at least, to

when they share common land borders.17 Even when clashes at sea do occur, history suggests that these generally afford statesmen greater time and space to find diplomatic solutions. As Robert Ross observes, in such cases “neither side has to fear that the other’s provocative diplomacy or movement of troops is a prelude to attack and immediately escalate to heightened military

readiness. Tension can be slower to develop , allowing the protagonists time to manage and avoid unnecessary escalation.”18 Ross’ observation, in turn, dovetails elegantly with

the issue of proximity, which Hoyt regards as a defining feature of a flashpoint. The antagonists in the South China Sea disputes are less proximate than in the case of the Korean Peninsula—where the two Koreas share a land border that remains the most militarized on earth. The same can be said of the Taiwan flashpoint. Indeed, the proximity of Taiwan to the mainland affords Beijing credible strategic options— and arguably even incentives—

involving the use of force that are not available to it in the South China Sea.19 Finally,

and related to the third of Hoyt’s criteria, the South China Sea cannot be said to engage the vital interests of Asia’s great powers . To be sure, much has been made of India’s growing interests in this part of the world— particularly following reports of a July 2011 face-off between a Chinese ship and an Indian naval vessel that was leaving Vietnamese waters.20 However, New Delhi’s interests in the South China Sea remain overwhelmingly economic, not strategic, driven as they are by the search for oil. Moreover, even if New Delhi had anything more than secondary strategic interests at stake in the geographically distant South China Sea, it is widely accepted that India’s armed forces will for some time lack the capacity to credibly defend these.21 Similarly, while much has been made of Tokyo’s willingness to assist Manila with improving its maritime

surveillance capabilities,22 for reasons of history and geography, Tokyo’s interests in the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute, the Korean Peninsula, and even the Taiwan

flashpoint dwarf those which it has at stake in the more distant South China Sea. The extent to which this body of water genuinely engages the vital interests of China and the United States continues to be overstated.

2NC – SCS Defense a) Bilateral tension resolution and ASEANTaylor 14 – Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian

National University (Brendan, “The South China Sea is Not a Flashpoint, The Washington Quarterly”, 37:1, 99-111, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2014.893176)//js

Unlike its recent behavior in the East China Sea, Beijing’s approach toward the South China Sea disputes has traditionally been one of conflict de- escalation. Beijing’s clear preference has been to manage such tensions bilaterally. Following a period where an increase in Chinese maritime patrols led to a rise in the number of clashes with Vietnamese (and Philippine) vessels, for instance, Beijing and Hanoi reached agreement in October 2011 on principles for settling maritime disputes. Likewise in

June 2013, China and Vietnam agreed to establish new hotlines to assist with managing incidents at sea and dealing with fishing disputes.32 Beijing has also shown some willingness to take the multilateral route. Most famously, China signed a non-binding “Declaration on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea” with ASEAN in November 2002. While protracted progress continues, the official position of both China and ASEAN remains to establish a legally binding code of conduct in the South

China Sea intended to incorporate mechanisms for avoiding incidents at sea, crisis management, confidence building measures, and joint development.33 Beijing has certainly not shown similar flexibility in relation to any of its other publicly-declared “core interests.” At China’s insistence, for example, discussion of Taiwan is strictly off limits in Asia’s multilateral forums.

b) Empirics proveTaylor 14 – Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian

National University (Brendan, “The South China Sea is Not a Flashpoint, The Washington Quarterly”, 37:1, 99-111, DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2014.893176)//js

In the South China Sea, two major, modern Sino–U.S. crises have been successfully managed. The first occurred in April 2001, when a U.S. EP-3 conducting routine surveillance in airspace above the South China Sea collided with a Chinese J-8 jet fighter and was forced to make an emergency landing on Hainan Island. To be sure, efforts to address this crisis did not initially proceed particularly smoothly, as Chinese officials refused to answer incoming calls from the U.S. Embassy. Ultimately, however, those most intimately involved in the crisis—such as then-Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Dennis Blair—have written subsequently how top U.S. officials “made every effort to exercise prudence and restraint while they collected more information about the nature of the incident.” They have also acknowledged that their Chinese counterparts “made a series of grudging concessions that ultimately resulted in success...after they decided that it was important to overall Sino–U.S. relations to solve the incident.”49 Again in March 2009, while diplomatic tensions between Beijing and Washington heightened in the immediate aftermath of an incident involving the harassment of

the USNS Impeccable by five Chinese vessels, good sense also prevailed as senior U.S. and Chinese officials issued statements maintaining that such incidents would not become the norm and pledging deeper cooperation to ensure so.50 Added to these examples of effective crisis management, it is also worth noting that Washington reportedly facilitated a compromise to the April 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff.51

Impact defense – Asia War

1NC – Asia War DefenseNo Asian conflict – China’s rise is marked by multilateralism and economic interdependenceAcharya 14 – professor of international relations at American University, Washington, D.C., where he holds the UNESCO Chair in Transnational Challenges and Governance at the School of International Service, and serves as the chair of the ASEAN Studies Center. (Amitav, “Power Shift or Paradigm Shift? China’s Rise and Asia’s Emerging Security Order”, International Studies Quarterly 58.1 (2014): 158-173)//js

In this essay, I outline a different type of regional secu- rity order for Asia, one that differs not only from the images of a Hobbesian anarchy, but also from the benign visions of a Confucian hierarchy or a Kantian commu-

nity.2 My perspective rests on two central arguments. The first is that while the rise of China is clearly reshaping the distribution of power in Asia, the region has also wit- nessed equally important and long-term changes to other determinants of security and stability. These changes, whose beginnings predate the rise of China, can be dis- cerned by

comparing Asia’s security environment in the immediate aftermath of World War II and that of now. In the former period, Asian security was shaped by eco- nomic nationalism, security bilateralism, and political authoritarianism . These have gradually but unmistakably given way to market liberalism and economic interdepen- dence, security multilateralism (coexisting with US-centric bilateralism), and growing domestic political pluralism. Together, they create those very mitigating factors for anarchy that the region was found to be wanting by the pessimists in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War’s end and question the relevance of thinking about Asia’s future security in terms of Europe’s, America’s, or Asia’s own pasts.

Off-Case

Japan CP

1NC Japan CP

Text: The Government of Japan should increase funding for research and development of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion technology and support exports of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion technology to countries that express an interest. The Government of Japan should demonstrate Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion.

Japan has the technology to develop large-scale OTEC plantsTakahashi 2k, Masayuki Mac Takahashi is a professor of Multi-Disciplinary Sciences at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tokyo, (“DOW Deep Ocean Water as Our Next Natural Resource”, http://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/dow/pdf/chap3.pdf, 2000) Kerwin

A Japanese committee for OTEC estimated the amount of energy potentially usable for Japan. Figure 34 shows the situation of ocean energy within the area where Japan could utilize it exclusively: the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), within 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from the coast. The total amount was estimated at 30 billion kilowatts. This figure corresponds to about 8.6 billion tons of oil per year, which is about 20 times as much as the total energy consumed in Japan in 1980. Supposing only one percent of this energy was used, it would be possible to reduce oil consumption by about one billion tons. It may be necessary to study the oceans and the climate surrounding Japan in greater detail for a more precise estimate, but what is certain is that a great deal of energy could be extracted from the seas both to the east and to the west of Japan. What is more, it could be used for ever.

The counterplan spurs widespread commercialization faster than the planBruch ’94, Vicki L. Bruch is part of Energy Policy and Planning Department Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, (“AN ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCHAND DEVELOPMENT LEADERSHIP IN OCEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES”, http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/10154003, 6/30/1994) Kerwin

Ocean energy R&D in Japan has benefitted from consistent government support, although the support has been at a low level. This has allowed Japanese industry to advance from the research and development stage to the demonstration stage for several ocean energy devices. This has given the Japanese a "leg up" on their competition, and as a result, Japanese ocean energy technologies will probably be commercialized sooner than ocean energy technologies from other countries.

Japan needs to increase environmental technology to become an environmental leaderKyodo News 08, Kyodo News, (“WWF head urges stronger leadership from Japan on climate change”, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/WWF+head+urges+stronger+leadership+from+Japan+on+climate+change.-a0174980725, 2/15/2008) Kerwin

Leape noted that Japanese officials have discussed halving global greenhouse gas emissions from present levels by 2050. But he emphasized that Japan must lead other industrialized nations in the setting of medium-term emissions reduction goals. Japan has yet to notably demonstrate its leadership ''the way one would expect,'' Leape said. ''We have to start emissions reduction from now and get some serious reductions, 25 to 40 percent reductions by 2020,'' Leape said. ''What we are looking for is real leadership from Japanese government toward that end'' as chair of the G-8 summit, he said.

Japanese environmental leadership is key to its soft power.Vakushiji 94, Taizo Vakushiji is a Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Keio University, (“Japan's International Agenda: Technology and the Setting for Japan's Agenda”, pages 78-79) Kerwin

If an argument based on soft resources is extended to the level of international politics, there emerges a new concept of "soft power." Joseph S. Nye. Jr.. writes. The changing nature of international politics has also made intangible forms of power more important.... Power is becoming less transferable, less coercive, and less tangible.... Cooptive power is the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other countries develop preferences or define their interests in ways consistent with its own. This power tends to arise from such resources as cultural and ideological attraction as well as rules and institutions of international regimes. The United States has more cooptive power than other countries. 7 Whether the U.S. is a soft-power giant is worth debating, but the importance of soft power itself is not questionable. How can Japan gain soft power? Currently. Japan has neither an internationally acknowledged ideology nor a worldwidepenetrating culture. But as Richard Rosecrance puts it. Japan is a trading state. Moreover, she is a technological state, top, where two conspicuous technologies, namely manufacturing technology and environmental and/or energy-saving technology, enjoy world preeminence. Among these three kinds of Japanese preeminence, trading power and manufacturing power are classified as types of hard power, so that they would not help Japan elevate its soft-power capability in the post-Cold War era. Therefore, let us focus on the third area. that is, environmental and/or energy saving technologies. Today, environmental issues such as deforestation, greenhouse effects, ozone holes, desertification, and the loss of biological diversity are becoming more and more globalized. As Jessica Tuchman Mathews puts it. The assumptions and institutions that have governed international relations in the postwar era are a poor fit with new realities. Environmental strains that transcend national borders are already beginning to break down the sacred boundaries of national sovereignty, previously rendered porous by the information and communication revolutions and the instantaneous global movement of financial capital. The once sharp dividing line between foreign and domestic policy is blurred, forcing governments to grapple in international forums with issues that were contentious enough in the domestic arena.' Japan is a leading country in both environmental legislation and technology. Admittedly. Japan is not a political superstate. But even as a political dwarf, Japan might be able to gain political leverage if it mote actively engages in the international politics of the global environment, departing from hitherto passive attitudes of following a conservative course taken by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other industrialized countries. It is quite noteworthy that Germany recently showed, at the 1990 Houston Summit, a more assertive stance with respect to the global environment. If Japan plays a major role in singlehandedlv giving her superior environmental

and/or energy-saving technologies to countries who are seriously suffering from both security and economic threats caused bv deforestation, desertification, acid rain, etc.. Japan would be able to fulfill two prerequisites to becoming a "soft hegemon." that is. a hegemon capable of exercising co-optive power.

Strong Japanese leadership is key to Asian multilateralism Hsiao and Yang 9 [Ph.D., is the Executive Director of the Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies (CAPAS), and Research Fellow at the Institute of Sociology, both at Academia Sinica, Taiwan, Ph.D., is the Postdoctoral Fellow of the Center for Asia-Pacific Area Studies (CAPAS) at Academia Sinica, Taiwan. His areas of specialization include international relations theory, Asia-Pacific regionalism and ASEAN Michael and Alan, 2/17/09 “Soft Power Politics in the Asia Pacific: Chinese and Japanese Quests for Regional Leadership,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, http://www.japanfocus.org/-A_-Yang/3054]

Another dimension of Japan’s soft power strategy towards ASEAN is to strengthen common interests with ASEAN member states, particularly in economic and trade issues. According to recent statistics, ASEAN-Japan was valued at 1.8 trillion yen in 2006 [29]. In 2007, ASEAN was Tokyo’s third largest trade partner while Japan is ASEAN’s fourth largest export partner and second largest import partner [30]. Since the economic complementarity between ASEAN and Japan is distinctive, a regional FTA between Japan and ASEAN is desirable. The Joint Declaration of the Leaders of ASEAN and Japan on the Comprehensive Economic Partnership (CEP) in 2002 and the Framework for CEP between ASEAN and Japan in 2003 opened a new page in ASEAN-Japan cooperation. This ASEAN-Japan CEP (AJCEP) could lead to the realization of a Japan-ASEAN 6 FTA in 2012 with the inclusion of CLMV in 2017. After eleven rounds of negotiation, the AJCEP Agreement was signed and entered into force in late 2008. This Agreement projects an integrated market and greater economic incentives for both ASEAN and Japan. An ASEAN-Japan FTA would enhance Japan’s competitiveness in regional integration. The strategic meaning of ASEAN-Japan trade cooperation is to balance Chinese power in the region. Japan’s balancing strategies are twofold. First, ASEAN-Japan economic cooperation will project an image of a receptive and cooperative Japan. As Rahul Sen and Sanchita Basu Das argued, a more receptive Japan could offer ASEAN unique opportunities to broach sensitive issues such as agriculture and services liberalization [31]. A free trade agreement, nevertheless, is only one part of ASEAN-Japan economic cooperation. A comprehensive scheme embodied in AJCEP Agreement, encompassing economic, scientific, technological and cultural cooperation, will provide greater incentives to ASEAN economies to embrace Japan-led regionalism. Second, Japan’s balancing strategy is to promote the idea and practice of an East Asian Community. Since 1997, the financial crisis sparked Japan’s strong interests in East Asia cooperation [32]. East Asian Community seeks to consolidate ASEAN-Japan relations and enmesh China in regional settings. The rationale for this idea is to ensure the pivotal role of ASEAN in East Asian cooperation and reconcile Japan with Southeast Asian neighbors. A viable ASEAN, for Japan, can provide stable support for Tokyo’s vision of East Asian community. Tokyo has long endorsed the institutionalization and internal integration of ASEAN by making efforts to narrow the gap between ASEAN-6 and CLMV states. In addition, Japan has highlighted the importance of ASEAN as the “driving force” of East Asia economic integration in many international forums such as APEC, ARF and the East Asia Summit (EAS). In short, Tokyo’s “heart-to-heart diplomacy” not only markedly “lassoes” the support

of ASEAN members and their people, but also seeks to deal with China’s soft power moves. Strengthening Socio-Cultural Cooperation via Ideational Transmission? Socio-cultural cooperation is conducive to a sense of community which may forge closer ASEAN-Japan relations. Nevertheless, it reveals Tokyo’s careful pursuit of regional leadership. One niche that Japan emphasizes is “ideational capacity” buttressed by economic advancement and technological innovation. As the Prime Minister Aso Taro has argued, Japan seeks to act as the “thought leader” in Asian countries [33]. Actually, Tokyo has been actively engaging in ideational transmission to its East Asian neighbors. At the regional level, Japan has initiated the idea of the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) in 2007. This think-tank, supported by the Japanese government, seeks to provide intellectual and capacity building leadership to the construction of East Asian Community in general and to the future ASEAN Economic Community in particular [34]. Almost every Japanese prime minister in recent decades has publicized support for ASEAN or suggested exchange programs to ASEAN states [35]. For example, in 1977, the ASEAN Cultural Fund was designated by Fukuda Takeo to amplify intra-ASEAN cultural exchanges. Former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo announced in 2007 a program to invest US$ 315 million in a 5-year youth exchange initiative, JENESYS (Japan-East Asia Network of Exchange for Students and Youths), to students from ASEAN and EAS member states to visit Japan [36]. In 2008, former Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda proposed “the new Fukuda Doctrine,” which promised to endorse ASEAN’s single market initiative as well as the development of the Mekong Basin [37]. Social and cultural cooperation has become a cardinal theme in ASEAN-Japan relations and a new direction for Japanese ODA in the 1990s. On the one hand, Japan believes that investing in human capital rather than physical i will help ODA recipient countries accelerate nation-building and economic development [38]. On the other hand, the advancement of human resources via educational, technical, and cultural programs offers a bottom-up model of nation-branding which is propitious for ASEAN-Japan relations. With the efforts of domestic institutions such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Association for Overseas Technical Scholarships (AOTS), Japan Overseas Development Cooperation (JODC), financed by Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), Japan sought to work with ASEAN states in development issues such as energy, ICT industry, education, environment, infectious diseases, decreasing regional disparity, and community empowerment. Most of these projects, for example, the Japan-ASEAN Total Plan for Human Resource Development, will improve the institutional capacity of ASEAN governments to cope with socio-cultural challenges. Additionally, the positive and progressive image of Japan in Southeast Asia provides a sound basis for sustaining ASEAN-Japan relations. In a 2008 opinion poll on Japan’s image in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, the result reveal amicable ASEAN-Japan relations. 93% of respondents agreed that Japan is a trustworthy friend for ASEAN countries; 96% of respondents approved that Japan is friendly to their country; and 92% of respondents had positive images of Japan’s economic and technical contribution to their country [39]. These results demonstrate a warming attitude of ASEAN people to Japan and corroborate the efficacy of Tokyo’s soft power diplomacy.

That solves territorial disputes and terrorismNanto 8 [Specialist in Industry and Trade Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division for Congressional Research Services, 1/4/8 “East Asian Regional Architecture: New Economic and Security Arrangements and U.S. Policy,” www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33653.pdf

A stronger regional security organization in East Asia could play a role in quelling terrorism by violent extremists. Since terrorism is a transnational problem, the United States relies on international cooperation to counter it. Without close multilateral cooperation, there are simply too many nooks and crannies for violent extremists to exploit.101 Currently, most of that cooperation is bilateral or between the United States and its traditional allies. While the ASEAN Regional Forum and ASEAN + 3, for example, have addressed the issue of terrorism, neither has conducted joint counter-terrorism exercises as has the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Neither organization as a group, moreover, has joined U.S. initiatives aimed at North Korean nuclear weapons (e.g., the Proliferation Security Initiative). Meanwhile, tensions continue across the Taiwan Strait, and disputes over territory and drilling rights have flared up between China and Japan and between Japan and South Korea. (For the United States, there is a growing possibility of nationalist territorial conflicts between two or more U.S. allies.102) The North Korean nuclear issue remains unresolved; North Korea has conducted tests of ballistic missiles and a nuclear weapon; and the oppressive military rule in Burma/Myanmar continues. Added to these concerns are several regional issues: diseases (such as avian flu, SARS, and AIDS), environmental degradation, disaster mitigation and prevention, high seas piracy, and weapons proliferation. Memories of the 1997-99 Asian financial crisis still haunt policy makers in Asian countries.

Nuclear warChakraborty 10 [Tuhin Subhro Chakraborty is Research Associate at Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (RGICS). His primary area of work is centered on East Asia and International Relations. His recent work includes finding an alternative to the existing security dilemma in East Asia and the Pacific and Geo Political implications of the ‘Rise of China’. Prior to joining RGICS, he was associated with the Centre for Strategic Studies and Simulation, United Service Institution of India (USI) where he examined the role of India in securing Asia Pacific. He has coordinated conferences and workshops on United Nation Peacekeeping Visions and on China’s Quest for Global Dominance. He has written commentaries on issues relating to ASEAN, Asia Pacific Security Dilemma and US China relations.“The Initiation & Outlook of ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) Plus Eight,” http://www.usiofindia.org/Article/?pub=Strategic%20Perspective&pubno=20&ano=739]

The first ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus Eight (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and the USA) was held on the 12th of October. When this frame work of ADMM Plus Eight came into news for the first time it was seen as a development which could be the initiating step to a much needed security architecture in the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific is fast emerging as the economic center of the world, consequently securing of vulnerable economic assets has becomes mandatory. The source of threat to economic assets is basically unconventional in nature like natural disasters, terrorism and maritime piracy. This coupled with the conventional security threats and flashpoints based on territorial disputes and political differences are very much a part of the region posing a major security challenge. As mentioned ADMM Plus Eight can be seen as the first initiative on such a large scale where the security concerns of the region can be discussed and areas of cooperation can be explored to keep the threats at bay. The defence ministers of the ten ASEAN nations and the eight extra regional countries (Plus Eight) during the meeting have committed to cooperation and dialogue to counter insecurity in the region. One of the major reasons for initiation of such a framework has been the new

face of threat which is non-conventional and transnational which makes it very difficult for an actor to deal with it in isolation. Threats related to violent extremism, maritime security, vulnerability of SLOCs, transnational crimes have a direct and indirect bearing on the path of economic growth. Apart from this the existence of territorial disputes especially on the maritime front plus the issues related to political differences, rise of China and dispute on the Korean Peninsula has aggravated the security dilemma in the region giving rise to areas of potential conflict. This can be seen as a more of a conventional threat to the region. The question here is that how far this ADMM Plus Eight can go to address the conventional security threats or is it an initiative which would be confined to meetings and passing resolution and playing second fiddle to the ASEAN summit. It is very important to realize that when one is talking about effective security architecture for the Asia Pacific one has to talk in terms of addressing the conventional issues like the territorial and political disputes. These issues serve as bigger flashpoint which can snowball into a major conflict which has the possibility of turning into a nuclear conflict.

2NC Solvency

Japan solves OTEC development – tech and locationUNC 12, University of North Carolina Science Department, (“OTEC the Only Option for Japan”, http://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2012/07/22/otec-the-only-option-for-japan/#comments, 7/22/2012) Kerwin

Japan, unlike the United States, has incredibly limited on-shore space, and with the sun and the wind being intermittent, around 80% of Japan’s long term energy supply remains insecure. The country has never been largely reliant on fossil fuels and with the Tohoku earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster, nuclear power is an unattractive option. Even with little current, small salinity gradient resources, and major storms just off the coast, is the ocean is Japan’s best option for sustainable energy for the future. Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) in particular has been labeled “the only productive answer” for the country recovering and rebuilding after recent natural disasters and the falling economy that followed. OTEC was tested in Japan thirty years ago on Nauru by the Tokyo Electric Power company. The experiment was widely successful however a hurricane eventually wiped it out. Now, Japan looks at the success seen and considers using OTEC to power a plantship. This ship would graze along the coast, providing benefits in the upbringing of fisheries. Additionally, opportunities would be seen for the development of marine biomass plantations, which would produce biofuels at sea, electricity, and freshwater. Platforms on the sea surface would harvest the energy, The water intake could be installed vertically, allowing pipes to be much shorter. Construction and operation costs in turn would be cheaper and damage to pipes less as they would float versus being cemented to the sea bottom. In being pumped up to the at-sea “power plants”, cold water would retain its low temperature making net power generation far higher. The platforms could also be equipped harness sun and wind resources. Construction would require zero of Japan’s limited land space. A demonstration facility test is set to be carried out in Okinawa Prefecture by three companies: IHI Plant Construction Co.,Ltd., Yokogawa Electric Corporation and Xenesys Inc. at a cost estimate of 500 million yen. The design is of 50kW nameplate capacity and should be complete by March 2013. The test claims to be the first OTEC demonstration conducted in an “actual ocean environment” with consideration to commercialization.

A2: “Hurricanes Gut Solvency”Japan’s OTEC withstands tsunamis - empiricsJFS 13, Japan for Sustainability, (“Japanese Shipbuilder Granted AIP for Development of OTEC”, http://www.japanfs.org/en/news/archives/news_id034492.html, 12/31/2013) Kerwin

Japan Marine United Corporation (JMU), a development-oriented shipbuilder, has been granted the Approval in Principle (AIP) by Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (a Japanese ship classification society, known as ClassNK) on September 2, 2013, for its development of the submersible floating structure of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC). This is the first time that such a certification has been issued for a submersible type. In cooperation with Saga University, JMU has created a conceptual design of a 10-megawatt-class OTEC. This design is based on the performance of a submersible ocean nutrient enhancer "TAKUMI," which pumped up to 100,000 tons of deep ocean water per day when hit by five typhoons during sea experiments. OTEC uses the temperature difference between warm surface water and cold deep sea water to generate electricity. A work medium such as ammonia is vaporized by the warm surface water to drive a turbine. In turn, it is then cooled to a liquid state by the cold deep water and is recirculated back to the vaporizer. JMU aims to develop and demonstrate an element technology for a heat exchanger and heat cycle in order to achieve a power generation of 20 yen (20 U.S. cents) per kilowatt-hour or less in the future.

A2: “No Spillover”The CP promotes global OTEC adoptionJFS 7, Japan for Sustainability, (“http://www.japanfs.org/en/news/archives/news_id026789.html”, Kuwait to Adopt Japanese Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Technology, 9/20/2007) Kerwin

Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC) decided to introduce a power generation and water production system utilizing ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology developed by a Japanese venture, Xenesys Inc. KNPC and Xenesys will sign an official contract in the summer of 2007. OTEC is a clean power generation system utilizing temperature difference between cold deep seawater and the warmer surface. As it needs a difference of 15 degrees Celsius or more to generate electricity without any fuel, tropical and sub-tropical regions within 30 degrees of the equator are suitable for this system. Technological development of OTEC began in earnest after the oil crisis of the 1970s. The world's first practical OTEC plant became feasible with the invention of a new OTEC system known as the "Uehara Cycle" developed by the research team of Dr. Haruo Uehara at Saga University, Japan. Obtaining an exclusive license of the government-patented system, Xenesys developed practical technologies for OTEC power generation and water production through its joint research with Saga University. Saudi Arabia is considering the construction of this new OTC plant as well. Xenesys is also working to introduce its new technology to Thailand and other countries along the Indian Ocean.

Electric Vehicles CP

1NC – CP v1Text: The United States federal government should implement tax breaks and subsidies for electric vehicles

That solve global warming and energy consumptionShinnar 03 – Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of

Engineering (Reuel, “The Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars,” Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455-476)//js

The decisive advantage for electricity is that we can start at once. What we should also do is to encourage research on improving the known methods to reduce energy consumption and global warming . But research will not help unless it is tied to actual

implementation. As those measures are not attractive with present prices, we have to find a way to subsidize them to stimulate real competition. Tax breaks, indirect subsidies, or a carbon tax, or taxes on gasoline to pro- mote more efficient use could achieve this . We presently subsidize the small users of electricity indirectly without any direct taxes. Experience shows that direct subsidies cause objection when they become big (see Ref. [2] and the

current discussion on increasing the subsidy to alcohol for cars). We will never have better electric cars or batteries unless we create a market for 100,000 cars a year by indirect subsidies or high gasoline prices. Nor will we ever have solar energy unless we create a market for few large solar power plants with free competition, letting the engineering companies and the market choose the technology. Market forces work even if the conditions for the market are structured by public policies (such as by import duties). One has only to be careful to do this for technologies which are desirable and for which we have a real need, eliminating support for technologies that have no realistic justification, but only a strong lobbying power and superficial public appeal. Fuel cells receive public subsidy for an expensive, energy inefficient technology in an almost certainly futile attempt to find a utopian way to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

We have the technology – it’s just a question of cost competitivenessShinnar 03 – Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of

Engineering (Reuel, “The Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars,” Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455-476)//js

Ultimately the only real way to reduce global warming, to reduce pollution and achieve energy independence is by developing alternative sources for electricity. especially solar energy. This would also require introducing electric cars , and was discussed in Section 7. All these options require starting their implementation long before they are needed.

We have the technology to do them all now, and no research will really lead to any significant change, unless it is followed by implementation . Large-scale implementation itself will reduce costs significantly. It is time that those concerned about achieving these goals learn from our experience with clean coal. In the 1970s, there was a large drive to reduce emissions from coal power 'plants. The technology to do so was available in the form of scrubbers. It have cost 20 to 30 billion dollars. Power companies strongly objected. as "they had no assurance that they would be allowed to profitably recover the cost. and no research could change that simple fact. The US spent the same 20 billion dollars in research with no real result [12]. If instead it had found a way to implement scrubbers, competition would have reduced the cost and improved the technology. All of us would breathe healthier air and enjoy cleaner

skies today. The same applies to all measures to reduce global warming or achieve energy independence. We will never sequester CO2 unless it becomes profitable for those doing so. The US already captures 100 million tons of CO2 a year (Table 6), and releases the CO2 again. but it would be unfair to demand that those who do so pay for the cost of sequestering C02 when nobody

else is required to do so. The same applies to all the measures introduced here. As long as gasoline is cheap there is little incentive to pay more for a hybrid car to save gasoline. All the measures cited here are not competitive with cheap oil or gas and when the price finally

increases enough it might be too late to do anything except at enormous cost and with massive disruption. As we have the technology to start all these measures, there is no technical barrier to doing so. If the US is ready to find ways to remove political barriers and create conditions that make realistic solutions profitable, private enterprise and competition will do the rest.

1NC – CP v2Text: The United States federal government should increase investment in charging infrastructure for electric vehicles

Charging infrastructure is the weak link – states should provide incentives for consumer adoption of EVsBakker 13 (Sjoerd, “Policy options to support the adoption of electric vehicles in the urban environment”, Science Direct, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 25 (2013): 18-23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.005)//js

When it comes to supporting citizens and business, three major options are available. First, cities can provide direct sub- sidies for individuals when they purchase an electric vehicle, and also for commercial vehicles, scooters or electric bicycles. However, such subsidies can be costly, and may be ineffective, if the EVs remain too expensive for most private customers. Further, with these subsidies in place, car manufacturers may not see an immediate need to lower their prices, with the po- sitive incidence of the policy thus going to them. Subsidies for cars have not proven so popular because they still do not reduce the cost of an EV to that of a comparable ICE vehicle. The risk is also that manufacturers inflate their prices in line with the subsidy [user12]. Second, a city can choose to support local businesses instead of private consumers. Direct subsidies are again an option, but it was also suggested that a city can help companies to better understand the business case, and to make cost-of-own- ership calculations. Further, there are marketing benefits for companies that are among the first to use EVs and a city could help those companies in reaping those benefits by forms of co-branding: Financial support is one thing. But also supporting the frontrunner companies in co-branding of their leadership-role will help them see the benefits in paying the extra-prize now (since EVs are still expensive) [user7]. Third, many cities already host a car-sharing initiative and financial or other support could lower the threshold for such organizations to introduce a number of EVs into their fleet. These organizations are, almost by definition, used to and sup- portive of alternative and green mobility systems. Car-sharing is particularly interesting with respect to electric vehicles. EVs are typically well-suited for use in cities and car-sharing is regularly done for short trips only. Further, car-sharing allows many people to gain experience with driving an EV and this could be powerful in terms of educating the public about the technology and its usability. 3.2.

Supporting charging-infrastructure build up All participants recognized that the build-up of a recharging infrastructure is necessary to facilitate the introduction of EVs. There are, however, different approaches to realizing this and the role of the city in the process. The most proactive cities invest in a number of on-street charging points, ranging from

60 to 400 per city . A city can purchase and install the equipment as part of its public works, or it may set up a public–private partnership with one or more service providers. A tendering process may be necessary to select the service providers. Likewise, businesses, shops and individual EV owners can be supported financially to invest in a charging point on private estates. Public charging spots can be located at strategic points in the city such as shopping centres, railway stations and public parking facilities, but another strategy is to place the points close to EV owners’ homes in case they do not have their own off-street parking

space. All participants preferred co-financing schemes in which one or more private companies, invest in the infrastructure with matching funding from the municipality. Participants also agreed that the business model for public recharging is difficult because of the low profit margins from this electricity use, especially in the early phase when drivers rely on low energy costs to offset initial investments in the vehicle. Some cities prefer people charging on private property to avoid pressure on existing parking spaces, while others prefer on-street charging points because more drivers can use these and

this may increase the visibility of electric cars to the wider public: Having charging points on-street makes them more visible to the public and can lower the barrier for people to buy an EV [user13]. Another participant reported that, following a meticulous selection of strategic sites it often proved difficult to install the points at desired locations for practical reasons. Currently the city only installs them when a local stakeholder asks for one: Spatial research should result in a strategic plan of where charging points should be implemented in the future [user15]. This was done for our charge points, however in practice when it came to installing them, here are not so many locations where it is practical to do so that it is possible to locate them strategically. Where a partner says they want to install a charge point, we agree - there is no decision about whether this fits with the overall infrastructure location strategy [user12]. These considerations relate to regular charging spots, but there was a consensus that fast-chargers are also needed that enable a battery to be 80% charged within half an hour. This does come at an additional cost to the driver, and most EV-driv- ers therefore prefer to charge at night. Still, it is thought to be useful to have a number of fast-chargers to reassure drivers that a quick-charge is possible when necessary. This may help to reduce range anxiety among EV drivers. 3.3.

Regulatory measures Whereas many of the measures require direct investments by a municipality, there are also regulatory measures that have less impact on public budgets. The most popular being free parking for EVs in city centres. Often, such parking takes place at public charging spots and this introduces the problem of vehicles occupying these spots while they are already fully charged. One participant reported that almost 50% of the EVs use the charging spots for parking only, while actually charging their cars at home during the night: It is important to consider if your primary goal is to provide parking spaces for EVs or charging spaces for EVs. Almost 50% of our EVs park at charging spaces but do not charge (they charge at home) [user13]. How this dilemma is to be solved remained unclear, but some parking time limits may have to be imposed. Also, free parking is often a temporary measure that may only last as long as the number of EVs is limited. In cities experiencing high parking pressure, free-parking EVs could cause resentment from other drivers and this could reduce support for policies sup- porting EVs. Furthermore, there are actual costs involved with parking, especially in inner cities, and there is a limit to the income that the city is willing to forego, although losing some revenue from parking is politically less challenging than pro- viding cash subsidies to EV buyers. One participant also commented that car parking should never be entirely free because the ultimate goal of the city should be to reduce car use and to stimulate the use of public transport and cycling. Cities with bus lanes or similar limited-access roads can allow EVs to make use of them. Measures that prevent EV drivers from spending time in traffic may be especially effective in influencing businesses opinion. Large numbers of EVs may even- tually cause congestion on bus lanes, but so far this was not

the case in any of the participants’ cities. In a similar vein, but more costly, EVs can also be exempted from fees on toll-roads, congestion charge schemes, and, if applicable, on ferries. A different regulatory measure is the obligation to property developers to include charging infrastructure in parts (10– 20%) of the parking facilities of newly built apartment buildings, offices, and retail developments. Such regulation could re- quire the developer to actually install charging equipment, but it is also possible to call for EV-ready parking facilities in which the necessary cables or conduits are pre-installed.

1NC – CP v3Text: The United States federal government should impose substantially stricter fuel requirement standards for automobiles

Increasing fuel economy standards for vehicles are the only way to solve oil consumption and warmingShinnar 03 – Distinguished Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, City College of New York, Colombia University Member: National Academy of

Engineering (Reuel, “The Hydrogen Economy, Fuel Cells, and Electric Cars,” Technology in Society 25.4 (2003): 455-476)//js

8. Alternative choices to reduce energy imports and global warming. We have to ask what can the hydrogen economy and in the near future hydro- gen cars achieve . The main goals are reduction of oil imports, reducing C02 emission, and in the long run use of alternative energy. There are, however, other much cheaper ways to achieve the same goals that can be gradually introduced starting immediately. Let us focus on the H2

car. I will only consider measures here, which unlike the hydrogen economy reduce both global warming and oil consumption. The US consumes 15 million barrels of crude oil daily, of which nine million barrels are imported. two million from the Middle East. The main products are gasoline (8.8 barrels a day) distillates 3.8 mil- lion, and petrochemicals (approximately 1 million barrels a day).7 Vehicle of change. Hydrogen fuel cell cars could be the catalyst for a cleaner tomorrow, Scientific American, October 2002."

There are cheaper ways to cut about 4-5 mil- lion barrels of oil from imports, simultaneously reducing global emissions. It has been reported in a recent National Research

Council study [1 1] that corporate average fuel economy standards could be cost-effectively increased by as much as 12-27% for automobiles and 25-42% for vehicles built on light-duty truck frames. such as SUVs and vans. It would also require that light-duty trucks and cars would be put into one CAFE category to prevent shift from cars to SUVs and vans. Only conventional technology was used in this study and the cost of

the additional technology was more than repaid by the future fuel savings. This could reduce gasoline consumption by at least 20- 30% or 2 million barrels a day and reduce greenhouse gas emissions proportionately . Even greater fuel savings are possible if additional technology is utilized such as hybrid vehicles, which are much more eflicient than hydrogen cars. Although the cost would not be entirely recaptured in the future fuel savings, the costs would be significantly

less than using hydrogen cars. Large- scale introduction of hybrid cars and increasing efliciency requirements for SUVs could reduce gasoline consumption by at least 20-30% or 2 million barrels a day in the relatively near future and would reduce greenhouse emissions by the same amount. 3 Another reduction of both import requirements and CO2 emissions could be achieved by modifying the refining process. First one could increase the hydrogen content of the products. Gasoline and distillates contain a mixture of paraflins ( 14.3% hydrogen), naphthenes and aromatics (7.0 to 11.0% hydrogen). Paraflins are environmentally superior to aromatics and naphthenes, as they have signifi- cantly lower emissions. and generate less CO2 per BTU. Present gasoline and distil- lat_ion contain

about 30% aromatics. There are ways to convert aromatics at least partially to paraflins, supplying the increased hydrogen content from hydrogen made from natural gas, coal or residual oil. For diesel oil one can hydrogenate them. This is equivalent to the generation of 0.5 million barrels of high-grade liquid fuels from hydrogen. There is another aspect of refinery, which allows conversion of hydrogen to high-grade liquid products. Present crudes contain about 30% low boiling fractions (vacuum resid), which in most cases is either used as heavy fuel oil or sent to a coker. Coking produces, in addition to coke, about 50% low quality liquid pro- ducts. We have the technology today to hydrocrack these 4.5 million barrels of resid per day, and upgrade them to high-grade liquid products. Again by a simple mass balance this would be equal to creating about 2.5 million barrels a day of high-grade liquid gasoline and diesel using hydrogen instead of coke. But this is achieved by reacting with hydrogen, which stays in the product. The amount of hydrogen that can be added during the whole refinery process is equivalent to 600,000 barrels of oil. The total potential savings in oil imports are about 5 million barrels a day, of which 2 million are due to lower gasoline consumption, and 2 mil- lion due to larger yields of gasoline and diesel from the barrel, and one million bar- rels due to utilizing hydrogen generated from other fossil fuels into the gasoline. Unlike H2 generated in gas stations, this hydrogen is generated in central facilities where the CO2 can be sequestered. Even if only 60% of this potential is realized, it is equal to exchanging 35% of all present cars to hydrogen cars. It is feasible to achieve this in 20 years. There is no way to do that with hydrogen cars. We could look at this method as an improved form of a hydrogen economy. There is available proven technology for hydrogen production from resid, natu- ral gas, and coal, as well as for hydrocracking of resid. We also have the tech- nology to increase alkylate production (the environmentally best gasoline) from various oil fractions, as well as to make high quality paraflinic diesel. Aggressive research is needed to find better and cheaper catalvtic pathways to do so.

Solves – Energy SecurityEVs solve energy securityAnair 12 – Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices. (Don, “State of CHARGE Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across the United States”, June 2012, UCS, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf)//js

Electric-drive vehicles promise to help take us toward a zero- emissions and oil- free transportation future . Powering an EV with renewable electricity is actually possible today—for example, by pairing rooftop solar power with EV charging.7 But in order for EVs to deliver the large reductions in global warming emissions of which they are capable, increasing access to clean

electricity is necessary. And that means cleaning up our nation’s electricity grid. Tackling our long-term global warming and energy security challenges , however, will require not only improvements to our electricity grid but also the market success of electric vehicles themselves . EVs are still in their infancy, and it also will take time for them to enjoy a major presence in the vehicle market. But as electric vehicles’ market penetration improves, we must also phase out the highest-emitting electricity sources, such as coal, and increase the use of cleaner and renewable electricity generation. Only by pursuing both of these objectives in paral- lel can electric vehicles fulfill their potential.

Current Policies Will Deliver Cleaner Electricity, but More Is Needed Some efforts are under way around the country to reduce the emissions from electricity, and the emissions intensity of electric- ity is thus expected to decrease in the coming years. Projections show that the global warming emissions intensity of the nation’s electricity grid will drop 11 percent by 2020 (compared with 2010), and in some regions more than 30 percent.8 The expected decline in emissions intensity of the U.S. elec- tricity grid is due in large part to state and regional policies and federal tax incentives for increasing the supply of renewable elec- tricity and hastening the retirement of coal-fired plants. More than 70 percent of coal-powered plants in the United States are more than 30 years old. But the percentage of coal in the nation’s grid mix has been declining over the

past decade, and widespread retirements of existing coal plants are expected by 2020 (UCS 2011). Also, 29 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted renewable electricity standards, which require growing shares of renewables to meet electricity demand—for example, Connecticut intends that 23 percent of its total electricity-generating capacity will be renewable by 2020 (Figure

1.7). Moreover, 24 states have adopted energy efficiency resource standards, which aim to accelerate energy efficiency investments and thereby reduce electricity demand (ACEEE 2011). Even with substantial progress around the country expected in coming years, much more is needed to move our electricity sector to a cleaner and more sustainable future . Reducing global warming emissions 80 percent by 2050 compared with 1990 levels will be necessary to prevent the worst consequences of cli- mate change.9 Even states such as California, which is charging ahead with a 33 percent renewable electricity standard by 2020, will need to go further in order to achieve this level of overall reduction.10 The strengthening of current policies and the implementa- tion of new ones will be needed to achieve these goals, including a nationwide cap on carbon emissions, a national renewable energy standard, and building and appliance efficiency

stan- dards, among others.11 To meet the challenges of climate change and our nation’s oil dependence, continuing to run our cars and trucks on petroleum -based fuels is not

an option. Notably, elec- tric vehicles coupled with a clean and sustainable electricity grid have the promise to be an important part of the solution.

AT: Squo solvesPrevious incentives were insufficient – further government regulation and incentives are key to optimal market conditionsSteinhilber et al 13 –wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin, Renewable energy policy in the EU (Simone, “Socio-technical inertia: Understanding the barriers to electric vehicles”, Energy policy 60 (2013): 531-539)//js

The introduction and penetration of EVs is confronted by several barriers that inhibit a larger market penetration under current conditions. Several shortcomings of the technology , pre- sented in this study exemplify the immature status of a developing technology that has not achieved commercialisation yet. Other barriers are a fragmented infrastructure, missing standards and regulations and scepticism of consumers towards an emerging technology. A number of national governments are supporting their industries in preparing for the expected technological shift in transport, but the barriers identified by early studies such as Hoogma et al. (2002) appear to be the same as ever. The move- ment has significantly gathered momentum in the last couple of years, as governments are directing much attention on the topic, and electric vehicles are increasingly being discussed in the media. All these countries have different strengths and weaknesses regarding their innovative ability, market structure, and consumer preferences, and a forthcoming technological shift would repre- sent different opportunities and risks for each. Established car exporting countries may end up strengthening their lead, or losing at least part of it to new players on the field with more favourable market conditions. For a market to become a lead market, it must display certain characteristics (Beise and Cleff, 2004). Additionally, in the case of environmental innovations, which involve inter- nalization of external costs and relatively long time scales,

regula- tion is a further key factor in pushing the development and diffusion of innovation. Governments must therefore find the right mix of regulatory pressure and funding options corresponding to the current condition of its national industries and markets, to make innovations attractive for both the supply and demand side (Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Beise and Rennings, 2005).

Current market trends are insufficient to meet IPCC emissions recommendations – policy intervention is keyContestabile 11 – (“Battery electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels. Which will be the winner?” Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, June 2011, https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/icept/Public/Battery%20electric%20vehicles%20biofuels%20hydrogen%20fuel%20cell%20which%20will%20be%20the%20winner.pdf)//js

The rate at which these alternative fuels and powertrains are introduced as substitutes for conventional road transport fuels and powertrains should ideally be compatible with achieving international energy and environmental policy goals. It is

also desirable that these goals are achieved at a minimum cost to society. Planning the transition based on predictions of ―when we will run out of cheap oil ‖ is problematic because oil price forecasts and reserve estimates are affected by considerable uncertainty 4, 5. Even without these motivations, reducing external costs such as air pollution in urban areas (which can exacerbate respiratory illnesses and is cause of premature death) has clear societal benefits. From all these perspectives, the sooner alternative transport fuels can become competitive with oil-derived fuels and displace

them the better. Deploying alternative vehicles and fuels at a sufficient rate to meet the 2050 target of reducing greenhouse gas emission (GHG) by 80% as indicated by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) 6 is a formidable challenge, the scale of which is

illustrated by the IEA‘s Blue Map scenario (see Figure 1 below). It is unlikely that market forces alone will be able to organically deliver this complex transition in the required timeframe. Therefore if political aspirations are to be met, policy interventions will be required in order to stimulate and manage the transition effectively.

EVs solve warming but only if there are continued investments in charging infrastructureAnair 12 – Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices. (Don, “State of CHARGE Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across the United States”, June 2012, UCS, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf)//js

To meet the challenge of climate change and reduce our nation’s dependence on oil, continu- ing to run our cars and trucks predominantly on oil-based fuels is not an option. On the other hand, electric vehicles—coupled with clean and sustainable electricity—are important parts of the solution . Driving on electricity is a reality; it provides global warming benefits today and throughout the United States. Nearly half of Americans live in regions where driving an electric vehicle means lower global warming emissions than driving even the best hybrid

gasoline vehicle available. Over the lifetime of an EV, the owner can save more than 6,000 gallons of gasoline— a significant contribution to U.S. energy security . But our nation’s reliance on coal-powered electric- ity limits electric vehicles from delivering their full potential. Only by making improvements to our electricity grid—by decreasing the use of coal and increasing the use of clean and renewable sources of electricity—will electric vehicles deliver their greatest global warming and air pollution benefits. Initia- tives to clean up the electricity grid are occurring around the country, but additional efforts are needed both at the state and national level to ensure continued progress. Of course, cleaning up the nation’s electricity production won’t deliver large reductions in the transportation sector’s emissions and oil consumption unless electric vehicles become a market success. While they are now coming onto the market in a much bigger

way than ever before, EVs still face many hurdles, including higher up-front costs than gasoline vehicles. Lower fueling costs for EVs, however, provide an important incentive for purchasing them, and our cost analysis of 50 cities across the country shows that EV owners can start sav- ing money immediately on fuel costs by using electricity in place of gasoline. Meanwhile, utilities’ leaders and government policy makers have important roles to play: they must ensure electricity rate plans motivate EV ownership, and they must encourage charging behavior that supports lower emissions and a

robust electricity grid. To prevent the worst consequences of global warming, the automotive industry must deliver viable alternatives to the oil-fueled internal-combustion engine—i.e., vehicles boasting zero or near-zero emissions. Such alternative technologies must become market successes in the next 10 to 15 years if they are to comprise the majority of vehicles on the road by 2050—a critical element to reaching an 80 percent reduction in global

warming emissions by that year. EVs promise to be one of those technologies, but their success is not assured. To turn the nascent EV market into a mainstream phenomenon over

the coming years, continued investments are needed for improv- ing EVs’ performance and costs, incentivizing consumers and manufacturers, expanding accessible charging infrastructure , and reducing barriers to low-cost home charging.

Environment DA

OTEC causes massive algae blooms and destroys ecosystems

Abbasi ’00 [April 2000, S.A Abbasi is a researcher from the Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University writing for Applied Energy a peer reviewed journal acclaimed for articles on energy, “The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources”, Science Direct]

Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) power plants have the potential to cause major adverse impacts on the ocean water quality. Such plants would require entraining and discharging enormous quantities of seawater. The plants will displace about 4 m3 of water per second per MW electricity output, both from the surface layer and from the deep ocean, and discharge them at some intermediate depth between 100 and 200 m. This massive flow may disturb the thermal structure of the ocean near the plant, change salinity gradients, and change the amounts of dissolved gases, nutrients, carbonates, and turbidity. These changes could have adverse impacts of magnitudes large enough to be highly significant. The enrichment of the near-surface waters with the nutrient-rich cold water brought up from a depth of 1000 m is of particular significance. Natural upwellings of cold water from great depths in the ocean produce sites that are enormously rich in marine life. One of the well-known natural upwelling sites is where the Humboldt current off Peru enriches the surface waters. The productivity there is so high that almost one-fifth of the world's fish harvest comes from this region. It would be possible to use the cold water effluent from an OTEC plant for the cultivation of algae, crustaceans, and shellfish. In the nutrient-rich water, unicelluar algae grow to a density 27 times greater than the density in surface water and are in turn consumed by filter-feeding shellfish such as clams, oysters, and scallops. However, abundance of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems can spell serious trouble as it can lead to eutrophication and all the adverse consequence associated with eutrophication. Further, if the algal blooms caused by artificial upwelling include certain dinoflagellates, there may be other problems. For example shellfish consume dinoflagellates and if these shellfish are consumed by humans, it can lead to serious illness. OTEC advocates hope that, by designing the OTEC plant to discharge its water below the photic zone (the region in the surface waters where photosynthesizing organisms live), the surface waters will not be enriched. Furthermore, the fish living below the photic zone do not feed on these nutrients. However, these are unknowns and, given the magnitude of disturbances that would be caused by OTEC, may not be as easily controllable as the proponents of OTEC may like to believe. If nutrient-rich water is discharged anywhere near the surface water intake valves, it could cause biofouling inside the pipes. Marine biota may be impinged on the screens covering the warm and cold

water intakes of an OTEC plant. Small fishes and crustaceans may be entrained through the system, where they will experience rapid changes of temperature, salinity, pressure, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. A major change occurring in the cold water pipe is the depressurization of up to 107 pascals in water coming from a depth of 1000 m to the surface. Sea surface temperatures in the vicinity of an OTEC plant could be lowered by the discharge of effluent from the cold water pipe. This will have impacts on organisms and microclimate. The pumping of large volumes of cold water from depths of the ocean to the surface will release dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen to the atmosphere. This would influence water pH and DO status, causing stress to marine life. Biocides, such as chlorine, used to prevent biofouling of the pipes and heat exchanger surfaces may be irritating or toxic to organisms. If ammonia is the working fluid and it leaks out, there could be serious consequences to the ocean ecosystem nearb y . In summary, there is lot more to OTEC than mere utilisation of the thermal gradiant across ocean depth. The large-scale utilisation of this phenomenon can profoundly disturb the fragile marine ecosystems. Further, the disturbance being ‘non-point’ in nature, can be very difficult to control or mitigate. All this puts serious question marks before the viability of OTEC.

BioD loss causes Extinction

Clark and Downes ‘6 [2006, Dana Clark, Center for International Environmental Law, and David Downes, US Interior Dept. Policy Analysis Senior Trade Advisor, , What price biodiversity?, http://www.ciel.org/Publications/summary.html]

Biodiversity is the diversity of life on earth, on which we depend for our survival. The variability of and within species and ecosystems helps provide some of our basic needs: food, shelter, and medicine, as well as recreational, cultural, spiritual and aesthetic benefits. Diverse ecosystems create the air we breathe, enrich the soil we till and purify the water we drink . Ecosystems also regulate local and global climate. No one can seriously argue that biodiversity is not valuable. Nor can anyone seriously argue that biodiversity is not at risk. There are over 900 domestic species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and 4,000 additional species are candidates for listing. We are losing species as a result of human activities at hundreds of times the natural rate of extinction. The current rate of extinction is the highest since the mass extinction of species that wiped out the dinosaurs millions of years ago. The Economics of Biodiversity Conservation The question which engenders serious controversy is whether society can afford the costs associated with saving biodiversity. Opponents of biodiversity conservation argue that the costs of protecting endangered species are too high. They complain that the regulatory burden on

private landowners is too heavy, and that conservation measures impede development. They seek to override scientific determinations with economic considerations, and to impose cost/benefit analyses on biodiversity policy making. An equally important question, however, is whether we can afford not to save biodiversity. The consequences of losing this critical resource could be devastating. As we destroy species and habitat, we endanger food supplies (such as crop varieties that impart resistance to disease, or the loss of spawning grounds for fish and shellfish); we lose the opportunity to develop new medicines or other chemicals; and we impair critical ecosystem functions that protect our water supplies, create the air we breathe, regulate climate and shelter us from storms. We lose creatures of cultural importance - the bald eagle is an example of the cultural significance of biodiversity and also of the need for strong regulations to protect species from extinction. And, we lose the opportunity for mental or spiritual rejuvenation through contact with nature.

1NC – Algae BloomsOTEC causes massive algae blooms and destroys ecosystems Abbasi ’00 [April 2000, S.A Abbasi is a researcher from the Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University writing for Applied Energy a peer reviewed journal acclaimed for articles on energy, “The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources”, Science Direct]

Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) power plants have the potential to cause major adverse impacts on the ocean water quality. Such plants would require entraining and discharging enormous quantities of seawater. The plants will displace about 4 m3 of water per second per MW electricity output, both from the surface layer and from the deep ocean, and discharge them at some intermediate depth between 100 and 200 m. This massive flow may disturb the thermal structure of the ocean near the plant, change salinity gradients, and change the amounts of dissolved gases, nutrients, carbonates, and turbidity. These changes could have adverse impacts of magnitudes large enough to be highly significant. The enrichment of the near-surface waters with the nutrient-rich cold water brought up from a depth of 1000 m is of particular significance. Natural upwellings of cold water from great depths in the ocean produce sites that are enormously rich in marine life. One of the well-known natural upwelling sites is where the Humboldt current off Peru enriches the surface waters. The productivity there is so high that almost one-fifth of the world's fish harvest comes from this region. It would be possible to use the cold water effluent from an OTEC plant for the cultivation of algae, crustaceans, and shellfish. In the nutrient-rich water, unicelluar algae grow to a density 27 times greater than the density in surface water and are in turn consumed by filter-feeding shellfish such as clams, oysters, and scallops. However, abundance of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems can spell serious trouble as it can lead to eutrophication and all the adverse consequence associated with eutrophication. Further, if the algal blooms caused by artificial upwelling include certain dinoflagellates, there may be other problems. For example shellfish consume dinoflagellates and if these shellfish are consumed by humans, it can lead to serious illness. OTEC advocates hope that, by designing the OTEC plant to discharge its water below the photic zone (the region in the surface waters where photosynthesizing organisms live), the surface waters will not be enriched. Furthermore, the fish living below the photic zone do not feed on these nutrients. However, these are unknowns and, given the magnitude of disturbances that would be caused by OTEC, may not be as easily controllable as the proponents of OTEC may like to believe. If nutrient-rich water is discharged anywhere near the surface water intake valves, it could cause biofouling inside the pipes. Marine biota may be impinged on the screens covering the warm and cold water intakes of an OTEC plant. Small fishes and crustaceans may be entrained through the system, where they will experience rapid changes of temperature, salinity, pressure, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. A major change occurring in the

cold water pipe is the depressurization of up to 107 pascals in water coming from a depth of 1000 m to the surface. Sea surface temperatures in the vicinity of an OTEC plant could be lowered by the discharge of effluent from the cold water pipe. This will have impacts on organisms and microclimate. The pumping of large volumes of cold water from depths of the ocean to the surface will release dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen to the atmosphere. This would influence water pH and DO status, causing stress to marine life. Biocides, such as chlorine, used to prevent biofouling of the pipes and heat exchanger surfaces may be irritating or toxic to organisms. If ammonia is the working fluid and it leaks out, there could be serious consequences to the ocean ecosystem nearb y . In summary, there is lot more to OTEC than mere utilisation of the thermal gradiant across ocean depth. The large-scale utilisation of this phenomenon can profoundly disturb the fragile marine ecosystems. Further, the disturbance being ‘non-point’ in nature, can be very difficult to control or mitigate. All this puts serious question marks before the viability of OTEC.

Destroys fisheriesChislock et al 13 [2013, Michael F. Chrislock is from the Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Enrique Doster is from the Department of Animal Sciences, Auburn University, Rachel A. Zitomer is from the Department of Biological Sciences, Humboldt University, Alan E. Wilson is from Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, “Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems”, http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/eutrophication-causes-consequences-and-controls-in-aquatic-102364466]

Some algal blooms pose an additional threat because they produce noxious toxins (e.g., microcystin and anatoxin-a; Chorus and Bartram 1999). Over the past century, harmful algal blooms (HABs) have been linked with (1) degradation of water quality (Francis 1878), (2) destruction of economically important fisheries (Burkholder et al. 1992), and (3) public health risks (Morris 1999). Within freshwater ecosystems, cyanobacteria are the most important phytoplankton associated with HABs (Paerl 1988). Toxigenic cyanobacteria, including Anabaena, Cylindrospermopsis, Microcystis, and Oscillatoria (Planktothrix), tend to dominate nutrient-rich, freshwater systems due to their superior competitive abilities under high nutrient concentrations, low nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratios, low light levels, reduced mixing, and high temperatures (Downing et al. 2001; Paerl & Huisman 2009; Paerl and Paul 2012). Poisonings of domestic animals, wildlife (Figure 4), and even humans by blooms of toxic cyanobacteria have been documented throughout the world and date back to Francis' (1878) first observation of dead livestock associated with a bloom of

cyanobacteria. Furthermore, cyanobacteria are responsible for several off-flavor compounds (e.g., methylisoborneal and geosmin) found in municipal drinking water systems as well as in aquaculture-rased fishes, resulting in large financial losses for state and regional economies (Crews & Chappell 2007). In addition to posing significant public health risks, cyanobacteria have been shown to be poor quality food for most zooplankton grazers in laboratory studies (Wilson et al. 2006; Tillmanns et al. 2008), thus reducing the efficiency of energy transfer in aquatic food webs and potentially preventing zooplankton from controlling algal blooms

That’s key to food securityWorldFish Center ‘08 [2008, WorldFish is a CGIAR Consortium of International Agricultural Research Center, is an international, non-profit research organization dedicated to reducing poverty and hunger by improving fisheries and aquaculture. CGIAR is a global research partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for sustainable development. “Using Fisheries and Aquaculture to Reduce Poverty and Hunger” http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_1105.pdf]

In 2000 the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) helped focus international attention on the plight of the world’s poor. Yet with 2015 fast approaching many of the world’s poorest and hungriest people are still falling behind. Indeed, even if we halve extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, at least 800 million people will remain poor and 600 million will still not have enough to eat. Adding to this grim picture, 2008 has seen growing international alarm over future world food supplies. Triggered initially by the growing scarcity and rising prices of wheat and rice, this global concern has matured to recognize the need to improve production, not only of traditional staples, but also fisheries, livestock and other food crops. Fisheries and aquaculture have enormous potential to provide the poor with more food, better nutrition and increased incomes. Already many of the world’s poorest billion, particularly people in Asia and Africa, get a substantial portion of the animal protein in their diet from fish. For many of these people, fish also provides a major source of livelihood. With targeted investment to better manage fisheries and develop aquaculture we can substantially increase these benefits. Globally, aquaculture has expanded at an average annual rate of 8.9% since 1970, making it the fastest-growing food production sector. It now provides about half of all fish for human consumption. And with half of all wild fish stocks now harvested to full capacity and a quarter over-exploited, we can expect aquaculture’s share of fish production to increase further. This can benefit poor people by improving their food security and nutrition, creating jobs, stimulating economic growth and offering greater diversification of their livelihoods. Although we cannot greatly increase catches from capture fisheries,

wild fish stocks remain vital to many national economies and to the day-to-day welfare of millions of people. So it is essential that we sustain current catches and grasp opportunities to use the fish we catch better and add to their value. Failure to sustain and make the most of the catch will have profound consequences for the health, income, livelihoods and well-being of poor people in many developing countries.

Food insecurity leads to warCribb 10 [2010, Julian Cribb is a Professor in Science Communication at the University of Technology Sydney, “The Coming Famine: The

Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do to Avoid It”, pg 10]

The character of human conflict has also changed: since the early 1990s, more wars have been triggered by disputes over food, land, and water than over mere political or ethnic differences. This should not surprise us: people have fought over the means of survival for most of history. But in the abbreviated reports on the nightly media, and even in the rarefied realms of government policy, the focus is almost invariably on the players—the warring national, ethnic, or religious factions—rather than on the play, the deeper subplots building the tensions that ignite conflict. Caught up in these are groups of ordinary, desperate people fearful that there is no longer sufficient food, land, and water to feed their children—and believing that they must fight "the others" to secure them. At the same time, the number of refugees in the world doubled, many of them escaping from conflicts and famines precipitated by food and re- source shortages. Governments in troubled regions tottered and fell. The coming famine is planetary because it involves both the immediate effects of hunger on directly affected populations in heavily populated regions of the world in the next forty years—and also the impacts of war, government failure, refugee crises, shortages, and food price spikes that will affect all human beings , no matter who they are or where they live. It is an emergency because unless it is solved, billions will experience great hardship, and not only in the poorer regions. Mike Murphy, one of the world's most progressive dairy farmers, with operations in Ireland, New Zealand, and North and South America, succinctly summed it all up: "Global warming gets all the publicity but the real imminent threat to the human race is starvation on a massive scale. Taking a 10-30 year view, I believe that food shortages, famine and huge social unrest are probably the greatest threat the human race has ever faced . I believe future food shortages are a far bigger world threat than global warming."

2NC – Turns SolvencyTurns solvency – plan cant be implemented until environmental affects are taken accounted forComfort and Vega ’11 [August 2011, Christina M. Comfort and Luis Vega, Ph.D are from Hawaii National Marine Renewable Energy Center at the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute of University of Hawaii, “Environmental Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy

Conversion in Hawaii”, http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/Ocr/ComfortCM_2011_InOceans11MTSIEEE1922September2011Kon_pxx-xx.pdf]

Abstract— The need to increase renewable energy supply in the United States has prompted ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology to be re-considered for use in Hawaii. As with any new development, a thorough environmental impact assessment is needed before the technology can begin field trials. A previous Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from 1981 is available, but needs to be brought up to current oceanographic and engineering standards. There has been much research done on the oceanography of Hawaii since the original EIS, and this report highlights some of the most important contributions in terms of OTEC development as well as existing gaps in knowledge. A protocol for environmental baseline monitoring is proposed, focusing on a set of ten chemical oceanographic parameters relevant to OTEC and addressing gaps in knowledge of the ecology and oceanography of the area chosen for OTEC development.

2NC – Link Laundry List OTEC causes laundry list of impactsBoehlert ’10 [George Boehlert has a PhD in Marine Biology at the Scripps Institution, “Environmental and Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Development: A Current Synthesis”, http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/16152/23-2_boehlert_hi.pdf?sequence=1]

Removal of sufficient tidal energy could result in changes in tidal range, potentially impacting communities dependent upon periodic exposure; the extreme of this case is seen in the tidal showed secondary scouring (Rees et al., 2006). Further, a modeling study based on wind farm data highlighted far-field deposition downstream of the wind turbine foundations (Besio and Losada, 2008). The impact of this effect has not been determined, but if an ORED site is relatively nearshore (e.g., within a few kilometers), beach replenishment and erosion/accretion may be affected, with barrage, where blockage of water flow ”will result in lower water exchange and tidal heights as compared to the natural situation (Goss-Custard et al., 1991). This change in tidal range, in turn, could have impacts on intertidal ecosystems, affecting foraging habitat for shorebirds and distribution of intertidal animals (Goss-Custard et al., 1991). Modeling of turbine-based tidal devices in Puget Sound, Washington, suggests that the proposed amounts of energy reduction will have a relatively minor effect on tidal height (Polagye et al., 2009). Among marine renewable energy devices, those that pressurize water pumped to shorebased turbines may move moderate amounts of water. For OTEC , very large volumes of both cold deep and warm shallow water are moved to take advantage of the thermal difference between them. The potential for impingement and entrainment of mobile species is an issue in this case, analogous to the cooling waters of conventional power plants (Harrison, 1987) or desalination plants; the problem is less severe for the deep cold water intakes due to the lower diversity and biomass of organisms. Warm water intakes may have significant impacts on planktonic and perhaps pelagic organisms (Harrison, 1987), as well as more general effects of OTEC on fisheries (Myers et al., 1986). The response may be expressed ecologically with increased production as a result of more nutrients from the deep water. Chemical Effects In most cases, the effects of chemicals used in marine renewable energy will differ little from other marine construction projects. During deployment, routine servicing, and decommissioning, the expected risks associated with marine vessel operations will be encountered. In normal operations, the potential for spills exists , particularly for those devices that use a hydraulic fluid. Continuous leaching of chemicals may occur if anti-fouling paints are used to minimize biological fouling of devices. As technologies develop, information is needed on the nature of toxic compounds to be used, potential amounts that could be released, responses of receptors, and the fate of the contaminants. A special case is involved for OTEC, and additional concerns

emerge . The working fluid in a closed system (typically proposed to be ammonia, which is highly toxic to fish) could be subject to leaks or spills . The natural chemistry of the deep waters brought to the surface have the potential to alter chemical conditions in the location where water is discharged. Carbon dioxide , for example, could be outgassed to the atmosphere. Higher amounts of nutrients discharged in surface waters could induce algal blooms in areas normally low in surface nutrients (Harrison, 1987). Higher heavy metal concentrations , either from deep natural sources or from heat exchangers, could have toxic effects (Fast et al., 1990). Mitigation for these effects has been suggested (Abbasi and Abbasi, 2000; Pelc and Fujita, 2002). An additional concern could be acidification effects as noted for naturally upwelled waters by Feely et al. (2008).

Phytoplankton turnIntoduction of land based OTEC creates phytoplankton blooms, blooms cause disease, destroy coastal economics, and hurt ocean ecosystems.NOAA 13 (6/20/13, “Phytoplankton are microscopic marine plants”, Florida Keys Maritime Security, http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/plants/phyto.html, accessed 7/24/14)//GZ

In a balanced ecosystem, phytoplankton provide food for a wide range of sea creatures including krill, shrimp, snails, and jellyfish, that are in turn food for larger animals like sea turtles, fish and whales. However, under certain environmental conditions, such as the introduction of too many nutrients from land based sources of pollution, phytoplankton may grow out of control and form blooms.

These blooms can be problematic because the excess algae can block out sunlight, which is bad for plants like seagrasses that need sunlight to make food. Zooxanthallae, or symbiotic algae that live in the tissue of coral and supply coral with food, can also be impacted by algal blooms. Excess algae can also smother other critters living on the ocean floor.

When blooms eventually exhaust their nutrients, the phytoplankton die, sink and decompose. The decomposition process depletes surrounding waters of available oxygen, which marine animals need to survive. These oxygen-depleted waters are often called “dead zones,” since animals either die from lack of oxygen or leave the area to find more habitable waters.

Some algae produce their own toxins and blooms of these species are harmful to people. These harmful algal blooms, or HABs, can cause respiratory distress and illness in people and animals and can lead to shellfish closures. HABs cause an estimated $82 million in economic losses to the seafood, restaurant, and tourism industries each year.

Aquaculture turn

Increased aquaculture destroys marine ecosystemsEmerson 99 - Ph.D. in Oceanography at Dalhousie University and Supervising Editor of Aquatic Sciences at Proquest (Craig, December 1999, “Aquaculture Impacts on the Environment”, ProQuest, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php, accessed 7/24/14)//GZ

In 1989, a sudden and catastrophic collapse of wild seatrout populations in areas close to salmon rearing cages in Ireland gave aquaculture critics a focus for protest. Although a link between fish farming and the decline of natural stocks cannot always be established, some environmental effects are clear. Unlike mollusc farming, many species of fish depend on a diet of artificial feed in pellet form. This feed is broadcast onto the surface of the water, and is consumed by the fish as it settles through the water column. Because not all the feed is eaten, a great deal of feed can reach the bottom where it is eaten by the benthos or decomposed by microorganisms. This alteration of the natural food web structure can significantly impact the local environment.

Many studies have implicated overfeeding in fish farms as the cause of changes in benthic community structure because a high food supply may favour some organisms over others. Moreover, sedentary animals may die in water depleted of oxygen resulting from microbial decomposition, while the mobile population may migrate to other areas. Antibiotics and other therapeutic chemicals added to feed (e.g. Ivermectin, Terramycin and Romet-30) can affect organisms for which they were not intended when the drugs are released as the uneaten pellets decompose. Nonetheless, many drugs used in fish farms have been found to have minimal (if any) deleterious effects on the aquatic environment. Feed additives, however, are not the only source of potentially toxic compounds in culture operations. A variety of chemicals are used to inhibit the growth of organisms which foul netting and other structures, reducing water flow through the cages.

Aquaculture destroys marine ecosystems and transmits diseases to humans

Emerson 99 - Ph.D. in Oceanography at Dalhousie University and Supervising Editor of Aquatic Sciences at Proquest (Craig, December 1999, “Aquaculture Impacts on the Environment”, ProQuest, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php, accessed 7/24/14)//GZ

An increasingly significant effect of intensive fish culture is eutrophication of the water surrounding rearing pens or the rivers receiving aquaculture effluent. Fish excretion and fecal wastes combine with nutrients released from the breakdown of excess feed to raise nutrient levels well above normal, creating an ideal environment for algal blooms to form. To compound the problem, most feed is formulated to contain more nutrients than necessary for most applications. In Scotland, an estimated 50,000 tonnes of untreated and contaminated waste generated from cage salmon farming goes directly into the sea, equivalent to the sewage waste of a population of up to three quarters of Scotland's population. Once the resulting algal blooms die, they settle to the bottom where their decomposition depletes the oxygen. Before they die, however, there is the possibility that algal toxins are produced.

Although any species of phytoplankton can benefit from an increased nutrient supply, certain species are noxious or even toxic to other marine organisms and to humans. The spines of some diatoms (e.g. Chaetoceros concavicornis) can irritate the gills of fish, causing decreased production or even death. More importantly, blooms ("red tides") of certain species such as Chattonella marina often produce biological toxins that can kill other organisms. Neurotoxins produced by several algal species can be concentrated in filter-feeding bivalves such as mussels and oysters, creating a serious health risk to people consuming contaminated shellfish (e.g. paralytic shellfish poisoning).

Fish is low in fat and considered a healthy alternative to other meats, but consumers cannot ignore the potential health risks of cultured species, just as they must not ignore the risks associated with terrestrial agriculture. In addition to shellfish contaminated with toxic algae, cultured seafood can pose additional concerns from disease transmission. Most fish pathogens are not hazardous to humans, but some fish pathogens such as Streptococcus bacteria can infect humans. High levels of antibiotics and genetically-engineered components in fish feed (e.g. soya additives) can also pose risks. The challenge for regulatory agencies like the Food & Drug Administration in the United States is to ensure that these risks are "acceptable".

Aquaculture would reduce fish stocks because it’s already so heavily dependent on aquafeed.

Emerson 99 - Ph.D. in Oceanography at Dalhousie University and Supervising Editor of Aquatic Sciences at Proquest (Craig, December 1999, “Aquaculture Impacts on the Environment”, ProQuest, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php, accessed 7/24/14)//GZ

Ironically, fish culture is dependent on a diet of wild fish because fish meal and fish oils from natural stocks are the primary components of artificial compounded feed (aquafeed). It can be argued, therefore, that aquaculture cannot provide an alternative to fishing unless only herbivorous fish and shellfish are farmed. However, the source of the fish meal is pelagic fish such as menhaden and mackerel, species not normally consumed by humans. Additional fish meal comes from bycatch which would otherwise be discarded as waste. Nonetheless, it is not clear that the conversion of "trash fish" into human food via aquaculture is preferential to using fish meal in swine and poultry feed.

As farms intensify, there is a growing trend toward the increased use of aquafeed. Almost 31,000,000 megatonnes (MT) of the world's total wild fisheries production is used for animal feed each year, 15% of which is used in fish feed. Feed is specially formulated to ensure high conversion efficiencies, (amount of feed needed to produced one pound of animal), and in general, aquatic animals are far more efficient at feed conversion than terrestrial animals. Given these facts, the strategy of feeding fish to fish seems logical, however it should be noted that only a few percent of feed for swine and poultry is composed of fish meal, compared with 70% for finfish and shellfish, and inefficient practices can lead to a great deal of waste. Growing a pound of salmon may require 3-5 pounds of wild fish, and between 1985 and 1995 the world's shrimp farmers used 36 million tons of wild fish to produced just 7.2 million tons of shrimp. In general, the quantity of input of natural fish stocks exceeds outputs in terms of farmed fishery products by a factor to 2 to 314.

Aquaculture will destroy biodiversity.

Emerson 99 - Ph.D. in Oceanography at Dalhousie University and Supervising Editor of Aquatic Sciences at Proquest (Craig, December 1999, “Aquaculture Impacts on the Environment”, ProQuest, http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/aquacult/overview.php, accessed 7/24/14)//GZ

It has been suggested, however, that the genetic diversity of natural stocks is hurt, more than helped, by aquaculture. In Norway, acid precipitation, hydroelectric development, and salmon parasites have all contributed to the extinction of over 40 salmon stocks and the endangerment of others, but stocks are also threatened by the spread of salmon escaping from fish farms. Cultured species are often bred

or otherwise genetically engineered to exhibit abnormally high growth rates, usually at the expense of other characteristics unimportant in an aquaculture operation. Through selective breeding, aquaculturists have tripled the growth rates of native coho salmon, supporting a $5 million domestic industry. If these genetically engineered salmon escape and breed with native salmon, the genetic traits optimal for culture may break up local adaptations critical to survival in nature. In Maine, USA, federal officials estimate that only 500 Atlantic salmon with a native genetic makeup remain in the wild.

Genetic impacts can originate from the genetic manipulation of cultured organisms, but they may also be minimized. By heat or chemical shocking at the larval stage, triploid mussels and scallops can be produced which allocate more resources to meat production than reproductive tissue. As a result, these cultured bivalves are reproductively sterile, and of little threat to local populations. Unfortunately, a study that introduced supposedly sterile Pacific oysters into Chesapeake Bay found that 20% of the population reverted back to their sexually fertile state. Whether intentionally or unintentionally released, the potential loss of natural biodiversity through genetic hybridization could make aquaculture difficult to rationalize, particularly since accidental release of cultured populations also results in ecological competition.

Aquaculture devastates the mangrove forests which is a crucial biodiversity spotNowhere are the negative impacts on the natural environment more apparent than with shrimp farming and the associated destruction of mangrove forests. In Asia, over 400,000 hectares of mangroves have been converted into brackishwater aquaculture for the rearing of shrimp. Farmed shrimp boost a developing country's foreign exchange earnings, but the loss of sensitive habitat is difficult to reconcile.

Tropical mangroves are analogous to temperate salt marshes, a habitat critical to erosion prevention, coastal water quality, and the reproductive success of many marine organisms. Mangrove forests have also provided a sustainable and renewable resource of firewood, timber, pulp, and charcoal for local communities. To construct dyked ponds for shrimp farming, these habitats are razed and restoration is extremely difficult.

Unfortunately, shrimp ponds are often profitable only temporarily as they are subject to disease and to downward shifts in the shrimp market. Growing political pressure in western countries may restrict the shrimp market in response to consumers' avoidance of environmentally-unfriendly products. More significantly, Japan's economy is experiencing difficulty at present, and Japan is the world's largest market for shrimp; when the market falls, ponds are abandoned. A return to traditional fishing is not always possible because the lost mangroves no longer

serve as nursery areas which are critical for the recruitment of many wild fish stocks. Unemployment prospects cannot always balance short-term gains. It is clear that socio-economic effects are as important as pollution and ecological damage when evaluating the sustainability of aquaculture.

Politics

LinksOTEC is unpopular-costs and legal status EP 09 --Energy consultant firm that quantifies, qualifies and investigates the feasibility of sustainable solutions for their clients, focused on reducing carbon footprints while simultaneously pursuing client goals(Energy Place“Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)” No specific date http://energyplace.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D7%26Itemid%3D11)//CS

The Earth's oceans are continually heated by the sun, and cover nearly 70% of the earth’s surface. The secret to harvesting the ocean’s stored solar energy lies in exploiting the difference in temperature between the warmer water at the surface, and the colder water at greater depth. If the extraction could be made cost-effective, it could provide two to three times more energy than other ocean-energy options, such as wave power. But the small magnitude of the temperature difference makes energy extraction , so far, relatively difficult and expensive . How Does Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Create Electrical Energy? Perhaps the easiest way to understand ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) is by looking at the three primary types of OTEC plant: (1) open-cycle, (2) closed-cycle, and (3) hybrid. All three plants make use of a “heat engine” – a device placed between deep, cold ocean water and shallow, warmer water. As heat flows from the warm water to the cold water, the heat engine uses the energy of the transfer to drive a generator that creates electricity. Closed-cycle Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Warm surface seawater is pumped through a heat exchanger that vaporizes a fluid with a low boiling point (e.g., ammonia). The expanding vapor turns a turbo-generator to produce electricity. Open-cycle Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Warm seawater is placed in a low-pressure container, where it boils. The expanding steam drives a turbine attached to an electrical generator. When the ocean water turns to steam, it leaves behind its salt and other contaminants. The steam is then exposed to cold ocean water, condensing it into fresh water for drinking or irrigation. Hybrid Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Warm seawater enters a vacuum chamber, where it is flash-evaporated into steam (similar to the open-cycle process). The heat of the steam vaporizes ammonia in a separate container, and the vaporized ammonia drives a turbine to produce electricity (similar to the closed-cycle process). Vaporizing the seawater removes its salt and other impurities. When the steam condenses in the heat exchanger, it emerges as fresh, pure water for drinking or agriculture. Where Are the Best Locations for OTC Plants? OTEC plants can produce more power where the temperature difference between warm and cold ocean water is greatest. This generally occurs within 20° north and south of the equator, in the tropics. What Is the Record Power Output From an OTEC Plant? In May 1993, an experimental open-cycle OTEC plant at Keahole Point, Hawaii produced 50,000 watts of electricity, breaking the record of 40,000 watts set by a Japanese system in 1982. Has Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Been Tried in the Past? In 1881, French physicist Jacques Arsene d’Arsonval proposed tapping the thermal energy of the ocean. A student of d’Arsonval’s, Georges Claude, built the first OTEC plant in Cuba in 1930. The system generated 22 kW of electricity using a low-pressure turbine. The Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority, established in 1974, is one of the world's leading test facilities for OTEC technology. Hawaii is often said to be the best U.S. location for OTEC, because of warm surface water, excellent access to very deep, very cold water, and because Hawaii has the highest

electricity costs in the U.S. Japan has been a major contributor to the development of OTEC technology, primarily for export to other countries. In the 1970s, the Tokyo Electric Power Company built a 100 kW closed-cycle OTEC plant on the island of Nauru. The plant became operational in 1981 and produced about 120 kW of electricity (90 kW was used to power the plant, and the remaining electricity was used to power a school and several other facilities in Nauru). This set a world record for power output from an OTEC system where the power was sent to a real power grid. What Share of the World’s Energy Needs Could OTEC Supply? Some experts believe that if OTEC became cost-competitive, it could provide gigawatts of electrical power, and in conjunction with electrolysis, could produce enough hydrogen to completely replace all projected global fossil fuel consumption. What Barriers Stand in the Way OTEC Power Production? Managing costs remains a huge challenge. OTEC plants require expensive, large- diameter intake pipes, submerged at least a kilometer deep in the ocean to bring very cold water to the surface. Cold seawater is a requirement for all three types of OTEC systems. The cold seawater can be brought to the surface by direct pumping, or by desalinating the seawater near the sea floor, lowering its density and causing it to “float” through a pipe to the surface. Has a Closed-cycle OTEC Plant Ever Been Built? In 1979, the Natural Energy Laboratory and several private-sector partners developed a mini OTEC experiment that achieved the first successful at-sea production of net electrical power from closed-cycle OTEC. (Net power is that which remains after subtracting the power required to run the plant.) The mini OTEC vessel was moored 1.5 miles off the Hawaiian coast and produced enough net electricity to illuminate the ship's light bulbs and run its computers and televisions. In 1999, the Natural Energy Laboratory tested a 250 kW pilot closed-cycle plant, the largest of its kind. Since then, no further tests of OTEC technology have been conducted in the U.S., largely because the costs of energy production today have delayed financing of a permanent, continuously operating plant. What OTEC Projects are on the Drawing Board? Planned OTEC projects include a small plant for the U.S. Navy base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, to replace existing diesel generators. The plant would also provide 1,250 gallons of drinking water to the base per day. A private firm has proposed building a 10-MW OTEC plant on Guam. And Lockheed Martin’s Alternative Energy Development team is in the final design phases of a 10-MW closed cycle OTEC pilot system that will become operational in Hawaii in 2012 or 2013. The system will be designed to expand to 100-MW commercial systems in the near future. Does OTEC Have Benefits Beyond Producing Power? Yes, indeed. For example, the cold seawater from an OTEC system can provide air-conditioning for buildings. If such a system operated 8000 hours per year in a large building, and local electricity sold for 5¢-10¢ per kilowatt-hour, it could save $200,000-$400,000 in annual energy bills (U.S. Department of Energy, 1989). The InterContinental Resort and Thalasso-Spa on Bora Bora now uses OTEC technology to air-condition its buildings. The system passes cold seawater through a heat exchanger, where it cools fresh water in a closed-loop system. The cool freshwater is then pumped to buildings for cooling (no conversion to electricity takes place). Another application is chilled-soil agriculture . When cold seawater flows through underground pipes, it chills the surrounding soil. The temperature difference between plant roots in the cool soil and plant leaves in the warm air allows many plants that evolved in temperate climates to be grown in the subtropics. Aquaculture, another viable OTEC offshoot, is considered one of the best ways to reduce the financial and energy costs of pumping large volumes of water from the deep ocean. Deep ocean water contains high concentrations of essential nutrients that are depleted in surface waters due to consumption by animal and plant life. This “artificial upwelling” mimics natural upwellings responsible

for fertilizing and supporting the largest marine ecosystems, and the largest densities of life on the planet. Cold-water delicacies such as salmon and lobster, and microalgae such as spirulina can also be cultivated in the nutrient-rich cold water from OTEC plants. As described earlier, open-cycle and hybrid OTEC plants produce desalinated wate. System analysis indicates that a 2-megawatt (net) plant could produce about 4300 cubic meters of desalinated water per day (Block and Lalenzuela 1985). OTEC plants can produce hydrogen via electrolysis, using electricity generated by the OTEC plant. Also, minerals can be extracted from seawater pumped by OTEC plants. Japanese researchers have recently found that developments in materials sciences and other technologies are improving the ability to extract minerals efficiently, using ocean energy. What Barriers Stand in the Way of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion? The obstacles to OTEC as a viable power source are considerable , but probably not insurmountable. Political concerns include the legal status of OTEC facilities located in the open ocean. Costs, of course, also remain uncertain, because so few OTEC facilities have been deployed. One study estimated OTEC power generation costs as low as US $0.07 per kilowatt-hour, compared with $0.05 - $0.07 for subsidized wind systems.

Ocean energy is a political nightmare Agardy 07 -Science and Policy Director at the World Ocean Observatory and writes on ocean issues for the organization's Ocean Observer. She is also Contributing Editor of MEAM (Marine Ecosystems and Management) - a publication on ecosystem-based management produced in association with the University of Washington (USA). Marine conservationist and the founder of Sound Seas – a Washington DC-based group specializing in working at the nexus of marine science and policy in order to safeguard ocean life. Masters in Marine Affairs from the University of Rhode Island. PhD in Biological Sciences. (Tundi, “An Ocean of EnergyThere for the Taking” http://www.worldoceanobservatory.org/events/oceanenergy/current5.htm)//CS

There are three factor s that currently constrain us from using ocean energy to meet our needs. First is the lack of investment in researching new energy sources and technologies. Costs of developing and then utilizing these new technologies are prohibitive; investors cannot be assured of returns on investment for small scale experimental projects, but larger scale economically viable projects cannot be developed without the small scale prototypes. Few governments are progressive enough to sufficiently subsidize R&D in ocean energy technologies. And the few stalwart private sector companies who have embarked on the exploratory trail are understandably not willing to share their trade secrets with other companies or with government energy agencies. The solution thus lies in strong public private partnerships. The second obstacle is insufficient education of the public at large. For too long the people of the developed world have taken energy for granted ; it is only in times of high energy costs (particularly rising costs at the fuel pump or on home heating bills) that the public is even conscious of the fact that supplying energy is a costly, and sometimes unpredictable, endeavor. The sudden surge of interest in the effects of global warming, and increasing geopolitical tensions between oil supplying and oil consuming countries has opened many people’s minds to considerations of new

sources of energy, as well as to issues of energy conservation. But even those open minds have had difficulty accessing good information about the costs and benefits of ocean energy . Public education and outreach which is based on the best available science, and uninfluenced by vested economic interests or political ones, is a top priority. The last constraint is related to the first two. The public sector must find ways to increase incentives for the private sector to research and develop cost-effective and environmentally sensitive ocean energy ventures. And in order for that to happen, there needs to be political will – political will built on the realization of ocean energy potential, and political will driven by the demands of an increasingly educated and informed public. Such political will cannot blossom if politicians continue to yield to the enormous political pressure being brought down upon them by the lobbyists and spokespeople of conventional energy corporations, so developing this political will requires courage. Under the direction of good political leadership, we may soon realize the enormous potential that the oceans hold in meeting our energy needs.

Other lobbies outweigh and ocean energy divides political alliances Harmon 11 -- Writing on behalf of Oregon Wave Energy Trust, a nonprofit public-private partnership funded by the Oregon Innovation Council(Robert K, “Incentivizing Ocean Energy” July 2011, http://oregonwave.org/oceanic/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Incentivizing-Ocean-Energy-–-July-2011.pdf)//CS

Renewable Portfolio Standards and Feed-In Tariffs While it is essential that ocean energy be included as a qualifying technology for any production-°© ‐ based incentives, such as RPSs and FITs, attempting to design those programs to preferentially benefit ocean energy over other renewable energy technologies would be a poor use of the industry’s limited policy influence . In the near term, the ocean energy industry does not possess the history or the production volumes needed to demonstrate to investors that production -°© ‐ based incentives would generate adequate return s. Hence, investing political capital for such an incentive is ill advised at this time . In addition, the legality of the FIT architecture is uncertain and reliance on uncertain incentives would add risk for investors who are already challenged by ocean energy’s technology risks hurdles. Ocean energy RPS set-°© ‐ asides and carve-°© ‐ outs will not materially assist ocean energy in raising needed investment capital, and such set-°© ‐ asides and carve-°© ‐ outs tend to pit one renewable energy technology against another to meet a limited amount of demand. Multipliers are also met with skepticism from the environmental community as they result in fewer renewable MWHs delivered under the RPS. These policies tend to divide natural allies, rather than building alliances . One multiplier incentive that might attract strong political allies is a multiplier for the use of Oregon labor, particularly labor at prevailing wage in local industries. For instance, RECs generated from projects built in Oregon might be provided double credit under the OR RPS. If this approach were attractive enough to industry, labor and the environmental community, it could create significant political support for such a policy to become law.

OTEC unpopularity outweighs environment lobbies Friedman 14 -- Becca, citing Harvard Political Review, writing for the Ocean Energy Council (“EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION” March 2014 http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)//CS

Even environmentalists have impeded OTEC ’s development . According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean . When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution .¶ Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming . Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government funding for this. It’s not the Democrats, not the Republicans. It’s a bureaucratic issue.” OTEC is not completely off the government’s radar, however. This past year, for the first time in a decade, Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy program in the energy bill, although the proposal was ultimately defeated . OTEC even enjoys some support on a state level. Hawaii ’s National Energy Laboratory, for example, conducts OTEC research around the islands. For now, though, American interests in OTEC promise to remain largely academic . The Naval Research Academy and Oregon State University are conducting research programs off the coasts of Oahu and Oregon , respectively.

OTEC is unpopular-costs, climate deniers, and corporate interestsRaman 12

(Ahilan Raman, Director at Clean Energy and Water Technologies, Master of Chemical Technology from University of Madras. “Water and

Energy,” Renewable Energy World, February 19, 2012. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2012/02/clean-energy-and-water-technologies//ghs-kw)

We know from the famous equation of Albert Einstein, that a tiny amount of mass is a vast storehouse of energy. But even the molecular Hydrogen as a result of water decomposition, is a promising energy source of the future. However, the amount of energy we use to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is higher compared to the amount of energy that Hydrogen can generate using Fuel cell using Fuel. But we can mitigate this problem by using renewable source of energy such as PV solar, Solar (thermal), wind energy, geothermal energy, and ocean thermal energy conversion . The cost of renewable energy is still expensive for two reasons; ¶ We are used to cheap energy from fossil fuels for decades, and we have already recovered most of these investments.¶ 2 . A complete switch over to renewable energy technologies will require massive new investment . Unlike the investments we made on fossil fuel infrastructures over several decades, we have to invest on renewable energy infrastructure on a massive scale, and we have to deploy them in a shorter span of time, simultaneously all over the world. Currently there is no such infrastructure in renewable energy industry in existence.¶ Meanwhile the unabated emission of carbon dioxide by fossil fuels is causing global warming. There are many skeptics on the science on global warming. Such skepticism does not stem from the fact that they have a concrete proof but, ‘such skepticism’ serves their vested interest. Politicians who are in power do not want any increase in the cost of energy, which becomes unpopular among people may eventually, throw them out of power.

They say they want to serve people with low cost energy but, neither politicians nor the common man understands the consequences of such measures.¶ It will be our future generations who will face the brunt of this skepticism, by facing fuel shortage or unaffordable cost of fuel, erratic climate change, and frequent natural catastrophies.It is time for the world to act decisively and swiftly and move towards renewable energy, by massive investment and creation of new skills and jobs on a very large scale.¶ The companies who have massively invested in fossil power plants, and the governments who depend on the support of such companies and who want to keep the energy cost low, because of its popularity, are the major skeptics of global warming . The hidden cost of environmental challenges and its consequences is much higher than the savings, due to cheap fossil fuels. It requires a paradigm shift and a sense of social justice, in the minds of Governments and companies. It is not all that difficult to switch over to cleaner technologies. In fact most of the technologies are already available and it requires only a ‘will, bold decision and leadership’ by Governments.

Spending

LinksOTEC has extreme compounding costs Choi 08-- (Charles Q.“The Energy Debates: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”, December 12th 2008, http://www.livescience.com/3155-energy-debates-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion.html)//CS

O cean t hermal e nergy c onversion requires a lot of money up front since the devices are massive undertakings, Penney explained. The pipes have to be wide or else the deep seawater rushes up too fast, heating up as it rubs against the sides — an intolerable consequence, since it needs to be cold. To get the cold water necessary, the pipes also have to extend down thousands of feet. Keeping the plants operating in the face of the corrosive saltwater environment and organic matter that inevitably clogs up the works could prove challenging also. " And for all that investment, you don't know if two months after you deploy it whether a tropical storm will then wipe it out," Penney said. Still, "the oil industry clearly knows how to put structures in place in the ocean and drill down to 15,000 feet. The technology is there — it could just be very costly ." The environmental impact of OTEC remains murky. While nutrients in cold water from the deep could help aquaculture farms prosper, one question is whether they might also help unwanted life to grow as well. "And if you're pumping up billions of gallons from the depths, what might it change there?" Penney asked. "There's life down there too."

OTEC is prohibitively expensive-1 real plant cost billions Strickland 13 --an associate editor for the international technology magazine IEEE Spectrum, Strickland has reported on the environment, science, and technology for 12 years. She has worked as the online news editor for the science magazine Discover, and as a contributing writer for Wired’s website.(Eliza, “Lockheed Martin Pioneers Ocean Energy in China” July 25th 2013, http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/geothermal-and-tidal/lockheed-martin-pioneers-ocean-energy-in-china)//CS

Just a few years ago, Lockheed Martin was working to build a pilot plant to demonstrate a renewable energy technology called ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) near the Hawaiian island of Oahu. The company wanted to get funding from the U.S. Navy for the pioneering project and to cable the electricity it produced straight to the naval base at Pearl Harbor.¶ Now Lockheed is designing that 10-megawatt pilot plant—but not in American waters. Instead, the facility will be off the coast of southern China, and Lockheed’s customer is a private Chinese company that develops resorts and luxury housing.¶

Over the years Lockheed has approached various potential partners, says Rob Varley, the company’s OTEC project manager. Building an offshore energy station at commercial scale is an expensive proposition, particularly when it’s the first time the technology is being tried out. Lockheed won’t release the cost of the project, but outside experts estimate that a 10-MW facility would cost roughly US $300 million to $500 million . However, experts say that a full-scale 100-MW plant would be more competitive at just $1.2 billion. ¶ “The biggest challenge has been to get the gold and start the project,” says Varley, but in terms of engineering, he says, “I don’t see any showstoppers at this point.”¶ That’s not surprising, since the company has been working on OTEC since the 1970s, and the technology hasn’t changed drastically since then. OTEC systems make use of the temperature differential in tropical areas

between warm surface water and cold deep water. In most systems, ammonia, which has a very low boiling point, passes through a heat exchanger containing the warm water. The ammonia is vaporized and used to turn a turbine, and then it’s cycled past the cold water to recondense. This is a renewable energy technology with the rare capacity to supply base-load power, as water temperatures are fairly stable.¶ The ammonia passes through a closed loop, while the water comes and goes through massive pipes. The project in China may pump cold water up from a depth of about 1000 meters, using a pipe that’s 4 meters across. Varley says that some of the infrastructure can be borrowed from the offshore drilling industry: “We showed them our requirements for the platform, and they yawned and said, ‘Is that all you got?’ ” he says. “But then we showed them the pipe.” Attaching the massive pipe to a relatively small floating platform creates unusual stresses, Varley says. Lockheed also had to find materials for the pipes and the heat exchangers that could withstand the harsh marine environment.¶ Lockheed’s client is Reignwood Group, a Chinese company whose diverse portfolio includes resort and housing developments. According to a company press release, Reignwood Group wants the 10-MW plant to supply all the power for a large-scale environmentally sound resort community that the company will build in southern China. A Reignwood spokesperson did not respond to requests for more details by press time. A Lockheed spokesperson says the companies are currently working on site selection and that they’ll start designing a facility this year to suit the specific conditions at that site.¶ The China project isn’t the only OTEC project going ahead. Baltimore-basedOTEC International is negotiating the terms of a 1-MW demonstration plant in Hawaii, and the company is planning much bigger facilities in Hawaii and the Caribbean. Both OTEC International and Lockheed Martin see their current plans as steps toward a much more ambitious goal: utility-scale OTEC plants. “Going from a PowerPoint to a 100-MW would be too big a leap,” says Lockheed’s Varley. OTEC advocates have been trying to build megawatt-scale facilities for decades, but several ambitious projects have failed to materialize. So why should it be different this decade? Eileen O’Rourke, president of OTEC International, says there’s a convergence of favorable conditions. “Island jurisdictions like Hawaii have very high energy prices and limited alternatives for base-load power, and OTEC fits with their desire to be energy independent and green,” she says. Add in mature technology from the offshore oil industry, she says, and “we just think the time is right for OTEC.”