West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 1

West Coast Publishing

Ocean 2014 September

Edited by Jim Hanson

Researchers Alex Zendeh, Alyssa Lucas-Bolin, Ben Menzies, Eric Robinson, Greta Stahl, Matt Stannard, William James Taylor

Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials. Please don’t share this material with anyone outside of your school including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc. We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products. Contact us at [email protected] www.wcdebate.com

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans.

WEST COAST DEBATE OCEAN 2014-2015 SEPTEMBER

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans.

Finding Arguments in this File Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left. We have tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible. You’ll find scenario/impacts, affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans, and kritiks listed alphabetically in their categories.

Using the arguments in this File We encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files. File the evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice applying the arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal speeches.

Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning We hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these files--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply to your opponents. In doing so, you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater.

Copying West Coast Evidence Our policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard work.  You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.  You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team unless you very substantially change each page of material that you share. For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at [email protected] and seek our consent.

Ordering West Coast Materials 1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com 2. E-mail us at [email protected] 3. Fax us at 877-781-5058

Visit our web page! www.wcdebate.com

Table of Contents

Coral Reefs Key & In Trouble

Coral Reefs No Protected No protection – Acidification outweighs conservation Tim McDonnell, Climate Desk's associate producer, 5-6-2014, “WATCH: These Reefs Are Beautiful— But Most of the Coral Is Dead,” Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/cayman-islands-coral-reefs-dead A study published last October found that on reefs around Little Cayman, a kind of suburb island adjacent to Grand Cayman, coral cover fell from 26 to 14 percent just between 1999 and 2004. Since the early 1980s, coral cover across the entire Caribbean has plummeted 80 percent, so that living corals now cover only 10 percent, on average, of available surface area. And a 2011 report from the World Resources Institute that labeled reefs around Grand Cayman as highly threatened found that what's happening there is a microcosm of a global trend: 90 percent of the world's coral will be at risk of disappearance by 2030, thanks primarily to ocean acidification and global warming, both products of greenhouse gases released by human activity. Advertise on MotherJones.com Tim Austin, an ecologist with the Cayman Department of Environment, has seen this transformation first-hand. In April, Austin, who was born and raised on Grand Cayman, took me on a snorkeling trip to some of the island's hardest-hit reefs (watch the video above for an under-the-waves tour). He recalled that as a kid it was nearly impossible to navigate boats into docks because of the dense forest of living coral just below the surface. "Anybody who's been diving in Grand Cayman for a long time would agree that it's very different today," he said. "But it's a very slow death. These things are dropping apart and no one is really aware of it." When I jumped off the boat with Austin, I expected to see a postcard-perfect scene with mounds of vibrantly-colored coral. Instead, the ocean floor looked like a boneyard. When corals die, they leave behind a calcium carbonate skeleton, known as a "framework," that retains the basic shape of the reef but with the bright colors of the living coral faded out. (The colors come from symbiotic algae, called zooxanthellae, that live inside the corals' cells and photosynthesize sunlight to produce nutrients the corals need.) Living corals stood out here and there, and fish darted from one to the next. Global coral populations are crashing – existing protections are insufficient Chase Martin, writer for Oceana, the largest international organization focused solely on protecting the world’s oceans, 5-10-2014, “As Coral Bleaching Continues, Reefs in Peril (Op-Ed),” https://news.yahoo.com/coral-bleaching-continues-reefs-peril-op-ed-180911399.html While a variety of stressors can trigger coral to expel their algae, ocean warming is one of the most prevalent causes. Even a minute increase in average temperatures can result in coral bleaching, and in some cases, large areas of coral reefs will expel their algae, resulting in mass bleaching events. Coral reefs build up over thousands of years, yet the rapid pace of global warming can cause coral bleaching — which is disastrous and extremely difficult for reefs to recover from — at a much faster pace. The changing ocean chemistry is also causing the seas to become more acidic. Ocean acidification threatens coral reefs, as it threatens the ability of corals — as well as other animals like oysters, mussels, clams and pteropods, foundational to the ocean food chain — to create their calcium carbonate skeletons. When carbon dioxide interacts with seawater, chemical reactions deplete substances that are vital for the growth of coral skeletons. When these substances disappear, corals start to grow more slowly. Compounded with this, is the fact that as the oceans become more and more acidic, coral skeletons could actually start to dissolve — a fate already befalling pteropods. Coral reefs have already faced losses from other human activity, like destructive fishing, pollution and sedimentation. These coral reefs are highly vulnerable to future losses from ocean warming and acidification because of the damages already incurred. Researchers estimate that roughly 80 percent of Caribbean coral cover has been

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 7 reduced, with an approximate 50 percent reduction rate in the Pacific. Coral reefs are home to one- quarter of all known fish species, and must be protected from future damage. While improvements in fuel efficiency could help in curbing the amount of emissions that underlie these threats, switching to clean energy sources like offshore wind could not only help reduce emissions, but also prevent destructive offshore gas and oil drilling from polluting the environment. These practices result in their own harmful emissions and also directly threaten surrounding ecosystems with the risk of a spill. If people continue to drill for oil and gas offshore, more coral reefs and marine ecosystems will see both direct and indirect effects. Instead of looking to expand drilling into the Atlantic Ocean — a prospect made more disconcerting following the Gulf oil spill disaster — the government should invest in clean, renewable energy sources to combat climate change and protect coral reefs and countless marine animals in the future. Protected zones are failing to protect coral Lauretta Burke, Senior Associate at the World Resources Institute, February 2011, “Reefs at Risk Revisited,” http://www.wri.org/publication/reefs-risk-revisited 5. While more than one-quarter of the world’s coral reefs are within protected areas, many of these are ineffective or only offer partial protection. Approximately 27 percent of the world’s coral reefs are within marine protected areas (MPAs), a higher proportion than for any other marine habitat. Of the reef area inside MPAs, more than half is in Australia. Based on our compilation of expert-based ratings of management effectiveness, we find only 6 percent of the world’s coral reefs are located in effectively managed MPAs and 13 percent are in areas rated as only partially effective for achieving management goals. MPA coverage tends to be in areas of lower threat, and thus less frequently reduces threats in areas of heavy human pressure. Protected zones are just failures Mark Spalding, Nature Conservancy marine scientist, 2-25-2011, “ Scientist: 75 percent of coral reefs are threatened — but there’s hope! ,” GRIST, http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-02-24-75-of-coral- reefs-on-earth-threatened-but-theres-hope/ Q. The report calls for increased protection of coral reefs — but 27 percent of the world’s reefs are already inside marine protected areas (MPAs), and you write those aren’t completely effective. How do we increase the effectiveness of existing MPAs for reefs as well as their coverage? A. It’s true. We found that only 6 percent of reefs were in fully effective MPAs — sites that allow fish and other organisms to thrive without any significant human impact. And quite a lot of those effective sites are very remote from the threats. We know that MPAs are good for reefs. We also know that, as fish stocks recover in MPAs, they allow increased catches for fishers and better diving for tourists. So we need more MPAs close to people, precisely in the places that the threats are highest. But these aren’t easy fixes — there is competition for use in these places, and some will resist any efforts to restrict or control fishing or other impacts. The Conservancy has been working around the world with fishers as well as with governments to design protected areas — and, indeed, comprehensive ocean zoning — to lead to benefits for all. Success breeds success in these matters, and the best emissaries for MPAs are their beneficiaries. Marine conservationists should be using fishers from successful locations to spread the word to others. Greenhouse gases are too powerful Tim McDonnell, Climate Desk's associate producer, 5-6-2014, “WATCH: These Reefs Are Beautiful— But Most of the Coral Is Dead,” Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/cayman-islands-coral-reefs-dead

More importantly, corals are squeezed between two impacts of rising greenhouse pollution that local officials like Austin are powerless to regulate: Ocean acidification and warming. The oceans absorb roughly a third of humans' carbon emissions. By mid-century, this will make surface waters worldwide twice as acidic as they were prior to the Industrial Revolution, according to NOAA. Acidic water can erode the corals' framework and impede their ability to reproduce. Meanwhile, warming ocean water pushes the corals closer to the "bleaching threshold"—roughly 86.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the Caribbean. That's the temperature at which heat stress causes a coral to spit out its zooxanthellae, a move that is usually fatal. (One biologist I spoke to compared it to a person having a massive heart attack without medical attention). The graph below shows average sea surface temperatures at Grand Cayman for the month of September, typically the island's warmest month, when coral are most at risk. The last peak on the graph corresponds to the island's last major bleaching event, in 2009, when widespread bleaching was documented nearly 200 feet below the surface. The last few Septembers haven't been quite as extreme, but the trend is clearly going up; in fact, NOAA data indicate that 2014 is already shaping up to be one of the warmest years in over a decade. Global coral are in crisis – there is no safety net in the status quo Miyoko Sakashita, Oceans Director for the Center for Biological Diversity, 2012, “Endangered Species Act Listing What it means. How to Comment.” CBD, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/coral_conservation/pdfs/Fact_Sheet_Coral_ESA_Listing.p df The world’s coral reef ecosystems are in crisis. Nearly 30% of coral reefs have already been lost, and more are at risk. Corals face widespread threats ranging from habitat destruction, pollution, overharvest, and disease—and now climate change. Warming ocean temperatures and ocean acidification due to greenhouse gas pollution threaten the continued survival of coral reefs. In recent years, the frequency of mass bleaching events and disease outbreaks have increased, and some areas are experiencing sluggish coral growth due to acidification. Some coral scientists warn that unless CO 2 pollution is rapidly reduced, coral reefs and reef-dependant marine life will be committed to a terminal and irreversible decline. If corals are to survive, they need relief from each of these threats, and the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be a safety net for the conservation of coral reefs.

No Protected – Chemicals No protection against destructive chemicals Brian Bienkowski, staff writer for Environmental Health News, 1-23-2014, “Common chemical kills coral reefs,” Environmental Health News, summarizing Downs, CA, E Kramarsky-Winter, JE Fauth, R Segal, O Bronstein, R Jeger, Y Lichtenfeld, CM Woodley, P Pennington, A Kushmaro, Y Loya. 2013. Toxicological effects of the sunscreen UV filter, benzophenone-2, on planulae and in vitro cells of the coral, Stylophora pistillata. Ecotoxicology. DOI 10.1007/s10646-013-1161-y http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/2014/Jan/coral-damage/ A chemical found in many soaps, laundry detergents and cosmetics is killing young coral reefs at concentrations commonly found in the environment, according to a new study. Corals, which provide habitat for a rich array of fish and other marine life, are threatened worldwide. The new study is the first to find that benzophenone-2 (BP-2) is toxic to coral reefs, although it builds upon previous studies that reported that corals are harmed by other chemicals in wastewater and runoff. Researchers exposed baby corals in a laboratory to different concentrations of BP-2, which is found in hundreds of personal care products. Increased BP-2 exposure caused increased rates of coral death, DNA damage and bleaching, which is when corals turn white, are stressed and more likely to die. eutrophication&hypoxia/flickr The levels of BP-2 used in the study – ranging from 24 parts per billion to 246 parts per million – are within what has been found in U.S. wastewater effluent. Once in the environment, BP-2 can quickly “kill juvenile corals at very low concentrations – parts per billion,” the authors wrote. “What’s worrying is that if this chemical harms young coral, we won’t get coral recruitment around the world,” said Craig Downs, a researcher at Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia who led the study. “This will create coral zombies -- coral where’s there’s adults but not recruited young, so the reef will eventually go away.” The Caribbean alone has had roughly 80 percent of its corals disappear over the past 50 years from pollution, development and climate change. Pesticides, petroleum compounds and agricultural nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen also threaten coral reef health. "This is more bad news for coral reefs, more evidence of the pervasive and pressing impacts of land- based sources of pollution,” said Michael Risk, a professor at Canada’s McMaster University in a prepared statement. Risk was not involved in the study. “The results show that something humans use to protect their skin or toiletries can reach the sea from wastewater discharges, and shut down coral reproduction,” he said.

No Protected – Great Barrier Reef The Great Barrier Reef is dying – development outweighs protection efforts – disregard their industry propaganda Oliver Milman, reporter at Guardian Australia, focused on environmental issues, 5-6-2014, “Great Barrier Reef's 'unprecedented' threat from dredging, dumping,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/07/great-barrier-reefs-unprecedented-threat-from- dredging-dumping The impact of dredging and dumping sediment on the Great Barrier Reef has been far greater than the mining industry has claimed, with nearly 150m tonnes of new dredging set to take place in the reef’s waters, a study shows. The report collated by the Australian Marine Conservation Society states that the reef is under “unprecedented” threat from the proposed expansion of coastal ports and industrial development. Planned expansion of ports, or the creation of new ones, at sites including Gladstone, the Fitzroy Delta, Abbot Point and Townsville, would involve dredging 149m tonnes of seabed to allow large ships to access ports. The society’s report warns that the dredging process is dangerous to marine life. Worse, should this sediment be dumped within the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area, corals and seagrasses would be damaged, impacting animals such as dugongs and sea turtles. The amount of damage caused to the reef by coastal development and dredging has proved highly contentious after the government’s decision to approve five million tonnes of sediment being dumped within the reef’s marine park, as part of the expansion of Abbot Point, near Bowen. The mining industry has pointed to research showing the degradation of the reef is down to cyclones, bleaching and coral-eating starfish, rather than dredging. The Queensland Resource Council has branded groups such as WWF as dishonest, launching a series of TV ads to argue its case. But in an assessment of the health of the Great Barrier Reef released last week, Unesco said it had “concern” over the dredging program, querying why work on ports had begun before a long-term strategic plan was in place. The society’s report states that previous dredging, such as at Hay Point in 2006, damaged corals, contrary to industry claims. “The evaluation of the impacts at Hay Point dredging stated that most of the coral colonies were healthy and that more than 95% of corals were undamaged,” the report said. “However, the way that health and damage of corals was recorded at Hay Point clouds this interpretation. “Corals that had dead patches, but that were believed to be recovering because of new growth, were grouped together with corals that had no damage at all. Recording damage in this way has obscured the fact that these corals were damaged and underestimated the impacts of the dredging.” Great Barrier Reef is not protected – it is dying Eileen Shim, writer living in New York who studied International Studies at Yale University, 5-23-2014, “One of Earth's Seven Wonders Is Vanishing Before Our Eyes,” PolicyMic, http://www.policymic.com/articles/89823/one-of-earth-s-seven-wonders-is-vanishing-before-our-eyes The news: Australia's Great Barrier Reef is one of the planet's greatest natural treasures. Named one of the "seven natural wonders of the world," this World Heritage site is the biggest single structure made by living organisms, consisting of more than 3,000 individual reef systems and coral cays. And now, the home to thousands of marine species — including the beloved characters of Finding Nemo — is in danger of vanishing before our eyes. A new report by the Australian Marine Conservation Society shows that the reef is under "unprecedented" threat from Australia's urban development and proposed expansion in coastal ports. The report estimates that allowing large ships to access these ports would involve dredging 149 million tons of seabed, leading to serious damage to the reef systems and the marine life that depend on them. But Australia's development plans are only the latest in a long line of threats against this jewel of ecodiversity. The Great Barrier Reef has been dying for a while now, as years of rising temperatures, pollution, carbon emissions, tropical storms and

sediment dumps have taken their toll. And the future looks even bleaker from here on out. How bad is it? An alarming 2012 report revealed that the Great Barrier Reef has lost more than half of its coral cover since 1985, and the pace of deterioration is only expected to increase in the future. In March, a University of Queensland report warned that without immediate action, damage to the famous reef system would be "irreversible" by 2030. "If we don't increase our commitment to solve the burgeoning stress from local and global sources, the reef will disappear," argues the report. "This is not a hunch or alarmist rhetoric by green activists. It is the conclusion of the world's most qualified coral reef experts." It isn’t just bleaching – there are a host of programs not being implemented Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, 10-3-2012, “The Great (Dwindling) Barrier Reef Loses Half Its Coral Cover In Under 30 Years,” Climate Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/03/947221/the-great-dwindling-barrier-reef-loses-half-its- coral-cover-in-under-30-years/ Coral reef degradation is unfortunately not a new phenomenon. A 2011 report from the World Resources Institute found that three-quarters of the world’s coral reefs are threatened by increased stress from pollution and climate change. Corals are very sensitive to temperature, but because they are stationary, they cannot migrate to find their prime habitat. So as ocean temperatures warm, the coral organisms die, leaving just the white skeletal structures, a phenomenon known as bleaching. Yet according to this new study, the degradation is less directly linked to these usual suspects. Just 10 percent of the loss was attributable to bleaching. The study found coastal storms were the leading culprit that caused 48 percent of the damage, and the remaining 42 percent was a result of an exploding population of the crown of thorns starfish that preys on coral. Don’t mistake these causes for reason to think climate change isn’t responsible. After all, an increase in intensity of coastal storms is undoubtedly a symptom of planetary warming. Controlling the starfish problem, it turns out, would allow the reef’s degradation — pegged at losses of between four and eight percent of coral cover per year — to reverse. Even at current levels of temperature and acidity, we could see slow coral growth. The starfish problem may be slightly easier to manage than reversing global emissions of greenhouse gasses, but it will require action sure to be unpopular with agricultural interests. As CNN reports: According to the study, the starfish in its larval stage feeds on plankton, populations of which surge when fertilizer runoff floods the coastal ocean waters with nutrients. So plentiful plankton can lead to swarms of hungry starfish. The last time the starfish bloomed in 2003, the government spent more than $3 million to try to control the population. No easy feat. But the motivation to succeed may be as great as the Great Barrier Reef itself. In addition to the inherent value of protecting a tremendous natural resource, and the environmental benefits it provides from fish habitat to protection against storm surges, the reef is also a major economic engine in northeast Australia. According to Nick Heath, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund Australia, “Sixty thousand jobs in the tourism industry depend on us acting with urgency over the next few years.” Oddly, the Australian government is also planning coal and natural gas export facilities that would bring a constant stream of ships across the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. With all these environmental threats and new industrial activity, apparently we’ll have to be content with renaming one of our most spectacular natural wonders the Incredibly Shrinking Barrier Reef. Controlling starfish populations is key Glenn De'ath, Principal Research Scientist at Australian Institute of Marine Science, 10-2-2008, “The Great Barrier Reef has lost half of its coral in the last 27 years,” AIMS, http://www.aims.gov.au/latest- news/-/asset_publisher/MlU7/content/2-october-2012-the-great-barrier-reef-has-lost-half-of-its-coral- in-the-last-27-years?redirect=http%3A / /www.aims.gov.au /latest-news%3Fp_p_id %3D101_INSTANCE_MlU7%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview %26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_pos%3D2%26p_p_col_count%3D4

The study clearly shows that three factors are overwhelmingly responsible for this loss of coral cover. Intense tropical cyclones have caused massive damage, primarily to reefs in the central and southern parts of the Reef, while population explosions of the coral-consuming Crown-of-thorns starfish have affected coral populations along the length of the Reef. Two severe coral bleaching events have also had major detrimental impacts in northern and central parts of the GBR. "Our data show that the reefs can regain their coral cover after such disturbances, but recovery takes 10-20 years. At present, the intervals between the disturbances are generally too short for full recovery and that's causing the long-term losses," says Dr Hugh Sweatman, one of the study's authors. "We can't stop the storms, and ocean warming (the primary cause of coral bleaching) is one of the critical impacts of the global climate change," says AIMS CEO, John Gunn. "However, we can act to reduce the impact of crown of thorns," he says. "The study shows that in the absence of crown of thorns, coral cover would increase at 0.89% per year, so even with losses due to cyclones and bleaching there should be slow recovery. "We at AIMS will be redoubling our efforts to understand the life cycle of crown of thorns so we can better predict and reduce the periodic population explosions of crown of thorns. It's already clear that one important factor is water quality, and we plan to explore options for more direct intervention on this native pest."

No Protected – United States US coral are not protected – Florida coral are dying Lee Thomas, served as Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President Ronald Reagan from 1985-89, recently retired as CEO of Rayonier Corp. and currently serves on the board of World Resources Institute, 5-9-2014, “Florida already feeling climate changes,” Tampa Bay Times, http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140509/PC1001/140509382 The ocean is warming and turning acidic, becoming less hospitable to coral reefs and fish. Fish like snapper and grouper depend on healthy corals to survive, but our carbon pollution is putting reefs and fish at risk. The NCA report finds that one-fourth of emissions are being absorbed by the oceans, resulting in surface waters that are 30 percent more acidic than before the Industrial Revolution. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency states that oceans are absorbing 80 to 90 percent of heat from global warming. These stressors are contributing to more extensive coral bleaching events that can cause reefs to die, threatening the long-term viability of Florida's fishing and tourism industries.

No Protected – Indonesia Indonesian coral reefs are being overwhelmed and have few protections in place Jensi Sartin, director of Reef Check Indonesia, marine biologist, and 2014 Aspen Institute New Voices Fellow, 5-14-2014, “In Indonesia, a Worrying Silence on Climate Change,” Scientific American, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/05/15/in-indonesia-a-worrying-silence-on- climate-change/ Dive into the limpid waters off Indonesia’s resort island of Bali and you’ll spot the beginnings of an environmental success story. Older reefs are recovering from the devastating coral bleaching of 1998 and 2009. New corals are now taking hold. On shore, local fishermen also see improvement. There are, at long last, more and bigger fish. It’s been a collaborative effort to reach this point. My organization, Reef Check, has worked with village heads, tour operators, local government, other NGOs and fishermen to try to conserve Indonesia’s coral reefs and the marine life and livelihoods they support. Climate change and political inaction could doom these early successes, however. And, as Indonesia negotiates an election year, climate change is nowhere on the political agenda. Recent reports from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the situation clear: climate change is happening at an alarming rate, human behavior is largely to blame and if left unchecked, it poses a very real threat. Many will suffer, but those at greatest risk are communities living in low-lying coastal areas and on small islands. Ocean acidification, warmer sea temperatures, extreme weather and rising sea levels increase the chance of storm surges, coastal flooding and reduced fish stocks. That’s bad news for Indonesia, an archipelago of thousands of islands in Southeast Asia that witnessed one of the worst natural disasters in living memory – the tsunami of 2004 - and which relies heavily on its natural resources. If the current rate of global warming persists, as many as 1,500 of Indonesia’s islands will be swallowed by rising seas by 2050, according to the Maplecroft Climate Change Vulnerability Index. Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta International Airport could be underwater as soon as 2030. Indonesia’s Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Sharif Sutardjo has called for new and innovative ideas to improve the sustainable use of our ocean resources. Speaking at the recent Global Ocean Action Summit, Sutardjo said Indonesia had recently crafted a fisheries policy that balances economic growth, social equity and environmental protection. How this policy will grapple with the effects of climate change remains in doubt. It’s an election year in Indonesia. We have just had elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate. The presidential contest, a direct election, will be held on July 9. But none of the potential candidates has spelled out his vision for tackling climate change. None of Indonesia’s most senior political leaders has said anything in reaction to the IPCC reports and their implications for our future security despite appeals by the media and some non-governmental organizations to lay out their environmental plans. Even U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry implored the Indonesian government to address climate change. “This city, this country, this region is really on the front lines of climate change,” he said in a speech in Jakarta in February. “It’s not an exaggeration to say to you that your entire way of life that you live and love is at risk.” As a marine biologist, I have seen first-hand the effects a warming sea can have. At Reef Check, we monitor and document changes in this fragile ecosystem with the aim of finding out how best to manage it. The mass coral bleaching of 2009- 2010 affected up to 40 to 60 percent of some of Indonesia’s reefs. The same phenomenon in 1998, caused by El Niño, wiped out up to 60 percent of reefs, creating fields of dead coral and rubble. Some have never recovered. Bleaching occurs when coral becomes stressed by unusual warmer sea temperatures. Further change in our climate system will make this worse. One study said that warmer and more acidic seawater could reduce Indonesian fish catches by an average of 20 percent, and up to 50 percent in some fishing areas. Coral reefs act as nurseries, feeding areas and mating places for fish

AT: Over the Brink We’re not over the brink – reefs are still salvageable John Bruno, marine ecologist and Professor in the Department of Biology at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 7-14-2012, quoted by Andrew Revkin, “Reefs in the Anthropocene – Zombie Ecology?” NY Times, http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/reefs-in-the-anthropocene- zombie-ecology/ As soon as I read this op-ed, I wrote a few colleagues to share it with them and to get their views. Then I went to Twitter and searched for coral reefs; there was a string of tweets about the piece — all of them accepting the main argument without question, e.g., “Scariest thing I’ve read in a while. Apparently, coral reefs are doomed and there’s nothing we can do about it.” [Link added] It is scary, but is it true? I don’t think so. I have been called a pathological optimist, but on the other hand, I’ve watched reefs change radically from the dangerous wild places I experienced as a kid in the Florida Keys, to simplified systems with few corals and fewer predators. And this is in just 30 years. One aspect of my research is focused on documenting and understudying the degradation of coral reef ecosystems, mainly in terms of the loss of reef-building corals. [Click here for an example.] The story is more grim in the Caribbean, where there has been a decline of at least 50 percent (and probably more than 75 percent) of coral populations. But the picture of coral loss is roughly the same globally. More recently, we’ve been working on the extent of overfishing and predator loss on Caribbean reefs. A healthy unfished reef is inhabited by top predators like sharks and grouper and total fish biomass is roughly 500 grams per square meter. Yet, the average reef has only 20 grams per square meter — obviously an extreme decrease in fish biomass. So that aspect of Rogers Bradbury’s Op-Ed in today’s New York Times is generally accurate. The world’s coral reefs have indeed changed, are under enormous pressure, and their future is threatened. But are they really “on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation”? No. Is there really “no hope of saving the global coral reef ecosystem”? No, there is hope. And is the “scientific evidence for this is compelling and unequivocal”? No, not remotely. I think these are valid opinions, but they are not science, nor are they supported by science. What does the science say? It is a complicated picture and there isn’t any way to scientifically test the idea that “reefs are doomed.” Like everything else in conservation (and life) it depends. It depends on when greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and eventually halted. It depends on how big the human populations gets. It depends on when we start managing coral reef fisheries with a modicum of intelligence. If we increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 2000 parts per million, yeah, I’d agree reefs will probably be toast. [The level is approaching 400 parts per million now.] But I am pretty sure they will persist – albeit in a much diminshed state — if we halted the increase in pressures today. And what about those pressures? Are they really “accelerating”? No. There is no evidence that the rates of overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution are “accelerating.” I am doubtful that overfishing and pollution are even increasing. (For one, there isn’t a lot left to overfish.) Temperature and acidification are increasing and these pressures do have great inertia, but they are certainly NOT “unstoppable and irreversible”. We have many examples of places where local threats like fishing and pollution have been reduced or reversed and in some cases like the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, with great success. We also have some — though not many — reefs even in the Caribbean that have a lot of healthy coral and are patrolled by sharks, grouper, snapper, barracuda, and other large carnivores. The challenge for my generation of scientists is to increase the number of these “quasi-pristine” coral reefs (I’d like to see a tenfold increase) and to halt the decline of the other 90 percent of the world’s reefs. Are this optimistic goals? Sure. But the science suggests this is doable and I’m far from ready to give up on reefs.

Conservation can work Melissa Gaskill, writer for the Green Blog at the NY Times, 7-16-2012, “When Coral Reefs Recover,” NY Times, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/when-coral-reefs-recover/ It turns out that the way to protect coral reefs is to, well, protect them. That was the core message of several presentations at an international symposium on coral reefs that wrapped up on Friday in Cairns, Australia. Ocean acidification, warming water temperatures, pollution and overfishing pose dire threats to coral reefs worldwide. On the plus side, said John Pandolfi, director of the Center for Marine Science at the University of Queensland, reducing these threats locally can improve reef conditions. The bad news, he adds, is that coral reefs bounce back more slowly than other marine ecosystems like estuaries. So the sooner action is taken, the better. The overfished reefs at Cabo Pulmo on the eastern Baja California Peninsula. are a case in point. After the establishment of the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park — and more than 10 years of local enforcement of no-take inside its boundaries — the Scripps Institution of Oceanography found that the amount of fish biomass in the protected area had increased more than fivefold, and shark biomass, tenfold. That’s the largest absolute increase in fish biomass ever measured in a marine reserve anywhere in the world. What is more, the benefits of this kind of protection extend beyond the boundaries of a protected area. A recent study by the Australian Research Council Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies found that marine reserves help restore depleted populations on neighboring reefs. In the Keppel Islands on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, reserves that cover about 20 percent of the reef area generated half of the baby fish both inside and outside the reserve, researchers said. Networks of reserves could therefore contribute substantially to the long- term sustainability of coral reef fisheries and put to rest claims that closing areas to fishing harms those who make their living from it. Anecdotal evidence from Cabo Pulmo supports this finding, as fishing has improved outside the protected area.

Yes Key – Biodiversity Coral reefs are key to global biodiversity Jessica Carilli, PhD in Oceanography from Scripps Institute at UCSD, 6-17-2013, “Why Are Coral Reefs Important?” Nature, http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/saltwater- science/why_are_coral_reefs_important But why should we all be worried about coral reefs, particularly when many of us live very far from the tropical oceans? Coral reefs contain staggering biodiversity. Estimates vary immensely, but coral reefs may be the most diverse ecosystem on earth; they likely at least rival terrestrial rainforests. Diversity is important for a variety of reasons. Biodiversity ensures that some life will continue to survive, even after major catastrophic events that wipe out many species. Biodiverse ecosystems also provide services, for example nursery habitat to edible fish species, which would be difficult and expensive to reproduce artificially. Coral reefs provide food to millions of humans. Corals, like trees, provide three-dimensional structure and substrate to house and feed fish and other marine animals that humans eat. Some estimates say that over 1 billion people depend on food from coral reefs, and reefs as a whole might be worth around $172 billion for every year they continue to provide essential services to humans, like food. Coral reefs protect and create land. Coral reefs can dissipate wave energy from storms and tsunamis, reducing damage on adjacent land. Atoll islands continue to exist above the ocean's surface long after the volcanic island upon which they first grew has cooled and sunk below the waves, due exclusively to the growth of corals and other reef-associated organisms like large foraminifera. Most estimates underreport coral reef biodiversity – it’s extremely high Smithsonian Science, 11-2-2011, “New DNA study suggests coral reef biodiversity is seriously underestimated,” http://smithsonianscience.org/2011/11/dna-barcode-survey-suggests-coral-reef- biodiversity-is-seriously-underestimated/ The first DNA barcoding survey of crustaceans living on samples of dead coral taken from the Indian, Pacific and Caribbean oceans suggests that the diversity of organisms living on the world’s coral reefs— one of the most endangered habitats on Earth—is seriously underestimated.At depths of between 8 and 12 meters (26 to 39 feet), scientists collected dead coral heads from five different locations. At two sites where removing coral is prohibited, the scientists collected man-made sampling devices that had been left in the water for one year. Combined, the coral heads and devices had a surface area of just 6.3 square meters (20.6 square feet), yet 525 different species of crustaceans were found living on them. “So much diversity in such a small, limited sample area shows that the diversity of crustaceans in the world’s coral reefs—and by implication the diversity of reefs overall—is seriously under-detected and underestimated,” says Nancy Knowlton, the Sant Chair for Ocean Science at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, co-author of the survey that was just published in the journal PLoS ONE. “We found almost as many crabs in 6.3-square meters of coral as can be found in all of the seas of Europe,” explains Knowlton. “Compared to the results of much longer and labor-intensive surveys we found a surprisingly large percentage of species with a fraction of the effort.” This shows, says Knowlton, that the statistical uncertainty of estimates of the numbers of animals living in the world’s coral reefs “is huge.” Reefs don’t just protect existing species – they are key to the creation of new species David Adam, environment correspondent for the Guardian, 1-7-2010, “Coral reefs crucial to origin of new marine species, finds study,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/07/coral-reefs-new-species

Coral reefs give birth to a dazzling number of new species of sea creatures, according to a study that highlights their critical role in marine ecosystems. Scientists have found that the reefs not only harbour amazing biodiversity, but are actively involved in the generation of new life forms. The study overturns conventional thinking that much of the sea life in coral reefs originated elsewhere. Wolfgang Kiessling of the Humboldt University of Berlin, who led the study, said: "We found that coral reefs are very active at generating biodiversity in the oceans, and that they export biodiversity to other ecosystems. This was a surprise because many people had assumed that reefs were ecological attracters – that species go there from other places." He and colleagues in Germany and the US studied a database of fossil organisms that lived on the sea floor from the Cambrian period, about 500m years ago. They compared the number of new genera that first appeared in coral reefs with those in other shallow-water environments and found the reefs were responsible for about 50% more. The results are published tomorrow in the journal Science. The team looked at fossils of so-called benthic organisms, such as starfish, clams and corals that live on the seabed. They ignored fossils of fish, which do not offer clues to where they evolve, because after they die their remains can float elsewhere. Kiessling said the study offered extra incentive to protect coral reefs. "If we lose the coral reefs we lose the ability for marine ecosystems to generate new species in the future. I suspect that new species evolve every single day, but unfortunately not as fast as they go extinct." Coral reefs are literal biodiversity reservoirs IRD, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, 2-28-2014, “Coral fish biodiversity loss: Humankind could be responsible,” ScienceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140228080716.htm Literal biodiversity reservoirs, coral reefs and associated ecosystems are in grave danger from natural and human-made disturbances. The latest World Resources Institute assessment is alarming with 75% of coral reefs reported as endangered worldwide, a figure that may reach 100% by 2050. The numbers are concerning, particularly as coral reefs provide sustenance and economic benefits for many developing countries and fish biodiversity on coral reefs partly determines the biomass available for human consumption. A Multi-Facetted Biodiversity While phylogenetic diversity in communities is acknowledged for its vital heritage value, illustrating, as it does, a "part" of the tree of life, ecosystem functional diversity has long been overlooked in impact studies. An ecosystem's richness is also measured both in taxonomic biodiversity terms (number of different species) as well as by the number of lineages or functions performed by many ecosystem goods and services.* There have not as yet been any studies into the impact of human activity on coral fish community taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic taxonomic diversity loss. Functional and Phylogenetic Diversity Loss Revealed After sampling 1553 fish communities through underwater surveys in 17 Pacific countries, researchers assessed the taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity levels of a group of species fished along a human density gradient ranging from 1.3 to 1705 persons per sq. km of reef. The social and environmental data were collected under the PROCFish and CoFish projects co-ordinated by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and funded by the European Union. The results showed a sharp drop in functional and phylogenetic diversity levels, particularly above 20 people per sq. km of reef, while species richness was barely affected along the gradient. When human population density reached 1700 persons per sq. km of reef, the impact on functional and phylogenetic diversity levels (-46 % and -36 %, respectively) was greater than on species richness (-12 %). A Tree of Life that Needs Protecting The research shows that species numbers are a poor indicator of anthropogenic pressure, while two other biodiversity components are far more heavily affected by human density. These components make up the tree of life, i.e. the diversity of biological traits and phylogenetic lineages that are essential for coral systems to function. The researchers emphasised how important it was to conserve all the components of biodiversity. They also recommended using trait and lineage diversity as reliable and

Yes Key – Bioprospecting Coral reefs are important sources for bioprospecting Burkhard Haefner, Biologist at Johnson&Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, 6-15-2003, “Drugs from the deep: marine natural products as drug candidates,” Drug Discovery Today vol 8 no 12, Science Direct In recent years, marine natural product bioprospecting has yielded a considerable number of drug candidates. Most of these molecules are still in preclinical or early clinical development but some are already on the market, such as cytarabine, or are predicted to be approved soon, such as ET743 (Yondelis™). Research into the ecology of marine natural products has shown that many of these compounds function as chemical weapons and have evolved into highly potent inhibitors of physiological processes in the prey, predators or competitors of the marine organisms that use them. Some of the natural products isolated from marine invertebrates have been shown to be, or are suspected to be, of microbial origin and this is now thought to be the case for the majority of such molecules. Marine microorganisms, whose immense genetic and biochemical diversity is only beginning to be appreciated, look likely to become a rich source of novel chemical entities for the discovery of more effective drugs.

Coral Reefs Not Key & Protected

Coral Reefs Yes Protected Corals are protected from overfishing now – it is the biggest threat Tim McDonnell, Climate Desk's associate producer, 5-6-2014, “WATCH: These Reefs Are Beautiful— But Most of the Coral Is Dead,” Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/cayman-islands-coral-reefs-dead So what's causing the die-off? Corals everywhere are fragile and obviously unable to run away from adverse conditions; they can be smashed by severe waves and boats and poisoned by polluted runoff from the land. Overfishing is a major problem; fish graze on the algae that live on reefs, keeping it trimmed down and allowing sunlight to reach the zooxanthellae. Without help from the fish, the coral get out-competed by the algae and can die. Austin said his office is in a constant battle to keep people from fishing algae-grazers, and the government recently passed a sweeping conservation law that will set aside up to half of the island's coastal waters as no-fishing zones for this reason (only about 15 percent are so designated today). NOAA is protecting corals now Carmen Yeung, Conservation Biologist based in Washington, D.C. and manager for Science Information at the Ocean Conservancy, 12-7-2012, “NOAA Moves to Protect Corals,” The Ocean Conservancy, http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2012/12/07/noaa-moves-to-protect-corals/ Corals are in trouble, but they could soon receive the help they need. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) proposed listing 66 species of reef-building corals under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which is a step in the right direction for coral conservation. Being added to the Endangered Species list is more than a title upgrade (or downgrade, really). Listing species as endangered would prohibit harming, wounding or killing the species. It also prohibits the extraction of listed species, which includes importing or exporting the corals. What has made these corals candidates for the list? A number of things: pollution, warming waters, overfishing and ocean acidification threaten the survival of corals. These threats can make corals more susceptible to disease and mortality. Protections like endangered species listing are vital to preserving coral from threats and helping them cope with changing environmental conditions. Corals are tremendously important economically and environmentally. Corals provide habitat to support fisheries that feed millions of people; create jobs and income for coastal economies through tourism, recreation and fisheries; and protect coastlines from storm damage. One independent study found that coral reefs provided about $483 million in annual net benefit to the U.S. economic from recreation and tourism activities. Marine life, such as fish, crustaceans and sea turtles rely on corals for food, shelter and nursery grounds. Over 25% of fish in the ocean and up to two million marine species use coral reefs as their home. Because of their significance, supporting NOAA’s proposed ESA listing for 66 coral species is incredibly important to their survival and our local economies.

Yes Protected – Indonesia Here is a litany of coral protection policies in place that are saving Indonesia’s coral Otniel Tamindael, environmental correspondent for Antara News, 5-16-2014, “Coral reefs as sustainer of food security,” Antara News, http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/94101/coral-reefs-as- sustainer-of-food-security The Indonesian vice president reiterated that coral reefs were part of the worlds ocean ecosystem with a rich biodiversity, and therefore, they should be protected in a sustainable manner. "Indonesia’s coral reefs are home to schools of fish, different species of fish and other marine biota of various types that have to be protected for the welfare of all people in this country," Boediono affirmed. He pointed out that the Indonesian waters have a rich variety of reefs, including fringing reefs, barrier reefs and patch reefs that need to be well protected. According to the vice president, around 60 million people of Indonesia live alongside the coastline and entirely depend on the coral reefs for their livelihoods. "With such a condition, it is understood that Indonesia is vulnerable to the degradation of the coral reefs on which it is highly dependent," the vice president emphasized. Therefore, he said as part of Indonesias commitment to the coral triangle initiative, the country in 2010 declared part of its territorial waters as marine resources conservation areas. Meanwhile, Marine and Fisheries Minister Sharif C. Sutardjo, a coordinator for the National Organizer of WCRC, said the conference is also expected to deliver the Manado Communique, an agreement aiming for the realization of sustainable coral reef management. Furthermore, the event can drive the countries with long coastlines to initiate their own coral reef protection and conservation programs. He said the conference was jointly coordinated by the central and regional governments following rising concerns about the degradation of coral reefs throughout the world. The conference is important, specifically to take stock and compile the synchronization and establishment of policies and actions in the management and utilization of coral reef resources, WCRC national committee Chairman Sudirman Saad said. The summit also aims to collect and formulate shared values, perceptions and purpose in the management of coral reef ecosystems as treasured natural resources to be inherited by future generations. Moreover, the event also provides an opportunity to inform and adopt best practices, methods, approaches, knowledge, science and the latest technology to be applied to coral reef resources management, particularly of local coral reef ecosystems. "WCRC is expected to lead to sustainable coral reef management, an action plan from coastal countries to save coral reef ecosystems and steps towards a sustainable coral reef management convention," Sudirman reiterated. Manado city administration spokesman Haefrey Sendoh stated that WCRC is a summit of countries with coral reefs to highlight the importance of coral reef ecosystems to human life and ways to preserve them. "We have made all the necessary preparations to host this prestigious international event in a bid to save the coral reef ecosystems," Haefrey stated in Manado recently. He claimed that they were ready to ensure security and to make the city of Manado clean and comfortable for this international event. The appointment of Manado to host this international event was inseparable from its extensive marine potential with the diversity of coral reefs that covers one third of the worlds coral reef areas.

Yes Protected – Great Barrier Reef The Great Barrier Reef is fine – highly resilient Sherwood Idso et al, president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Keith Idso and Craig Idso, 5-21-2014, “Surviving Coral Bleaching,” CO2 Science Volume 17, no 21, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N21/EDIT.php In a new study recently published in the journal PLOS ONE, Cantin and Lough (2014) write that the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) of Australia "experienced high thermal stress and observations of significant coral bleaching in the summers of 1998 and 2002, with 42% and 54%, respectively, of the reef showing some degree of bleaching," citing in this regard the descriptive work of Berkelmans et al. (2004), while stating that the purpose of their newer study was "to determine what, if any, signatures of these 1998 and 2002 mass coral bleaching events are evident in the annual growth records contained in coral cores from apparently healthy massive Porites colonies from four reef sites in the central GBR that survived the worst bleaching events ever recorded in the GBR." And this they did by assessing annual growth characteristics (extension, density and calcification) of 144 cores that they extracted from 79 coral colonies covering the 24-year period 1980-2003. As for what they learned from this undertaking, the two researchers indicate, first of all, that following the 2002 bleaching event, there has not been an additional such event, after which they state that "while these events caused widespread bleaching on more than 50% of the GBR, over a short four-year period, our results indicate two major findings: 1) the frequency of severe temperature stress at individual sites has not yet increased as projected, and 2) calcification rates recovered from the effects of severe bleaching within 4 years and have not continued to decline." With respect to the significance of these findings, Cantin and Lough write in the concluding sentence of their paper that "these two observations in combination with future efforts to update calcification trends for the GBR that include the last decade following the 2002 event will provide significant advances that will better inform models that project how coral calcification will respond to ongoing warming of the tropical oceans." And if the past is prologue to the future, what they have learned to date is most encouraging.

Yes Protected – Maldives There are technologies in place to protect coral in the Maldives Nalaka Gunawardene, Colombo-based science writer and journalist who has covered climate stories since the late 1980s, 5-28-2014, “Battling climate impacts in low-lying Maldives,” SciDivNet http://www.scidev.net/south-asia/environment/analysis-blog/battling-climate-impacts-in-low-lying- maldives.html Of particular concern is the health of coral reefs on which the nation’s key economic activity of tourism depends critically. Coral reefs are also the first line of defence against wave action and storm surges. The warming seas triggered large scale coral bleaching in 1998 and 2010, causing much damage. “It is imperative to protect the coral reefs, sea grass, coastal vegetation and wetlands to mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change,” says Rilwan. [9] Ibrahim Naeem, director of the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) Coastal Zone Management Centre, located in Malé, agrees. Adopting integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), a scientific methodology to balance competing demands, can help countries to reconcile competing demands and many pressures on the coast.

Yes Protected – Pacific A huge amount of the Pacific Ocean was just made protected Environmental News Service, 5-13-2014, “New Caledonia Creates World’s Largest Protected Area,” http://ens-newswire.com/2014/05/13/new-caledonia-creates-worlds-largest-protected-area/ NOUMEA, New Caledonia, May 13, 2014 (ENS) – A vast expanse of pristine Pacific Ocean is now the world’s largest protected area under a new law passed by the government of New Caledonia creating the Natural Park of the Coral Sea. Located 2,000 miles east of Australia in the Pacific Ocean, the Natural Park of the Coral Sea covers all of the French territory’s marine waters, extending 12 to 200 nautical miles from its coasts. The Natural Park of the Coral Sea, or Le Parc Naturel de la Mer de Corail, came into existence in Noumea in late April. By legislative decree, New Caledonia President Harold Martin and the territory’s political leadership legally established the protected area. The decree creates a multi-use, marine protected area which extends across 1.3 million square kilometers, an area three times the size of Germany, making it the largest protected area in the world. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN, says the new park includes more than 4,500 square kilometers of fishery- supporting coral reefs. The deepest site in France, measured at 7919 meters deep, is part of the new park, whose deep sediment basins, seamounts and coral reefs host an extraordinary number of species. Twenty-five species of marine mammals, 48 shark species, and five species of marine turtles swim through these newly protected waters and the park also shelters 19 species of nesting birds. The archipelago, part of the Melanesia subregion, includes the main island of Grande Terre, the Loyalty Islands, the Chesterfield Islands, the Belep archipelago, the Isle of Pines, and a few remote islets. New Caledonia is the world’s only stand-alone Biodiversity Hotspot, and its coastal waters hold the world’s largest lagoon, which has earned the territory UNESCO World Heritage Site status.

Yes Protected – AT: Acidification Acidification is overblown – coral are resilient against it James Foley, marine correspondent for Nature World News, 1-15-2014, “Surprising Resilience Against Acidification Observed in Palau Coral Reefs,” Nature World News, http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5655/20140115/surprising-resilience-against-acidification- observed-palau-coral-reefs.htm Researchers working in the Western Pacific island nation of Palau have made some unexpected discoveries about coral reefs there that may lead to new insights on the organisms' resistance to ocean acidification. Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists report that the reefs around Palau are thriving amid shockingly high levels of acidification. "We had no idea the level of acidification we would find. We're looking at reefs today that have levels that we expect for the open ocean in that region by the end of the century," said lead study author Kathryn Shamberger, a chemical oceanographer who was a postdoctoral scholar at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) at the time of the research. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are contributing to a changing ocean chemistry. The ocean absorbs atmospheric CO2, which causes a chemical reaction that lowers the pH of seawater, making it more acidic. The acidification process also removed carbon ions from the water that are typically needed by reefs to support growth. In both laboratory tests and real- world scenarios, low pH seawater has been shown to cause negative effects on coral reefs including low species diversity, slowed growth rates, more algae growth and greater susceptibility to erosion. In the study, Shamberger and her colleagues describe the processes that lead to the increased acidification documented in waters around Palau as well as the surprising find that the coral reefs in those waters are showing a remarkable resiliency to the acidification. Contrary to expectations set by previous studies of coral reefs and low pH seawater, the reefs around Palau show unexpected diversity and health. The unusual finding may have implications for other coral reef systems in oceans around the world. "When you move from a high pH reef to a low pH neighboring reef, there are big changes, and they are negative changes," said WHOI biogeochemist Anne Cohen, a co-author on the paper and lead principal investigator of the project. "However, in Palau where the water is most acidic, we see the opposite. We see a coral community that is more diverse, hosts more species, and has greater coral cover than in the non-acidic sites. Palau is the exception to the places scientists have studied." The researchers found that at every reef around the island the low pH of the water was caused by shell-building done by organisms living in the water, a process called calcification, which removes carbonate ions from seawater. The shell-building organisms also add CO2 to the water as they breathe. "Calcification and respiration are continually happening at these sites while the water sits there, and it allows the water to become more and more acidic. It's a little bit like being stuck in a room with a limited amount of oxygen - the longer you're in there without opening a window, you're using up oxygen and increasing CO2," Shamberger said. Continuing her analogy, Shamberger said without fresh air coming through that window, it gets harder and harder for life to thrive. But in the case of the Palau coral reefs, the opposite was happening. "What we found is that coral cover and coral diversity actually increase as you move from the outer reefs and into the Rock Islands, which is exactly the opposite of what we were expecting," she said. Acidification and warming do not lead to bleaching or dying coral Marlo Lewis Jr., Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute writing on global warming, energy policy, and public policy issues, 1-7-2005, “Reef Madness: The Next Big Green Litigation Campaign?” Competitive Enterprise Institute, http://cei.org/studies/reef-madness-next-big-green- litigation-campaign

What evidence is there that GHG emissions cause or contribute to coral bleaching? According to the comprehensive Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004,27 “The coral bleaching in 1998 was a 1 in a 1,000-year event in many regions with no past history of such damage in official government records or in the memories of traditional cultures of the affected coral reef countries.” Approximately 16 percent of the world’s reefs were seriously damaged. (Fortunately, about 40 percent of the damaged reefs are “either recovering well or have recovered” [pp. 7-8], showing how amazingly resilient these marine ecosystems are). According to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR, p. 1), the 1990s were “very likely” the “warmest decade” and 1998 the “warmest year” of the past 1,000 years.28 In addition, the IPCC concludes that, “most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (TAR, p. 10). Thus, it would seem, the bleaching events of 1998 were likely due to mankind’s enhancement of the greenhouse effect. In fact, however, the asserted linkage between anthropogenic warming and coral bleaching is problematic. To begin with, there is considerable evidence that the 1990s were not the warmest decade of the past millennium. A wealth of proxy data confirm the reality of a world-wide Medieval Warm Period (circa A.D. 800-1300), when average temperatures in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America were as warm as or warmer than they are today.29 Also, as can be seen from Figure 2.20 on page 134 of the TAR, the IPCC’s reconstruction of temperature history —popularly known as the “Hockey Stick”30—mixes proxy-data “apples” (such as tree ring widths and densities) for the period from 1000 A.D. to 1900 with instrumental-data “oranges” for the 20th century. The well-documented local heat effects of urbanization31 give the instrumental record an upward bias. When scientists compare apples to apples, using proxy data to track 20th century temperatures, the mid-1930s and early 1940s appear to be warmer than the 1990s.32 Yet there is no evidence of mass bleaching/mortality events in the 1930s and 1940s. The IPCC’s conclusion that “most” recent warming is due to GHG emissions is also questionable. That finding rests on (a) the claim (just examined) that the late 20th century warming was “unprecedented” during the past 1,000 years, and (b) the alleged agreement of climate model predictions with observed temperature data. As regards (b), the surface temperature database is not a good test of model projections, because it partly reflects the warming effects of urbanization and other land-use changes. 33 More importantly, observations contradict model predictions of a greenhouse “fingerprint” in the vertical distribution of temperature change in the atmosphere. Almost all models project 50 to100 percent more warming in the lower to mid-troposphere—the layer of air from one to five miles up—than at the surface. 34 Satellite and weather balloon data show the opposite is occurring. Since November 1978, the troposphere has warmed by about 0.08°C per decade 35—less than half the rate of the surface—and much if not all of that slight warming is attributable to the strong 1997-98 El Niño. Similarly, as can be seen in Figure 2.11 on page 118 of the TAR, most of the modest 0.037°C per decade rise in top-layer average ocean temperature from 1958 to 1998 is attributable to the 1997-98 El Niño and the 1976-77 shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—another natural climate cycle. 36 To be sure, climate activists often assert that global warming increases the frequency and intensity of El Niño events. However, there is no known link between El Niño and atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. 37 The Sydney Centre might reply that El Niño has been occurring for millions of years, so if recent episodes induce bleaching, it must be because anthropogenic global warming has already elevated average summertime sea temperatures close to the upper thermal limit of what corals can withstand.38 This hypothesis, too, is doubtful, for several reasons. As carbon dioxide scientists Sherwood, Keith, and Craig Idso point out, the scleractinian corals, which are today’s major reef builders, came into being in the mid-Triassic Period, when the Earth was “considerably warmer” than today, and thrived “throughout the Cretaceous, even when temperatures were 10-15°C higher than at present.”39 Data from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica indicate that all four interglacial periods previous to the one in which we now live were warmer than the present one by 2°C or more. 40 A new proxy record going back 123,000 years, obtained from an ice core in North Greenland, indicates that temperatures during the last interglacial period were 5°C warmer

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 30 than today.41 Analysis of coral skeletal remains from the GBR indicates that the tropical ocean about 5,350 years ago was 1.2°C warmer than the mean for the early 1990s.42 Analysis of the isotopic composition of cave formations in New Zealand indicates that the region was warmer than the present in the early part of the past millennium—about the same time as the Medieval Warm Period in Europe.43 Corals have been around for more than 200 million years and survived countless changes in the global environment. If coral were as vulnerable to bleaching and death from global warming as the Centre would have us believe, coral would have become extinct eons ago.

Over the Brink Coral reefs are past saving – they are totally gone Roger Bradbury, an ecologist, does research in resource management at Australian National University, 7-13-2012, “A World Without Coral Reefs,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/opinion/a-world-without-coral-reefs.html?_r=0 IT’S past time to tell the truth about the state of the world’s coral reefs, the nurseries of tropical coastal fish stocks. They have become zombie ecosystems, neither dead nor truly alive in any functional sense, and on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation. There will be remnants here and there, but the global coral reef ecosystem — with its storehouse of biodiversity and fisheries supporting millions of the world’s poor — will cease to be. Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution are pushing coral reefs into oblivion. Each of those forces alone is fully capable of causing the global collapse of coral reefs; together, they assure it. The scientific evidence for this is compelling and unequivocal, but there seems to be a collective reluctance to accept the logical conclusion — that there is no hope of saving the global coral reef ecosystem. What we hear instead is an airbrushed view of the crisis — a view endorsed by coral reef scientists, amplified by environmentalists and accepted by governments. Coral reefs, like rain forests, are a symbol of biodiversity. And, like rain forests, they are portrayed as existentially threatened — but salvageable. The message is: “There is yet hope.” Indeed, this view is echoed in the “consensus statement” of the just-concluded International Coral Reef Symposium, which called “on all governments to ensure the future of coral reefs.” It was signed by more than 2,000 scientists, officials and conservationists. This is less a conspiracy than a sort of institutional inertia. Governments don’t want to be blamed for disasters on their watch, conservationists apparently value hope over truth, and scientists often don’t see the reefs for the corals. But by persisting in the false belief that coral reefs have a future, we grossly misallocate the funds needed to cope with the fallout from their collapse. Money isn’t spent to study what to do after the reefs are gone — on what sort of ecosystems will replace coral reefs and what opportunities there will be to nudge these into providing people with food and other useful ecosystem products and services. Nor is money spent to preserve some of the genetic resources of coral reefs by transferring them into systems that are not coral reefs. And money isn’t spent to make the economic structural adjustment that communities and industries that depend on coral reefs urgently need. We have focused too much on the state of the reefs rather than the rate of the processes killing them. Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution have two features in common. First, they are accelerating. They are growing broadly in line with global economic growth, so they can double in size every couple of decades. Second, they have extreme inertia — there is no real prospect of changing their trajectories in less than 20 to 50 years. In short, these forces are unstoppable and irreversible. And it is these two features — acceleration and inertia — that have blindsided us. Overfishing can bring down reefs because fish are one of the key functional groups that hold reefs together. Detailed forensic studies of the global fish catch by Daniel Pauly’s lab at the University of British Columbia confirm that global fishing pressure is still accelerating even as the global fish catch is declining. Overfishing is already damaging reefs worldwide, and it is set to double and double again over the next few decades. Ocean acidification can also bring down reefs because it affects the corals themselves. Corals can make their calcareous skeletons only within a special range of temperature and acidity of the surrounding seawater. But the oceans are acidifying as they absorb increasing amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Research led by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the University of Queensland shows that corals will be pushed outside their temperature-acidity envelope in the next 20 to 30 years, absent effective international action on emissions. We have less of a handle on pollution.

Over the Brink – CO2 Key Only solving greenhouse gases is sufficient – it swamps all other solutions Ben Goldfarb, New York-based environmental journalist and a student at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He serves as Editor-in-Chief of Sage Magazine, 7-30-2012, “Are Coral Reefs really doomed?” The Independent, http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/31/are-coral-reefs-really- doomed/ Like acidification, warming water is a diffuse danger inflicted by the worldwide burning of fossil fuels. But while carbon emissions represent the greatest existential hazard to corals, many reefs are, at least for now, more damaged by local pressures such as overfishing and agricultural runoff. In the minds of many scientists, the fate of reefs will be determined by whether solving these local, comparatively manageable problems can make corals more resilient against intractable global ones. For example, studies have suggested that large populations of herbivores like parrotfish, which graze seaweed and so prevent reefs from being engulfed by vegetation, can help corals recover from damage. This revelation has led scientists to advocate for the creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to safeguard parrotfish from overfishing and, in turn, preserve corals. But can algae-eating fish fortify reefs against rampant warming and acidification? Probably not: a 2012 study by a trio of American scientists indicated that protected areas haven’t saved reefs from die-offs caused by temperature spikes. “The majority of coral scientists think that creating MPAs will improve coral resilience, but a lot of science suggests that hasn’t worked,” says John Bruno, a marine ecologist at the University of North Carolina and one of the study’s authors. If interventions such as MPAs won’t save corals from runaway carbon, is there any hope that corals will save themselves? Certain species appear to be capable of adjusting to heat stress, and some, like the Northern Star Coral, can increase the pH of their calcifying fluid – the substance they excrete to form skeletons – under acidic conditions. As researchers wrote in Science in 2011, studies that forecast irreversible demise “may not adequately take account of reef organisms’ capacity for coping with stress and their potential for adaptation.” Yet relying on acclimation and evolution is foolhardy, as the slow growth rates of many species impede rapid adaptation. “Corals can do some adapting, but the change that’s coming down the road is too great for them to handle,” says Doug Fenner, a reef ecologist at the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources in American Samoa. “They’re pretty sensitive little animals.” Coral scientists are unanimous on one point: if humans don’t cease pumping copious amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, reefs will eventually perish. “I’ve seen reefs that were destroyed by hurricanes bounce back in a decade,” says Fenner, “so I’m convinced that preventing local abuses can buy us some time. But if we don’t reduce CO2, we’re in deep trouble.” According to a 2007 study, reefs begin to erode faster than they grow when atmospheric CO2 exceeds 450 parts per million; our atmosphere already holds 396 ppm, and emissions show no signs of slowing.

Not Key – Biodiversity Biodiversity and coral health are not connected Kenneth Johnson et al, Department of Paleontology at the Natural History Museum of United Kingdom, 3-14-2008, “Caribbean Reef Development Was Independent of Coral Diversity over 28 Million Years,” Science vol 319, http://www.researchgate.net/publication / 5512282_Caribbean_reef_development_was_independent_of_coral_diversity_over_28_million_years/fi le/3deec517949b75c225.pdf The relationship between natural variations in coral species diversity, reef development, and ecosystem function on coral reefs is poorly understood. Recent coral diversity varies 10-fold among geographic regions, but rates of reef growth are broadly similar, suggesting that diversity is unimportant for reef development. Differences in diversity may reflect regional differences in long-term biotic history in addition to environmental conditions. Using a combination of new and published fossil and stratigraphic data, we compared changes in coral diversity and reef development within the tropical western Atlantic over the past 28 million years. Reef development was unrelated to coral diversity, and the largest reef tracts formed after extinction had reduced diversity by 50%. High diversity is thus not essential for the growth and persistence of coral reefs.

Not Key – Resilient Coral are resilient – they can chemically control their climates Colin Schultz, freelance science writer and editor based in Toronto and contributes to the American Geophysical Union, 10-23-2013, “Coral Reefs Are Fighting Back Against Global Warming,” Smithsonian Magazine, citing “DMSP biosynthesis by an animal and its role in coral thermal stress response,” by Jean- Baptiste Raina et al, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/coral-reefs-are-fighting-back- against-global-warming-5190065/?no-ist= Coral reefs are on the receiving end of the battering ram that is anthropogenic climate change. With their vibrant colors and exotic fish, they’re the poster child of ocean degradation, and they get a lot of attention because they’re on the front lines—their habitats are among the most sensitive to the warming waters. But new research, led by Jean-Baptiste Raina, has found that coral are fighting back: coral can release a chemical, dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP), that helps them engineer their environment and stave off global warming. When DMSP is released to the environment, bacteria living in the water convert it into a different related gas, dimethylsulphide (DMS). DMS, the scientists say, can control the local climate by spurring clouds to form. More DMS means more clouds, and more clouds means cooler ocean waters for the coral to live in. The discovery marks the first time that an animal has been found to produce DMSP. Previously, scientists thought it was the algae living in the coral that made the gas, but the new research found that the coral itself can churn it out. And, perhaps more importantly, corals’ DMSP production goes up when the coral gets stressed. The idea of “DMS-as- climate-regulator,” says Hannah Waters for her blog, Culturing Science, “rose to fame when it starred in one infamous Earth-as-organism idea—the Gaia hypothesis—just a few decades ago.” The Gaia hypothesis, pitched by James Lovelock, is largely bunk, but dimethylsulphide’s effect on the temperature is not. “In order for clouds to form, water has to transition from a gas to liquid—and to do that, it needs a small particle in the air to adhere onto, known as a cloud condensation nucleus. Sulfur aerosols, which are easily formed from DMS, do the trick,” says Waters. Coral are hugely resilient – population rebound in the Great Barrier Reef proves Leonard Ho, editor of the Advanced Aquarist, 6-30-2011, “Rethinking the state of coral reefs,” Advanced Aquarist, http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/rethinking-the-health-of-coral-reefs We are continually inundated with "doom and gloom" news and predictions about the state of coral reefs. However, a recent study of the Great Barrier Reef shows there is "no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995." Scientists surveyed 47 reefs stretching over 1300 km (800 miles) of the GBR, Images from large-scale, permanent monitoring programs were analyzed to determine the percent cover of live hard coral from 1995 to 2009 (using a point-sampling technique in a quincunx pattern). They found that "coral cover increased in six sub-regions and decreased in seven sub- regions," with some changes "being very dynamic and others changing little." Acroporids were largely responsible for these changes. In fact, the study states "Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease." When looking at the data as a whole, they discovered "overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." Contrary to scientific agreement about the degradation of coral reefs, this study concludes that hard coral cover in the GBR has remained relatively stable despite ocean warming and acidification. While mass bleaching events is well-documented fact (1998, 2002, 2006), the study suggests corals' ability to adapt and recover is greater than we might give them credit for.

Even under worst-case scenarios, growth never stops entirely James Vlahos, Contributing Editor at Popular Science, 8-14-2013, “Why Some Coral Reefs Might Survive Climate Change,” Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/apocalypse- averted Some coral may even be able to fight back on their own. Onshore on Moorea, professors Bob Carpenter and Peter Edmunds of California State University, Northridge, pump large tanks containing living coral with various levels of acidity-boosting carbon dioxide. One might expect that in the harshest conditions, the coral would not only stop growing but that their calcium carbonate skeletons would begin to dissolve. Instead, the scientists observed in 2011 that although coral growth slowed as acidity increased, it never stopped entirely, even in their worst-case scenario. The coral even appeared to be bulking up their tissue. And the researchers learned that not all species are created equal. Pocillopora damicornis, a variety of branching coral that is common throughout the South Pacific, barely slowed its growth at all.

Not Key – Resilient – Pacific Pacific coral are super resilient Melissa Gaskill, writer for the Green Blog at the NY Times, 7-16-2012, “When Coral Reefs Recover,” NY Times, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/when-coral-reefs-recover/ Another insight emerging from the symposium is that reefs in the Indo-Pacific region seem to be more resilient and to recover more quickly than those in the Caribbean. Research presented by George Roff and Peter Mumby of the University of Queensland suggested that this is partly because the Indo-Pacific has less seaweed, which competes with corals for space. The seaweed species there bloom more slowly than their Caribbean counterparts, too. And the Indo-Pacific has more abundant species of herbivorous fish to keep seaweed in check. So, less competition with seaweed for space means corals can recover more quickly after taking a hit. Dr. Mumby said that local managers in the Caribbean can seek to maintain healthy parrotfish populations to keep seaweed in check.

Culture hurt by ocean development

Development Hurts Culture Some Native populations are tied to the health of the water they live around—their culture is eroded when these water systems are contaminated or disrupted Brian Bienkowski, Staff Writer Environmental Health News, October 25, 2012, “Contaminated culture: Native people struggle with tainted resources, lost identity”, Accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/contaminated-culture

Before the St. Lawrence River spills into the Atlantic Ocean, it runs through the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne and for centuries gave tribe members water, food and an identity. Straddling the U.S.-Canada border north of New York State and now home to about 12,000, the territory was settled by the Mohawk Nation in the mid-18th century. Almost three centuries later, industry came to the shores. And with industry came contaminants. In the early 1980s, the river was polluted with polychlorinated biphenyls – PCBs – from three aluminum foundries upstream of the Akwesasne. The water, fish and people were tainted with toxic chemicals. But there’s an impact that blood tests can’t measure. The relationships and experiences that took place on the river are now endangered as the community avoids it out of fear. “Fishing is more than throwing a line and bait into the water. Children learned about our culture and their world on that river,” said Katsi Cook, an aboriginal midwife from the Akwesasne community. “Our social practices and identity are tied into the flowing water – its quality of life directly correlates to the life around it.” Since the chemicals were discovered, researchers have found a relationship between PCB concentrations in blood and decreased cognitive and thyroid function, and elevated risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension in the Mohawk Nation, said David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany. Due to the chemicals, the New York Department of Health recommends limiting consumption to a meal a month for most fish, and recommends not eating carp, channel catfish and large lake or brown trout caught in the St. Lawrence River. It also recommends that women over 50 and children under 15 years old do not eat any fish from the river.

Development Hurts Culture Exploiting the ocean as a resource hurts indigenous cultures Dialogue Between Nations, Indigenous People’s action group for rights and self- determination, September 2, 2002, “INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT”, Accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.dialoguebetweennations.com/ir/english/kariocakimberley/IndigenousPeoplesPlan.htm

Fisheries, Marine and Coastal Resources 51. We will maintain and promote our traditional systems for the sustainable harvesting of marine resources. 52. We commit ourselves to maintain our marine and freshwater fisheries resources that many of our peoples depend upon , and we will fight against overfishing, waste and toxic dumping, as well as the impact of tourism, which affect the oceans, coasts and inland waters. 53. We will develop proposals for the protection and management of national and transboundary coastal areas and their biological resources, and we call on States to incorporate these proposals into legal and policy frameworks. 54. We will promote the establishment of new quota regimes on an equal footing with other stakeholders, through national and international negotiations, based on our inalienable historical rights as resource owners and managers. Water 55. We will demonstrate our power and our common interest to protect water and life, by building water alliances and networks worldwide. 56. We call for the creation of an International Regulatory Body to track the trade of water. We oppose and denounce the privatisation of water, as well as the diversion which affects the water resources of our territories. 57. We will demand the establishment of systems for restoration and compensation, to reestablish the integrity of water and ecosystems.

Development Hurts Culture Indigenous populations’ culture is interwoven with their relationship to water Nigel Crawhall, PhD in Sociolinguistics from the University of Cape Town, March 2003, “Indigenous Peoples' Contribution”, Accessed June 12, 2014, http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php- URL_ID=3855&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

The multifaceted relationships of indigenous peoples with their worldviews, rituals, knowledge and know-how, management and systems of tenure - are expressions of the world's cultural diversity. The session will be divided into two parts, focusing first upon water in indigenous spirituality and worldview, and subsequently upon indigenous water management and water rights. It will consider the extent to which indigenous representations, knowledge and practice are given due consideration in water policy development, and present alternatives for a more effective integration of indigenous peoples into decision-making processes that directly impact upon their economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being.

Development Hurts Spirituality Water and resource development is connected to questions of Jann Aldredge-Clanton, Ph.D. minister, author, teacher, chaplain, May 20, 2014, “Indigenous Women and the UN Millennium Development Goals: Challenges and Lessons”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://jannaldredgeclanton.com/blog/?p=2746

Sadly, indigenous women have not played a prominent role in the process of implementing these UN goals. Many people at this UN session commented that indigenous women have not been consulted: “We have been absent from the implementation of the UN Millennium Development Goals. Thus there is almost a complete lack of implementation of goals from the Beijing conference.” The indigenous women focused especially on the UN goal of ensuring environmental sustainability: “The environment has been destroyed. Mother Earth is crying out. Our land has been grabbed, and women and children displaced. The exploitation of natural resources hurts indigenous women and everyone. There is a network of indigenous youth who are studying what’s happening with our water and other natural resources. This intergenerational approach to our advocacy is very important.” Another emphasis of this UN session I attended was the vulnerability of indigenous women and girls to violence partly because of the economic injustice that indigenous people suffer with high rates of unemployment and low-paying jobs. Here are some of the comments: “We must eliminate violence against indigenous women and girls. We can’t have sustainable goals if we continue to have violence against indigenous females. We’ve got to stop trafficking of indigenous girls and women. Human rights include indigenous women and all indigenous people collectively. We need a collective human rights approach. We demand an end to violence—emotional, spiritual , and physical violence . We defend our indigenous cultures and critique our cultures. We realize that our rights as women are also violated by our cultures.”

Development Hurts Spirituality Indigenous groups tend to view water in a spiritual and cultural way but the West thinks of it as a resource Rutgerd Boelens, Coordinato, r, Water Law and Indigenous Rights Programme, 2006, “water and indigenous peoples”, Accessed June 12, 2014, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001453/145353e.pdf

By adopting the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity in 2001, the international community has demonstrated its commitment to recognise the “contribution of traditional knowledge, particularly with regard to environmental protection and the management of natural resources, and fostering synergies between modern science and local knowledge” (Action Plan No14 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity). Yet in the domain of water, a large gap remains between policy and practice. Indigenous peoples from all corners of the globe continue to struggle for acknowledgement and recognition of their own visions of water, both at home and in national, regional and international forums. Almost without exception, their voices remain obscured by a mainstream discourse rooted in a conception of water as a mere commodity. This publication brings some of those indigenous voices to the fore. It includes words from some of the most incisive indigenous critics participating in current international debates on water access, use and management, as well as expressions of indigenous knowledge and transdisciplinary insights with a view to proposing remedies for the global water crisis. It also benefits from the contributions of numerous specialists who share expertise and experience in the fields of anthropology, political science and law.

Development Hurts Spirituality Indigenous cultures have a strong connection to water—Western ocean development infringes on their spirituality David Groenfeldt, anthropologist and independent water consultant—Coordinator of the Indigenous Water Initiative, Accessed June 12, 2014, “Water Development and Spiritual Values in Western and Indigenous Societies”, Accessed June 12, 2014, http://www.waterculture.org/uploads/Groenfeldt_-_Wate_Spirituality.pdf

The spiritual connection to water that indigenous societies maintain as an integral aspect of their culture is a basis for countless water conflicts with outside, predominantly Western forces of development. While Western cultural values do give some attention to a spiritual dimension of water, it is very much a minority view. The dominant value system determining how water is utilized in Western culture is basically an economic one. In indigenous societies the situation is reversed. The dominant cultural perspective places great importance on spiritual aspects of water and water bodies. Internal debates revolving around development options nonetheless often reflect economic considerations promoted by the outside dominant society. More explicit understanding of indigenous value systems by the Western world would help relieve cultural pressure on indigenous societies, and, to the extent the West might emulate indigenous notions of humanityís role vis a vis nature, could benefit the cause of sustainable development worldwide.

Culture & Spirituality Link Both culture and spirituality are important to indigenous peoples’ way of life and they are interconnected Sacred White Buffalo, Native American information resource, April 10, 2014, “About the beliefs and culture of Native Americans”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.sacredwhitebuffalo.org/legend/5

Trying to define Native American culture can be a daunting task. Culture is what can characterize a group and involves the popular beliefs, customs and rituals. This culture is passed on and is carried out by all different Native American tribes throughout history. Stone Age Culture of Native Americans Even though many Native American tribes lived vastly different lifestyles, many still held on to the same customs and beliefs. No matter if they were nomadic or static, they still felt that the land was filled with bountiful gifts that they were blessed with. The culture of Native Americans never changed from the time of the stone age until the Europeans began to migrate to this region. Their tools and weapons had remained primitive over time and they lived a simplistic lifestyle that they enjoyed. Religious Beliefs Many of the religious beliefs that Native Americans held strongly were tied to Animism. Animism is a belief that the Universe and everything that makes up the universe has its own soul or spirit. This means that every plant, tree and stone has its own soul. Other things like storms and fires are also believed to have souls by the Native American people. These type of beliefs allowed for a profound connection and affection for nature. Animals, sun and wind were often worshipped by the Native Americans and they even believed that dances could bring about rain. They prayed to the gods and nature for all that they needed to survive. Spirituality was a prominent part of Native American culture. They felt as though they were one with nature and owed it a great deal of gratitude.

Culture Connected- Multiple Many native cultures are deeply linked to the oceans National Maritime Sanctuary, ocean protection and historic organization, August 13, 2013, “Native Cultures and the Maritime Heritage Program”, accessed June 10, 2014, http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/maritime/cultures.html The Maritime Heritage Program is not only involved in the protection of physical artifacts (cultural, historical, and archaeological resources), but also in increasing appreciation of the many human connections to the sea. This includes an effort to support, understand and learn from diverse maritime histories and experiences, and particularly greater appreciation of indigenous maritime cultures, traditional seafaring , host culture perspectives and traditional marine environmental knowledge. The Maritime Heritage Program seeks to support research into seafaring traditions and the preservation of maritime folklore and knowledge. Understanding the true human dimensions of our protected marine areas is incomplete without an awareness and recognition of the special cultural ties these areas have to indigenous seafaring cultures. Gaining an awareness of the great variety of human connections to the sea can help us all become better stewards of our ocean resources. Some examples of host culture and indigenous seafaring connections to our National Marine Sanctuary System:

Culture Connected- Alaskan Alaskan native cultures are deeply tied to the ocean—culturally and historically for transportation and food Patrick Endres, writer for The Festival of Native Arts– provides cultural education and sharing through traditional Native dance, music, and art, accessed June 10, 2014, “Alaska Native Cultures”, accessed June 10, 2014, http://fna.community.uaf.edu/alaska-native-cultures/ The Native cultures of Alaska are wonderfully rich both in their similarities and diversity. Each group of people interacts with the environment where they settled. The strong influence of Alaska’s varied environments form the ties between the people and their land. Legends, customs, and subsistence lifestyles developed in harmony with the specific area where they settled. To survive in the harsh climates of Alaska, a deep awareness and unity with the living things around them is an absolute necessity. All Native people have great respect for the spirit of each living thing. Respect and cooperation among village members and for all things were the values that guarantee the survival of the people. The Native people of Alaska have traditionally been hunters and food gatherers. Rivers, lakes and the ocean were major passageways, and all the cultures included variations of water vessels among their transport options. Although most of the groups were not truly nomadic, their subsistence made it necessary to cover great distances. Almost all of the groups lived in permanent villages throughout the winter, but moved to fish camps on the rivers in the summer. Most all of Alaska Native cultures, then and now, depend heavily upon fish and marine life of many varieties for subsistence. Land mammals are also used for food and clothing. In addition, gathered vegetation (e.g. mushrooms, seaweed, etc.) and a myriad of berries supplement the diet. Language and culture boundaries between Alaska Native groups are distinct (see interactive map here), and are reflective of the nature of the respective culture.

Culture Connected- Arctic Indigenous Arctic cultures are culturally connected to the oceans and fishing—these traditional cultural expressions are threatened by environmental degradation The Arctic Centre, a national and international hub of information and centre of excellence which conducts multidisciplinary research in changes in the Arctic region, Accessed June 11, 2014, “Arctic Indigenous Peoples”, Accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.arcticcentre.org/InEnglish/SCIENCE-COMMUNICATIONS/Arctic-region/Arctic-Indigenous- Peoples There is a great variation of cultural, historical and economical backgrounds among the groups. However, a common feature for most of the indigenous communities in the Arctic is that they have already undergone substantial changes due to the globalization of the western way of life, state policies, modern transport and the introduction of mixed economy. In general, indigenous people have a specific connection to land that they have inhabited. Other features, for example distinct language, culture and traditional livelihoods such as reindeer herding, fishing and hunting are characteristics of indigenous people in the Arctic. Industrialization, social change and environmental problems such as climate change, however, present threats to the continuity of these livelihoods and culture. Recently, political organization of indigenous peoples has led to international recognition and clarification of human and political rights concerning indigenous populations. Rights to land and natural resources are an important part of the culture and survival of indigenous peoples in the Arctic.

Culture Connected- Northwest Natives Northwest Native Americans are culturally linked to the oceans and ocean life Northwest Coast Native Americans, Native American cultural organization, 2012, “The Indigenous People of the United States”, Accessed June 10, 2014, http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/native-american-indians/northwest-native-americans.htm

The climate, land and natural resources that were available to the Indian tribes resulted in the adoption of the Northwest Coast Native Americans culture. Name of Group: Northwest Coast Native Americans Languages: Siouan, Algonquian, Caddoan, Uto-Aztecan and Athabaskan Geography of the State of Northwest Coast Native Americans: Heavy rainfall, tall dense forests, oceans, mountains and rivers. Animals: Mountain goats and sheep, deer, moose, bear and elk. Fish: Fish and Sea animals including seals, whales, salmon and shell fish Natural Resources: Red cedar trees, forests, mountains Culture and Lifestyle adopted: Fishers Clothing: Raincoats were made from the inner bark of the cedar tree Types of housing, homes or shelters: Plankhouses aka Longhouses Famous Tribes of Northwest Coast Native Americans: Haida, Chinook, Eyak, Coast Salish, Tlingit, Tillamook and Chimakum The Native Indians who lived on the borders of lands often reflected two different types of lifestyles. The mild climate, fertile land and a large variety of natural resources that were available to the Indian tribes resulted in the adoption of the hunter fisher culture shared by the Northwest Coast Native Americans along the Pacific coast from British Columbia to the top of Northern California. This section on Northwest Coast Native Americans group provides facts and information about their languages, the Geography and Environment. The animals and the Plants, Trees and Crops provided their food, clothing, shelter and decorations. Their Houses, Shelters and Homes depended on the materials available to them and whether the home was permanent or temporary. There are also facts and info about the Religion, Ceremonies and Beliefs of the Northwest Coast Native Americans group. Tribes included those who spoke the Athapaskan language including the Haida and Tlingit and those who spoke the Penutian language including the Chinook and the Coos.

Culture Connected- Midwest Indigenous peoples have a connection to water resources—not just about subsistence but deep cultural and communal connections National Endowment for the Humanities Public Programs, an independent federal agency created in 1965. It is one of the largest funders of humanities programs in the United States, Accessed June 28, 2014, “Cultural Identity”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://publications.newberry.org/indiansofthemidwest/identities/cultural-identity/

Cultural identity is anchored in a deep emotional bond with the homeland (or locally-used territories). The Great Lakes region is woodlands with many lakes and rivers that enabled the indigenous people to survive. They have always obtained subsistence by hunting, fishing, and harvesting rice, maple sugar, and the other native plants. In the late 19th century, the concept of “trust land” (Indian land to which the federal government held title) became culturally associated with economic security and tribal sovereignty, and these ideas persist in the present. In the homeland are many sacred sites that have meaning and evoke powerful emotions for Native people. Subsistence by hunting, fishing, and harvesting native plants has never been merely a means to survive. These are religious acts and vehicles for social cohesion. Survival has always been difficult and individuals have not been able to count on being successful in the search for game or other resources. Sharing among family members and “gift-giving” (including feasting) between groups of non-kin worked as a form of social insurance. Relatives had to work cooperatively in many economic pursuits. The common view was that the natural resources belonged to all the people and individuals were only entitled to use rights. Today, tribal resources, including income from tribally owned businesses, are available to all. The game animals and plant resources also allowed the indigenous peoples to participate in regional commerce from the time of contact with Europeans to the present. Today, traditional subsistence activity is culturally associated with tribal sovereignty, and tribes own businesses, including fish processing plants.

Culture Impact Culture is important to indigenous people, determines identity, way or life, and political empowerment Stephanie Brzezinski, writer for Lanhorn news, April 2, 2014, “Indigenous culture fights language war”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.lanthorn.com/article/2014/04/indigenous-culture- fights-language-war

“ Language and culture are also inextricably connected,” Wroblewski said. “These concepts are especially important to indigenous cultures such as the Amazonian Kichwa — my primary community of study — whose minority language and culture have been historically threatened by dominant, Spanish-speaking culture.” It is from this ongoing struggle over Kichwa language revitalization that Wroblewski chose the term “Alphabet Wars” for the title of his presentation. He explained that this involves a new standard alphabet called Unified Kichwa, which marks political ideology and social status. “The ‘war’ is very much an ideological, rather than physical , one, but it is nevertheless quite overt and quite heated in the area where I do research,” he said. The other major way the indigenous people are creating new identities is through urban folklore. Wroblewski said this includes traditional performances in music and dance, oratories, beauty pageants and agriculture exhibits. He said these are important to the community because they help raise awareness about their threatened native language and culture. “The city stages have become important creative venues for revitalizing and redefining linguistic and cultural identity, as well as important sites of indigenous political empowerment,” he said.

Culture Impact Preservation of Native culture is important Alyssa Vandenberg, writer for UC Davis newspaper, April 30, 2014, “UC Davis celebrates Native American Culture Days”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.theaggie.org/2014/04/30/uc- davis-celebrates-native-american-culture-days/

“ Native American Culture Days is important to the Davis community because of the significance of indigenous cultures and connecting culture and place,” said Crystal Marich, program coordinator and advisor at the CCC. “Also, it helps in recognizing and respecting the culture that really came before UC Davis. It really gives voice to our native students on campus. A lot of times they feel invisible or that their culture is invisible. It’s really empowering and a way for them to share their culture.” According to Marich, the students have a lot of creative freedom in planning the week’s events. Events are planned based on the political climate, campus climate and the priorities of the students in the committee. Several events are also planned in conjunction with the LGBTQIAQ Resource Center and Native American Studies Department at UC Davis. Monique Merritt, a committee intern at the LGBTQIAQ Resource Center and a second- year psychology and women and gender studies double major, participated in the Native American Culture Days committee in planning. “I really feel like there is not enough awareness or knowledge about Native American people, which is really problematic because these were the people taking care of the land we all live on now,” Merritt said. “Far too often the Native American people are tokenized and made fun of. Their culture is constantly appropriated. Native American Culture Days are an opportunity to share their community and the aspects people need to know to understand the culture better. It also provides a space for those who identify as Native American on campus to feel accepted.”

Culture Impact Native culture allows generational connections and larger group solidarity Takiyah Tanner, writer for Native American Renaissance, March 26, 2014, “Grass Dancing”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://sites.psu.edu/nativewriters/2014/03/26/grass-dancing- takiyah-tanner/

The Grass Dancer by Susan Power proved itself to be a phenomenal work of literature and quite an interesting cultural text, to the say the least. It seems as though grass dancing acts as sort of the underlying theme in the novel, in the sense that performing the dance within the community provides unity to the Sioux people. The title of the text alone made me extremely curious to learn more about grass dancing and its origin. When I come up with these sorts of questions and ideas about Native culture and tradition, I always wish that my grandmothers and great grand parents were alive to answer them for me, accurately, but since I don’t have that luxury anymore, I turn to the internet for answers. First, I learned that, “The name “Grass Dance” comes from the custom of some tribes wearing braided grass in their belts.” From additional research, I also discovered that although the origin of indigenous grass dancing is unclear, many tribes in the northern plains, such as the Omaha-Ponca peoples and the Dakota Sioux peoples, have sort of claimed the roots of the dance, and are very much acknowledged for its origins. Usually the dance would be performed by men, but nowadays, some women incorporate movements and styles of grass dancing into other traditional dances, More important, the dance is now performed by Natives of all different tribes and locations, to “preserve indigenous unity.” I guess at this point the origin doesn’t really matter much, as long as the Native people cherish and respect the significance of the dance, and use it to connect their people with the indigenous culture and tradition that is important to native culture.

Culture not hurt by ocean development

Native Culture Resilient Native cultural practices are resilient—they can survive outside threats Gisela Telis, writer for Arizona Public Media, September 17, 2013, “Researchers Explore Roots of American Indian Resilience”, Accessed June 28, 2014, https://www.azpm.org/p/top- news/2013/9/17/26841-researchers-explore-roots-of-american-indian-resilience/

But resilience —the ability to cope with hard times in positive ways— can also have a physiological impact, and it can grow from Native American cultural and spiritual traditions. New Directions and many other treatment centers across the country are finding that when they incorporate traditional practices, such as talking circles and sweat lodges, people are less likely to drop out of treatment and more likely to enjoy better outcomes. Prevention programs that incorporate cultural activities also tend to be more effective. Scientists are still trying to figure out why, Begay said. “There’s almost been nothing done, as far as research is concerned, on the neurophysiological and physiological impact of Native American prayer [and] Native American ceremony,” he said. Begay and his colleagues have found that meditation and other spiritual practices induce physiological changes that ease the stress response and help build resilience in the process.

Native Culture Resilient Cultural ties among AI’s (American Indians) are resilient—social support networks make their culture resilient Glenna Stumblingbear-Riddle, PhD & councelor at University of Oklahoma, Accessed June 28, 2014, “Resilience among urban american indian adolescents: Exploration into the role of culture, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and social support”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/PublicHealth/research/centers/CAIANH/journal/Docume nts/Volume%2019/19(2)_Stumblingbear-Riddle_Resilience_Urban_AI_Youth_1-19.pdf

This study adds to the literature by exploring the resilience of urban AI adolescents in a culturally informed manner (i.e., the study used a CBPR research model, which incorporated the valued participation of and feedback from the AI agency and its community advisory board). Such research is increasingly important as more AI adolescents reside in urban areas and are faced with problems specific to urbanization (Powers, 2006; Safran et al., 1994; Snipp, 1995). Although the primary intent of the study was to explore the role of culture, this study extends resilience research by illustrating the unique and strong influence of social support from friends as a protective factor in terms of resilience among urban AI adolescents. This outcome was not anticipated but reveals a unique finding and a key difference between urban and reservation-dwelling AI adolescents. Also, in general, this study in general supports and complements prior resilience research that has noted the positive impact of cultural, personal, environmental, and familial factors among AI adolescents.

Native Spirituality Resilient Spiritual resilience can be fostered in Native peoples Department of Clinical and Professional Studies, University of West Georgia, university researchers, March 2014, “Invited commentary: Fostering resilience among Native American youth through therapeutic intervention.”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24096529

This article offers a comprehensive overview and understanding of the needs of Native American Youth for researchers, educators, and practitioners based on current research and practice. Strengths and protective factors are discussed in terms of Native strengths in context, the strengths and resilience of Native ways, Indigenous ways of knowing, the relationship between cultural identity and the tribal nation, the importance of family, the roles of the wisdom keepers, spiritual ways , and communication styles. Contextual influences are explored in terms of the relationship between history and healing from intergenerational grief and trauma, the influence of acculturation, as well as current social, economic, and political issues that affect Native youth. Implications for research and therapeutic intervention are explored in terms of healing from historical trauma and oppression. The authors offer an overview of common presenting issues and recommendations, practical tribally-specific interventions, and reflections on what it means to work from a social justice and client/community advocacy perspective with a focus on providing effective therapeutic, culturally-based interventions with Native children and adolescents that promote resilience and foster positive development with this population.

Native Spirituality Resilient Native way of life and spirituality is resilient—survived for generations and is adaptive Michelle Hassler, writer for News Net Nebraska—College of Journalism and Mass Media, December 9, 2013, “Keeping with tradition: How Native America adapted and thrived in Indian Territory” http://cojmc.webfactional.com/2013/12/09/keeping-with-tradition-how-native-america- readapted-and-thrived-in-indian-territory/

This attempt to destroy a culture tested the will of Native Americans, but it proved unsuccessful: Traditional ceremonies and the use of herbal remedies ran too deep in Native culture to be taken away so easily. Today, for example, Choctaw still use the same herbal medicines as their ancestors did centuries ago. Such traditions are important cultural pieces on which they rely to explain nature and their surroundings, especially in times of drastic change like Removal. Ultimately, every Nation had to rebuild the ceremonial grounds that had been part of their lives in the Southeast. The land in what was to become Oklahoma was drastically different, and establishing an appropriate place for the sacred dances and meetings was difficult. Just remembering and duplicating ceremonies after time and distance had passed was a daunting task. “Here’s people who just had this traumatic experience, and now they have to remember, ‘What exactly did we do?’’’ said Rosemary McCombs, a Muskogee Creek and the first Native woman ordained by the Church of Christ. On these ceremonial grounds, men and women kept their traditional roles. Adapting to the new environment and maintaining medicines for ceremonies became easier once nations had time to readapt, but Christian influences from boarding schools and missionaries changed the way ceremonies would be held. When men and women returned home from boarding schools, usually after more than a year, they had often lost the ability to speak their Native language. The line of communication within families suffered as a result and meant that some could no longer participate in ceremonies. The decision to survive But these two separate worlds – traditional ceremonies and white America’s Christian faith – overlapped. Native women tended to approach both worlds the same, and women leaders who participated in the Christian church could still be present at the ceremonial grounds as shell shakers, McCombs said.

Native Spirituality Resilient The government previously banned all Native religious practice in the US—the fact their religious practices survived proves they are resilient Dr. Kelly S. Meier, professor—master's degree and doctorate from Minnesota State University, Mankato, Accessed June 29, 2014, “The Political Freedoms Denied to the American Indians During the 1800s”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://classroom.synonym.com/political-freedoms- denied-american-indians-during-1800s-12640.html

The 1800s marked the quest for peace between the American Indians and the U.S. government. Land that was once American Indian property slowly slipped into the hands of white settlers. Treaties and agreements were introduced to bring order and encourage assimilation. The American Indian people soon learned that survival was predicated on conforming to the white man’s way. Stripped of their ability to function autonomously and lacking recognition as American citizens, the Indian people experienced tumult and unrest. The U.S government was fearful of Native American religious practices because they felt they would result in activist behavior. This concern was underscored by the massacre at Wounded Knee on Dec. 29, 1890. In an effort to exercise control over their behavior, the U.S. government outlawed all religious practices by the American Indians. This meant that the native peoples were prohibited from participating in religious ceremonies or exercising their religious freedom in any form. The government felt they could impose this restriction because American Indians were not citizens.

Native Culture Not Monolithic Native culture is not monolithic—can’t claim some universal connection to water or the ocean ICTMN Staff, Indian Country Today Media Network—Native American news outlet, June 8, 2012, “13 Rock Stars Who've Worn Native Headdresses (and Probably Shouldn't Have)”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/06/08/13-rock-stars-whove-worn-native- headdresses-and-probably-shouldnt-have-116757

Adrienne K of Native Appropriations writes that a non-Indian casually wearing an Indian headdress "furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don't walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native." She also draws attention to the deep spiritual significance of a headdress and maintains that when a non-Indian wears one "it's just like wearing blackface." In a post at mycultureisnotatrend.tumblr.com the author writes of wearing the headdress: "Unfortunately if you’re a woman, you’re thumbing your nose at our culture which explicitly disallows you to wear the headdress. ... If you’re a man, it’s still not appropriate to wear one, unless you’ve actually earned it, according to your tribe (no, you cannot pretend you’ve made a new tribe etc.)" We won't pretend that every single Native would agree with these statements—Indians are not a monolithic culture—but certainly many, perhaps even most, would say they dislike the headdress's status as a gimmicky costume or hipster fashion accessory. But non-Native musicians seem particularly enamored of it—here are a baker's dozen who've donned the feathers: British band Jamiroquai gets its name from tacking "jam" onto (slightly misspelled) "Iroquois." So lead singer Jay Kay obviously digs the Indians in his own jammy way. Although perhaps he does not dig them enough to do the research.

Native Culture Not Monolithic Native culture is not all the same—can’t claim some universal tie to ocean life Annenberg Lerner, online resource for teachers, Accessed June 29, 2014, “Souls in Need of Salvation, Satan's Agents, or Brothers in Peace?: English Settlers' Views of Native Americans”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.learner.org/amerpass/unit03/context_activ-2.html

When English immigrants set sail for the "New World" in the early seventeenth century, many of them believed that they would be settling what William Bradford called "a vast and unpeopled country." When they arrived in America, however, they found not an empty wilderness but a developed region with a large population of Native Americans. Despite tendencies to view "the Indians" as a monolithic group, it is important to realize that Native American culture was extremely diverse; different tribes spoke different languages, created different political structures, and developed distinct cultural practices. Often, they fought among themselves over rights to land and game. Native American communities developed different strategies for dealing with the European settlers who began descending on their land in the seventeenth century: some opted to resist, some fled their traditional homelands, some sought accommodation, and some struck compromises. Cultural misunderstandings and intolerance plagued Indian-European relations, hampering negotiations and sometimes leading to violent confrontations.

Native Spirituality Not Monolithic Can’t claim a monolithic view of Native spirituality—too diverse Patti Wigington, over twenty years of experience in studying modern Pagan belief systems, August 26, 2013, “Native American Spirituality”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/pagantraditions/a/Native-American-Spirituality.htm

Many modern Pagans, particularly in the United States, include various aspects of Native American spirituality in their practice and belief. This is for a variety of reasons - some people are descended from the many tribes that are indigenous to North America, and so are paying homage to the beliefs of their ancestors. Others, with no discernible genetic link whatsoever, find themselves drawn to Native American beliefs simply because those practices and stories happen to resonate with them on a spiritual level. It’s impossible to write a summary of Native American spirituality that encompasses all the aspects of the belief systems - after all, there were hundreds of tribes, from all over North America, and their beliefs and practices were as varied as they were. A tribe in a southeastern mountainous area had very different elements to their beliefs than, say, a tribe from the plains of South Dakota. Environment, climate, and the natural world around them all had an impact on how these beliefs evolved.

Native Spirituality Not Monolithic Native spirituality is diverse Suzanne Owen, Associate senior lecturer in theology and religious studies at the Leeds Trinity College, UK, April 30, 2014, “The Appropriation of Native American Spirituality”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/the-appropriation-of-native-american- spirituality/

Native Americans and Canadians are largely romanticised or sidelined figures in modern society. Their spirituality has been appropriated on a relatively large scale by Europeans and non-Native Americans, with little concern for the diversity of Native American opinions. Suzanne Owen offers an insight into appropriation that will bring a new understanding and perspective to these debates. This important volume collects together these key debates from the last 25 years and sets them in context, analyses Native American objections to appropriations of their spirituality and examines â New Age’ practices based on Native American spirituality. The Appropriation of Native American Spirituality includes the findings of fieldwork among the Milkman of Newfoundland on the sharing of ceremonies between Native Americans and First Nations, which highlights an aspect of the debate that has been under-researched in both anthropology and religious studies: that Native American discourses about the breaking of â protocols’, rules on the participation and performance of ceremonies, is at the heart of objections to the appropriation of Native American spirituality.

A/T Spirituality Threats—Alt Causes Multiple threats to Native spirituality—lack of government protections ICTMN Staff, Indian Country Today Media Network—Native American news outlet, June 20, 2014, “National Sacred Places Prayer Days Begins Today”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/20/national-sacred-places-prayer-days-begins- today-155413?page=0%2C0

The National Congress of American Indians has called for better protection of sacred sites using existing laws and policies. Many feel that President Barack Obama hasn’t lived up to campaign promises. During his 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama addressed this issue in his Native American policy platform for religious freedom, cultural rights and sacred places protection: “Native American sacred places and site-specific ceremonies are under threat from development, pollution, and vandalism. Barack Obama supports legal protections for sacred places and cultural traditions, including Native ancestors’ burial grounds and churches.” Toward the end of 2012, five federal entities—Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Energy and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation—signed a five-year Memorandum of Understanding “to improve the protection of and tribal access to Indian sacred sites through improved interdepartmental coordination and collaboration.” “The MOU does nothing of substance to protect sacred places, but provides for recommendations and a report by the end of 2017, the first year of the next Administration,” says a press release from The Morning Star Institute.

A/T Spirituality Threats—Alt Causes Use of peyote in some Native religious ceremonies disqualifies Natives from government benefits such as unemployment John Perr, writer for The Daily Kos online political analysis outlet, June 29, 2014, “Religious freedom frauds”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/29/1309930/-Religious-freedom-frauds#

And RFRA came into response to Justice Antonin Scalia and his 1990 run-in with peyote. In Employment Division v. Smith, Scalia wrote the majority opinion rejecting the claims of two Native Americans denied unemployment benefits for having ingested peyote in keeping with their religious practices. "To permit this," he wrote in Smith, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind," he wrote, "ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races. Alas, that was then and this is now. Though Congress since passed and President Clinton signed RFRA in 1993 in response to Scalia's 6-3 majority opinion in Smith, it was not designed as a sword for businesses. "Once you went into the commercial marketplace," the law's architect Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) explained, "It was always understood you were subject to the law there." Nevertheless, the court's conservative wing—including Justice Scalia—has given every indication that past precedent will be no indication of future performance. As the New York Times demonstrated in May, "For Justices, Free Speech Often Means 'Speech I Agree With.'"

A/T Spirituality Threats—Alt Causes Historical and ongoing threats to Native religious way of life The Pluralism Project at Harvard University, studies immigration, religious freedom, and promotes religious tolerance, Accessed June 29, 2014, “Religious Freedom for Native Americans”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://pluralism.org/religion/native-american/issues/religious- freedom

Even as U.S. policy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries tried to bring Native people under the protections and responsibilities of U.S. law, authorities often deemed Native ceremonies and beliefs “savage” or “primitive,” impediments to religious and cultural assimilation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was situated under the War Department of the U.S. government until 1849, when it became part of the Home Department, later the Department of the Interior. Between 1887 and 1934, official policy entrusted a great deal of discretionary authority on any given reservation to agents of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and to Christian missionaries. Violations of religious freedom seldom required Congressional action. Some ceremonies were simply outlawed outright by Executive Order, such as the Great Sun Dance of the Lakota and other Northern Plains Indians or the Ghost Dance, an intertribal visionary and prophetic movement that preached renewal and revitalization through moral reform and ceremonial dance. The 200 Lakota men, women, and children who were massacred in 1890 at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, were associated with the Ghost Dance movement, thought by the United States to be a threat to order and safety. Often the violation of religious freedom was far more subtle. At each reservation, authorities distributed treaty payments—in the form of food, clothing, livestock, and farming capital—at their own discretion. They developed a system of rewards and punishments in which Native people, sometimes starving from lack of resources, were forced to give up the public display of their traditions simply to survive. Public expressions of ritual and belief had to go underground, even in cases where treaty agreements stipulated the freedom to practice traditional religious ways.

A/T Culture Threats—Alt Causes Lots of other environmental threats to Native culture and way of life Zoltán Grossman, writer for online news organization, April 23, 2014, “Cowboy Indian Alliance and other Unlikely Environmental Alliances”, Accessed June 29, 2014, https://portside.org/2014-04-23/cowboy-indian-alliance-and-other-unlikely-environmental-alliances

It's not everyday you see cowboys helping to set up a tipi encampment, but that's what is happening this week on the National Mall. An unlikely alliance of white ranchers and Native American activists, known as the Cowboy Indian Alliance, has erected the tipi encampment in the nation's capital to protest plans for the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The Alliance (with the ironic acronym 'CIA') brings together Native Americans with white ranchers and farmers--the archetypal enemies of the American West--to protect their common land and water. The Cowboy Indian Alliance may seem like an unprecedented type of environmental movement--multiracial, rooted in struggling rural communities, and often more effective in its grassroots organizing than traditional urban-based white upper/middle class environmental groups--but it is also part of a long, proud tradition that has been conveniently covered up in American history. Our history books present Manifest Destiny as inevitable and uncontested in the 19th century, so we never read about the white Wisconsin settlers who opposed the forced removal of Ho-Chunk and Ojibwe, the Washington settlers put on trial for sympathizing with Coast Salish resistance, or other atypical stories that highlight the "paths not followed" of cooperation rather than conflict. Since at least the 1970s, unlikely alliances have joined Native communities with their rural white neighbors--some of whom had been their adversaries in treaty rights conflicts--to safeguard their local environment. These unique convergences have confronted mines, pipelines, dams, logging, power lines, nuclear waste, military projects, and other threats to Native peoples and white ranchers, farmers, and fishers. I was involved in groups such as the Black Hills Alliance in South Dakota and the Midwest Treaty Network in Wisconsin, which stopped the world's largest mining companies, by bringing together Native and white communities that had previously been at odds over natural resources.

A/T Culture Threats—Alt Causes There are lots of threats to Native culture and existence—they’re all bigger threats than the plan and are happening now Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers , writers for Truth-Out, online social activism website, October 9, 2013, “It Is Time to Recognize the National Sovereignty and Human Rights of Native Indians”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19323-it-is-time-to- recognize-the-national-sovereignty-and-human-rights-of-native-indians

The US government attempted to eradicate Native Indian languages and cultures and did not allow the practice of their religion. Native Indian children were forced to attend boarding schools, where they were "re-educated" to adopt the English language and customs. Native Indians continue to face serious threats to their basic existence today because of government policies that allow mining and energy- extraction corporations to pollute their water and land and steal their resources. This has been going on for decades. We wrote in 2013 about the thousands of open pit uranium mines on tribal land throughout the West that are connected to high rates of cancer, birth defects and other serious health conditions. Native Indians suffer with high levels of incarceration, illiteracy, unemployment, alcoholism and addiction because of polices that have mistreated them since the European colonizers came to North America. One tool used as a weapon against the indigenous people is the rule of law. The story of the formation and passage of the Declaration of the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples illustrates how this is done. White Face's book describes the process of drafting the agreement and compares three versions of the text, beginning with one drafted and agreed upon by indigenous peoples and ending with one they did not approve or consent to.

A/T Culture Threats—Alt Causes Climate change possess major threat to Native culture—happening now Indianz.com, online resource for Native American news, June 20, 2014, “Opinion: Climate change report shows threat to Native peoples”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://indianz.com/News/2014/014121.asp

The Climate Assessment presents twelve major findings, each of which is supported by a substantial amount of evidence. One of the major findings is: “Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, and ways of life .” The evidence supporting this finding is presented in Chapter 12 of the Climate Assessment, which is captioned “Indigenous Peoples, Lands, and Resources.” This chapter states that climate change impacts on many tribes “are projected to be especially severe,” and that “adaptive responses to multiple social and ecological challenges arising from climate impacts on indigenous communities will occur against a complex backdrop of centuries-old cultures already stressed by historical events and contemporary conditions.” This chapter also observes that Native populations are vulnerable to climate change impacts “because their physical, mental, intellectual, social, and cultural well-being is traditionally tied to a close relationship with the natural world, and because of their dependence on the land and resources for basic needs such as medicine, shelter, and food.”

Government Incentives Bad

Private Ocean Energy Development Government shouldn’t invest in ocean energy—expensive, unproven, and can be done by the private sector. Government intervention slows the process Ken Silverstein, an award-winning journalist who is the editor-in-chief of EnergyBiz Insider, September 3, 2013, “Ocean Energy Has Vast Potential but Many Waves to Skirt”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/09/ocean-energy-has-vast-potential-many-waves- skirt

It’s an unstoppable wave. That’s what proponents are saying about marine and hydro-kinetic energy, which uses water to generate electricity. To that end, the U.S. Department of Energy just said it would invest $16 million in 17 different projects that capture energy from waves and tides. Philosophically, advocates of the green energy form say that it is another arrow in the quiver of the nation’s energy portfolio. As such, it increases reliability while also being environmentally friendly. But detractors say that the energy form is unproven and expensive, and that governments should not fund such risks. “It is three-to-five years before we are commercial,” says Sean O’Neill, president of theOcean Renewable Energy Coalition. “For every dollar we spend as a government, there are dollars that will come from the private sector .” O’Neill explained in a phone interview that economic development hinges on access to electricity and potable water, as well as sanitation. As far as the oceans go, he says that humankind has not been good environmental stewards. That has made it difficult to get wave buoys or tidal turbines into the water, he says, adding that it can take 5-to-10 years to get all permits. Altogether, between 17 and 25 different permits are necessary from federal and state regulators alike. The monitors, meanwhile, are good civil servants who are obliged to uphold laws while they also try to be facilitators. Nevertheless, O’Neill complains that the patchwork of governance is complex and that it creates unnecessary delays .

Government Incentives Bad—No Innovation Government funding and innovation don’t mix—the government, by nature, is risk averse whereas industry is prone to take big risks for big rewards Russ Linden, a management educator and author. His major areas of expertise include change management, performance improvement and collaboration, March 12, 2014, “Innovation and Government's Fear of Failure”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col-innovation-government-overcoming-fear- failure.html

When it comes to trying something new in the public sector, we're especially averse to risk. But there are ways to gain support for these kinds of initiatives. "Why can't government be run like a business?" How often have we heard that question? In my mind, many government functions should be run in a business-likefashion; help-desk units, customer-service offices, financial transactions and dozens of other government activities should seek out and adopt the best private-sector practices. But many Americans really don't want government to act like a business if that means investing their tax dollars in innovative (and thus risky) programs. Any experienced entrepreneur knows that the process of innovation involves trial and error, and often failure. Think of your favorite high-tech companies. Many of them -- Apple, Twitter and PayPal, among others -- began with failures. Indeed, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have a mantra: "Fail fast, fail often." They know that you rarely get it right the first time. Develop the product, get the "beta version" in the hands of some users, learn what doesn't work, fix it and repeat the process until you have a winner. While most Americans are delighted to use the amazing products that survive this process, we are ambivalent at best about the risks of innovation in the public sector. Take Solyndra, a clean-energy startup that received over $500 million in federal loan guarantees and left taxpayers holding the bag when it went bust in 2011. Politicians and many other Americans were outraged, and it became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign. Yet when the signs of a resurgence in clean-tech companies became apparent in 2013, few in the media bothered to cover it.

Government Incentives Bad—General Government intervention into the economy slows down the speed of business, innovation, and effective results Clifford Winston, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies/ Searle Freedom Trust Senior Fellow, December 4, 2013, “Government Implementation of Large-Scale Projects: Government Failure, Its Sources, and Implications for the ACA Website Launch”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2013/12/04-government-implementation-large-scale- projects-winston

What does the empirical evidence indicate about government’s involvement in projects and services to correct market failures and achieve social goals? My 2006 Brookings book, Government Failure Versus Market Failure, indicated government’s efforts generally resulted in substantial losses in economic efficiency and missed opportunities to benefit society in a cost-efficient manner. Here I provide a brief overview and update of my findings. The federal government, sometimes in collaboration with state and local governments, is responsible for financing and managing highways, airports, air traffic control, inland waterways, urban transit, and intercity passenger rail. In the appendix, I present a table that summarizes the economic inefficiencies and annual welfare costs from public provision of infrastructure and urban transit that appeared in my Journal of Economic Literature, September 2013 survey of the performance of the US transportation system. The total annual cost of the economic efficiencies exceeds $100 billion. The inefficiencies are attributable to the fact that government’s provision and management of transportation services has not been guided by economic principles: prices do not reflect social marginal costs, especially a user’s contribution to congestion and delays; investments are not based on cost- benefit analysis and on accurate forecasts of costs and benefits and have therefore failed to maximize net benefits; and operating costs are significantly inflated by regulations.

Picking Winners/ Losers Bad Picking winners and losers for innovation and business fails—institutionalizes government subsidies which are counter productive Nick Novak, writer for the Maciver Institute—free market advocacy group, January 16, 2014, “Winners and Losers: The Impact of Government Incentives”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.maciverinstitute.com/research/2014/01/winners-and-losers-the-impact-of-government- incentives/

For example, taxpayers pay an extra $3.7 billion every year in sugar price supports. That is lot of money, but it only costs each man, woman, and child in America an extra $12 a year. It is very unlikely that anyone will write their congressman or fight against that small of a personal cost. But, the sugar farmers will lobby for it continuously because they each get a major chunk of that subsidy. Even though this provides a nice incentive for the sugar industry, the sugar-using food and beverage industry has lost 127,000 jobs since 1997. At the same time, US and Mexican sugar production has increased up to 25 percent because of the artificial price supports leading to massive surpluses. This is a real world example of firms producing a product based on the incentive, and not what the market demands. Conclusion While it may seem like a good idea to provide incentives to businesses in a state, the data shows that it is anything but. The government picks winners and losers, creates an unstable economy, and businesses will eventually make whatever gets them the best incentive from the government. It is simple. Low (or non-existent) taxes that are more equitable across the board and fewer "winners and losers" incentives will lead to greater prosperity within a state. After all, the best economic development program is to not need one.

Picking Winners/ Losers Bad Picking winners and losers inherently fails—free markets are the best way to improve the economy and develop technology Beauford Observer, online news organization, November 06, 2013, “The folly of government trying to pick winners and losers”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-11-06-269778.112112- The-folly-of-government-trying-to-pick-winners-and-losers.html#123

One of the real quagmires that government creates is when it attempts to pick winners and losers in the economic sector. The decision to choose one industry or business to help while not treating all others the same is based on a false presumption that policy makers and bureaucrats know better than millions of individuals who are acting in their perceived best interests—otherwise known as the free market. Government interventions seldom produce as much net good as they cause hurt. For example, most business managers know about "opportunity costs." That is the concept that if you use your resources for one thing you can seldom also use those same resources for something else. You pick and choose, usually which will produce the greater good, according to your standards. But government does not do that. At least not very often. It will confiscate money from some businesses who would use those funds in a productive manner and give those funds to companies that will make less productive use of the resources—and call it " economic development " when what is actually going on is economic damage. Beaufort County has certainly seen its share of self-defeating picking and choosing between special interests that squandered millions of dollars in taxpayer resources.

Tax Breaks Bad—Economy Tax breaks are a form of corporate welfare—hurts the economy when we artificially create economic cushions for industry Mark Funkhouser, former Kansas City mayor and auditor, is the publisher of Governing and director of the Governing Institute, November 25, 2013, “How to Stop the Economic Development Wars”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.governing.com/gov- institute/funkhouser/col-economic-development-incentives-federal-law-washington-state-seattle- boeing.html

Tax incentives and other giveaways to business don't create prosperity. It's time for a federal law to stop the bribery and make better use of capitalism's strengths. For several decades we have been conducting an economic- policy experiment in state and local governments, and now it's time to stop the testing because the results are clear: The dominant paradigm, incentive-fueled competition among these governments, does not create economic prosperity. Two big facts confirm this conclusion. First, as the New York Times reported last December, states, counties and cities are giving up more than $80 billion each year to companies in tax breaks, outright cash payments, and buildings and worker training. Second, the wages of the taxpayers who have been footing the bill for this stuff have been flat since at least 1979. Indeed, some economists, including stalwarts of the establishment like Larry Summers, have concluded that we are now in an economy whose normal state is one of mild depression as a result of inadequate demand. It seems obvious that the lack of demand is the result of depressed wages. The bankruptcy of the current approach to economic development has reached its apotheosis in the Boeing deal in Washington State, in which the corporation demanded both a massive subsidy from the state and significant wage and benefit concessions from its workers. The state acquiesced, granting Boeing $8.7 billion -- the largest state-tax giveaway in the nation's history -- to keep production of the new 777x airliner in the Seattle region. The workers showed more spine. The president of the machinists' union called the company's proposal for compensation cuts "a piece of crap," and the union voted to reject the deal by a two-to-one margin.

Tax Breaks Bad—Economy Tax incentives don’t work—spend billions for little gain Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that works on federal, state, and local tax policy issues, August 14, 2013, “Tax Incentives: Costly for States, Drag on the Nation”, Accessed June 29, 2014 http://itep.org/itep_reports/2013/08/tax-incentives-costly-for-states-drag-on-the-nation.php#.U7DU- vldV8E

Tax incentives are intended to spur economic growth that would not have otherwise occurred. More specifically, these narrowly targeted tax breaks are usually offered in an attempt to convince businesses to relocate, hire, and/or invest within a state’s borders. But state and local tax incentives come at an enormous cost. While a comprehensive accounting of these programs is impossible, the best available estimates suggest that states and localities are devoting some $50 billion to tax incentives every year.[i] Unfortunately, despite the enormous expenditures being made on these programs, the evidence suggests that tax incentives are of little benefit to the states and localities that offer them, and that they are actually a drag on national economic growth.

Tax Breaks Bad—Economy Tax incentives rarely work—they shift the tax burden elsewhere Bob Weeks, blogger for liberty and economic freedom in Kansas, April 25, 2014, “WICHITA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES: DO THEY HELP?”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://watchdogwire.com/blog/2014/04/25/wichita-economic-development-incentives-help/

The harm of this incentive is that the taxes not paid by Spirit Aerosystems are shifted to other taxpayers. The money these taxpayers would have spent or invested is instead spent on taxes. Instead of people and businesses firms deciding how to spend or invest, Wichita City Hall does this for them. This brings into play a whole host of problems. These include the deficit of knowledge needed to make good investment decisions, decisions being made for political rather than economic reasons, and the corrosive influence of cronyism. There is something the city could to do alleviate this problem. Would the city consider reducing its spending by the amount of tax being abated? In this case, the cost of these tax abatements will not be born by others. So far, the city has not considered this possibility. Recent reporting told us what some have suspected: The city doesn’t manage its economic development efforts. One might have thought that the city was keeping records on the number of jobs created on at least an annual basis for management purposes, and would have these figures ready for immediate review. But apparently that isn’t the case. We need to recognize that because the city does not have at its immediate disposal the statistics about job creation, it is evident that the city is not managing this effort. Or, maybe it just doesn’t care. This is a management problem at the highest level. Shouldn’t we develop our management skills of tax abatements and other economic development incentives before we grant new? Despite the complaints of many that Wichita doesn’t have a rich treasure chest of incentives, the city has been granting tax abatements for years. What is the result? Not very good. Wichita is in last place in job creation (and other measures of economic growth) among our Visioneering peer cities. See here Wichita and Visioneering peers job growth. If we believe that incentives have a place, then we have to ask why Wichita has done so poorly. Particularly relevant to this applicant today: Boeing, its predecessor, received many millions in incentives. After the announcement of Boeing leaving in 2012, a new report contained this: “‘They weren’t totally honest with us,’ said [Wichita Mayor Carl] Brewer of Boeing, which has benefited from about $4 billion of municipal bonds and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax relief. ‘We thought the relationship was a lot stronger.’” Has anything changed? 1. The benefits that government claims are not really benefits. Instead, they’re in the form of higher tax revenue. This is very different from the profits companies earn in voluntary market transactions. 2. Government claims that in order to get these “benefits,” the incentives must be paid. But often the new economic activity (expansion, etc.) would have happened anyway without the incentives. 3. Why is it that most companies are able to grow without incentives, but only a few companies require incentives? What is special about these companies? 4. If the relatively small investment the city makes in incentives is solely responsible for such wonderful outcomes in terms of jobs, why doesn’t the city do this more often? If the city has such power to create economic growth, why is anyone unemployed?

Gov. Regulations Bad

Government intervention into and regulation hurts the economy Patrick McLaughlin, writer for US News & World Report, August 27, 2013, “An Economy Buried by Regulations”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic- intelligence/2013/08/27/regulations-cost-the-us-economy-trillions-of-dollars

Recent news report outlined the rather staggering growth in federal regulations over the years. RegData, a tool developed by myself and colleague Omar Al-Ubaydli for the Mercatus Center, documents how many regulatory restrictions have been put in place by the federal government. While the effectiveness of different rules can vary, this regulatory accumulation is hurting the U.S. economy. A study in the June issue of the "Journal of Economic Growth" – authored by John Dawson of Appalachian State University and John Seater of North Carolina State University – estimates that federal regulations have reduced economic growth by about 2 percent per year between 1949 and 2005. They find that if federal regulations were still at levels seen in the year 1949, current GDP would be $38.8 trillion higher. While that number seems extraordinarily high, a number of other studies have similarly concluded that regulatory accumulation slows down economic growth. Part of the reason is that regulations act as a hidden tax on individuals. If the Department of Transportation sets a higher fuel efficiency mandate for cars, then cars become more expensive, just as if the government imposed a new tax on vehicle purchases. Another unintended consequence is the stifling of entrepreneurship. Regulations can create barriers to people interested in selling goods or services or starting a small business. For example, 17 states require an individual to earn a license to do hair braiding. To obtain a license in Pennsylvania, you have to train for 300 hours, pass a practical and theoretical exam and then pay a fee. Barriers such as these give consumers fewer choices, and with fewer practitioners offering their services in a particular field, customers may face higher prices.

Gov. Regulations Bad Government regulations cost American households thousands a year—hidden costs worse than over taxation Jerry Shenk, a PennLive/Patriot-News community columnist, May 13, 2014, “The high cost of government regulation hurts us even more than high taxes: Jerry Shenk”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/05/the_high_cost_of_government_re.html

Government costs Americans far more than the direct taxes we pay, because taxes don’t include the costs of regulatory compliance. Compliance costs are built into the prices of goods and services purchased by American consumers, including by those who pay no income taxes. In his 2014 review of the cost of government regulations, "Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State," Wayne Crews of The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates the annual cost of compliance with federal regulations to be $1.863 trillion – more than Canada’s Gross Domestic Product. Canada’s national economy is the world’s tenth- largest. Regulatory costs are “hidden taxes” on consumers and household budgets that stall families and the national and local economies. Crews estimates that, on average, regulations add $14,974 annually to American household budgets, or nearly a third of 2013’s median household income. Regulatory “taxes” exceed every item in household budgets except housing – more than food, transportation, entertainment and savings.

Gov. Regulations Bad Government regulations hinder the economy—once they’re locking in they’re hard to reverse Will Yakowicz, a reporter at Inc. magazine. He has covered business, crime and politics, November 19, 2013, “Why Regulation Is Ruining the U.S. Economy”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/why-regulation-is-ruining-us-economy.html

"Our new Kindle freedoms, however minor they may seem, show how hard it is to clear away the old, unnecessary regulations that are impeding the economy," Cowen writes in The New York Times. "After all, the previous restriction on electronics during flights was broadly unpopular in a way that cut across partisan lines. Yet, for many years, the public's complaints did not bring concrete change, mostly because of regulatory inertia ." Cowen says this tiny regulation should be seen in the larger picture of over-zealous government regulation over business and how it hurts the economy. With the number of federal regulatory restrictions topping one million, many of them are simply hamstringing businesses. Cowen suggests the U.S. start "pruning away rules we don't need" to jumpstart an economy with more jobs and stronger growth. He says one FDA rule banned a few successful asthma treatments because of their "slight negative impact on the ozone layer." Although some rules seem to have good intentions, Cowen says, when taken all together the sheer number of restrictions chip away at potential job growth and innovation.

Free Market Good—Energy Free market principles solve energy production better—cleaner, cheaper, and avoid pitfalls of government intervention into the economy Nathan Mehrens, is president of Americans for Limited Government, January 02, 2014, “Good news for 2014 -- a domestic energy revolution is underway in the USA”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/02/good-news-for-2014-domestic-energy-revolution-is- underway-in-usa/

And for anyone still misguidedly clinging to the federal government’s “green jobs” scam, this cleaner, less expensive energy future we are experiencing has virtually nothing to do with expanded reliance on renewables -- which are projected to increase from only 11 to 12 percent of domestic production over the coming thirty years. Just as government policies failed to “stimulate” the economy, they also failed to lower CO2 levels: The free market did that -- and the results are truly something to behold. “U.S. manufacturers are benefitting form the availability of a secure supply of low-cost natural gas, especially for manufacturers in energy- intensive industries,” a September 2013 report from IHS notes. The report predicted these energy efficiencies would boost industrial production by 2.8 percent by 2015 – and by 3.9 percent by 2025. Cheaper, cleaner and more abundant energy -- long a favorite talking point of the Washington enviro-liberals -- is becoming a reality in America. But we could further expand our advantage if lawmakers resist efforts by eco-radicals to stamp out production on federal lands.

Free Market Good—Energy Free market is solving Co2 emissions and energy production now for cheaper than government intervention or regulation could Merrill Matthews, a resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas, July 12, 2013, “Mr. President, The Free Market Is Reducing CO2 Emissions”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/07/12/mr-president-the-free-market-is- reducing-co2-emissions/

The Obama administration has approved two new facilities to export natural gas. These private sector operations will invest billions of dollars to build liquefied natural gas terminals that super-cool the gas, turning it into a liquid, to ship it to other parts of the world. But another dozen or so terminals are seeking Energy Department export permits. Quick federal approval would mean less CO2 emissions in the near future. Yes, the price of gas would likely be higher than its $1.86 MCF bottom last year, but it would likely also be lower than the current $4.00 MCF range, and production would be much more consistent, stabilizing the price—and creating a boon to the U.S. economy. With the ability to export cheap natural gas—the price in Europe can be three or four times the U.S. price, and even higher in Asia—it could become a viable global substitute for coal in producing electricity. Remember, for each megawatt hour generated by natural gas rather than coal, we potentially cut carbon emissions by half. You don’t have to buy into the president’s whole environmental agenda to think that’s a good idea. The changeover won’t happen overnight, but the rate of carbon emissions will decline each time a power plant switches from coal to gas. Elected officials and environmentally minded regulators don’t need to launch a regulatory assault on electricity power plants. They just need to ensure that gas producers have a market for their product—including overseas. The price will drop as production rises, and power plants will respond accordingly, just as they did between 2007 and 2012. Generating more power from natural gas will boost the U.S. economy and reduce our energy-related carbon emissions. Washington needs to allow the natural gas industry to flourish.

Free Market Good—Energy Energy subsidization doesn’t work—encourages wasteful spending and mutes the power of free market energy approaches Rich Tucker, is senior writer in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at the Heritage Foundation, March 10, 2014, “A Good Way to Wreck an Economy”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2014/03/10/a_good_way_to_wreck_an_economy_867.html

Still, there’s plenty of subsidizing in the American energy market. President Obama’s 2009 “stimulus bill” directed some $40 billion to the Department of Energy. Much of that money turned into subsidies for wind- and solar-generated power. There are also a number of tax breaks and mandates for favored industries. The Renewable Fuel Standard, for example, essentially forces refiners to use ethanol. Affordable energy leads to economic growth and opportunity. But you can’t generate affordable energy through government subsidies. Only a free market can do that. But Americans are still teaching the wrong lesson; John Kerry recently flew to Kiev to offer Ukraine $1 billion in energy assistance. Most of that money will just end up in Russian hands. Free-market competition, in energy as in other sectors, is the real answer. Perhaps an answer future governments, in all four of these countries, will turn to.

Free Market Good—Innovation Free markets are essential for innovations—better than government sponsored approach Sandy Ikeda, associate professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, October 25, 2013, “7 More Falsehoods About the Free Market”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/7-more-falsehoods-about-the-free-market

3) The free market stifles innovation. Now, some argue that a big company will buy up innovations from potential competitors in order to protect its market share. But as a rule, in a free market a business’s primary concern is not market share, it’s making profit. If an innovation is profitable it makes no sense for anyone to withhold it from the market. Company X may buy a new invention from Company Y in the hopes of, say, being better placed to market it; but if it turns out not to be profitable then, well, the company won’t sell it. That’s not stifling innovation, it’s avoiding a loss. When the L.A. Angels obtained the slugger Albert Pujols from the Cardinals, they didn’t do it to sit him on the bench but so he could hit more home runs for them. When he did “ride the pine” it wasn’t to hurt St. Louis, but because he couldn’t help the Angels.

Free Market Good—Subsidies Bad Free market is best—government subsidies misallocate funds which hurts the economy The Economist, financial publication, January 10, 2014, “The green-growth twofer”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/01/fossil-fuel-subsidies

MOST economists agree that fossil-fuel subsidies are a bad idea. They promote a misallocation of resources in the economy, namely, the over-consumption of fossil fuels. They can be a burden on the public finances. What's more, this waste increases global carbon emissions. Some countries have already wised up to the foolhardy nature of energy subsidies and have sought to trim them back. Over the past year or so, Jordan, Morocco, Indonesia and Malaysia have all cut subsidies and raised fuel prices. But as we explain in this week’s print edition, this is more due to economic and fiscal concerns than environmental ones: It is the growing cost of subsidies, rather than worries about climate change, that explains the renewed interest in cutting them, says Fatih Birol at the International Energy Agency (IEA). They have become unaffordable as global oil prices have more than doubled between 2009 and 2012. In Jordan, for instance, their cost increased more than tenfold in just two years. And in many other countries they now account for more than 5% of GDP. Globally, the cost of government subsidies for fossil fuels increased from $311 billion in 2009 to $544 billion in 2012, the IEA estimates. Once lost tax revenues are included, this figure rises to around $2 trillion, equal to over 8% of government revenues, according to a recent IMF report. Much of this spending is wasted; overconsumption of energy does not lead to higher levels of economic output but instead lower levels of efficiency: Other research suggests that most of this spending leads to big “deadweight losses”, meaning lost economic efficiency as a result of government intervention. In the case of fuel subsidies for road transport, worth $110 billion globally in 2012, these losses reached $44 billion, reckons Lucas Davis at the University of California, Berkeley, in a new paper.

Government Incentives Good

Government Ocean Energy Development Government can fund ocean energy projects Laura Slattery, writer from Irish Times, February 7, 2014, “Ocean energy to receive Government funding boost”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/energy-and-resources/ocean-energy-to-receive- government-funding-boost-1.1683990

Ocean energy will receive a boost in funding from the Government under a new plan to develop wave and tidal resources in Ireland. The Offshore Renewable Energy Development Plan proposes the introduction of an initial market support scheme for wave and tidal energy from 2016, while a new steering group will be established to implement Government targets for the industry. The budget for ocean energy development in the 2013-2016 period will be increased by €16.8 million, bringing total cumulative funding to €26.3 million. The money will pay for activities at various ocean energy test sites on the west coast, research projects by the Cork-based Integrated Maritime Energy Resource Cluster and also the development of prototype devices for the conversion of wave energy into electricity. The plan, which has been several years in development, outlines how so-called “blue energy” derived from a sea area of 900,000 square kilometres will create jobs in Irish coastal communities. It identifies potential marine renewable resources of more than 70GW of energy in Irish waters, which is more than 14 times Ireland’s current energy demand.

Free Market Bad—List Traditional free market thinking is outdated—misunderstands power relations, modern economics, and unequal access to the “marketplace” Alex Pentland, Named by Forbes one of the seven most powerful data scientists in the world, Alex Pentland directs MIT’s Human Dynamics Laboratory and the MIT Media Lab Entrepreneurship Program, February 3, 2014, “Want a Fair Society? Keep Tech Out of the Free Market”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.wired.com/2014/02/tech-shouldnt-built-free- markets-needs-based-exchanges/

Perhaps the major flaw in the free-market view of human nature is that people are not simply self- interested, self-commanded individuals. What we are interested in, and our command mechanism itself, is overwhelmingly determined by social norms created by interactions with other people. Modern science now understands that cooperation is just as important and just as prevalent in human society as competition. Our friends watch our backs, in sports and business teammates cooperate to win against other teams, and everywhere people support family, children, and the elderly. In fact, the main source of competition in society may not be among individuals but rather among cooperating groups of peers. Moreover, recent economics research has shown that the basic assumption within classic market thinking — that there are many sellers and buyers that can be substituted for each other easily — does not apply even to economies such as that of the U.S. Instead, we need to think of the economy as an exchange network: a complex web of specific exchange relationships. The idea of a market, in which it is imagined that all the participants can see and compete evenly with everyone else, is almost always an oversimplification. In reality, some people have better connections, some people know more than others, and some purchases are more difficult than others due to distance, timing, or other secondary considerations.

Free Market Bad—Wealth Inequality Free market principles are out of whack—serve to make the rich richer, we should rethink the idea of completely free markets Robert Reich, has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama's transition advisory board, September 16, 2013, “Why the Idea of a "Free Market" Is Total BS”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.alternet.org/why-idea-free-market-total-bs

Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules, and their major purpose? If our democracy was working as it should, presumably our elected representatives, agency heads, and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. The economy would be working for us; we wouldn't be working for the economy. Instead, the rules are being made mainly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads, and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is determining the rules of the game. Not incidentally, these are the same people who want you and most others to believe in the fiction of an immutable "free market." If we want to reduce the savage inequalities and insecurities that are now undermining our economy and democracy, we shouldn't be deterred by the myth of the "free market." We can make the economy work for us, rather than the other way around. But in order to change the rules, we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours.

Free Market Bad—A/T “Picking Winners/ Losers” Government intervention into the economy is good—free market principles don’t serve us well in a world of massive international competition and free trade George Barlow, writer for Economy in Crisis—non profit group writing about American manufacturing decline, February 8, 2014, “We Need Government Leadership, Not Free Market Failures”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://economyincrisis.org/content/we-need-government- leadership-not-free-market-failures

The government has provided effective economic leadership in the past. In the early days of this country, tariffs protected our fledgling industries and provided the revenue necessary to run the government. The government also guided industry–a good example of this is the heavy press program of the 1950s. In the 1950s, the United States undertook a plan to build 17 heavy presses across the country. Heavy forging and extrusion presses allow for complex parts to be forged from lightweight materials. Without these machines, the high-tech, lightweight aircraft we now take for granted would not be possible. This program was created in response to the Soviet Union’s possession of what was then the world’s largest heavy press. Fearing that this would give the Soviet air force a great advantage, the American government financed the creation of bigger and better presses than the Soviets had. The heavy press program met Cold War military needs, but today we face economic threats rather than military. The dire state of our manufacturing sector demands government intervention, but critics voice opposition using tired arguments, saying that the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. Indeed, the government should not be playing favorites based on political favors and backroom deals, but the government is more than capable of identifying needs and addressing them. One can only speculate on how far behind the U.S. aviation industry would have fallen without government assistance. This is the kind of leadership we need. Our government once recognized threats to our economy and took action to address them. It did not lean on the “infallibility” of the free market. Free trade is the great threat our country faces today, but our government is doing nothing. If this continues, the consequences could be incredibly dire.

Free Market Bad—Small Business Free market only aids large companies in becoming monopolies—puts small business at further disadvantage Geoffrey James, writer for Money Watch—financial news, October 25, 2010, “Government Regulation is Good for Business”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-regulation-is-good-for-business/

Yes, you read that right. Government regulation is good for business...depending on how you define the term "business" and on how the regulations are written. Many people (and especially the "business" press) tend to use the umbrella term "business" to mean any organization that tries to make a profit. But that usage is, like most generalizations, misleading. There is very little commonality of self-interest between, say, a mega- billion dollar company like Walmart, and a locally-owned boutique. Quite the contrary. Business conditions that help Walmart to be successful are almost always going to make it more difficult for that boutique to survive. It's much more accurate to say that there are two broad segments of profit-making organizations: big businesses and small businesses. This is an important distinction to make because majority of business activity in the United States takes place in small business. According to the U.S. Department of State: Fully 99 percent of all independent enterprises in the country employ fewer than 500 people. These small enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than 20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99 workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more employees. What does this have to do with government regulation? Everything. A lack of government regulation is almost always to the advantage of big businesses and to the disadvantage of small businesses. Such a condition always results in the formation of monopolies and the suppression of smaller firms, even if those firms might be highly innovative. As the great Adam Smith pointed out: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Government Incentives Good—Innovation Government incentives spur new technology and innovation—assumes free market approaches and finds them inadequate Ben S. Bernanke, economist at the Brookings Institution who served two terms as chairman of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States from 2006 to 2014—writing for Issues in Science and Technology, a forum for discussion of public policy related to science, engineering, and medicine, Accessed June 30, 2014, “Promoting Research and Development The Government’s Role”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://issues.org/27-4/bernanke/

Governments in many countries directly support scientific and technical research; for example, through grant-providing agencies (like the National Science Foundation in the United States) or through tax incentives (like the R&D tax credit). In addition, the governments of the United States and many other countries run their own research facilities, including facilities focused on nonmilitary applications such as health. The primary economic rationale for a government role in R&D is that, without such intervention, the private market would not adequately supply certain types of research. The argument, which applies particularly strongly to basic or fundamental research, is that the full economic value of a scientific advance is unlikely to accrue to its discoverer, especially if the new knowledge can be replicated or disseminated at low cost. For example, James Watson and Francis Crick received a minute fraction of the economic benefits that have flowed from their discovery of the structure of DNA. If many people are able to exploit, or otherwise benefit from, research done by others, then the total or social return to research may be higher on average than the private return to those who bear the costs and risks of innovation. As a result, market forces will lead to underinvestment in R&D from society’s perspective, providing a rationale for government intervention.

Government Incentives Good—Innovation The government shapes the marketplace allowing innovation—government intervention and innovation do mix Elizabeth Jacobs, freelance writer for Ted Talks Blog, October 28, 2013, “GPS, lithium batteries, the internet, cellular technology, airbags: A Q&A about how governments often fuel innovation”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://blog.ted.com/2013/10/28/qa-mariana-mazzucato- governments-often-fuel-innovation/

Should the government act like a venture capitalist? It might seem crazy to some, but in today’s eye-opening talk, economist Mariana Mazzucato shows why it might just work — and how it has, in fact, been working for decades. In this talk, Mazzucato flips the script on the image of a big government meddling in economic affairs, and instead suggests that governments shape the market in revolutionary ways. In this talk, Mazzucato dissolves the dichotomy between the private and public sectors, and offers a bold vision of governments as entrepreneurs. Her talk raises big questions about the potential — and the risks — of entrepreneurial governments. Below, the TED Blog asks her some follow-up questions. A really great moment in your talk was when you described how so many of the revolutionary things in an iPhone were funded by the government. What other devices or objects are a big part of our lives, thanks to government funding? All the most important technologies that have driven growth — what economists call general purpose technologies — trace their funding back to government. These are the technologies whose effects permeate across large parts of the economy, not just a single sector, and nurture decades of growth. These include aviation technologies; space technologies; semiconductors, the Internet; nuclear power; and nanotechnology. So we’re not talking just gadgets here, but revolutionary technologies that drive innovation led-growth — and it’s these technologies that are embedded inside the gadgets.

Government Incentives Good—Innovation The government has empirically spawned major technological advancements—even if not directly they lay the groundwork for innovation in private sector to occur Greg Satell, Co-CEO of KP Media, an integrated media publishing company, July 10, 2013, “4 Government Programs That Drive Innovation”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.digitaltonto.com/2013/4-government-programs-that-drive-innovation/

Steve Jobs was the ultimate entrepreneur. As Walter Isaacson pointed out in his acclaimed biography, Jobs revolutionized seven industries and created the most valuable company in the world. We revere people like him, because they help create the future. Yet, they do not do it alone. One fact that often gets lost is that the basic technologies that Apple products are built on (and those of all tech firms), from the chips, to the Internet, to GPS to the software protocols, were all supported or wholly developed by government programs. As Bruce Upbin noted in a recent article in Forbes, while we like to think of daring venture capitalists and entrepreneurs taking all the risk, they are more akin to the “last mile,” building on top of technological infrastructure built by the government. In truth, public sector programs are often crucial to innovation in the private economy. Here are four:

Government Incentives Good—Business/ Technology The government can effectively utilize financial incentives to induce business innovation and new technology Boundless, online education resource that uses cloud technology to spread their message, Accessed June 30, 2014, “Individuals Respond to Incentives”, Accessed June 30, 2014, https://www.boundless.com/economics/principles-of-economics/individual-decision- making/individuals-respond-to-incentives/

Incentives come in many other forms, however. Broadly, most incentives can be grouped into one of four categories: Remunerative incentives: The incentive comes in the form of some sort of material reward – especially money – in exchange for acting in a particular way. Wages, prices, and bribery are all examples of remunerative incentives. This is the type of incentive that is typically associated with economics. Moral incentives: This occurs when a certain choice is widely regarded as the right thing to do, or as particularly admirable, or where the failure to act in a certain way is condemned as indecent. Societies and cultures are two main sources of moral incentives. Coercive incentives: The incentive is a promise of some sort of punishment if the wrong decision is made. For example, the promise of imprisonment is a coercive incentive for people to not steal. Natural Incentives: Things such as curiosity, mental or physical exercise, admiration, fear, anger, pain, joy, or the pursuit of truth, or the control over things in the world or people or oneself cause individuals to make certain decisions. Economics is mainly concerned with remunerative incentives, though, when discussing government regulations, coercive incentives often come into play. By manipulating incentives, individuals (and businesses and government) hope to encourage some behaviors and discourage others. Incentives and Performance Companies leverage incentives-based strategies to drive performance and optimize employee decision-making and behaviors through meaningful reward systems. While there are both advantages and drawbacks to this type of approach, remunerative (financial) incentives are highly attractive options for employers in a variety of industries and businesses. Providing incentives such as variable income, where an individual can obtain more personal rewards for successfully creating a product or making a sale, often drives up production for highly motivated employees.

Gov. Regulations Good—Free Market

Free markets require regulations—government oversight and intervention is key to ensure free markets are sustainable John Aziz, the economics and business correspondent at TheWeek.com. He is also an associate editor at Pieria.co.uk, May 14, 2014, “Free markets need more regulation than you think”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://theweek.com/article/index/261535/free-markets-need-more- regulation-than-you-think

In fact, I'd go even further and argue that the existence of a free market where individuals can freely pursue their economic desires and enjoy the fruits of their labor is a product of freedoms secured through government regulation. A free market isn't something that just magically appears out of nothing. It is a complex system born out of the context of a whole framework of legal, social, and political conventions that allow for the development of individuals who are capable of making the discerning economic and social decisions required for the functioning of a free market. Beyond the basic freedoms of the night-watchman state — secure property rights, freedom from coercive violence, freedom of movement, freedom of association — a genuinely free market requires regulation to secure other freedoms as well, like the freedom from being tricked by misleading advertising or from being poisoned by dangerous chemicals. I would also suggest that the following are equally important to the creation of a free and healthy marketplace: freedom from starvation; freedom from dying from easily curable diseases; freedom from environmental degradation caused by pollution; and the freedom to develop yourself as a person through education. After all, it is no coincidence that the market economy only really began to develop when the modern democratic state did too.

Gov. Regulations Good—Oversight The government is good—it is needed to protect the environment and regulate the economy Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College, Accessed June 30, 2014, “Welcome to governmentisgood.com”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.governmentisgood.com/

Why a website defending government? Because for decades conservatives have been demonizing and attacking government and not enough has been done to defend it. We need to recognize that despite its problems, government plays an essential role in promoting the good life for all Americans. When we recklessly reduce and underfund this institution, we are hampering our ability to improve people’s lives and to effectively address our pressing social, economic, and environmental problems. To see what is at stake in this battle over government, we need only consider how efforts to limit government in this country have caused us to fall behind many other advanced democracies in providing important public services. Most western European countries, for instance, have larger public sectors and do much better in a wide variety of areas, including retirement security, poverty reduction, child care availability, affordable higher education, pollution control, limiting workplace injuries, affordable housing, crime control, infrastructure investment, healthcare access, and much more. A 2014 study found that among similar countries, the U.S. ranks 31st in personal safety, 34th in access to water and sanitation, 39th in basic education, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, and 70th in health.

Tax Breaks Good—More Jobs Tax breaks provide an incentive for companies to hire workers and expand their businesses Steve Tetreault, writer for the Las Vegas Review Journal, May 14, 2014, “New tax break could be worth millions on the Strip”, Accessed June 29, 2014, http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/government/new-tax-break-could-be-worth-millions-strip

The Senate began debate Tuesday on a bill to renew more than 50 tax breaks for individuals and businesses, including a handful with particular resonance in Nevada and a new one that could be worth millions on the Strip. The legislation would broaden a $15 million deduction for movies and television productions to include theater shows as well. The tax break sought by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on behalf of Broadway also would benefit Cirque du Soleil and other shows in Las Vegas and Reno, according to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. “This is brand new,” Reid said in a telephone call with reporters. “It allows casinos, hotels and resorts in Nevada to invest in high-quality productions which make our state an attractive destination.” The tax break would allow producers to deduct 100 percent of their first-year investments, up to $15 million, for shows that opened after Dec. 31, 2013. “Sexually explicit” shows would not qualify, although it was not clear how that call would be made on some of the more risqué offerings in Las Vegas. The provision also could benefit productions at The Smith Center for the Performing Arts and other venues, Reid’s office said. The deduction was among a handful in the $85 billion bill expected to have an outsized impact in the Silver State, if Congress is able to follow through and get it passed.

Tax Breaks Good—Economy Tax breaks provide incentives for companies to spend money, hire, and expand which helps the economy Advantage West Economic Development Group, economic organization, April 1, 2014, “STUDY FINDS NC FILM & TV TAX INCENTIVE SPURS ECONOMIC GROWTH”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.advantagewest.com/our-region/news/study-finds-nc-film-tv-tax-incentive-spurs- economic-growth

A new study released by North Carolina State Poole College of Management distinguished professor Dr. Robert Handfield found the tax incentive intended to attract film and television production to the State has produced a significant return on investment for North Carolina’s economy. The study was funded in part by regional film commissions in North Carolina, including Western North Carolina Film Commission. Beginning in 2007, when the incentive was first enacted, through 2012, the film and television industry has spent $1.02 billion in the state, and generated a projected $170,000,000 in tax revenue. The cost of the credit over the same time period was $112,000,000. The result means that for every dollar of credit issued, the industry generated $9.11 in direct spending and contributed $1.52 in tax revenue back to North Carolina.

Tax Breaks Good- Economy Tax incentives are motivational tools for business—they allow investment expansion and jobs Angelia Davis, writer for Greenville news online, March 13, 2014, “New tax credit helps spur business growth”, Accessed June 30, 2014, http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/money/2014/03/13/new-tax-credit-helps-spur-business- growth/6357667/

Jon-Michial Carter said he had many reasons to move his health care data company from Houston to Greenville a few months ago — love for the community, the pro-business environment, and the NEXT Innovation Center were just a few. But a clincher for the founder and CEO of ChartSpan Medical Technologies was the tax credit of 35 percent that South Carolina now offers affluent so-called "angel investors" who put their money in early-stage, high-growth businesses. "We were a Texas-based company. We looked at the entire landscape of whether to stay in Texas or move to South Carolina," said Carter. "We're proud to say we're a South Carolina-based company and one of the biggest reasons was that tax break and the future investment we'll be able to raise. "Being able to go to an investor and say, 'Here's a 35 percent return on your money,' is one helluva carrot. It not only puts South Carolina in a great position to recruit businesses, but it puts us, the businesses, in a great position to recruit investment. We're big fans of this incentive and it is certainly substantial and meaningful." The tax credit is part of the High Growth Small Business Job Creation Act passed by the Legislature last June to support economic growth in the state. The act is intended to not only encourage investment in qualified businesses, but to also help grow the number of good, high-paying jobs in the state.

Tax Breaks Good—Innovation/ Technology Government sponsored research yields better results for technology and innovation— emperics from top business models in the world Joe Harpaz, Contributor to Forbes magazine—analyzes tax news for CFOs, investors and business leaders, October 11, 2013, “Is Innovation Inspired By Tax Policy?”, Accessed June 30, 2014, , http://www.forbes.com/sites/joeharpaz/2013/10/11/is-innovation-inspired-by-tax-policy/

Read deeper into the accompanying study, and some very interesting tax policy insights start to emerge. By sorting the results of the patent study by geography, the study’s authors came to the conclusion that: “There is a direct correlation between a government’s commitment to innovation and its R&D tax policies to its ability to attract and retain innovative organizations.” This finding is evidenced notably in France, which has the most companies on the Top 100 list among all European countries, while the UK, which has a similar sized economy, has none (for the second year in a row). This is attributable in large part to R&D tax credits and other government stimulus for innovation. Likewise, the U.S. and Japan, which have the strongest representation on the list, have a long history of government stimulus of innovation. The authors explained the UK/France phenomenon further: “The trend is also reflective of the evolution of the UK economy away from manufacturing and toward a more service sector orientation, with a heavy reliance on financial businesses. The UK government has made some recent strides to address this issue, notably introducing Patent Box legislation this year, which cuts the corporate tax rate for income derived from patented technologies. Whether or not that step will have a significant impact on overall patent activity in the UK will take several years to find out…” All told, the three nations with the greatest representation on the list – the U.S., Japan and France – are also the three nations with some of the most active R&D stimulus programs in effect. The report cites the Baye-Dole Act of 1980 as having a significant impact on collaboration between the government and the private sector in the U.S. In Japan, a tax credit introduced in 2003 increased corporate tax deductions from 10 to 12 percent of R&D expenses. Likewise, France, stung by the departure of several large pharmaceutical manufacturers, enacted aggressive R&D tax credit reforms in 2008. Obviously, there is much more to great innovation than a favorable tax regime. But the findings of the Top 100 Innovators study do present an interesting take on the link between tax policy and corporate R&D. And it seems that at least some of our business leaders agree in the importance of these incentives. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the debate, and what that could mean for domestic innovation moving forward.

Growth Good (Oceans)

Topic Internals

General Ocean Development Good Ocean development is vital to America’s economy Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, June 2013, “Charting the Course: Securing the Future of America’s Oceans. Ocean priorities for the Obama administration and congress,” http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/joint-ocean-commission-initiative-2013.pdf, Accessed 5/29/2014 We are an ocean nation, bounded by the vast Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. We are also an Arctic nation with responsibility for the management of this sensitive and strategically important region. Our oceans and coasts are vital to our nation’s economy and security, as well as to the health and quality of life of its citizens. Oceans are the engines of our planet’s weather and climate systems, and they provide important sources of protein. Natural coastal features, such as dunes and wetlands, offer cost-effective protection for our communities against powerful storms, and they provide important habitat for coastal and marine life. Our national economy also relies greatly on our oceans, including for tourism, fisheries, oil and gas, minerals, shipping, and transportation. Our oceans offer excellent potential for development of renewable energy, offshore aquaculture, and other economic opportunities of the future. Coastal counties are some of our nation’s most populous, and they generate more than one-third of our Gross Domestic Product. The value of oceans to American economic growth cannot be underestimate U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, September 2004, “An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Final Report,” http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html, Accessed 5/29/2014 America’s oceans and coasts are big business. The United States has jurisdiction over 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean territory in its exclusive economic zone—larger than the combined land area of all fifty states. Millions of families depend on paychecks earned directly or indirectly from the value of the sea, including the magnetic pull of the nation’s coasts and beaches. However, our understanding of the full economic value of these resources is far from complete. In contrast to sectors like agriculture on which the federal government spends more than $100 million a year for economic research, we do not make a serious effort to analyze and quantify the material contributions of our oceans and coasts. Standard government data are not designed to measure the complex ocean economy. They also ignore the intangible values associated with healthy ecosystems, including clean water, safe seafood, healthy habitats, and desirable living and recreational environments. This lack of basic information has prevented Americans from fully understanding and appreciating the economic importance of our oceans and coasts. Ocean development fuels economic growth throughout the country Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, June 2013, “Charting the Course: Securing the Future of America’s Oceans. Ocean priorities for the Obama administration and congress,” http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/joint-ocean-commission-initiative-2013.pdf, Accessed 5/29/2014 Our national economy relies greatly on our oceans, including for tourism, fisheries, oil and gas, minerals, shipping, and transportation. Our oceans offer excellent potential for development of renewable energy, offshore aquaculture, and other economic opportunities of the future. Coastal counties are some of our nation’s most populous, and they generate more than one-third of our Gross Domestic Product. Millions of people flock to the coasts each year, contributing to a booming coastal tourism and recreation industry that supports 1.7 million jobs. About 95 percent of the nation’s international trade

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 105 travels through American ports. The U.S. commercial fishing industry lands approximately $5 billion in fish and shellfish annually. These and other ocean-related economic activities are essential for our coastal states. They also fuel economic activity into the heartland.

Oceans are key to US growth NOAA, 1-11-2013, “The oceans are the trading routes for the planet,” http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceaneconomy.html, Accessed 4-9-2014 The U.S. economy is very dependent on the health of the ocean. Consider the following facts: Through the fishing and boating industry, tourism and recreation, and ocean transport, one out of six jobs in the U.S. is marine-related. ¶ In 2009, the ocean economy, which includes six economic sectors that depend on the ocean and Great Lakes, contributed over $223 billion annually to the U.S. gross domestic product ( GDP) and provided more than 2.6 million jobs. ¶ Tourism and recreation is the largest sector of the ocean economy, contributing to 72 percent of employment and 28 percent of GDP.

Marine Renewables Good MHK technologies create jobs. As the technologies expand domestic education and international workers will fill any personnel gap Chad Augustine, Et al., National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012, Renewable Electricity Futures Study, Volume 2: Renewable Electricity Generation and Storage Technologies, http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/, Accessed 5/28/2014 Jobs in MHK technologies include: design, development, manufacturing, project development, deployment, shoreline development, port logistics, O&M, and recovery. Many of these jobs are engineering jobs for the design and project development stages, while the manufacturing, O&M, and recovery stages of projects are primarily technicians and skilled labor jobs. EPRI estimated that a 100- MW wave power plant provides approximately 24 permanent local jobs during the operational phase of the power plant. In this industry, deployment and recovery will require experienced personnel with offshore construction expertise. Currently, educational institutions with curricula relevant to MHK technologies are limited. As the technology begins to mature, national and local workforce development and training programs would improve the supply and skill of U.S. workers for the domestic ocean energy industry. More than likely, a successful MHK industry will be international in nature with a global workforce much like the oil and gas industry today. There is no standardized method for estimating current or future personnel requirements. Because the U.S. MHK industry is just beginning, the employment requirements are particularly difficult to estimate. Therefore, no estimate is provided. Increasing funding through the DOE’s Water Power Program strengthens the economy on multiple levels boosting competitiveness Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI), March 24, 2014, “The U.S. MHK Industry Request for the DOE Water Power Program,” Fiscal Year 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, http://www.strategicmi.com/press/FY15_Request_for_MHK_ EW_Approps_FINAL_3.21.14.pdf, Accessed 5/28/2014 Marine renewable energy has the potential to become a major source of electricity for the United States, and its growth could be substantially supported through increased and focused funding for the DOE Water Power Program. Federal commitment to creating a robust U.S. marine renewables industry will advance our national economic goals by creating high-quality employment in coastal communities, long-term production in shipyards, development of fleets of vessels for deployment and servicing, and strengthening the thousands of businesses that make up the U.S. industrial supply chain. The establishment and nurturing of a U.S.-based marine renewable industry would secure our nation’s place in developing offshore renewable energy systems, thereby ensuring that the United States is an exporter, not an importer, of these technologies.

Growth Sustainable

Growth Inevitable Growth is hardwired – attempts to move away from it cause backlash Brad Allenby, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and of Law, at Arizona State University, having moved from his previous position as the Environment, 3-7-2007, “The Benefits of Our Hardwired Need to Consume,” Greenbiz, http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2007/03/07/benefits-our-hardwired- need-consume, Accessed 4-9-2014 At the least, however, the demonstration that even apparently straightforward decisions are, in fact, grounded in pre-rational cognitive information processing suggests that environmental and sustainability activists need to become more sophisticated in the way they think about, and seek to socially engineer, consumption decisions. For social engineering is a double-edged sword, and especially in areas like consumption, increasingly understood as involving complex and fundamental behaviors, such efforts can rebound against those who seek to impose such behavior change, regardless of their good intentions.

Growth Sustainable No limits to growth – innovation solves Bjorn Lomborg, Adjunct Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and Founder and Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, 6-17-2013, “The Limits to Panic” http://www.project- syndicate.org/commentary/economic-growth-and-its-critics-by-bj-rn-lomborg, Accessed 4-9-2014 We often hear how the world as we know it will end, usually through ecological collapse. Indeed, more than 40 years after the Club of Rome released the mother of all apocalyptic forecasts, The Limits to Growth, its basic ideas are still with us. But time has not been kind. The Limits to Growth warned humanity in 1972 that devastating collapse was just around the corner. But, while we have seen financial panics since then, there have been no real shortages or productive breakdowns. Instead, the resources generated by human ingenuity remain far ahead of human consumption.

Sustainable – Decoupling Yes decoupling – water and pollution prove we can continue growth while reducing our impact on the environment Ramez Naam, Adjunct Faculty at Singularity University where he lectures on energy, the environment, and innovation, 4-17-2013, “The Limits of the Earth, Part 2: Expanding the Limits” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/04/18/the-limits-of-the-earth-part-2-expanding- the-limits/, Accessed 4-9-2014 In some cases, we’ve actually gone beyond leaving consumption or pollution at a flatline, and have turned a corner. While growing an economy, we’ve shrunk the use of some resources, and the amounts of many types of pollution released. Consider water use. In the United States, per capita water withdrawals rose from 1900 until the 1970s. But since then, they’ve dropped by more than a third: That drop in water use has happened even as the US economy has roughly doubled in size and as US food production (the primary use of water) has also doubled. How? More efficient technology. We’ve increased crop yields by designing seeds that make better use of water and nutrients. We’ve shifted farm irrigation towards more and more efficient drip irrigation. We’ve increased the use of no-till farming, that dries out the soil less, conserving more of the water that’s there. Again, this change isn’t yet enough. But it’s an indicator that we can grow wealth and grow output while shrinking consumption . The same is even more true in pollution. Emissions of sulfur dioxide, the chemical that causes acid rain, are less than half of what they were in 1970, and are down to levels not seen in the United States since 1910. Carbon monoxide emissions are down to half of what they were in 1970. Mercury emissions have dropped by half since 1990. Lead concentrations in the atmosphere are just one tenth of what they were in 1980, and new emissions of lead have dropped to near zero. Emissions of particulates, PCBs, and nitrogen oxide are all down by roughly half. Worldwide emissions of ozone-destroying CFCs, once used as refrigerants, have plummeted to nearly zero. The Antarctic ozone hole is now recovering, ahead of schedule. The Limits to Growth model predicted that pollution would keep increasing so long as the world economy grew. The only way to reduce pollution was to reduce economic activity. But that isn’t what happened. Our cars and trucks haven’t stopped running. Their engines haven’t seized up. Our power plants have kept producing valuable electricity. And our refrigerators haven’t stopped working. In every case we’ve found a way to reduce the amount of a pollutant we emit, or to replace the substance with something more benign, without stopping industry or growth. Innovation has driven down pollution while our economy has grown.

Yes Transition We’re on the verge of a global consciousness shift towards biospheric empathy-makes growth environmentally sustainable and solves every impact-collapse now destroys the transition Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, 1-11-2010, “'The Empathic Civilization': Rethinking Human Nature in the Biosphere Era,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/the-empathic-civilization_b_416589.html , Accessed 4-9- 2014 Today, we are on the cusp of another historic convergence of energy and communication--a third industrial revolution--that could extend empathic sensibility to the biosphere itself and all of life on Earth. The distributed Internet revolution is coming together with distributed renewable energies, making possible a sustainable, post-carbon economy that is both globally connected and locally managed.

AT: Mindset Shift Collapse doesn’t trigger mindset shift – growthmanic culture is locked in Paul Ehrlich, department of biology, Stanford, and Anne Ehrlich, Senior Research Scientist in Biology at Stanford, 1-9-2013, “Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?” Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 280, no. 1754. , Accessed 4-9-2014 The scientific community has repeatedly warned humanity in the past of its peril [90–102], and the earlier warnings [93,103–107] about the risks of population expansion and the ‘limits to growth’ have increasingly been shown to be on the right track [108–111] (but see Hayes [17]). The warnings continue [109,112–119]. Yet many scientists still tend to treat population growth as an exogenous variable, when it should be considered an endogenous one—indeed, a central factor [120]. Too many studies asking ‘how can we possibly feed 9.6 billion people by 2050?’ should also be asking ‘how can we humanely lower birth rates far enough to reduce that number to 8.6?’ To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth [121], is obvious but too much neglected or denied. There are great social and psychological barriers in growthmanic cultures to even considering it. This is especially true because of the ‘endarkenment’—a rapidly growing movement towards religious orthodoxies that reject enlightenment values such as freedom of thought, democracy, separation of church and state, and basing beliefs and actions on empirical evidence. They are manifest in dangerous trends such as climate denial, failure to act on the loss of biodiversity and opposition to condoms (for AIDS control) as well as other forms of contraception [122]. If ever there was a time for evidence-based (as opposed to faith-based) risk reduction strategies [123], it is now.

Collapse Bad

Growth Good – Environment Innovation and growth solve environmental crises – no limits to growth Ramez Naam, Adjunct Faculty at Singularity University where he lectures on energy, the environment, and innovation, 4-17-2013, “The Limits of the Earth, Part 1: Problems” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/04/17/the-limits-of-the-earth-part-1-problems/, Accessed 4-9-2014 In my own new book, The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet, I challenge this view. The problem isn’t economic growth, per se. Nor is the problem that our natural resources are too small. While finite, the natural resources the planet supplies are vast and far larger than humanity needs in order to continue to thrive and grow prosperity for centuries to come. The problem, rather, is the types of resources we access, and the manner and efficiency with which we use them. And the ultimate solution to those problems is innovation – innovation in the science and technology that we use to tap into physical resources, and innovation in the economic system that steers our consumption. The situation we’re in isn’t a looming wall that we’re doomed to crash into. It’s a race – a race between depletion and pollution of natural resources on one side, and our pace of innovation on the other. I’m not claiming here that we’re assured of victory. Rather, I’m claiming that winning – greatly expanding the global economy while at the same time shrinking or even reversing our impact on the planet – is possible. Whether or not we achieve that depends in very large part on the choices we make.

Growth Good – Singularity The singularity is coming soon – solves warming, all global problems, and makes us immortal Ray Kurzweil, a computer scientist and inventor, 4-13-2008, “Making the World A Billion Times Better,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103326.html, Accessed 4-9-2014 Yet as powerful as information technology is today, we will make another billion-fold increase in capability (for the same cost) over the next 25 years. That's because information technology builds on itself -- we are continually using the latest tools to create the next so they grow in capability at an exponential rate. This doesn't just mean snazzier cellphones. It means that change will rock every aspect of our world. The exponential growth in computing speed will unlock a solution to global warming, unmask the secret to longer life and solve myriad other worldly conundrums. This exponential progress in the power of information technology goes back more than a century to the data-processing equipment used in the 1890 census, the first U.S. census to be automated. It has been a smooth -- and highly predictable -- phenomenon despite all the vagaries of history through that period, including two world wars, the Cold War and the Great Depression. I say highly predictable because, thanks to its exponential power, only technology possesses the scale to address the major challenges -- such as energy and the environment, disease and poverty -- confronting society. That, at least, is the major conclusion of a panel, organized by the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Engineering, on which I recently participated. ad_icon Take energy. Today, 70 percent of it comes from fossil fuels, a 19th-century technology. But if we could capture just one ten-thousandth of the sunlight that falls on Earth, we could meet 100 percent of the world's energy needs using this renewable and environmentally friendly source. We can't do that now because solar panels rely on old technology, making them expensive, inefficient, heavy and hard to install. But a new generation of panels based on nanotechnology (which manipulates matter at the level of molecules) is starting to overcome these obstacles. The tipping point at which energy from solar panels will actually be less expensive than fossil fuels is only a few years away. The power we are generating from solar is doubling every two years; at that rate, it will be able to meet all our energy needs within 20 years.

Growth Good – Wars Growth solves extremism – leads to wars Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2009, The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81- 8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2, Accessed 4-9-2014 So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well.If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Growth Good – Economic Peace Economic peace is solid – explains reduced conflict and avoids neocolonial problems Andrew Mack, the Director of the Human Security Report Project at Simon Fraser University and a faculty member of the university’s new School for International Studies, 2-7-2011, “A More Secure World?” Cato Unbound, http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/02/07/andrew-mack/a-more-secure- world/, Accessed 4-9-2014 Other liberal scholars place much less stress on the conflict-reducing effect of democracy and a lot more on the security impact of the ever-growing interdependencies that are associated with today’s globalized economy. Interdependence increases the costs of going to war, while reducing its benefits. One study by the Cato Institute argued that when measures of both democratization and economic liberalization are included in statistical analyses, “economic freedom is about 50 times more effective than democracy in diminishing violent conflict.”[4]¶ The debate among quantitative scholars over the relative impacts of democracy and economic interdependence on the risk of war is both unresolved and highly technical, but there is little dissent from the proposition that increasing levels of international trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) are associated with a reduced risk of war. ¶ But increased interdependence is not the only economic driver of reduced war risks. In the modern era there are far fewer economic incentives for embarking on war than there were in the era of colonial expansion. Today it is almost always cheaper—politically as well as economically—to buy raw materials from other countries than to mount invasions in order to seize them.

Growth Good – Low Level Conflict Growth prevents low level continual conflicts Andrew Mack, the Director of the Human Security Report Project at Simon Fraser University and a faculty member of the university’s new School for International Studies, 2-7-2011, “A More Secure World?” Cato Unbound, http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/02/07/andrew-mack/a-more-secure- world/, Accessed 4-9-2014 The most robust finding to have emerged from two decades of statistical research on the causes of war is that there is a strong association between rising levels of economic development and the risk of war onsets. As national incomes increase, the risk of war declines. Economic development, in other words, appears to be a powerful long-term form of conflict prevention.¶ Several reasons have been advanced to explain why higher incomes should be associated with reduced risks of civil war. The most compelling and best supported, is that income is a “proxy” indicator for state capacity. As national incomes rise, tax revenues increase and state capacity grows. This in turn provides governments with the political, economic, and military resources to prevent rebellions—and to crush militarily those that cannot be stopped via negotiation, or by buying off grievances, or political co-optation.¶ Rebel groups, often living in the rural periphery, are generally excluded from the benefits of rising levels of development, so the balance of resources relevant to preventing wars, and winning those that cannot be prevented, will— other things being equal—tilt progressively in favour of governments as incomes rise.¶ Given that economic growth generally increases the capacities of governments relative to those of insurgent organizations, we might expect to see fewer insurgent victories as poor-country incomes rise.¶ This is in fact the case. In East and Southeast Asia, for example, there hasn’t been a single insurgent military victory since the end of the 1970s, while among the “strong” states of the Middle East and North Africa, there has been just one (Yemen) in the same period. The greatest number of insurgent victories over the past 30 years has been in sub-Saharan Africa—the region with the weakest states.¶ If, as seems likely, poor-country incomes continue to rise, the prospect for insurgent victories will continue to decline. Confronting diminishing returns from political violence, some would-be rebels may in future be deterred from starting wars.

Growth Good – Space Growth makes space travel possible Nader Elhefnawy, taught at the University of Miami, published widely on space and international issues, Monday, September 29, 2008, “Economic growth and space development over the long haul” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1220/1, Accessed 4-9-2014 Nonetheless, even if one should not get carried away by seemingly staggering numbers, the fact of higher output still means an enlarged range of options. Just as China’s economic growth has made its new ambitions in space more than just a dream (even if many of its plans have yet to prove to be realistic), a space project of any given size would seem far more affordable in a world where global wealth had risen by a factor of two, three, or five. Space is key to preventing extinction James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory, http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf, Accessed 4-9-2014 We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of more than our country.

Growth Good – Democracy Economic downturn makes authoritarianism likely Ronald Hart, Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, March/April 2009, “How Development Leads to Democracy” published in Foreign Affairs, Accessed 4-9-2014 Thus, other things being equal, high levels of economic development tend to make people more tolerant and trusting, bringing more emphasis on self-expression and more participation in decisionmaking. This process is not deterministic, and any forecasts can only be probabilistic, since economic factors are not the only influence; a given country's leaders and nation-specific events also shape what happens. Moreover, modernization is not irreversible. Severe economic collapse can reverse it, as happened during the Great Depression in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain and during the 1990s in most of the Soviet successor states. Similarly, if the current economic crisis becomes a twenty-first-century Great Depression, the world could face a new struggle against renewed xenophobia and authoritarianism.

Growth Good – Heg The economy underpins all aspects of power projection Iwan Morgan, London School of Economics, Professor of United States Studies at the Institute of the Americas, University College London, 2012 “The United States after Unipolarity: The American Economy and America’s Global Power,” http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43478/1/The%20United%20States %20after%20unipolarity_the%20American%20economy%20and%20America%E2%80%99s%20global %20power(lsero).pdf, Accessed 4-9-2014 America’s economic strength has long underwritten its leading role in world affairs. The buoyant tax revenues generated by economic growth fund its massive military spending , the foundation of its global hard power. America’s economic success is also fundamental to its soft power and the promotion of its free-market values in the international economy. Finally, prosperity generally makes the American public more willing to support an expansive foreign policy on the world stage, whereas economic problems tend to engender popular introspection. Ronald Reagan understood that a healthy economy was a prerequisite for American power when he became president amid conditions of runaway inflation and recession. As he put it in his memoirs, ‘In 1981, no problem the country faced was more serious than the economic crisis – not even the need to modernise our armed forces – because without a recovery, we couldn’t afford to do the things necessary to make the country strong again or make a serious effort to reduce the dangers of nuclear war. Nor could America regain confidence in itself and stand tall once again. Nothing was possible unless we made the economy sound again’.

Collapse Bad – Transition Wars Only innovation solves – degrowth fails and causes transition wars Ramez Naam, Adjunct Faculty at Singularity University where he lectures on energy, the environment, and innovation, 4-17-2013, “The Limits of the Earth, Part 2: Expanding the Limits” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/04/18/the-limits-of-the-earth-part-2-expanding- the-limits/, Accessed 4-9-2014 Ending growth isn’t a realistic option. Billions of people in the developing world want access to more resources, deserve those resources as much as those of us in the rich world do, and need them in order to rise out of poverty. Growth won’t end without a struggle. And that struggle could turn violent, as it has in the past. There’s only one acceptable way out of our current predicament. And that is to grow the total pie of resources available to the world’s inhabitants. And a close look at the numbers and at the human history of innovation suggests this is possible. Collapse is worse for all their impacts-causes extinction of every other species and then humans George Monbiot, staff writer, 8-17-2009, “Is there any point in fighting to stave off industrial apocalypse?” Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif- green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-change, Accessed 4-9-2014 The interesting question, and the one that probably divides us, is this: to what extent should we welcome the likely collapse of industrial civilisation? Or more precisely: to what extent do we believe that some good may come of it? I detect in your writings, and in the conversations we have had, an attraction towards – almost a yearning for – this apocalypse, a sense that you see it as a cleansing fire that will rid the world of a diseased society. If this is your view, I do not share it. I'm sure we can agree that the immediate consequences of collapse would be hideous: the breakdown of the systems that keep most of us alive; mass starvation ; war. These alone surely give us sufficient reason to fight on, however faint our chances appear. But even if we were somehow able to put this out of our minds, I believe that what is likely to come out on the other side will be worse than our current settlement. Here are three observations: 1 Our species (unlike most of its members) is tough and resilient; 2 When civilisations collapse, psychopaths take over; 3 We seldom learn from others' mistakes. From the first observation, this follows: even if you are hardened to the fate of humans, you can surely see that our species will not become extinct without causing the extinction of almost all others. However hard we fall, we will recover sufficiently to land another hammer blow on the biosphere. We will continue to do so until there is so little left that even Homo sapiens can no longer survive. This is the ecological destiny of a species possessed of outstanding intelligence, opposable thumbs and an ability to interpret and exploit almost every possible resource – in the absence of political restraint. From the second and third observations, this follows: instead of gathering as free collectives of happy householders, survivors of this collapse will be subject to the will of people seeking to monopolise remaining resources. This will is likely to be imposed through violence. Political accountability will be a distant memory. The chances of conserving any resource in these circumstances are approximately zero. The human and ecological consequences of the first global collapse are likely to persist for many generations, perhaps for our species' remaining time on earth. To imagine that good could come of the involuntary failure of industrial civilisation is also to succumb to denial. The answer to your question – what will we learn from this collapse? – is nothing.

Growth Bad (Oceans)

Topic Internals

General Ocean Development Fails Only a fully coordinated interagency approach to a national ocean policy can take advantage of economic growth potential Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, 2012, “U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card,” htttp://www.jointoceancommission.org/ rc-reports.html, Accessed 5/29/2014 The National Ocean Policy calls for management of our oceans to be more comprehensive and grounded in greater coordination across all levels of government. It also calls for increased engagement of stakeholders who use and care about ocean resources and the communities that depend upon them. In an era of shrinking budgets at all levels of government, the need for efficient and effective coordination to maximize scarce resources has never been more critical. The Joint Initiative strongly believes that management grounded in interagency coordination and robust local stakeholder input will lead to better use of public resources, strengthen our economy, provide for healthier ocean resources, and reinvigorate coastal communities across the nation. The establishment of the National Ocean Policy was a clear step in the right direction. Now it needs to be effectively and thoughtfully implemented to ensure the many resulting benefits to our economy, communities, and environment are realized.

Economic Growth Causes Exploitation/Overfishing Economic growth is responsible for collapsing fish stocks Brett Clark and Rebecca Clausen, Staff Writers, July-August 2008, “The Oceanic Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine, Volume 60, Issue 03, Monthly Review, http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marine- ecosystem, Accessed 5/29/2014 The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world capture from fisheries increased from approximately 20 million tons in 1950 to 84.2 million tons in 2005. A dominant narrative explains that human population growth is solely responsible for this increase in capture; however, recent research demonstrates that social structural factors such as economic growth are also propelling the depletion. Since around 1989 the world capture of marine fish has declined by 500,000 tons per year amidst increasing fishing effort. The drive for economic growth is causing overfishing now The Economist, Staff Writer, February 22, 2014, “The tragedy of the high seas,” http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/ 21596942-new-management-needed-planets-most- important-common-resource-tragedy-high, Accessed 5/29/2014 The high seas—the bit of the oceans that lies beyond coastal states’ 200-mile exclusive economic zones —are a commons. Fishing there is open to all. Countries have declared minerals on the seabed “the common heritage of mankind”. The high seas are of great economic importance to everyone—fish is a more important source of protein than beef—and getting more so. The number of patents using DNA from sea-creatures is rocketing, and one study suggests that marine life is a hundred times more likely to contain material useful for anti-cancer drugs than is terrestrial life. Yet the state of the high seas is deteriorating (see article). Arctic ice now melts away in summer. Dead zones are spreading. Two-thirds of the fish stocks in the high seas are over-exploited, even more than in the parts of the oceans under national control. And strange things are happening at a microbiological level. The oceans produce half the planet’s supply of oxygen, mostly thanks to chlorophyll in aquatic algae. Concentrations of that chlorophyll are falling. That does not mean life will suffocate. But it could further damage the climate, since less oxygen means more carbon dioxide. The UNCLOS shows how state-based management serves the interests of economic growth, resulting in exploitation Brett Clark and Rebecca Clausen, Staff Writers, July-August 2008, “The Oceanic Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine, Volume 60, Issue 03, Monthly Review, http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marine- ecosystem, Accessed 5/29/2014 Competition for market share between companies and capital’s investment in advanced technology intensified fishery exploitation. Competing international companies sought nature’s diminishing bounty, causing further international conflict in the “race for fish.” President Truman responded to these disputes by attempting to expand U.S. corporate interests. He issued two proclamations expanding U.S. authority beyond territorial waters trying to further territorial enclosure of its adjacent seas out to the limits of the continental shelf. Coastal states around the world struggled to transform the property rights of the open ocean to benefit their nations. In response to growing conflict, the United Nations convened the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in Geneva in 1958. Eventually, most nations voted to sign the UN Law of the Sea article, “irrevocably transforming” international law

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 127 and constituting “a fundamental revision of sometimes age-old institutions.” (The U.S. Senate, however, has still not ratified the Law of the Sea Convention.) In the end, the convention established a property regime according to the prescription of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The EEZ put regions of the high seas adjacent to coastal waters entirely within the management purview of the coastal state, up to two hundred miles from their shore. In this zone, states have exclusive rights to living and non-living resources for extraction and economic pursuits.

1NC

1NC DeDev Collapse of the global economy is inevitable Thomas Homer-Dixon, holds the Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Ontario, and is a Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, January/February 2011, “Unconventional Wisdom: ECONOMIES CAN'T JUST KEEP ON GROWING,” Foreign Policy, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=0,1, Accessed 4-9-2014

Humanity has made great strides over the past 2,000 years, and we often assume that our path, notwithstanding a few bumps along the way, goes ever upward. But we are wrong: Within this century, environmental and resource constraints will likely bring global economic growth to a halt. Limits on available resources already restrict economic activity in many sectors, though their impact usually goes unacknowledged. Take rare- earth elements -- minerals and oxides essential to the manufacture of many technologies. When China recently stopped exporting them, sudden shortages threatened to crimp a wide range of industries. Most commentators believed that the supply crunch would ease once new (or mothballed) rare-earth mines are opened. But such optimism overlooks a fundamental physical reality. As the best bodies of ore are exhausted, miners move on to less concentrated deposits in more difficult natural circumstances. These mines cause more pollution and require more energy. In other wordsfv, opening new rare-earth mines outside China will result in staggering environmental impact. Or consider petroleum, which provides about 40 percent of the world's commercial energy and more than 95 percent of its transportation energy. Oil companies generally have to work harder to get each new barrel of oil. The amount of energy they receive for each unit of energy they invest in drilling has dropped from 100 to 1 in Texas in the 1930s to about 15 to 1 in the continental United States today. The oil sands in Alberta, Canada, yield a return of only 4 to 1. Coal and natural gas still have high energy yields. So, as oil becomes harder to get in coming decades, these energy sources will become increasingly vital to the global economy. But they're fossil fuels, and burning them generates climate-changing carbon dioxide. If the World Bank's projected rates for global economic growth hold steady, global output will have risen almost tenfold by 2100, to more than $600 trillion in today's dollars. So even if countries make dramatic reductions in carbon emissions per dollar of GDP, global carbon dioxide emissions will triple from today's level to more than 90 billion metric tons a year. Scientists tell us that tripling carbon emissions would cause such extreme heat waves, droughts, and storms that farmers would likely find they couldn't produce the food needed for the world's projected population of 9 billion people. Indeed, the economic damage caused by such climate change would probably, by itself, halt growth. Humankind is in a box. For the 2.7 billion people now living on less than $2 a day, economic growth is essential to satisfying the most basic requirements of human dignity. And in much wealthier societies, people need growth to pay off their debts, support liberty, and maintain civil peace. To produce and sustain this growth, they must expend vast amounts of energy. Yet our best energy source -- fossil fuel -- is the main thing contributing to climate change, and climate change, if unchecked, will halt growth.

1NC DeDev Short term collapse is the only mechanism to stop runaway warming – the majority of climate scientists agree David Roberts, staff writer, 9-18-2012, “Freaked-out climate scientists urge other freaked-out climate scientists to speak up, fight Man,” Grist, http://grist.org/climate-energy/freaked-out-climate-scientists- urge-other-freaked-out-climate-scientists-to-speak-up-fight-man/, Accessed 4-9-2014 In my previous post, I discussed some new modeling which shows that avoiding climate chaos — limiting average global temperature rise to 2 degrees, generally agreed to be the threshold of danger — is still possible, but just barely, and only with massive, immediate, coordinated global action. Can we m ake the radical changes necessary to meet that challenge? No, say climate scientists Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows in a recent commentary in Nature Climate Change, not “within orthodox political and economic constraints.” There is no political or economic constraint more orthodox than the primacy of economic growth. No solution to climate change that threatens economic growth can get any traction at all — even the most “alarmist” climate hawks fear to tread there. Which is too bad, Anderson and Bows say, because “ climate change commitments are incompatible with short- to medium-term economic growth (in other words, for 10 to 20 years).” What’s worse, “work on adapting to climate change suggests that economic growth cannot be reconciled with the breadth and rate of impacts as the temperature rises towards 4 °C and beyond.” In other words: We either give up economic growth voluntarily for a little while or suffer a climate that will reverse economic growth long-term. Yikes. I’ve cited papers by Anderson and Bows before, in my “brutal logic” series. They are extremely pessimistic about the chances of constraining temperature rise to 2 or even 3 degrees. They identify several ways that most climate modeling downplays the severity of the challenge, but their difference with, say, the U.K. group I wrote about yesterday is not so much over projections as what the projections mean in political economy terms. The U.K. group stresses that 2 degrees is still possible. Anderson and Bows stress that, “within orthodox political and economic constraints,” hitting such a target is wildly unlikely. Absent some pretty revolutionary political and ec onomic changes, it won’t happen. For obvious reasons, scientists shy away from saying this kind of thing in public. They don’t want to depress people or come off as “political.” However, say Anderson and Bows, “away from the microphone and despite claims of ‘green growth’, few if any scientists working on climate change would disagree with the broad thrust of this candid conclusion.”

1NC DeDev Decline solves warming – causes extinction. Minqi Li, Assistant Professor Department of Economics, University of Utah, 2010, “The 21st Century Crisis: Climate Catastrophe or Socialism” Paper prepared for the David Gordon Memorial Lecture at URPE Summer Conference 2010. , Accessed 4-9-2014 The global average surface temperature is now about 0.8 C (0.8 degree Celsius) higher than the pre- industrial time. Under the current trend, the world is on track towards a long-term warming between 4 C and 8  C. At this level of global warming, the world would be in an extreme greenhouse state not seen for almost 100 million years, devastating human civilization and destroying nearly all forms of life on the present earth (Conner and McCarthy 2009). The scientific community has reached the consensus that the current global warming results from the excessive accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (such as methane and nitrous oxide) emitted by human economic activities. The capitalist historical epoch has been characterized by the explosive growth of material production and consumption. The massive expansion of the world economy has been powered by fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). Since 1820, the world economy has expanded by about seventy times and the world emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels burning have increased by about sixty times (see Figure 1). At the United Nations conference on climate change concluded at Copenhagen in December 2009, the world’s governments officially committed to the objective of limiting global warming to no more than 2 C. However, according to the “Climate Action Tracker”, despite the official statement, the national governments’ current pledges regarding emission reduction in fact imply a warming of at least 3 C by the end of the 21st century with more warming to come in the following centuries (Climate Action Tracker 2010). In reality, all the major national governments are committed to infinite economic growth and none of them is willing to consider any emission reduction policy that could undermine economic growth. This is not simply because of intellectual ignorance or lack of political will. The pursuit of endless accumulation of capital (and infinite economic growth) is derived from the basic laws of motion of the capitalist economic system. Without fundamental social transformation, human civilization is now on the path to self-destruction. The next section (Section 2) reviews the basic scientific facts concerning the climate change crisis. Without an end of economic growth, it is virtually impossible for meaningful climate stabilization to be achieved (Section 3).

Collapse Inevitable

Collapse Inevitable Bubbles – growth incentives reckless risk taking – causes catastrophic future collapse Immanuel Wallerstein, senior research scholar at Yale University, January/February 2011, “Unconventional Wisdom: THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WON'T RECOVER, NOW OR EVER,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=0,9, Accessed 4-9- 2014 Together, these costs have risen beyond the point that permits serious capital accumulation. Why not then simply raise prices? Because there are limits beyond which one cannot push their level. It is called the elasticity of demand. The result is a growing profit squeeze, which is reaching a point where the game is not worth the candle. What we are witnessing as a result is chaotic fluctuations of all kinds -- economic, political, sociocultural. These fluctuations cannot easily be controlled by public policy. The result is ever greater uncertainty about all kinds of short-term decision-making, as well as frantic realignments of every variety. Doubt feeds on itself as we search for ways out of the menacing uncertainty posed by terrorism, climate change, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation. The only sure thing is that the present system cannot continue. The fundamental political struggle is over what kind of system will replace capitalism, not whether it should survive. The choice is between a new system that replicates some of the present system's essential features of hierarchy and polarization and one that is relatively democratic and egalitarian. The extraordinary expansion of the world-economy in the postwar years (more or less 1945 to 1970) has been followed by a long period of economic stagnation in which the basic source of gain has been rank speculation sustained by successive indebtednesses. The latest financial crisis didn't bring down this system; it merely exposed it as hollow. Our recent "difficulties" are merely the next-to-last bubble in a process of boom and bust the world-system has been undergoing since around 1970. The last bubble will be state indebtednesses, including in the so-called emerging economies, leading to bankruptcies.

Collapse Inevitable Growth can’t be sustained – prefer science to their unprovable economic theories Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and former Professor of Culture, Ecology, and Sustainable Community at the New College of California, 3-4-2010, “Life After Growth” http://www.countercurrents.org/heinberg040310.htm , Accessed 4-9-2014 Economists are merely generalizing from their experience: they can point to decades of steady growth in the recent past, and so they simply project that experience into the future. Moreover, they have ways to explain why modern market economies are immune to the kinds of limits that constrain natural systems; the two main ones concern substitution and efficiency. If a useful resource becomes scarce, its price will rise, and this creates an incentive for users of the resource to find a substitute. For example, if oil gets expensive enough, energy companies might start making liquid fuels from coal. Or they might develop other energy sources undreamed of today. Economists theorize that this process of substitution can go on forever. It's part of the magic of the free market. Increasing efficiency means doing more with less. In the U.S., the number of inflation-adjusted dollars generated in the economy for every unit of energy consumed has increased steadily over recent decades (the amount of energy, in British Thermal Units, required to produce a dollar of GDP has been dropping steadily, from close to 20,000 BTU per dollar in 1949 to 8,500 BTU in 2008). That's one kind of economic efficiency. Another has to do with locating the cheapest sources of materials, and the places where workers will be most productive and work for the lowest wages. As we increase efficiency, we use less—of either resources or money—to do more. That enables more growth. Finding substitutes for depleting resources and upping efficiency are undeniably effective adaptive strategies of market economies. Nevertheless, the question remains open as to how long these strategies can continue to work in the real world—which is governed less by economic theories than by the laws of physics. In the real world, some things don't have substitutes, or the substitutes are too expensive, or don't work as well, or can't be produced fast enough. And efficiency follows a law of diminishing returns: the first gains in efficiency are usually cheap, but every further incremental gain tends to cost more, until further gains become prohibitively expensive. Unlike economists, most physical scientists recognize that growth within any functioning, bounded system has to stop sometime.

AT: Human Nature It’s not inevitable – humans are inherently empathetic Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, 1-11-2010, “'The Empathic Civilization': Rethinking Human Nature in the Biosphere Era,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/the-empathic-civilization_b_416589.html , Accessed 4-9- 2014 Recent discoveries in brain science and child development, however, are forcing us to rethink these long-held shibboleths about human nature. Biologists and cognitive neuroscientists are discovering mirror-neurons--the so-called empathy neurons--that allow human beings and other species to feel and experience another's situation as if it were one's own. We are, it appears, the most social of animals and seek intimate participation and companionship with our fellows. Social scientists, in turn, are beginning to reexamine human history from an empathic lens and, in the process, discovering previously hidden strands of the human narrative which suggests that human evolution is measured not only by the expansion of power over nature, but also by the intensification and extension of empathy to more diverse others across broader temporal and spatial domains. The growing scientific evidence that we are a fundamentally empathic species has profound and far-reaching consequences for society, and may well determine our fate as a species.

Collapse Good

Collapse Now Good – Transition Collapse now better than later – stops extinction.

Glen Barry, Ph.D. in Land Resources from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, MS in Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development from Madison, Founder and President of Ecological Internet, 1-14- 2008, “Economic Collapse and Global Ecology,” http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm, Accessed 4-9-2014 The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right- sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration. This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured. Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies. It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil. Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.

Growth Bad – Warming Growth means that sufficient emission reductions are impossible---4 degree change is inevitable by 2020 and will be unstable and cause extinction---adaptation is impossible

David Roberts, a staff writer for Grist, 12-8-2011, "The brutal logic of climate change mitigation" www.grist.org/climate-policy/2011-12-08-the- brutal-logic-of-climate-change-mitigation, Accessed 4-9-2014 Can the primacy of economic growth be questioned in attempts to avoid dangerous climate change? Keep question (5) in mind. It is almost never raised explicitly in these discussions, but it turns out to be central to how we answer the other questions. Long story short, Anderson and Bows argue that we are systematically blowing smoke up our own asses. (Though, ahem, that's probably not how they would put it.) The thing is, we have ostensibly answered question (1). The Copenhagen Accord has been signed by 141 countries representing over 87 percent of global emissions, including the U.S. and the E.U. It explicitly recognizes "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius." Climate communiques the world over are full of categorical language: we "must" avoid 2 degrees C! (Despite the fact that new science reveals 2 degrees C to be well within extremely dangerous territory.) We pretend that 2 degrees C is our threshold. Yet the climate scenarios and plans presented to policymakers do not actually reflect that threshold. As Anderson and Bows say, "most policy advice is to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate change rather than propose radical and immediate emission reductions." Note, also, that most popular climate scenarios include an implausibly early peak in global emissions -- 2010 in many cases, 2015-16 in the case of the Stern Report, the ADAM project, and the U.K.'s Committee on Climate Change. Why do climate analysts do this? Why do they present plans that contain wildly optimistic assumptions about the peak in global emissions and yet a high probability of overshooting the 2 degrees C target? The answer is fairly simple, and it has to do with the answer to question (4), regarding what level of emissions reductions is reasonable to expect. According to the Stern Review and others, emissions reductions of 3 to 4 percent a year are the maximum compatible with continued economic growth. And so that's the level they use in their scenarios. Yet reductions at that pace offer very little practical hope of hitting 2 degrees C. In other words, climate analysts construct their scenarios not to avoid dangerous climate change but to avoid threatening economic growth. That would make sense if being richer would help us prosper in a 4 degrees C [7.2 degrees F] world. But ... no such luck. Says Anderson in his slideshow presentation: There is a widespread view that a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to be beyond "adaptation," is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable (i.e., 4 degrees C would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level). To be sure, there is plenty of uncertainty about the impacts of particular levels of temperature rise. (See: recent controversy over climate sensitivity.) Predictions are hard, especially about the future. But if the "widespread view" Anderson identifies is correct -- or even half correct! -- it completely scrambles conventional approaches to the problem. It implies that 4 degrees C must be avoided at literally any cost.

Collapse Now Good – Warming Collapse ends emissions and removes ideological blinders – makes sustainable transition possible Olli Tammilehto, Writer and Independent Researcher, 2012, On the Prospect of Preventing Global Climate Catastrophe due to Rapid Social Change, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23:1, 79-92, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2011.648842, Accessed 4-9-2014 However, new perspectives on the political nature of economic growth may open up among common people despairing in the face of global warming. Aside from curtailing consumption, revisiting old struggles for real democracy and social equality is also imperative. For it follows that when the ideologically constructed prospect of everyone becoming rich ceases to exist, it will be very difficult to suppress people’s centuries-old yearning for democracy and equality. Though the chances of dethroning growth by a huge increase of social movement activities in the near future seem very slim, there are reasons why we still have hope. Social change movements exist, and there are historical experiences indicating that in dire situations these movements can change and grow rapidly. Witness, as of this writing in November 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement that is quickly spreading around the world. History also teaches us that the combination of ongoing social struggles and a sudden crisis can cause a rapid structural change in society. However, several questionable assumptions must be overcome in order to realize that such change is possible. These assumptions relate to 1) the connection between consumption and well-being, 2) the interpretation of historical revolutions, and 3) the character of wealth and social reality in modern societies.

AT: Renewables Renewables can’t solve – too much is needed and the switch frontloads emissions making warming inevitable Drew Johnson, staff writer, 7-24-2012, “A small, sweaty and dirty green future,” Washington Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/a-small-sweaty-and-dirty-green- future/article/2502998#.UC6bAt1lTYw, Accessed 4-9-2014 But surely we can move heavily into renewables and stave off these extreme lifestyle modifications, right? Again, no. The Worldwatch Institute notes that "in order to produce enough energy over the next 25 years to replace most of what is supplied by fossil fuels, the world would need to build 200 square meters of solar photovoltaic panels every second plus 100 square meters of solar thermal every second plus 24 3-megawatt wind turbines every hour nonstop for the next 25 years. All of this would take tremendous energy and materials -- ironically frontloading carbon emissions just when they most need to be reduced."

Collapse Now Good – Mindset Shift Economic collapse forces a cultural change away from growth, which solves—-prefer our ev that cites polling James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University, founder of the World Resources Institute, Professor at Vermont Law School, Former Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President, Co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, 2008, The Bridge at the Edge of the World, p. 211-213, Accessed 4-9-2014 Unfortunately, the surest path to widespread cultural change is a cataclysmic event that profoundly affects shared values and delegitimizes the status quo and existing leadership. The Great Depression is a classic example. I believe that both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina could have led to real cultural change in the United States, both for the better, but America lacked the inspired leadership needed. A Congressman is said to have told a citizens group, “If you will lead, your leaders will follow.” But it doesn’t have to be that way. Harvard’s Howard Gardner stresses this potential of true leadership in his book Changing Minds: “Whether they are heads of a nation or senior officials of the United Nations, leaders of large, disparate populations have enormous potential to change minds . . . and in the process they can change the course of history.” “I have suggested one way to capture the attention of a disparate population: by creating a compelling story, embodying that story in one’s own life, and presenting the story in many different formats so that it can eventually topple the counterstories in one’s culture. . . . [T]he story must be simple, easy to identify with, emotionally resonant, and evocative of positive experiences.” There is some evidence that Americans are ready for another story. Large majorities of Americans, when polled, express disenchantment with today’s lifestyles and offer support for values similar to those discussed here. But these values are held along with other strongly felt and often conflicting values, and we are all pinned down by old habits, fears, insecurities, social pressures and in other ways. A new story that helps people find their way out of this confusion and dissonance could help lead to real change.

Growth Bad – Environment Numerous independent paths to extinction from environmental collapse – technology only aggravates the problem Paul Ehrlich, department of biology, Stanford, and Anne Ehrlich, 1-9-2013, “Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?” Proceedings of the Royal Society, vol. 280, no. 1754, Accessed 4-9-2014 But today, for the first time, humanity's global civilization—the worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly technological society in which we all are to one degree or another, embedded—is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as ‘an act of suicide on a grand scale’ [4], facing what the UK's Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a ‘perfect storm’ of environmental problems [5]. The most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly escalating severity, especially climate disruption. But other elements could potentially also contribute to a collapse: an accelerating extinction of animal and plant populations and species, which could lead to a loss of ecosystem services essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a pole-to-pole spread of toxic compounds; ocean acidification and eutrophication (dead zones); worsening of some aspects of the epidemiological environment (factors that make human populations susceptible to infectious diseases); depletion of increasingly scarce resources [6,7], including especially groundwater, which is being overexploited in many key agricultural areas [8]; and resource wars [9]. These are not separate problems; rather they interact in two gigantic complex adaptive systems: the biosphere system and the human socio-economic system. The negative manifestations of these interactions are often referred to as ‘the human predicament’ [10], and determining how to prevent it from generating a global collapse is perhaps the foremost challenge confronting humanity

AT: Environmental Resiliency No system resiliency – ecosystems respond in a non-linear fashion – extinction occurs Guy McPherson, is professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, Biological Sciences, 8-6-2012, “What’s important,” Nature Bats Last, http://guymcpherson.com/2012/08/whats-important/, Accessed 4-9-2014 Environmental factors are thus changing at an unprecedented rate. Oftentimes, many of these factors combine. A research article published in Nature and titled “Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems” is summed up by author Derrick Jensen in his book Endgame (2006) with the following words: “Conventional scientific thought, it seems, has generally held that ecosystems — natural communities like lakes, oceans, coral reefs, forests, deserts, and so on — respond slowly and steadily to climate change, nutrient pollution, habitat degradation, and the many other environmental impacts of industrial civilization. A new study suggests that instead, stressors like these can cause natural communities to shift almost overnight from apparently stable conditions to very different, diminished conditions. The lead author of the study, Marten Scheffer, an ecologist at the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands, said, “Models have predicted this, but only in recent years has enough evidence accumulated to tell us that resilience of many important ecosystems has become undermined to the point that even the slightest disturbance can make them collapse” and quotes a co-author of the study as saying: “We work on the premise that an ounce of pollution equals an ounce of damage. It turns out that assumption is entirely incorrect. Ecosystems may go on for years exposed to pollution or climate changes without showing any change at all and then suddenly they may flip into an entirely different condition, with little warning or none at all.” This information should be worrying, seeing as in many instances we have quite a lot of warning, for instance the loss of one-third of bees in the last several years and the bee per hectare ratio having fallen by 90%. This is serious because bees are necessary for the pollination of most plants –- and therefore their sexual reproduction — and the production of fruit and nuts. When we ask ourselves what is important, I would hope we list human survival near the top of the list. If we allow global ecological collapse to continue, then we, as high level consumers, will most likely not survive. If this happens then EVERYTHING your parents and your ancestors worked for, everything you have worked for, will mean NOTHING. If there are aliens, then they will laugh at us: we have the knowledge to prevent our own extinction, but still move forward like lemmings towards the cliff. We read information like this, and many still choose to do nothing, or to remain willfully in denial or ignorant. Time is running out and the only question is, are you willing to get your priorities in order?

AT: Space Give low priority to colonization – it’s impossible, low risk of natural threats causing extinction, and doesn’t solve. Hard SF, articles focusing on delineating science from science fiction, 5-10-2007, “Can Space Colonization Guarantee Human Survival?” http://www.hardsf.org/IssuSpac.htm, Accessed 4-9-2014 Weakened hip bones may be a problem for women giving birth in low gravity. Other stressful activities may also be problematic. We need to find out how low gravity will effect a fetus during pregnancy and child growth afterwards. Identifying and resolving all the issues is likely to take many years. Currently, our society is not inclined to invest that much in either stopping global warming (and other threats) or space habitats. It strikes me as improbable that we will see a heavy investment in both of them at the same time in the next period of time. My impression is the best chance for human survival is focusing as much as possible on one or the other of the two paths, and that space colonization will not solve the problem within the limited time-frame. Of course, if governments refuse to fund solutions to the environmental crisis, but budget money for space habitats we should use that money. Hopefully, governments will respond to the crisis before it’s too late and the problems will be brought under control and within safe limits. Then there will be no reason not to expand out into the universe. Postscript For those who still believe space colonization should be the priority, I would like to suggest one piece of advice . The known threats to human survival in the next century or so are not vast earthquakes and volcanoes, asteroid impacts, supernovas or other natural disasters. Most of them are at least partly (hu)man-made. If the same problems are not to threaten survival of humans on space colonies, we either have to make humans on Earth act more responsibly to ensure survival before we colonize, or we need to know how to insure that those people who colonize are not so prone to make the same mistakes their Earthly brothers do. If space colonization ends up amounting to running away from our problems, we will not have changed the odds of human survival by much. Space colonies would need to be planned in a way to avoid this fate.

Growth Bad – War Economic growth causes war – decline doesn’t cause war Charles Boehmer, professor of political science at the University of Texas, El Paso and Ph.D. in Political Science from Pennsylvania State University, 2010, “Economic Growth and Violent International Conflict: 1875-1999,” Defence and Peace Economics, June, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pg. 249-268, Accessed 4-9-2014 The theory set forth earlier theorizes that economic growth increases perceptions of state strength, increasing the likelihood of violent interstate conflicts. Economic growth appears to increase the resolve of leaders to stand against challenges and the willingness to escalate disputes. A non-random pattern exists where higher rates of GDP growth over multiple years are positively and significantly related to the most severe international conflicts, whereas this is not true for overall conflict initiations. Moreover, growth of military expenditures, as a measure of the war chest proposition, does not offer any explanation for violent interstate conflicts. This is not to say that growth of military expenditures never has any effect on the occurrence of war, although such a link is not generally true in the aggregate using a large sample of states. In comparison, higher rates of economic growth are significantly related to violent interstate conflicts in the aggregate. States with growing economies are more apt to reciprocate military challenges by other states and become involved in violent interstate conflicts. The results also show that theories from the Crisis-Scarcity perspective lack explanatory power linking GDP growth rates to war at the state level of analysis. This is not to say that such theories completely lack explanatory power in general, but more particularly that they cannot directly link economic growth rates to state behavior in violent interstate conflicts. In contrast, theories of diversionary conflict may well hold some explanatory power, although not regarding GDP growth in a general test of states from all regions of the world across time. Perhaps diversionary theory better explains state behaviors short of war, where the costs of externalizing domestic tensions do not become too costly, or in relation to the foreign policies of particular countries. In many circumstances, engaging in a war to divert attention away from domestic conditions would seemingly exacerbate domestic crisis conditions unless the chances of victory were practically assured. Nonetheless, this study does show that domestic conflict is associated with interstate conflict. If diversionary conflict theory has any traction as an economic explanation of violent interstate conflicts, it may require the study of other explanatory variables besides overall GDP growth rates, such as unemployment or inflation rates. The contribution of this article has been to examine propositions about economic growth in a global study. Most existing studies on this topic focus on only the United States, samples of countries that are more developed on average (due to data availability in the past), or are based on historical information and not economic GDP data.

AT: Transition Wars Countries turn inward – solves transition wars D. Scott Bennett, Ph.D., The U of Michigan, Distinguished prof of Political Science, and Timothy Nordstrom, Associate prof. Director of Graduate Studies @ U of Mississippi, February 2000, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 44, No.1, Accessed 4-9-2014 INTERNAL CONDITIONS AND EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR: IMPROVEMENTS By coming at externalization from the substitutability perspective, we hope to deal with some of the theoretical problems raised by critics of diversionary conflict theory. Substitutability can be seen as a particular problem of model specification where the dependent variable has not been fully developed. We believe that one of the theoretical problems with studies of externalization has been a lack of attention to alternative choices; Bueno de Mesquita actually hints toward this (and the importance of foreign policy substitution) when he argues that it is shortsighted to conclude that a leader will uniformly externalize in response to domestic problems at the expense of other possible policy choices (1985, 130). We hope to improve on the study of externalization and behavior within rivalries by considering multiple outcomes in response to domestic conditions.5 In particular, we will focus on the alternative option that instead of externalizing, leaders may internalize when faced with domestic economic troubles. Rather than diverting the attention of the public or relevant elites through military action, leaders may actually work to solve their internal problems internally . Tying internal solutions to the external environment, we focus on the possibility that leaders may work to disengage their country from hostile relationships in the international arena to deal with domestic issues. Domestic problems often emerge from the challenges of spreading finite resources across many different issue areas in a manner that satisfies the public and solves real problems. Turning inward for some time may free up resources required to jumpstart the domestic economy or may simply provide leaders the time to solve internal distributional issues. In our study, we will focus on the condition of the domestic economy (gross domestic product [GDP] per capita growth) as a source of pressure on leaders to externalize. We do this for a number of reasons. First, when studying rivalries, we need an indicator of potential domestic trouble that is applicable beyond just the United States or just advanced industrialized democracies. In many non- Western states, variables such as election cycles and presidential popularity are irrelevant. Economics are important to all countries at all times. At a purely practical level, GDP data is also more widely available (cross-nationally and historically) than is data on inflation or unemployment.6 Second, we believe that fundamental economic conditions are a source of potential political problems to which leaders must pay attention. Slowing growth or worsening economic conditions may lead to mass dissatisfaction and protests down the road; economic problems may best be dealt with at an early stage before they turn into outward, potentially violent, conflict. This leads us to a third argument, which is that we in fact believe that it may be more appropriate in general to use indicators of latent conflict rather than manifest conflict as indicators of the potential to divert. Once the citizens of a country are so distressed that they resort to manifest conflict (rioting or engaging in open protest), it may be too late for a leader to satisfy them by engaging in distracting foreign policy actions. If indeed leaders do attempt to distract people's attention, then if protest reaches a high level, that attempt has actually failed and we are looking for correlations between failed externalization attempts and further diversion.

AT: Trade Key Trade levels have very little effect on the macro economy Paul Krugman, Prof of Econ at Princeton, won his Nobel prize from his paper on trade economics, 11- 7-2012, “Macro Trumps Micro,” Accessed 4-9-2014 Or, as the late James Tobin used to say, it takes a lot of Harberger triangles to fill an Okun gap. Dean Baker catches David Ignatius suggesting that trade liberalization can provide enough economic boost to offset the effects of austerity. As Dean says, the arithmetic is totally off — almost two orders of magnitude off. The truth is that using any conventional economic model, the costs from current levels of protectionism are very small as a share of GDP. To some extent that reflects the success of decades of trade liberalization: there just isn’t that much protection any more. But it’s a more general observation that even bad microeconomic policies, which lead to substantial distortions in the use of resources, have a hard time doing remotely as much damage as a severe economic slump, which doesn’t misallocate resources — it simply wastes them. Which is the point of that Tobin quote. Right now the U.S. economy is operating something like 6 percent below capacity. You would be hard-pressed to find any microeconomic distortion that comes anywhere close to doing that much damage, or even a tenth that much damage. The one place that might qualify is health care, where we surely do waste several points of GDP. But the problem with health care in America isn’t that we don’t let the free market work, it is that we have a semi-private system in a sector where free markets can’t work. Two more things — and back to Ignatius. First, there’s an especially strong tendency to mythologize the power of free trade. Not that open world markets are a bad thing; they’re definitely a force for good, especially for small, poor countries. But my experience is that the less somebody knows about international trade, the more likely he or she is to imagine that modest moves toward or away from protectionism will have huge effects. Trade economists, who have actually worked with the models, have a much less grandiose view. Second, even to the extent that trade liberalization would raise the efficiency of the world economy, it is not, repeat not, a route to overall job creation. Yes, everyone would export more; they would also import more. There is no reason at all to assume that the jobs gained from export creation would exceed the jobs lost to import competition. Globalization is not the answer to the Lesser Depression.

Hegemony Ocean Links

U.S. Investment in Ocean Development is Key to leadership We need significant federal investment in ocean development to secure U.S. leadership Admiral James D. Watkins, US Navy (Ret.), Chair of the US Commission on Ocean Policy, et al, July 22, 2004, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Final Report, US Commission On Ocean Policy, http://www.oceancommission.gov, Accessed 6/10/2014 The United States has a wealth of ocean research expertise spread across a network of government and industry laboratories and world-class universities, colleges, and marine centers. With strong federal support, these institutions made the United States the world leader in oceanography during the 20th century. However, a leader cannot stand still. Ocean and coastal management issues continue to grow in number and complexity, new fields of study have emerged, new interdisciplinary approaches are being tried, and there is a growing need to understand the planet on a global and regional scale. All this has created a corresponding demand for high-quality scientific information. Significant federal investments by the Navy and NSF during the cold war years of the 1960s and 1970s enabled scientists to help promote the U.S. economy and security by supporting research on the fundamental physical, chemical, biological, and geological properties of the oceans. During that period, funding for ocean-related research constituted 7 percent of the federal research budget. However, the federal investment began to stagnate in the early 1980s (Figure 25.2), so that ocean research now comprises a meager 3.5 percent or less of the federal research portfolio. Due to this decrease, the NSF must reluctantly turn down about one-half of the highly-rated grant proposals it receives in the ocean sciences. The current annual federal investment of approximately $650 million in marine science is well below the level necessary to adequately address the nation’s needs for coastal and ocean information. Unless funding increases sharply, the gap between requirements and resources will continue to grow and the United States will not be able to generate the information it needs to wisely manage its ocean resources. Ocean development is an ideal vehicle to advance U.S. global leadership Admiral James D. Watkins, US Navy (Ret.), Chair of the US Commission on Ocean Policy, et al, July 22, 2004, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Final Report, US Commission On Ocean Policy, http://www.oceancommission.gov, Accessed 6/10/2014 Many nations border on, or have direct access to, the sea. All are affected by it. People everywhere have a stake in how well the oceans are managed, how wisely they are used, and how extensively they are explored and understood. For the United States, this means the oceans provide an ideal vehicle for global leadership. From international security to ocean resource management, education, scientific research, and the development of ocean-related technology, the United States can gain respect by demonstrating exemplary policies and achievements at home and seeking to spread positive results through collaborative efforts around the world. A continued decline in ocean development leadership undermines competitiveness Admiral James D. Watkins, US Navy (Ret.), Chair of the US Commission on Ocean Policy, et al, July 22, 2004, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Final Report, US Commission On Ocean Policy, http://www.oceancommission.gov, Accessed 6/10/2014 If not remedied, a decline in U.S. leadership in marine technology development will result in increasing reliance on foreign capabilities. In 2001, the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century reported that federal investment in non-defense technology development has remained flat since 1989

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 150 and that the United States is losing its technological edge in many scientific fields. Japan, the European Community, India, and China are all making great strides in marine technology development and have the potential to outcompete the United States in the near future. Changes in the policies and priorities of foreign nations, and a potential reluctance to freely share technology and environmental information, may leave this nation’s ocean research and observation activities behind.

U.S. Investment in Ocean Development is Key to leadership U.S. domination of ocean spaces is essential to contain China Li Fanjie, PhD candidate at the Institute of Modern International Relations, Tsinghua University, January 20, 2014, “The Prospect of Sino-US Maritime Conflict and Cooperation,” China Institute of International Studies, Accessed 6/11/2014 Oceans provide an important arena for the United States to implement its global strategies. Therefore, maintaining absolute control of oceans builds the core of US geopolitical strategies. Since the beginning of the 21st Century, with the rapid growth of China’s sea power and intensification of disputes between China and its neighboring countries over maritime rights and interests, the United States has been making greater efforts to contain and deter China at sea. This inevitably exasperated the conflict between the two countries. However, the conflict between China and the United States at sea is different from the Cold War type of confrontation between the United States and former Soviet Union, because there still exist broad spaces for cooperation between the two countries.

The Navy is a Leader in Marine Renewable Energy The Navy is committed to marine renewable energy. It’s key to hegemony via energy security Darrell E. Waller, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Public Affairs, April 2, 2012, “Navy Seeks Renewable Ocean Energy Technology at Industry Forum,” http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp? story_id=66173, Accessed 6/10/2014 The Navy, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, will select three ocean energy power developers to occupy Wave Energy Test Site (WETS) moorings at Kaneohe Bay. "The Navy is committed to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and is leading the way on the development of viable, renewable energy sources," said NAVFAC Pacific Vice Commander Capt. Pete Lynch. "NAVFAC Pacific is working on ways to make the Navy's shore infrastructure more energy independent and strengthen our energy security position. The ocean is an untapped resource and possible source of renewable energy. The conferences we are hosting will help us learn the new ocean energy technology and systems that exist today." Naval development of wave power is expanding rapidly Leah Jones, Staff Writer, April 15, 2012, “Navy’s Hawaii Ocean Energy Plans Taking Shape,” Earth Techling, http://earthtechling.com/ 2012/04/navys-hawaii-ocean-energy-plans-taking-shape/, Accessed 6/10/2014 The U.S. Navy’s wide-ranging quest for renewable energy has taken an eminently logical turn in Hawaii, where the service is looking to the water for power. Plans for a wave-energy test center are moving into high gear after Navy officials met with a diverse group of ocean energy developers last month. As part of a two-day conference at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, attendees visited the Kaneohe Bay site, where research into wave power began in the early 2000s, and where Ocean Power Technologies in 2009 hooked a wave energy buoy into the grid. That was the first ever grid connection of a wave energy device in the United States. DARPA and the Navy are doing cutting edge wave power development Tina Casey, Guest Contributor, June 24, 2012, “Utility-Scale Wave Power, Thanks to U.S. Navy,” Clean Technica, Accessed 6/10/2014, http://cleantechnica.com/2012/06/24/navy-helps-develop-wave-power/ When Ocean Power began testing the PowerBuoy a couple of years ago, the device served as the country’s first grid-connected wave energy system. It provided electricity to Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Oahu. The Navy’s wave power test site, at Kaneohe Bay, actually dates back to the Bush Administration as part of the Navy’s long term partnership with the University of Hawaii’s National Marine Renewable Energy Center. The new test site upgrade will enable wave power companies to test larger buoys, which can be positioned at greater depths. It’s also worth noting that DARPA, the Pentagon’s cutting-edge research agency, has been funding research into wave power, though its main focus is on small-scale devices that would be used to provide power for surveillance buoys and other remote devices.

Naval Power Key to Hegemony

Naval Power Key to Hegemony Naval power is key to hegemony James T. Conway, General, U.S. Marine Corps, Gary Roughead, Admiral, U.S. Navy, Thad W. Allen, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” 10-2007, http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf, Accessed 4-10-2014 Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key component of deterring major power war. While war with another great power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational agility—provide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces. Win our Nation’s wars. In times of war, our ability to impose local sea control, overcome challenges to access, force entry, and project and sustain power ashore, makes our maritime forces an indispensable element of the joint or combined force. This expeditionary advantage must be maintained because it provides joint and combined force commanders with freedom of maneuver. Reinforced by a robust sealift capability that can concentrate and sustain forces, sea control and power projection enable extended campaigns ashore.

AT: Naval Power Key to Hegemony Naval power isn’t key to heg and doesn’t stop wars Daniel Goure, PhD in IR, BA in government, VP of the Lexington Institute, member of the Department of Defense Transition Team, former director of Strategic Competitiveness for the Secretary of State, senior analyst on national security and defense issues with the Center for Naval Analyses, 7-2-2010, “Can The Case Be Made For Naval Power?” The Lexington Institute, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/can-the-case-be-made-for-naval-power-?a=1&c=1171, Accessed 4- 10-2014 For more than six decades, the U.S. Navy has kept America safe, guarded our overseas interests, reassured allies, patrolled the global commons and assisted the victims of manmade and natural disasters. Under the rubric of forward deployed credible combat power, the Navy designed a force structure based on the close integration of space, air, surface and subsurface platforms and systems. This is the Navy that helped win the Cold War, made Operation Enduring Freedom possible and served as the core around which international task forces have been built to patrol the waters off the Horn of Africa. Historically, the case for a strong U.S. Navy was unassailable. This is no longer the case. The U.S. faces no great maritime challengers. While China appears to be toying with the idea of building a serious Navy this is many years off. Right now it appears to be designing a military to keep others, including the United States, away, out of the Western Pacific and Asian littorals. But even if it were seeking to build a large Navy, many analysts argue that other than Taiwan it is difficult to see a reason why Washington and Beijing would ever come to blows. Our former adversary, Russia, would have a challenge fighting the U.S. Coast Guard, much less the U.S. Navy. After that, there are no other navies of consequence. Yes, there are some scenarios under which Iran might attempt to close the Persian Gulf to oil exports, but how much naval power would really be required to reopen the waterway? Actually, the U.S. Navy would probably need more mine countermeasures capabilities than it currently possesses. More broadly, it appears that the nature of the security challenges confronting the U.S. has changed dramatically over the past several decades. There are only a few places where even large-scale conventional conflict can be considered possible. None of these would be primarily maritim e in character although U.S. naval forces could make a significant contribution by employing its offensive and defensive capabilities over land. For example, the administration’s current plan is to rely on sea-based Aegis missile defenses to protect regional allies and U.S. forces until a land-based variant of that system can be developed and deployed. The sea ways, sometimes called the global commons, are predominantly free of dangers. The exception to this is the chronic but relatively low level of piracy in some parts of the world. So, the classic reasons for which nations build navies, to protect its own shores and its commerce or to place the shores and commerce of other states in jeopardy, seem relatively unimportant in today’s world. The problem is not answering the question of what kinds of ships, planes and submarines should the Navy build but rather should there be a Navy at all. Naval power not key element of hegemony PEC, 4-10-2007, “The Limitations and Necessity of Naval Power” http://popeeatscookies.blogspot.com/2007/04/limitations-and-necessity-of-naval.html, Accessed 4-10- 2014 The counterargument normally given is that the U.S. Navy provides a critical service in what is called littoral warfare. In other words, while the Navy might not be needed immediately to control sea-lanes, it carries out critical functions in securing access to those lanes and projecting rapid power into countries where the United States might want to intervene. Thus, U.S. aircraft carriers can bring tactical airpower

Naval hegemony causes war with China The U.S. needs absolute freedom of navigation, which risks conflict with China Li Fanjie, PhD candidate at the Institute of Modern International Relations, Tsinghua University, January 20, 2014, “The Prospect of Sino-US Maritime Conflict and Cooperation,” China Institute of International Studies, Accessed 6/11/2014 Due to different domestic situations and maritime strategies, China and the United States have different understandings about maritime order. With its global hegemony based on superior sea power and one of its core interests being maintenance of free access to oceans, the United States finds it very natural to advocate the principle of “absolute freedom of navigation”. In contrast, China pursues an “offshore defense” strategy, and therefore holds the opinion that foreign battleships engaging in military survey operations in a country’s Exclusive Economic Zones (EZZ) are harmful to the country’s national security and should therefore be prohibited. This is so different from the US view based on the concept of “navigation freedom” and the opinion that “states should not legally prohibit military survey operations within their Exclusive Economic Zones”.

Unilateralism in ocean policy causes extinction Only multilateral cooperation brings the benefits of oceans. The impact is extinction The Council on Foreign Relations, Staff Writer, June 19, 2013, “The Global Oceans Regime,” Issue Brief, http://www.cfr.org/oceans/global-oceans-regime/p21035, Accessed 6/11/2014 Oceans are the source of life on earth. They shape the climate, feed the world, and cleanse the air we breathe. They are vital to our economic well being, ferrying roughly 90 percent of global commerce, housing submarine cables, and providing one-third of traditional hydrocarbon resources (as well as new forms of energy such as wave, wind, and tidal power). But the oceans are increasingly threatened by a dizzying array of dangers, from piracy to climate change. To be good stewards of the oceans, nations around the world need to embrace more effective multilateral governance in the economic, security, and environmental realms.

AT: China is a naval threat China is not a maritime threat to U.S. leadership. Our Navy has crushing dominance at sea Li Fanjie, PhD candidate at the Institute of Modern International Relations, Tsinghua University, January 20, 2014, “The Prospect of Sino-US Maritime Conflict and Cooperation,” China Institute of International Studies, Accessed 6/11/2014 Although some people in the United States described China as a maritime threat, the US navy still keeps a dominant position in West Pacific and globally. According to 2010 statistics, the total tonnage of US fleet was around 2.6 billion, more than the combined tonnages of all other 17 fleets ranking after it (of the 17 fleets, 14 belong to US allies). Besides the dominance in tonnage, the US Navy is equipped with the most advanced weapons in the world including centralized and networked weaponry systems. In terms of overall missile capabilities, the US navy’s missile capability exceeds the combined capacities of all other 20 navies in the world ranking after it. In terms of the total number of battleships, the US Navy is at least matching the sum of Chinese and Russian navies (203 vs. 205), but the total tonnage of US navy is 263 times of the combined tonnages of Chinese and Russian navies. Therefore, we can see that China has not posed a serious challenge to the US maritime superiority at all. Echoing the needs of domestic politics and foreign policies, efforts to depict China as a maritime threat have obviously other purposes and agendas.

Yes Naval Power U.S. Naval dominance is unmatched The Council on Foreign Relations, Staff Writer, June 19, 2013, “The Global Oceans Regime,” Issue Brief, http://www.cfr.org/oceans/global-oceans-regime/p21035, Accessed 6/11/2014 The United States polices every ocean throughout the world. The U.S. navy is unmatched in its ability to provide strategic stability on, under, and above the world's waters. With almost three hundred active naval ships and almost four thousand aircraft, its battle fleet tonnage is greater than the next thirteen largest navies combined. Despite recently proposed budget cuts to aircraft carriers, U.S. naval power continues to reign supreme. Naval power high – no competitors, future investments solve aging problems Stimson Center, November 2012, “A New US Defense Strategy for a New Era: Military Superiority, Agility, and Efficiency” http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research- pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdf, Accessed 4-10-2014 The Navy has pursued a modernization strategy that also aligns well with Strategic Agility, which emphasizes relying on more advanced technologies to preserve US military dominance, even while saving money. The Navy already fields a force that will be dominant in the near- to mid-term, without facing aging problems that could degrade its capability before future investments come to fruition. This is especially true for strike aircraft, where the Navy’s current force of F-18 Super Hornets will remain capable aircraft for the next decade or so, giving the Navy the time to develop the FA-X for more distant threats. If necessitated by budgetary reductions, planned purchases of F-35s could be cut back or cancelled if the program continues to experience development problems. The same is true for the Navy’s surface and submarine combatants. The DDG-51 missile-armed destroyers and Virginia-class submarines are dominant platforms that will long outpace anything the rest of the world could put to sea, easing the need for near-term replacements.

Heg Good (Oceans)

Lock In/Sustainable

Yes Sustainable No one can challenge the U.S. Their scenario is based on bad foreign policy analysis John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, January/ February 2014, “America Unhinged,” The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-unhinged-9639, Accessed 5/27/2014 Anyone paying even cursory attention to U.S. foreign policy in recent decades will recognize that Washington’s response to Egypt and Syria is part of a much bigger story. The story is this: America’s national-security elites act on the assumption that every nook and cranny of the globe is of great strategic significance and that there are threats to U.S. interests everywhere. Not surprisingly, they live in a constant state of fear. This fearful outlook is reflected in the comments of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, before Congress in February 2012: “I can’t impress upon you that in my personal military judgment, formed over thirty-eight years, we are living in the most dangerous time in my lifetime, right now.” In February 2013, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that Americans “live in very complex and dangerous times,” and the following month Senator James Inhofe said, “I don’t remember a time in my life where the world has been more dangerous and the threats more diverse.” These are not anomalous views. A 2009 survey done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 69 percent of the Council on Foreign Relations’ members believed the world was more dangerous than—or at least as dangerous as—it was during the Cold War. In short, the elite consensus is that Egypt and Syria are not the only countries Washington has to worry about, although they are among the most pressing problems at the moment. This grim situation means the United States has a lot of social engineering to carry out, leaving it no choice but to pursue an interventionist foreign policy. In other words, it must pursue a policy of global domination if it hopes to make the world safe for America. This perspective is influential, widespread—and wrong. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the United States is a remarkably secure country. No great power in world history comes close to enjoying the security it does today. What’s more, Egypt and Syria are not vital strategic interests. What happens in those countries is of little importance for American security. This is not to say they are irrelevant but rather that Washington’s real interests there are not great enough to justify expending blood and treasure. Nor is there a compelling moral case for intervening in either country Hegemony is sustainable Robert Kagan, senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe in Foreign Policy at Brookings, 1-17-2012, "Not Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline,” Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/01/17-us-power-kagan, Accessed 4-10-2014 Optimists about China’s development predict that it will overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world sometime in the next two decades. This could mean that the United States will face an increasing challenge to its economic position in the future. But the sheer size of an economy is not by itself a good measure of overall power within the international system. If it were, then early nineteenth-century China, with what was then the world’s largest economy, would have been the predominant power instead of the prostrate victim of smaller European nations. Even if China does reach this pinnacle again—and Chinese leaders face significant obstacles to sustaining the country’s growth indefinitely—it will still remain far behind both the United States and Europe in terms of per capita GDP. Military capacity matters, too, as early nineteenth-century China learned and Chinese leaders know today. As Yan Xuetong recently noted, “military strength underpins hegemony.” Here the United States remains unmatched. It is far and away the most powerful nation the world has ever

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 164 known, and there has been no decline in America’s relative military capacity—at least not yet. Americans currently spend less than $600 billion a year on defense, more than the rest of the other great powers combined.

Yes Sustainable Despite a host of setbacks, the U.S. will remain the world leader because we have the best soft power tools Jonathan Adelman, professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, November 24, 2013, “Why The U.S. Remains The World's Unchallenged Superpower,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/24/why-the-u-s-remains-the-worlds-unchallenged- superpower/, Accessed 5/27/2014

The frequent chatter about the inevitable decline of the United States has become almost an unchallenged shibboleth. Every week more bad news about the United States seems to confirm this notion. The country seems ungovernable with a hyper-partisanized Congress, a 16-day government shutdown, the weak economic recovery and the vast NSA spy scandal. In an international study, Americans ranked 11th in happiness and a discouraging 24th in economy. Another study of 8th graders found only 7 percent of American students rated advanced in mathematics compared to 47 and 48 percent in Singapore and South Korea. Our President, according to a Forbes power rating, even comes in second behind Vladimir Putin. Yet, the United States is the world leader and likely to remain there for decades. It has the greatest soft power in the world by far. The United States still receives far more immigrants each year (1 million) than any other country in the world. The United States leads the world in high technology (Silicon Valley), finance and business (Wall Street), the movies (Hollywood) and higher education (17 of the top 20 universities in the world in Shanghai’s Jaotong University survey). The United States has a First World trade profile (massive exports of consumer and technology goods and imports of natural resources).

No great powers wars are likely. No one can challenge U.S. dominance John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, January/ February 2014, “America Unhinged,” The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-unhinged-9639, Accessed 5/27/2014 Finally, the United States faces no great-power rival of any real consequence. In fact, most strategists I know believe it has been operating in a unipolar world since the Cold War ended, which is another way of saying America is the only great power on the planet; it has no peers. Others believe China and Russia are legitimate great powers and the world is multipolar. Even so, those two great powers are especially weak when compared to the mighty United States. In addition, they have hardly any power-projection capability, which means they cannot seriously threaten the American homeland.

AT: Domestic Problems The American political system is resilient – fear of decline sparks reform overcoming gridlock Robert Kagan, senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe in Foreign Policy at Brookings, 1-17-2012, "Not Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline,” Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/01/17-us-power-kagan, Accessed 4-10-2014 Perhaps the greatest concern underlying the declinist mood at large in the country today is not really whether the United States can afford to continue playing its role in the world. It is whether the Americans are capable of solving any of their most pressing economic and social problems. As many statesmen and commentators have asked, can Americans do what needs to be done to compete effectively in the twenty-first-century world? The only honest answer is, who knows? If American history is any guide, however, there is at least some reason to be hopeful. Americans have experienced this unease before, and many previous generations have also felt this sense of lost vigor and lost virtue: as long ago as 1788, Patrick Henry lamented the nation’s fall from past glory, “when the American spirit was in its youth.” There have been many times over the past two centuries when the political system was dysfunctional, hopelessly gridlocked, and seemingly unable to find solutions to crushing national problems—from slavery and then Reconstruction, to the dislocations of industrialization at the end of the nineteenth century and the crisis of social welfare during the Great Depression, to the confusions and paranoia of the early Cold War years. Anyone who honestly recalls the 1970s, with Watergate, Vietnam, stagflation, and the energy crisis, cannot really believe that our present difficulties are unrivaled. Success in the past does not guarantee success in the future. But one thing does seem clear from the historical evidence: the American system, for all its often stultifying qualities, has also shown a greater capacity to adapt and recover from difficulties than many other nations, including its geopolitical competitors. This undoubtedly has something to do with the relative freedom of American society, which rewards innovators, often outside the existing power structure, for producing new ways of doing things; and with the relatively open political system of America, which allows movements to gain steam and to influence the behavior of the political establishment.

Yes Lock In Obama’s locked into hegemonic strategy – no retrenchment Brad Nelson, PHD, expert on international politics, security, and policymaking, 1-19-2013, “American Grand Strategy in the Obama Era,” Center for World Conflict and Peace, http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2013/01/american-grand-strategy-in-obama- era.html, Accessed 4-10-2014 Is Obama pulling the U.S. away from the world? In short, no, that's not the case. The problem is that critics view U.S. foreign policy solely through the use of force, that deploying military power and fighting wars are the main signposts of America's leadership and footprint in the world. But that's nonsense. Countries, including the U.S., do more than fight conflicts and wars, and there are other ways to engage with the international community. For instance, during America's age of hegemony, among other things, the U.S. has consistently engaged in diplomacy, trade, humanitarian and peacekeeper missions; protected its allies; patrolled the seas to ensure trade is conducted safely and that oil gets to consumers; defended its values; taken the lead in creating international institutions and multilateral pacts; and served as the primary power broker and the most influential state in the world. How does this different from present-day American policy?

AT: Military Deployments Unsustainable No military overstretch – military spending has no effect on growth Robert Kagan, senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe in Foreign Policy at Brookings, 1-17-2012, "Not Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline,” Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/01/17-us-power-kagan, Accessed 4-10-2014 The country is twice as large, with half as many troops deployed as fifty years ago. What about the financial expense? Many seem to believe that the cost of these deployments, and of the armed forces generally, is a major contributor to the soaring fiscal deficits that threaten the solvency of the national economy. But this is not the case, either. As the former budget czar Alice Rivlin has observed, the scary projections of future deficits are not “caused by rising defense spending,” much less by spending on foreign assistance. The runaway deficits projected for the coming years are mostly the result of ballooning entitlement spending. Even the most draconian cuts in the defense budget would produce annual savings of only $50 billion to $100 billion, a small fraction—between 4 and 8 percent—of the $1.5 trillion in annual deficits the United States is facing. In 2002, when Paul Kennedy was marveling at America’s ability to remain “the world’s single superpower on the cheap,” the United States was spending about 3.4 percent of GDP on defense. Today it is spending a little under 4 percent, and in years to come, that is likely to head lower again—still “cheap” by historical standards. The cost of remaining the world’s predominant power is not prohibitive.

Heg Good – War

Heg Good – Top Level Heg solves great power wars Stephen Brooks, associate prof of government at Dartmouth, William Wohlforth, prof of government at Dartmouth at Dartmouth, and John Ikenberry, Prof of politics and International Affairs at Princeton, Jan/Feb 2013, “Lead Forward,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 92 Issue 1, p130-142, 13p, 1, Ebsco, Accessed 4-10-2014 Of course, even if it is true that the costs of deep engagement fall far below what advocates of retrenchment claim, they would not be worth bearing unless they yielded greater benefits. In fact, they do. The most obvious benefit of the current strategy is that it reduces the risk of a dangerous conflict. The United States' security commitments deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and dissuade U.S. partners from trying to solve security problems on their own in ways that would end up threatening other states. Skeptics discount this benefit by arguing that U.S. security guarantees aren't necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries from erupting. They maintain that the high costs of territorial conquest and the many tools countries can use to signal their benign intentions are enough to prevent conflict. In other words, major powers could peacefully manage regional multipolarity without the American pacifier. But that outlook is too sanguine. If Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South Korea would likely expand their military capabilities and go nuclear, which could provoke a destabilizing reaction from China.

Heg Good – Lashout Collapse of heg causes US lashout Anatol Lieven, works for the New America Foundation, 7-11-2011, “U.S.-Russian Relations and the Rise of China,” New America Foundation, http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/us_russian_relations_and_the_rise_of_china, Accessed 4- 10-2014 On the U.S. side, the adjustment of the U.S. public and political elites to the loss of U.S. primacy will be extremely difficult psychologically, especially if combined with a long period of economic difficulties created in part by China's rise. Whether China's rise is the cause or it simply coincides with the historic decline of the white middle classes may not matter, China may still take the blame. Remember that another element in the growth of mass chauvinist nationalism in late 19th Century Europe was the "Great Depression" which lasted from the mid-1870s to the mid-1890s, and involved persistently high levels of unemployment in some areas, and a wrenching dislocation of previous economic and social patterns among the traditional lower-middle classes in particular. It is possible that the same dynamics are in place in the United States today. It is true that U.S. popular culture has always involved strong elements of isolationism, but it has also contained equally strong tendencies to a violent response if the U.S. is seen as threatened or insulted. There could be many occasions of perceived insult between the U.S. and China in the decades to come.

Heg Good – Great Power Wars Great power wars occur without hegemony – our evidence is based on sociology and rigorous historical analysis. William Wohlforth, Prof at Dartmouth, 1-1-2009, “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War,” World Politics, Volume 61, Number 1, Accessed 4-10-2014 I develop hypotheses that tailor this scholarship to the domain of great power politics, showing how the probability of status competition is likely to be linked to polarity. The rest of the article investigates whether there is sufficient evidence for these hypotheses to warrant further refinement and testing. I pursue this in three ways: by showing that the theory advanced here is consistent with what we know about large-scale patterns of great power conflict through history; by [End Page 30] demonstrating that the causal mechanisms it identifies did drive relatively secure major powers to military conflict in the past (and therefore that they might do so again if the world were bipolar or multipolar); and by showing that observable evidence concerning the major powers’ identity politics and grand strategies under unipolarity are consistent with the theory’s expectations.

Heg Good – Data/Studies Most studies agree Daniel Drezner, Gregg Easterbrook, Associate Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, 5-25-2005, “War, and the dangers of extrapolation.” , Accessed 4-10-2014 But a unipolar world is inherently more peaceful than the bipolar one where two superpowers fueled rival armies around the world . The long-delayed "peace dividend" has arrived, like a tax refund check long lost in the mail. The difference in language between Goldstein and Easterbrook highlights my second problem with "The End of War?" Goldstein rightly refers to the past fifteen years as a "lull" -- a temporary reduction in war and war-related death. The flip side of U.S. hegemony being responsible for the reduction of armed conflict is what would happen if U.S. hegemony were to ever fade away. Easterbrook focuses on the trends that suggest an ever-decreasing amount of armed conflict -- and I hope he's right. But I'm enough of a realist to know that if the U.S. should find its primacy challenged by, say, a really populous non-democratic country on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, all best about the utility of economic interdependence, U.N. peacekeeping, and the spread of democracy are right out the window. UPDATE: To respond to a few thoughts posted by the commenters: 1) To spell things out a bit more clearly -- U.S. hegemony important to the reduction of conflict in two ways. First, U.S. power can act as a powerful if imperfect constraint on pairs of enduring rivals (Greece-Turkey, India-Pakistan) that contemplate war on a regular basis. It can't stop every conflict, but it can blunt a lot of them. Second, and more important to Easterbrook's thesis, U.S. supremacy in conventional military affairs prevents other middle-range states -- China, Russia, India, Great Britain, France, etc. -- from challenging the U.S. or each other in a war. It would be suicide for anyone to fight a war with the U.S., and if any of these countries waged a war with each other,

Heg Good – Asia War US decline triggers multiple wars in Asia and causes rapid regional prolif Daniel Twining, Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, 12-10-2012, “Global Trends 2030: Pathways for Asia’s Strategic Future” http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/10/global_trends_2030_pathways_for_asia_s_strategi c_future, Accessed 4-10-2014 In the second scenario, a U.S. retreat into isolationism or accelerated material decline (induced by protectionism or failure to reverse America's alarming levels of national debt) would lead to the weakening of Washington's alliance commitments in East Asia and its willingness to remain the region's security guarantor. Such a regional order would be "ripe for rivalry," as forecast by realist scholars like Aaron Friedberg after the Cold War, when an American withdrawal from the region and raw balancing behavior in the midst of dynamic power shifts seemed likely to make Asia's future resemble Europe's war-prone past. Such a balance-of-power order would feature self-help behavior by Asian states of the kind that has been mitigated to date by American defense commitments. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam might develop and deploy nuclear weapons as the only means of securing their autonomy against the Chinese military giant in their midst. Chinese leaders, no longer constrained by America's Seventh Fleet and robust alliance network, might find themselves free to pursue their declared revisionist aims in the South and East China Seas. Lesser Asian states whose territorial claims conflict with China's would find they had less ability to leverage a retreating America's support in their favor.

Heg Good – AT: Nukes/Democracy Check Great power war only prevent through heg – the factors the isolate only function because of US power. Robert Art, Prof of IR at Brandeis, 2009, “America’s Grand Strategy,” p. 243, Accessed 4-10-2014 The Eurasian great powers are presently at peace because of at least two factors: great power democracies and nuclear deterrence. First is the fact that four of the great powers (Germany, France, Britain, and Japan) are solid democracies. The fifth (Russia) has begun a rocky road to democratization, and the sixth (China) remains poised between the incompatible worlds of command politics and free markets. War is less likely among democracies than it is among non-democracies or between democracies and non-democracies. Second is the fact that found of the great powers (Britain, France Russia, and China) are nuclear armed, and the other two (Germany and Japan) are protected by the United States. It is hard to get a large war going between nuclear-armed or nuclear-protected states. We should not be complacent, however, about the pacifying effects of either factor. The peace-among- democracies effect may be a strong force, but it is not an ironclad law of history. It has not overpowered, nor will it invariably overpower, all the other forces at work in world politics. Moreover, although hard, it is not impossible to have a war between nuclear powers. Recall that the Soviet Union and China, both nuclear armed at the time, did fight a minor border war in 1969. It has also been relatively easy to have intense crises among nuclear –armed states, and they always carry great risk of war. Recall the intense crises between the United States and the Soviet Union during the first half of the Cold War. To these two factors, therefore, we should add extra insurance: America’s military presence at either end of Eurasia. In Western Europe that presence assures Germany’s neighbors that it will not return to its ugly past; in East Asia it reassures Japan’s neighbors about Japan, and China’s neighbors about China. At both ends of Eurasia, therefore, America’s military presence makes interstate relations more stable and peace like than they would otherwise be. In sum, many elements contribute to peace among the Eurasian great powers today. American policy should be to keep it that way.

Heg Good – AT: Liberal System Resilient/Ikenberry Great power peace is a result of hegemony – collapse removes all barriers to great power war Bradley Thayer, prof of poli sci at Baylor, consultant to the DOD, 8-16-2012, “Doubting the Decline of Great Power War Thesis,” Global Trends 2030, http://gt2030.com/2012/08/16/doubting-the-decline-of- great-power-war-thesis/, Accessed 4-10-2014 I advance two arguments here. First, U.S. power is the principal cause of stability in international politics but is likely to weaken in the timeframe considered by the NIC report. As the relative power of the U.S. declines, the likelihood of great power conflict rises. Second, the NIC study underplays the probability of intense security competition with China. As a consequence, I am doubtful the world has seen the end of great power war. In addition to ensuring the security of the U.S. and its allies, American primacy provides four benefits for the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were frequent antagonists. Today, American primacy reduces nuclear proliferation incentives and helps keep a number of historically dicey relationships peaceful—such as between Greece and Turkey. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread the positive norms and values the NIC document identifies. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States. This is because liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy, as the NIC analysis recognizes. With its allies, the United States has toiled to create a globalized trade regime defined by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, mobility of capital and labor markets. The prosperity that flows from this liberal order is a global good. Fourth, the United States has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but also to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The U.S. military has participated in scores of humanitarian operations since the end of the Cold War. Given these great benefits, we may be confident of one prediction: Many people around the world will miss U.S. primacy when it’s gone. Without U.S. power, the liberal order is likely to end, and this alone is liable to exacerbate tensions. But the waning of U.S. power, at least in relative terms, introduces additional problems concerning the future prospects for great power war.

AT: Entanglement No risk of entanglement Stephen Brooks, associate prof of government at Dartmouth, William Wohlforth, prof of government at Dartmouth at Dartmouth, and John Ikenberry, Prof of politics and International Affairs at Princeton, Jan/Feb 2013, “Lead Forward,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 92 Issue 1, p130-142, 13p, 1, Ebsco, Accessed 4-10-2014 The costs of U.S. foreign policy that matter most, of course, are human lives, and critics of an expansive grand strategy worry that the United States might get dragged into unnecessary wars. Securing smaller allies, they argue, emboldens those states to take risks they would not otherwise accept, pulling the superpower sponsor into costly conflicts--a classic moral hazard problem. Concerned about the reputational costs of failing to honor the country's alliance commitments, U.S. leaders might go to war even when no national interests are at stake. History shows, however, that great powers anticipate the danger of entrapment and structure their agreements to protect themselves from it. It is nearly impossible to find a clear case of a smaller power luring a reluctant great power into war. For decades, World War I served as the canonical example of entangling alliances supposedly drawing great powers into a fight, but an outpouring of new historical research has overturned the conventional wisdom, revealing that the war was more the result of a conscious decision on Germany's part to try to dominate Europe than a case of alliance entrapment. If anything, alliances reduce the risk of getting pulled into a conflict. In East Asia, the regional security agreements that Washington struck after World War II were designed, in the words of the political scientist Victor Cha, to "constrain anticommunist allies in the region that might engage in aggressive behavior against adversaries that could entrap the United States in an unwanted larger war." The same logic is now at play in the U.S.Taiwanese relationship. After cross- strait tensions flared in the 1990s and the first decade of this century, U.S. officials grew concerned that their ambiguous support for Taiwan might expose them to the risk of entrapment. So the Bush administration adjusted its policy, clarifying that its goal was to not only deter China from an unprovoked attack but also deter Taiwan from unilateral moves toward independence.

Heg Bad (Oceans)

No Lock In/Unsustainable

Yes Retrenchment/Holding on Worse US decline is inevitable – the US willingly retrenches now – holding on causes war

Gordon Adams, prof of IR at American U, 1-10-2014, “Echoes of 1914,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/10/echoes_of_1914_world_war_one, Accessed 4-10-2014 The decline in the role of the United States as system integrator, manager, and, for some, global hegemon (a trend I have already noted) continues to manifest itself at an accelerating pace. It is reflected most recently in widening disregard for expressed American desires and goals -- such as whether Japan should increasingly arm itself and extend its military reach beyond its own shoreline. It is found in the growing distance between Washington and its long-time ally in Ankara, as the struggling Turkish government blames the United States for its internal corruption problems and struggles to assert an independent regional role. Meanwhile, India attacks the United States for allegedly mishandling an Indian diplomat in New York, and reduces the privileges it had provided to American diplomats in New Delhi. Likewise, another traditional ally, Saudi Arabia, grows increasingly unhappy with U.S. policy in the Gulf region and becomes querulous and critical.¶ Each incident, taken on its own, might be explained away as diplomatic feather-ruffling, simply business as usual. But together they are becoming a trend, forcing Secretary of State John Kerry to flit from country to country, trying to dampen the fires. There seems to be some recognition that things are fundamentally changing -- just look at the apparent reluctance of the Obama administration to use its power to intrude into the myriad of conflicts that beset the Middle East and Africa. Leave peace enforcement in Africa to the African Union, the United Nations, or the French. Don't send the Marines. Stay at the edges of the Syrian conflict, not at the center. Encourage a peaceful solution to the disputes over the seas off the Chinese coast, but do not promise to send U.S. warships steaming into the middle of tense waters. And so on.¶ I don't think Washington has yet come fully to grips with the reality of systemic change. There is not yet a clear strategy to deal with a world in flux. But some of this reality seems to have penetrated, nonetheless.

Heg Unsustainable

The U.S. is no longer the global leader The Voice of Russia, Staff Writer, May 30, 2014, “US no longer absolute global leader as it was 10- 15 years ago,” http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_05_30/USA-no-longer-absolute-global-leader-as-it-was-10-15-years-ago- expert-0698/, Accessed 5/30/2014 Alexey Pilko, director of the Eurasian communications center, believes that the main factor that prevents the Americans to adequately react to the new challenges and threats is their superiority complex. "The USA is no longer an absolute global leader (as it was 10-15 years ago), but stubbornly continues to play the role of the world leader. Despite the fact that that role no longer reflects its interests or its potential. It happens not because the American elite does not understand that the time of the US global leadership is irrevocably gone. The reason of their inability to correct the course lies in the fact that the thesis regarding the victory in the Cold War and the permanent American global leadership is stuck in the mass consciousness of the American people. It has become a part of the American state ideology. Sooner or later it will change. It simply takes time." Unipolarity is over – rise of the rest, weak alliances, domestic political fights Rosa Brooks, Law Professor at Georgetown University, Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation, former counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy and former senior advisor at the U.S. State Department, 8-30-2013, “Wounded Giant,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/16/a_model_of_american_opacity_drones_egypt, Accessed 4-10-2014 1. The American century is truly over. America is a declining power. Because we live in Lake Wobegon, where every child is above average, you'll never hear the president acknowledge this in public, but it's true. Deal with it. Blame "the rise of the rest." Europe, despite its various woes, has become a major power. China, India, and Brazil are playing ever larger roles on the world stage, and Russia is still strong enough to be a potent spoiler. Yes, we're still the world's most powerful state, but our relative power is declining as other states flex their political and economic muscles. Blame technology. Technological change has made us less autonomous than we used to be. Blame air travel, the Internet, and the cell phone, which have collectively ushered in an era in which virtually everything -- people, ideas, images, money, weapons, pollution, viruses -- can zoom quickly around the globe. This, in turn, has created a host of problems no single state can solve alone. We're are no longer the sole authors of our national destiny. And let's save some blame for ourselves. The country has made a hash of things. We squandered much of our moral credibility after the 9/11 attacks (torture and secret prisons) and wasted trillions of dollars on wars as ruinously expensive as they were politically inconclusive. Our current counterterrorism policies (drones, surveillance by the National Security Agency) are angering even our closest allies. Domestically, we're also in trouble: Our infrastructure is an embarrassment, our public education system has been allowed to decay, we lock up a higher percentage of our population than any country on Earth -- we're even too fat to fight. Not to mention, our domestic political system is broken, and the bipartisan rancor on Capitol Hill makes it hard to imagine turning any of this around. Heg is unsustainable – multipolarity, economics Christopher Layne, Professor of National Security at Texas A&M University, 2012, “This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and Pax Americana,” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468- 2478.2011.00704.x/full, Accessed 4-10-2014

Predictions of continuing unipolarity have been superseded by premonitions of American decline and geopolitical transformation. The Great Recession has had a two-fold impact. First, it highlighted the shift of global wealth—and power—from West to East, a trend illustrated by China’s breathtakingly rapid rise to great power status. Second, it has raised doubts about the robustness of US primacy’s economic and financial underpinnings. This article argues that the unipolar moment is over, and the Pax Americana— the era of American ascendancy in international politics that began in 1945—is fast winding down. This article challenges the conventional wisdom among International Relations/Security Studies scholars on three counts. First, it shows that contrary to the claims of unipolar stability theorists, the distribution of power in the international system no longer is unipolar. Second, this article revisits the 1980s’ debate about American decline and demonstrates that the Great Recession has vindicated the so-called declinists of that decade.

Heg Unsustainable China rising makes the fall of U.S. dominance inevitable and happening now ACEDI, Staff Writer, December 1, 2013, “Are we on the Brink of a New Cold War? U.S. – China Relations in a New Century,” Columbian International Law School Students, http://acedicilsa.com/2013/12/01/are-we-on-the-brink-of-a-new-cold-war-u-s-china-relations-in-a-new- century/, Accessed 5/27/2014 If history has taught us anything, it is that all empires eventually fall. Today we are entering into a very significant moment in history. After three decades of undisputed American hegemony, China is quickly reclaiming a regional status it had lost hundreds of years ago. In the meantime, the U.S. is shifting its attention away from the warring Middle East, towards East Asia. This, some scholars argue, is the beginning of a major geostrategic engagement between the two giants. But, can the U.S.–China relations really be described with a zero-sum game? Is this the beginning of the end of the American hegemony? Or is the world of today ready for pacific bipolarism? Well, one thing is for sure; there’s never been a time in which the two sides of the equation were so interdependent. China and the United States are like two giants tied to one another. US hegemony decline inevitable. Sino-Russian soft balancing is countering Chaka Ferguson April 2012, Journal of Strategic StudiesVolume 35, Issue 2, 2012, pages 197-222, “The Strategic Use of Soft Balancing: The Normative Dimensions of the Chinese–Russian ‘Strategic Partnership”, AD: 07/24/12, http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch? action=runSearch&type=advanced&result=true&prevSearch=%2Bauthorsfield%3A(Ferguson%2C+ The status interests of China and Russia are simultaneously driven by a pro-system bias and a revisionist agenda vis-à-vis the world order. Both seek a stable relationship with the United States and integration into the Western-led international community. Thus, both take pains to reassure the outside world that their strategic ties are emphatically not aimed at any third party. Yet they need each other's support to enhance their diplomatic leverage in a world where the West clearly has an upper hand. In the words of one Chinese analyst, Sino-Russian strategic ties are a ‘response’ and ‘warning’ to Western pressure and US hegemonism. At least five analysts make a similar case about China and Russia: that they are relying on a strategy of counterbalancing the United States while simultaneously engaging it . Furthermore, many scholars argue that traditional balance-of-power theory cannot explain the current relationship between Russia and China. Contrary to skeptics of a putative Sino-Russo axis against the United States, however, this article argues that a neoclassical realist framework can best explain the ‘strategic partnership’ by re-conceptualizing it as a form of ‘soft balancing’.

Ext: Yes Retrenchment America is pulling back now Michael Hirsh, Chief Correspondent for the National Journal, 6-11-2013, “How America Lost Its Nerve Abroad” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/how-america-lost-its-nerve- abroad/276769/, Accessed 4-10-2014 Today, too, there is an inward lean to American foreign policy, a listing homeward that appears to be a kind of neo-isolationism. Compared with the neoconservative strain of a decade ago -- a belief in the aggressive projection of American power voiced most recently by Mitt Romney early in the 2012 presidential campaign -- it is virtually a reversal of direction. The reasons are obvious. According to surveys, we think we've been out too much in the world in recent years, and we're feeling badly burned and spent, financially and emotionally. We want to come home. Rightly or not, Obama is merely channeling these sentiments. Back in the 1990s, the late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke invented the term "Viet-malia" syndrome -- a contraction of Vietnam and Somalia (the "Black Hawk Down" debacle) -- to explain President Clinton's reluctance to intervene overseas. Clinton eventually got over it, going into Bosnia and Kosovo. But what's shaping foreign policy decisions now feels more enduring. Call it "Iraq- ghazi-stan" syndrome . It is the chilling effect of the terrible drain of the Iraq war, the long slog in Afghanistan, and the bloody and embarrassing aftermath of the NATO intervention in Libya -- both the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead, and the spread of Muammar el-Qaddafi's weapons caches across the region.

Ext: Yes Retrenchment Obama is retrenching – US decline is inevitable but holding on prevents stable transition Christopher Layne, professor at Texas A & M School of Government and Public Service, 1-27-2012, “The (Almost) Triumph of Offshore Balancing,” National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/almost-triumph-offshore-balancing-6405, Accessed 4-10-2014 Although cloaked in the reassuring boilerplate about American military preeminence and global leadership, in reality the Obama administration’s new Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) is the first step in the United States’ adjustment to the end of the Pax Americana—the sixty-year period of dominance that began in 1945. As the Pentagon document says—without spelling out the long-term grand-strategic implications—the United States is facing “an inflection point.” In plain English, a profound power shift in international politics is taking place, which compels a rethinking of the U.S. world role.

AT: Domestic Constraints No domestic lock in – retrenchment is politically feasible Joseph M. Parent, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Miami, and Paul K. MacDonald, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College, November/December 2011 “The Wisdom of Retrenchment” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, Is. 6, P. 32-47. Ebsco, Accessed 4-10-2014 Electoral pressures reward lucrative defense contracts and chest-thumping stump speeches rather than sober appraisals of declining fortunes. Whatever leaders' preferences are, bureaucratic pressures promote conservative decisions, policy inertia, and big budgets--none of which is likely to usher in an era of self-restraint. Despite deep partisan divides, however, Republicans and Democrats have often put aside their differences when it comes to foreign policy. After World War II, the United States did not revert to the isolationism of earlier periods: both parties backed massive programs to contain the Soviet Union. During the tempestuous 1960s, a consensus emerged in favor of detente with the Soviets. The 9/11 attacks generated bipartisan support for action against al Qaeda and its allies. Then, in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008, politicians across the spectrum recognized the need to bring the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to an end. When faced with pressing foreign policy challenges, U.S. politicians generally transcend ideological divides and forge common policies, sometimes expanding the United States' global commitments and sometimes contracting them. Today, electoral pressures support a more modest approach to foreign affairs. According to a 2009 study by the Pew Research Center, 70 percent of Americans would rather the United States share global leadership than go it alone. And a 2010 study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 79 percent of them thought the United States played the role of world policeman more than it should. Even on sacrosanct issues such as the defense budget, the public has demonstrated a willingness to consider reductions. In a 2010 study conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, 64 percent of respondents endorsed reductions in defense spending, supporting an average cut of $109 billion to the base-line defense budget. Institutional barriers to reform do remain. Yet when presidents have led, the bureaucrats have largely followed

AT: Public Support Not enough public support for power projection Michael J. Mazarr, Professor of National Security Strategy at the U.S. National War College, Fall 2012, “The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency” https://csis.org/files/publication/twq12FallMazarr.pdf, Accessed 4-10-2014 Fifth and finally, even as America’s power projection instruments have become less usable and effective, the American people have grown less willing to use them. A 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 49 percent of those surveyed, an all-time record, said that the United States should ‘‘mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.’’ That number jumped from 30 percent in 2002. 18 Those who favor a powerful American leadership role in the world have also declined in Gallup polling. For example, the percentage fell from 75 in 2009 to 66 in mid-2011, while the percentage advocating a far more minimal U.S. role grew from 23 percent to 32 percent. 19 Over 40 percent of Americans now say the country spends too much on defense, compared with less than a quarter who say it spends too little. 20 Many Americans want their nation to remain a global leader, 21 but the public is less enamored with the massive expenditures and national efforts necessary to sustain the existing paradigm. No public support for the grand strategy that their authors advocate Christopher Preble, Vice President for Defense and Foreign-Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, 7-1- 2012, “The Critique of Pure Kagan” published in the July-August 2012 issue of the National Interest, accessed through EBSCO, Accessed 4-10-2014 Kagan asserts that despite “their misgivings, most Americans have also developed a degree of satisfaction in their special role.” Yet polling data show precisely the opposite: most Americans want desperately for others to shoulder the burdens of defending themselves and their interests. For example, 79 percent of voters told pollster Scott Rasmussen that we spend too much money defending others; a mere 4 percent think we don’t spend enough. A cnn survey last year found that just one in four Americans relished the United States’ being the world’s “policeman,” and a separate Rasmussen poll concluded that a mere 11 percent of likely voters support that mission.

Heg Causes War

Heg Bad – Entanglement Nuclear deterrence prevents their scenarios but not ours – hegemony makes nuclear mistakes escalate through entanglement Campbell Craig, Professor in International Politics at Aberystwyth U, Fall 2013, “Debating American Engagement: The Future of U.S. Grand Strategy,” International Security¶ Volume 38, Number 2, Fall 2013¶ pp. 181-199, Project Muse, Accessed 4-10-2014 Nations have engaged in balancing behavior for many reasons, but the core purpose has always been to accumulate sufficient power to avoid violent subjugation at the hands of their rivals.7 Because a secure retaliatory nuclear arsenal provides a uniquely efficient solution to that problem, nations such as China do not have to preoccupy themselves with the military capabilities and shifting allegiances of major rivals in the way that, say, Britain had to do around the turn of the twentieth century. ¶ By making the prospect of major war apocalyptic, and at the same time giving regional [End Page 182] powers an unprecedented ability to deter wholesale military invasion, nuclear weapons account for the absence of both security competition in dangerous regions of the world and attempts to balance against U.S. preponderance in a remarkably parsimonious fashion. This nuclear factor suggests that these regional powers are unlikely to initiate a major war in the foreseeable future regardless of whether the United States maintains its deep engagement or adopts a policy of retrenchment. The avoidance of general war between India and Pakistan, in a region where the United States plays a less preponderant role, would seem to bolster this claim.8¶ The geopolitical stasis created by nuclear weapons does not make the debate between advocates of deep engagement and retrenchment unimportant, however. While nuclear weapons make it unlikely that nations will seek regional domination by means of war or try to match U.S. military power, they do not make war itself impossible. Indeed, as long as international politics remain anarchical and some states possess nuclear weapons, one day a warning system will fail, or an official will panic, or a terrorist attack will be misconstrued, and the missiles will fly.9 A policy of deep engagement, by locking in a heavily militarized U.S. presence in volatile regions of the world, promises not only to sustain this anarchical and nuclearized international condition; it also ensures that the United States will find itself in the middle of the nuclear war that will someday occur.

Heg Bad – Wars Hegemonic retrenchment’s key to avoid great power war – maintaining unipolarity is self-defeating Nuno P. Monteiro, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, 2012, “Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity is Not Peaceful,” International Security, Winter 2012, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 9-40, Accessed 4-10-2014 From the perspective of the overall peacefulness of the international system, then, no U.S. grand strategy is, as in the Goldilocks tale, “just right.”116 In fact, each strategic option available to the unipole produces significant conflict. Whereas offensive and defensive dominance will entangle it in wars against recalcitrant minor powers, disengagement will produce regional wars among minor and major powers. Regardless of U.S. strategy, conflict will abound. Indeed, if my argument is correct, the significant level of conflict the world has experienced over the last two decades will continue for as long as U.S. power remains preponderant.¶ From the narrower perspective of the unipole’s ability to avoid being involved in wars, however, disengagement is the best strategy. A unipolar structure provides no incentives for conflict involving a disengaged unipole. Disengagement would extricate the unipole’s forces from wars against recalcitrant minor powers and decrease systemic pressures for nuclear proliferation. There is, however, a downside. Disengagement would lead to heightened conflict beyond the unipole’s region and increase regional pressures for nuclear proliferation. As regards the unipole’s grand strategy, then, the choice is between a strategy of dominance, which leads to involvement in numerous conflicts, and a strategy of disengagement, which allows conflict between others to fester.¶ In a sense, then, strategies of defensive and offensive dominance are self-defeating. They create incentives for recalcitrant minor powers to bolster their capabilities and present the United States with a tough choice: allowing them to succeed or resorting to war in order to thwart them. This will either drag U.S. forces into numerous conflicts or result in an increasing number of major powers.

Heg Bad – China War Pursuit of Heg causes violent Chinese rise – withdraw contains China and avoids conflict Barry Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jan/Feb 2013, “Pull Back,” Foreign Affairs, Ebsco, Accessed 4-10-2014 The United States should replace its unnecessary, ineffective, and expensive hegemonic quest with a more restrained grand strategy. Washington should not retreat into isolationism but refocus its efforts on its three biggest security challenges: preventing a powerful rival from upending the global balance of power, fighting terrorists, and limiting nuclear proliferation. These challenges are not new, but the United States must develop more carefully calculated and discriminating policies to address them. For roughly a century, American strategists have striven to ensure that no single state dominated the giant landmass of Eurasia, since such a power could then muster the resources to threaten the United States directly. To prevent this outcome, the United States rightly went to war against Germany and Japan and contained the Soviet Union. Although China may ultimately try to assume the mantle of Eurasian hegemon, this outcome is neither imminent nor inevitable. China's economy still faces many pitfalls, and the country is surrounded by powerful states that could and would check its expansion, including India and Russia, both of which have nuclear weapons. Japan, although it underspends on defense today, is rich and technologically advanced enough to contribute to a coalition of states that could balance against China. Other maritime Asian countries, even without the United States as a backstop, could also make common cause against China. The United States should maintain the capability to assist them if need be. But it should proceed cautiously in order to ensure that its efforts do not unnecessarily threaten China and thus encourage the very ambitions Washington hopes to deter or prompt a new round of free-riding or reckless driving by others in Asia.

Heg Bad – Asia War US power projection in Asia causes entanglement and war – withdraw spurs peaceful multilateral security arrangements Joseph M. Parent, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Miami, and Paul K. MacDonald, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College, 2011, “Graceful Decline?” International Security, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 7-44. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/ISEC_a_00034- MacDonald_proof2.pdf, Accessed 4-10-2014 In short, the United States should be able to reduce its foreign policy commitments in East Asia in the coming decades without inviting Chinese expansionism. Indeed, there is evidence that a policy of retrenchment could reap potential benefits. The drawdown and repositioning of U.S. troops in South Korea, for example, rather than fostering instability, has resulted in an improvement in the occasionally strained relationship between Washington and Seoul.97 U.S. moderation on Taiwan, rather than encouraging hard-liners in Beijing, resulted in an improvement in cross-strait relations and reassured U.S. allies that Washington would not inadvertently drag them into a Sino-U.S. conflict.98 Moreover, Washington’s support for the development of multilateral security institutions, rather than harming bilateral alliances, could work to enhance U.S. prestige while embedding China within a more transparent regional order.99 A policy of gradual retrenchment need not undermine the credibility of U.S. alliance commitments or unleash destabilizing regional security dilemmas. Indeed, even if Beijing harbored revisionist intent, it is unclear that China will have the force projection capabilities necessary to take and hold additional territory. 100 By incrementally shifting burdens to regional allies and multilateral institutions, the United States can strengthen the credibility of its core commitments while accommodating the interests of a rising China. Not least among the benefits of retrenchment is that it helps alleviate an unsustainable financial position. Immense forward deployments will only exacerbate U.S. grand strategic problems and risk unnecessary clashes.101

Ext: Heg Bad – Data Best data proves unipolar systems are four times more war-prone than multipolar alternatives---reject their impact ev because it lacks a quantitative methodology Nuno P. Monteiro, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, 2012, “Unrest Assured: Why Unipolarity is Not Peaceful,” International Security, Winter 2012, Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 9-40, Accessed 4-10-2014 How well, then, does the argument that unipolar systems are peaceful account for the first two decades of unipolarity since the end of the Cold War? Table 1 presents a list of great powers divided into three periods: 1816 to 1945, multipolarity; 1946 to 1989, bipolarity; and since 1990, unipolarity.46 Table 2 presents summary data about the incidence of war during each of these periods. Unipolarity is the most conflict prone of all the systems, according to at least two important criteria: the percentage of years that great powers spend at war and the incidence of war involving great powers. In multipolarity, 18 percent of great power years were spent at war. In bipolarity, the ratio is 16 percent. In unipolarity, however, a remarkable 59 percent of great power years until now were spent at war. This is by far the highest percentage in all three systems. Furthermore, during periods of multipolarity and bipolarity, the probability that war involving a great power would break out in any given year was, respectively, 4.2 percent and 3.4 percent. Under unipolarity, it is 18.2 percent—or more than four times higher.47 These figures provide no evidence that unipolarity is peaceful.48

Ext: Heg Bad Unipolarity causes American belligerence – constraints prevent US aggression. Felix Donovan, a student at the University of Sydney. He is in his second year of an Arts degree, majoring in Government and International Relations, 10-22-2012, “America, all alone,” American Review, http://americanreviewmag.com/opinions/America-all-alone, Accessed 4-10-2014 An international system of multiple spheres of influence, each dominated by a major power, is the best way to guard against aggression and disorder. Through mutual deterrence, major powers act as pacifying influences upon one another. And the interest major powers have in ensuring order in their sphere of influence encourages them to rein in aggressive small states that are in their orbit. For some, the idea of a multipolar world is still tainted by the catastrophe that was early 20th century Europe. The fields of the Somme are marked by graves because, with the death of a prince in June 1914, the tensions that existed between the major powers erupted. However, the problems that plagued the European balance of power system will not wreak havoc upon a multipolar 21st century world. The sheer scale of major power interdependence is so great now that the incentives for cooperation outweigh those for conflict. China will not play war games in Asia if it thrusts millions of its citizens back into poverty. Multipolarity is the best guarantee of peace in our time.

AT: Other Systems Can’t Create Peace The global system will outlast US dominance – other powers want to integrate even as the US declines – prevents instability through the transition and leads to peace Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School, 12-27-2013, “The Year of Living Hegemonically,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/27/the_year_of_living_hegemonically#sthash.3agyeYs P.dpbs, Accessed 4-10-2014 A staple of international relations thinking for decades has been that U.S. hegemony is the mainstay of global order.¶ A staple of international relations thinking for decades has been that U.S. hegemony is the mainstay of global order. According to this "theory of hegemonic stability," peace and prosperity are only likely to persist when a liberal superpower is prepared to act to keep markets open and stamp out brewing conflict. If Mead or Robert Kagan are correct, then a United States that is both unwilling and unable to stabilize the rest of the world really should be a source of concern.¶ Here's the thing, though: at the same time that commentators were bemoaning U.S. decline, the world was looking up. I suspect that ThinkProgress and Britain's Spectator magazine would agree on very little in politics, but this month they both ran features pointing out something important: 2013 was "the best year in human history." Their data is incontrovertible. If you look at human development indicators, all of the key metrics -- infant mortality, infectious diseases, per capital income -- are trending in the right direction. By the end of 2013, the smallest fraction of the world's population will be living in poverty. Both traditional and human security measures reveal the same trend. Whether it's violent crime, discrimination, civil or interstate war, the aggregate data shows a more peaceable world. Or, as the Spectator put it: "Every day in every way, the world grows richer, safer and smarter." If you don't believe political partisans, then buy Angus Deaton's The Great Escape and you'll discover the same message. Despite the post-2008 trend of predicting that the global order is crumbling and the world is going to hell, the opposite is transpiring. ¶ How and why can this be happening when American power is on the wane? Those fearful of disorder have made two fundamental errors in judgment. First, they assume that China, Iran, and others want to rewrite the global rules of the game.

AT: Hegemonic Stability No impact to heg Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9-26-2011, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO, Accessed 4- 10-2014 The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races, and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished.

Iron Fertilization Neg

Fails / Counterproductive - General Iron fertilization fails because plankton run out of nitrogen and it long-term counterproductive Francie Diep, Argonne National Laboratories, Georgia Tech, June 14, 2013, “Greedy Algae May Thwart Ocean Fertilization Efforts,” Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/greedy- diatoms-may-thwart-ocean-fertilization-efforts-study-finds, Accessed 6/13/2014 One idea for removing excess carbon dioxide from the Earth's atmosphere may not work as well as advertised, according to a new study. The problem arises from extra-greedy diatoms, a type of algae with structured silica bodies. In the past few years, some researchers and enthusiasts have proposed dumping iron into the ocean as a strategy for mitigating climate change. Last fall, a California businessman even did a little of his own ocean fertilization, drawing condemnation from legal experts. The idea is that the iron acts as a fertilizer, encouraging the growth of photosynthetic plankton that, like land plants, absorb carbon dioxide. When the plankton die, they sink to the seafloor. In that way, they're supposed to sequester away excess carbon forever. What would actually happen if you fertilized the ocean isn't well studied, but one new piece of research suggests that the iron's effects would be short- lived. In the long run, iron fertilization may even decrease the amount of carbon dioxide-absorbing algae that live in the ocean. Recently, another research team also found that fertilizing the ocean may not work, as the plankton could run out of nitrogen. Large-scale fertilization causes blooms that block sunlight, which kills off whales and fish stocks and increases warming more than CO2 Hugh Powell, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, January 2008, “Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron,” Oceanus Magazine, Vol. 46, No. 1, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-with- iron, Accessed 6/20/2014 Other participants at the WHOI conference—John Cullen, a biological oceanographer at Dalhousie University in Canada, Andrew Watson, a biogeochemist at the University of East Anglia, U.K., and Jorge Sarmiento, a modeler at Princeton’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory—pointed out several other ecological concerns. Large-scale iron fertilization, in altering the base of the food chain, might lead to undesirable changes in fish stocks and whale populations. Increased decomposition of sinking organic matter could deprive deep waters of oxygen or produce other greenhouse gases more potent than carbon dioxide, such as nitrous oxide and methane. The plankton-choked surface waters could block sunlight needed by deeper corals, or warm the surface layer and change circulation patterns. Costs of iron fertilization outweigh any benefit. It’s too expensive The University of Sydney, Staff Writer, December 12, 2012, “Ocean Fertilization is Too Costly for Carbon Capture,” Laboratory Equipment News, http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2012/12/ocean-fertilization-too-costly-carbon-capture, Accessed 6/15/2014 In his paper, Harrison argues that the cost of iron fertilization will vary with the oceanographic conditions at the time and location of fertilization, but in almost all situations it is an expensive operation. As well as being expensive, the amount of carbon stored for more than a century is so small that it is uncertain whether measurable storage will occur at all. "This means that while under certain conditions the cost may be moderate, under less ideal conditions, iron fertilization may actually create more greenhouse gas than is sequestered," says Harrison.

Fails / Counterproductive - General The phytoplankton will eat up other ocean nutrients Hugh Powell, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, January 2008, “Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron,” Oceanus Magazine, Vol. 46, No. 1, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-with- iron, Accessed 6/20/2014 Beyond the inefficiency of carbon sequestration, iron fertilization would likely cause other changes “downstream” of the ocean patches where iron was added. The huge green phytoplankton blooms would take up not just iron but other nutrients, too—nitrate, phosphate, and silica—essentially depleting nearby waters of the building blocks needed for plankton growth. “You might make some of the ocean greener by iron enrichment, but you’re going to make a lot of the ocean bluer,” said Robert Anderson, senior scholar at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Fertilization concentrates acidification in deep oceans killing organisms Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, January 20, 2010, “Can ocean iron fertilization mitigate ocean acidification?,” Climatic Change, 99:1-2, DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4, pp. 303-311. Iron fertilization causes more carbon to be sequestered into the ocean interior (Table 2), accelerating acidification of the deep ocean. This can be seen in the distribution of pH (Fig. 4) and the shoaling of saturation horizons (the depth below which seawater is undersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate) of aragonite (Fig. 2e) and calcite (Fig. 2f). The effect of iron fertilization on deep-ocean chemistry is most pronounced in the Southern Ocean, as can be seen from its effect on both pH (Fig. 4) and aragonite saturation horizon (Fig. S1). The accelerated deep-ocean acidification is of concern given the evidence that deep-sea organisms are highly sensitive to even modest pH changes (e.g., Seibel and Walsh 2001). Again, we note that the results presented here represent an upper bound on the maximum effect of iron fertilization. Iron fertilization doesn’t reduce CO2, violates international law, and degrades the oceans Rhian Waller, Staff Writer, October 18, 2012, “Iron Fertilization: Savior to Climate Change or Ocean Dumping?,” National Geographic News,http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/18/iron- fertilization-savior-to-climate-change-or-ocean-dumping/, Accessed 6/15/2014 The ‘experiment’ that was executed by George and colleagues is primarily under fire because it was done undercover, without scientific peer review or process, and without international collaboration, yet can have global consequences. It is also the largest iron fertilization experiment to have occurred anywhere – 200,000 pounds versus a few thousand pounds. Other smaller scale international experiments over the last fifteen-plus years have concluded that the sequestering efficiency is low (and sometimes no effect was seen) – the amount of iron you’d need to make even a slight dent in our carbon emissions is in the million tons per year, and even if you put in that amount, it may just not work. Unregulated iron fertilization on this scale could have dramatic consequences and goes against an international moratoria created by the UN to protect ocean environments. Far from being a savior, this experiment is being called a large scale dumping of waste into our oceans.

Fails / Counterproductive – Doesn’t reduce warming/CO2 Despite studies, there’s no clear evidence it could reliable sequester carbon. At best it’s 10% of CO2, while increasing acidifcation Global Ocean Commission, November 2013, prepared for the third meeting of the Global Ocean Commission, Policy Options Paper # 2: Climate change, ocean acidification and geo-engineering, http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/GOC-paper02-climate-change.pdf, Accessed 6/15/2014 One of the most actively researched CDR technologies is iron fertilisation. This seeks to increase CO2 uptake from the atmosphere into the ocean. In areas where the growth of phytoplankton (marine plants) is limited by low availability of iron, extra iron is placed into the ocean. This stimulates plant growth, resulting in a net increase in photosynthesis and hence carbon uptake into the ecosystem. In principle, some of this extra carbon should end up in the deep ocean, carried there in the bodies of dead organisms. Twelve large-scale experiments have been undertaken, mainly in the Southern Ocean, with mixed results. Overall, they have produced little evidence that the technique will reliably sequester carbon. In addition, modelling studies suggest that even if deployed widely across the Southern Ocean, iron fertilisation could only absorb about 10% of CO2 emissions. It is also likely that large-scale iron fertilisation would increase acidification in the deep ocean. Iron fertilization spurs zooplankton that increases CO2 release Hugh Powell, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, January 2008, “Fertilizing the Ocean with Iron,” Oceanus Magazine, Vol. 46, No. 1, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-with- iron, Accessed 6/20/2014 In certain regions, including the equatorial and north Pacific and the entire Southern Ocean, a simple iron addition does cause phytoplankton to grow rapidly. But tiny zooplankton, known as “grazers,” eat much of the bloom almost as soon as it starts. This begins a chain of recycling that ensues from the sea surface to the seafloor as grazers, krill, fish, whales, and decomposers feed upon each other. Much of the immense carbon prize won by the iron addition quickly leaks back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide gas. Studies prove iron fertilization is a failed approach to carbon sequestration The Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and the Royal Academy of Engineering, October 2009, “Geoengineering: Challenges and global impacts,” http://www.rsc.org/images/geoengineering_tcm18-179077.pdf, Accessed 6/20/2014 Experiments with iron fertilisation have already been carried out in iron-starved ocean regions, the Equatorial Pacific, North Pacific and Southern Ocean, and have been shown to stimulate blooms of phytoplankton. “While these results are important for our understanding of the oceans, they do not translate directly into carbon sequestration,” said Prof. Watson. The amount of carbon sequestered is variable and unpredictable. Because the CO2 is taken from the surface ocean rather than directly from the atmosphere, the net atmospheric carbon fixed is difficult to assess. Furthermore, the effectiveness depends on how much of the biomass sinks, how far it sinks and whether the material is eaten – which all depends on the alga species. The efficiency of iron fertilisation also seems to depend on location, working well in the Southern Ocean but not in the Equatorial Pacific.

Iron fertilization doesn’t store carbon enough to affect climate change The University of Sydney, Staff Writer, December 12, 2012, “Ocean Fertilization is Too Costly for Carbon Capture,” Laboratory Equipment News, http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2012/12/ocean-fertilization-too-costly-carbon-capture, Accessed 6/15/2014 Daniel Harrison, a postgraduate researcher and author of a paper published in this month's International Journal of Global Warming, says while iron fertilization of high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll regions of the ocean captures and stores carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it does not store carbon long enough to be an attractive contributor to climate management. Iron fertilization is more expensive than carbon capture and storage (CCS) and is much more expensive than the Australian carbon price, which is currently charged at $23 per ton of carbon dioxide, says Harrison.

Fails / Counterproductive – Acidification Acidification undermines biodiversity and reutilization won’t solve Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, January 20, 2010, “Can ocean iron fertilization mitigate ocean acidification?,” Climatic Change, 99:1-2, DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4, pp. 303-311. There are a few speculations in the literature that ocean iron fertilization could help to mitigate anthropogenic ocean acidification, a process referring to the increase in ocean acidity as a result of the ocean’s absorption of anthropogenic CO2. Ocean acidification would affect marine organisms and ecosystems in a variety of ways. For example, a decrease in the saturation state of seawater with respect to carbonate minerals (including both calcite and aragonite) would weaken the ability of corals and some other calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and reefs, posing a risk to their ecological sustainability. A decrease in ocean pH would also impact the growth, respiration, and reproduction of some marine organisms, altering the biodiversity of marine ecosystems. Even in extreme cases, iron fertilization doesn’t reduce acidification Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, January 20, 2010, “Can ocean iron fertilization mitigate ocean acidification?,” Climatic Change, 99:1-2, DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4, pp. 303-311. Our simulations show that ocean iron fertilization, even in the extreme scenario by depleting global surface macronutrient concentration to zero at all time, has a minor effect on mitigating CO2-induced acidification at the surface ocean (Table 2, Figs. 2c, d and 3). When iron fertilization is implemented to mitigate atmospheric CO2 concentrations, it diminishes near-surface ocean acidification by delaying changes in global surface ocean chemistry by about a decade. By year 2100 in the simulation with iron fertilization, global surface pH decreases by 0.38 units from a pre-industrial value of 8.18, compared with a decrease of 0.44 units in the scenario without fertilization. On the other hand, when iron fertilization is implemented to generate carbon credit, it has a negligible effect on surface ocean chemistry.

Fails / Counterproductive – Toxic algal bloom turns Phytoplankton blooms cause domoic acids that cause deadly neurotoxins that infect the food chain Lauren Schenkman, Staff Writer, March 15, 2010, “Carbon-Capture Method Could Poison Oceans,” New Scientist, http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2010/03/carbon-capture-method-could- poison-oceans, Accessed 6/15/2014 But too many phytoplankton can be a bad thing, especially when it comes to members of the genus Pseudonitzschia. This alga produces domoic acid, which it spews into the surrounding seawater to help it ingest iron. Domoic acid also happens to be a potent neurotoxin that travels up the food chain into shellfish and small fish. In 1987, three people died and 107 fell ill from amnesic shellfish poisoning after eating mussels that fed on Pseudonitzschia blooms off Prince Edward Island in Canada. The poison has also killed sea lions off the coast of California, and coastal regions such as Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, Canada, often close beaches and fisheries because of Pseudonitzschia blooms. Fertilization causes toxic algal blooms that deplete oxygen Quirin Schiermeier, Staff Writer, July 18, 2012, “Dumping iron at sea does sink carbon,” Nature, Accessed 6/13/2014, http://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028 Some advocates of geoengineering think that this cooling mechanism might help to mitigate present- day climate change. However, the idea of deliberately stimulating plankton growth on a large scale is highly controversial. After noting that there were gaps in the scientific knowledge about this approach, the parties to the London Convention — the international treaty governing ocean dumping — agreed in 2007 that ‘commercial’ ocean fertilization is not justified (see 'Convention discourages ocean fertilization'). The finding that ocean fertilization does work, although promising, is not enough to soothe concerns over potentially harmful side effects on ocean chemistry and marine ecosystems, says Smetacek. Some scientists fear that massive ocean fertilization might produce toxic algal blooms or deplete oxygen levels in the middle of the water column. Iron fertilization produces deadly neurotoxins Lauren Schenkman, Staff Writer, March 15, 2010, “Carbon-Capture Method Could Poison Oceans,” New Scientist, http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2010/03/carbon-capture-method-could- poison-oceans, Accessed 6/15/2014 To help cool a warming world, some scientists have suggested fertilizing the oceans with iron. The idea is to stimulate vast blooms of phytoplankton, which sequester carbon dioxide. But such an approach could have deadly consequences. Experiments in the northern Pacific Ocean show that phytoplankton in waters far from land produce a molecule called domoic acid, a neurotoxin that has killed wildlife and people in coastal areas.

Fails / Counterproductive – Diatom hogging turns Diatom blooms are short-term and siphon the iron away from other phytoplankton which reduces carbon absorption Francie Diep, Argonne National Laboratories, Georgia Tech, June 14, 2013, “Greedy Algae May Thwart Ocean Fertilization Efforts,” Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/greedy- diatoms-may-thwart-ocean-fertilization-efforts-study-finds, Accessed 6/13/2014 This could mean that if someone were to dump iron into the ocean, much of it would be taken up by diatoms. That might be fine at first. Diatoms are photosynthetic, so they absorb carbon dioxide. When they die and fall to the bottom of the ocean, however, they take the iron they ate with them, trapped in their silica shells. After an initial bloom from iron fertilization, diatoms may leave other plankton types with less iron, reducing the size of carbon dioxide-absorbing plankton blooms, according to Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne scientists worked on this study by analyzing diatom silica structures for their iron content. Studies like this help scientists understand the consequences of ocean fertilization without having to actually dump anything into the water, which is controversial among conservationists and may violate international law. Diatoms are iron hogs. They trade off with CO2-absorpting phytoplankton and starve marine life Science Daily, Staff Writer, June 12, 2013, “Iron fertilization, process of putting iron into ocean to help capture carbon, could backfire,” DOE/Argonne National Laboratory, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612144833.htm, Accessed 6/15/2014 Because of this iron-hogging behavior, the process of adding iron to surface water -- called iron fertilization or iron seeding -- may have only a short-lived environmental benefit. And, the process may actually reduce over the long-term how much CO2 the ocean can trap. Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton, triggering algal blooms, the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take up even more iron to build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, they sink to the ocean floor, sequestering the iron and starving off the diatom's plankton peers. Over time, this reduction in the amount of iron in surface waters could trigger the growth of microbial populations that require less iron for nutrients, reducing the amount of phytoplankton blooms available to take in CO2 and to feed marine life. Even massive iron fertilization won’t make a dent in climate change ETHZ News, Staff Writer, March 20, 2014, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich (an international technical institute), “Iron fertilization cools ice age climate,” https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2014/03/eisenduengung-kuehlt- eiszeitklima.html, Accessed 6/15/2014 Although Martin had proposed that purposeful iron addition to the Southern Ocean could reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, Daniel Sigman, Princeton's Dusenbury Professor of Geological and Geophysical Sciences and a co-leader of the study noted that the amount of carbon dioxide removed though iron fertilization is likely to be minor compared to the amount of carbon dioxide that humans are now pushing into the atmosphere. "The dramatic fertilization that we observed during ice ages should have caused a decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide over hundreds of years, which was important for climate changes over ice age cycles," Sigman said. "But for humans to duplicate it today would require unprecedented engineering of the global environment, and it would still only compensate for less than 20 years of fossil fuel burning.

Fails / Counterproductive - General Iron will be quickly removed by diatoms Gayathri Vaidyanathan, Staff Writer, June 17, 2013, “Iron Fertilization Develops a New Wrinkle,” Discovery News, http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/iron-fertilization-develops-a-new-wrinkle- 130617.htm, Accessed 6/15/2014 The loss of iron through diatoms is a natural process in the oceans off Antarctica, the study finds. The loss happens at four times the rate at which new iron gets added into the ocean by dust deposition or the melting of ice. The implication of this study for iron fertilization experiments is this: the iron we add into the oceans will probably be removed quickly by the diatoms, said Ellery Ingall, the author of the study and a professor in Georgia Tech’s College of Sciences, speaking to DNews while vacationing in France. How quickly the diatoms remove the iron is unknown, but this could well be a new wrinkle in geo-engineering. Diatoms will overuse the iron and offset CO2 benefits Science Daily, Staff Writer, June 12, 2013, “Iron fertilization, process of putting iron into ocean to help capture carbon, could backfire,” DOE/Argonne National Laboratory, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612144833.htm, Accessed 6/15/2014 A new study on the feeding habits of ocean microbes calls into question the potential use of algal blooms to trap carbon dioxide and offset rising global levels. These blooms contain iron-eating microscopic phytoplankton that absorb CO2 from the air through the process of photosynthesis and provide nutrients for marine life. But one type of phytoplankton, a diatom, is using more iron that it needs for photosynthesis and storing the extra in its silica skeletons and shells, according to an X-ray analysis of phytoplankton conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory. This reduces the amount of iron left over to support the carbon-eating plankton. "Just like someone walking through a buffet line who takes the last two pieces of cake, even though they know they'll only eat one, they're hogging the food," said Ellery Ingall, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-lead author on this result. "Everyone else in line gets nothing; the person's decision affects these other people." Diatoms will hog all the fertilization and undermine other forms of phytoplankton Francie Diep, Argonne National Laboratories, Georgia Tech, June 14, 2013, “Greedy Algae May Thwart Ocean Fertilization Efforts,” Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/greedy- diatoms-may-thwart-ocean-fertilization-efforts-study-finds, Accessed 6/13/2014 For the newer study, oceanographers from several U.S. institutions studied phytoplankton off the coast of West Antarctica. There, they found, diatoms take iron from the ocean and put it in their shells at a high rate. They even seem to take up more than they need. "Just like someone walking through a buffet line who takes the last two pieces of cake, even though they know they'll only eat one, they're hogging the food," Ellery Ingall, an earth scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology who went to collect the phytoplankton, said in a statement. Iron that enters the Antarctic Ocean via snowmelt and dust can barely keep up with the diatoms' appetite, Ingall and his colleagues wrote in a study they published on Monday in the journal Nature Communications.

Studies CP Solvency New studies are required to determine iron fertilization potential Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer, July 18, 2012, “Could Fertilizing the Oceans Reduce Global Warming?,” LiveScience, http://www.livescience.com/21684-geoengineering-iron-fertilization- climate.html, Accessed 6/13/2014 This general approach, modifying the planet to address climate change, is known as geoengineering, and, geoengineering proposals like iron fertilization tend to raise many uncertainties and risks. Other geoengineering ideas have included pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to block out solar radiation or tucking away excess carbon in underground reservoirs. Ocean fertilization is a controversial idea, prompting protest from those who fear the unintended environmental impacts it may have. "Most scientists would agree that we are nowhere near the point of recommending [iron fertilization of the oceans] as a geoengineering tool. But many think that larger and longer [iron fertilization] experiments should be performed to help us to decide which, if any, of the many geoengineering options at hand should be deployed," Buesseler wrote. We are nowhere near the point of successful iron fertilization. It needs more study Alister Doyle, Staff Writer, July 18, 2012, “Ocean Fertilization Study Finds That Dumping Iron Might Help Remove Atmospheric Carbon Through Algae,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/ocean-fertilization-study-iron_n_1684020.html, Accessed 6/13/2014 Ocean fertilisation is one of several suggested techniques for slowing climate change known as "geoengineering". Other possibilities include reflecting sunlight with giant mirrors in space. "Most scientists would agree that we are nowhere near the point of recommending ocean iron fertilisation as a geoengineering tool," Ken Buessler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the United States wrote in a commentary in Nature. But he added that many thought that bigger and longer experiments were needed to see if the technology worked.

Violates International Law Iron fertilization violates international law and creates a distraction away from reducing fossil fuels Tim Worstall, Staff Writer, April 28, 2014, “Iron Fertilisation Of The Oceans Produces Fish And Sequesters Carbon Dioxide. So Why Do Environmentalists Oppose It?,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/04/28/iron-fertilisation-of-the-oceans-produces-fish- and-sequesters-carbon-dioxide-so-why-do-environmentalists-oppose-it/, Accessed 6/15/2014 So, given that climate change is, as we’re told, the greatest danger to our civilisation, why do we get the following kinds of opposition to it? “It appears to be a blatant violation of two international resolutions,” Kristina Gjerde, a senior high-seas adviser for the International Union for Conservation of Nature told the Guardian. “Even the placement of iron particles into the ocean, whether for carbon sequestration or fish replenishment, should not take place, unless it is assessed and found to be legitimate scientific research without commercial motivation. This does not appear to even have had the guise of legitimate scientific research.” Silvia Ribeiro, of the international anti-technology watchdog ETC Group, also voiced her horror at any development that might allow humanity to escape from the need for carbon rationing. “It is now more urgent than ever that governments unequivocally ban such open-air geoengineering experiments,” she said. “They are a dangerous distraction providing governments and industry with an excuse to avoid reducing fossil-fuel emissions.” International law currently prevents iron fertilization. We need long-term studies Alexander Besant, Staff Writer, July 19, 2012, “Iron seeding of the ocean could help stop global warming,” The Global Post, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/120719/iron-seeding-the-ocean-could-help-stop- global-warming, Accessed 6/15/2014 Despite some promising results ocean seeding with iron on a large scale remains banned by international conventions. Side-effects of adding iron to the ocean remain unknown and researchers have stopped such experiments altogether. "We just don't know what might happen to species composition and so forth if you were to continuously add iron to the sea," said Smetacek, according to the Christian Science Monitor. "These issues can only be addressed by more experiments including longer-term studies of natural blooms that occur around some Antarctic islands."

Turtles Key & In Danger

Exploration Protects Turtles Ocean exploration allows us to better understand the ocean and the sea turtles that live in them Oceana, founded in 2001, is the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, Accessed June 11, 2014, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems”, Accessed June 11, 2014, http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf Because large sea turtle population declines occurred centuries ago, we lack a proper perspective or a reliable baseline against which to compare their current state. 4 Due to the lack of historic information, some of the past ecological functions of sea turtles during periods of great abundance have certainly been forgotten. 5 Although we cannot now fully understand the roles sea turtles played centuries ago, it is important that we discover as much as possible. Better understanding of these roles will allow us to determine what structure and functions were lost in the ocean ecosystems, the environmental effects of remaining populations, and management and conservation measures required for sea turtles to reach historic levels—and the improvements in ecosystem health that could result from restored sea turtle populations. 6

Exploration Protects Turtles We need to use ocean exploration to learn more about sea turtles to understand how to best protect them University of Central Florida, researchers from the University’s oceanic department, March 4, 2014, “Sea turtles' 'lost years' mystery starts to unravel”, Accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140304215610.htm

"We propose that young turtles remain at the sea surface to gain a thermal benefit," Mansfield said. "This makes sense because the turtles are cold blooded animals. By remaining at the sea surface, and by associating with Sargassum habitat, turtles gain a thermal refuge of sorts that may help enhance growth and feeding rates, among other physiological benefits." More research will be needed, but it's a start at cracking the "lost years" mystery. The findings are important because the loggerhead turtles along with other sea turtles are threatened or endangered species. Florida beaches are important to their survival because they provide important nesting grounds in North America. More than 80% of Atlantic loggerheads nest along Florida's coast. There are other important nesting grounds and nursing areas for sea turtles in the western hemisphere found from as far north as Virginia to South America and the Caribbean. "From the time they leave our shores, we don't hear anything about them until they surface near the Canary Islands, which is like their primary school years," said Florida Atlantic University professor Jeannette Wyneken, the study's co- PI and author. "There's a whole lot that happens during the Atlantic crossing that we knew nothing about. Our work helps to redefine Atlantic loggerhead nursery grounds and early loggerhead habitat use."

Exploration Protects Turtles Ocean based research helps sea turtles—researchers learning vital info on their life cycle Kevin Spear, writer for the Orlando Sentinel, March 5, 2014, “Baby sea turtles' mysterious journey tracked for first time”, June 28, 2014, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-03-05/news/os- ucf-sea-turtle-tracking-20140305_1_baby-sea-turtles-sargassum-robbin-trindell

The trackers, despite their tiny size and weighing about as much as four pennies, send a signal to satellites that includes location, temperature and how much power is being produced by solar chargers. The 17 turtles were followed for a few as 27 days to as many as 220 days before the devices fell off. That may not seem like much time, but researchers previously knew little about their whereabouts during that period. What happens afterward is up for further tracking, which is already being done. It was expensive, needing donations from environmental groups, government agencies and corporations, and required professors at four universities. What they got was a peek into the huge home of loggerhead turtles — essentially into the kids' room — and confirmation of a promising method for observing more of what researchers call the "lost years." "We're getting a look at the toddler-to-teenage stage," Mansfield said. "Turtles take a couple of decades to reach maturity, so they have a long time out there before we see them again on our nesting beaches."

Alt Causes—Ocean Temperature Humans are low proximate cause for sea turtle deaths—ocean temperature is the biggest internal link Kieren Mulvaney, founder of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, April 20, 2011, “Climate Is Biggest Factor in Sea Turtle Survival”, Accessed June 11, 2014, http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-is-biggest-factor-in-sea-turtle-survival-110420.htm Every year, thousands of loggerhead sea turtles hatch on the beaches of Florida and flap desperately toward the sanctuary of the surf. Thirty- one years later, the surviving females return for the first time, to lay eggs and begin the cycle anew. The intervening three decades are fraught with peril, from natural predators to oil spills to entanglement in fishing gear. And yet, according to a new study in the online journalPLoS One, by far the biggest factor determining how many turtles survive to sexual maturity is none of those. It is, simply, the conditions in the ocean in that very first year, when the hatchlings make it into the water and begin their battle for survival.

Alt Causes—Fungus Fungal infections kill off sea turtle nests Jullie M. Sarmiento-Ramírez, researcher with the Department of Micología, Real Jardín Botánico-CSIC, Madrid, Spain, January 21, 2014, “Global Distribution of Two Fungal Pathogens Threatening Endangered Sea Turtles”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.plosone.org/article/info %3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0085853

Nascent fungal infections are currently considered as one of the main threats for biodiversity and ecosystem health, and have driven several animal species into critical risk of extinction. Sea turtles are one of the most endangered groups of animals and only seven species have survived to date. Here, we described two pathogenic species, i.e., Fusarium falciforme and Fusarium keratoplasticum, that are globally distributed in major turtle nesting areas for six sea turtle species and that are implicated in low hatch success. These two fungi possess key biological features that are similar to emerging pathogens leading to host extinction, e.g., high virulence, and a broad host range style of life. Their optimal growth temperature overlap with the optimal incubation temperature for eggs, and they are able to kill up to 90% of the embryos. Environmental forcing, e.g., tidal inundation and clay/silt content of nests, were correlated to disease development. Thus, these Fusarium species constitute a major threat to sea turtle nests, especially to those experiencing environmental stressors. These findings have serious implications for the survival of endangered sea turtle populations and the success of conservation programs worldwide.

Alt Causes—List Sea turtles have multiple threats to their survival—threats happening now Newswire, news organization, March 25, 2014, “Environmental Threats, Solutions for Sea Turtles, Other Topics to Be Discussed at International Meeting in New Orleans”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.newswise.com/articles/environmental-threats-solutions-for-sea-turtles-other-topics-to-be- discussed-at-international-meeting-in-new-orleans

Newswise — HAMMOND — Sea turtles—a group of seven species thought to have evolved more than 200 million years ago—are currently under significant stress, especially in the Gulf of Mexico, primarily as a result of human negligence and industrialization, scientists claim. “Sea turtles have emerged as a strong global symbol of all that’s right—and wrong—in our oceans. Around the world many people study them and work hard to make sure turtles survive,” said Wallace J. Nichols, a marine biologist and a past president of the International Sea Turtle Society (ISTS). A group of more than 600 scientists, conservationists, students and others will meet in New Orleans April 10-17 to discuss this and a wide range of other topics at the 34th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, the main meeting of the ISTS. “The meeting draws participants from around the world and across various disciplines and cultures to address a common interest and objective: the conservation of sea turtles and their environment”, said current ISTS President Roldán Valverde, a sea turtle expert and associate professor of biological sciences at Southeastern Louisiana University. Other topics included in the program are marine threats to sea turtle habitats, impact of fisheries bycatch, oil spills, climate change, and urban development in coastal areas. Special workshops will also be offered on sea turtle rehabilitation and health.

Turtles Dying—Laundry List Sea turtles are dying off—human intervention into the oceans and overfishing Chad Scott, Program Director at New Heaven Reef Conservation Program, February 22, 2014, “No time to lose as thousands of sea turtles are dying”, accessed June 10, 2014, http://www.newheavendiveschool.com/articles/time-lose-thousands-sea-turtles-dying/ A recent report by the BBC News was that 900 sea turtles had washed up dead on the shores of Southern India. This coming after over 1,100 turtles died in the same area over the month of January. According to the report, the Olive Ridley turtles were killed by illegal trawling fisherman who were not using specialized equipment to prevent drawing of turtles (known as Turtle Excluding Devices, or TEDs). The event is horrific, and I am sure most will be quick to place all of the blame on irresponsible fisherman. But there is much more to this story than that. Turtle Exclusion Devices were invented in the 1970’s, and became widely used over the 1980’s in many places around the world. In fact, even in India the equipment has been required since 1996. Essentially a TED is a crate over the mouth of the trawling net which the turtle cannot fit through and gets stuck against, below the crate is an opening in the net which the turtle can then swim out of. Although the device is relatively inexpensive, often it is not properly used, or its use not properly enforced. Some examples of problems with the TEDs include: Some turtles are too large to exist through the opening, and are still drowned Some turtles do not find the opening to exist in time Many fisherman believe the TED will cause them to also loose commercially important species, and so either sew closed the opening or don’t use the devices at all Due to the increased cost of the device, there is no incentive for fisherman to use them. If enforcement is not strict then they do not get used. The TED can become clogged with trash or debris and fail to function But even beyond all of these failings, is the fact that the real problem is the pressure on fisherman to maximize catches, disregard sustainability, and encroach on marine protected areas. Trawling is an extremely destructive method of fishing, and I am sure that one day future generations will look back on us in disgust for even thinking it was ok. The exponential rate of human population growth, combined with rising standards of living and urbanization are putting more and more pressure on the ecosystems where our food comes from. Far from infinite, our planets oceans are quickly being depleted as fisherman work harder and harder to keep up with demand. Despite the benefits of devices such as TEDs, unless we change our view of the ocean’s resources there is nothing we can do to ensure their survival. Mass die offs are only a small percentage of what is happening to our planets turtles, sharks, whales, corals, and every other marine animal (with the exception of jellyfish, they are thriving).

Turtles Dying—Humans Despite natural threats human intervention still the biggest threat to see turtle populations Conservation, an independent science magazine dedicated information on “green” living, May 21, 2014, “ARE WE HEADING TO A WORLD OF ALL FEMALE SEA TURTLES?”, Accessed June 27, 2014, http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/05/are-we-heading-to-a-world-of-all-female-sea- turtles/

Sea turtles have plenty of natural threats. They get gobbled up by sharks, and their eggs, silently incubating on the world’s sandy beaches, are an easy snack for raccoons, foxes, and shorebirds. But those are all threats to which they’ve adapted. Females lay a hundred eggs at a time knowing that only a few hardy individuals – maybe just a single hatchling! – will survive to adulthood. But we humans have made things quite a bit worse for them. They get caught up in fishing lines as bycatch. Some are poached illegally, because their shells are prized both as decorative items and for traditional medicine. Others, having evolved to navigate to the ocean by moonlight after they hatch, are instead distracted by the bright artificial lights of beachside development, luring them instead away from the surf. Now, research published this week in Nature Climate Change finds that the warming world in which the turtles now find themselves could spell even more trouble for the charismatic critters.

Turtles Dying—Ocean Development Ocean development kills sea turtles—major threat to the species Barbara Schroeder, National Sea Turtle Coordinator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, March 25, 2014, “Barbara Schroeder: Saving sea turtles by coordinating conservation and recovery efforts”, Accessed June 27, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/barbara-schroeder-saving-sea-turtles- by-coordinating-conservation-and-recovery-efforts/2014/03/25/22f5b144-b426-11e3-8020- b2d790b3c9e1_story.html

Protecting endangered species is often controversial since their conservation may affect the financial position of landowners or industries and halt activities in certain areas. Some people might ask, “What good are they?” but it is a question people could ask about any species, according to Schroeder. “The answer is the same for all species,” she said. “We are all interconnected and reliant on the whole.” Implementing solutions can be a slow process, according to Schroeder, who reaches out to experts and others who can help prevent harm to the sea turtles. After large-scale deaths of sea turtles in a particular fishery, she seeks to take steps to alter harmful practices. Schroeder also develops and implements long-term surveys for monitoring sea turtle population trends and studying the creatures in their foraging habitats. She relies on satellite telemetry to investigate how sea turtles migrate to reproduce, a method that involves attaching tracking equipment to the turtles’ shells. Another significant threat to sea turtles’ survival is coastal development on their nesting beaches. The large, slow creatures come ashore on sandy beaches to construct their nests and lay their eggs, and development impinges on this habitat. And, while on the beach, they are vulnerable to being hit by motorized vehicles .

Turtles Dying—Ocean Development Ocean development to seas turtles now—not a protected species NOAA Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, January 23, 2014, “Threats to Marine Turtles”, Accessed June 6, 2014, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/threats.htm Threats in the Marine Environment Turtles can become entangled in gillnets, pound nets, and the lines associated with longline and trap/pot fishing gear. Turtles entangled in these types of fishing gear may drown and often suffer serious injuries to their flippers from constriction by the lines or ropes. In addition to entangling turtles, longline gear can also hook turtles in the jaw, esophagus, or flippers. Trawls that are not outfitted with turtle excluder devices (TEDs) do not allow turtles to escape, which may result in mortality through drowning. Fishing dredges, extremely heavy metal frames dragged along the ocean floor, can crush and entrap turtles, causing death and serious injury. In the Pacific, coastal gillnet and other fisheries conducted from a multitude of smaller vessels are of increasing concern. These fisheries, called artisanal fisheries, can collectively have a very great impact on local turtle populations, especially leatherbacks and loggerheads. Marine debris is a continuing problem for marine turtles. Marine turtles living in the pelagic (open ocean) environment commonly ingest or become entangled in marine debris (e.g., tar balls, plastic bags, plastic pellets, balloons, and ghost fishing gear) as they feed along oceanographic fronts, where debris and their natural food items converge. This is especially problematic for turtles that spend all or significant portions of their life cycle in the pelagic environment (e.g., leatherbacks, juvenile loggerheads, and juvenile green turtles). Environmental contamination from coastal runoff, marina and dock construction, dredging, aquaculture, oil and gas exploration and extraction, increased under water noise and boat traffic can degrade marine habitats used by marine turtles . The development of marinas and docks in inshore waters can negatively impact nearshore habitats. Fueling facilities at marinas can sometimes discharge oil, gas, and sewage into sensitive estuarine and coastal habitats. An increase in the number of docks built may also increase boat and vessel traffic. Turtles swimming or feeding at or just beneath the surface of the water are particularly vulnerable to boat and vessel strikes, which can result in serious propeller injuries and death.

Turtles Dying—Ocean Development Ocean development is killing sea turtles now but responsible conservation can reverse the trend Darci Palmquist, senior science writer for The Nature Conservancy, May 19th, 2014, “5 Reasons to Love Sea Turtles for World Turtle Day”, Accessed June 10, 2014, http://blog.nature.org/conservancy/2014/05/19/5-reasons-to-love-sea-turtles-for-world-turtle-day/ 3. It can take decades for a sea turtle to reach sexual maturity. But when the female is ready to lay eggs, she returns to the same nesting beach where she was born – even if she hasn’t been back in 30 years. 4. Sea turtles face many threats: Human development and coastal destruction are ruining beaches used by turtles to nest, and climate change is rapidly destroying the coral reefs where turtles live and feed. Other threats include harvesting eggs for food and hunting Hawksbills for their colorful shells. 5. Scientists estimate that the global Hawksbill population has declined by 80% over the last century. But there are some bright spots: In the Arnavon Islands, conservation efforts have resulted in an incredible 100% increase in the number of sea turtle nests laid each year.

Turtles Dying—Populations Declining Sea turtle populations are on the steady decline because of human intervention into the oceans Arbiter Staff Writers, posted by Arbiter news outlet online, March 28, 2014, “Numerous Human Threats Endanger Sea Turtles Around the World”, Accessed June 10, 2014, http://www.arbiternews.com/2014/03/28/numerous-threats-endanger-sea-turtles-around-the-world/ One of the oldest creatures on Earth, sea turtles are believed to have been in existence for over 110 million years. Once abundant in temperate and warm waters around the world, today all seven species of sea turtle face serious threats to their survival. Sea turtle populations have seen dramatic decreases due to legal and illegal fishing and harvesting. Sea turtles also face the risk of becoming bycatch in commercial fishing, and are especially at risk of becoming entangled in discarded nets, fishing gear, and other forms of marine debris. Habitat destruction and changes in nesting sites are also playing a role in the disappearance of sea turtles. Air- breathing marine reptiles, sea turtles are unlike most other turtle species in that they cannot retract their head and limbs into their carapace (shell). Depending on the species, sea turtles generally feed on jellyfish, shrimp, crab, seaweed, sponges, mollusks and snails.

Turtles Dying—Storms Harsh storms can kill off large turtle populations Alex Saltarin, writer for Tech Times online, February 4, 2014, “Sea turtles and pelicans in Florida Panhandle dying due to extreme winter storms”, accessed June 10, 2014, http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3156/20140204/sea-turtles-and-pelicans-in-florida-panhandle- dying-due-to-extreme-winter-storms.htm This winter has been especially harsh for people living in North America. Aside from humans, however, wildlife populations have also been having a difficult time due to a recent winter storm. In the Florida Panhandle region, wildlife such as seat turtles and pelicans have been fighting a losing battle against the harsh winter storm that started last week. Many animals in the area have been dying and getting injured due to the storm. By Friday, the worst part of the storm has passed and scientists have only recently become aware of the impact the storm had on the local flora and fauna. Since the storm died down last Friday, scientists, conservationists and volunteers have already found around 130 sea turtles that have been affected by the storm. The turtles were rescued from the beaches along the area and many suffered injuries. Since these sea turtles are classified as endangered, scientists are worried about the long-term effects of the incident on sea turtle populations in the area. Over 12 dead sea turtles have also been recovered.

Turtles Dying—Oil Spill The BP oil spill continues to kill sea turtles Kurt Nimmo, writer for Info Wars online, April 10, 2014, “GULF OF MEXICO DOLPHINS, SEA TURTLES DYING IN RECORD NUMBERS”, Accessed June 10, 2014, 2014 http://www.infowars.com/gulf- of-mexico-dolphins-sea-turtles-dying-in-record-numbers/ The media has long since stopped covering the biggest oil spill in U.S. history, but the aftermath of the devastating Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion is still taking a toll on wildlife four years later. The disaster spilled more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. A new report, dismissed by BP as political advocacy and not science, says a record number of bottlenose dolphins and sea turtles are dying as a result of the disaster. The report, issued by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), “misrepresents the U.S. government’s investigation into dolphin deaths,” BP toldNational Geographic, “as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s own Web site states, that inquiry is ongoing.” “The report also conveniently overlooks information available from other independent scientific reports showing that the Gulf is undergoing a strong recovery. Just this week, a study published by Auburn University researchers found no evidence that the spill impacted young red snapper populations on reefs off the Alabama coast.” Doug Inkley, senior scientist for NWF, disagrees. “The oil is not gone. There is oil on the bottom of the gulf, oil washing up on the beach and there is oil in the marshes,” he told The Guardian on Wednesday.

Turtles Impact—Environment Sea turtles are an important part of ecosystems The Sea Turtle Conservancy, the world's oldest sea turtle research and conservation group, Accessed June 11, 2014, “Information About Sea Turtles: Why Care?”, Accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.conserveturtles.org/seaturtleinformation.php?page=whycareaboutseaturtles 1. Sea turtles, especially green sea turtles, are one of the very few animals to eat sea grass. Like normal lawn grass, sea grass needs to be constantly cut short to be healthy and help it grow across the sea floor rather than just getting longer grass blades. Sea turtles and manatees act as grazing animals that cut the grass short and help maintain the health of the sea grass beds. Over the past decades, there has been a decline in sea grass beds. This decline may be linked to the lower numbers of sea turtles. Sea grass beds are important because they provide breeding and developmental grounds for many species of fish, shellfish and crustaceans. Without sea grass beds, many marine species humans harvest would be lost, as would the lower levels of the food chain. The reactions could result in many more marine species being lost and eventually impacting humans. So if sea turtles go extinct, there would be a serious decline in sea grass beds and a decline in all the other species dependant upon the grass beds for survival. All parts of an ecosystem are important, if you lose one, the rest will eventually follow.

Turtles Impact—Environment Sea turtles are interconnected to the ocean ecosystem—sea turtle decline tanks the rest of the delicate balance Sea Turtle Conservation Bonaire, a non-governmental research and conservation organization that has been protecting sea turtles since 1991, 2010, “Are Sea Turtles Worth Saving?”, Accessed June 11, 2014, http://www.bonaireturtles.org/explore/are-sea-turtles-worth-saving/ In a world full of problems and full of species, it’s a question worth asking. Are there good reasons to go to the trouble of saving endangered sea turtles? Read on and see what you think. Sea turtles demonstrate the ultimate lesson of ecology – that everything is connected. Sea turtles are part of two vital ecosystems, beaches and marine systems. If sea turtles become extinct, both the marine and beach ecosystems will weaken. And since humans use the ocean as an important source for food and use beaches for many kinds of activities, weakness in these ecosystems would have harmful effects on humans. Though sea turtles have been living and thriving in the world’s oceans for 150 million years, they are now in danger of extinction largely because of changes brought about by humans. If we alter the oceans and beaches enough to wipe out sea turtles, will those changes make it difficult for us to survive? And if we choose to do what’s necessary to save sea turtles, might we save our own future?

Turtles Impact—Environment Sea turtles decline hurts ocean ecosystem health but increasing turtle protection/ numbers restores damage to ecosystems Oceana, founded in 2001, is the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation, Accessed June 11, 2014, “Why Healthy Oceans Need Sea Turtles: The Importance of Sea Turtles to Marine Ecosystems”, Accessed June 11, 2014, http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Why_Healthy_Oceans_Need_Sea_Turtles.pdf Humans have caused sea turtle populations to decline significantly all over the world. 1 Initially, direct fishing for sea turtles was the main reason for population declines. Today, other threats, including injury or death in commercial fisheries, habitat degradation and climate change top the list. 2 The resulting population declines have reduced the species’ ability to fulfill their roles in maintaining healthy marine ecosystems. 3 Because large sea turtle population declines occurred centuries ago,we lack a proper perspective or a reliable baseline against which to compare their current state. 4 Due to the lack of historic information, some of the past ecological functions of sea turtles during periods of great abundance have certainly been forgotten. 5 Although we cannot now fully understand the roles sea turtles played centuries ago, it is important that we discover as much as possible. Better understanding of these roles will allow us to determine what structure and functions were lost in the ocean ecosystems, the environmental effects of remaining populations, and management and conservation measures required for sea turtles to reach historic levels—and the improvements in ecosystem health that could result from restored sea turtle populations. 6 What we do know is that sea turtles—even at diminished population levels—play an important role in ocean ecosystems by maintaining healthy sea grass beds and coral reefs, providing key habitat for other marine life, helping to balance marine food webs and facilitating nutrient cycling from water to land.

A/T “Not Enough Data to Prove Impact” We do have sophisticated tracking technology and information of sea turtle population trends Sarah Zeilinski, writer for Science News magazine, March 18, 2014, “How to count a sea turtle”, Accessed June 27, 2014, https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/how-count-sea-turtle

The gold standard for population studies, Wallace says, uses a technique called “mark and recapture.” A number of animals are caught, marked in some manner and then released into the wild. Some time later, another group of animals is captured. Based on the number of marked animals in that second group, scientists can calculate the size of the population. Marking and tracking individual animals also helps scientists learn more about life histories, which they can then use to make generalizations across populations and species. “We get really good representative information by studying nesting females,” Wallace says, “but we’ve known for a long time in the turtle community that we need to know a lot more about what goes on in the water.” So there are efforts to study turtles in their marine environment. Scientists recently discovered, for instance, where young loggerhead turtles go after they hatch on Florida beaches.

Turtles Protected & Not Key

Protected Now Inventive conservation work is checking damage to sea turtle populations now Stefanie Dion Jones, University of Connecticut, May 13, 2014, “Protecting Endangered Sea Turtles and the Local Fishing Industry”, Accessed June 16, 2014, http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2014/05/protecting-endangered-sea-turtles-and-the-local-fishing- industry/

Halibut, however, is far from the only thing snagged by their nets. The marine life commonly tangled in their lines includes coral, sharks, squid, and endangered sea turtles, some weighing hundreds of pounds apiece. Each year, juvenile sea turtles that hatch on beaches in Japan migrate across the expanse of the Pacific Ocean to feed in Baja’s waters. Their dwindling population is concentrated in this last known hotspot, overlapping with many small-scale fisheries. In fact, along these shores, each fishing boat alone may inadvertently catch between eight and 16 sea turtles per day. While the fishermen lose time, fuel, and money repairing their nets, thousands upon thousands of these endangered marine creatures are paying with their lives every year. UConn alum Jesse Senko ’06 (CANR) is developing solutions that help both the endangered sea turtles and the local fishermen. (Photo courtesy of Jesse Senko) “We’re finding that these small-scale fisheries that people aren’t really paying attention to are having enormous impacts on entire ecosystems,” says Jesse Senko ’06 (CANR), a UConn alum and now Ph.D. student at Arizona State University, who has dedicated his work toward resolving what may seem like an intractable situation. Yet the novel solutions he and his colleagues have devised in recent years are, in fact, proving effective – not only in reducing the loss of marine life, but also in preserving the livelihoods of the local fishermen.

Protected Now Conservation efforts are happening now and key—shouldn’t reduce protections Sarah Zeilinski, writer for Science News magazine, March 18, 2014, “How to count a sea turtle”, Accessed June 27, 2014, https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/how-count-sea-turtle

The North Carolina fishermen’s perception that there are more turtles isn’t wrong, Wallace says. “They know the water and marine biology better than marine biologists.” But even if scientists were able to count every turtle in the sea and that turned out to be a huge number, that “doesn’t mean that we should back off on regulations,” he says. Sea turtles live for decades, and even as adults they may not reproduce every year. Population growth can be slow, which makes rapid recovery from a decline difficult. Where there’s potential for human impacts on turtles — such as getting caught in fishing nets, losing eggs to people’s meals, losing habitat to coastal development or climate change — their future is dependent on conservation efforts, Wallace says. And if you remove those measures, “they will decline.”

Protected Now Sea turtles are being protected through conservation efforts—it’s becoming trendy and more popular Darren Burton, writing for the Examiner.com news, April 11, 2014, “High time for sea turtle conservation and eco-tourism”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.examiner.com/article/high-time- for-sea-turtle-conservation-and-eco-tourism

For the tourist, if merely seeing a sea turtle while on a boat cruise, snorkel adventure or scuba dive is a thrill, then getting directly involved in their protection and success of their lifecycle is a memorable adventure for the rest of someone’s life. For many decades, sea turtle conservation has relied on grassroots style volunteerism, which, while helpful for the turtles and exciting for many eco-minded travelers, has not always been accessible or even very popular among resort tourists. Today, however, some of the most beautiful and lavish beach resorts are helping to change that. In the last several years, many coastal resorts have not only made sea turtle conservation accessible to guests who may never even have known about it before, their efforts are also making it a fun and educational activity for visitors of all ages. It’s truly an opportunity to exercise the inner biologist in everyone. From resort-based kid’s programs to conservation-themed cocktail parties, safeguarding sea turtles isn’t merely becoming popular, it’s becoming, well, kind of sexy!

UQ—Population Increasing Sea turtle populations will increase, female population set to rise which allows more frequent breading. Even if turtle populations decline won’t happen for decades Rachel Sullivan, writer for ABC news science division, May 19, 2014, “Warmer world to push sea turtle numbers up”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/19/4006274.htm

While warming temperatures will produce more female than male sea turtle hatchings, sea turtle populations will not crash — at least for the next few decades, a new study suggests. In fact, sea turtle populations will increase because males breed more frequently than females, report researchers today in Nature Climate Change. Sex in many reptile species is determined by temperature during incubation. For sea turtles incubation temperatures below 29°C produce male hatchlings; above that temperature females are produced. This has caused worldwide concern that increasing temperatures will result in all-female populations, ultimately leading to their extinction. To develop a more accurate picture of the future, an international team of researchers led by Jacques-Olivier Laloë from Swansea University studied a loggerhead turtle rookery in the Cape Verde Islands. The team combined sand temperature measurements with hatchling sex ratios and operational sex ratios (actual numbers of males and females breeding at any one time). These were then compared with more than 150 years of air temperature records and predicted warming scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to develop a long-term outlook for the population. "What we've done for the first time is to include data on breeding periodicity collected by satellite tagging to show that the tendency of males to breed more frequently than females will help offset female skewed hatchling sex ratios," says research team member Professor Graeme Hays, Chair of Marine Science at Deakin University.

UQ—Population Increasing Climate change will increase ocean temperatures which will increase sea turtle populations Deakin University Australia, research university in Australia, May 19, 2014, “Global warming could help bolster turtle population size”, Accessed June 28, 2014, http://www.deakin.edu.au/news/2014/190514turtlepopulations.php

Scientists studying the sex ratio of sea turtles at one of the world’s largest rookeries predict global warming could help bolster population sizes. Deakin University Chair of Marine Science Professor Graeme Hays says a new study with researchers at Swansea University (UK) and the Cape Verde Islands published this week in Nature Climate Change, offers a positive outlook for the endangered group of species. “Our latest research provides detailed estimates of past, present and future sex ratios at one of the world’s largest sea turtle rookeries, the Cape Verde Islands in the Atlantic, where large numbers of loggerhead turtles breed,” Professor Hays says. “We also recorded sand temperatures on nesting beaches over several years using small data-loggers. “These recordings were combined with past measurements of environmental conditions on the islands since 1850, and climate predictions for the next 100 years made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “In this way, a robust 250- year time series of incubation temperatures, hatchling sex ratios, and adult breeding sex ratios is derived.” Professor Hays says sea turtles are unusual in that the sex of hatchlings is determined not by sex chromosomes – as is the case in humans and other mammals – but by the incubation temperature, through a phenomenon known as ‘temperature dependent sex determination.’ “Above a certain pivotal incubation temperature, typically near 29°C, the majority of sea turtle eggs produce female hatchlings and vice versa. “This means that warming temperatures, occurring as part of global climate change, may cause the feminisation of sea turtle populations through the production of only female hatchlings." Professor Hays says that despite predicted warming and increasingly female skewed sex ratios, entire feminisation of this population is not imminent in the next few decades. “In fact warm incubation temperatures may have an unexpected conservation benefit of increasing the number of breeding females and hence the total size of the population.

UQ—Population Increasing Sea turtle populations on the rise now—no need for additional protections Bruce Siceloff, writer for News Observer, March 19, 2014, “NC commercial fishermen challenge sea turtle regulations”, June 28, 2014, http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/19/3715496/nc-commercial-fishermen-challenge.html

North Carolina commercial fishermen say they are unfairly burdened with state and federal regulations designed to protect rare sea turtles, and they want recreational anglers and boaters to start sharing the pain. In a legal notice filed this month with fish and wildlife agencies, attorneys for the N.C. Fisheries Association also called for a new national count of threatened and endangered turtles – to determine whether they still need legal protection. “The commercial fishermen would love to see the sea turtle recover, so some of the restrictions could be eased or lifted,” Beaufort lawyer Steve Weeks told reporters and fishermen at the Core Sound Heritage Center on Harkers Island earlier this month. “ These restrictions are tough. The turtle has made a great comeback. Now, turtles are everywhere .”

A/T Turtles/ Seagrass Lots of other animals eat seagrass and maintain the ecosystem—turtles not key Heather Thomas, eHow Contributor , June 02, 2014, “What Eats Seagrass?”, Accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.ehow.com/info_8260330_eats-seagrass.html

Manatee Manatees are large aquatic mammals that feed primarily on seagrass. Their presence in a particular location is closely linked to availability of this food source and warm waters. These gentle giants weigh between 1,000 and 3,000 lbs. and can consume approximately 15 percent of their body weight in seagrass everyday. That's more than 150 lbs. of vegetation! Green Sea Turtles Green sea turtles are the second largest species of sea turtle. These turtles weigh up to 500 lbs. and eat only sea vegetation. Their method of feeding keeps seagrass beds healthy by cropping the leafy growth of the plant but leaving the roots to continue growing, similar to the process of cutting the grass in your yard. Fish Most fish utilize seagrass as a place of sanctuary and as a nursery for their young; many feed on small creatures that live within its shelter. However, some vegetarian fish consume seagrass as their primary food source; these fish include parrotfish, mullet, scrawled filefish, keeled needlefish and ocean surgeon. Crab and Lobster Crabs and lobsters also feed on the abundant vegetation found in seagrass fields. However, they are opportunistic eaters and will take advantage of smaller prey species that dwell in these vast fields and consume them as well. Birds Migratory birds such as ducks, geese and swans also eat seagrass. The mute swan is a non-native species to the eastern seaboard and is negatively impacting the ecosystem. It is a consumer of seagrass resources and its population is increasing, leaving less grass available for the native wildlife population. Their current protected status makes it difficult for wildlife agencies to successfully manage the growing population.

A/T Turtles/ Seagrass Other animals fill in for sea turtles to eat and maintain seagrass habitat The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Protects, conserves and manages Florida's natural resources and enforces the State's environmental laws, 2012, “What are Seagrasses?”, Accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/habitats/seagrass/

Seagrasses are grass-like flowering plants that live completely submerged in marine and estuarine waters. Although seagrasses occur throughout the coastal areas of Florida, they are most abundant in Florida Bay and from Tarpon Springs northward to Apalachee Bay in the Gulf which are two of the most extensive seagrass beds in continental North America. Seagrasses occur in protected bays and lagoons and also in deeper waters along the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. The depth at which seagrasses occur is limited by water clarity because most species require high levels of light. Florida's approximately 2.2 million acres of seagrasses perform many significant functions. • They help maintain water clarity by trapping fine sediments and particles with their leaves. • They stabilize the bottom with their roots and rhizomes. • They provide shelter for fishes, crustaceans and shellfish. • They and the organisms that grow on them are food for many marine animals and water birds. The canopy of seagrass protects smaller marine animals, including the young of such species as drums, sea bass, snappers and grunts from larger predators. Some animals, such as manatees, urchins, conches and sea turtles, eat seagrass blades. Other animals derive nutrition from eating algae and small animals that live upon seagrass leaves. Bottlenose dolphins and a variety of wading and diving birds also use seagrass beds as feeding grounds. Seagrass-based detritus formed by the microbial breakdown of leaves and roots is also an important food source.

A/T Turtles—A/T Climate Change Climate change won’t cause sea turtle extinction even if it increases the numbers of female sea turtles Conservation, an independent science magazine dedicated information on “green” living, May 21, 2014, “ARE WE HEADING TO A WORLD OF ALL FEMALE SEA TURTLES?”, Accessed June 27, 2014, http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/05/are-we-heading-to-a-world-of-all-female-sea- turtles/

Many reptiles, including all sea turtles, have “temperature-dependent sex determination.” That means that the ambient temperature surrounding the eggs determines whether the animal that hatches will be a male or a female. For sea turtles, warmer sand – higher than 29 Celsius or 84.2 Fahrenheit – means that the hatchlings are more likely to be female. Could our warming world lead sea turtles to an overwhelming, unsustainable boom in females and a diminishing number of males? Despite what Jurassic Park may have taught you, a single-sex population of animals would have a hard time reproducing. Swansea University researcher Jacques-Olivier Laloë and colleagues used historical records and climate projections to try to predict the future of sea turtle population dynamics. The researchers compared the cooler light-colored beaches with the warmer dark- colored beaches of Sal, an island in the Atlantic Ocean’s Cape Verde archipelago, just off the western coast of Senegal. Lighter beaches reflect more light, keeping the sand, and the hidden eggs, cooler. The beaches of Sal are an important rookery for loggerheads. Surprisingly, they find that the outlook for sea turtles isn’t so bad, at least when it comes to climate change. While future warming will indeed likely lead to a higher proportion of female hatchlings, that might not be a death sentence for the turtles. By the middle of the 22nd century, Laloë predicts, the Cape Verde rookery will be between 4 and 17 percent male. However, while females always return to lay eggs on the beaches they hatched from, males that hatched on light colored beaches likely still fertilize females from dark colored beaches. In addition, a few males can breed with multiple females, and females can store sperm to fertilize multiple clutches of eggs. A few males could go a long way to sustaining a population, in other words.

A/T Sea Grass Death—Alt Causes Alt causes to sea grass destruction—inevitable and happening now The Ocean Portal Team, Smithsonian Institution’s Ocean Initiative which increases the public’s understanding and stewardship of the Ocean, Accessed June 16, 2014, “Seagrass and Seagrass Beds”, Accessed June 16, 2014, http://ocean.si.edu/seagrass-and-seagrass-beds

Unfortunately, seagrasses are in trouble: it’s estimated that 29% of the world’s seagrass meadows have died off in the past century, with 1.5% more disappearing each year. The main culprit is runoff from land into the ocean. Nutrients, such as those from fertilizers and pollution, wash into the water and can cause algal blooms, which block the necessary sunlight from reaching the seafloor. Sediment washing into the water can also block sunlight and cause similar effects. When people remove fish from seagrass beds, it can lead to seagrass death. Algae and other epiphytes grow on seagrass blades and are regulated by grazing fish. Some of these algae-grazing fish are targeted by fisheries, and their disappearance allows the algae to grow out of control and to choke the seagrass. However, more commonly fisheries catch bigger fish species a couple of steps up the food web from algae-grazers. When these larger fish are removed from the ecosystem, their prey—the predators of algae-grazers—thrive, and they can quickly decimate algae-grazer populations. So overfishing of large fish indirectly causes algae to grow out of control and kill seagrass. Don't forget invasive species: introduced seaweeds can displace seagrass beds. One potent example is the invasion of Caulerpa taxifolia, an aquarium seaweed later nicknamed "the killer algae". Released into the Mediterranean in the 1980s, by 2000 it covered more than 50 square miles (131 square kilometers) of Mediterranean Sea coastline, overgrowing and replacing the seagrass neptune grass (Posidonia oceanica) and reducing the ecosystem's biodiversity. Since then, Caulerpa has also been released off the coast of California and Sydney, Australia.

A/T Sea Grass Death—Alt Causes Other human activities like dredging kill off seagrass Richard Moore, host of “The Nature Report”, January 1, 2014, “Nature Report: Dredge Disposal Kills Seagrass”, Accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx? id=989106#.U59tk_ldV8E

The muck rises up out of the placid waters of the Lower Laguna Madre like an underwater volcano. Only, this is a man made eruption from a recent dredging operation in the Intracoastal Waterway east of Laguna Vista. Periodic dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway that runs the length of the Laguna Madre from Corpus Christi to the Port of Brownsville is required to maintain the channel to a depth of 12 feet to accommodate barge traffic. However, when the muck dredged from the channel is piped into the open bay it covers and kills seagrasses which angers many fishermen like Captain Janie Petty. Captain Janie Petty, "I think it is in everybody's best interest to put a stop to this. Not only is it silting up the entire bay, but it is bound to be silting the intracoastal right back up again also because as you can see they are just dumping it out into the open bay." Tony Reisinger, Cameron County Marine Extension Agent, "Historically open bay disposal has been controversial for decades…when it is placed in the open bay of course it can cover seagrasses and seagrasses can die and that can take away habitat."

A/T Sea Grass Death—Inevitable Even advanced conservation techniques don’t guarantee seagrass protection Seagrass-Watch, largest scientific seagrass assessment and monitoring program in the world June 13, 2014, “Researchers dive into dugong heath project in Queensland's Moreton Bay”, Accessed June 16, 2014, http://www.seagrasswatch.org/news.html

He hoped from such collaboration, UMT would become a platform for other agencies to participate in the conservation of seagrass and dugong in the whole area off Kuala Lawas and in Brunei Bay. “The dugong does not belong to us alone. During low seagrass season in Kuala Lawas, it may be feeding somewhere in Brunei or the Philippines and therefore, every country in the region should play its part in conserving seagrass. “On our (SFC) part, we have worked with other member countries to protect our seagrass meadows. “But even with protection , others will still kill them – not just the seagrass but also the dugong. So it’s our hope Kuala Lawas will be gazetted as a totally protected area.”

U.S. Good on Oceans - Aff

US Ocean Leadership Increasing U.S. is leader in international ocean policy U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, April 20, 2004 "Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy," The Global Ocean: U.S. Participation in International Policy, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/prelimreport/08_global_ocean.pdf (accessed 7/25/2014) The United States has traditionally been a leader in international ocean policymaking and has participated in the development of many international agreements that govern the world’s ocean areas and resources. That leadership must be maintained and reinvigorated. The challenges of the 21st century will require improved collaboration among policy makers everywhere to establish ambitious objectives and take the actions necessary to achieve them. Empirically U.S. leadership on ocean agreements is successful John Norton Moore, director of the Center for Oceans Law & Policy at the University of Virginia, July 27, 2012 "Restoring America's Ocean Leadership," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-norton- moore/restoring-americas-oceans_b_1712081.html (accessed 7/25/2014) The United States led the world in the negotiations leading to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Under President Nixon a unique National Security Council office was created which coordinated eighteen federal agencies and a 100 member private sector advisory committee representing the full spectrum of affected American industry and oceans interests. Rarely has federal policy so fully represented all affected American interests or so fully utilized the extraordinary resources of the entire United States Government in an international negotiation. The result was one of the most stunning successes in multilateral negotiations in American history. New policies coordinate ocean resource needs with national security and foreign policy interests Joint Ocean Commission, June 2013 "Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress," Charting the Course: Securing the Future of America's Oceans," http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/joint-ocean-commission-initiative-2013.pdf (accessed 7/26/2014) In July 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order #13547 establishing the National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. This is the first National Ocean Policy in U.S. history, and it aims to significantly improve the way our nation manages these valuable resources. The National Ocean Policy recognizes that ocean ecosystem health is interconnected with the productivity of ocean-related sectors of the economy and society and establishes a national commitment with a goal to: ensure the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, enhance the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserve our maritime heritage, support sustainable uses and access, provide for adaptive management to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change and ocean acidification, and coordinate with our national security and foreign policy interests.

U.S. Leads in Ocean Technology U.S. leads in ocean energy tech potential Alison LaBonte, Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Manager, January 22, 2013 "Ocean Energy Projects Developing on and off America's Shores," Energy.gov, http://energy.gov/articles/ocean-energy-projects-developing-and-americas-shores (accessed 7/25/2014) Marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies -- which generate power from waves, tides or currents in ocean waters -- are at an early but promising stage of development. Many coastal areas in the United States have strong wave and tidal resources close to areas with high-energy demand. With widespread deployment, these technologies could make substantial contributions to our nation’s electricity needs. To advance the development of these promising technologies, the Energy Department funds research and development of MHK technologies, including laboratory and field-testing of individual components up to demonstration and deployment of complete, utility-scale systems. With funding and technical assistance from the Energy Department and landmark permits issued in 2012 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), four U.S. companies are putting wave and tidal energy projects in the water that will generate clean electricity for thousands of homes and pave the way for continued industry growth. U.S. provides scientific leadership on ocean research U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, April 20, 2004 "Advancing International Ocean Science and Policy," The Global Ocean: U.S. Participation in International Policy, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/prelimreport/08_global_ocean.pdf (accessed 7/25/2014) A 1999 report by the National Research Council introduced the concept of “science for diplomacy” to improve the ability of the State Department to incorporate scientific expertise into the foreign policy process. The State Department has since taken several significant steps to strengthen its scientific capabilities, including the establishment in 2000 of the Office of Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State. Continued progress is needed to increase knowledge and enhance understanding within the department of the complex scientific basis of many international ocean policy issues.

U.S. Key: Marine Spatial Planning U.S. does marine spatial planning for development projects Carolyn Gramling, oceanographer and writer for Science Magazine, March 1, 2010 "Sea sprawl: Into the blue frontier of ocean development," Earth Magazine, http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-blue-frontier-ocean-development (accessed 7/31/2014) With economic and environmental concerns alike heating up, last June, President Barack Obama established an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, under the administration’s Council on Environmental Quality, to develop a new national policy toward the oceans that focused on both environmental stewardship and coastal and marine spatial planning for future industrial uses. The Task Force released its interim report in December, including a proposed framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. One part of the report examined, as a test case, how marine spatial planning might be applied to offshore traffic in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Massachusetts, where ships carrying liquefied natural gas to port have on occasion collided with endangered right whales. By taking a multisector, multiobjective approach, the report stated, government agencies and stakeholders can increase maritime safety and significantly reduce the risk of collisions. Marine spatial planning is key to sustainability Carolyn Gramling, oceanographer and writer for Science Magazine, March 1, 2010 "Sea sprawl: Into the blue frontier of ocean development," Earth Magazine, http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-blue-frontier-ocean-development (accessed 7/31/2014) Marine spatial planning is a necessary first step to establishing a policy for aquaculture, hydrocarbon exploration and other uses of our oceans, says George Leonard, director of Aquaculture at the Ocean Conservancy in Washington, D.C. It isn’t just about carving up the ocean and giving different users access to a piece of it, Leonard says: “If marine spatial planning is just a way to divvy up the ocean, we will have failed.” Instead, he says, planners should take a broad view, considering the most sustainable way to balance and supervise uses of the ocean’s resources — including those already existing and those that might exist in the future.

U.S. Ocean Development Boosts Economy Ocean development is key to U.S. economy Will Houston, correspondent, Monterey Herald, October 28, 2013 "Ocean seen as key to economy," Monterey Herald, http://www.montereyherald.com/localnews/ci_24407426/ocean-seen-key-economy (accessed 7/31/2014) The fate of the U.S. economy is tied to that of the ocean, said panelists during a discussion at the Monterey Institute of International Studies on Monday night. The panel, which included biological, economic and business perspectives, addressed the future of the ocean economy, also called a "blue economy," in relation to effects and threats posed by climate change. One of the three panelists was Jason Scorse, director of the Center for the Blue Economy at MIIS. "The ocean economy is about two- thirds to three-fourths of the global economy, and then merge that with the problem of climate change," Scorse said. "It's the hot topic in terms of economic development, growth and adaptation." Millions of jobs and billions of dollars depend on ocean development Ocean Conservancy, 2014 "Smart Choices for a Healthy Ocean," oceanconservative.org, http://www.oceanconservancy.org/our- work/marine-spatial-planning/ (accessed 7/25/2014) The health of our ocean is vital to our nation and the economy. Over half of U.S. residents live in coastal areas. Millions of jobs and billions of dollars worth of commercial and recreational activity depend on a healthy ocean and coasts. But we are facing a rising tide of competition for our valuable marine resources. The 21st century economy depends on the ocean and that means shipping, recreational boating, commercial fishing and offshore energy are all vying to use the same waters – along with whales, birds, sea turtles and other important wildlife. One out of six U.S. jobs is related to ocean development David Fogarty, climate change reporter for Reuters, February 24, 2012 "Factbox: Why oceans are key to the global economy," Reuters.com, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/24/us-oceans-economy-idUKTRE81N09Z20120224 (accessed 7/26/2014) The value of fish caught in seas and inland waterways totaled $94 billion in 2008, the FAO says. The rapidly growing aquaculture sector, such as fish and shrimp farms, added a further $98.4 billion. In 2008, an estimated 45 million people were directly engaged, full time or, more frequently, part time, in fisheries or in aquaculture. That's twice the population of Australia. One of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and more than a third of U.S. gross national product originates in coastal areas.

U.S. Promotes Environmentally Responsible Ocean Development U.S. implements environmental restoration of ocean resources Barrack Obama, President of the United States, 2012 "The Top American Science Questions: 2012," Sciencedebate.org, http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/ (accessed 7/31/2014) We have created or enhanced more than 540 public coastal recreation areas, protected more than 54,000 acres of coastlines and restored over 5,200 acres of coastal habitat. We are also investing more in monitoring our fishing stock in coastal areas so we have the most accurate data possible on the health of our fisheries. These are significant steps that are helping us improve the health of our oceans and build more robust fisheries. Recovery Act spending has restored coastal environments and incurred massive economic benefits Joint Ocean Commission, June 2013 "Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress," Charting the Course: Securing the Future of America's Oceans," http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/joint-ocean-commission-initiative-2013.pdf (accessed 7/26/2014) In the United States, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act), NOAA awarded $167 million in funding for 50 coastal restoration projects. On average, every $1 of Recovery Act funds spent on these projects resulted in $1.60 of economic benefit. NOAA’s restoration work under the Recovery Act created an average of 17 jobs, and as many as 33 jobs, for every $1 million invested—a rate of job creation that is much higher than in other sectors such as transportation, coal, gas, and nuclear energy production. These restoration projects are already bringing durable economic and environmental benefits. Empirically NOAA programs have achieved ecosystem restoration and habitat protection in coastal waters Joint Ocean Commission, June 2013 "Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress," Charting the Course: Securing the Future of America's Oceans," http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/joint-ocean-commission-initiative-2013.pdf (accessed 7/26/2014) There are many existing programs at various levels of government that support critical protection and restoration of important natural features. Federal programs with proven track records of success that need ongoing support include NOAA’s Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, the NOAA Restoration Center’s Community-based Restoration Program, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program, and the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. Unfortunately, funding for the coastal habitat protection and restoration that these programs and others provide is in critically short supply.

U.S. Promotes Environmentally Responsible Ocean Development NEPA covers ocean development and requires consideration of environmental impacts Oceana, 2012 "Laws Protecting the Oceans," Oceana.org, http://oceana.org/en/policy/laws-protecting-the-oceans (accessed 7/30/2014) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is considered to be one of the most important environmental laws. It was passed by Congress in 1969 and was signed into law on New Year's Day in 1970 by President Nixon. This was his first official act of the 1970's, a decade which is known as an important period for environmental protection. This act is completely procedural which means, unlike other laws, it does not include specific regulations. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) which is part of the Executive Office of the President. One of CEQ's directives is to ensure that federal programs comply with NEPA. NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of any major action such as building a dam or making significant changes to a fishery management plan. Prior to any major action taken on by the federal government (like construction of a port or testing underwater sonar), the federal agency taking that action must write an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine if there will be impacts to the environment. If there is a finding of significant impact, the agency must draft an extensive Environment Impact Statement (EIS) to address the reason for the action, review alternatives to the action and allow for public comment. U.S. National Ocean Policy will protect and restore ocean habitats National Ocean Council, April 2013 "National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan," Oceanchampions.org, http://www.oceanchampions.org/pdfs/national_ocean_policy_implementation_plan.pdf (accessed 7/31/2014) Federal agencies will work together to support the various national, State, tribal, and local efforts to prepare for, respond to, and mitigate or avoid the degradation and loss of ocean and coastal habitats, water quality, and ecosystems through improved capabilities, proactive stewardship, strengthened research, and enhanced collaboration. Agencies will also enable and support efforts to understand, minimize, and adapt to the impacts of climate change, ocean acidification, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events, strengthening the resilience of coastal communities.

U.S. Bad on Oceans - Neg

U.S. Policy Framework Inadequate for Effective Ocean Development U.S. regulatory fragmentation prevents effective ocean development Carolyn Gramling, oceanographer and writer for Science Magazine, March 1, 2010 "Sea sprawl: Into the blue frontier of ocean development," Earth Magazine, http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sea-sprawl-blue-frontier-ocean-development (accessed 7/31/2014) U.S. regulatory “fragmentation” when it comes to many ocean issues makes the oceans a “regulatory orphan,” as Florida State University law professor Robin Kundis Craig wrote in the University of Colorado Law Review in 2008. Throughout the past decade, stakeholders and policymakers alike have increasingly called for more streamlined government plans for managing ocean-based industries, including offshore aquaculture. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, convened in 2000 by Congress to assess the health of the oceans, published a report in 2004 that called for the establishment of a national council on ocean policy to coordinate the various agencies’ work. A similar report published in 2003 by the Pew Oceans Commission also called for a national oceans council, finding that the confusion over conflicting mandates between agencies made it difficult to regulate environmental concerns such as non-point- source pollution. Federal control mucks up regional control Andrew Jensen, correspondent for Alaska Journal of Commerce, February 26, 2012 "NOAA, Administration Press On with Ocean Policy Changes," CRE Interactive Public Docket on NOAA/MMS Ocean Zoning, http://www.thecre.com/creipd/?p=851 (accessed 8/2/2014) “The North Pacific Council has already taken a variety of management actions which affect huge parts of the oceans which surround our state,” Begich said. “It’s not practical to think that regulatory decisions by the CMSP planners won’t conflict with the regional fish councils at times. How they resolve those without the councils having any say in the process is a serious problem.” The day after the White House released its draft National Ocean Policy implementation plan, Obama announced plans to reorganize several agencies within the Commerce Department and proposed moving NOAA to the Interior Department. While Begich appreciates the goal of better coordination among federal agencies called for in the draft policy, “I don’t see a whole lot of streamlining going on here,” he said.

U.S. Policy Framework Inadequate for Effective Ocean Development U.S. lacks legal regime and funding for effective disaster mitigation Karen Hansen, Environmental law attorney and writer for Environmental Law Reporter, et al, 2009 "A Bold New Ocean Agenda: Recommendations for Ocean Governance, Energy Policy, and Health," Environmental Law Institute, http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/226.pdf (accessed 7/31/2014) The main federal legal tool available to clean up and restore ocean ecosystems after accidental discharge is the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), which creates a strict liability regime.37 The OPA creates an Oil Liability Trust Fund that can be used to pay the costs of response, cleanup, and natural resource injuries in the absence of a responsible party capable of paying those costs. The largest source of funding was a $0.05 per barrel tax. However, this provision expired in 1994 and was not renewed. Since 2001, expenditures have exceeded revenues, and a 2005 U.S. Coast Guard report predicted that funds could be completely depleted by 2009. This highlights an underlying need to make certain that the appropriate legal mechanisms and funds are in place to respond to damage to the marine environment that occurs as a byproduct or direct result of ocean energy activities. Top-down approaches fail Marine Conservation Alliance, August 18, 2009 "Comments to the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force Regarding the Development of a National Policy for the Ocean, Coasts, and the Great Lakes," marineconservationalliance.org, http://www.marineconservationalliance.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/06/MCA_Comments_to_the_Interagency_Ocean_Policy_Task_Force_20090818. pdf (accessed 7/31/2014) There are significant difficulties with translating the goal of ecosystem based management into practical reality. Issues of geographic scope, questions about the level of scientific information required to design and implement such a management regime, and fiscal reality have all come into play. Many of the proposals include elaborate new “top down” bureaucracies, with attendant costs, increased regulatory burden, andsignificant economic impacts while at the same time providing questionable ecosystem benefits. We have not supported such proposals in the past because we see them as interfering with development of workable solutions to real world conservation needs.

Public Attitudes Undermine U.S. Ocean Policies Public apathy on oceans makes them subject to political games and circumvention at implementation Karen Hansen, Environmental law attorney and writer for Environmental Law Reporter, et al, 2009 "A Bold New Ocean Agenda: Recommendations for Ocean Governance, Energy Policy, and Health," Environmental Law Institute, http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/226.pdf (accessed 7/31/2014) The United States has more ocean area under its jurisdiction than any other country. Thus, the new Administration has every reason to place ocean concerns and opportunities high on its environmental and economic agendas. But opinion research suggests that oceans are relatively low on the public’s radar and, thus, the political playbill. The public largely fails to recognize that the health of the human population is inextricably linked to the well-being of our oceans. A healthy ocean also provides for our economic needs; approximately 50% of our gross domestic product (GDP) is linked to coastal communities and that ocean-dependent activities contribute more than twice as much to our economy as our national agriculture industry. Yet we neglect ocean health because these connections are largely unrecognized or underappreciated. Public attitudes undermine standards of resource protection Alan B. Sielen, Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, April 16, 2014 "Sea Change," Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141198/alan-b-sielen/sea-change (accessed 7/31/2014) A big reason society accepts such costly destruction is the steady erosion of collective standards and expectations about how to care for and protect the environment. In 1995, the marine scientist Daniel Pauly called this phenomenon “shifting baselines.” As the oceans decline, what should be cause for alarm is now accepted as normal. People visit degraded coastal environments and call them beautiful, not knowing what they used to look like. In the United States, for example, we have settled into a comfortable zone where the disappearance of wetlands on the lower Mississippi and poor water quality on many coasts are not remarked on -- let alone considered a national disgrace. Consciousness shift must precede policy change Alan B. Sielen, Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, April 16, 2014 "Sea Change," Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141198/alan-b-sielen/sea-change (accessed 7/31/2014) The rebirth of the seas will require large doses of education to dispel the myth of an ocean with an endless bounty and an unlimited capacity to assimilate waste safely: an ocean too big to fail. People must believe that the stakes are high and that the consequences of a failed ocean are unacceptable. Increased awareness about the costs of the oceans’ degradation has come from the grass roots: individuals and citizen groups educating the public, organizing community action, encouraging better consumer choices, and holding elected officials accountable. The rebirth of the seas cannot, however, rely on these efforts alone.

U.S. Ocean Technology Inadequate U.S. tech and infrastructure lags Commission on Ocean Policy, 2005 "U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy : Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development, Chapter 27," Government Printing Office, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/prelimreport/chapter27.pdf (accessed 7/31/2014) As one of its early tasks, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, as required by the Oceans Act of 2000, authorized an extensive assessment of the infrastructure associated with ocean and coastal activities (Appendix 5). This inventory documents the U.S. infrastructure for maritime commerce and transportation, ocean and coastal safety and protection, research, exploration, and monitoring, and marine education and outreach. The number and types of assets included are extensive and cover a wide range of federal, state, academic, institutional, and private-sector entities. Together, they represent a substantial public and private investment that has made possible great strides in modern oceanography over the last fifty years. But the assessment also revealed that significant components of the U.S. ocean infrastructure are aged or obsolete and that, in some cases, current capacity is insufficient to meet the needs of the ocean science and operational community. Lack of coastal modernization undermines logistics Commission on Ocean Policy, 2005 "U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy : Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development, Chapter 27," Government Printing Office, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/prelimreport/chapter27.pdf (accessed 7/31/2014) In conducting its inventory of U.S. coastal and ocean facilities, the Commission discovered few long-term plans for maintaining, replacing, or modernizing facilities (Appendix 5). As the first such assessment conducted in twenty-two years, the need for periodic future infrastructure assessments became obvious. A meaningful accounting of national assets, facilities, and human resources requires regular updates to ensure that the national strategy is based on an up-to-date understanding of capacity, capabilities, and trends. U.S. lags in depth capacity—can only go half as deep as French, Russian or Japanese submersibles—and for a much shorter time Commission on Ocean Policy, 2005 "U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy : Enhancing Ocean Infrastructure and Technology Development, Chapter 27," Government Printing Office, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/prelimreport/chapter27.pdf (accessed 7/31/2014) Today French, Russian, and Japanese human-occupied submersibles regularly work at depths of 20,000 feet or more. The last such vehicle in the United States was the Sea Cliff, which was retired in 1998 and not replaced. U.S. capability today is limited to the Alvin, built in 1964, which can only descend to 15,000 feet and stay submerged for short periods. For missions of long duration, the United States relies on the Navy’s NR-1 nuclear research submarine, which can stay submerged for thirty days but has a maximum depth of only 3,000 feet. The NR-1 was constructed in 1969, and its service life will end in 2012.

US Spatial Management is Bad Spatial management hurts local communities Jane J. Lee, news writer and editor at National Geographic, May 7, 2014 "U.S. National Ocean Policy: No Success without Science?" Science, http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/u.s.-national-ocean-policy-no-success-without-science (accessed 7/31/2014) The thousands of pages of comments, including many from researchers and science organizations, reveal a range of views praising and criticizing the plan. Coastal and marine spatial planning in particular has elicited worries that local and regional interests will be excluded from decision-making processes. Some commercial fishers are also concerned that decisions based solely on scientific information won't take into consideration the cultural and historical traditions of their communities. Spatial management risks adding redundant and unnecessary regulations Marine Conservation Alliance, August 18, 2009 "Comments to the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force Regarding the Development of a National Policy for the Ocean, Coasts, and the Great Lakes," marineconservationalliance.org, http://www.marineconservationalliance.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/06/MCA_Comments_to_the_Interagency_Ocean_Policy_Task_Force_20090818. pdf (accessed 7/31/2014) The President’s memorandum calls for the Task Force to develop a framework for marine spatial planning. Unfortunately, there is considerable confusion about the exercise the Task Force is pursuing to meet this charge. Marine spatial planning is not a new concept, and is indeed being practiced now in most regions of the nation. The Coastal Zone Management Act, OCS Lands Act, and the MSA for example all provide for marine spatial planning to meet their related charges. MCA is concerned that this new initiative not confuse or attempt to replace the existing MSA process for managing fisheries. The MSA has a science driven process for determining if, where, when, and how fisheries are conducted in the EEZ including spatial separations or closures. In Alaska, this zonal management is developed through the NPFMC process and coordinated with the State of Alaska, and includes over 600,000 square nautical miles of closures. This new effort should recognize the intricacies of this management regime, the success to date of the process, and not introduce additional or duplicative requirements or procedures.

U.S. Ocean Policy Ineffective: Budget Shortfalls Resource constraints hurt logistics of ocean operations Jane J. Lee, news writer and editor at National Geographic, May 7, 2014 "U.S. National Ocean Policy: No Success without Science?" Science, http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/u.s.-national-ocean-policy-no-success-without-science (accessed 7/31/2014) Ocean observing equipment, such as buoys and ships, is also facing budget problems, other commenters noted. "Flat budgets in times of escalating costs have resulted in a near-halving of ship utilization, putting the ships at the brink of unsustainability," wrote Kathleen Ritzman, assistant director at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California. Big budget cuts are occurring for offshore extraction safety programs and others Jessica Goad, manager of research and outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress, et al, December 6, 2006 "7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans," Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-ways- that-looming-budget-cuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-all-americans/ (accessed 8/2/2014) The Office of Management and Budget notes that the agency that oversees offshore oil and gas rigs to ensure safety and environmental standards—the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement—is slated to be slashed by $16 million altogether in fiscal year 2013. As this agency noted in its budget justification: The bureau conducts thousands of inspections of OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] facilities and operations—covering tens of thousands of safety and pollution prevention components—to prevent offshore accidents and spills and to ensure a safe working environment. The bureau strives to conduct annual inspections of all oil and gas operations on the OCS, while focusing an increasing proportion of resources on the highest risk operations in order to examine safety equipment designed to prevent blowouts, fires, spills, and other major accidents.

U.S. Ocean Policy Ineffective: Budget Shortfalls NOAA is underfunded Emily Woglom, Vice President, Conservation Policy and Programs, Ocean Conservancy, January 18, 2014 "Does the 2014 Budget Bill Support a Healthy Ocean?" Ocean Conservancy, http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2014/01/18/does-the-2014-budget-bill-support-a-healthy-ocean/ (accessed 7/31/2014) Some good news coming from this bill is that Congress has more than fully funded the National Weather Service. So the “dry side” of NOAA fared quite well. However, NOAA’s “wet side” programs in the National Ocean Service and National Marine Fisheries Service took a significant hit. NMFS faces a $34 million shortfall while the NOS will have to deal with a $25 million shortfall. These are especially concerning figures considering the fact that these two services represent a large portion of NOAA’s wet side. Here are just a few examples of what the ocean loses as a result: Regional Ocean Partnership grants will be cut completely by the proposed budget, leaving coastal states’ coordinated ocean-use planning completely unfunded. Ocean acidification research stagnates.

Budget shortfalls undermine marine species protection, regional partnerships, and other programs vital to implementation of ocean development plans Emily Woglom, Vice President, Conservation Policy and Programs, Ocean Conservancy, January 18, 2014 "Does the 2014 Budget Bill Support a Healthy Ocean?" Ocean Conservancy, http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2014/01/18/does-the-2014-budget-bill-support-a-healthy-ocean/ (accessed 7/31/2014) Funds to study ocean acidification will remain at last year’s insufficient (sequestration) levels. This crucially-important scientific research helps coastal communities cope with the growing problem and enjoys broad support. Endangered marine species left under-protected. Funding for the Species Recovery Grant Program has declined sharply over the last few years.. This year’s budget increases funding for the program only slightly over 2013 levels, keeping it far below historic levels and at a $12 million shortfall. The program provides money to states to help them manage threatened and endangered species such as right whales, monk seals, southern sea otters, and many other important animals.

OTEC Affirmative

Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) generates electricity by utilizing the temperature differential between deep ocean water, which is cooler, and surface water, which is warmer. The pressure generated by the temperature differential powers the generators. Scientists estimate OTEC has the potential to power the entire planet with this clean energy. Moreover, the production process generates things like clean drinking water and irrigation water, as well as nutrients for growing food.

The plan streamlines regulation and increases business incentives for OTEC development. The 1AC advantages, warming and oil dependence, are supplemented by several additional advantages, from water wars to offshore seafaring communities. Other advantages, such as space development, can be assembled by additional research.

Negatives might best beat OTEC affirmatives with agent counterplans or kritiks of the corporations that facilitate OTEC. Evidence for those positions, along with lots of solvency mitigation and some turns, is all included in the negative section.

OTEC 1AC 1/7 Observation One: Inherency Technology and prototypes are in place, but lack of governmental support remains a barrier to OTEC development Ocean Energy Council, March 26, 2014 "Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Ocean Energy Council News, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/ (accessed 6/21/2014) Although it may seem like an environmentalist’s fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that the technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already exists in the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and promising prototypes, however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled OTEC in its research and development phase. Thus we present the following plan: The United States federal government should streamline regulation of, and substantially increase incentives in the United States for, the development and use of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion technology.

Observation Two: Solvency Congressional action spurs streamlining of regulatory process and reduction of capital costs Todd J. Griset, law partner with Preti Flaherty's Energy and Telecommunications practice group, 2011 “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, vol. 16, http://www.xxx.preti.com/files/6969_TGrisetOceanPower.pdf (accessed 6/23/2014) Moreover, depending on the technology involved, site-specific issues, and the regulatory environment of each state, each project must in essence forge its own path forward toward complete regulatory approval. Congressional action could further streamline the regulatory framework applicable to renewable ocean energy projects. Providing a stable structure for the development of the oceans' renewable energy potential would reduce the capital cost required to develop a given project. By providing a clear and consistent legal path for project developers to follow, such legislation would enable the best ocean energy projects to become more cost-competitive.

OTEC 1AC 2/7 Incentives spark private sector investment in OTEC US Department of Energy, September 12, 2005 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/renewable_energy/ocean/index.cfm/mytopic=50010 In general, careful site selection is the key to keeping the environmental impacts of OTEC to a minimum. OTEC experts believe that appropriate spacing of plants throughout the tropical oceans can nearly eliminate any potential negative impacts of OTEC processes on ocean temperatures and on marine life. 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 until 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 provides unlimited clean energy and restores ocean biotic communities Karen Anne Finney, Environmental and Water Resource Analyst at CHI, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Guelph Engineering Journal Vol. 1, http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e0a8f2130b4e767f5acfceee.html (accessed 6/22/2014) Overall proposed OTEC technologies have many potential benefits to the environment. OTEC is a source of clean, renewable energy and harnesses the seawater for electricity generation which is an abundant and is almost unlimited. The use of OTEC also ensures that a reliable able and constant power output would be supplied as it is not depended on certain climate conditions or fossil fuels. OTEC does not discharge any CO2 and due to the deep water mixing with the upper layers of the ocean actually helps to grow phytoplankton, algae and coal which may lead to an increase on CO2 fixation.

OTEC 1AC 3/7 Advantage One is Warming Warming is accelerating and will result in thermal runaway and catastrophe, trillions of dollars in damage, and the destruction of entire nations Jim Baird, Owner and Partner, Global Warming Mitigation Method, May 15, 2013 “OTEC and Energy Innovation: The Willie Sutton Approach,” The Energy Collective, http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/221801/energy-willie-suttonwill-rogers-approach (accessed 6/10/2014) Robert Stewart of Texas A&M points out in Oceanography in the 21st Century, "18 times more heat has been stored in the ocean since the mid 1950s due to global warming than has been stored in the atmosphere. When a liquid is heated it expands and because its molecules move apart it becomes less dense. As a consequence the oceans are becoming thermally stratified which negatively impacts phytoplankton that are the base of the ocean food chain and the lungs of the planet. They absorb more atmospheric carbon dioxide than the world's forests. The Nature article, "Global phytoplankton decline over the past century" by Daniel G. Boyce of Dalhousie postulates the volume of phytoplankton in the world's oceans, which produce half of the oxygen in the atmosphere by consuming the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide, has been declining steadily for the past half century-down about 40 percent since 1950. Expanding oceans have no place to go but up onto the land and warming oceans and air melt the polar icecaps which exacerbates the sea level problem. Contrary to the IEA's recent report that we have five years to prevent "dangerous" climate change, a Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis study concluded that even if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere today the seas may rise by at least four metres, over the next 1,000 years. The insurance company Allianz has estimated that $28 trillion worth of infrastructure will be at risk by as early as 2050 and the outlook for Small Island States is bleak. Increasing evaporation is another consequence of warming oceans and the conventional wisdom has been this moisture produces cloud cover and an albdedo effect that will produce ocean cooling. A recent study however indicates that this may in fact be wrong and instead warming oceans transfer heat to the overlying atmosphere, thinning out the low-lying clouds to let in more sunlight that further warms the ocean. This feedback warms both the air and water and may lead to thermal runaway and catastrophe.

OTEC 1AC 4/7 Climate change risks extinction Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor of Survival, Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, March 2010 “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” http://books.google.com/books?id=2e2sAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA1&ots=9mHib67vaW&dq= %E2%80%9CClimate%20Conflict%3A%20How%20global%20warming%20threatens%20security%20and %20what%20to%20do%20about%20it%E2%80%9D&authuser=1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q= %E2%80%9CClimate%20Conflict:%20How%20global%20warming%20threatens%20security%20and %20what%20to%20do%20about%20it%E2%80%9D&f=false (accessed 6/23/2014) Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes. CO2 releases spurs acidification Stephen Messenger, environmental writer and Editor for @Dodo, January 22, 2012 “Study Links Rising Ocean Acidification to CO2 Emissions,” Treehugger, http://www.treehugger.com/ocean-conservation/rising-ocean-acidification-linked-co2-emissions.html (accessed 6/23/2014) Earth's oceans may be an inconceivably vast ecosystem home to countless species yet unknown to science, but a new study reaffirms that they too are susceptible to the damaging impact of carbon emissions released by humans. According to researchers from the University of Hawaii, ocean acidity levels in some regions have spiked more quickly in the last 200 years than in the preceding 21 thousand years -- threatening the future existence of some of the planet's most important marine life. While airborne CO2 emissions are already considered a key factor to climate change on the planet's surface, researchers say that nearly a third of all emissions released by humans actually wind up absorbed into the oceans -- and that the resulting acidification could have devastating effects on aquatic organisms.

OTEC 1AC 5/7 Ocean acidification results in extinction Joe Romm, Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, March 2, 2012 "Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanity’s Ability to Feed Itself," Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens- humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/ (accessed 6/23/2014) That is to say, it’s not just that acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century” as a 2010 Geological Society study put it. We are also warming the ocean and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a recipe for mass extinction. A 2009 Nature Geoscience study found that ocean dead zones “devoid of fish and seafood” are poised to expand and “remain for thousands of years.“ OTEC creates all the renewable energy we need and prevents thermal runaway and mass extinction Jim Baird, Owner and Partner, Global Warming Mitigation Method, May 15, 2013 “OTEC and Energy Innovation: The Willie Sutton Approach,” The Energy Collective, http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/221801/energy-willie-suttonwill-rogers-approach (accessed 6/10/2014) GWMM OTEC uses a heat pipe to take exhausted vapors from a turbine to the depths for condensation, instead of using massive and expensive cold water pipes to bring water to the surface, and a counter- current heat transfer system to recirculate the latent heat of condensation back to the surface rather than dumping the heat to the depths. This solves OTEC's problems of cost, limited potential, efficiency and reduces the environmental impacts on the thermohaline and aquatic life. To produce 60 TW with this approach you would extract 120 TW from the surface and ideally dump 60TW worth of heat to the depths or about the same as you would to produce 2.5 TW with the conventional approach. (A large hurricane extracts 50 or more terrawatts of heat from the ocean's surface and on average there are 21category 3 or greater storms around the globe each year plus many smaller storms.) They do not impact the Thermohaline because most of the heat is returned to the surface in falling rain, which is the same principle GWMM OTEC seeks to employ. In the process of creating all of the renewable energy mankind needs, you simultaneously draw down the fuel hurricanes thrive on as well as the cause of thermal expansion and prevent the potential for thermal runaway and mass extinctions. OTEC = ocean cooling Jim Baird, Owner and Partner, Global Warming Mitigation Method, September 13, 2013 "OTEC Can Be a Big Global Climate Influence," The Energy Collective, http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence (accessed 6/23/2014) OTEC uses the temperature difference between cooler deep and warmer surface ocean waters to run a heat engine and produce useful work, usually in the form of electricity. It too can have a big influence on global climate because it converts part of the accumulating ocean heat to work and about twenty times more heat is moved to the depths in a similar fashion to how Trenberth suggests the global-warming hiatus has come about. The more energy produced by OTEC – done properly the potential is 30 terawatts - the more the entire ocean will be cooled and that heat converted to work will not return as will be the case when the oceans stop soaking up global-warming’s excess.

OTEC 1AC 6/7 Human activities strongly influence warming; conclusions of the data cannot be doubted Michio Kaku, renounced physicist and co-creator of string field theory, 2011 “Physics of the Future”, http://213.55.83.52/ebooks/physics/Physics%20of%20the%20Future.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) Computer simulations are now so advanced that we can simulate the temperature of the earth with and without the presence of human activity. Without civilization producing carbon dioxide, we find a relatively flat temperature curve. But with the addition of human activity, we can show that there should be a sudden spike in both temperature and carbon dioxide. The predicted spike fits the actual spike perfectly. Lastly, one can measure the amount of sunlight that lands on every square foot of the earth’s surface. Scientists can also calculate the amount of heat that is reflected into outer space from the earth. Normally, we expect these two amounts to be equal, with input equaling output. But in reality, we find the net amount of energy that is currently heating the earth. Then if we calculate the amount of energy being produced by human activity, we find a perfect match. Hence, human activity is causing the current heating of the earth. Advantage Two is Oil Dependence Oil dependence undermines U.S. self-reliance and independence Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, 2005 The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, http://books.google.com/books? id=sk2De9Yb7SoC&lpg=PA218&ots=Avzijxi3QK&dq=%E2%80%9CEven%20without%20competition %20for%20energy%20resources%2C%20the%20world%20is%20full%20of%20conflict%20and %20animosity%E2%80%9D&pg=PA218#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CEven%20without%20competition %20for%20energy%20resources,%20the%20world%20is%20full%20of%20conflict%20and%20animosity %E2%80%9D&f=false (accessed 6/15/2014) Within only a few years, OPEC countries will have control over virtually all of the exportable surplus oil in the world (with the exception of Russia’s petroleum, the production of which may reach a second peak in 2010, following an initial peak that precipitated the collapse of the USSR). The US, whose global hegemony has seemed so complete for the past dozen years, will suffer an increasing decline in global influence, which no amount of saber rattling or bombing of “terrorist” countries will be able to reverse. Awash in debt, dependent on imports, mired in corruption, its military increasingly overextended, the US is well into its imperial twilight years.

OTEC 1AC 7/7 Oil scarcity will cause the U.S. to lash out irrationally in defense of resources Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, 2005 The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, http://books.google.com/books? id=sk2De9Yb7SoC&lpg=PA218&ots=Avzijxi3QK&dq=%E2%80%9CEven%20without%20competition %20for%20energy%20resources%2C%20the%20world%20is%20full%20of%20conflict%20and %20animosity%E2%80%9D&pg=PA218#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CEven%20without%20competition %20for%20energy%20resources,%20the%20world%20is%20full%20of%20conflict%20and%20animosity %E2%80%9D&f=false (accessed 6/15/2014)Even without competition for energy resources, the world is full of conflict and animosity. For the most part, it is in the United States’ interest to prevent open confrontation between regional rivals, such as India and Pakistan, Israel and Syria, and North and South Korea. However, resource competition will only worsen existing enmities. As the petroleum production peak approaches, the US will likely make efforts to take more direct control of energy resources in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Caspian Sea, Africa and South America’s efforts that may incite other nations to form alliances to curb US ambitions. OTEC solves oil dependence and multiple scarcity scenarios Emma Websdale, environmental journalist and senior communications specialist for renewable energy provider, Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation, January 27, 2014 "5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment," Empower the Ocean, http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/ (accessed 6/24/2014) OTEC’s ability to help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels –one of the largest human-induced contributors to climate change – is enormous. Just one 10-MW OTEC plant has been estimated to provide reliable clean energy for approximately 10,000 people and to replace the burning of 50,000 barrels of oil and release of 80,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year into the atmosphere. When the collective benefits of numerous OTEC plants worldwide are calculated, this technology will clearly play a huge role in helping the global community fight pollution-related climate change. Investments of over US$260m (£168m) into research and development funds (R&D) for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) have made harvesting this renewable energy immediately achievable. OTEC’s ability to simultaneously produce voluminous quantities of fresh drinking water and baseload renewable energy will be a substantial factor in reducing global water-stress conflict and safeguarding international security.

Topicality: OTEC is Development Development includes energy sources James Michel, President of Seychelles, January 20, 2014 “Remarks by President James Michel at the Blue Economy Summit, Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week,” Statehouse.gov, http://www.statehouse.gov.sc/uploads/downloads/filepath_62.pdf We also need to urgently improve the framework for research and new technologies for sustainable development of the oceans. Renewable energy from the sea, for example, is one area that we have only just begun to explore. Only 1% of global production comes from marine sources, but it is estimated that the potential for such energy could well exceed current total demand. Ocean development includes renewable energy Conservation Law Foundation, 2012 "Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan," CLF.org, http://www.clf.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/MA_Ocean_073012.pdf (accessed 6/20/2014) A requirement of the Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008, the Massachusetts Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan) was created to ensure the protection of the state’s Special, Sensitive or Unique (SSU) ocean areas while also encouraging responsible ocean development, including renewable energy, in state ocean waters.

Topicality: Answers to “Military Application = Military” Dual use is distinguished from military United States Department of State, 2014 “Common Dual-Use and Military Control Lists of the EU,” State.gov, http://www.state.gov/strategictrade/resources/controllist/ Establishing and implementing effective strategic trade controls are imperative to stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons. One component of effective strategic trade controls is the adoption of control lists which meet international standards. Control lists outline which goods should be controlled due to proliferation concerns. Typically, control lists fall into two categories, dual-use and military. Military means exclusively military United States Department of State, 2014 “Common Dual-Use and Military Control Lists of the EU,” State.gov, http://www.state.gov/strategictrade/resources/controllist/ Goods and technologies are classified as military goods if they are designed specifically for military use, such as small arms, armed vehicles and protective equipment. Goods and technologies are considered to be dual-use when they can be used for both civil and military purposes, such as special materials, sensors and lasers, and high-end electronics.

Inherency The federal government has jurisdiction over OTEC, but regulatory and support networks are patchwork in the status quo Todd J. Griset, law partner with Preti Flaherty's Energy and Telecommunications practice group, 2011 “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, vol. 16, http://www.xxx.preti.com/files/6969_TGrisetOceanPower.pdf (accessed 6/23/2014) At the same time, technologies such as OTEC remain under the jurisdiction of NOAA. As noted above, a host of other federal agencies retain authority to regulate various aspects of renewable ocean energy projects. The nation's regulatory program for ocean energy projects thus lacks a single "one-stop shop" approach for project licensure, site leasing, and other required permitting.

Regulatory uncertainty due to lack of a federal mandate is biggest obstacle to development Todd J. Griset, law partner with Preti Flaherty's Energy and Telecommunications practice group, 2011 “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, vol. 16, http://www.xxx.preti.com/files/6969_TGrisetOceanPower.pdf (accessed 6/23/2014) In both cases, regulatory policy has shifted to favor renewable energy production even though it may initially bear a higher cost than production from fossil fuel-based resources. These shifts may continue to bring renewable ocean energy closer to cost-competitiveness or cost-parity with traditional resources. Time will tell whether the trend toward greater ocean energy development will rise and fall like the tides, as has the trends responsible for the initial enactment of the OTEC Act, subsequent removal of NOAA's regulations, and the current resurgence of interest in OTEC, or whether these shifts represent definite progress toward a new form of energy production. Furthermore, clarification and simplification of the patchwork of regulatory regimes governing renewable ocean energy projects will bring about additional reductions in the cost of energy from the sea. As a general principle, uncertainty or inconsistency of regulation tends to deter development and investment. Unknown or shifting regulatory regimes add risk to the development of any given project. Indeed, in the context of ocean energy, regulatory uncertainty has been called "the most significant non-technical obstacle to deployment of this new technology." Consistent government commitment and the simplification of licensing and permitting procedures, rank among the hallmarks of a well-planned system for developing ocean renewable energy.

Solvency OTEC efficiency gains will spill over to other technologies Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2011 "Power from the Sea," ORNL Review Vol. 44 No. 3, http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v44_3_11/article09.shtml (accessed 6/22/2014) Klett notes that the technology used to build heat exchangers for OTEC could be used to increase the efficiency of other types of power plants. "Potentially, any technology that uses heat exchangers, from heat pumps, desalination, LNG re-gasification to power plants, could benefit from this development," Cannon adds. ORNL's experience collaborating with Lockheed Martin through the Open Innovation Program has opened the door to working with them outside of the program on other research and development projects, Klett says. "The more they learn about us and the unique capabilities that we have, the more they come to us for help in areas outside of the Open Innovation Program. OTEC is the best of the renewables: Baseload power available day and night, enough clean energy to power the whole world Blue Rise Company, 2012 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Blue Rise: Harnessing the Ocean’s Power, http://www.bluerise.nl/technology/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/ (accessed 6/18/2014) One of the main advantages when comparing OTEC to other renewables, such as wind and solar energy, is the fact that OTEC is a baseload source, available day and night. This is a big advantage for tropical islands that typically have a small, isolated, electric grids, not capable of handling a large share of intermittent power. The potential of OTEC is vast. One square meter of Ocean surface area on average receives about 175 watts of solar irradiation. The total amount of globally received solar power is therefore about 90 petawatts. This is over 6,000 times the total global energy usage. If we exploit just of fraction of that energy, we have enough to power the world.

Solvency

New technology makes OTEC cost effective David Ferris, reporter on energy tech & innovation for E&E Publishing and EnergyWire, March 31, 2012 "Market for Deep Ocean Energy Heats Up,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidferris/2012/03/31/market-for-deep-ocean-energy-starts-to-heat- up/ (accessed 6/10/2014) Scientists have entertained the idea of OTEC since the 19th Century and Lockheed Martin created a working model during the 1970s energy crisis. But the budding market withered in the 1980s as fuel prices dropped. Now, with energy prices rising again, OTEC is back. Ted Johnson, a veteran of some early Lockheed experiments, is a senior vice president at OTE Corporation. Johnson told me that OTEC systems are becoming cost competitive because the technology for pipes, heat exchangers and other equipment has improved greatly, thanks in part to innovations by the oil and gas industry. OTEC won’t hurt marine environment Rick Dworsky, renewable and environment consultant, June 5, 2006 “A Warm Bath of Energy: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” The Oildrum, http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/5/171056/6460 (accessed 6/20/2014) At this time OTEC appears to offer an environmentally neutral energy source. The intermittent injection of minimal amounts of chlorine to prevent bio-fouling of the warm water intakes, and the leaching of metal particles and other materials via erosion/corrosion would probably be environmentally insignificant. Large storage tanks for chlorine would not be necessary - small amounts could be generated 'live' as required to manage the danger to personnel. No bio-fouling within the cold water intake tube has occurred. Although a 100% kill rate for small organisms such as phytoplankton that get drawn into the warm water intakes is probably inevitable, it is believed that this can be mitigated by the pumped 'upwelling' of cold deep fertile waters and the outfall effluent. Only extensive monitoring of an installed mid-size test facility can enable a comprehensive environmental assessment, and find the balance point between bloom and bust. Adjustments of the outfall depth may be necessary, according to local conditions. It may well be the case that OTEC can target some of the energy that causes damaging and catastrophic storms and redirect it into useful work, if large mobile floating platforms become a reality. We should carefully consider when a location can host the process and remain within its normal temperature gradient range, this would be similar to concerns about the energy absorption effects of solar panels and windmills. OTEC appears to be a vast, renewable, sustainable, safe, 'always on' energy source that does not emit CO2 or nuclear waste.

Solvency OTEC is currently feasible in over 100 countries DCNS, March 6, 2014 "Feasibility Study for World’s First US-Based Commercial OTEC Plant and Sea Water Air Conditioning (SWAC) Systems in USVI," DCNS News, http://en.dcnsgroup.com/2014/03/06/lancement-d %E2%80%99une-%C3%A9tude-de-faisabilit%C3%A9-pour-l%E2%80%99installation-dans-les-iles-vierges- am%C3%A9ricaines-des-premiers-syst%C3%A8mes-de-centrale-etm-et-swac-sea-water-air- conditioning/ (accessed 6/23/2014) According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), there are more than 100 countries and territories world-wide, including USVI, with conditions appearing favorable for OTEC and SWAC facilities. And with many of these locations having numerous sites for these clean technologies, there are literally hundreds of potential OTEC and SWAC applications in the tropics and subtropics, where 3 billion people live. Residual effects include temperature controls United States Department of Energy, August 16, 2013 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Basics," Energy.gov, http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-basics (accessed 6/23/2014) OTEC has potential benefits beyond power production. For example, spent cold seawater from an OTEC plant can chill fresh water in a heat exchanger or flow directly into a cooling system. Simple systems of this type have air-conditioned buildings at the Natural Energy Laboratory for several years

Minimal or no storm disruption or other instability; systems will be crisis-ready Bill Moore, editor of Ev World, April 12, 2006 “OTEC Resurfaces,” Ev World, http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1008 (accessed 6/22/2014) I asked Dr. Krock about two potential drawbacks to OTEC: environmental disruption and susceptibility to storm damage. He explained that his team has carefully looked at the first issue, environmental disruption, and determined that there would be none despite bringing up hundreds of millions of gallons of water a day to run the facility, because the water could be shunted back down to a level in the ocean where it would be neutrally buoyant. As to the question of tropical storms like typhoons or hurricanes and the risk they might pose for offshore OTEC platforms, he explained that these storms form outside of a tropical zone which extends approximately 4-5 degrees above and below the equator. Platforms operating within this narrower belt won't have to worry about these powerful storms and the damage they might cause, though he does plan to engineer for such contingencies.

Solvency: Congressional Action Government approval empirically kickstarts renewable energy production; a framework is essential for agency coordination and conflict resolution Todd J. Griset, law partner with Preti Flaherty's Energy and Telecommunications practice group, 2011 “Harnessing the Ocean’s Power: Opportunities in Renewable Ocean Energy Resources,” Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, vol. 16, http://www.xxx.preti.com/files/6969_TGrisetOceanPower.pdf (accessed 6/23/2014) This in turn could provide benefits along the lines of those cited by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities in approving the Cape Wind power purchase agreement: economic development, a diversified energy policy, greater energy independence, and reduced carbon emissions. The states' role in such a regulatory framework should be respected. While renewable power benefits the region, the nation, and the world at large, most of the negative impacts of a given project are felt locally. Establishing a clear regulatory framework including appropriate federal agencies as well as state authority could empower greater development of ocean energy resources without sacrificing values such as navigational rights, fisheries and wildlife, aesthetic considerations, and states' rights. Our oceans hold vast promise. The opportunity to transform that potential into usable energy is significant. Whether developing that potential into commercial-scale energy production is a reasonable choice remains to be seen. If renewable ocean energy resources are to be developed, promoting regulatory certainty would do much to promote their cost-effective development. Comparative evidence suggests OTEC is the best renewable energy approach, and will hasten the transition to a post-carbon economy Paul Curto, former chief technologist for NASA, December 15, 2010 “American Energy Policy V: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” OpEd News, http://www.opednews.com/articles/American-Energy-Policy-V--by-Paul-from-Potomac-101214- 315.html (accessed 6/23/2014) Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is by far the most balanced means to face the challenge of global warming. It is also the one that requires the greatest investment to meet its potential. It is a most intriguing answer that can save us from Armageddon. The Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University was one of its earliest proponents, whose team was led by Gordon Dugger (see photo below). Given modern materials and design techniques, we should be able to build grazing OTEC plants that may become economical with just a few production units, based upon anhydrous ammonia as the hydrogen carrier. The grazing OTEC plants would produce anhydrous ammonia while surfing the oceans for hot spots to curry heat for their power plants. (BTW there are ammonia pipelines in Indiana and other midwest states today for fertilizer distribution). Ammonia is the second-most predominant chemical manufactured in the world. Since the volumetric energy density of ammonia is three times that of liquid hydrogen, and ammonia combustion can be exceptionally efficient (about the same as burning diesel fuel in turbodiesels), it may be true that a hydrogen economy based upon OTEC and ammonia may be close at hand. The overall replacement of transportable carbon fuels by OTEC-based ammonia is estimated at 100 million barrels of oil per day equivalent over about 40 years if we move to a hydrogen economy. Along with other technologies, carbon fuels could be replaced in roughly 80% of all applications.

OTEC Solves Environment Any of the negative’s environmental arguments can be solved by greater investment in OTEC technology Karen Anne Finney, Environmental and Water Resource Analyst at CHI, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Guelph Engineering Journal Vol. 1, http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e0a8f2130b4e767f5acfceee.html (accessed 6/22/2014) Environmental concerns associated with OTEC systems have been brought up. One major concern is with the closed-loop and hybrid systems that depend on a low boiling point working fluid (ammonia or chlorine) to facilitate in heat exchange (Takahashi and Trenka, 1996). These potentially harmful substances could leak into the ocean if the pipes were ever damaged. Another problem would be the habitat disruption in the ocean due to the installation of the pipes (Takahashi and Trenka, 1996). Although OTEC does present potential issues that may be negative to the environment, with proper designing, research and care the negative impacts can be reduced or avoided. VIII. Conclusion Ocean thermal energy conversion is a potential source of renewable energy that creates no emissions. The main advantages of OTEC is that the method is fuel free, has a low environmental impact, can supply pure water for both drinking and agriculture, can supply refrigeration and cooling and can provide a coastal community with reliable energy. The disadvantages include high capital cost, potential for hostile ocean environment during construction and use and an overall lack of familiarity with OTEC technology (Thomas, 1993). There have been several analyses of the feasibility of full-scale implementation of OTEC. While some of these investigations are contradictory to each other, research with actual mini OTEC plants is proving that OTEC systems will one day become a feasible, efficient and renewable source of energy.

OTEC beats all other renewable because of geographic applicability and uninterrupted clean power generation Joseph C. Huang, Senior Scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hans J. Krock, Professor of Ocean &. Resources Engineering, University of Hawaii, and Stephen K. Oney, executive vice present of OCEES, July 2003 “Revisit Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion System,” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 8, Issue 2, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1026062531405 (accessed 6/23/2014) Due to current advancements in technology as well as the favorable financial environment, OTEC could prove to be more effective in addressing global energy requirements than any other currently available renewable energy resources. Renewable energy from wind, geothermal and photovoltaic, etc, is all good and should be encouraged. However, these are relatively minor in potential capacity, specific in geographic applicability, and mostly intermittent in power energy generations. OTEC provides uninterrupted power via the immense resource in the tropical ocean, either as base-load power to an island community or as a floating plant converting its electrical energy into an energy carrier such as hydrogen for use in fuel cell transportation or power production industries. The main economic characteristics of an OTEC system are that it is relatively turn-key capital intensive, but has very low operation and maintenance costs. The current world economic environment with low interest rate, low inflation rate, and high oil price, are encouraging conditions for OTEC development.

Warming Advantage Extensions Other renewables don’t solve sea level rise, thermal runaway, or oceans—OTEC solves these Jim Baird, Owner and Partner, Global Warming Mitigation Method, May 15, 2013 “OTEC and Energy Innovation: The Willie Sutton Approach,” The Energy Collective, http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/221801/energy-willie-suttonwill-rogers-approach (accessed 6/10/2014) Solar panels, wind and hydro do not produce waste heat but neither do they remedy sea level rise, thermal runaway or our dying oceans. Only one energy source, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) converts accumulating ocean heat to energy, produces renewable energy 24/7, eliminates carbon emissions, and increases carbon dioxide absorption (cooler water absorbs more CO2). A NASA study recently published in Nature determined the average amount of energy the ocean absorbed each year over the period 1993 to 2008 was enough to power nearly 500 100-watt light bulbs for each of the roughly 6.7 billion people on the planet. We need a reversal in warming and sea level rise now; otherwise coastal city collapse, mass migration, collapse of the world economy are inevitable Michio Kaku, renounced physicist and co-creator of string field theory, 2011 “Physics of the Future”, http://213.55.83.52/ebooks/physics/Physics%20of%20the%20Future.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) Unfortunately, even if we were to suddenly stop producing any carbon dioxide, the gas that has already been released into the atmosphere is enough to continue global warming for decades to come. As a result, by midcentury, the situation could be dire. Scientists have created pictures of what our coastal cities will look like at midcentury and beyond if sea levels continue to rise. Coastal cities may disappear. Large parts of Manhattan may have to be evacuated, with Wall Street underwater. Governments will have to decide which of their great cities and capitals are worth saving and which are beyond hope. Some cities may be saved via a combination of sophisticated dikes and water gates. Other cities may be deemed hopeless and allowed to vanish under the ocean, creating mass migrations of people. Since most of the commercial and population centers of the world are next to the ocean, this could have a disastrous effect on the world economy. Even if some cities can be salvaged, there is still the danger that large storms can send surges of water into a city, paralyzing its infrastructure. For example, in 1992 a huge storm surge flooded Manhattan, paralyzing the subway system and trains to New Jersey. With transportation flooded, the economy grinds to a halt.

Warming Advantage Extensions OTEC solves warming in three ways: reduces temperature of the ocean, eliminates CO2, and increases CO2 absorbtion Paul Curto, former chief technologist for NASA, December 15, 2010 “American Energy Policy V: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” OpEd News, http://www.opednews.com/articles/American-Energy-Policy-V--by-Paul-from-Potomac-101214- 315.html (accessed 6/23/2014) OTEC is a true triple threat against global warming. It is the only technology that acts to directly reduce the temperature of the ocean (it was estimated one degree Fahrenheit reduction every twenty years for 10,000 250 MWe plants in '77), eliminates carbon emissions, and increases carbon dioxide absorption (cooler water absorbs more CO2) at the same time. It generates fuel that is portable and efficient, electricity for coastal areas if it is moored, and possibly food from the nutrients brought up from the ocean floor. It creates jobs, perhaps millions of them, if it is the serious contender for the future multi- trillion-dollar energy economy. In concert with wind and solar power, OTEC will complete the conversion of the human race to a balance with Nature. Warming is real and anthropogenic Donald Prothero, Professor of Geology at Occidental College, February 8, 2012 “How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused,” eSkeptic, http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/ (accessed 6/20/2014) If the data about global climate change are indeed valid and robust, any qualified scientist should be able to look at them and see if the prevailing scientific interpretation holds up. Indeed, such a test took place. Starting in 2010, a group led by U.C. Berkeley physicist Richard Muller re-examined all the temperature data from the NOAA, East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit, and the Goddard Institute of Space Science sources (see Figure 5 below). Even though Muller started out as a skeptic of the temperature data, and was funded by the Koch brothers and other oil company sources, he carefully checked and re-checked the research himself. When the GOP leaders called him to testify before the House Science and Technology Committee in spring 2011, they were expecting him to discredit the temperature data. Instead, Muller shocked his GOP sponsors by demonstrating his scientific integrity and telling the truth: the temperature increase is real, and the scientists who have demonstrated that the climate is changing are right. In the fall of 2011, his study was published, and the conclusions were clear: global warming is real, even to a right-wing skeptical scientist.

Warming Advantage Extensions Warming causes extinction Ians News Service, June 20, 2010 “Could unbridled climate changes lead to human extinction?” Sify News, http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news- international-kgtrOhdaahc.html One of the authors of the report is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of Queensland and the director of its Global Change Institute (GCI). ‘We may see sudden, unexpected changes that have serious ramifications for the overall well-being of humans, including the capacity of the planet to support people. This is further evidence that we are well on the way to the next great extinction event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg. 'The findings have enormous implications for mankind, particularly if the trend continues. The earth's ocean, which produces half of the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per cent of human-generated carbon dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying signs of ill-health. It's as if the earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day!,' he added. OTEC provides short-term cooling and long-term replacement of energy Jim Baird, Owner and Partner, Global Warming Mitigation Method, September 13, 2013 "OTEC Can Be a Big Global Climate Influence," The Energy Collective, http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/267576/otec-can-be-big-global-climate-influence (accessed 6/23/2014) Kevin Trenberth estimates the oceans will eat global warming for the next 20 years. 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. The bottom line is global-warming needs to be put on a permanent hiatus and the world needs more zero emissions energy. OTEC provides both. OTEC solves warming and outpaces solar and wind on renewable energy production Paul Curto, former chief technologist for NASA, December 15, 2010 “American Energy Policy V: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” OpEd News, http://www.opednews.com/articles/American-Energy-Policy-V--by-Paul-from-Potomac-101214- 315.html (accessed 6/23/2014) We should be more worried about global warming upsetting the ocean currents by overheating the ocean, which is now happening at an alarming rate. The latest guess is +5C (9F) by 2100! This technology may be deployed as a means to bring the ocean back into balance, not to upset it. The designs for these OTEC ships have features that are quite innovative and cost effective. Estimates range from $3000 to $6000 per kWe installed in 2010 dollars, depending on the configuration and proximity to shore. The capacity factor should be close to 100%, especially with the modular designs for the power modules. This means that OTEC annual power production will average three times that of solar and wind per unit of power capacity.

Warming Advantage Extensions CO2 causes ocean acidification Joe Romm, Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, March 2, 2012 "Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanity’s Ability to Feed Itself," Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens- humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/ (accessed 6/23/2014) We knew from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the oceans are now acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. But this study looked back over 300 million and found that “the unprecedented rapidity of CO2 release currently taking place” has put marine life at risk in a frighteningly unique way: … the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a combination and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change. Acidification kills keystone ocean species Joe Romm, Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, March 2, 2012 "Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanity’s Ability to Feed Itself," Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens- humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/ (accessed 6/23/2014) The world’s oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. “What we’re doing today really stands out,” said lead author Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory. “We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not wiped out —new species evolved to replace those that died off. But if industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about—coral reefs, oysters, salmon.” Acidity-induced phytoplankton loss triggers mass extinction Rosalie Westenskow, UPI Correspondent, June 6, 2008 "Acidic Oceans May Tangle Food Chain," UPI Business News, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2008/06/06/Acidic-oceans-may-tangle-food- chain/UPI-84651212763771/ (accessed 6/22/2014) If small organisms, like phytoplankton, are knocked out by acidity, the ripples would be far-reaching, said David Adamec, head of ocean sciences at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "If the amount of phytoplankton is reduced, you reduce the amount of photosynthesis going on in the ocean," Adamec told United Press International. "Those little guys are responsible for half of the oxygen you're breathing right now." A hit to microscopic organisms can also bring down a whole food chain. For instance, several years ago, an El Nino event wiped out the phytoplankton near the Galapagos Islands. That year, juvenile bird and seal populations almost disappeared.

Warming Advantage: OTEC = Carbon Sequestration, Independently Solves Climate Change OTEC sequesters enough carbon to end climate change Christopher Barry, Co-chair of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, July 1, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,” Renewable Energy Information, http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2- sequestration/ (accessed 6/22/2014) In a recent issue of Nature, Lovelock and Rapley suggested using wave-powered pumps to bring up water from the deeps to sequester carbon. But OTEC also brings up prodigious amounts of deep water and can do the same thing. In one design, a thousand cubic meters of water per second are required to produce 70 MW of net output power. We can make estimates of fertility enhancement and sequestration, but a guess is that an OTEC plant designed to optimize nutrification might produce 10,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration per year per MW. The recent challenge by billionaire Sir Richard Branson is to sequester one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in order to halt global warming, so an aggressive OTEC program, hundreds of several hundred MW plants might meet this.

Rising sea levels displace 11 percent of the population, causing nuclear war and collapse of civilization Michio Kaku, renounced physicist and co-creator of string field theory, 2011 “Physics of the Future”, http://213.55.83.52/ebooks/physics/Physics%20of%20the%20Future.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) According to the World Bank, 11 percent of the entire population would be displaced if sea levels rise by three feet by midcentury. The Mekong Delta will also be flooded with salt water, permanently destroying the fertile soil of the area. If millions are flooded out of their homes in Vietnam, many will flock to Ho Chi Minh City seeking refuge. But one-fourth of the city will also be underwater. In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned a study, done by the Global Business Network, that showed that, in a worst- case scenario, chaos could spread around the world due to global warming. As millions of refugees cross national borders, governments could lose all authority and collapse, so countries could descend into the nightmare of looting, rioting, and chaos. In this desperate situation, nations, when faced with the prospect of the influx of millions of desperate people, may resort to nuclear weapons. “Envision Pakistan, India, and China—all armed with nuclear weapons—skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land,” the report said. Peter Schwartz, founder of the Global Business Network and a principal author of the Pentagon study, confided to me the details of this scenario. He told me that the biggest hot spot would be the border between India and Bangladesh. In a major crisis in Bangladesh, up to 160 million people could be driven out of their homes, sparking one of the greatest migrations in human history. Tensions could rapidly rise as borders collapse, local governments are paralyzed, and mass rioting breaks out. Schwartz sees that nations may use nuclear weapons as a last resort.

Oil Dependence Advantage Extensions OTEC competes favorably with oil and solves dependence Joseph C. Huang, Senior Scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hans J. Krock, Professor of Ocean &. Resources Engineering, University of Hawaii, and Stephen K. Oney, executive vice present of OCEES, July 2003 “Revisit Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion System,” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 8, Issue 2, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1026062531405 (accessed 6/23/2014) The most recent calculation for turnkey construction costs for an OTEC power plant is very competitive with that of equivalent oil-fired power plants. One cost estimation from a private company in Hawaii quoted about $0.04 per kilowatt-hour for a 100 MW floating OTEC plant (Krock and Oney, 2002). This reflects a much improved overall OTEC efficiency afforded by a significant reduction in the total heating and cooling water flow requirements. In addition, unlike fuel or coal fired power plants, the OTEC energy resource is automatically replenished by the solar system at no cost. Thus OTEC will reduce our reliance on imported oil for national and international energy security as well as eliminate GHG emissions. OTEC solves oil dependence Kris Walker, Editor in Chief & Videographer at AZo Network, January 4, 2013 "How will Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Help the Environment?" Cleantech.com, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=343 (accessed 6/23/2014) Power generated from OTEC technology will be inexpensive when compared to the unit cost of power from other plants like hydro, diesel and wave. As a result, several proposals for the development of OTEC in Pacific island countries have been submitted to the investors for consideration. Therefore, the OTEC technology is the best solution to meet the world’s increasing energy demands thereby reducing the need for importing petroleum products.

Add-On Advantage: Water Wars Risk of conflict is high: Water wars are more likely than oil wars Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian Environmental Correspondent, February 8, 2014 “Why global water shortages pose threat of terror and war,” The Guardian-The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war (accessed 6/22/2014) Water, on its own, was unlikely to bring down governments. But the report warned that shortages could threaten food production and energy supply and put additional stress on governments struggling with poverty and social tensions. Some of those tensions are already apparent on the ground. The Pacific Institute, which studies issues of water and global security, found a fourfold increase in violent confrontations over water over the last decade. "I think the risk of conflicts over water is growing – not shrinking – because of increased competition, because of bad management and, ultimately, because of the impacts of climate change," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. There are dozens of potential flashpoints, spanning the globe. In the Middle East, Iranian officials are making contingency plans for water rationing in the greater Tehran area, home to 22 million people. Egypt has demanded Ethiopia stop construction of a mega-dam on the Nile, vowing to protect its historical rights to the river at "any cost". The Egyptian authorities have called for a study into whether the project would reduce the river's flow. Jordan, which has the third lowest reserves in the region, is struggling with an influx of Syrian refugees. The country is undergoing power cuts because of water shortages. Last week, Prince Hassan, the uncle of King Abdullah, warned that a war over water and energy could be even bloodier than the Arab spring. The United Arab Emirates, faced with a growing population, has invested in desalination projects and is harvesting rainwater. At an international water conference in Abu Dhabi last year, Crown Prince General Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan said: "For us, water is [now] more important than oil."

OTEC solves water through desalination, production of pure drinking water, and irrigation water, supplying entire communities Karen Anne Finney, Environmental and Water Resource Analyst at CHI, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Guelph Engineering Journal Vol. 1, http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e0a8f2130b4e767f5acfceee.html (accessed 6/22/2014) Desalination is just one of the effective potential products that could be produced via OTEC technology. Fresh water can be produced in open-cycle OTEC plants when the warm water is vaporized to turn the low pressure turbine. Once the electricity is produced the water vapor is condensed to make fresh water (Takahashi and Trenka, 1996). This water has been found to be purer then water offered by most communities as well it is estimated that 1 MW plant could produce 55 kg of water per second. This rate of fresh water could supply a small coastal community with approximately 4000 m3/day of fresh water (Takahashi and Trenka, 1996). This water can also be used for irrigation to improve the quality and quantity of food on coastal regions especially where access to fresh water is scarce.

Add-On Advantage: Water Wars Key conflict spots are running out of water world wide Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian Environmental Correspondent, February 8, 2014 “Why global water shortages pose threat of terror and war,” The Guardian-The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war (accessed 6/22/2014) Already a billion people, or one in seven people on the planet, lack access to safe drinking water. Britain, of course, is currently at the other extreme. Great swaths of the country are drowning in misery, after a series of Atlantic storms off the south-western coast. But that too is part of the picture that has been coming into sharper focus over 12 years of the Grace satellite record. Countries at northern latitudes and in the tropics are getting wetter. But those countries at mid-latitude are running increasingly low on water. "What we see is very much a picture of the wet areas of the Earth getting wetter," Famiglietti said. "Those would be the high latitudes like the Arctic and the lower latitudes like the tropics. The middle latitudes in between, those are already the arid and semi-arid parts of the world and they are getting drier." On the satellite images the biggest losses were denoted by red hotspots, he said. And those red spots largely matched the locations of groundwater reserves. "Almost all of those red hotspots correspond to major aquifers of the world. What Grace shows us is that groundwater depletion is happening at a very rapid rate in almost all of the major aquifers in the arid and semi-arid parts of the world." The Middle East, north Africa and south Asia are all projected to experience water shortages over the coming years because of decades of bad management and overuse. Watering crops, slaking thirst in expanding cities, cooling power plants, fracking oil and gas wells – all take water from the same diminishing supply. Add to that climate change – which is projected to intensify dry spells in the coming years – and the world is going to be forced to think a lot more about water than it ever did before. Water crises spark regional tensions and loss of U.S. and global security Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian Environmental Correspondent, February 8, 2014 “Why global water shortages pose threat of terror and war,” The Guardian-The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war (accessed 6/22/2014) In south Asia, the losses of groundwater over the last decade were even higher. About 600 million people live on the 2,000km swath that extends from eastern Pakistan, across the hot dry plains of northern India and into Bangladesh, and the land is the most intensely irrigated in the world. Up to 75% of farmers rely on pumped groundwater to water their crops, and water use is intensifying. Over the last decade, groundwater was pumped out 70% faster than in the 1990s. Satellite measurements showed a staggering loss of 54km3 of groundwater a year. Indian farmers were pumping their way into a water crisis. The US security establishment is already warning of potential conflicts – including terror attacks – over water. In a 2012 report, the US director of national intelligence warned that overuse of water – as in India and other countries – was a source of conflict that could potentially compromise US national security. The report focused on water basins critical to the US security regime – the Nile, Tigris- Euphrates, Mekong, Jordan, Indus, Brahmaputra and Amu Darya. It concluded: "During the next 10 years, many countries important to the United States will experience water problems – shortages, poor water quality, or floods – that will risk instability and state failure, increase regional tensions, and distract them from working with the United States."

Add-On Advantage: Water Wars OTEC eliminates water scarcity and creates a symbiosis between clean energy and potable water, solving multiple scenarios for conflict Emma Websdale, environmental journalist and senior communications specialist for renewable energy provider, Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation, January 27, 2014 "5 Reasons Why Hundreds of People Think OTEC Is a Smart Investment," Empower the Ocean, http://empowertheocean.com/otec-a-smart-investment/ (accessed 6/24/2014) By using the temperature differential between warm ocean surface water and cold deep water as a renewable energy source, OTEC can generate two of humanity’s most fundamental needs—clean drinking water and renewable baseload (24/7) energy. Each OTEC plant is capable of producing voluminous amounts of drinkable water (a 10-MW OTEC plant can produce as much as 75 million liters of fresh drinking water a day). Thus, the technology can directly relieve serious water shortage issues globally by meeting domestic and agricultural freshwater demands both now and sustainably in the future. OTEC’s unique symbiosis between clean baseload renewable energy and potable water production is a natural fit. The combination addresses existing global factors that could precipitate a humanitarian crisis: the growing global need for potable water as the world’s population grows exponentially, the lack of available freshwater sources, the increased concentration of populations in coastal regions, and rising energy prices. OTEC creates efficient desalination of water United States Department of Energy, August 16, 2013 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Basics," Energy.gov, http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-basics (accessed 6/23/2014) Finally, an advantage of open or hybrid-cycle OTEC plants is the production of fresh water from seawater. Theoretically, an OTEC plant that generates 2 megawatts of net electricity could produce about 14,118.3 cubic feet (4,300 cubic meters) of desalinated water each day.

Add-On Advantage: Seasteading OTEC and seasteads are mutually complimentary and turn seasteads into models of global sustainability OTEC Foundation, June 25, 2012 "Combining OTEC with floating cities?" OTEC News, http://www.otecnews.org/2012/06/combining- otec-with-floating-cities/ (accessed 6/22/2014) Patrick Takahashi, spoke about his team’s vision to build the Pacific International Ocean Station (PIOS). The station would be a grazing plantship and research facility with OTEC and deep ocean water upwelling as central component. “We envision the PIOS as a living laboratory for the future of what could be these thousand cities in the ocean”, according to Takahashi. It would enhance global partnership to advance the development of sustainable ocean resources in harmony with the marine environment. The organization Blue Revolution Hawaii advocates the building of the station in Hawaii’s ocean waters. Robert J. Nicholson, President of OTEC International, reported on their contract to build a 1 MW OTEC demonstration plant at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii (NELHA). Larger scale floating OTEC facilities could introduce synergetic benefits when connected to floating cities, such as energy, fresh water and fuel production, as mentioned by Nicholson in his presentation. In his opinion, the concept of seasteading and OTEC are a perfect combination. “Everyone can become an OTEC enthusiast”, according to Nicholson. Seastead communities are the best chance we have at preserving liberty Patri Friedman, founder and chairman of the Board of The Seasteading Institute, and Brad Taylor, Ph.D. candidate in political science at the Australian National University, February 24, 2011 "Seasteading: Striking at the Root of Bad Government," The Freeman, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/seasteading-striking-at-the-root-of-bad-government (accessed 6/22/2014) Developing the technology to create permanent, autonomous communities on the ocean seems like a strange way to solve the problem of bad governance, but we’re convinced it’s the best chance we have for liberty in our lifetimes. This is why Patri established The Seasteading Institute with the mission of developing the technological, political, and economic knowledge we need to revolutionize the governance industry. Liberty is necessary for human survival Gyan Basnet, author and lawyer in the Supreme Court and Subordinate Court of Nepal, July 3, 2012 "Human Rights Versus Civil Liberties," Eurasia Review, http://www.eurasiareview.com/03072012- human-rights-versus-civil-liberties-oped/ (accessed 6/24/2014) We may see then that civil liberties are freedoms that permit the fullest development of one’s personality: for example the right to freedom of expression, of movement, of religious practice; the right to information, and the right to property. Furthermore, among the key components of civil liberties are those that are essential to human survival, such as the right to life, liberty, and personal security; the right to equality under the law; the right of access to effective legal remedies by a competent national judiciary; the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or to arbitrary interference with regard to one’s privacy, one’s home, one’s correspondence, etc.

Add-On Advantage: Seasteading OTEC provides energy to seasteading communities OTEC Foundation, June 25, 2012 "Combining OTEC with floating cities?" OTEC News, http://www.otecnews.org/2012/06/combining- otec-with-floating-cities/ (accessed 6/22/2014) During the Seasteading Conference in San Francisco, US in May 2012 new ideas were presented for advancing seasteading, or permanent dwellings on the ocean. According to the Randolph Hencken, the Seasteading Institute director, “the ocean provides a space to innovate with political and social systems that could advance and serve humanity”. Amongst the speakers were Robert J. Nicholson, President of OTEC International, and ocean policy expert Patrick Takahashi, Director Emeritus of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii. They presented the possibilities for connecting the benefits of OTEC to floating seasteading cities in tropical oceans, supplying energy, fresh water, and enabling a new ocean ecosystem. Seasteading solves resource conflicts Dario Mutabdzija, Director of Legal Research at Seasteading Institute, and Max Borders, Adjunct Researcher at Seasteading Institute, 2011 "Charting the Course: Toward a Seasteading Legal Strategy," The Seasteading Institute, http://www.seasteading.org/files/research/governance/Charting_the_Course_- _Toward_a_Seasteading_Legal_Strategy.pdf (accessed 6/24/2014) Any approach would have to be taken with great care and with full recognition of the interests of all the stakeholders. But cooperation among companies and governments around the world is not only possible, but is of paramount performance if we are not to let predatory actors loose in the international commons. Thus, we believe seasteaders could serve a valuable role in the development of new modes of resource management in the international commons. In fact, seasteading could be seen as the most practical solution to these problems.

Add-On Advantage: Seasteading Seasteading increases government accountability through competition, even if numbers are low J.D. Tuccille, managing editor of Reason.com, December 27, 2013 "Seasteading New Nations Becomes a Practical Engineering Challenge," Reason.com, http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/27/seasteading-new-nations-becomes-a-practi (accessed 6/24/2014) What's interesting about seasteading is that the mere ability to create new nations where innovators and dissenters might find refuge could put pressure on existing nations to at least moderate their excesses, even if the floating communities don't attract vast numbers of residents. The United States and Europe have been trying to reduce policy competition in recent years, specifically targeting "tax havens." Seasteading could blow that all open again, by creating new competitors.

Patri Friedman, founder and chairman of the Board of The Seasteading Institute, and Brad Taylor, Ph.D. candidate in political science at the Australian National University, February 24, 2011 "Seasteading: Striking at the Root of Bad Government," The Freeman, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/seasteading-striking-at-the-root-of-bad-government (accessed 6/22/2014) As it happens, the ocean has another important benefit. Water makes it easy to shift large objects around cheaply. This is what allowed the global shipping industry to prosper, and it could also help make government more competitive. We normally think of buildings as being tied to land, and this has serious implications for competition. Government can do a lot of harm before it becomes worthwhile for someone to move away. The fluidity of the ocean, in contrast, allows people to vote with their house by sailing to a neighboring jurisdiction. If a seasteading government announces an unpopular policy, it could find that it rules over nothing but empty waves. This would allow bad governments to die without bloodshed and force governors to think about what people really want.

Add-On Advantage: Overfishing Overfishing kills marine biodiversity Moises Velasquez-Manoff, Staff writer at Christian Science Monitor, June 19, 2008 “How overfishing can alter an ocean’s entire ecosystem,” http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2008/0619/how-overfishing-can-alter-an-ocean-s-entire- ecosystem (accessed 6/24/2014) Scientists have documented versions of this story around the world. Overfishing has shifted entire ecosystems with often surprising, and occasionally unpleasant, results. In the tropics, seaweed often dominates where coral once reigned. Around the world, jellyfish and algae proliferate where finfish previously dominated. With big predators often gone or greatly depleted, organisms lower on the food web grow more abundant, reducing their own prey in turn. Some say this is worrisome evidence of a greatly changed and simplified marine ecosystem. Like investment portfolios with few holdings, simple ecosystems are prone to collapse; and collapsed or rearranged ecosystems don’t necessarily provide what humans expect. Increasingly mindful of marine ecosystems’ complexity – and wary of their collapse – some people are calling for a holistic approach to managing ecosystems, one that aims to manage for the health of the entire system rather than that of a single stock. Just 4 percent of the world’s oceans remains free from human impact, according to a 2008 study in the journal Science. Forty percent of this is heavily impacted. Where intact ecosystems remain, scientists are often astounded by what they find. On the remote Palmyra Atoll in the equatorial Pacific, for example, large sharks and predatory fish dominate the reefscape – an “abundance of toothy things,” says Callum Roberts, a professor of marine conservation at the University of York, England. Unlike terrestrial ecosystems, which are dominated by a few apex predators, pristine marine ecosystems support a large biomass at the top. “Today’s oceans have got far less in the way of biomass than they used to,” Professor Roberts says. “We’re altering ecosystems in a way that reduces the level of productivity they can support.” By one estimate, only one-tenth of the sharks, tunas, cods, and other large predatory fish that once swam the oceans remains. And their absence has ripple effects throughout marine food webs. Loss of fish triggers rise of algae and bacteria, stripping ecosystem of predators and collapsing diversity Moises Velasquez-Manoff, Staff writer at Christian Science Monitor, June 19, 2008 “How overfishing can alter an ocean’s entire ecosystem,” http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2008/0619/how-overfishing-can-alter-an-ocean-s-entire- ecosystem (accessed 6/24/2014) Around the world, loss of fish, combined with increased nutrient inflow from pollution, has caused a bloom of primitive organisms in the ocean: the same algae, bacteria, and jellyfish that dominated the seas before the explosion of complex life 600 million years ago. Jeremy Jackson, a professor of oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., has dubbed it “the rise of slime.” “You remove all the fish, and [coral reefs] look like a sewer,” he says. “They’re green and slimy and covered with all this stuff the fish used to eat.” In the Gulf of Maine urchin experiment, another feedback may have been at work. Without urchins, the ecosystem’s major grazer, seaweed grew thickly, providing more cover for crab populations. “We’re left with an oddly stripped ecosystem here in the Gulf of Maine – absent our apex predators and absent our herbivores,” says Robert Steneck, a professor of oceanography at the University of Maine’s Darling Marine Center in Walpole, and Leland’s adviser on the urchin experiments. “We’ve steered this ecosystem to a place for which there is no evolutionary history.”

Add-On Advantage: Overfishing Diversity is necessary to survive ecosystem shocks; collapse also kills human coastal economies Moises Velasquez-Manoff, Staff writer at Christian Science Monitor, June 19, 2008 “How overfishing can alter an ocean’s entire ecosystem,” http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2008/0619/how-overfishing-can-alter-an-ocean-s-entire- ecosystem (accessed 6/24/2014) Scientists value diverse ecosystems for their redundancy. Redundancy – lots of species doing the same thing – equates to more ability to withstand natural or man-made shocks, from an El Niño to global warming. In the tropics, scientists have found that reefs with intact ecosystems recover faster from such disturbances. They’ve also found that areas off-limits to fishing have greater species richness compared with fished areas, and they experience less fluctuation in fish biomass when disturbed – findings with implications not only for fishermen but also for climate change. As stocks of bigger fish have grown scarce, fishermen have moved down the food web, chasing invertebrates and small fish. (In Asia, marketers are trying to develop a market for jellyfish, a growing share of their catch.) In parts of eastern Maine where cod and other finfish once ruled, 90 percent of fishermen now rely on lobster. If lobster stocks crash, eastern Maine lobstermen would have nothing to fall back on.

Add-On Advantage: Food Shortages OTEC generates cool soils, allowing for temperate zone plants to grow in subtropics United States Department of Energy, August 16, 2013 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Basics," Energy.gov, http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-basics (accessed 6/23/2014) OTEC technology also supports 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. OTEC=aquaculture and seafood production United States Department of Energy, August 16, 2013 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Basics," Energy.gov, http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-basics (accessed 6/23/2014) The Natural Energy Laboratory maintains a demonstration garden near its OTEC plant with more than 100 fruits and vegetables, many of which would not normally survive in Hawaii. Aquaculture is perhaps the most well-known byproduct of OTEC. Cold-water delicacies, such as salmon and lobster, thrive in the nutrient-rich, deep seawater culled from the OTEC process. Microalgae such as Spirulina, a health food supplement, also can be cultivated in the deep-ocean water.

Add-On Advantage: Food Shortages OTEC provides clean and renewable coolants and air conditioning, food production, restoration of plankton and aquatic populations, and nutrient recycling Karen Anne Finney, Environmental and Water Resource Analyst at CHI, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Guelph Engineering Journal Vol. 1, http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e0a8f2130b4e767f5acfceee.html (accessed 6/22/2014) Once cold water pipes are installed for an OTEC power plant the cold water being pumped to the surface can be used for other projects other then to provide the working fluid for the condenser. One of these uses is air conditioning and refrigeration. Cold water can be used to circulate through space heat exchangers or can be used to cool the working fluid within heat exchangers (Takahashi and Trenka, 1996). This technology can be applied for hotel and home air conditioning as well as for refrigeration schemes. C. Aquaculture and Mariculture Another possibility for taking advantage of OTEC plants is the use of the water pipes to harvest marine plants and animals for the purpose of food. This proposition is still under investigation however it is proposed that seawater life including salmon, abalone, American lobster, flat fish, sea urchin and edible seaweeds could be harvested for ingestion using the cold water pipes that would be readily available from the OTEC power plants (Takahashi and Trenka, 1996). Mariculture is another possibility that is currently being researched that would take advantage of the cold deep ocean water being transferred to the oceans surface. This water contains phytoplankton and other biological nutrients that serve as a catalyst for fish and other aquatic populations (Takahashi and Trenka, 1996). This water could serve to increase native fish populations through the recycling of trace nutrients that would not be otherwise available. OTEC increases food diversity Karen Anne Finney, Environmental and Water Resource Analyst at CHI, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Guelph Engineering Journal Vol. 1, http://wenku.baidu.com/view/e0a8f2130b4e767f5acfceee.html (accessed 6/22/2014) Because the coastal areas suitable for OTEC are in tropic regions there is a potential to increase the overall food diversity within an area using the cold water originating from the deep ocean. It has been proposed that burying a network of coldwater pipes underground the temperature of the ground would be ideal for spring type crops like strawberries and other plants restricted to cooler climates (Takahashi and Trenka, 1996). This would not only supply the costal populations with an increased variety of food but reduce the cost of transport of cooler climate foods that would otherwise have to be shipped.

United States Federal Government is Key to OTEC

The federal government has jurisdiction over offshore OTEC through OTEC Conversion Act Thomas R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, NOAA, April 24, 2007 "Written Testimony," Hearing on Renewable Energy Opportunities and Issues on the Outer Continental Shelf, http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2014/january/keeney0424.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) In the late seventies, there was also a period of interest in alternative energy sources. Oneof those alternatives ― ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) ― is a process thatuses the heat energy stored in the warm surface waters of the world's oceans to produceelectricity or other energy-intensive products. The Ocean Thermal Energy ConversionAct of 1980 (OTEC Act), gave NOAA lead responsibility for licensing the construction,ownership, location and commercial operation of OTEC plants. Offshore is most effective Bill Moore, editor of Ev World, April 12, 2006 “OTEC Resurfaces,” Ev World, http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1008 (accessed 6/22/2014) Although the optimal area for the deployment of OTEC power-islands lies in a 40 degree wide band around the planet's middle, it is, according to Krock, an area equivalent to all the earth's landmass. While onshore installations like the one in Hawaii have their place in providing island communities with power, water, air conditioning and aquaculture, OCEES believes the real potential is offshore. The limiting factor for onshore is the size and length of the pipe needed to reach deep, cold water. Offshore production requires relatively short pipes that can be much larger in diameter that drop straight down below the platform.

Answers to non-U.S. counterplans U.S. is key to resources and global influence necessary to implement OTEC; failure to do so allows China to rise Bill Moore, editor of Ev World, April 12, 2006 “OTEC Resurfaces,” Ev World, http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1008 (accessed 6/22/2014) "The United States is the best placed of any country in the world to do this," he contends. "The United States is the only country in the world of any size whose budget for its navy is bigger than the budget for its army." It's his contention that this will enable America to assume a leadership position in OTEC technology, allowing it to deploy plants in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Pacific, but he offers a warming."If we are stupid enough not to take advantage of this, well then this will be China's century and not the American century.” Either the U.S. or China will get out in front on ocean renewable technology Bill Moore, editor of Ev World, April 12, 2006 “OTEC Resurfaces,” Ev World, http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1008 (accessed 6/22/2014) Krock is currently negotiating with the U.S. Navy to deploy first working OTEC plant offshore of a British- controlled island in the Indian Ocean -- most likely Diego Garcia though he wouldn't confirm this for security purposes. He is also working with firms in Britain and Netherlands and will be headed to China for talks with the government in Beijing. "The Chinese know very well that they cannot build there futures on oil," he stated, noting that China's is investing large sums of money in a blue water navy. "The United States will be playing catch-up in this technology. We're here. We're willing to do it. We're doing it with the Navy." He expects to put his first plant to sea sometime in 2008 after constructing it, mostly likely, in Singapore. Rising China makes resource conflict with the U.S. inevitable Fran Shor, Professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies at Wayne State University, Summer 2011 "Declining U.S. Hegemony + Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for Conflict?" State of Nature: An Online Journal of Radical Ideas, http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=4541 (accessed 6/26/2014) Compounding the energy strains and resource competition are additional environmental catastrophes in the form of global warming and desertification. As one skeptical analysis of China’s rise warns: “By impinging on the very process of world-systemic reproduction itself, the mutually interpenetrating character of energy resource bottlenecks and extreme climate perturbations should make an already unlikely transition in world-systemic leadership between a declining U.S. and a rising China even more inconceivable – especially considering these bottlenecks and perturbations will both compound China’s well-documented explosion of peasant and worker protests and hamstring the capacity of the Chinese state to respond to myriad crises.” Beyond the internal and external environmental crises facing China and the United States, the resource competition between these two powers will invariably lead to geostrategic conflicts.

Answers to “Only in the Tropics” Mobile OTEC increasingly feasible Helen Knight, Technology Reporter for New Scientist, March 3, 2014 "20,000 megawatts under the sea: Oceanic steam engines," New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129580.900-20000-megawatts-under-the-sea-oceanic- steam-engines.html (accessed 6/22/2014) Whether or not the warm equatorial waistband OTEC relies on expands, the technology might not be limited to countries in the tropics for much longer. At the Offshore Symposium in Houston, Texas, in February 2013, SBM Offshore, which develops technology for oil exploration and drilling, revealed that it has been investigating designs for a 10-megawatt OTEC ship as a means of providing power to remote oil wells. OTEC plants become more expensive the further they are built from shore, but ships, which are cheaper to build, have no such constraints. OTEC ships could roam the seas in search of spots with the best temperature ratios, tethering to submarine cables to return power to shore.

OTEC is Safe Climate events won’t disrupt OTEC plants Helen Knight, Technology Reporter for New Scientist, March 3, 2014 "20,000 megawatts under the sea: Oceanic steam engines," New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129580.900-20000-megawatts-under-the-sea-oceanic- steam-engines.html (accessed 6/22/2014) It is certainly a good time to add a new form of renewable-energy generation to the mix, since climate change may have unforeseen circumstances for some existing clean technologies. In July, the US Department of Energy released a report on the energy sector's vulnerability to climate change, which found that higher temperatures could reduce the amount of fresh water available for both hydropower generation and concentrated solar power plants, whose superheated equipment requires water cooling. By comparison, OTEC sweet spots don't appear to be vulnerable to climate change, says Robert Thresher, a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. "Most of the OTEC resources are along the equator, and you wouldn't expect the sea surface temperature to dramatically change there," he says. Stepped-up OTEC generation doesn’t adversely affect oceans Helen Knight, Technology Reporter for New Scientist, March 3, 2014 "20,000 megawatts under the sea: Oceanic steam engines," New Scientist, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129580.900-20000-megawatts-under-the-sea-oceanic- steam-engines.html (accessed 6/22/2014) Happily, research suggests we can ramp up OTEC production without affecting the ocean. Researchers at the University of Hawaii's Ocean and Resources Engineering department in Honolulu modelled the effect of widespread, commercial-scale OTEC production on the seas, including the global thermohaline circulation – the network of slow currents that transport deep water throughout the oceans. They found that OTEC plants could safely extract the equivalent of 7 terawatts of electricity, or nearly 50 per cent of global energy consumption, before they would have any noticeable effect on ocean temperatures (Journal of Energy Resources Technology, vol 135, p 41202). However, the authors acknowledge the difficulties of drawing strong conclusions about the environmental effects of OTEC.

Land-Based Counterplan Answers Land-based fails: too expensive to transport the water, undermines competitiveness Rupeni Mario, Energy Project Officer at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, March 2001 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and the Pacific Islands," SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 417, http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/energie/sopacotec.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) One of the disadvantages of land-based OTEC plants is the need for a 3 km long cold water pipe to transport the large volumes of deep seawater required from a depth of about 1000 m. The cost associated with the cold water pipe represents 75% of the costs of current plant designs. Studies show that OTEC plants smaller than 50 MW cannot compete economically with other present energy alternatives. A 50 MW plant will require 150 m3/s of cold water thus, the 3 km long cold water pipeline has to be at least 8 m in diameter. Onshore OTEC plants kill shoreline ecosystems Chris Woodford, science writer, December 2, 2013 "OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion)," Explain That Stuff!, http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how- otec-works.html (accessed 6/23/2014) Large-scale onshore OTEC plants could have a considerable environmental impact on shorelines, which are often home to fragile, already threatened ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs. Onshore OTEC can’t adequately discharge seawater Rupeni Mario, Energy Project Officer at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, March 2001 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and the Pacific Islands," SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 417, http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/energie/sopacotec.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) Another disadvantage of a land-based plant would be the discharging of the cold and warm seawater. This may need to be carried out several hundred metres offshore so as to reach an appropriate depth before discharging the water to avoid any up dwelling impact on coastal fringes (i.e., fish, reef, etc). The arrangement also requires additional expense in the construction and maintenance.

AT Private Sector Private sector insufficient due to start up costs Kris Walker, Editor in Chief & Videographer at AZo Network, January 4, 2013 "How will Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Help the Environment?" Cleantech.com, http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=343 (accessed 6/23/2014) However, the OTEC researchers believe that involvement of the private sector firms is very limited owing to the need of enormous initial investment. Another major factor that hinders the OTEC plant development is the limited availability of land-based sites in the tropical regions where deep-sea water is close enough to the shore to make the operation of the plant feasible.

OTEC Negative

Topicality "exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans" Development is distinct from use, e.g. development of property versus use of property Victoria Department of Transport, Planning, and Local Infrastructure, 2005 "Using Victoria’s Planning System," A Guide to the Planning System, http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0019/41284/UVPS-1-Planning-Schemes.doc (accessed 6/15/2014) Overlays must have a strategic justification. Many overlays have schedules to specify local objectives and requirements. Generally, overlays may only make requirements about development, not use. Overlays do not change the intent of the zone. The affirmative merely uses the ocean; the extracted resource is solar, and there is no direct development of the ocean Richard Wolfson, Professor of Physics at Middlebury College, 2011 “Indirect from the Sun: Water, Wind, Biomass,” Biomass, http://www.sjsu.edu/people/dustin.mulvaney/courses/envs133/s1/wolfson%20biomass.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) The same solar-induced temperature differences that power the wind also, in conjunction with differences in salt concentration and Earth's rotational energy, drive the great ocean currents. And wind itself produces ocean waves, providing a doubly indirect form of solar energy. I briefly described schemes for harnessing the kinetic energy of waves and currents in Chapter 8's section on tidal energy, because these sources of mechanical ocean energy have much in common with tidal energy, except that their ultimate origin is primarily in sunlight rather than the mechanical energy of the Earth-Moon system. The energy initially comes from the sun; the ocean is merely the conduit Richard Wolfson, Professor of Physics at Middlebury College, 2011 “Indirect from the Sun: Water, Wind, Biomass,” Biomass, http://www.sjsu.edu/people/dustin.mulvaney/courses/envs133/s1/wolfson%20biomass.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) As the Sun warms the tropical ocean, it creates a significant temperature difference between the surface waters and deeper water to which sunlight doesn't penetrate. As shown in Chapter 4, any time there's a temperature difference, there's the potential to run a heat engine and extract mechanical energy. Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) harnesses this energy, in most cases to generate electricity.

Topicality: Dual use is not non-military Dual use is distinguished from non-military – export controls example proves Jonathan Rothchild, Mayor of Tucson Arizona, 2013 “Exporting Non-Military and Dual-Use Products,” Mayorrothchild.com, http://www.mayorrothschild.com/event/exporting-non-military-and-dual-use-products/ (accessed 6/23/2014) Exporting Non-Military and Dual-Use Products: This program will focus on the Export Administration Act, administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security. The export controls cover “dual-use” articles and technologies that may require licensing for export to various countries. The intent of OTEC development includes powering military bases Lockheed Martin Corporation, 2014 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Lockheed Martin, http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/otec.html (accessed 6/22/2014) Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion technology, known as OTEC, uses the ocean’s natural thermal gradient to generate power. In geographical areas with warm surface water and cold deep water, the temperature difference can be leveraged to drive a steam cycle that turns a turbine and produces power. Warm surface sea water passes through a heat exchanger, vaporizing a low boiling point working fluid to drive a turbine generator, producing electricity. This process can serve as a baseload power generation system that produces a significant amount of renewable, non-polluting power, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Military shore-side bases and communities in the tropics, many of which are largely dependent on imported fossil fuels for power and transportation, are ideal candidates for such a system. The U.S. military is engaged in high profile collaboration on OTEC with U.S. companies Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2011 "Power from the Sea," ORNL Review Vol. 44 No. 3, http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v44_3_11/article09.shtml (accessed 6/22/2014) Johnnie Cannon, who heads up ORNL's Global Security Directorate's collaboration with the program, says its goal is to develop "disruptive" technologies that leapfrog the competition, rather than making gradual, predictable progress. Currently Cannon's collaboration portfolio consists of active projects in a range of disciplines, including advanced materials, quantum computing and ocean thermal energy conversion. "One of our highest profile collaborations with the Open Innovation Program is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Cannon says. "It represents a substantial investment by LMC over several years." OTEC can be used to address the U.S. military's energy needs in parts of the world where long supply lines or distant power-generation facilities make generating power problematic.

Status Quo Solves OTEC happenning now through private sector and military development John Daly, chief analyst for Oilprice.com and formr Director of Middle East Institute, December 5, 2011 "Hawaii About to Crack Open Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Roadblocks?" Oilprice.com, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Hawaii-About-To-Crack-Ocean-Thermal- Energy-Conversion-Roadblocks.html (accessed 6/23/2014) So, OTEC is proceeding, and you have two engineering companies racing to develop a scalable OTEC deep ocean platform, one partnered with the world’s largest defense contractor, the other largely underwritten for the last 11 years by the Baltimore-based nonprofit Abell Foundation. Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation is developing OTEC now and has six major projects worldwide Marketwired, June 25, 2014 "Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation Appoints Eminova Fondkommission AB as Introducing Partner," Pennenergy.com, http://www.pennenergy.com/marketwired-power/2014/06/25/ocean-thermal- energy-corporation-appoints-eminova-fondkommission-ab-as-introducing-partner.html (accessed 6/23/2014) Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation ("OTE") is a U.S.-based company with global influence in the design of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) systems, based upon decades of experience of its technical team and executive management team. With more than six worldwide projects in the pipeline, OTE's mission is to meet the global demand for its technologies, bringing environmental, social, and economic benefits to millions of people around the world. Private sector is collaborating with French companies and will achieve energy independence by 2030 R.E. News, June 25, 2014 "DCNS Showcases OTEC in Reunion," R.E. News, http://renews.biz/69123/dcns-showcases-otec-in- reunion/ (accessed 6/22/2014) French company DCNS is presenting its onshore Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion prototype on 26 June at a conference on the island of Réunion. The technology is intended to be used to help Réunion to achieve 100% energy independence by 2030. OTEC takes advantage of the temperature difference between the warm surface water and the cool water in the depths. This temperature difference, natural in tropical seas, can be used for continuous baseline electricity generation – 24 hours a day all year round. Partnering with Réunion and the University of Réunion Island, DCNS aims to contribute to the development of a dedicated OTEC industrial sector to benefit all overseas island territories.

Solvency Answers OTEC fails – inaccessible and temperature needs are not compatible with US location Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Affairs, May 2008 “Ocean Power,” The Energy Report, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/20- OceanPower.pdf (accessed 6/24/2014) 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 converts the steam back to (now desalinated) water. The hybrid method uses the steam from boiled seawater to vaporize a low-boiling point liquid, which then drives the turbine In concept, these systems are quite simple, but in practice the depths and scale that are required to effectively harness OTEC have been prohibitive. OTEC is inefficient John Daly, chief analyst for Oilprice.com and formr Director of Middle East Institute, December 5, 2011 "Hawaii About to Crack Open Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Roadblocks?" Oilprice.com, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Hawaii-About-To-Crack-Ocean-Thermal- Energy-Conversion-Roadblocks.html (accessed 6/23/2014) But if that’s the good news the downside is that OTEC facilities have a typical conversion rate of 3-4 percent, as opposed to controversial coal or oil steam fired plants, whose temperature variants of up to 500 degrees can produce thermal conversion efficiency rates of 35-40 percent. Energy will be stranded at sea Christopher Barry, Co-chair of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, July 1, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,” Renewable Energy Information, http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2- sequestration/ (accessed 6/22/2014) Finally, there is the problem of using the energy. Most OTEC plants will be far at sea, because deep water in the tropics is generally far from energy markets, so the energy is “stranded.”

Solvency Answers OTEC is least efficient energy source Chris Woodford, science writer, December 2, 2013 "OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion)," Explain That Stuff!, http://www.explainthatstuff.com/how- otec-works.html (accessed 6/23/2014) The biggest problem with OTEC is that it's relatively inefficient. The laws of physics (in this case, the Carnot cycle) say that any practical heat engine must operate at less than 100 percent efficiency; most operate well below—and OTEC plants, which use a relatively small temperature difference between their hot and cold fluids, have among the lowest efficiency of all: typically just a few percent. For that reason, OTEC plants have to work very hard (pump huge amounts of water) to produce even modest amounts of electricity, which brings two problems. First, it means a significant amount of the electricity generated (typically about a third) has to be used for operating the system (pumping the water in and out). Second, it implies that OTEC plants have to be constructed on a relatively large scale, which makes them expensive investments. OTEC changes the temperature of water around the power plant Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Affairs, May 2008 “Ocean Power,” The Energy Report, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/20- OceanPower.pdf (accessed 6/24/2014) The long-term environmental impacts of commercialized ocean power are as yet unknown. As mentioned earlier, some concerns for potential impacts include interference with sea life migrations, silt buildup and sediment deposits. OTEC also has a potential to affect the temperature of the water near a power plant and, when desalinated water is a byproduct, to require disposal of the removed salts. But OTEC requires precise temperatures, so variable temperatures mean it fails Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Affairs, May 2008 “Ocean Power,” The Energy Report, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/20- OceanPower.pdf (accessed 6/24/2014) In summary, OTEC requires consistent, substantial temperature diff erences; tidal power requires large tidal swings or strong tide streams; and even wave power is economically feasible only in certain coastal areas of the world, such as the Northwestern and Northeastern coasts of the U.S.

Solvency Answers Logistical problems with equipment and transporting energy delay solvency Christopher Barry, Co-chair of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, July 1, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,” Renewable Energy Information, http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2- sequestration/ (accessed 6/22/2014) There are many practical issues as well. Again, with ammonia as the example, ammonia attacks copper bearing alloys, but only copper alloys resist marine fouling, and only a small amount of fouling is enough to drastically cut efficiency. Systems using ammonia have to have sophisticated waterside cleaning systems. There are also issues with the design of efficient low head turbines, very high performance heat exchangers, the long cold water pipe, and the platform, if it is floating (most OTEC designs are floating platforms, "grazing" in the open ocean). Public will resist OTEC construction on coastlines Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Affairs, May 2008 “Ocean Power,” The Energy Report, http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/20- OceanPower.pdf (accessed 6/24/2014) Wave power projects can face public resistance to installing large equipment along coastlines. Equipment on the ocean floor can also interfere with sediment flow. Thus far, even wave energy is not yet economically competitive. That situation is likely to change over time, however, as research and testing moves the technology forward.

Environment/Warming Turns OTEC potentially hurts marine life through temperature change Paul Breeze, Professor of Geography, King's College, London, March 24, 2014 Power Generation Technologies, 2nd Edition, http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/electrical- engineering/power-systems/9780080983301/chapter-14-marine-power-generation- technologies/wave_power (accessed 6/23/2014) One of the main problems with OTEC is environmental. The plant must draw enormous quantities of cold water from the ocean depths, but if this is returned to the surface, it will result in the mixing of sea strata, a cooling of the surface water, and a big increase in the level of nutrients. The consequences of this for local marine life have yet to be assessed. The alternative—returning the water to the same depth as it was extracted—will affect plant economic viability since it will require more pumping, an energy-intensive activity. OTEC risks CO2 increase through deep ocean water Paul Breeze, Professor of Geography, King's College, London, March 24, 2014 Power Generation Technologies, 2nd Edition, http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/electrical- engineering/power-systems/9780080983301/chapter-14-marine-power-generation- technologies/wave_power (accessed 6/23/2014) There is also the danger that water from the deep ocean will release carbon dioxide dissolved within it when it is brought to the surface. Against this, it has been argued that this nutrient-rich water will encourage marine flora and that this will absorb more carbon dioxide. Only large-scale development will enable these questions to be answered definitively. OTEC could increase carbon emission and more tests need to be done Christopher Barry, Co-chair of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, July 1, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,” Renewable Energy Information, http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2- sequestration/ (accessed 6/22/2014) 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.

Eutrophication Turn OTEC plants bring up enough nutrients to massively alter the ecosystem, causing eutrophication S.A. Abbasi, and Naseema Abbasi, Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University, 1999 “The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources,” Asean Environment, http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41013178.pdf (accessed 6/24/2014) 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. Excessive nutrient enrichment causes eutrophication S.A. Abbasi, and Naseema Abbasi, Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University, 1999 “The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources,” Asean Environment, http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41013178.pdf (accessed 6/24/2014) 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 of 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, unicellular algae grow to a density 27 times greater than the density in surface water and are in turn consumed by alter-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. Eutrophication kills ecosystems and causes massive biodiversity loss James E. Cloern, senior research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, December 18, 2007 "Eutrophication," Encyclopedia of Earth, http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152690/ (accessed 6/24/2014) There are numerous outcomes to the ecosystems associated with eutrophication environments. Most of these are viewed as unfavorable to the biota which have historically comprised a given habitat. The general types of ecological consequences include: reduction in biodiversity, die-off of certain organisms, reduction in visibility and mobility functions due to biotic overgrowth (which effects can interfere with plant metabolism and with aquatic animal transport); reduction in dissolved oxygen and associated fitness reduction in animals dependent upon oxygen levels.

Carbon Sequestration Turns/Answers Turn: OTEC releases more carbon than it sequesters because deep water has already dissolved CO2 Christopher Barry, Co-chair of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, July 1, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,” Renewable Energy Information, http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2- sequestration/ (accessed 6/22/2014) 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. Carbon-reducing OTEC plants must be designed differently from power generating plants, meaning no residual advantage Christopher Barry, Co-chair of Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, July 1, 2008 “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and CO2 Sequestration,” Renewable Energy Information, http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-and-co2- sequestration/ (accessed 6/22/2014) 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.

States Counterplan Solvency Hawaii proves states can operate and adopt OTEC technology Duke Hartman, spokesperson for Makai Ocean Engineering, November 6, 2013 "Makai Awarded $3.6M to Continue Work on OTEC at the Ocean Energy Research Center in Hawaii Makai Ocean Engineering has received a $3.6 million contract from the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute and the Office of Naval Research for research and design on the marine renewable energy known as Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, or OTEC. Makai will perform this work at their Ocean Energy Research Center, located in Kona, Hawaii, which is the largest OTEC research facility in the world. State governments solve, and can provide companies access to coastal waters Michael E. Webber, Associate Director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin, May 4, 2008 “OTEC and wave energy technologies in Hawaii,” Webber Energy Blog, http://webberenergyblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/otec-and-wave-energy-technologies-in.html (accessed 6/24/2014) From environmental and economically standpoints, the feasibility of OTEC systems and wave energy technologies is still unclear. As with any new technology that must be implemented on a large scale, this is to be expected. Producing tens or hundreds of megawatts of power in the oceans is a daunting task that requires years of experimentation and cost-benefit analysis. Yet, from a technical standpoint, OTEC systems and the discussed wave energy technologies present themselves as technically feasible alternatives for applications in the state of Hawaii. Hawaii’s large wave heights and underwater temperature differences allow the state of Hawaii to utilize OTEC and wave energies at their advantage, if state government so chooses. Hawaii proves that states can access federal waters if necessary Michael E. Webber, Associate Director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin, May 4, 2008 “OTEC and wave energy technologies in Hawaii,” Webber Energy Blog, http://webberenergyblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/otec-and-wave-energy-technologies-in.html (accessed 6/24/2014) As large and overwhelming as the ocean is, so too is the economic and engineering task of designing large offshore and onshore ocean energy power plants. In order for Hawaii to meet its goals of 20% renewable fuels by 2020 and 70% of its energy mix from renewable by 2030, the state government should first provide for access to federal waters where companies like Finavera Renewables and CETO can test their products year round. This is the first and most crucial step towards launching any large scale ocean energy system within the Hawaiian Islands.

Japan Counterplan Solvency Japan is collaborating with private industry to build deep seawater pumps and OTEC plants OTEC Foundation, July 27, 2012 "OTEC Pilot Plant to be Built in Okinawa Prefecture," OTEC News, http://www.otecnews.org/2012/07/otec-pilot-plant-to-be-built-in-okinawa-prefecture/ (accessed 6/25/2014) This month, Japanese engineering companies IHI Plant Construction Corporation, Xenesys Incorporated and Yokogawa Electric Corporation announced their collaboration in building a 50kW OTEC demonstration plant in the waters of Kumejima Island, located in the very south of Japan and part of the Okinawa Islands. The OTEC plant will be integrated in the Okinawa Prefecture Deep Seawater Research Center, which is the largest of four deep seawater pumping systems in Japan. The companies aim to have the OTEC plant up and running in March 2013. Regarding the roles in this project: Xenesys will design and manufacture the power generation unit and the heat exchangers; Yokogawa will design, manufacture and do the engineering of the monitoring and control system for the generation unit and the electronics for the interconnected power schemes; and IHI will develop and construct the entire facility. Japan built the first complete 50-kw OTEC plant in the world Benjamin Martin, author of Kumiguide.com and expert on Japan, June 17, 2013 "Okinawa OTEC Power Initialization Ceremony," More Things Japanese, http://morethingsjapanese.com/okinawa-otec-power-initialization-ceremony/ (accessed 6/25/2014) June 16th marked the beginning of power generation at Kume Island‘s Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Power Plant with a ceremony and visiting dignitaries from around Japan and the world. The newly completed OTEC power plant will be able to generate up to 50 kilowatts of electricity from a thermal expansion turbine. The turbine is propelled by temperature variations provided by warm surface water and cold deep-sea water. This station is the first of its kind in the world, creating energy in a clean manner. The mineral rich deep-sea waters used by the plant can be used in a variety of industries, making the entire process more efficient and beneficial. Japan leads in research Rupeni Mario, Energy Project Officer at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, March 2001 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and the Pacific Islands," SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 417, http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/energie/sopacotec.pdf (accessed 6/22/2014) Research in OTEC is still being pursued by the Japanese who funded a major symposium on OTEC and Deep Ocean Water Applications (DOWA). The Taiwanese government has a long interest in OTEC with Taipei being the home to the international OTEC/DOWA (IOA)5 On 20 April 2001, Saga University of Japan and Palau signed an agreement to promote research and technological exchange for power generation by OTEC. The university plans to build an OTEC plant in Palau in the near future.

EU Counterplan

Europe is currently the international leader in OTEC production and can mobilize major industrial partners European Ocean Energy Association, 2013 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Ocean Energy Europe: Policies and Technologies, http://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/index.php/en/policies/technologies/13-technology/49-ocean- thermal-energy-conversion (accessed 6/14/2014) A recent study (Indicta 2012) made for French DoE/ADEME reveals that the global potential for OTEC is a weighted installed base of 150GW, with a priority market of 60GW which will emerge first with islands and isolated areas for 9GW total. By 2030, 1.5GW of OTEC should be installed. 3 industrial consortiums are already competing for the OTEC market : French group DCNS already has a land based prototype in La Réunion French Island and is working on several onshore and offshore projects. The added value of major European industrial partners will be key in the European OTEC value chain. American giant Lockheed Martin also has a land-based prototype and is working on a project in Hawaii. In Asia, Japanese and Korean partners are teaming up to address the OTEC marketplace. Europe is now leading the race and shall benefit from the first mover advantage, giving the capacity to Europe to have a worldwide champion technology to export directly contributing to the European trade balance.

Europe is uniquely poised to act on OTEC opportunities for renewable energy and international engagement Michel Gauthier, IOA Acting Chairman, Lars Golmen, Norwegian Institute for Water Research, and Don Lennard, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion System Ltd., June 2000 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)and &Deep Ocean Water Applications(DOWA).market opportunities for European industry," Les Club des Argonautes, http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/otec/vol/vol12-1-1.htm (accessed 6/20/2014) This presentation of recent results obtained worldwide from OTEC R&D invites the European Union Commission carefully to assess the techno-economic viability and the full potential of OTEC, together with other DOWA products , and consider supporting their development as they represent : a) new market opportunities for European maritime and energy industries willing to invest in a low/no-emission energy production system. b) political and economical interest for the development of European Overseas Territories and developing countries associated with the European Union, and c) potential sources of supply for synthetic fuel (energy carriers) to respond to global future demand for primary energy and for world sustainable development.

Exclude Lockheed Martin Counterplan/Kritik: 1NC Lockheed Martin manufactures OTEC Lockheed Martin Corporation, 2014 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Lockheedmartin.com, http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/otec.html (accessed 6/20/2014) Lockheed Martin and Reignwood Group recently signed a contract to design a 10-megawatt OTEC power plant – the world’s largest OTEC project developed to date. Lockheed Martin’s history with OTEC began in the 1970s, where the heritage Lockheed Martin Ocean Systems Division, based in Sunnyvale, California, developed a mini OTEC plant, which ran for three months and successfully generated 50 kilowatts of electricity. This legitimizes Lockheed Martin and labels them sustainable and green, allowing them to hide their war machine agenda Rich Smith, Economics and Finance Writer at Motley Fool, February 16, 2014 "Lockheed Martin Corporation: What Happens When a Bad Stock Goes Good?" The Motley Fool, http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/16/lockheed-martin-corporation-a-bad-stock-turns- good.aspx (accessed 6/24/2014) Historically known primarily as a company in the "bad" business of manufacturing killing machines, Lockheed Martin has for the past three years won a place on the Carbon Disclosure Project's list of the top 500 companies working to mitigate the effects of global climate change. Last year, Lockheed was added to the 2013 Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index of leading companies working toward solutions to climate change and energy consumption. These are more than just warm and fuzzy developments for Lockheed Martin -- mere trophies on the shelf. On the one hand, by burnishing its "green credentials," Lockheed is helping to make its stock more palatable to investors who might not ordinarily consider investing in a defense contractor. That helps to support the stock price by boosting demand for Lockheed stock. At the same time, by developing new businesses and new revenue streams, Lockheed Martin is helping to mitigate the risks of a sustained downturn in government funding for defense contractors Excluding Lockheed Martin in the context of policy debate is real world modeling of effective political action against the abuse of corporate power David Sharrock, Managing Director, Guardian Media Group, and Jamie Downard, BBC Media Correspondent, February 19, 2011 "Boycott the UK census over links to Lockheed Martin, protesters say," The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/19/census-boycott-lockheed-martin (accessed 6/24/2014) People are being urged to boycott next month's UK's census because the US arms manufacturer responsible for Trident is involved in gathering the information. Protesters say they are willing to break the law and face a £1,000 fine and a criminal record by refusing to fill in the 32-page questionnaire. Resistance to the decennial census is growing as a coalition of anti-war groups, pacifists, religious organisations and digital activists begin raising public awareness about the role of Lockheed Martin, America's largest arms manufacturer. The company, which makes Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and F-16 fighter jets, won the £150m contract to run the census on behalf of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). A spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition said: "We will certainly be calling for a boycott and telling people not co-operate with the warmongers."

Exclude Lockheed Martin Extensions Lockheed is the industry leader--it holds 19 OTEC patents Lockheed Martin Corporation, October 30, 2013 "Lockheed Martin and Reignwood Group Sign Contract To Develop Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Power Plant," Lockheed Martin is the industry leader in the development of OTEC technology, holding 19 related patents. The Lockheed Martin-Reignwood 10-megawatt plant is considered to be a crucial step in the full commercialization of OTEC. “The ocean holds enormous potential for terrawatts of clean, baseload energy,” said Dan Heller, vice president of new ventures for Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training. “Capturing this energy through a system like OTEC means we have the opportunity to produce reliable and sustainable power, supporting global security, a strong economic future and climate protection for future generations.” Lockheed will facilitate OTEC in China Eliza Strickland, associate editor for the international technology magazine IEEE Spectrum, July 25, 2013 "Lockheed Martin Pioneers Ocean Energy in China," IEEE Spectrum, http://spectrum.ieee.org/green- tech/geothermal-and-tidal/lockheed-martin-pioneers-ocean-energy-in-china (accessed 6/24/2014) 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.

Exclude Lockheed Martin Extensions Continued destruction by war machinery threatens the future of humanity WACA, March 28, 2014 "The Perfect Storm: Corporate Resource Wars, Militarism & Environmental Destruction," Whistleblowers, Activists and Citizens Alliance, http://waca.net.au/ai1ec_event/the-perfect-storm- corporate-resource-wars-militarism-environmental-destruction/?instance_id= (accessed 6/27/2014) Our world is reaching crisis point with the scramble for food and resource security, geopolitical power and transnational corporate domination. Australia has followed its super power ally, the US, into a state of permanent resource warfare which has seen the militarization of civilian space both offline and online. Combined with the emergent climate catastrophe, the global citizenry are moving full frontal into a perfect storm. Yet of all the conversations taking place around militarization and climate change, very few are connecting the dots between the insatiable fossil fuel frenzy required to feed the corporate profiteers of war and to keep the war machinery at the ready; with the scale of environmental degradation and destruction which is catastrophic for our planet and the future of humanity. For-profit weapons manufacturers corrupt government and encourage more war Chris Kromm, publisher of Southern Exposure, Winter 2003/2004 "Making a Killing: The New War Profiteers," Southern Exposure, http://www.southernstudies.org/reports/Intro.htm (accessed 6/12/2014) Today, war profiteering has become more sophisticated, driven by an increasingly integrated network of military contractors, lobbying operations, and pro-military politicians, many who have revolved in and out of government positions. Unlike the early 20th century, war-related business have found a receptive home in the South, which increasingly is linking its economic future to military expansion (see Missiles and Magnolias, Southern Exposure, Spring 2002). The dramatic increase of military work given to private contractors (by one estimate, a third of expenditures for the Iraq war) has made war an even more lucrative enterprise which, as Jason Vest reveals in this issue, has given rise to a powerful lobby motivated to secure the spoils of intervention and reconstruction. Other companies and the Department of Energy will fill in the gap: no solvency deficit to excluding Lockheed U.S. Department of Commerce, July 12, 2011 "Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion," Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/programs/otec.html (accessed 6/25/2014) In 2008, oil prices rose again and several companies approached NOAA with questions about licensing requirements for OTEC facilities. Since then, millions of dollars have been invested by private companies in OTEC project planning and design. Applications for pilot and commercial facilities are expected in the near future. In addition, both the Navy and Department of Energy have recently made substantial grant awards for OTEC component and subsystems development.

Exclude Lockheed Martin Extensions Lockheed uses its profits to fund war mongering think tanks--they helped spur the invation of Iraq and have a direct hand in foreign policy decisions Global Exchange, December 12, 2005 "The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers," ILRF Laborrights.org, http://www.laborrights.org/in-the-news/14- worst-corporate-evildoers (accessed 6/23/2014) Lockheed Martin is the world's largest military contractor. Providing satellites, planes, missiles and other lethal high-tech items to the Pentagon keeps the profits rolling in. Since 2000, the year Bush was elected, the company's stock value has tripled. As the Center for Corporate Policy (www.corporatepolicy.org) notes, it is no coincidence that Lockheed VP Bruce Jackson--who helped draft the Republican foreign policy platform in 2000--is a key player at the Project for a New American Century, the intellectual incubator of the Iraq war. Lockheed Martin is not the only defense contractor that goes behind the scenes to influence public policy, but it is one of the worst. Lockheed Martin executives become Washington D.C. policymakers to promote a pro- war agenda Global Exchange, December 12, 2005 "The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers," ILRF Laborrights.org, http://www.laborrights.org/in-the-news/14- worst-corporate-evildoers (accessed 6/23/2014) Stephen J. Hadley, who now has Condoleeza Rice's old job as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, was formerly a partner in a DC law firm representing Lockheed Martin. He is only one of the beneficiaries of the so-called revolving door between the military industries and the "civilian" national security apparatus. These war profiteers have a profound and illegitimate influence on our country's international policy decisions. Lockheed routinely violates corporate ethics codes Derrick Crowe, Political Director at Brave New Foundation, June 24, 2013 "Lockheed Martin's Ethical Lapses Continue," Return Good For Evil, http://derrickcrowe.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/lockheed-martins-ethical-lapses-continue/ (accessed 6/24/2014) Lockheed Martin continues to transgress even the loosest definitions of corporate ethics, with their latest behavior opening themselves up to accusations of corruption and conflicts of interest from within their own shareholder base. Lockheed Martin shareholder John Chevedden raised concerns about possible corrupt behavior in board of directors pay increase actions in the company’s latest proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 8th

China Coal Shift DA

1NC Shell

THESIS: Despite other sources, coal remains the dominant source of electricity generation in the United States. Declines in domestic demand for coal means producers have to look elsewhere. This disadvantage argues that coal producers would increase exports to China to compensate for profit losses. Because they would undersell producers like Australia, U.S. exports would increase Chinese demand and foster a shift away from renewables. Since China and the U.S. are the top two CO2 producers, any benefit from reduced coal consumption in the U.S. would be offset many times over by higher emissions in China. A. U.S. coal demand will grow slowly now, but declines cause a shift to Chinese exports Anthony Fensom October 23, 2012, experienced business writer and communication consultant with more than a decade's experience in the financial and media industries of Australia and Asia, “Don’t Write the Obituary Just Yet: ‘King Coal’ Still Reigns,” The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/pacific- money/2012/10/23/despite-short-term-pain-king-coal-still-reigns/, Accessed 7/13/2014 “ Mining companies have been crunching the numbers on their operations, taking into account the lower coal prices and rising costs such as labor, transport and new government charges. "Margins are being squeezed so mine management teams are taking a worst case scenario. If there were to be further softening of prices then you would expect further cutbacks in the future,” he said. According to Caruana, the fall in prices was attributed to both slowing growth in the eurozone and China, along with the entry of the United States and Indonesia into the coal export market.“U.S. coal producers have sought out export markets such as China and India because their domestic market has slowed down and it has been switching to gas for power generation. Indonesia has ramped up coal production and exports of thermal coal to supply the Chinese market over the last few years,” he said. B. U.S. exports lock in expanded Chinese coal capacity causing warming to go over the tipping point Thomas M. Power, Research Professor and Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana; Principal, Power Consulting; February 2012, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.sightline.org/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2012/02/Coal-Power-White-Paper.pdf, Accessed 7/12/2014 Although the economic life of coal-fired generators is often given as 30 or 35 years, a permitted, operating, electric generator is kept on line a lot longer than that, as long as 50 or more years through ongoing renovations and upgrades. Because of that long operating life, the impact of the lower Asian coal prices and costs triggered by PRB coal competing with other coal sources cannot be measured by the number of tons of coal exported each year. Those lower coal costs will lead to commitments to more coal being burned for a half-century going forward. That time-frame is very important. During exactly this time frame, the next half-century, the nations of the world will have to get their greenhouse gas emission stabilized and then reduced or the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may pass a point that will make it very difficult to avoid massive, ongoing, negative climate impacts. Taking actions now that encourage fifty-years of more coal consumption around the world is not a minor matter. Put more positively, allowing coal prices to rise (and more closely approximate their full cost, including “external” costs) will encourage extensive investments in improving the efficiency with which coal is used and the shift to cleaner sources of

1NC Shell C. Crossing global warming tipping points leads to extinction Don Flournoy, Professor in the School of Media Arts & Studies, January 2012, “Solar Power Satellites,” 2012, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-11 In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, “The evidence of global warming is alarming,” noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earth’s biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances”.

Uniqueness

China is reducing consumption and production now China will reduce coal consumption in the status quo Charles West, Staff Writer, March 10, 2013, “Chinese emission policy spells bad news for US coal exports,” China Dialogue, https://www.chinadialogue.net/blog/6460-Chinese-emission-policy-spells- bad-news-for-US-coal-exports/en, Accessed 7/13/2014 In late August China’s National Development and Reform Commission announced a pilot project that aims to reduce coal consumption in the heavily populated urban areas of China’s east and southeast coasts. With a benchmark of a two million kilowatt reduction in power use, and a strategy of reducing coal consumption by eliminating excess capacity and shuttering inefficient plants in the steel, aluminum, concrete, glass, and power industries, the proposed program’s goals are twofold. First, to reduce dangerously high levels of airborne pollutants; second, to reduce energy consumption in the manufacturing sector by 3.84% per unit of GDP per year. China is planning to reduce the consumption of thermal coal. Primarily used to generate its electricity, China is the world’s largest consumer and importer of thermal coal. The Development and Reform Commission’s actions came just as the international banking community predicted a chilly future for coal exports. China’s thirst for coal is a myth created by coal companies. China is reducing consumption Justin Guay, Associate Director, Sierra Club International Climate Program, and Fang Lifeng, Greenpeace East Asia, May 20, 2014, “China's Thirst for Coal Is Drying Up,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-guay/chinas-thirst-for-coal-is_b_5358194.html, Accessed 7/15/2014 As the "airpocalypse" news out of China continues to grow, what we predicted more than a year ago is now increasingly obvious -- China's seemingly endless coal demand is a myth, and the Chinese coal boom is over. What we often hear about a never-ending demand for coal in China has turned out to be just a desperate attempt by a flailing industry seeking to convince investors and politicians that they have a future in a cleaner, greener 21st century. But as frustration with deadly coal pollution grows along with China's booming clean energy industry, this looks increasingly doubtful. Since news of the airpocalypse first broke, the Chinese public has become increasingly adamant that dangerous air pollution from coal-burning power plants be curbed. In response, China's State Council announced a detailed plan -- The Airborne Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan -- that aimed to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants in September of last year. This was the historic first step toward curbing China's air pollution crisis -- but its only the beginning. Chinese coal consumption will soon peak Fred Pearce, Staff Writer, June 23, 2014, “Is China Hitting Peak Coal?,” http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-06-23/is-china-hitting-peak-coal, Accessed 7/12/2014 But it won’t, say analysts. China is changing. A decade ago growth in China’s coal consumption was 18 percent a year; now it is down to below 3 percent. Peak coal is imminent in China. Nan Zhou and colleagues at the China Energy Group of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, say that with current trends and policies, the peak will likely occur in 2020. It could be sooner. Anthony Yuen at Citi Research, part of the CitiGroup, predicted last September in a report entitled The Unimaginable: Peak Coal in China, a “flattening or peaking” of the power sector’s use of coal before 2020. The peak will be followed by a long decline, according to BP’s most recent energy outlook, published in January, which

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 319 suggests that between now and 2035, “coal’s contribution to growth [in China] diminishes rapidly,” with renewables being the biggest winner.

China is reducing consumption and production now Chinese provinces are cracking down on coal consumption Brad Plumer, Staff Writer, April 17, 2014, “China's coal boom is slowing — that's a big deal for climate change,” Vox, http://www.vox.com/2014/4/17/5624360/china-coal-boom-ending-climate- change, Accessed 7/17/2014 A number of China's provinces have now set various targets for limiting coal consumption between 2013 and 2017. And at least some analysts think these measures could eventually have an impact. Analysts at Citigroup, for one, predict that China's coal use could peak by 2015. BP envisions China's coal use peaking around 2020 or so. Chinese coal demand and production declining now from multiple factors Wayne Ma and Rhiannon Hoyle, Staff Writers, July 15, 2014, “Miners Face Pain as China’s Coal Appetite Falls,” Wall St, Journal, http://online.wsj.com/articles/miners-struggle-as-chinas-appetite-for- coal-eases-1405340884, Accessed 7/17/2014 China's once insatiable appetite for coal is cooling, raising questions about mining companies' big bets on new projects. Beijing's figures on coal imports and domestic production this year indicate sharply weaker demand, which experts say stems from slowing growth in the world's No. 2 economy. Longer term, factors including new policies to curb air pollution by limiting coal use are likely to keep growth in coal consumption far below the double-digit increases of the past. China has begun to slow down its production of coal Abheek Bhattacharya, Staff Writer, June 2, 2014, “China's Coal Demand Could Fall Soon,” Wall Stee http://online.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coal-demand-could-fall-soon-1401715431 June 2, 2014 ABHEEK BHATTACHARYA Coal has few friends left. Even its best buddy China is conspiring against it, as marked by Beijing's deal last month to buy a rival source of energy, natural gas, from Moscow for 30 years. China is on a mission to develop natural gas and renewables to clear its skies. In the process, the world's largest consumer of coal will reduce the black stuff's share in its energy mix to below 65% this year from 69% in 2011, partly by tightening the rules for coal-fired power plants, according to a recent government document. The government expects just a 1.6% increase in coal consumption this year, half the rate of the last two years. In contrast, the natural gas market should grow 14.5% this year and may double by 2020, by which time Russian supplies will kick in. Growth in China's overall energy use is slowing anyway, with the broader economy. At the speed at which alternative sources are stealing coal's share, it is possible that Chinese coal demand could start falling soon. Another blow to the commodity comes from China's breakneck infrastructure expansion. Bottlenecks in rail make coal in coastal provinces where it is burned more expensive than at the mouth of mines in the interior. This amounts to an $11 difference per ton even after accounting for freight charges, says Sanford C. Bernstein's Michael Parker, equivalent to about 13% of the current coastal price. Now Beijing is fast building new rail lines, boosting capacity by 800 million tons by 2018, or roughly 35% of the coal transported last year by rail, says IHS. Multiple factors are cooling Chinese demand for coal Wayne Ma and Rhiannon Hoyle, Staff Writers, July 15, 2014, “Miners Face Pain as China’s Coal Appetite Falls,” Wall St, Journal, http://online.wsj.com/articles/miners-struggle-as-chinas-appetite-for- coal-eases-1405340884, Accessed 7/17/2014

A decade ago, China's coal consumption regularly rose by more than double-digit percentages each year, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. After slumping to 3.7% annual growth in 2008 during the financial crisis, coal-consumption growth stayed above 5% annually until 2013, when it again fell to 3.7%. China's cooler coal-import growth also may be the result of increased competitiveness of domestic coal and the potential for restrictions on imports of low-grade coal, the Australian government said in a quarterly report. China's coal imports rose just 0.9% in the first half from a year earlier, to 160 million metric tons. That was down sharply from the first half of last year, when imports rose 13.3%.

China is reducing consumption and production now China is taking great efforts to reduce coal consumption now Nick Cunningham, Staff Writer at The Christian Science Monitor, June 21, 2014, “In a global ‘War on Coal,’ Coal is winning,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, http://www.thegwpf.org/in-a-global- war-on-coal-coal-is-winning/, Accessed 7/17/2014 In China, while demand is still growing, it is doing so at a much slower rate than previously; the 2013 annual increase in coal burning hit its lowest level in China since 2008. In fact, coal only made up 67.5 percent of total energy demand, still a colossal market share, but the lowest on record. That’s due to China’s efforts to rein in pollution and increase the consumption of natural gas. The Chinese government has declared a “war on pollution,” in considerably stronger language than it has used before to describe efforts to reduce smog. Chinese coal consumption will continually decline for three reasons Fred Pearce, Staff Writer, June 23, 2014, “Is China Hitting Peak Coal?,” http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-06-23/is-china-hitting-peak-coal, Accessed 7/12/2014 The analysts point to three reasons for the eclipse of coal in China. First, growth in demand for energy in China is slackening. Second, burning coal faces serious environmental limits, notably air pollution and water shortages – and, in the future, carbon limits. And finally, there are more viable alternatives, such as renewables, natural gas, and nuclear. Growth in China’s energy demand is waning because GDP growth is slowing. That’s because GDP growth is now based less on industrial activity and more on the services economy, and because China is making big strides in using its energy more efficiently. More than 17,000 industrial and other enterprises currently have mandatory targets for improved energy efficiency. Meanwhile, concern about smog is now a major political issue in China. The regular TV footage of near-zero visibility in major cities has been backed up byrecent research findings that dirty air is cutting more than five years off the life expectancy of the half-billion citizens of northern China. Meanwhile the water needed for power station cooling towers is running out. Most of the country’s coal reserves are in the dry west. Tianyi Luo of the World Resources Institute last year found that 51 percent of planned future coal power stations in China were in provinces with “extremely high water stress”: Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Ganshu, Ningxia and Hebei. In the search for alternatives, China is now the world’s biggest investor in renewables.

China is shifting to renewables now China is working to cap coal consumption now—new exports will overwhelm Bill Chameides, Dean, Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment, February 18, 2013, “Old Wang Coal?,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/old-wang- coal_b_2711152.html, Accessed 7/16/2014 If you're concerned about climate change, all that coal-burning is not welcome news, but a change may be in the offing. Earlier this month, Beijing announced it will cap total coal usage at essentially its current rate. But I wouldn't pop the corks just yet. Given that 70 percent of China's rapidly growing economy is powered by coal, stopping the rapid rise in China's coal usage while maintaining that economic growth will be no easy feat. Demand for coal in China is falling. Consumption has peaked and renewables are growing Justin Guay, Associate Director, Sierra Club International Climate Program, and Fang Lifeng, Greenpeace East Asia, May 20, 2014, “China's Thirst for Coal Is Drying Up,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-guay/chinas-thirst-for-coal-is_b_5358194.html, Accessed 7/15/2014 The dangers of burning coal have become increasingly clear to the Chinese public - and the country has already seen an astonishing reduction in the growth of coal consumption and total coal demand. Several high profile banks have predicted China will hit peak coal demand before 2020, and a decline in coal burning and coal pollution would be just around the corner. At the same time, China's clean energy industry is booming, with solar production skyrocketing. All that reinforces our main point -- China's coal boom is over, with demand falling faster than expected. And that means we finally can see the light at the end of a long, dark tunnel. The latest data from China's National Coal Association suggests that while China burned 940 million tonnes of coal in the first quarter of 2014, that's only a 0.9 percent increase from last year, down from a 9.8 percent increase in 2011. As this trend continues, China's peak coal consumption is looming ever closer, and the decline of coal consumption is just around the corner. China is transitioning to clean energy technology now Luke Schoen Associate in the Climate & Energy Program at WRI Insights, October 19, 2014, “Policy Experts Provide Insights Into China’s Leadership Transition,” http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/10/policy-experts-provide-insights-chinas-leadership-transition, Accessed 7/16/2014 Deborah Seligsohn, a climate and energy advisor to WRI, rounded out the call by highlighting that China’s economic restructuring can be compatible with environmental protection, including around action to address climate change. China’s efforts to control emissions will be “good for climate change, the planet, and other environmental issues that they have to grapple with,” Seligsohn said. She discussed the main drivers behind China’s energy and climate actions, including the country’s desire to: restructure its economy; increase innovation and development of new technologies; move toward greater environmental protections; and meet its targets in the 12th five-year plan. Seligsohn concluded that “there is strong agreement [among Chinese officials] that part of development is being both cleaner and more technologically sophisticated and having a more diverse economy.” China’s Energy Future The discussions held during the call point to one key takeaway: Together, these underlying factors may indeed push China toward a lower-carbon energy future. These changes are unlikely to occur quickly,

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 324 but we’ll all be watching closely to see if China’s new leadership is able to manage a transition to clean energy while ensuring the country stays on a solid growth pathway.

U.S. Exports declining now U.S. coal exports are declining now Robert McCabe, Staff Writer, July 7, 2014, “Port sees coal exports drop in first half of year,” The Virginian-Pilot, http://hamptonroads.com/2014/07/port-sees-coal-exports-drop-first-half-year, Accessed 7/17/2014 Through the first half of the year, coal exports through Hampton Roads, the top U.S. coal-shipping port, are down about 12 percent from where they were at this time last year. While 2013 turned out to be the port’s best coal-exporting year since 1992, experts aren’t anticipating a turnaround in the next six months. “I think the rest of the year you’re going to see definitely a downtrend,” said David Host, chairman and CEO of T. Parker Host, a Norfolk-based shipping agent. The top U.S. coal exporter says volume is on a downward trend Robert McCabe, Staff Writer, July 7, 2014, “Port sees coal exports drop in first half of year,” Virginia- Pilot Online, http://hamptonroads.com/2014/07/ port-sees-coal-exports-drop-first-half-year, Accessed 7/16/2014 Through the first half of the year, coal exports through Hampton Roads, the top U.S. coal-shipping port, are down about 12 percent from where they were at this time last year. While 2013 turned out to be the port’s best coal-exporting year since 1992, experts aren’t anticipating a turnaround in the next six months. “I think the rest of the year you’re going to see definitely a downtrend,” said David Host, chairman and CEO of T. Parker Host, a Norfolk-based shipping agent. He attributes much of the falloff in coal exports from Hampton Roads and other U.S. ports to two global developments – a surge in Australian coal production and a weakening of the Chinese economy. China’s imports of metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking, are projected to drop by more than 20 percent from last year. U.S. coal exports are falling now from high Australian production and a cooling Chinese economy Sam Dodson, Staff Writer, July 7, 2014, “Coal exports from US port fall,” World Coal, http://www.worldcoal.com/news/ports-and- terminals/articles/Coal_exports_from_US_port_fall_1054.aspx#.U8foafk8CSo, Accessed 7/16/2014 One of the top coal shipping ports in the US – Hampton Roads – has announced a significant fall in coal exports, as analysts warn downward trend could continue. Coal exports fell 12% over H1 2014 compared to H1 2013 (which was Hampton Road’s best coal exporting year since 1992). David Host, chairman and CEO of T. Parker Host, said that he expected to see a downward trend over “the rest of the year”. Host said the fall in coal exports from Hampton Roads and other US ports could be attributed to two global developments – a surge in Australian coal production and a weakening of the Chinese economy. China’s imports of metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking, have been forecast to drop by more than 20% from last year, according to some analysts.

Links

Natural Gas Links Lower natural gas prices reduce coal demand and drive higher exports Nate Aden, PhD student with the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley, February 21, 2013, “2012 U.S. Coal Exports Reach Record High,” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/21/ 1618671/2012-us-coal-exports-reach-record-high/?mobile=nc, Accessed 7/13/2014 Coal export growth is driven by historically low domestic natural gas prices, diminishing U.S. coal demand , and growing use globally over other primary energy sources. On a global level, the International Energy Agency forecasts that coal will rival oil as the world’s top primary energy source by 2017. Analysis by the World Resources Institute found that more than 1,100 coal-fired power plants are currently being proposed for development globally. Given that the U.S. has more proven coal reserves than any other country, there is large potential for continued export growth. Increasing the free flow of natural gas displaces coal Northern Gas Pipelines, Staff Writer, 2012, “Investors Business Daily Supports OCS - Reader Makes Points,” http://www.northerngaspipelines.com/content/investors-business-daily-supports-ocs-reader-makes-points, Accessed 7/11/2014 Retired Joint Pipeline Office geologist Joe Dygas gives us this O&G Journal tip and editorial remark: Oil and natural gas are indispensable in a growing world energy market, and Royal Dutch Shell PLC plans to make gas roughly half of its total production by 2012, its chief executive officer said on Oct. 8. “This is not merely a shift in our portfolio. Increasing natural gas production and transportation by liquefying it and shipping the LNG to global markets means that more natural gas will be available to displace coal as the fuel for power plants,” Peter Voser said in an address at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. (Dygas' Comment: Note Shell's production to be 50% gas by 2012. Industry is clearly ramping up its gas production both in US [lower 48] and overseas. Alaska' s politicians fail to understand the competition they are dealing with while they waste time.) Natural gas expansion displaces coal John Hanger, Special Counsel at the law firm Eckert Seamans and former Sec. of the Penn. Dept. of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, October 8, 2012, “NY Cuts Coal To Less Than 4% Of State Generation By Using Much More Gas: NY Moratorium Does Not Apply To Gas Consumption,” John Hanger's Facts of The Day, http://johnhanger.blogspot.com/2012/10/ny-cuts-coal-to-less-than-4-of-state.html, Accessed 7/11/2014 The Empire state's appetite for gas grows, even as it extends its moratorium. In fact, after another big increase in gas-fired generation in 2012, New York generates substantially more of its electricity from gas than any other source and is using gas to nearly eliminate coal generation. In the first 7 months of 2012, New York's gas-fired generation increased 21%, compared to the same period in 2011, and provided 34.6 billion kilowatt-hours of generation or 6 billion more kilowatt-hours more than in 2011. www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/. Only Texas, California, and Florida generate more electricity from gas. In addition to burning gas to make electricity, New York relies also on nuclear power and hydro, but both of those sources saw small declines in 2012. Nuclear power plants in New York provided the second highest amount of power in 2012 at 23.4 billion kilowatt-hours or down 2.3% compared to 2011. Hydro ranked third at 15.6 billion, down 1%. What about wind and coal? Wind provided 1.8 billion kilowatt-hours, up 9% from 2011 and about 2% of New York's generation. In actual kilowatt-hours generated the wind increase and the hydro decrease were offsetting. Interestingly and ironically, New York is displaying the same pattern of gas displacing coal as is seen around the country. Coal generation within New York declined from 7 billion kilowatt-hours, during the first 7 months of 2011, to 2.7 billion kilowatt-hours, from January to July of 2012. In fact, gas generation increased 6 billion kilowatt-hours,

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 328 while coal generation fell 4.25 billion kilowatt-hours. And it is gas that is displacing coal generation, and not renewable energy, that is displacing coal within New York in 2012. New York's combined renewable energy generation from hydro and non-hydro sources was almost exactly the same in 2012, as it was in 2011, since wind's modest increase was offset by a slight decline in hydro production. As a result of the 21% increase in gas-fired generation in 2012, coal generation now accounts for less than 4% of the power generated within New York.

Offshore Wind Links Offshore wind will compete with fossil fuels and meets electricity demand Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind & Water Power Program and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, February 2011, “A National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/ national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf, Accessed 5/13/2014 High electricity costs in coastal regions, more energetic wind regimes offshore, and close proximity of offshore wind resources to major electricity demand centers could allow offshore wind to compete relatively quickly with fossil fuel‐based electricity generation in many coastal areas. The 28 coastal and Great Lakes states in the continental United States use 78% of the nation’s electricity while facing higher retail electricity rates than their inland neighbors (Figure 3). Mid‐Atlantic and Northeastern coastal states in particular face a dual problem: high electricity costs and dependence on high‐carbon, price‐ volatile supplies of fossil fuel for generation. In states without substantial land‐based renewable resources, offshore wind deployment will be critical to meet their renewable energy standards or goals. In states with high electricity rates, offshore wind energy may quickly become cost‐competitive. Finally, the proximity of offshore wind resources to major electrical load centers minimizes the need to build new transmission capacity to serve those centers. Offshore wind would replace all coal plants Wayne Perry, Staff Writer, April 6, 2009, “Offshore Wind Power Could Replace Most Coal Plants In US, Says Salazar,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/offshore-wind-power- could_n_183593.html, Accessed 7/9/2014 If wind power were fully developed off the East Coast, windmills could generate enough electricity to replace most, if not all, the coal-fired power plants in the United States, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday. But those numbers were challenged as "overly optimistic" by a coal industry group, which noted that half the nation's electricity currently comes from coal-fired power plants.The secretary spoke at a public hearing in Atlantic City on how the nation's offshore areas can be tapped to meet America's energy needs. "The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility," he said. "It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now." Offshore wind would easily displace coal T. Caine, Staff Writer, February 6, 2012, “Sobering Fact: US Offshore Wind Potential is 4x Our Total Power Capacity,” Progressive Times, http://progressivetimes.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/sobering-fact-us-offshore-wind-potential-is-4x-our- total-power-capacity/, Accessed 7/16/2014 A new report has been issued by Wind Powering America, a Department of Energy initiative, that attempts to calculate the total potential energy to be captured off our nation’s coastlines via offshore wind farms. While erecting turbines out away from land has gathered significant support in parts of Europe, America has yet to construct a utility scale offshore wind farm despite a number of proposals remaining in the pipeline such as Cape Wind in Massachusetts. According to the report there is 4,150 GW of generating capacity potential for offshore wind in U.S. waters. If we grouped together all of the generating capacity that exists in the United States at the end of 2009 (including renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels) it would total 1,025 GW–one quarter of the capacity potential that sits off our coastlines. It is true that when it comes to renewable power production, capacity does not equal

Renewables Links Coal use will continue now but renewables will reduce consumption Ian McGregor, lecturer in management, UTS Business School at University of Technology, July 2, 2014, “Australia's coal industry needs to prepare for global climate action,” http://theconversation.com/australias-coal-industry-needs-to-prepare-for-global-climate-action-28547, Accessed 7/13/2014 At the recent midyear UN climate negotiations in Bonn, an unprecedented 60 countries (including Germany) called for a total phase-out of fossil fuels by 2050, as part of a global agreement on climate change to be concluded in Paris in 2015. Meanwhile, on tour in North America, Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared that: "For many decades at least, coal will continue to fuel human progress as an affordable, dependable energy source for wealthy and developing countries alike." But Mr Abbott’s “coal forever” scenario is only likely if we fail to develop a global agreement to tackle climate change, which could come as soon as the end of next year in Paris. Such global action would dramatically reduce the use of fossil fuels over the coming decades, particularly coal for electricity production. So, what is likely to happen to coal use and Australian coal exports in the coming decades? Energy and steel What happens to coal will depend on what the world does to address climate change. Any scenario that seriously addresses climate change will lead to reduced use of coal, particularly thermal/steam coal used to generate electricity. Most of the world’s coal production goes to electricity generation – and 41 per cent of the world’s electricity comes from coal. But renewable energy substitutes are already available and increasing becoming competitive with coal, even before significant policy measures to address climate change are introduced. In the coming decades, efforts to address climate change will likely dramatically reduce the use of coal for electricity. Renewable Energy can easily replace coal John Miller, Energy Consultant and Professional Engineer, Chemical Engineering/Chemistry degrees from U.C. Davis and MBA from Saint Mary's College/U.C. Berkeley, July 31, 2012, “Can We Replace U.S. Coal Power with Clean Energy?,” http://theenergycollective.com/ jemillerep/98281/costs-replace-us- coal-power-clean-energy, Accessed 7/14/2014 Coal accounts for 42% of total U.S. net power generation today. A very feasible strategy to quickly and substantially reducing U.S. CO2 emissions is replacing most or all of the coal consumed within the Electric Power Sector. The Power Sector consumes the vast majority of U.S. coal in about 600 power plants across the U.S. Replacing coal power with clean energy or clean power also provides an excellent synergy for reducing future Transportation Sector CO2 emissions. For future EV’s to eventually become ‘zero emission vehicles’ (ZEV’s) requires substantial reductions in fossil fuels used to generate U.S. electric power. Replacing all coal with clean power facilitates the actual development of future ZEV fleets. Coal becomes displaced by renewable energies Global Research, March 23, 2014, “Replacing Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power with Renewable Energy: Wind, Solar and Hydro Power,” Centre for Research on Globalization, http://www.globalresearch.ca/replacing-fossil-fuel-and-nuclear-power-with-renewable-energy-wind- solar-and-hydro-power/5375036, Accessed 7/13/2014 The big oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies claim that we need those energy sources in order to power America. Good news: it’s a myth. Mark Diesendorf – Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW at the University of New South Wales – notes: The deniers and scoffers

SMRs Links SMRs cause coal plant retirement Marcus King, Associate Director of Research, Associate Research Professor of International Affairs, Elliot School of International Affairs, The George Washington University, et al., March 2011, “Feasibility of Nuclear Power on U.S. Military Installations,” http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/Nuclear%20Power%20on%20Military%20Installations %20D0023932%20A5.pdf SMRs have potential advantages over larger plants because they provide owners more flexibility in financing, siting, sizing, and end-use applications. SMRs can reduce an owner's initial capital outlay or investment because of the lower plant capital cost. Modular components and factory fabrication can reduce construction costs and schedule duration. Additional modules can be added incrementally as demand for power increases. SMRs can provide power for applications where large plants are not needed or may not have the necessary infrastructure to support a large unit such as smaller electrical markets, isolated areas, smaller grids, or restricted water or acreage sites. Several domestic utilities have expressed considerable interest in SMRs as potential replacements for aging fossil plants to increase their fraction of non-carbon-emitting generators. Approximately 80 percent of the 1174 total operating U.S. coal plants have power outputs of less than 500 MWe; 100 percent of coal plants that are more than 50 years old have capacities below 500 MWe [3]. SMRs would be a viable replacement option for these plants. SMR expansion would be quick and displace retire coal plants Robert Rosner, the William E. Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics and Physics at the University of Chicago and Stephen Goldberg, Special Asst. to the Dir. at Argonne National Laboratory, December 14, 2011, “Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.,” http://epic.uchicago.edu/sites/epic.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/ SMRWhite_Paper_Dec.14.2011copy.pdf, Accessed 7/12/2014 As stated earlier, SMRs have the potential to achieve significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. They could provide alternative baseload power generation to facilitate the retirement of older, smaller, and less efficient coal generation plants that would, otherwise, not be good candidates for retrofitting carbon capture and storage technology. They could be deployed in regions of the U.S. and the world that have less potential for other forms of carbon-free electricity, such as solar or wind energy. There may be technical or market constraints, such as projected electricity demand growth and transmission capacity, which would support SMR deployment but not GW-scale LWRs. From the on-shore manufacturing perspective, a key point is that the manufacturing base needed for SMRs can be developed domestically. Thus, while the large commercial LWR industry is seeking to transplant portions of its supply chain from current foreign sources to the U.S., the SMR industry offers the potential to establish a large domestic manufacturing base building upon already existing U.S. manufacturing infrastructure and capability, including the Naval shipbuilding and underutilized domestic nuclear component and equipment plants. The study team learned that a number of sustainable domestic jobs could be created – that is, the full panoply of design, manufacturing, supplier, and construction activities – if the U.S. can establish itself as a credible and substantial designer and manufacturer of SMRs.

SMRs will replace coal plants Matthew Wald, February 12, 2011, “Administration to Push for Small ‘Modular’ Reactors”, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/science/earth/13nuke.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Accessed 7/15/2014 The Obama administration’s 2012 budget proposal will include a request for money to help develop small “modular” reactors that would be owned by a utility and would supply electricity to a government lab, people involved in the effort say. The department is hoping for $500 million over five years, half of the estimated cost to complete two designs and secure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval. The reactors would be built almost entirely in a factory and trucked to a site like modular homes. In promoting the reactor, the administration’s immediate goal is to help the Energy Department meet a federal target for reducing its carbon dioxide emissions by relying more on clean energy and less on gas and coal. Like other federal agencies, the department is required by an executive order to reduce its carbon footprint by 28 percent by 2020. Yet the longer-term goal is to foster assembly-line production of the small reactors at a far lower cost than construction of conventional reactors. The reactors could even replace old coal-fired power plants that are threatened by new federal emissions rules and sit on sites that already have grid connections and cooling water.

Tidal Power Links Expanding tidal power displaces coal consumption Ocean Energy Council, 2014, “Tidal Energy,” http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean- energy/tidal-energy/, Accessed 7/12/2014 The demand for electricity on an electrical grid varies with the time of day. The supply of electricity from a tidal power plant will never match the demand on a system. But, due to the lunar cycle and gravity, tidal currents, although variable, are reliable and predictable and their power can make a valuable contribution to an electrical system which has a variety of sources. Tidal electricity can be used to displace electricity which would otherwise be generated by fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas) fired power plants, thus reducing emissions of greenhouse and acid gasses.

Wave Power Links Wave power has huge potential to displace fossil fuels and will soon be economically feasible Global Site Plans, Staff Writer, May 14, 2013, an environmental marketing firm, “Tidal Wave Energy: Is it Ecologically Sustainable?,” http://www.globalsiteplans.com/environmental-design/tidal-wave- energy-is-it-ecologically-sustainable/, Accessed 7/13/2014 Global energy demand continues to grow and tidal wave energy generation devices can provide a significant source of renewable energy. Technological developments in offshore engineering, and the rising cost of traditional energy, means that offshore energy resources will be economic in the next few years. Tidal wave energy is a form of hydropower that converts the energy of tides into useful forms of power – mainly electricity. Although not yet widely used, tidal power has potential for future electricity generation. Tides are more predictable than wind energy and solar power, as there can be bigger variances in the amount and levels of sunlight and wind.

Internal Links

Reducing coal dependence increases exports U.S. coal exports to China are low, but downward pressure on domestic demand expands them massively Bryan Walsh, Senior Editor at TIME, May 31, 2012, “Drawing Battle Lines Over American Coal Exports to Asia,” Time, http://science.time.com/2012/05/31/drawing-battle-lines-over-american-coal-exports- to-asia/, Accessed 7/13/2014 But across the Pacific Ocean, the demand for coal has never been hotter, with China burning 4.1 billion tons in 2010 alone, far more than any other country in the world. That insatiable demand forced China in 2009 to become a net coal importer for the first time, in part because congested rail infrastructure raised the cost of transporting coal from the mines of the country’s northwest to its booming southern cities. In April, Chinese coal imports nearly doubled from a year earlier. Right now Australia and Indonesia supply much of China’s foreign coal. U.S. coal from the Powder River Basin could be a perfect addition to the Chinese market. Montana and Wyoming are just short train trips to ports on the Pacific Northwest coast, and from there it’s a container ship away from Asian megacities where coal doesn’t have to compete with cheap natural gas and air-pollution regulations are far weaker than in the U.S. To a wounded Big Coal, China is a potential savior. As I write in the new edition of TIME, there’s just one problem: right now, ports on the West Coast lack the infrastructure needed to transfer coal from railcars into container ships. (Just 7 million of the 107 million tons of U.S.-exported coal left the country via Pacific Ocean ports last year.) That’s why coal companies like Peabody and Ambre Energy are ready to spend millions to build coal-export facilities at a handful of ports in Washington and Oregon. If all those plans go forward, as much as 150 million tons of coal could be exported from the Northwest annually—- nearly all of it coming from the Powder -River -Basin and headed to Asia. Even if the U.S. kept burning less and less coal at home, it would have a reason to keep mining it. Declining US coal demand forces companies export to China, reversing their trend toward alternatives & efficiency Thomas M. Power PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana, February 2012, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/ 2012/02/Coal-Power-White- Paper.pdf, Accessed 7/15/2014 As the use of coal to generate power in the United States has declined, coal companies have increasingly turned their attention to the export market, particularly the fast-growing economies of Asia, and particularly China. Because there currently is no infrastructure that would allow coal exports from the West Coast of the United States, the growing interest in export has led to proposals to build new private coal export terminals in Washington. The first two such projects are seeking permits for infrastructure that would allow close to 110 million tons of coal export annually. For context, burning 110 million tons of Powder River Basin coal is roughly equivalent to the annual carbon emissions of 40 million cars. These projects have generated intense local and state-wide controversy, particularly given Washington State’s historic leadership in setting progressive policies intended to address greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on the global climate. Proponents of the coal export terminals consistently claim that the decision to authorize them will have no effect on the total amount of coal that is burned globally, and hence on the global climate. In their view, opening up the West Coast to the export of Powder River Basin coal will only change the source of the coal burned in Asia—not the total amount. This white paper explains why these arguments are incorrect, and inconsistent with both the basic principles of economics as well as the abundant literature regarding energy use and consumption patterns in Asia.

This paper concludes that the proposed coal export facilities in the Northwest will result in more coal consumption in Asia and undermine China’s progress towards more efficient power generation and usage. Decisions the Northwest makes now will impact Chinese energy habits for the next half-century; the lower coal prices afforded by Northwest coal exports encourage burning coal and discourage the investments in energy efficiency that China has already undertaken. Approving proposed coal export facilities would also undermine Washington State’s commitment to reducing its own share of greenhouse gas emissions.

Reducing coal dependence increases exports U.S. coal demand will grow slowly now, but declines cause a shift to Chinese exports Anthony Fensom October 23, 2012, experienced business writer and communication consultant with more than a decade's experience in the financial and media industries of Australia and Asia, “Don’t Write the Obituary Just Yet: ‘King Coal’ Still Reigns,” The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/pacific- money/2012/10/23/despite-short-term-pain-king-coal-still-reigns/, Accessed 7/13/2014 “ Mining companies have been crunching the numbers on their operations, taking into account the lower coal prices and rising costs such as labor, transport and new government charges. "Margins are being squeezed so mine management teams are taking a worst case scenario. If there were to be further softening of prices then you would expect further cutbacks in the future,” he said. According to Caruana, the fall in prices was attributed to both slowing growth in the eurozone and China, along with the entry of the United States and Indonesia into the coal export market.“U.S. coal producers have sought out export markets such as China and India because their domestic market has slowed down and it has been switching to gas for power generation. Indonesia has ramped up coal production and exports of thermal coal to supply the Chinese market over the last few years,” he said. US dependence on coal is high now. Without, industry success depends on exports Hely Olivares, Staff Writer, 2014, “Why we can't break up,” Powering a nation, http://unc.news21.com/index.php/new-stories/333.html, Accessed 7/15/2014 The prospect of cheap electricity is the sparkle that draws our eye to coal. Coal is a major player in assuring Americans enjoy some of the lowest costs of electricity among the world's industrialized nations. The price of producing coal-fired electricity is less than any alternative source of energy, including other fossil fuels like natural gas, and renewable sources like wind. Natural gas is the closest subsitute for coal. Although some natural gas plants are more efficient than coal plants at generating electricity, the cost of generating one kilowatt-hour of electricity from natural gas is generally higher than that of coal. Of the 25 most cost-effective plants in the U.S., 22 operate with coal. Coal deposits are readily accessible for extracting through traditional underground mines, strip mining or mountaintop removal sites. The industry's recent shift from the Appalachian region to the West, where coal is easier to extract and more abundant, has helped keep energy costs low. With coal being so available, its commercial success depends on the industry's capacity to improve mining logistics and develop reliable routes to transport it to markets. The following table illustrates the consistency of coal prices over time, in contrast to the highly volatile behavior of gas prices.

Exports will go to China China will be the biggest market for U.S. coal exports Hely Olivares, Staff Writer, 2014, “Why we can't break up,” Powering a nation, http://unc.news21.com/index.php/new-stories/333.html, Accessed 7/15/2014 Lately, coal has been pursued by a group of rich admirers, such as China, India and other emerging economies. The opening of export markets has put U.S. coal producers in a long-term position to cash in on the global appetite for electric power. Worldwide, coal has been the fastest-growing fuel used for electricity since 2000, particularly because of an increased demand for power from China and India. In India, for example, 70 percent of electricity is generated from coal. Similarly, it is estimated that 83 percent of China's electricity is coal-fired. To support this growth, China's demand for coal increased 185 percent in the last decade. China is now the globe's biggest buyer of coal and is responsible for almost half of global consumption. U.S. coal companies perceive exports to China as key to profits Thomas M. Power PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana, February 2012, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/ 2012/02/Coal-Power-White- Paper.pdf, Accessed 7/15/2014 Thus far, U.S. coal companies have emphasized to their investors that they believe that they can deliver western U.S. coal to East Asia more cheaply than Australia can and more cheaply than northern and western domestic Chinese coal can be delivered to China’s southeastern coastal population and industrial centers. U.S. coal producers expect to under-bid existing East Asian supplies and reap significant profits. Of course, Ambre Energy, Arch Coal, and Peabody Energy will not be the only western North American coal companies seeking to enter the East Asian coal market and compete for a significant market share. The Port Metro Vancouver (British Columbia) terminals are planning significant expansions as is the Ridley Terminal in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, to serve East Asian countries with coal. Alaska coal mines are planning expansion including the building of new coal ports to serve the same markets. U.S. coal producers are chomping at the bit to export coal to China Luiza Savage, Bureau Chief at Macleans, June 13, 2014, “America’s plan to ship coal supplies to China,” http://coalfreegorge.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/americas-plan-to-ship-coal-supplies-to- china/, Accessed 7/14/2014 Shipping coal to China could wipe out the benefits of Obama’s climate-change policy. The centrepiece of Barack Obama’s climate policy, announced this month, limits greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants largely by cutting the country’s reliance on coal. The policy was touted as a major piece of the President’s environmental legacy but it raised an important question: what will happen to America’s coal—the largest recoverable reserves in the world? It’s a question that could soon have an answer. With coal demand at home expected to fall by 20 per cent due to new regulations, and competitive pressure from low-priced natural gas, coal companies are now pushing to increase exports to Asia. China in particular consumes almost half of the world’s coal—and in recent years demand has soared. Three new coal-export ports are being proposed for the Pacific coast: two in Washington state and one in Oregon. They could eventually ship up to 100 million tons of coal per year—an amount equivalent to the total volume of coal the U.S. will export this year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). “We view the Northwest port terminals as advantageous locations for exports to Asia—the most

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 342 efficient location for exporting to countries that are going to be generating strong demand for coal,” says Nancy Gravatt, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, the U.S. industry group. Top Asian destinations are China, South Korea, India and Japan.

Exports will go to China Rising Asia demand is a green light for US exports Thomas M. Power PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana, February 2012, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/ 2012/02/Coal-Power-White- Paper.pdf, Accessed 7/15/2014 This section explores that theoretical possibility. It will conclude that in reality this will not happen to any significant degree because coal use is stabilizing in the United States and other OECD countries for reasons that are largely unrelated to coal prices but tied to increasing environmental concerns and regulation associated with coal combustion. While coal-fired electric capacity in the U.S. is decreasing in order to improve environmental performance and not primarily in response to coal prices, coal-fired electric capacity in Asia is expanding dramatically. Therefore, shifting supply to Asia provides an economic “green light” in the economies where coal-burning infrastructure is most likely to be developed, with large impacts on emissions that last for decades.

A2: EPA rule reduces coal EPA rules will not reduce coal consumption Christopher Helman, Staff Writer, June 2, 2014, “EPA Issues Coal-Killing Rules To Cut Carbon Emissions 30 Percent,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/06/02/obama-epa-issues-coal-killing-rules-to- cut-carbon-emissions-30-percent/, Accessed 7/13/2014 Will these rules kill coal? Not any time soon. That’s because America simply uses too much coal for us to get rid of it quickly. According to the Energy Information Administration, the amount of energy that the nation gets from burning coal is nine times what we get from solar and wind, combined. Eliminating coal from the power generation mix without replacing it with other baseload electricity sources would lead to blackouts during times of peak demand in summer and winter. Policies that cause Grandma to freeze to death usually don’t last long. In fact, there’s good reason to believe that now is the time to buy coal.

Impacts

Exports reverse Chinese trend toward renewables Shifting exports to China lowers prices and increases consumption, which causes a shift away from alternative energy Thomas M. Power PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana, February 2012, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/ 2012/02/Coal-Power-White- Paper.pdf, Accessed 7/15/2014 In the previous sections of this report, we have dealt with a set of interconnected economic arguments that have been used by some to suggest that exporting Powder River Basin coal through West Coast ports will have no impact on Asian coal consumption. We have showed that that will not be the economic outcome because PRB coal can gain market share in Asia only by underselling existing suppliers including domestic Chinese coal suppliers. Firms like Arch and Peabody will have to compete against other nations currently supplying Chinese markets as well as other American coal companies who will also be seeking a share of that Asian market. That competition will put downward pressure on Asian coal prices, pushing them lower than they would otherwise have been. The lower prices and costs brought on by that competition will encourage a greater commitment to coal-fired generation in Asia and will discourage the adoption of coal- and electricity-displacing improvements in technology. Asian coal consumption will be increased over what it otherwise would have been if PRB coal was not actively competing for a share of Asian coal markets. Exporting more coal to China drives down prices and scuttles the renewable industry Brad Plumer, Staff Writer, May 1, 2012, “How the U.S. could influence China’s coal habits — with exports,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/can-the-united- states-influence-chinas-coal-habits/2012/05/01/ gIQAgqUpuT_blog.html, Accessed 7/15/2014 Opening the Asian import market to dramatic increases in U.S. coal will drive down coal prices in that market. Several empirical studies of energy in China have demonstrated that coal consumption is highly sensitive to cost. One recent study found that a 10 percent reduction in coal cost would result in a 12 percent increase in coal consumption. Another found that over half of the gain in China’s “energy intensity” improvement during the 1990s was a response to prices. In other words, coal exports will mean cheaper coal in Asia, and cheaper coal means more coal will be burned than would otherwise be the case. To some extent, U.S. exports are already having an impact. Coal prices in Asia hit a 16-month low recently, thanks to an overflow of coal from the United States and Colombia. And the Pacific Northwest hasn’t even seriously ramped up its exports yet. (India is another possible market for U.S. producers: As the New York Times recently reported, Indian power companies have been trying to import coal from abroad rather than deal with India’s dysfunctional mining industry, but they’ve been deterred in the past by high prices.) Now, the global coal markets are complex and it’s still not clear exactly how important U.S. coal will prove to be for countries like India or China. As Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations points out, a lot depends on whether U.S. coal augments or displaces production from countries like Indonesia. Still, at the margins, supply and demand matters. The point of Thomas Power’s paper is that a deluge of coal from the United States will, in the end, cause Asia to use more coal. Countries like China will have less incentive to develop alternative energy sources or become more efficient. And that, in turn, will mean more heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than there otherwise would be. To put this in perspective, 150 million tons of coal produces about as much carbon dioxide as 60 million cars.

Exports reverse Chinese trend toward renewables Coal exports drive down prices and raise Chinese consumption. This guarantees long- term coal demand Thomas M. Power PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana, February 2012, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/ 2012/02/Coal-Power-White- Paper.pdf, Accessed 7/15/2014 Opening the Asian import market to dramatic increases in U.S. coal will drive down coal prices in that market. Several empirical studies of energy in China have demonstrated that coal consumption is highly sensitive to cost. One recent study found that a 10 percent reduction in coal cost would result in a 12 percent increase in coal consumption. Another found that over half of the gain in China’s “energy intensity” improvement during the 1990s was a response to prices. In other words, coal exports will mean cheaper coal in Asia, and cheaper coal means more coal will be burned than would otherwise be the case. Prices now determine energy use for decades Lower coal prices reduce the incentives to retire older, inefficient, coal-using production processes and discourage additional investments in the energy efficiency of new and existing coal-using enterprises. As those lower prices flow through to consumers, it also reduces the incentives to shift to more energy efficient appliances. Furthermore, lower coal costs will encourage investments in new coal-burning facilities in Asia—which in turn create a 30- to 50-year demand for coal.

U.S. exports increase Chinese consumption U.S. coal exports reduces prices and massively expands Chinese coal consumption Brad Plumer, Staff Writer, May 1, 2012, “How the U.S. could influence China’s coal habits — with exports,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/can-the-united- states-influence-chinas-coal-habits/2012/05/01/ gIQAgqUpuT_blog.html, Accessed 7/15/2014 So here’s a question: Would blocking these export terminals have any impact on the staggering growth in coal use in places such as China? Actually, yes: There’s some evidence that it could matter a fair bit at the margins. At first glance, it may look like the United States couldn’t possibly have much sway over China’s coal-hungry habits. China, after all, has plenty of its own coal, boasting the second-largest reserves in the world. In 2010, the country imported less than 5 percent of the coal it used from overseas. And the United States makes up a tiny sliver of this market — because of how Chinese ports and rail networks are set up, China still gets most of its imported coal from Indonesia and Australia. Still, as a recent and fascinating report (pdf) from the Carnegie Endowment explains, Chinese coal imports are likely to grow enormously in the coming years. For one, Chinese coal use has been growing at a rate of nearly 6 percent each year. And China’s domestic production can’t keep pace, thanks to railroad and shipping bottlenecks from mining centers in Shanxi, Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia provinces. What’s more, the Carnegie report notes, the Chinese government is becoming increasingly sensitive to the ecological damage wrought by domestic coal mining — as well as to the growing number of protests over unsafe mining conditions. According to official statistics, 6,027 Chinese miners died in 2004, though the real number is probably higher. There are real costs to ramping up production in China. As a result, China will likely try to import a growing share of its coal in the coming years. Much of that will likely come from Indonesia and Australia, since China’s import infrastructure is geared toward those two regions. But many analysts expect the United States to play an increasingly crucial role in coming years. (To date, the U.S. has been supplying China with just small amounts of coking coal, which is used for iron and steel production and which is less readily available in China.) And if American coal starts pouring into China, that will help keep prices down. If that happens, Chinese power plants and factories will burn even more coal and use the stuff less efficiently than they otherwise would. Grist’s David Roberts points to a recent paper (pdf) by Thomas M. Power, a former economics professor at the University of Montana, finding that Chinese coal habits are highly sensitive to prices. Coal exports to Asia lock in consumption for 50 years Thomas M. Power PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana, February 2012, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/02/Coal-Power-White- Paper.pdf, Accessed 7/15/2014 The conclusion I draw from this analysis is that the PRB coal exports facilitated by the proposed coal ports will reduce the price of coal to Asian markets, the cost of using coal there, and the long-term price and supply risks that planners take into account when making long-term energy infrastructure investment decisions. Coal export will encourage the continued, rapid expansion of coal-fired electric generation capacity. Consequently, as I discuss in Section 6 below, the impacts of coal export will be much larger than the annual capacity of the port facilities would suggest, because it will encourage investments in new coal-burning facilities in Asia and their associated 30-50 year combustion of coal.

Reducing Chinese consumption is key to warming Chinese emissions are enough to cause extinction John Copeland Nagle, the John N. Matthews Professor, Notre Dame Law School, Spring 2011, “How Much Should China Pollute?,” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 12 Vt. J. Envtl. L. 591, http://www2.law.mercer.edu/elaw/Nagle%20China.docx, Accesssed 7/11/2014 Third, the rest of the world suffers because of the inability of China and the United States to agree on a method for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Even if the rest of the world were to reach such an agreement, the failure to include China and the United States would doom the project from the start. Together, China and the United States account for forty-one percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Left unchecked, China's emissions alone could result in many of the harms associated with climate change. That is why many observers believe that “[t]he decisions taken in Beijing, more than anywhere else, [will] determine whether humanity thrive[s] or perishe[s].” Reducing China coal consumption key to prevent 2°C global warming Emily Atkin, reporter for Climate Progress, May 12, 2014, “Stopping Climate Change ‘Almost Impossible’ If China Can’t Quit Coal, Report Says,” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/12/3436673/coal-dependent-china/, Accessed 7/13/2014 If China doesn’t begin to limit its coal consumption by 2030, it will be “almost impossible” for the world avoid a situation where global warming stays below 2°C, a new study released Monday found. The study, led by the U.K.’s Center for Climate Change Economics and Policy and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, recommends China put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from coal by 2020, and then swiftly reduce its dependency on the fossil fuel. The reductions would not only increase public health and wellness and decrease climate change, but could also “have a major positive effect on the global dynamics of climate cooperation,” the report said. “The actions China takes in the next decade will be critical for the future of China and the world,” the study said. “Whether China moves onto an innovative, sustainable and low-carbon growth path this decade will more or less determine both China’s longer-term economic prospects in a natural resource-constrained world, … and the world’s prospects of cutting greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to manage the grave risks of climate change.” (ellipses in original) Increasing coal exports to China dramatically increase consumption and warming Thomas M. Power PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Montana, February 2012, “The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast: An Economic Analysis,” http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/ 2012/02/Coal-Power-White- Paper.pdf, Accessed 7/15/2014 Significant exports of PRB coal to Asia from the West Coast will not trigger decreases in domestic coal consumption that will offset the massive increases in coal consumption in Asia caused by those exports. Coal consumption in the United States is not constrained by coal costs but by the environmental costs associated with coal combustion. However, coal consumption in Asia is expanding rapidly, so shifting PRB supplies to Asia moves them from a flat or declining market to a rapidly expanding market, facilitating the ongoing rapid expansion of coal combustion in China. By relaxing coal supply constraints in China, this effectively encourages higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions with accompanying climate change implications.

China accounts for half of global coal consumption Bill Chameides, Dean, Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment, February 18, 2013, “Old Wang Coal?,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/old-wang- coal_b_2711152.html, Accessed 7/16/2014 Because coal is cheap and abundant, it is one of the world's most widely used fuels. In 2008, the Energy Information Administration reports, "coal accounted for 28 percent of world energy consumption." But China's coal dependence is considerably larger -- accounting for about 70 percent of its total energy production and forming the very backbone of its economy. And so, as China's economy has grown (at an annual GDP rate of about 10.5 percent since 2000), so has its consumption of coal, which has increased by an average of nine percent per year over the same period. By comparison, average coal demand growth for the rest of the world has been about one percent per year. In 2011, China accounted for 87 percent of the global increase in coal consumption, and now accounts for almost one half of all the coal consumed in the world. To put it in its starkest terms, as per the EIA: "China consumes nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined."

China Coal Shift DA Answers

No internal link – China won’t import U.S. coal China will significantly reduce coal consumption now with no room for U.S. exports James Conca, Staff Writer, June 8, 2014, “Hurray For EPA Carbon Rules!,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ 2014/06/08/hurray-for-epa-carbon-rules/, Accessed 7/14/2014 However, China is also planning a significant reduction in coal. China’s present Five-Year Plan calls for a 17% reduction in carbon intensity (emissions per GDP), and installation of 75 GW of new renewables and 40 GW of new nuclear (China Plan). China’s recent $400 billion agreement with Russia for natural gas imports assures that China will meet those goals. Thus, China is not an easy target for new American coal exports. New markets will be the developing regions of southern Asia and Africa where delivery of natural gas is difficult and coal, unfortunately, is projected to be the major energy source for the next fifty years. New Energy Deal between Russia and China means the United States exports get crowded out Jane Perlez, Staff Writer, May 21, 2014, “China and Russia Reach 30-Year Gas Deal,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/world/asia/china-russia-gas-deal.html?_r=0, Accessed 7/15/2014 China and Russia signed a $400 billion gas deal on Wednesday, giving Moscow a megamarket for its leading export and linking two major powers that, despite a rocky history of alliances and rivalries, have drawn closer to counter the clout of the United States and Europe. The impetus to complete the gas deal, which has been talked about as a game-changing accord for more than a decade, finally came together after the Ukrainian crisis forced Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, to urgently seek an alternative to Europe, Moscow’s main energy market. Europe has slapped sanctions on Russia and sought ways to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. Mr. Putin, on a two-day visit to Shanghai, and the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, oversaw the signing of the contract between Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corporation, the biggest natural gas deal Russia has sealed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The contract runs for 30 years and calls for the construction of pipelines and other infrastructure that will require tens of billions of dollars in investment.

No Link – The plan assumes oil Less than 1% of U.S. electricity comes from oil Institute for Energy Research, September 19, 2012 , “National Resources Defense Council makes flawed case for PTC,” http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49668, Accessed 7/16/2014 But when it comes to foreign trade, an even worse problem is NRDC’s suggestion that expanding wind power will somehow change America’s consumption of oil. [1] This is simply nonsense. Electricity is primarily produced by coal, natural gas and nuclear power, not oil. Oil produces much less than 1% of our electricity. If the federal government wants to reduce the importation of oil from hostile regimes, it should expand access to domestic fossil fuels and stop hobbling trade with Canada. Given oil’s role in electrical generation, the only way NRDC could be right about America’s consumption of oil is if, via their policies pushing expensive and unreliable green energy, U.S. consumers are spending so much on their utility and tax bills that they have less money to buy gasoline. Oil generates less than 1% of electricity in USA EIA 6/27/14 U.S. Energy Information Administration, FAQ, http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm? id=427&t=3, Accessed 7/16/2014 In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal. In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were • Coal 39% • Natural Gas

27% • Nuclear 19% • Hydropower 7% • Other Renewable 6% • Biomass 1.48% • Geothermal 0.41% • Solar 0.23% • Wind 4.13% • Petroleum 1% • Other Gases < 1%.

No Link / Non-Unique – Natural Gas is replacing coal Lower prices means Natural gas will replace coal with plant retirements Mayur Sontakke, Staff Writer, July 8, 2014, “Overview: Impact of the shale gas revolution on the coal industry,” Market Realist, http://marketrealist.com/2014/07/overview-coal-industry-us/, Accessed 7/17/2014 Over the past decade, companies have invested heavily in extracting gas trapped in the shale rock formations thousands of meters below the earth’s surface. The process wasn’t viable economically until the start of 21st century. Technological developments in drilling and fracturing made shale gas extraction an attractive investment proposition for these companies. This led to the boom in shale gas production starting mid-2000s, which led to sharp decline in gas prices in the U.S. Shale gas is now the biggest contributor to the overall natural gas production in the U.S. According to the projections of U.S. Energy Information Administration (or EIA), shale gas production is expected to continue to grow in the coming years. As a result, the use of natural gas for electricity generation will grow as older coal-fired power plants are retired and replaced. Natural gas fired plants will take the cost benefits and reduce carbon emission. Natural gas supply gains is easing prices Naureen S. Malik, Staff Writer, July 14, 2014, “Natural Gas Supply Gains Keep Driving Bulls From Market,” Bloomberg News, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-13/natural-gas-supply-gains-keep-driving-bulls-from- market-energy.html, Accessed 7/17/2014 Twelve weeks of above-average gains in U.S. natural gas supply are easing concern over winter fuel shortages and spurring speculators to cut their bets on rising prices. Hedge funds reduced net-long positions by 8.1 percent in the week ended July 8, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission said. Bullish wagers have fallen 43 percent from February and gas dropped last week to a six-month low, wiping out an advance of as much as 53 percent after frigid weather pushed consumption to a record. Stockpiles more than doubled from an 11-year low in March as mild weather curbed power-plant demand and output expanded for the ninth straight year. Storage rose more than 100 billion cubic feet for eight weeks in a row, the longest streak of triple-digit increases in government data going back 20 years. “It looks like the market is going to be in balance heading into the winter,” Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research in Winchester, Massachusetts, said by phone July 11. “The combination of modest summer weather and robust drilling has let people believe that inventory will grow to normal levels.” Natural gas is not key. Coal is recovering in the U.S. Reuters, Staff Writer, December 7, 2012, "Coal prices to rise on increased Chinese, U.S. demand – Deutsche," www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/energy-coal-prices-idUSL5E8N76W120121207, Accessed 7/15/2014 But Deutsche Bank said that higher gas demand in the U.S. would push American gas prices up, leading to a reduction of U.S. coal exports, while Chinese demand for coal imports would rise, further supporting coal prices. "Therefore, while the outlook in the next month is ambiguous, the second half of 2013 provides clearer signals for an improvement in thermal coal fundamentals next year," the bank said.

Natural gas will replace coal as the #1 energy source by 2038 Katherine Tweed, Staff Writer, July 17, 2013, “Forecast: Natural Gas, Not Renewables, Will Replace Coal as King,” Green Tech Media, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Natural-Gas-Not- Renewables-Will-Replace-Coal-As-King, Accessed 7/17/2014 A mid-year report on the energy market by Black & Veatch forecasts that 58.7 gigawatts of coal will be retired by 2020. The bulk of the retirements will actually come in the next two years in the eastern portion of the U.S. The projection does not take into account President Obama’s most recent calls for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which could make the retirement figure go even higher. It will still take decades for coal to be dethroned in the U.S., but Black & Veatch projects that by 2038, coal-fired power plants will only make up 12.5 percent of power generation capacity, with combined cycle taking the lion’s share of generation at 40 percent. “Coal has a myriad of challenges right now,” said Ann Donnelly, director of Fuels for Black & Veatch's management consulting division. When Black & Veatch assessed the fuels by market share of electricity consumption, the move away from coal becomes starker. By 2038, the natural gas market share of electricity consumption jumps to 56 percent, while coal drops by half to 21 percent. According to plans from regional grid operators, gas will be the clear replacement, but renewables and demand response will also get a piece of the pie.

No Link / Non-Unique – Renewables Over half of all new electricity generation comes from renewables Solar Industry, Staff Writer, June 24, 2014, “Renewable Energy Dominates New U.S. Capacity In May,” Solar Industry Magazine, http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php? content.14265, Accessed 7/17/2014 Renewable energy, including wind, solar, biomass and hydropower, provided 88.2% of new installed U.S. electrical generating capacity for the month of May, according to the latest Energy Infrastructure Update report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Citing the FERC statistics, renewable energy advocacy group the SUN DAY Campaign says two new "units" of wind power provided 203 MW, five units of solar provided 156 MW, one unit of biomass provided 5 MW, and one unit of hydropower provided 0.2 MW. By comparison, two new units of natural gas provided just 49 MW, while no new capacity was provided by coal, oil or nuclear power. Thus, for the month, SUN DAY says renewables provided more than seven times the amount of new capacity as that from fossil fuels and nuclear power. For the first five months of 2014, renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, solar, water and wind) accounted for 54.1% of the 3,136 MW of new domestic electrical generation installed. This was made up of solar (907 MW), wind (678 MW), biomass (73 MW), geothermal steam (32 MW) and hydro (8 MW). Consumption of renewables is on the rise and will continue U.S. Energy Information Agency, Staff Writer, June 10, 2014, “Short-Term Energy Outlook,” http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/renew_co2.cfm, Accessed 7/17/2014 EIA projects total renewables consumption for electricity and heat generation will grow by 2.9% in 2014. Conventional hydropower is projected to increase by 0.5%, while nonhydropower renewables rise by 4.2%. In 2015, total renewables consumption for electric power and heat generation increases an additional 3.4%, as a result of a 2.2% increase in hydropower and a 4.0% increase in nonhydropower renewables. EIA estimates that wind power capacity will increase by 7.3% in 2014 and 14.0% in 2015. Electricity generation from wind is projected to contribute 4.5% of total electricity generation in 2015. EIA expects continued robust growth in solar electricity generation, although the amount of utility-scale generation remains a small share of total U.S. generation at about 0.5% in 2015. While solar growth has historically been concentrated in customer-sited distributed generation installations, utility-scale solar capacity doubled in 2013. EIA expects that utility-scale solar capacity will increase by 57% between the end of 2013 and the end of 2015. About 70% of this new capacity is being built in California. However, customer-sited photovoltaic capacity growth, which the STEO does not forecast, is expected to exceed utility-scale solar growth between 2013 and 2015, according to EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2014.

Non-Unique – Exports are inevitable New regulations mean that U.S. consumption will decline now and exports will rise Nicolas Loris, Staff Writer, May 27, 2013, “A Win for Coal Exports, American Jobs,” Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2013/06/27/ a-win-for-coal-exports-american-jobs/, Accessed 7/16/2014 The Obama Administration has imposed a laundry list of new regulations on the coal industry, making it increasingly difficult to mine coal and to build and operate coal-fired power plants, which are critical to providing Americans with affordable electricity. Although the President continued his attack on coal in his recent climate speech, one bright spot for the coal industry is that exports continue to climb, creating jobs and wealth in the process. While some politicians, the Environmental Protection Agency, and environmental activists want to make exporting coal more difficult, the Army Corps of Engineers, the lead agency in permitting coal-export facilities, has refused to block construction of export terminals in Oregon and Washington. Coal exports high now and going to Europe Tim Maverick, Staff Writer, July 2, 2014, “The Resurrection of Dirty Coal,” Wall Street Daily, http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2014/ 07/02/us-coal-investing/, Accessed 7/16/2014 In May, I told readers that U.S. coal was finding a home in Europe. U.S. coal exports this year are expected to exceed 100 million tons (mt) for the third consecutive year – a record run. Nearly half that amount – about 47 mt – was imported into Europe in 2013. And that represented a drastic rise from 13.6 mt in 2003. The UK alone increased its U.S. coal imports 10-fold during that timeframe. Even Germany saw its imports of U.S. coal rise – from under one mt to more than 15 mt during that decade. U.S. thermal coal is just too cheap to resist for many European utilities. U.S. coal plants are closing and exports are going to Europe not China Phil Flynn, Staff Writer, May 22, 2014, “U.S. Coal Exports To Europe Surge,” http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/05/22/coal-exports-europe, Accessed 7/11/2014 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is clamping down on coal-fired power plants, requiring them to reduce sulfur and ash pollution. That and the abundance of cheap natural gas have led to low domestic demand. But U.S. coal exports to Europe have been booming in recent years. Europe is attracted to the low cost of coal and favors high-sulfur coal, found in states including Illinois and Indiana. Europe is also trying to wean itself off its reliance on Russian gas, due to the crisis in Ukraine. The use of high-sulfur coal in Europe has angered environmentalist there who had hoped to wean the E.U. off dirty energy sources.

Non-Unique – Exports to China inevitable Multiple factors make higher U.S. coal exports to Asia inevitable EconMatters, Staff Writer, June 24, 2014, “Coal: A ‘Million Dollar Mile’ Getting Longer In the U.S.,” Fuel Fix, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/06/24/coal-a-million-dollar-mile-getting-longer-in-the-u-s/, Accessed 7/16/2014 With cheap domestic natural gas prices and tighter environmental regulations, U.S. demand for coal has fallen in recent years. So coal export has become ever more important to domestic coal producers. With accelerating growth in economy and power demand, Asia is the obvious new export target for U.S. coal. U.S. coal shipments outside the country in 2014 are expected to surpass 100 million tons for the third year (see chart below).

Non-Unique - China coal consumption high now China’s Coal Consumption is high now Brook Hays June 16, 2014, “Worldwide coal consumption reaches 44-year high,” United Press International, http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2014/06/16/Worldwide-coal-consumption-reaches- 44-year-high/1341402950352/, Accessed 7/15/2014 Although renewables continue to grow, especially wind and solar, they can't keep up with cheaper and more popular competitors like coal. Americans -- who sit on the largest coal reserves in the world -- are using less coal, thanks to the abundance of cheaper shale gas. But the U.S. is still producing and exporting the fuel to Europe and Asia in huge amounts, chiefly China and India. Though China's energy consumption growth rate declined slightly, BP report authors pointed out that "the country still accounted for 67 percent of global growth." "India experienced its second largest volumetric increase on record and accounted for 21% of global growth," economists at BP wrote. Coal is now challenging oil for the tile of world's most popular energy source. Though oil still accounts for the largest slice of the world's energy pie, at 33 percent, its the least popular its been in years. China’s dependence on coal is still high now David Bierdman, June 28, 2014, “Coal Fuels China’s Economic Growth, Enables Americans’ Enjoyment Thereof,” http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/06/coal-fuels-chinas-economic-growth-enables- americans-enjoyment-thereof/, Accessed 7/15/2014 China, which exports more manufactured goods than any other country in the world, consumed more than half of the coal used globally in 2013; and the country obtained over 67 percent of its total energy from coal, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Thanks largely to the abundance and affordability of coal, China is the world’slargest exporter of telecommunications equipment, electronic data processing equipment, office equipment, textiles, and clothing. China also manufactures over 58 percent of global steel exports—and the steel industry uses enormous quantities of coal. (Ironically, coal-driven China is also a world leader in the export of so-called “green” products such as solar panels and rare earth metals used in solar panels, wind turbines, catalytic converters, battery packs, and the electric motors of hybrid and electric vehicles.) Coal is fueling the giant producer of Asia and enabling many of China’s 1.3 billion people to overcome crushing poverty. Goods marked “made in China” might as well be marked, “Made possible by coal.” Americans who use and enjoy products made in China— that is,all Americans—should celebrate this life-serving fossil fuel, as it makes such goods possible.

Non-Unique - China is reducing imports now China is set to cut imports from other nations with new mining Luiza Savage, Bureau Chief, June 10, 2014, “America’s Dirty Secret,” Macleans, http://www.macleans.ca/authors/luiza-ch-savage/america-plans-to-ship-coal-supplies-to-china/, Accessed 7/14/2014 Chinese coal consumption will grow by an average of two per cent per year through 2040. But more recently, China’s coal market seems to be changing. Under pressure from middle-class citizens angry about the health effects of staggering air pollution, Chinese authorities have been announcing plans to cut emissions and to move to cleaner fuels, such as natural gas and nuclear energy. Some financial firms are now arguing that Chinese coal demand is uncertain. The Wall Street analysis firm Bernstein Research published a bearish report last year with the ominous subtitle, “The beginning of the end of coal,” predicting that China could stop importing coal as early as next year and begin reducing overall coal consumption by 2016. “All industrialized economies reach the point where the collective decision is made that—while cheap sneakers are nice—it is better to have someone else pollute their air, their water and their soil in order to produce the high-tops. China—at least coastal China—has reached that point. The coal sector is, in coming years, the biggest loser from this development,” the analysts wrote. The report also noted that as China grows wealthier, the service sector, which uses one-sixth the energy of manufacturing, has grown from 39 per cent of the economy in 2000 to 45 per cent in 2012. Citigroup’s research arm put out a similarly pessimistic report, warning of “Peak coal in China” and arguing that “significant shifts in China’s economy and power sector are now under way that demand a reassessment of Chinese coal’s perpetual climb.” The economist Power says China, formerly a net exporter of coal, is once again set to supply more of its own coal thanks to a massive transformation of its mining sector. “These were household or village-like coal mines, thousands of them. It was dirty, primitive and dangerous—literally people carrying coal out in baskets on their heads,” he says. China has recently built large mines with modern safety standards, he says.

Non-Unique – Coal plants retiring now Natural gas, renewables, and nuclear will replace coal plants by 2030 James Conca, Staff Writer, June 8, 2014, “Hurray For EPA Carbon Rules!,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/ 2014/06/08/hurray-for-epa-carbon-rules/, Accessed 7/14/2014 Because half of our existing coal plants will be pretty old by 2030, it’s just a matter of planning their replacement with a combination of gas, renewables and new nuclear. This is exactly what we have been doing over the last ten years, and why our carbon emissions have fallen as much as they have (Time). The EPA rules only formalize the ongoing transition from coal to gas that is occurring. U.S. coal plants are being retired now Michael Hahn and Patrick Gilman, Navigant Consulting, Inc., October 17, 2013, Offshore Wind Market and Economic Analysis, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_wind_market_and_ economic_analysis.pdf, Accessed 7/13/2014 In recent years, some electric utilities in the United States have announced plans to retire coal-fired power plants or to convert them to natural gas. Navigant analysis reveals executed and planned retirements through 2017 that exceed 37 GW. There are multiple factors involved in these retirement decisions. Many of the United States’ coal-fired power plants are over 50 years old and expensive to continue to operate and maintain. Complying with environmental requirements, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) mercury and air toxics standards and proposed carbon dioxide emissions limits, can also be costly. While the reduction in generation capacity created through coal plant retirements will certainly not be filled entirely by a variable-output resource such as wind, continued coal plant retirements could play a role in increasing the demand for offshore wind plants in the United States. A slew of coal plants will shut down by 2030 Steven Mufson, Staff Writer, June 13, 2014, “Vintage U.S. coal-fired power plants now an ‘aging fleet of clunkers’,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-dilemma-with- aging-coal-plants-retire-them-or-restore-them/2014/06/13/8914780a-f00a-11e3-914c- 1fbd0614e2d4_story.html, Accessed 7/17/2014 Yet 70 years after opening, the power plant north of Salt Lake City hasn’t yet retired. It is, depending on how you calculate it, the oldest in the nation. And it’s still running with the original boilers, steam turbines and fans to power the company’s smelter and crushing operations. The local managers want to replace three of the four units at the plant with a more efficient combined cycle model, but that costs hundreds of millions of dollars and they’re awaiting approval from the parent company, Rio Tinto Kennecott. “They’re not as efficient as a new coal plant, but it’s still economic for us to operate rather than purchase electricity from the local utility,” said Michael Vaughan, principal adviser for energy programs at Rio Tinto Kennecott, which draws about 160 megawatts from the plant. This isn’t the only U.S. coal plant of advanced age. The average coal plant in the United States is 42 years old, but the oldest — and least efficient — date from the 1940s and early 1950s. Many of them also lack the most modern pollution controls and contribute to poor air quality. The likelihood that plants like this one will shut down by 2030 at the latest was one key factor in the Environmental Protection Agency’s calculations about what limits to place on carbon emissions from existing coal plants. The closure of certain plants could bring the proposed statewide targets within easier reach.

Non-Unique – Coal plants retiring now 1/3 of coal plants are retired or are no longer competitive, this is a unique time to replace existing infrastructure Union of Concerned Scientists, December 9, 2013, "Ripe For Retirement: The Case for Closing America's Costliest Coal Plants (2012) | UCSUSA,” http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy- solutions/decrease-coal/ripe-for-retirement-closing-americas-costliest-coal-plants.html, Accessed 7/16/2014 As many as 329 coal-fired power generators in 38 states — representing 58.7 gigawatts (GW) of power capacity — are no longer economically competitive compared to a typical existing natural gas plant. They are ripe for retirement and should be considered for closure. This 2013 update to the report, Ripe for Retirement: The Case for Closing America's Costliest Coal Plants, also includes a comparison with new wind power facilities and determines that as much as 71 GW of coal-fired generating capacity is uncompetitive with this renewable energy source. These currently operating, ripe-for-retirement generators are in addition to the 138 coal generators (18 GW) that retired between 2011 and 2013, and the 170 coal generators (35 GW) that have already been announced for retirement as of December 2013. Collectively, these three categories account for more than a third of the country's coal-generating capacity. As this analysis illustrates, the U.S. energy landscape is rapidly changing — and presents a unique opportunity to move the U.S. toward a cleaner energy future.

Non-Unique – U.S. consumption declining now The U.S. is moving to reduce coal consumption now Fred Pearce, Staff Writer, June 23, 2014, “Is China Hitting Peak Coal?,” http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-06-23/is-china-hitting-peak-coal, Accessed 7/12/2014 After a decade in which coal as been grabbing an ever-larger share of the world’s energy supply, could coal’s boom be about to turn to bust? Both the United States and China are planning to curb coal, and analysts say the repercussions for the global industry could be dramatic. The world may soon breathe a great deal easier, as the biggest contributor to both urban smog and climate change goes into decline. Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced curbs on CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, designed to deliver a cut in U.S. carbon emissions of 30 percent between 2005 and 2030. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the measures, combined with the growth of natural gas fracking, will take coal’s share of U.S. electricity production from more than 50 percent in the late 1990s to 31 percent by 2030. Within hours of the U.S. administration’s announcement, there were renewed hints that China – the world’s largest coal user – is headed in the same direction. Market analysts are suggesting that investors are about to pull the plug on coal. And as the coal tide retreats, the planet’s vast investment in coal infrastructure could start to look as dumb as a subprime mortgage in 2007. EPA regulations will reduce coal plants Christopher Helman, Staff Writer, June 2, 2014, “EPA Issues Coal-Killing Rules To Cut Carbon Emissions 30 Percent,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/06/02/obama-epa-issues-coal-killing-rules-to- cut-carbon-emissions-30-percent/, Accessed 7/13/2014 Today the Environmental Protection Agency released a long-anticipated rule proposal that seeks by 2030 to reduce America’s carbon dioxide emissions 30% from 2005 levels. The primary mechanism for the reduction will be tough emissions limits on coal-fired power plants. The effect of the rule will most likely be the dramatic expansion of natural gas as a fuel for power generation. When burned, gas emits just half the carbon of coal.

Impact Answers

Warming from Asian coal is inevitable Asia will satisfy their coal demand regardless of U.S. exports making warming inevitable EconMatters, Staff Writer, June 24, 2014, “Coal: A ‘Million Dollar Mile’ Getting Longer In the U.S.,” Fuel Fix, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/06/24/coal-a-million-dollar-mile-getting-longer-in-the-u-s/, Accessed 7/16/2014 The recent trend suggests U.S. regulators are increasingly taking into consideration the global-warming impacts of coal pollution problem in Asia as they decide on new coal terminal proposals. But I see the logic more like this: The law of supply and demand means Asia will get its coal (oil and gas) from somewhere else, if not from the U.S., to feed its energy hunger. Until Asian developing nations get their environmental standards and regulations together, the global warming impact will go on even if U.S. totally bans all energy export to Asia.

China is not key India is moving to displace China as the leading coal consumer and importer Cuckoo Paul, Staff Writer for Forbes, July 14, 2014, “Forget China: India’s coal use soars,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, http://www.thegwpf.org/forget-china-indias-coal-use-soars/, Accessed 7/17/2014 Presenting the review in Mumbai this week, Christof Ruhl, group chief economist at BP, said India’s coal consumption recorded the second largest volumetric increase—accounting for 21 percent of global growth. As the fourth largest energy consumer in the world, carbon emissions from India grew proportionately. Natural gas production and consumption recorded the largest volumetric fall. Gas production fell by 16.3 percent in 2013 to 33.7 billion cubic meters from 40.3 bcm in the previous year. India, which is the world’s 11th largest consumer of gas, saw consumption fall by 12.2 percent to 51.4 bcm in 2013 from 58.8 bcm. India depended on coal imports for a large part of its energy needs. While coal production was up by only 0.1 per cent at 228.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent, consumption soared by 7.6 percent to 324.3 million tonnes. Oil production too was almost unchanged at 42 million tonnes while consumption was up 1.2 percent at 175.2 million tonnes. The hike in petroleum product prices has impacted consumption, Ruhl said. Latin America is essential to the fight on climate change Lucy Jay-Kennedy, Senior Media Manager, Public Affairs, April 4, 2014, “Latin America Set for Key Role in 2014 Climate Change Agenda,” World Economic Forum, http://www.weforum.org/news/latin- america-set-key-role-2014-climate-change-agenda, Accessed 7/16/2014 “ Latin America brings unique assets and liabilities in the fight against climate change. The region is home to the Amazon Basin, and can therefore contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. As the most highly urbanized region in the world, Latin America must develop efficient, environmentally friendly urban transport,” said Carlos E. Represas, Member of the Board, Swiss Re, Mexico. Preventive and curative action is required to address climate change. The cost of natural disasters and extreme weather events drains public resources, and credit agencies now assess the ability of a government to withstand those costs. “Risk management of the consequences of climate change is very important,” said Represas.

Chinese coal consumption is key to their growth Chinese coal consumption is essential to reduce their poverty rates David Biederman, Staff Writer, June 28, 2014, “Coal Fuels China’s Economic Growth, Enables Americans’ Enjoyment Thereof,” The Objective Standard, http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/06/coal-fuels-chinas-economic-growth-enables- americans-enjoyment-thereof/, Accessed 7/17/2014 China, which exports more manufactured goods than any other country in the world, consumed more than half of the coal used globally in 2013; and the country obtained over 67 percent of its total energy from coal, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Thanks largely to the abundance and affordability of coal, China is the world’s largest exporter of telecommunications equipment, electronic data processing equipment, office equipment, textiles, and clothing. China also manufactures over 58 percent of global steel exports—and the steel industry uses enormous quantities of coal. (Ironically, coal-driven China is also aworld leader in the export of so-called “green” products such as solar panels and rare earth metals used in solar panels, wind turbines, catalytic converters, battery packs, and the electric motors of hybrid and electric vehicles.) Coal is fueling the giant producer of Asia and enabling many of China’s 1.3 billion people to overcome crushing poverty. Goods marked “made in China” might as well be marked, “Made possible by coal.” Americans who use and enjoy products made in China— that is, all Americans—should celebrate this life-serving fossil fuel, as it makes such goods possible. Chinese coal consumption fuels economic growth Cuckoo Paul, Staff Writer for Forbes, July 14, 2014, “Forget China: India’s coal use soars,” The Global Warming Policy Foundation, http://www.thegwpf.org/forget-china-indias-coal-use-soars/, Accessed 7/17/2014 But in China and India, the trends are very different, as those nations are gravitating toward coal because of its low price and availability. China also is making significant investments in renewable energy, but given its exploding growth, coal will become an increasingly large part of the mix going forward, analysts say. In 2012 China accounted for 46 percent of all global coal production and 49 percent of consumption, EIA figures show. The agency also pointed out that China’s gross domestic product grew 7.7 percent in 2012 and has been steadily rising along with coal use. “China’s coal consumption fuels its economic growth,” the EIA said in a recent report.

Warming is not real / exaggerated Scientific evidence proves greenhouse gases have minimal effect on the atmosphere Jack Kelly, Staff Writer, May 29, 2014, “The facts don’t add up for human-caused global warming,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t- add-up-for-human-caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275, Accessed 7/17/2014 Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 285 parts per million 250 years ago to about 380 ppm today. CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas -- it holds heat in the atmosphere -- so if humans are generating more, it should have a warming effect. But probably not much of one. Greenhouse gases comprise less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere; carbon dioxide is less than 4 percent of greenhouse gases; 96 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by Mother Nature. Compared to variations in solar radiation and other natural forces, the effect of greenhouse gases on climate is trivial. “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” says a petition signed by more than 31,000 American scientists in climate-related disciplines. NASA and NOAA fabricate data to boost global warming scare James Dekingpole and Kit Eastwood, June 23, 2014, “Global warming ‘fabricated’ by NASA and NOAA,” http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and- NOAA, Accessed 7/17/2014 Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming". The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments. When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic. NOAA lies about warming and manipulates data Christopher Booker, Staff Writer, June 21, 2014, “The scandal of fiddled global warming data,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global- warming-data.html, Accessed 7/17/2014 When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Warming is not real / exaggerated NOAA is fabricating temperature data to inflate warming claims Christopher Booker, Staff Writer, June 21, 2014, “The scandal of fiddled global warming data,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global- warming-data.html, Accessed 7/17/2014 Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

Midterms DA Iran Prolif – Neg

1NC

Dems holding Senate now but still in air – insider knowledge Mario Trujilo, political analyst, 8-18-2014, “Reid: Dems will hold Senate 'unless something unexpected happens” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/215386-reid-dems-will-hold-senate-unless- something-unexpected-happens Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) predicted Democrats would retain control of the Senate in November "unless something unexpected happens." Speaking to a Jefferson-Jackson brunch in his home state on Sunday, Reid urged supporters to stay motivated a little less than 80 days before the election. "If the election were today we would hold the majority, but the election is not today," he said, according to the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Insert relevant link + internal link

Republican win ensures latitude to negotiate is gone – kills the Iran deal Daniel Larison, PhD in History from the University of Chicago, 1-24-2014, “Foreign Policy and the 2014 Elections,” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/foreign-policy-and-the-2014-elections/ We should also bear in mind that the midterms could have an unfortunate effect on diplomacy with Iran. Since the Republicans are likely to take control of the Senate, that could factor into the calculations of other states when they consider Obama’s ability to follow through on U.S. diplomatic commitments. If the Iranians assume that a Republican-controlled Senate would press ahead with additional sanctions legislation or perhaps even an authorization of force resolution, they may conclude that reaching a deal with the U.S. before the election is a mistake. Needless to say, the U.S. will have less flexibility to offer additional sanctions relief in the future once the Senate is under GOP control, and that could affect negotiations this year for the worse.

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 374 exchange for relief from punishing economic sanctions. In Iran’s June 2013 presidential election, Rouhani handily defeated a slate of conservative opponents, including the hard-line nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who had campaigned on continuing Iran’s strategy of “nuclear resistance.” Rouhani, in contrast, pledged to reach a nuclear accommodation with the West and free Iran from the economic burden imposed by sanctions. Rouhani, also a former nuclear negotiator, believes he has the support of the Iranian people and a green light from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to reach a comprehensive nuclear accord with the United States and the other members of the P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia). The first step on the road to a comprehensive deal came in November 2013 with an interim agreement in Geneva, in which Tehran agreed to freeze and modestly roll back its nuclear program in exchange for a pause in new international sanctions and a suspension of some existing penalties. The deal represents the most meaningful move toward a denuclearized Iran in more than a decade. It neutralizes Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent uranium and therefore modestly lengthens Iran’s “breakout” timeline -- the time required to enrich uranium to weapons grade -- by one or two months. A new inspections regime also means any breakout attempt would be detected soon enough for the international community to react, and expanded International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will make it more difficult for Iran to divert critical technology and materials to new secret sites. The terms also preclude the new plutonium reactor at Arak from becoming operational, halting the risk that Iran could soon use plutonium to build a bomb.

Iran prolif causes a laundry list of impacts – escalates to nuclear war Matthew Kroenig, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, January/February 2012, “Time to Attack Iran” published in Foreign Affairs; accessed through Ebsco Some states in the region are doubting U.S. resolve to stop the program and are shifting their allegiances to Tehran. Others have begun to discuss launching their own nuclear initiatives to counter a possible Iranian bomb. For those nations and the United States itself, the threat will only continue to grow as Tehran moves closer to its goal. A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war, forcing Washington to think twice before acting in the region. Iran's regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia, would likely decide to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, sparking an arms race. To constrain its geopolitical rivals, Iran could choose to spur proliferation by transferring nuclear technology to its allies--other countries and terrorist groups alike. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy, and the battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel, for example, could escalate. And Iran and Israel lack nearly all the safeguards that helped the United States and the Soviet Union avoid a nuclear exchange during the Cold War--secure second-strike capabilities, clear lines of communication, long flight times for ballistic missiles from one country to the other, and experience managing nuclear arsenals. To be sure, a nuclear-armed Iran would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. But the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw the United States in, as well.

Uniqueness

1NC Dems Win

Dems Win

Dems winning – economy DSCC, 8-1-2014, “FRIDAY TAKEAWAYS: DEMOCRATS WINNING ON THE ECONOMY - BIG WIN FOR SPEAKER CRUZ & THE TORTILLA COAST CAUCUS - "DEMOCRATS NOW HAVE SOMETHING FRESH TO RUN AGAINST" - SCOTT BROWN COULD MAKE HISTORY - JONI ERNST'S RFS PROBLEM IN IOWA” http://www.dscc.org/pressrelease/friday-takeaways-democrats-winning-economy-big-win-speaker- cruz-tortilla-coast-caucus DEMOCRATS WINNING ON THE ECONOMY – VOTERS REJECTING GOP ECONOMIC IDEAS THAT FAVOR WEALTHY & BIG CORPORATIONS – GROWING ECONOMY BOOSTS DEMOCRATS. In every battleground Senate race there is a clear contrast of economic visions: Republican ideas that favor the wealthy and big corporations and Democratic plans that would make life more affordable for middle class families. Democrats are winning the economic argument in these races, and the flow of good economic news is improving the overall political climate for Democrats. CNN POLL SAYS VOTERS VIEW OF ECONOMY IMPROVING – NO REPUBLICAN WAVE COMING – NOT 2010. A new CNN/ORC poll this morning shows that the percentage of Americans who say economic conditions are “good” is at the highest level since Barack Obama became President and is the highest rating for the economy since the recession began in December of 2007. An improving economy makes a GOP wave even more unlikely.

No Republican wave – voter trends go Dem – all polls Nate Cohn, political analyst, 7-28-2014, “New Generic Ballot Surveys Don’t Show Signs of Republican Wave” The Upshot, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/upshot/new-generic-ballot-surveys-dont- show-signs-of-republican-wave.html?src=twr&_r=2&abt=0002&abg=0 One of the big questions of this election cycle is whether it will turn out to be a “wave” election, like the one in 2010, when an upswell of anti-Democratic sentiment carried Democrats out of the House. One of the best measures of whether there’s a wave is the “generic ballot” question. Pollsters ask: Do you want Democrats or Republicans to control Congress? Unfortunately, generic ballot polling has been sparse so far this cycle. Last week, however, there were three national polls, by Fox News, CNN and Pew Research, asking the generic ballot question. None showed an anti-Democrat wave, like the one that brought Republicans back to power in 2010. In fact, none of the three polls showed Republicans with a lead among registered voters at all. The surveys are highly consistent with other surveys conducted over the last two months, which show Democrats ahead by an average of 1.9 points among registered voters. The Republicans have not led in a generic ballot poll since early June, when Fox News showed Republicans ahead by four points.

GOP is fighting itself – gives Dems the win DSCC, 8-1-2014, “FRIDAY TAKEAWAYS: DEMOCRATS WINNING ON THE ECONOMY - BIG WIN FOR SPEAKER CRUZ & THE TORTILLA COAST CAUCUS - "DEMOCRATS NOW HAVE SOMETHING FRESH TO RUN AGAINST" - SCOTT BROWN COULD MAKE HISTORY - JONI ERNST'S RFS PROBLEM IN IOWA” http://www.dscc.org/pressrelease/friday-takeaways-democrats-winning-economy-big-win-speaker- cruz-tortilla-coast-caucus NBC NEWS: THE GOP “BLEW IT” OVER THE LAST 48 HOURS, “DEMOCRATS NOW HAVE SOMETHING FRESH TO RUN AGAINST.” NBC’s First Read team writes this morning, “Anotherstunning legislative

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 378 embarrassment for House Republicans has handed Democrats a mighty big talking point over the next three months until the midterm elections: The GOP is incapable -- if not unwilling -- to govern, they will argue. ‘Republicans,’ you’re going to hear Democrats say, ‘can’t even agree how to respond to a serious crisis on our borders. But where they do agree is launching a partisan lawsuit against the president of the United States. That’s your ‘Do-Nothing’ Republican Party.’ the past 48 hours might have been even worse for Republicans -- suing the president for taking executive action, not passing legislation to provide relief at the border, and then saying that there are executive actions Obama should be taking on the border. (Huh?) As even Charles Krauthammer said on Fox, ‘It is ridiculous to sue the president on a Wednesday because he oversteps the law … and then on a Thursday say that he should overstep the law.’ Here’s the deal: If Democrats hold serve in November (retain control of the Senate, minimize losses or even pick up seats in the House), we’ll all look back on the last two days as the week the GOP blew it….In other words, Democrats now have something fresh to run against.” THE DEBACLE IN THE HOUSE THIS WEEK IS WHY WE’RE SO EXCITED THE GOP IS RUNNING SO MANY HOUSE REPUBLICANS FOR SENATE. Republicans Senate candidates across the country like Tom Cotton and Cory Gardner are proud members of Cruz’s Tortilla Coast wing of the party and their alliance with Cruz means they hold a slate of positions that are far too extreme for mainstream voters. There’s nothing more unpopular in American politics than House Republicans. Recent polls show that the House Republican brand is incredibly unpopular. In five Senate races this cycle—Colorado, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana and West Virginia – the GOP is putting forward House Republicans. Additionally, three House Republicans ran in Georgia—and all of them lost. House Republicans haven’t fared well in Senate races in recent cycles— in 2012, the GOP put forward seven current or former House Republicans as Senate candidates and six of them lost – half of them lost in states that Mitt Romney won.

Topic Links

Generic

Ocean policy is polarizing – becomes a national hot topic Juliet Eilperin, writer at the Washington Post 10-28-2012, “National ocean policy sparks partisan fight,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisan- fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html Partisan battles are engulfing the nation’s ocean policy, showing that polarization over environmental issues doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights. Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue — the country’s patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obama’s July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact. The council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed. Still, activists invoking the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that “opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences.” Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was “like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms.” An environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him. The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. “The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. What’s not to love?” Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination. Nearly a decade ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore. When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there could be “a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.” In Washington, however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country — the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific — to set up regional bodies to offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. “It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans.” House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that the administration’s broad definition of what affects the ocean — including runoff from land — could open the door to regulating all inland activities, because “all water going downhill goes into the ocean. . . . That potential could be there.” The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate. Two influential groups — anglers and energy firms — have joined Republicans in questioning the administration’s approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy “could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.” The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. “Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down,” said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nation’s major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its final implementation plan is released, after the election. The National Ocean Policy Coalition — a group based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests — has galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the group’s executive director, said that the public has not had enough input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about “the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity.” Sarah Cooksey, who is Delaware’s coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantic’s regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the books. “No government wants another layer of bureaucracy,” she said. In Southerland’s reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman “Ocean Enemy #1” and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has

mounted billboards against Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are regional, this is “the first issue I’ve seen that’s become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.”

Oceans focus is bad – recalls images of Obama as an ineffective president and paints Dems as out-of-touch Philip Bump, former writer for the Gristmill, now writing at the Atlantic Wire, 8-30-2012, “Romney treats climate as a punchline” Gristmill http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search? q=cache:Ikqf7qkOvo0J:grist.org/news/romney-uses-the-bully-pulpit-to-mock-climate-change/ +&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. MY promise … is to help you and your family. This was one of the key points Mitt Romney made in the speech he gave Thursday night to officially accept the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. This was the speech immediately before the balloon drop, his primary sales pitch to undecided voters who hadn’t yet made up their minds. The quote was one of a few key passages Romney released to the press beforehand — one of the points the campaign thought were most important to get into newspaper articles before papers went to print. The quote Romney references here is from a speech Obama gave on June 3, 2008, the night he wrapped up the nomination for the Democratic Party. In context, it reads like this. The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Obama’s point, of course, was that he’d been endorsed to fight for what the Democratic Party believes in: a strong safety net, employment, addressing climate change, ending the war in Iraq, burnishing an image of the United States that had been gutted by the man then holding the office. In the past four years, he clearly hasn’t accomplished all of that; on many points, he’s fallen much shorter than Democrats had hoped. But this was a statement of intent, an exhortation to ideals. As soon as he gave the speech, the section about the ocean became a symbol for an opposition intent to portray Obama as an effete other. The next day, the clip was posted on YouTube, with the title “Obama Promises The World.” When you search for that phrase on Google during the latter part of 2008, the first site that returns a result is “ObamaMessiah.blogspot.com.” Obama’s claim that we might address the rise of the oceans was seen as a man claiming dominion over the universe, not as a sensible priority for a president in the year 2008. That year, Mitt Romney was also running for president, though his campaign had ended by the time Obama gave that speech. During that campaign in 2008, Romney admitted that climate change was occurring, and that humans were contributing to it. But Romney lost. So now, Mitt Romney derides the scientific fact of climate change as he finds better political success in the Republican primary. And he has embraced the support of those who wrung from Obama’s hopeful, excited words such bizarre insinuations. What Romney argues is a classic false choice: the idea that we must either choose to save the environment or put people to work. It’s the sort of argument that lets polluters squat in poor communities, insisting that they be allowed to do as they wish or they’ll take their jobs elsewhere. It’s a choice that need not be made, as demonstrated by green jobs and the burgeoning industries built around renewables and efficiency and sustainability. But that’s not actually what Romney was arguing. He was arguing that Obama is a weirdo who cares more about dolphins than Americans. That Romney will be there for the kids after school with a Wonder bread sandwich while Obama is nursing a spotted owl back to health with his halo. Public opposes ocean development – concerned about ocean protection Vikki N. Spruill, President and CEO of Ocean Conservancy since 2006, Executive Director, Sea Web (not profit strategic communications firm dedicated to ocean research) 1997, “U.S. PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES” Oceanography Vol. 10 No 3. http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/10-3_spruill.pdf) Government Needs to Do More; Personal Action Preferred to Joining Organizations; Ocean Exploration Favored over Space In a country where polls indicate that the majority of the public wants the federal government out of their lives, 85% said they believed the government needed to do more to help protect the ocean. Per- haps most surprisingly, an overwhelming number (72%) believed funding for

Aquaculture

Tons of opposition to marine aquaculture – benefits aren’t perceived Gunnar Knapp, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2012 “The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture” Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 51-63, https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf Many Americans perceive potential negative effects of marine aquaculture without offsetting positive effects: A variety of groups of Americans perceive potential negative effects of marine aquaculture. These include: •Commercial fishermen, who fear economic competition and environmental damage to wild fish stocks. •Coastal residents, who fear loss of access to waterfront and changes in the views they enjoy. •Environmentalists, who worry variously that marine aquaculture will cause pollution, harm marine ecosystems, or increase pressure on global wild fish stocks harvested for production of fishmeal and fish oil used in fish feeds. These groups play significant roles in the politics of United States marine aquaculture, across the political and regulatory process at local, state, and national levels. For example, Alaska salmon fishermen spearheaded the Alaska legislature’s 1990 ban on finfish farming, and continue to vocally oppose aquaculture development in federal waters nationwide, along with Alaska’s congressional delegation (Figure 4). Similarly, coastal residents have strongly and effectively opposed marine aquaculture in states such as Maine and Washington. Sebastian Belle, Executive Director of the Maine Aquaculture Association, described the political challenges facing aquaculture as a result of demographic shifts in coastal regions: “In Maine…part of the application process for the series of permits and licenses needed to operate in the marine environment is an exhaustive series of meetings with the general public and all stakeholde. Part of the constituency will not like what you do, whatever you do. [Because of] a demographic shift to a population-base of retirees from other states, as summer- home visitors to our beautiful coast became year-round residents, …coastal communities now view the ocean for ‘recreational use,’ and commercial fishermen and aquaculturists must make their case locally to people who have no history or link with the ocean for making a living” (Thomas, 2011).

Powerful NGOs oppose aquaculture – influences the electorate Gunnar Knapp, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2012 “The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture” Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 51-63, https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf NGO’s have systematically and effectively opposed U.S. marine aquaculture: Numerous U.S. Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have invested significant funding and effort to advocate banning, delaying, restricting, or regulating U.S. marine aquaculture in ways that increase the risks and costs of investment. Collectively these organizations have played a major role in influencing the public, the press, politicians, and regulators in ways which have contributed to unfavorable leasing and regulatory policies towards marine aquaculture. NGOs that have funded or engaged in significant advocacy to influence U.S. marine aquaculture policies include the Packard Foundation, the Moore Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, Food and Water Watch, and others, both large and small. The scale, objectives, strategies, and arguments of these groups vary widely, making it difficult to generalize about their motives, methods, and effects. All of these organizations would assert that they use rational and science-based arguments to advocate for the public interest. Marine aquaculture supporters would argue that the NGOs engaged in aquaculture advocacy range from responsible to grossly irresponsible and that they pursue strategies ranging from

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 384 ethical to grossly unethical. As noted by Tiersch and Hargreaves (2002), “Advocacy groups can provide a valuable service by acting as an impartial watchdog of environmental issues and calling attention to legitimate concerns.” However, a very real and frustrating challenge for marine aquaculture supporters is that some NGOs appear willing to say anything to oppose marine aquaculture, with casual and sometimes blatant disregard for objectivity, truth, or the complex reality of what experience and science have shown about the hugely varied effects of the hugely varied kinds of activities collectively known as aquaculture. Here, for example is a statement posted on the website of the NGO Food and Water Watch:“Many fish-lovers would be horrified to learn that huge quantities of fish and shrimp are now being grown in giant nets, cages, and ponds where antibiotics, hormones and pesticides mingle with disease and waste. These industrialized aquaculture facilities are rapidly replacing natural methods of fishing that have been used to catch fresh, wild seafood for millennia.” It is difficult for people in industry, government or science to refute these kinds of arguments when they are held to much higher standards of argument and evidence.

Environmental groups hate aquaculture Alex Boutilier, Federal politics reporter for the Toronto Star, 6-4-2012 “Conservation groups unite in opposition to aquaculture strategy” Metro Halifax http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/249894/conservation-groups-unite-in-opposition-to-aquaculture- strategy/] Over 100 conservation groups and commercial fisheries organizations came together in Halifax on Monday to voice their concerns about Nova Scotia’s new aquaculture strategy. About 250 people filled a conference room at the Lord Nelson hotel Monday to call on the government to impose a three year moratorium on open-net pen fish farming. “Premier Darrell Dexter, we have a message for you today: You do not have permission to do this,” said Raymond Plourde with the Ecology Action Centre. “We elect (a government) to provide good governance. Wise, considered decision making. We do not elect them to provide ham-fisted autocracy and decisions by royal proclamation that the serfs and vassals of the province must live with.” Plourde and other presenters detailed a number of concerns about fish farming, including increased waste dumped into the ocean and the use of potentially harmful pesticides. The topic made headlines recently after a number of pen-raised salmon had to be destroyed due to an outbreak of infectious salmon anemia in the Shelburne area. “We said, look, just like we said, all these problems and viruses! What does (Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister Sterling Belliveau) say? He says ‘to me, it’s just another normal day in aquaculture’,” said Plourde.

Aquaculture – AT: Link Turns

Opposition overwhelms support Gunnar Knapp, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2012 “The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture” Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 51-63, https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf But being new and small also raises political challenges for U.S. marine aquaculture. Because it is new and small, it is harder to demonstrate the benefits and easier to exaggerate the risks of marine aquaculture (Figure 3). As noted by Tiersch and Hargreaves (2002), new resource industries such as aquaculture face a different political playing field than older resource industries such as logging: “A core concept of the environmental movement is the precautionary principle, which basically states that it is wise to avoid unnecessary risk… This principle is biased towards slowing or stopping the development of new activities, and shifts the burden of proof from environmental advocates to practitioners such that new activities, like aquaculture, must show that they will not be a problem in the future. This is in contrast to the situation for established industries detractors must prove that the established industry presents a problem. Of course, newer industries also lack the financial and political resources of groups such as logging, mining and petroleum extraction interests and large chemical corporations. It is easier to restrict or stop aquaculture projects, despite their much smaller environmental risk than it is to attempt to control more damaging established activities. Thus opposing aquaculture development is viewed by advocacy groups as applying an ounce of prevention now instead of the pound of cure that would be required later.” To overcome the political challenges it faces, U.S. marine aquaculture will need committed supporters at all levels of the political and policy process. It will need fish farmers and employees who tell their friends and neighbors and elected officials about the benefits of aquaculture. It will need supporters who will testify at local public meetings, write letters to the editor, and are elected to local, state, and federal office. It will need organized lobbying efforts to influence state and federal agencies and politicians. All of this takes committed people and money. Because U.S. marine aquaculture is new and small, relatively few Americans have or realize they have a direct stake in it. That means that it has fewer committed supporters, with less money and less political influence. In much of the United States marine aquaculture is still below a political threshold scale necessary for people to understand, accept, and effectively advocate for marine aquaculture. Achieving this scale will be critical to overcoming political challenges. Marine aquaculture will become politically stronger as it grows but it is difficult for it to grow without being politically stronger.

Attempts to spin the plan in a positive light are overwhelmed Gunnar Knapp, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2012 “The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture” Bull. Fish. Res. Agen. No. 35, 51-63, https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/35-7.pdf These groups’ opposition is vexing and frustrating to marine aquaculture supporters who feel that the objections and fears of aquaculture opponents are exaggerated, unfounded, or simply irrational. How do you argue with people who without any scientific basis believe that marine aquaculture will destroy commercial fisheries? How do you argue with people who claim that fish farms that will be barely visible will destroy their coastal view ? How do you argue with people who appear to be unwilling to accept any level of risk or change? The political reality is that it is rational for groups which perceive only negative potential effects of marine aquaculture to oppose it. Why accept any risk if there is nothing to be gained?

Environmental lobby drowns out support for aquaculture – plan will be spun, dooming popularity Seafood News 7-16-2007 “The big mistake environmentalists are making on aquaculture” http://seafood.typepad.com/the_winding_glass/2007/07/the-big-mistake.html Environmentalists have the power to kill this bill. The fact is the offshore aquaculture bill is enabling legislation -- it would create conditions for an industry to develop. IN this context, there is no huge pressure group lobbying for this to happen. In fact the opposite-- many fishermen don't care, and in some areas, such as Alaska, they are passionately opposed. So, we have the powerful environmental lobby lined up against ...... no one. NOAA has indicated much willingness to build in environmental safeguards in the permitting process. But there has to be a permitting process to begin with. Unless the regulations are practical, no one will ever invest in offshore aquaculture, as NFI's president Jeff Davis keeps saying. So, here the environmentalists have the power to either kill off the bill completely, or make it worthless, by going for the long ball -- their maximum demands. Like the give swordfish a break campaign, the ones likely to be hurt by this are American consumers and the environmentally responsible aquaculture companies, like Kona Blue. If environmental groups are opposed to everything but closed land based system aquaculture, they should say so, but not be taken seriously on this bill. For the rest, who see a long term future in Aquaculture, a responsible compromise today to get a workable bill will yield long term results tomorrow.

LOST

Conservative opposition to LOST is strong Nicholas Ballasy, senior reporter at the Daily Caller, 5-9-2012, “Panetta: US needs ‘bipartisan spirit and leadership that Dick Lugar embodies’” Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/09/panetta-us- needs-bipartisan-spirit-and-leadership-that-dick-lugar-embodies-video/ Many conservatives oppose the Law of the Seas treaty, noting that president Ronald Reagan first refused to join its signers in 1982. Reagan said then that it was the product of unfriendly nations whose goal was to redistribute the world’s riches from the United States and other developed nations to the Third World. It would also hand jurisdiction over most of the world’s ocean mass to a UN body, and subject the United States to mandatory dispute resolution, even with countries that have no diplomatic ties with the U.S.

LOST is wildly unpopular – lots of opposition Joseph Farah, Editor-in-chief at World News Daily, 6-10-2012, “LOST appears lost for the year,” http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/lost-appears-lost-for-the-year/?cat_orig=world DA: 6/5/14 While the Obama administration has been pressing hard for passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty, its prospects this year appear dim, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin. The U.S. Senate has been trying to pass the treaty since 1994. For those who object to it, there remain serious security and sovereignty concerns. Also, there is an upcoming presidential election in which Barack Obama will want to avoid controversy surrounding the treaty as long as those concerns remain. The Senate needs 67 votes to agree to the treaty and even supporters believe there is little prospect of obtaining that number. Some 162 countries have signed up to the treaty since it was first introduced in 1982. However, President Ronald Reagan refused then to sign up to the treaty. President Bill Clinton did sign the treaty but even with changes the Senate didn’t provide an advise and consent vote on it. That’s because the concerns raised then by Reagan in refusing to sign the treaty remain. They include the fact that while the treaty would give the United States even greater access to oil, minerals and precious metals found on the ocean floor beyond the 200-mile territorial limit, the issue of revenue in which the U.S. would have to pay a royalty on the wealth it obtains from deep-sea mining and drilling remains. Critics of the treaty say that it would create what amounts to an international tax on the U.S. and offers a scheme to redistribute the nation’s wealth to the rest of the world without U.S. consent. In effect, it would give the United Nations taxing authority over sovereign countries. Any royalties collected from U.S. mining would have to go to the United Nations agency International Seabed Authority. Critics say there is no say over where the money then would go. Reagan at the time was concerned that monies would go to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The treaty also would force the U.S. to share any deep sea technology that most countries do not now have. It also would place restrictions on the U.S. Navy by compelling what amounts to an environmental impact statement on the area where it might conduct exercises. This would be especially difficult if the U.S. Navy is attempting to keep open the shipping lanes for the Strait of Hormuz since its operations would require that prior to their undertaking there must be a statement on how such exercises will harm the environment where the ships are operating. Also, the treaty would not allow the U.S. Navy to stop and board questionable ships on the high seas, even if those ships are involved in piracy, slavery, suspect terrorists or transporting weapons of mass destruction.

Offshore Drilling – General

Offshore drilling is unpopular – especially with the Democratic base Josh Nelson, writer for FireDogLake, 7-22-2010, “Rasmussen: Support for Offshore Drilling Reaches New Low” http://my.firedoglake.com/joshnelson/tag/offshore-drilling/ New data shows that support for offshore drilling has reached its lowest level ever in Rasmussen’s latest polling. Here’s how the GOP-friendly pollster** frames the latest data (emphasis mine): Predictably, Rasmussen leaves most of the useful information out of their analysis. In their polling immediately prior to the rig explosion in the Gulf, 72% of likely voters supported offshore drilling. Even with Rasmussen’s skewed likely voter model, this represents a 16% shift in just 11 weeks. The current level of support among likely voters, 56%, is the lowest ever recorded by Rasmussen for this question. Moreover, support among Democrats for offshore drilling has dropped from 54% in early April to just 29% in the latest poll. Support among Republicans remains relatively flat, down just 4%. GOP support for offshore drilling, at 82%, is actually up 8% from its low point in late May.

Youth voters hate offshore drilling Suemedha Sood, writer for the Washington Independent, 11-26-2008, “Green Vote Drives Obama’s Energy Agenda” http://washingtonindependent.com/20166/green-vote-drives-obamas-energy-agenda Public opinion related to energy made for a unique national election in 2006. Consumers’ concerns about energy use and the environment carried through on Election Day, with pollsters and environmental advocates saying that many Americans voted with these issues in mind in casting their presidential ballot. There were also many state and local initiatives related to the environment and energy. Obama seems to have been the chief beneficiary of the “environmental” vote. One reason is that young voters turned out in record numbers — and they rank energy and the environment higher on their priority lists than other voter groups. About 24 million people under age 30 voted in the presidential election — up 19 percent, or 2.2 million, from 2004, according to exit polls. Fully 64 percent of these young voters said the environment was “very important” to their vote, compared with 55 percent of older voters, according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in October. Pre- election polls also found that young voters tended to favor Obama’s energy plan, which stressed development of alternative energy sources, over that of McCain, which talked about offshore oil drilling and more nuclear power plants.

Offshore Drilling – General – AT: Link Turns

Expansion of drilling leads to environmentalist backlash Steve Everley, Spokesperson for Energy In Depth, 7-13-2012, “Misinformation campaign targets hydraulic fracturing” http://www.wlf.org/publishing/publication_detail.asp?id=2328 But it was also that rapid expansion -- especially into areas such as Pennsylvania -- that offered an opening to environmental groups. Preying on a population unaccustomed to large-scale oil and gas development, activists were able to make an innovative combination of their own, blending a scary, almost inappropriate-sounding word ("frack") with alleged environmental and social impacts, many of which -- like air emissions and certain forms of water contamination -- can supposedly be impacting you without you even knowing it. Uncertainty breeds fear, and a fearful public, the opposition found, is much easier to manipulate.

Environmental groups are split over offshore drilling WorldWatch 5-20-2014, “Opposition to Offshore Drilling May Fade” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5874 The U.S. Congress is likely to debate an energy package this month that would lift the offshore drilling ban. It could also offer financial support for renewable energy technologies and policies that reduce fossil fuel consumption. Politicians in both chambers of Congress who previously opposed offshore drilling are now expressing support for expanded energy policies. Even Santa Barbara County supports offshore drilling. The political showdown has forced environmental groups to decide between staunchly opposing offshore drilling or supporting legislation that furthers their wider goals in addressing the climate crisis. While most environmentalists oppose offshore drilling, some leading environmental groups may ease their opposition in favor of clean energy policies that have so far floundered in Congress. If national organizations support offshore drilling, they risk further divisions with local environmental groups that are based along U.S. coastlines. "The leaders of local environmental groups are digging in their heels. They only want to talk about offshore drilling," said Eric Smith, a political science professor at the University of California in Santa Barbara. "Meanwhile, lots of environmentalists are saying we ought to talk more broadly and talk about what to do with climate change. We have a fight here. It reflects a fight on coastal zones around the country."

Offshore Drilling – Gas

Natural gas is unpopular – environmental concerns cause public backlash Mark Golden, works in communications at the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University, 2-6- 2012, “Stanford geophysicist: More environmental rules needed for shale gas” http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/february/zoback-fracking-regulation-020612.html In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama praised the potential of the country's tremendous supply of natural gas buried in shale. He echoed the recommendations for safe extraction made by an advisory panel that included Stanford geophysicist Mark Zoback. The panel made 20 recommendations for regulatory reform, some of which go well beyond what the president mentioned in his address. The topic is controversial. Breaking up rock layers thousands of feet underground with hydraulic fracturing has unleashed so many minuscule bubbles of methane that shale gas now accounts for 30 percent of U.S. gas production, an increase in supply that has pummeled the commodity's price. The gas industry will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade, Obama said. A hydraulic fracturing operation under way in western Pennsylvania. But environmental concerns about the technology behind the boom – specifically hydraulic fracturing – receive near daily news coverage, with opponents saying that toxic additives in the water used for the fracturing have found their way into household tap water, among other concerns. Obama said natural gas producers will have to disclose the chemicals they add to the fracturing slurry of water and sand when they are working on federal lands. The Secretary of Energy's seven-person advisory group on shale gas, of which Zoback was a member, called for such disclosure by shale gas operators on all lands. The advisory group further recommended that data on a well-by-well basis be posted on publicly available, searchable websites. "The problem is that the president only has jurisdiction over federal lands, while states regulate development on private land, where most of the shale formations are found," Zoback said. "The so-called 'Halliburton exclusion' passed by Congress says gas companies don't have to disclose the chemicals in fracturing fluids. That was a real mistake because it makes the public needlessly paranoid."

Offshore Drilling – Gas – AT: Link Turns

Plan can’t be a win – the natural gas lobby empirically won’t support Democrats and it harms Dems’ standing with environmentalists Dan Berman, money and politics editor for Politico, 5-16-2012, “When it comes to natural gas, Obama can’t win,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76402.html President Barack Obama talked up natural gas in his State of the Union address, his top aides have held dozens of meetings with natural gas industry leaders and his administration has given the industry what it wanted on two big regulatory issues. What he’s gotten in return: a giant headache. Industry backers have hammered away at virtually all of the White House’s rule-making efforts while pouring millions of dollars into campaigns fighting Obama’s reelection. At the same time, environmentalists and even some Republicans have complained that natural gas is too cozy with the White House.

Offshore Drilling – Oil

Drilling hurts the Dems – voters hate Big Oil Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, July 2011, “Running Clean: How to win on energy issues” http://www.nrdcactionfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/RunningClean.pdf Tie opponents to Their Donations from Dirty industries There are real, positive themes in clean energy messaging. But there is also the opportunity to link opponents with unpopular Big Oil or the Koch Brothers. For example, campaigns can tie opposition to corporate polluters making record profits while Americans continue to pay record prices at the gas pump and remain dependent on oil. 55 It helps to have a clear, positive message on clean energy, but to also show how the other side is allied with dirty energy special interests. Big Oil consistently scores poorly in polls because voters believe that special interests are the reason behind delays in clean energy development. By highlighting opponents’ contributions from Big Oil, a candidate can develop a stronger base of support. New Mexico’s Tom Udall successfully did this against his opponent, Steve Pearce, in the 2008 Senate Race. Even if the opposition has not taken significant money from Big Oil or other dirty industries, a campaign can highlight how the opponent’s policies favor dirty industries over the well-being of voters. Senator Michael Bennet’s campaign used this tactic successfully against Ken Buck in the Colorado Senate race in 2010 and Senator Reid’s campaign did the same against Sharon Angle. Polling conducted for the NRDC Action Fund illustrated the importance of this issue for voters—nearly half (49 percent) said they would be less likely to support the reelection of a member of Congress who took campaign contributions from the oil industry and also voted to increase oil drilling, compared with only 11 percent of voters who said that they would be more likely to vote for such a member.

Offshore Drilling – OCS – AT: Link Turns

Status quo is Goldilocks – over half of supporters for offshore drilling are opposed to expanding it – “expanding exploration” is distinct Pew Research Center, 6-14-2010, “Fueling Both Sides of the Energy Debate” http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1627/inconsistent-american-views-energy-environment-first-lady-still- popular-obama-and-palin-less-so With the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico now nearly two months old, the public is sending mixed signals about U.S. energy policy. Despite the growing damage from the Gulf oil leak, the public generally favors continuing to drill for oil and gas in U.S. waters. And in setting priorities for energy legislation in Congress, fully 68% favor expanding exploration and development of coal, oil and gas in the United States. Yet there also is broad support for limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. And as an overall goal for U.S. energy policy, 56% say it is more important to protect the environment, while 37% say it is more important to keep energy prices low. The latest Pew Research/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, sponsored by SHRM, which was conducted June 10-13 among 1,010 adults, finds that nearly two-thirds (66%) of Americans favor offshore drilling for oil and gas: 35% support continuing existing drilling but banning new drilling, while 31% favor expanding offshore drilling. Just 22% would ban offshore drilling entirely.

Offshore Wind

Offshore wind is unpopular – multiple public concerns Kristy Kennedy, a Naperville-based free-lance writer August 2012, “Offshore energy,” http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2012/07/offshore.html The wind off Lake Michigan is legendary. It most famously contributes to the “Windy City” image of Chicago, provided a name for an ill-fated 1975 football team called the Chicago Winds and was immortalized as the “hawk wind” in the first line of Steve Goodman’s song “A Dying Cub Fan’s Last Request.” In fact, the wind blows across a largely uninterrupted expanse of 22,400 square miles of water, Lake Michigan, which is slightly smaller than West Virginia and larger than nine of the United States. “There has always been wonderful wind over the Great Lakes,” says Victoria Pebbles, program director for the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative, a coalition of wind energy stakeholders working to facilitate the sustainable development of wind power in the Great Lakes. If there was a way to harness all of the wind on the Great Lakes, about 740 gigawatts of energy would be produced, according to a 2011 U.S. Department of Energy report on national offshore wind strategy. With one gigawatt equaling about 3.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity annually and an average home requiring 1.15 megawatt-hours a year (according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration), the potential for wind energy is staggering. Imagine capturing not only all of the wind energy on the Great Lakes, but also adding the offshore wind along America’s coastlines, in the Gulf of Mexico and around Hawaii. The capacity of the current U.S. electric power system could be close to quadrupled, the U.S. Department of Energy reports. “That shows the tremendous opportunity for the resource,” says Christopher Long, manager of offshore wind and siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association. Now, it is crazy to think every last offshore breeze could be captured and turned into usable electricity. The issue is far more complicated than looking at it in simple terms of how much energy is available. There are currently no offshore wind farms in the United States for many reasons. Natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Offshore wind turbines are extremely expensive and can cost more than five times that of an onshore turbine, according to industry experts. Also, there is no infrastructure in place to transfer electricity from offshore wind farms to the power grid. Some people don’t like the looks of turbines; some fear their impact on the environment; and others don’t think the nation’s waters should be used to feed our hunger for power. Still, the federal government and states such as Illinois are pushing for renewable energy. President Barack Obama set a goal in his 2011 State of the Union Address for 80 percent of America’s electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035. In March, a Memorandum of Understanding between 10 federal agencies and the governors of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania was signed to facilitate offshore wind proposals for the Great Lakes. Illinois law, similar to laws in other states, requires 25 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable resources by 2025. To ignore the potential of offshore wind and the push for renewable energy is to miss out. “We think the day is coming pretty quickly when there will be offshore wind farms in the United States,” says Patrick Gilman, wind market acceleration and deployment team leader in the wind and water power program with the U.S. Department of Energy. “It is a question of when and not if.” He sees wind farms in the Great Lakes as part of that movement. State Rep. Robyn Gabel, a Democrat from Evanston, has been leading the way in the state’s creation of a permitting process for offshore wind farming in Lake Michigan. Two years ago, Evanston, which is actively seeking ways to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, identified developers interested in pursuing an offshore wind farm but discovered that no state permit process existed to allow such a farm to be built. “We realized we needed to be clear about how one goes about leasing the lakebed and the process for establishing this kind of renewable energy in the lake,” Gabel says. And so, Gabel sponsored legislation creating the Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Energy Advisory Council to draft an advisory report for the General Assembly that was released at the end of June. “One reason to set up this task force is to raise all the questions and the issues we would need answers for before we put an offshore wind farm in the lake,” Gabel says. The council looked at a number of areas such as: what criteria should be used to evaluate applications, how to identify areas favorable and unfavorable for development, what process should be used for the public to weigh in on development proposals, how the state should be compensated for leasing the lakebed and what others have learned from offshore wind development. “It’s a big issue, and we have to get it right,” says Todd Main, deputy director for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. “We’ve got a good sense about where we need to go as a trustee for Lake Michigan and how we protect and evaluate the habitats, wildlife and navigation of the lake.” The next move is the creation, by the state legislature, of another committee to look at how the generation of offshore electricity gets into Illinois’ electric grid and then what role the Illinois Power Agency and Illinois Commerce Commission would play. “Where does that happen? How does that impact electricity transfers? Who pays for it?” Main asks. “There needs to be more study.” The findings of the new committee then likely would be meshed with information gathered by the current advisory council to create permitting and regulatory legislation, he says. While offshore wind farming policy appears to be shaping up in Illinois, other factors are putting a damper on the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Michigan. Just because Illinois officials are crafting a permitting process doesn’t mean turbines should be allowed in the lake, says Joel Brammeier, president and CEO of Alliance for the Great Lakes, an independent citizens’ organization with a mission to conserve and restore the Great Lakes. “What I think is essential to this process is [that] legislators enter into any conversation about offshore wind with a clear understanding of the legacy they will be leaving for future generations,” he says. “I’m not comfortable that offshore wind is the right reason to build on the bottom of the lakebed. To put it simply, if you can build one thing in the lake, why not another?” His concerns can’t be dismissed as they go to the heart of the public trust doctrine, a federal and state court common law that recognizes that the state of

Illinois holds public water resources, including Lake Michigan, in trust for the benefit of and use by its citizens. Court cases historically have allowed the lake to be used for public benefit, such as the expansion of Lincoln Park, but not for private use, such as the expansion of the University of Loyola’s campus. Besides that philosophical question, Brammeier also has concerns about what happens if a turbine becomes outmoded. He questions who will deconstruct the wind farm and pay for it. “It forces us to face the reality there is no such thing as a zero footprint energy source,” he says. “We’re choosing whether to put that footprint on the bottom of the Great Lakes.” Other groups concerned with the well-being of the Great Lakes say that issues ranging from environmental concerns to the high cost of offshore turbines can be addressed. The Sierra Club, for instance, is in favor of appropriately sited wind developments. “Our top organizational priority is climate change and getting the country off of coal,” says Emily Green, Great Lakes program director for the Sierra Club. “We need to find solutions, replacement energy, and we feel this will be accomplished through a mix of things, including wind and solar. We believe offshore wind in some places offers the benefit for utilities to have large-scale wind energy close to load centers in areas where we are seeking the retirement of coal-fired plants.” The Sierra Club is working with the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes Energy Research Laboratory to gather data to build a smart siting platform. “We’re trying to put the tools in place before major projects come to the drawing board, so they can be sited appropriately,” Green says. “We have the chance to get it right in the Great Lakes.” Other barriers to wind turbines in Lake Michigan are the need for technological advancements, the high cost to build turbines and the economics of energy. Lake Michigan’s average depth is too deep to accommodate turbines, and ice is a problem. Research is being done to build floating turbines, to develop turbines that can be anchored at greater depths and to deal with ice, says Pebbles of the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative. Any successful project will be a balance of cost, public approval and environmental constraints, she says. For wind developers, the high cost of building offshore wind turbines in Lake Michigan, which cost five to six times more than an onshore turbine, is too much to overcome, says Kevin Borgia, director of the Illinois Wind Energy Coalition. “To say that we would focus on offshore wind that would be several times the cost, the private sector isn’t interested,” Borgia says. “We should focus our energy on opportunities that are effective.” Instability in Illinois’ wind power market is the biggest thing holding it back, Borgia says. Deregulation of the state’s electric market has created a questionable marketplace for power as consumers are buying short-term contracts. As a result, wind farm developers have difficulty finding financing for their projects because they can’t guarantee who will buy their power over more than a few years. Long-term renewable contracts would stabilize the market and give investors the guarantees they need to support wind projects, Borgia says. “You’ve got a very complex power market,” he says. “That uncertain market is the reason we need reform. If lawmakers were to fix that problem, that would build wind more than anything else.” Also at issue is the expected expiration at the end of this year of the federal Production Tax Credit subsidizing kilowatt hours for utility-scale wind power producers. The credit is in place to make wind energy competitive with alternatives. Wind energy supporters say a long-term credit, rather than one in jeopardy of losing funding every few years, also would provide stability to the industry. NIMBY groups oppose offshore wind – empirics Al Maiorino, President, Public Strategy Group Energy Manager Today 5-6-2013 “Placing Wind Farms Offshore Doesn’t Deter Opposition” http://www.energymanagertoday.com/placing-wind-farms- offshore-doesnt-deter-opposition-091615/ Offshore wind projects, though they are environmentally friendly and create electricity through wind, still face opposition from NIMBY (not in my backyard) groups. Many offshore wind projects have and still are facing opposition today.

Offshore Wind – AT: Link Turns

Environmental groups specifically hate offshore wind – fears of species loss Veery Maxwell, third-year law student at UC Hastings, 2012, “Wind Energy Development: Can Wind Energy Overcome Substantial Hurdles to Reach the Grid,” West Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 18 W.-N.W. J. Env. L. & Pol’y323, lexis Environmental groups have also been opposed to wind development, particularly in sites inhabited by threatened or endangered species. It seems paradoxical that environmentalists actively oppose emission-free energy production. This incongruous conflict is driven by the fact that wind [*330] turbines have been known to cause species mortality, and are often sited in rural areas that offer needed species habitat. n44 This has caused environmental groups to pursue lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act, and other environmental protection statutes, in hopes of seeking an injunction against the wind farm construction and operations. n45 The Coastal Habitat Alliance sued a Texas wind developer in 2007, demanding an injunction to halt construction on a wind project adjoining the Laguna Madre, an environmentally sensitive bay between the Texas mainland and Padre Island. n46 The Coastal Habitat Alliance alleged that the defendant developer impinged its rights under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the Texas Coastal Management Program by not holding public hearings or conducting appropriate environmental review on the wind farm. n47 A federal court dismissed the case, holding the statutes did not confer a right of action on private parties. n48 However, the case drew attention to the emerging issue of wind turbine siting in ecologically fragile areas. In West Virginia, environmental plaintiffs were successful in halting operations of a wind farm sited in an area home to endangered Indiana bats. n49 After exhaustive presentations by expert witnesses, the federal court found, "there is a virtual certainty that Indiana bats will be harmed, wounded, or killed imminently by the Beech Ridge Project, in violation of section 9 of the ESA ...." n50 The court held that until the developer undergoes the Incidental Take Permitting process through the Fish and Wildlife Service, no new turbines could be approved by the agencies or constructed for the project. n51 The Beech Ridge case was the first wind farm conflict decided under the Endangered Species Act, and demonstrates the need for federal agencies to actively oversee the development of wind farms. n52 In order to avoid costly litigation at every turn, the Beech Ridge holding shows that the myriad of federal agencies involved in approving wind farms must develop comprehensive standardized siting and permitting criteria. While the Fish [*331] and Wildlife Service has been spearheading a collaborative effort to develop wind farm guidelines, only draft voluntary siting guidelines have been published. n53 The two most noteworthy examples of environmental groups opposing wind farms, differ dramatically in terms of location, technology, rationale of opposition, and timing. However, in both cases the wind developer has continued to press forward with development and operations. The first case involves the Altamont Pass, located just east of the San Francisco Bay Area, which was a massive experiment in wind energy begun in the 1970s. n54 The second case involves the Cape Wind project, which is more modest in size, but located in a high-visibility area of Nantucket Sound. n55 The projects are instructive as to the broad range of claims opponents have levied against wind farms. Both cases have directly and indirectly driven a host of solutions to the environmental and local problems generated by wind farms.

OTEC

Environmentalists hate OTEC Becca Freedman, Political Analyst for Harvard Political Review, March 2014, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean- thermal-energy-conversion/ 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.”

Advantage Links

Climate – AT: Link Turns

Support for climate legislation doesn’t spill over – Americans support it in the abstract, but economic costs tank popularity Alex Kaplun, ClimateWire, 1-26-2010, “If Polls Say 'Yes' to a Climate Bill, Why Do Lawmakers Say 'Maybe'?” New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/26/26climatewire-if-polls-say-yes- to-a-climate-bill-why-do-la-41121.html?pagewanted=all Independent media polls have shown roughly the same results. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released just before Christmas showed that 65 percent wanted the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll a few days earlier placed that voter support for government action at 54 percent. But if the adage that politicians follow public opinion is true, why are so many key lawmakers still on the fence over the legislation? Why are politically endangered Democrats hesitant to support a bill that the polls say that voters actually like? And why does the seemingly popular legislative item continue to slide further and further down the congressional agenda? Answering those questions could be pivotal for the future of climate legislation, as both sides admit that the fate of the bill could be determined just as much by public opinion as by the actual policy language in the legislation. Environmentalists and their allies say it takes time to connect public sentiment with political behavior, and many lawmakers do not have a firm grasp of how the public views this issue or how it can benefit them on the campaign trail. "There are frequently positions that politicians take that are out-of-step with America," said Joel Benenson, head of Benenson Strategy Group, which conducted its poll for the coalition Clean Energy Works. "I think that when you campaign and you create a narrative about whether a candidate is siding with special interests like oil companies and Wall Street is opposed to creating energy independence, capping pollution, regulating the financial industry, I think that's a pretty good argument for a Democrat to have against a Republican in a lot of races right now." Some lawmakers say their colleagues' perception of public opinion has been muddied by efforts launched by a handful of powerful interests to defeat the bill. "Some folks, I don't think are listening to people on the ground -- this is a battle between public sentiment and special interests," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), an ardent supporter of the climate change bill. "Over time, the public sentiment has started to prevail." But critics and some polling experts see the matter differently. They say that while the public may indeed articulate surface-level support for climate change legislation, that sentiment fails to adequately reflect two important factors in any political debate -- cost and voter engagement. "When you ask people in an isolated way do they want to do something to address the problem, they say, 'yes,'" said Christopher Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. " When you give them financial implications, those numbers start to erode ." Borick added, "Political figures just do not sense a deep commitment; they see it as a cursory commitment to action rather than a deep commitment that would include financial support." Yesterday, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that 28 percent of voters believed that dealing with global warming should be a "top domestic priority" for President Obama. That number put it dead last among the 21 topics covered by the poll and at its lowest level since Pew started testing the issue in 2007. Addressing the country's "energy problem" came in at 49 percent -- an 11 percentage point drop from last year and the lowest since 2006. "There's more support than opposition for it, but people haven't heard a lot about this," said Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "This issue is off the radar for a lot of people."

Econ – AT: Link Turns

Econ focus causes backlash that hurts Dems – lack of tangible improvements causes disenchantment Accuracy in Media Newswire (AIM), 5-13-2014, “Reuters Claims “Rising U.S. Economy” could save Democrats in 2014 Midterm Elections” http://www.aim.org/newswire/reuters-claims-rising-u-s- economy-could-save-democrats-in-2014-midterm-elections/) WASHINGTON — A Reuters analysis, written by Richard Cowan, alleged that the U.S. economy is becoming stronger. He started his piece with the following: “Here’s a riddle: Many Republicans deny it’s happening. Some Democrats don’t want to talk about it. What is it? The answer is the growing U.S. economy, on pace to expand as much as 3.5 percent this year, about the best performance in the industrialized world. Unemployment has fallen from 10 percent to about 6.3 percent and consumer confidence is at a six-year high.” Yet, when you take an average of several polls, as the website RealClearPolitics does, you find that Americans are not hot on Obama either. He has not had an approval rating higher than his disapproval rating since June of last year. Gallup polls have also reiterated how bleak the U.S. economy has been under Obama. 55% of polled voters in their weekly poll on the state of the economy said the economy was getting worse, compared to about 40% who felt the economy was improving. According to the same weekly poll, the last time that voters felt the economy was improving was in June 2013 by a 49-45 split. Even a strategist at a firm whose clients are Democratic candidates, Erica Seifert, was quoted as saying: “It’s bad for Democrats to make the argument the economy is improving. Bad, bad, bad.” Why are Americans so down on the economy? As Cowan paraphrased some of Seifert’s remarks, it is because “many American voters see an economic landscape still littered with long-term joblessness, stagnant wages and excessive personal debt.”

Internals

Ocean Policy Key

Plan’s controversial – ocean policy is an election year battleground Ocean Conservancy, 11-3-2012, “Nobody Benefits From Politicizing The Ocean,” http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2012/11/03/nobody-benefits-from-politicizing-the-ocean/) Over the past week, Hurricane Sandy has surged through the Caribbean and South Atlantic, slammed into the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast and affected over 60 million people across the Eastern Seaboard. With the flooding of thousands of homes, power outages sweeping the region, and first responders diligently responding to communities’ needs, this storm serves as a stark reminder that environmental impacts are not confined to political boundaries. Effective policy should not be, either. This week, the Washington Post examined the fervent bullying faced by the National Ocean Policy over the course of this election year and its role as a battleground for polarized election-year fights. Critics attempted to block funding for its implementation, claiming the policy served as an executive power grab, lacking in stakeholder involvement and increasing in bureaucratic red tape. However, blocking implementation of the National Ocean Policy could restrict agencies already struggling to maintain services vital to the health of our coastal communities, and will exacerbate conflicts between interests competing for space in our nation’s waters.

AT: National Issues Not Key

Obama gets the blame for the aff – midterms are a referendum on his policies John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, columnist for the New York Post, and a former presidential speechwriter, 3-18-2014, "Obama’s failed foreign policy just another drag on Democrats," http://nypost.com/2014/03/18/obamas-failed-foreign-policy-just-another-drag-on-democrats/) He is the president. It’s his watch. Americans may be war-weary, but they still look to the man in the White House to provide an overall sense of stability and safety. Democrats need Americans to feel positively about the president going into the 2014 elections. All election experts say the party’s showing nationally in November will correlate strongly with how the country feels about the job the president is doing.

Midterms will be a referendum on Obama Charlie Cook, Political Analyst at the National Journal + Founder of the Cook Political Report, 2-10- 2014, "The Path to Victory in 2014," http://www.govexec.com/oversight/on-politics/2014/02/path- victory-2014/78542/ The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza created something of a stir recently with his column headlined, “2014 Senate races may be a referendum on Obama; if so, Democrats should worry.” Cillizza (a former Cook Political Report staffer) linked to the Gallup Organization’s just-released aggregation of all of its 2013 polling data, with President Obama’s job-approval and disapproval numbers broken down by state. Cillizza observed that Obama has disapproval ratings over 50 percent in 10 of the 21 states where Democrats are defending Senate seats this year. The disapprovals were over 55 percent in open Democratic Senate seat states in West Virginia (67.3 percent), Montana (60.9 percent), and South Dakota (59.3 percent). These disapproval numbers can also be seen in the two states represented by the most-endangered Democratic incumbents: Arkansas (57 percent), where Mark Pryor is facing the stiffest of all challenges, and Alaska (55.4 percent), where Mark Begich is fighting for reelection. While Cillizza’s point is hardly earth-shattering, it is very important and worth keeping in mind. As much as anything, midterm elections tend to be a referendum on the incumbent president. When voters are unhappy, they tend to vote to punish the president’s party’s candidates. If voters are satisfied, they generally find some other basis on which to decide their vote. It may be unfair, but that’s the way it is. As of late, Obama’s numbers have been languishing in the low 40s, occasionally dipping below 40 percent, while at other times reaching as high as 45 or 46 percent. The president’s disapproval numbers generally bounce around the 50 percent mark, half the time slightly higher, the other half a bit lower. Obama’s approval numbers are almost precisely tracking those of George W. Bush at this point in his presidency. But he is trailing far behind those of Ronald Reagan, who at this point had approval numbers in the low 60s, and Bill Clinton, who was in the high 50s. Given this situation, the challenge for Democratic candidates is to ensure that the focal point of their campaigns is something other than Obama (and, one might add, the Affordable Care Act). In an optimal situation, Democrats should be able to put the focus on their Republican rivals’ flaws or miscues, real or imagined, thereby deflecting attention from Obama and the general disapproval that voters have with where the country is going. (The NBC News Political Unit recently found that the “right direction” number has not exceeded the “wrong track” in over 10 years, a startling sign of long-term discontent with the country’s leadership). Democratic opposition-research consultants will need to really earn their paychecks this year.

Iran Deal Scenario

1NC Dems Key – Iran Deal

Dems Key – Iran Deal

Republican takeover kills deal Julian Pecquet, political reporter, 1-23-2014, “GOP Senate takeover could kill Iran deal” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/international/196170-gop-senate-takeover-could-kill-iran-nuclear A Republican takeover of the Senate this fall could scuttle one of President Obama’s biggest second term goals — a nuclear deal with Iran. Republicans have lambasted the interim agreement with Iran, calling for the Senate to move an Iran sanctions bill. The House last year passed a measure in an overwhelming and bipartisan 400-20 vote. Both the Obama administration and Iran have warned moving such a measure could kill a final deal. A number of Democrats have also criticized the interim accord, which lifted $6 billion in sanctions on Iran in exchange for a commitment to restrictions on enriching uranium. Critics in both parties say the deal gave away too much to Iran. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has given Obama cover by refusing to bring sanctions legislation to the floor. If Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) becomes majority leader, sanctions legislation could move quickly to the floor and could attract a veto-proof majority. “If Republicans held the majority, we would have voted already; with Democrats in charge, Harry Reid denies the American people the bipartisan diplomatic insurance policy they deserve,” a senior Republican Senate aide complained. The aide suggested Republicans would use the issue of Iran to show how a GOP-run Senate would differ with the status quo. “So the question really is, what kind of Senate would people rather have — one that puts politics over good policy, or one that holds Iran accountable and works overtime to prevent a world with Iranian nuclear weapons?” the aide asked.

GOP win scuttles Iran deal Bradley Klapper, analyst, 7-29-2014, “US NEGOTIATOR GIVES NO HARD DEADLINE FOR IRAN DEAL” Associated Press, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-negotiator-gives-no-hard-deadline-iran-deal An interim deal reached last November and put into place earlier this year provided Tehran up to $7 billion in economic relief for a series of measures to freeze its nuclear advancement. The goal was to reach a final agreement by July 20 but Secretary of State John Kerry and other top diplomats said that while tangible progress had been made, the gaps were still too wide. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., called Iran's concessions to date "underwhelming." "I've been skeptical of the Iranians' sincerity from Day 1 and I cannot say that I am any less skeptical today," said Menendez, the committee chairman. He said he'd oppose any further extension of negotiations. Sherman said the administration strongly believes the talks merit additional time. "We wouldn't have agreed to an extension if we did not have an honest expectation that we have a credible path forward," she said. "We still have work to do. We still have time to determine whether we can close the gap between what Iran has said it intends and what it is willing to do." Congress would enjoy its greatest leverage if a comprehensive accord is reached. Lawmakers would essentially enjoy a veto over any final deal because they could place strict limits on Iranian activity in exchange for the revocation of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions. Permanently scrapping sanctions that are codified in U.S. law would require both chambers of Congress to act. That task would only get harder for the administration if Republicans, who already control the House, seize a majority in the Senate in November's midterm elections.

1NC Deal Good – Iran Prolif

Diplomacy solves Iran prolif Colin H. Kahl, Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, 1-7-2014, “Still Not Time to Attack Iran,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140633/colin-h-kahl/still-not-time-to-attack-iran In my article “Not Time to Attack Iran” (March/April 2012), I made the case for pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear challenge, arguing that, because of the risks and costs associated with military action, “force is, and should remain, a last resort, not a first choice.” Key developments in 2013 -- namely, the election of Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, as Iran’s new president and the signing of an interim nuclear deal by Iran and the United States and its negotiating partners -- reinforce this conclusion. Whatever hawks such as Reuel Marc Gerecht or Matthew Kroenig might argue, it is still not time to attack Iran. Indeed, the prospects for reaching a comprehensive agreement to resolve the nuclear impasse peacefully, while far from guaranteed, have never been brighter . After decades of isolation, the Iranian regime may finally be willing to place meaningful limits on its nuclear program in exchange for relief from punishing economic sanctions. In Iran’s June 2013 presidential election, Rouhani handily defeated a slate of conservative opponents, including the hard-line nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who had campaigned on continuing Iran’s strategy of “nuclear resistance.” Rouhani, in contrast, pledged to reach a nuclear accommodation with the West and free Iran from the economic burden imposed by sanctions. Rouhani, also a former nuclear negotiator, believes he has the support of the Iranian people and a green light from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to reach a comprehensive nuclear accord with the United States and the other members of the P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia). The first step on the road to a comprehensive deal came in November 2013 with an interim agreement in Geneva, in which Tehran agreed to freeze and modestly roll back its nuclear program in exchange for a pause in new international sanctions and a suspension of some existing penalties. The deal represents the most meaningful move toward a denuclearized Iran in more than a decade. It neutralizes Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent uranium and therefore modestly lengthens Iran’s “breakout” timeline -- the time required to enrich uranium to weapons grade -- by one or two months. A new inspections regime also means any breakout attempt would be detected soon enough for the international community to react, and expanded International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will make it more difficult for Iran to divert critical technology and materials to new secret sites. The terms also preclude the new plutonium reactor at Arak from becoming operational, halting the risk that Iran could soon use plutonium to build a bomb.

Deal Good – Iran Prolif

Iran deal solves Iran prolif- interim deal sets the stage for future agreements The Economist 11-30-2013 “Well begun, not nearly done” http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21590959-encouraging-interim-deal-iran-makes-permanent- check-its-nuclear-ambitions-easier THE interim deal concluded on November 24th between six world powers and Iran is much better than its many critics allow. In return for six months of “limited, temporary…and reversible” relief from some international sanctions, Iran has said it will not just freeze its progress towards a possible nuclear bomb, but actually take a few steps back. This, too, is limited, temporary and reversible; nothing is being decommissioned, and six months is a short time. But if further negotiations can cement the gains in place, they would mark a turning point in efforts to stop nuclear proliferation—and perhaps in regional politics more broadly (see article). The agreement was brought about by a multilateral process in Geneva and secret parallel discussions between the Obama administration and Iran which began in August, when Iran’s new president, Hassan Rohani, took office. Both sets of negotiations were conducted in an atmosphere of constructive endeavour, a far cry from the sterile declarations and mutual suspicion of the past. A nuclear-weapons programme needs either uranium which has been highly enriched—something achieved by passing the stuff repeatedly through cascades of whirling centrifuges—or plutonium. At present the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reckons that Iran has almost 200kg of 20%-enriched uranium in a form that could easily be enriched up to the 90% or so needed for a bomb. Under the terms of the deal (see table on next page) Iran will get rid of this stock, either by putting it in a form that is hard to enrich further or by mixing it with unenriched uranium, thus diluting it to less than 5%. At the same time it will freeze its enrichment capabilities at their current capacity, undertake no further enrichment beyond the 5% level, and do nothing to increase the 7,200kg stockpile of low-enriched uranium that is currently in a form that can easily be further enriched. Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank in London, believes that the effect of the deal is to double the “breakout time” it would take Iran to produce enough material for a few nuclear weapons. Before the deal this was estimated at perhaps six weeks, and was steadily shortening. The deal addresses the other possible route to the bomb by stopping most work on a reactor at Arak which was to have been ready for commissioning late next year. The Arak reactor is of a design particularly well suited to producing plutonium, and needs no enriched uranium in order to do so. Once the reactor is fuelled up, any attack on it would release a plume of radioactivity; this makes its commissioning something of a point of no return as far as military action against Iran is concerned. The deal also stops all work on facilities that might be used to extract plutonium from its spent fuel. These constraints are in large measure thanks to the French, whose objections to insufficient action on Arak prevented an agreement from being reached two weeks earlier. Iran has also said it will co-operate with a far more intrusive inspection regime; this makes the deal very different from the one reached with North Korea in 2005, which the Koreans then broke. Iran has promised to answer all the questions posed by the IAEA about what the agency refers to as the “possible military dimensions” of its nuclear programme. It will provide access to nuclear sites hitherto off-limits, possibly including the Parchin military base where Western intelligence agencies think it tested a detonation system for a bomb.

Permanent Iran deal is coming – it’ll solve prolif and result in real concessions Golnaz Esfandiari, writer at Radio Free Europe citing Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ali Vaez, senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, 11-24-2013 “Road To Permanent Iran Deal Is Long, Time Is Short,” http://www.rferl.org/content/iran- nuclear-deal-analysis-us-obama-eu/25178532.html ...Or Building Block? But at the end of the day, says Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the accord gives Obama room to maneuver. "It helps ensure Obama's two overarching goals vis-a-vis Iran -- don't allow them to get the bomb, and don't bomb them," he says. Ali Vaez, a senior Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, concurs, saying there is now separation between Iran’s peaceful and potential military nuclear capabilities. This, he says,

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 411 virtually eliminates the possibility of Iran dashing to assemble a nuclear weapon without prompt detection and response by the international community. "Like hurdling track and field, springing over the first obstacle does not guarantee victory," he says. "But without it the race is lost." Hibbs says both sides have bought six months to deflate tensions and build some trust, although, he notes, that is not a lot of time. "Iran for the first time in a decade has agreed to suspend the most provocative of its nuclear activities," Hibbs says. "And if both sides can figure out how to match Iranian cooperation with sanctions-lifting, the two sides can create enough space to settle the longer-term issues at the end of the tunnel: how much enrichment, the future of the Arak project, long-term [International Atomic Energy Agency] verification."

Real concessions are on the table – negotiations can succeed Dan Joyner, Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law, 9-20-2013, “Rouhani’s WaPo Op-ed, Trip to the UN, Major New Concession, and an Opportunity Not to be Missed”, http://armscontrollaw.com/2013/09/20/rouhanis-wapo-op-ed-trip-to-the-un-major-new-concession- and-an-opportunity-not-to-be-missed/ Many will have already read Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s op-ed published yesterday in the Washington Post. Part of an interesting trend lately, begun with Russian President Putin’s op-ed in the NYT last week, of foreign leaders trying to speak directly to the American people through leading American media outlets. Rouhani’s op-ed is just the most recent installment in a number of statements by the new Iranian president, including through a Twitter account, in which he has tried to strike a much more conciliatory and positive tone with the West and with Israel than his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has said repeatedly that he is willing to negotiate on a real and meaningful basis with the West in order to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. It has been reported that President Obama and President Rouhani have already exchanged letters, in a very rare instance of direct communication between US and Iranian leaders. Further, in what appears to be a significant sign of goodwill, the US Treasury department has twice this year eased some provisions of its sanctions on Iran. In the midst of these positive signs of a changed tone and willingness on the part of both sides to cooperate productively in negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program, President Rouhani will be traveling to the United Nations in New York next week, for his first address to the UN General Assembly. In perhaps the most significant sign yet of Iran’s commitment to serious negotiations with the West over its nuclear program, the German magazine Der Spiegel reported a few days ago that President Rouhani is prepared to offer as a concession something that President Ahmadinejad would never have considered offering – the decommissioning of of the Fordow enrichment facility. The decommissioning of Fordow has been one of the P5+1′s longstanding demands in the negotiations. I wrote about it in one of my very first ACL posts last summer, including the explicit rejection of this idea by Iran’s IAEA representative at the time. The Der Spiegel report says that Rouhani may even make this offer publicly during his UN visit next week. It it’s true that Rouhani is willing to put the decommissioning of Fordow on the table, then people can stop their dismissal of Rouhani’s recent statements as a charm offensive without any real substance. The decommissioning of Fordow would be a major concession by Iran to Western demands, and would, as part of a negotiated package deal, deserve a reciprocal major concession on the part of the P5+1, in the form of real and meaningful sanctions relief for Iran. I think that the current circumstances of Rouhani’s election and mandate from the Iranian people, and his expressed willingness to negotiate productively and to put major concessions on the table, represent a historic opportunity that President Obama would be a fool to miss. I think he has a real chance here to do something that would re-earn him his Nobel Peace Prize – negotiate an accord with Iran over its nuclear program that will significantly reduce international tension surrounding this longstanding dispute, that has harmed the reputation of the US and the EU in the world, seriously damaged the

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 412 perceived credibility of the IAEA, and harmed millions of Iranian civilians through international sanctions that courts in the EU have repeatedly found to be unlawful.

Deal Good – AT: Centrifuges

Iran installed centrifuges but didn’t make them operational because of Geneva Payvand News, 1-2-2014, “Iran has not brought new centrifuges into operation: Salehi” http://www.payvand.com/news/14/jan/1010.html Iran has installed a number of new centrifuges for enriching uranium but has not brought them into operation because of the Geneva nuclear deal, Iran's nuclear chief said on Saturday. "We have installed 1000 new-generation centrifuge machines (IR-2m) but have not injected uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas into them given the nuclear negotiations and the Geneva deal," Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Director Ali Akbar Salehi said in a televised interview, referring to an interim nuclear deal reached between Iran and world powers in Geneva in November. The deal, which has not come into effect yet, calls for Tehran to limit its nuclear program in return for a limited easing of sanctions against the country. "Under the Geneva agreement, we are supposed to not install any new centrifuges over a period of six months," Salehi added.

Implementation will address centrifuges and Iran has already ceased operation Shemuel Meir, Former IDF analyst in the Strategic Planning Department and associate researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, 12-22-2013, “An important year for Iran nuclear talks: What Israel got wrong”, http://972mag.com/the-nuclear-deal-with-iran-what-really- happened-in-geneva/84149/ The Geneva Agreement completely removes the quick-and-dangerous route to 20-percent uranium enrichment in the underground fortified facility in Fordo (“the immunity area” in Ehud Barak’s preventive strike scenario) and enshrines the “zero enrichment” to 20 percent in the permanent agreement. This constitutes not only a “freezing” but also a rolling back of a central element with military potential. All the existing stock of 20-percent enriched uranium will undergo a process of conversion into nuclear fuel which does not enable further enrichment. Already in the first agreement, Iran has undertaken not to operate three-quarters of its 2,700 centrifuges in Fordo. At the Saban Forum earlier this month President Obama hinted that it was possible that Fordo would not be allowed to remain as a centrifuge site. This means that the U.S. is striving to physically remove the centrifuges and to transform the site to other permitted and monitored activities. Regarding the main centrifuge site in Natanz (where uranium enrichments is up to 3.5 percent), it was agreed that at this stage Iran will be permitted to operate only half of the centrifuges at the site – (8,700 out of 18,000) and that there would be no deviation from the stock of uranium as it stands to date, i.e. 7,150 kilograms. From the paragraph in the agreement that speaks of “practical limits” regarding uranium enrichment in a future permanent agreement, we can conclude that the number of centrifuges will be decreased. The important point regarding Natanz – the 1,000 “second generation” fast centrifuges will not be connected and will not operate. These advanced fast centrifuges were a crucial element in the scenarios of “a quick breakout capability in 6 weeks” developed by think tanks and the Prime Minister’s Office. Verification solves Shemuel Meir, Former IDF analyst in the Strategic Planning Department and associate researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, 12-22-2013, “An important year for Iran

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 414 nuclear talks: What Israel got wrong”, http://972mag.com/the-nuclear-deal-with-iran-what-really- happened-in-geneva/84149/ In his answer to General Yadlin, President Obama explained that theoretically, Iran could have “the breakout capability.” But in practical terms, the strict limitations on its low-level enrichment program and the intrusive IAEA monitoring provide a good guarantee that Iran would not have a “breakout capability.” According to the agreement, Iran will be placed under a “ unique and unprecedented” verification and monitoring mechanism. Already in the first stage, IAEA monitors will be given access on a daily basis to the centrifuge sites, to the facilities for the production and storage of centrifuges (that until today were “off limits” to the IAEA). In this way, Iran undertakes already in the first stage some elements of the “Additional Protocol” (based on the lessons learned from Saddam Hussein’s clandestine program) which permits intrusive snap inspections at short notice, including at undeclared suspected sites which will prevent the possibility of secret stockpiling of fissile material for a bomb going unperceived by the inspectors. This will prevent the possibility of a clandestine route to nuclear weapons. It is worth remembering that to date, Iran is the most monitored country in the world – inspectors are permanently and continually in place in Iran, video cameras broadcast directly to the IAEA headquarters in Vienna. The US intelligence effort through satellites recall operations over Soviet territory during the Cold War. The satellite coverage is more than photography and includes the collection and interpretation of activities on the basis of samples of material released into the atmosphere. In addition, there is the NSA tracking of signals. In the nuclear context, tight monitoring is the best confidence- building measure. The second point explicitly emphasized by President Obama in his speech at the Saban Forum was that the North Korean model was not applicable to Iran and that there is no room for comparison between the two cases. President Obama emphasized the fact (based on intelligence material) that when the U.S. entered into negotiations with North Korea – the latter already had fissile material for nuclear weapons. North Korea had never been a full member of the NPT. It entered the treaty in an irregular and late manner, withdrew in 2003 and carried out its first nuclear explosion in 2006. The huge difference between Iran and North Korea can be found on the declarative level: North Korea according to its constitution is “a state armed with nuclear weapons” while Iran is an NPT country which, in the Geneva Agreement, has reaffirmed that it will not develop nuclear weapons. President Obama thus put an end to the North Korea spin. At Saban Forum, President Obama tried to signal (with admirable tact) to Israeli leaders that the prevalent concept according to which “there is nothing new in Iran” should be reexamined. That the importance of the political change in Iran should not be underestimated. President Rouhani’s sweeping electoral victory reflects a change of direction in Iran. An understanding of the global reality of the NPT regime (no to nuclear weapons, yes to civil nuclear programs) and the reality of the new Iran – these explain what happened in Geneva. The explanation is not to be found in an imagined US. naiveté. President Shimon Peres, who recently said in public that Iran is not an enemy state, seems to share President Obama’s assessment.

Deal Good – AT: Interim Deal Solves

Interim deal is not sufficient – need further negotiations Melik Kaylan, has written about ancient places, warzones, political upheavals and far frontiers for the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek since the 1990s. That covers an area from the China-North Korea border to the Caucasus, to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey to Eastern Europe. Submerging markets. 11-25-2013 “Is The Iran Deal Good Or Bad?” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/melikkaylan/2013/11/25/is-the- iran-deal-good-or-bad/ Here’s the most self-evident truth about the Sunday deal in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear program: don’t trust anyone who has a stridently categorical view on the matter. The sanest observers have correctly argued that it constitutes a first step on a long, hard road and that includes Messrs Obama and Kerry. When you consider that six months of secret negotiations led to this most interim of stages, you get the picture. The deal does halt Iran dash to ‘breakout’ capacity but doesn’t yet prevent the mullahs, should negotiations fail, from restarting the process of enriching uranium to weaponization or producing plutonium for that purpose at a new reactor still in development. We are talking about a pause.

Deal Good – AT: Iran Cheats

Deal prevents Iran from cheating – penalties check Fred Kaplan, Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-24-2013, “We Have a Deal With Iran. A Good One.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/11/_iran_nukes_this_is_exactly_th e_deal_that_obama_hoped_to_achieve_in_geneva.html Netanyahu’s worry has been that a partial accord would allow the Iranians to advance their nuclear program while stringing us along in interminable follow-on negotiations. It should be clear that the terms of this agreement prevent them from playing games. President Obama also said, in a televised address Saturday night, that if the Iranians don’t abide by their commitments in the next six months, he will again freeze their overseas funds and impose stiffer sanctions.

Interim agreement solves Matthew Duss, Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress, 1-17-2014, “New Sanctions Would Foreclose Non-Military Options for Iran,” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2014/01/17/82526/new-sanctions-would- foreclose-non-military-options-for-iran/ Moreover, sanctions supporters insist that new sanctions are necessary to make sure Iran doesn’t cheat on its commitments under the first-phase deal, but the JPA already contains provisions for such an eventuality. If Iran is found to be in violation of its commitments under the first-phase agreement, the limited sanctions relief offered under the agreement would quickly be ended and reversed. It’s also worth noting that the sanctions relief granted in the JPA actually amounts to less than the continually compounding impact of other ongoing sanctions not covered in the JPA.

Deal Good – AT: Iran Hardliners

Status quo is Goldilocks – hardliners are on board Associated Press (AP), 12-31-2013, “Iran Hard-Liners Join Team of Nuclear Negotiators,” ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/report-iran-deal-reached-nuclear-details-21379226 Iran has boosted its team in charge of nuclear talks with world powers, adding what are believed to be hard-liners and conservatives in an apparent effort to silence critics of the landmark interim accord reached in Geneva in November. The semi-official news agencies Fars and Mehr reported on Wednesday that new members have joined the high council, which directs strategies in the talks and which is led by the country's moderate President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. The agencies did not identify the new members, saying only that representatives of "all branches of power and other senior figures" are now on the council. The development comes a day after Iran and Western negotiators reported they were nearing an understanding on the details of implementing the Geneva accord. The deal puts strong limits on Iran's uranium enrichment program in return for an easing of some international sanctions on Tehran for six months while a permanent deal is negotiated. The United States and its allies believe Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing a nuclear weapon, a claim that Tehran denies, saying it is intended only for peaceful purposes. Over the past month, experts from Iran and the so-called "5+1" countries — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — have held several rounds of talks in Geneva to work out details on carrying out the agreement. The most recent session was on Monday, and on Tuesday, both sides reported progress in the talks. Rouhani has faced criticism from hard-liners at home over the Geneva deal, with many claiming the contents of the talks were kept secret and that they were excluded from the process. Some have called it a "poison chalice" for Iran. Zarif has defended the process, saying Iran's top leadership had approved the Geneva deal in its entirety ahead of the signing but that the secrecy on the content was necessary to ensure the talks would not be derailed. "The team advising on nuclear negotiations will be strengthened for the next round of talks," prominent hard-line lawmaker Ismaeil Kowsari was quoted by Mehr as saying. "Things were not in our favor in the previous round, as they should have been." Iranian hard-liners believe Tehran has offered too many concessions in return for too little in the Geneva deal. But Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, has backed the nuclear negotiating team, even calling its members "sons of the Revolution."

AT: Deal Bad – AT: Kills Current Sanctions

Iran deal won’t collapse current sanctions Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, 1-13- 2014, “Six Myths About Iran Sanctions,” http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at- saban/posts/2014/01/7-iran-sanctions-nuclear-deal-myths Myth 1. The interim nuclear deal has eroded the credibility of the sanctions regime and legitimized business with Iran. Nope, not a chance. This line may sound awfully compelling, but it’s a hollow argument that disregards the very factors that have made the Iran sanctions so powerful. Specifically, the sanctions are grounded in an onslaught of shrewd American measures that outlaw nearly all aspects of business with Iran. These measures achieved broad global compliance and were bolstered by parallel restrictions imposed by the United Nations, the European Union, and several of Iran’s most important trade partners. The sanctions' efficacy also reflects revolutionary changes in energy markets that blunted escalatory pressures on prices after the loss of half Iran’s crude exports. Finally, the force of sanctions has been amplified by the profound dissuasive impact of Iran’s own conduct, particularly the repugnant rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The synergy among these factors created an almost unstoppable momentum around isolating Iran. As a result, over the past decade, doing business with Iran became increasingly illegal, unnecessary, and even immoral. It is that final aspect of the sanctions juggernaut that has begun to erode, thanks to Rouhani’s election, the subsequent charm offensive, and the diplomatic progress. Four years ago, amidst fresh memories of Ahmadinejad’s outrages and the repression of massive anti-government protests, much of the world saw Iranian business as untouchable. Today, the pendulum has shifted markedly in the opposite direction. However, the two most important facets of the sanctions campaign remain robustly intact. The multiplicity of regulations and the stiff penalties that have been levied against firms and individuals not only for ongoing activities but even for past business loom large for companies and individual investors. The legal and monetary liability and ongoing political risks incurred in doing business with Iran vastly outweighs whatever financial gain there may be. And the advent of unconventional petroleum resources and explosion of North American production leaves Tehran paying the price for its lost oil exports — rather than the governments that have imposed the sanctions or their citizens. The myth about collapsing sanctions is grounded in misrepresentation and hyperbole. Proponents suggest that the diplomatic environment will prevent Washington or other governments from enforcing those sanctions already on the books. As Weatherford International and an array of other firms that have recently been penalized for their ties to Tehran can attest, this is simply untrue. Others argue that the modest sanctions relief of the interim accord will empower muscular lobbies to ensure their perpetuation, a contention that vastly overestimates the interests of either the oil majors or other heavyweight industries in a trickle of renewed trade with Iran. The reality is that the sanctions regime remains muscular and stringently enforced.

Iran Prolif MPX

1NC Iran Prolif Bad

Iran Prolif Bad – Laundry Lists

Iran prolif destroys MidEast heg, creates a new wave of proliferation, and leads to nuclear war with Israel that draws in other powers Matthew Kroenig, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, January/February 2012, “Time to Attack Iran” published in Foreign Affairs; accessed through Ebsco Some states in the region are doubting U.S. resolve to stop the program and are shifting their allegiances to Tehran. Others have begun to discuss launching their own nuclear initiatives to counter a possible Iranian bomb. For those nations and the United States itself, the threat will only continue to grow as Tehran moves closer to its goal. A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war, forcing Washington to think twice before acting in the region. Iran's regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia, would likely decide to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, sparking an arms race. To constrain its geopolitical rivals, Iran could choose to spur proliferation by transferring nuclear technology to its allies--other countries and terrorist groups alike. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy, and the battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel, for example, could escalate. And Iran and Israel lack nearly all the safeguards that helped the United States and the Soviet Union avoid a nuclear exchange during the Cold War--secure second-strike capabilities, clear lines of communication, long flight times for ballistic missiles from one country to the other, and experience managing nuclear arsenals. To be sure, a nuclear-armed Iran would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. But the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw the United States in, as well.

Iran prolif leads to wildfire Mideast prolif and increases the risk of nuclear terror Conrad Black, Masters in History from McGill University and member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, 8-9-2012, “Israel Confronts Iran: Taking the Iranian Nuclear Threat Seriously” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313253/israel-confronts-iran-conrad-black?pg=1 The Obama administration has clearly agonized over what to do about Iran after the abject failure of its attempted “engagement” with that country. The parallel failure of the “reset” with Russia was highlighted at the same time as the full empowering of Israel by congressional approval of a bill prohibiting the sharing of anti-missile technology with the Russians, whom Obama, in the open- microphone exchange with then-Russian President Medvedev earlier this year, seemed to approve as rightful permanent holders of a nuclear first-strike capacity against the West. The administration’s reluctance to plunge into a new Near Eastern conflict is understandable, after 13 years, 7,000 lives, and $2 trillion expended for unclear results in Afghanistan and Iraq. But if Iran acquires nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, Israel is in mortal danger, though it would reply to an attack with the nuclear obliteration of Iran. All neighbouring states, including Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, would alter course to reflect the Iranian nuclear capability. All would probably move to acquire the same nuclear- strike capacity; and the chances that terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weapons would be greatly enhanced.

Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Deterrence Solves

High risk of nuclear war in a world of Iran prolif – deterrence doesn’t check Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and PhD in International Relations, 11-16-2012, “Iran must be President Obama’s immediate priority” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger- iran-must-be-president-obamas-immediate-priority/2012/11/16/2edf93e4-2dea-11e2-beb2- 4b4cf5087636_story.html Some have argued that even in the worst-case scenario, a nuclear Iran could be deterred. Yet this ignores the immensely costly, complex and tension-ridden realities of Cold War-era deterrence, the apocalyptic strain in the Iranian theocracy and the near-certainty that several regional powers will go nuclear if Iran does. Once nuclear balances are forged in conditions where tensions are no longer purely bilateral, as in the Cold War, and in still-developing countries whose technology to prevent accidents is rudimentary, the likelihood of some nuclear exchange will mount dramatically.

Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Missile Defense Solves

Risk of missile defense failure means it can’t deter Iran Yousaf Butt, a nuclear physicist and a scientific consultant to the Federation of American Scientists,5-7- 2012, “Debunking the Missile-Defense Myth” http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/debunking-the- missile-defense-myth-6889 But if Tehran obtains nuclear weapons, surrounding it with missile defenses, no matter how effective, will never eliminate the threat that a single missile could penetrate the defense system—especially given how easy it is to outfox the system by using decoys. Thus, the United States can never neutralize the deterrent value of any possible future Iranian nuclear ballistic missiles with any incarnation of missile defense. A nuclear-armed Iran would have to be treated identically by Washington whether or not missile defenses were in play.

Iran Prolif Turns Case – Econ

Iran prolif causes oil price spikes – uncertainty and disruption of oil flows – tanks the global economy Charles S. Robb, Co-Leader of the National Security Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, former US Senator from Virginia, and former co-chair of the Iraq Intelligence Commission, and Charles Wald, Board Member of the Bipartisan Policy Center, Retired General and Former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command, October 2012, “The Price of Inaction: Analysis of Energy and Economic Effects of a Nuclear Iran” http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/PriceofInaction.pdf If Iran achieves nuclear weapons capability, widespread instability could aggravate uncertainty about the security of energy production and transport, raising oil prices for the long term and negatively impacting the U.S. economy. It would also increase the likelihood of disruptions to the flow of oil, having a material negative impact on the U.S. economy. Middle East oil is critical to the global economy. Exports from the region—more than half of which come from Saudi Arabia—fulfill nearly 20 percent of global daily oil demand, and 35 percent of all seaborne-traded oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. The Persian Gulf— Saudi Arabia in particular—is also home to nearly all the world’s spare production capacity. If oil production or exports from the region are interrupted, the rest of the world would have a difficult time replacing those supplies, driving prices up. Such oil-supply disruptions—and their attendant price spike—have occurred periodically during the last halfcentury. Military conflict blocked vital oil chokepoints during the Suez Crisis (1956–1957), contributing directly to a price jump of 9 percent during the conflict. Other conflicts have damaged major oilfields and facilities, or cut them off from world markets, as during the Iranian general strike and Revolution (1978–1979), Iraq’s invasion of Iran’s oil-producing regions (1980), Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (1990), and the opening phase of the Iraq War (2003).

Iran Prolif Turns Case – Heg

Iran prolif kills heg and credibility Jaime Daremblum, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow, 10-25-2011, “Iran Dangerous Now, Imagine it Nuclear,” Real Clear World, http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=8439 What would it mean if such a regime went nuclear? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a nuclear-armed Iran would never use its atomic weapons or give them to terrorists. Even under that optimistic scenario, Tehran's acquisition of nukes would make the world an infinitely more dangerous place. For one thing, it would surely spark a wave of proliferation throughout the Greater Middle East, with the likes of Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia - all Sunni-majority Muslim countries - going nuclear to counter the threat posed by Shiite Persian Iran. For another, it would gravely weaken the credibility of U.S. security guarantees. After all, Washington has repeatedly said that the Islamic Republic will not be permitted to get nukes. If Tehran d emonstrated that these warnings were utterly hollow, rival governments and rogue regimes would conclude that America is a paper tiger. Once Tehran obtained nuclear weapons, it would have the ultimate trump card, the ultimate protection against outside attack. Feeling secure behind their nuclear shield, the Iranians would almost certainly increase their support for global terrorism and anti-American dictatorships. They would no longer have to fear a U.S. or Israeli military strike. Much like nuclear-armed North Korea today, Iran would be able to flout international law with virtual impunity. If America sought to curb Iranian misbehavior through economic sanctions, Tehran might well respond by flexing its muscles in the Strait of Hormuz. As political scientist Caitlin Talmadge explained in a 2008 analysis, "Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz tops the list of global energy security nightmares. Roughly 90 percent of all Persian Gulf oil leaves the region on tankers that must pass through this narrow waterway opposite the Iranian coast, and land pipelines do not provide sufficient alternative export routes. Extended closure of the strait would remove roughly a quarter of the world's oil from the market, causing a supply shock of the type not seen since the glory days of OPEC." Think about that: The world's leading state sponsor of terrorism has the ability to paralyze destabilize the global economy, and, if not stopped, it may soon have nuclear weapons. As a nuclear- armed Iran steadily expanded its international terror network, the Western Hemisphere would likely witness a significant jump in terrorist activity. Tehran has established a strategic alliance with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, and it has also developed warm relations with Chávez acolytes in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua while pursuing new arrangements with Argentina as an additional beachhead in Latin America Three years ago, the U.S. Treasury Department accused the Venezuelan government of "employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and fundraisers." More recently, in July 2011, Peru's former military chief of staff, Gen. Francisco Contreras, told the Jerusalem Post that "Iranian organizations" are aiding and cooperating with other terrorist groups in South America. According to Israeli intelligence, the Islamic Republic has been getting uranium from both Venezuela and Bolivia. Remember: Tehran has engaged in this provocative behavior without nuclear weapons. Imagine how much more aggressive the Iranian dictatorship might be after crossing the nuclear Rubicon. It is an ideologically driven theocracy intent on spreading a radical Islamist revolution across the globe. As the Saudi plot demonstrates, no amount of conciliatory Western diplomacy can change the fundamental nature of a regime that is defined by anti-Western hatred and religious fanaticism.

Iran is Irrational

Iran isn’t a rational actor – religion, nationalism, Iran-Iraq conflict proves Shmuel Bar, Director of Studies at the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzliya, Israel, Published in 2011, “Can Cold War Deterrence Apply to a Nuclear Iran?” http://jcpa.org/text/cold_war_deterrence_nuclear_iran.pdf Another factor which raises doubts about the validity of the rational-actor model in the case of Iran is the centrality of the ethos of martyrdom for the Iranian regime, which may well contribute to escalatory rhetoric and action through subversion and even conventional military action. Religion and nationalistic fervor have contributed in the past to a predilection by the Iranian regime for brinkmanship and for perseverance in conflicts despite rational considerations against such behavior. A case in point is the continuation of the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s with enormous costs in human lives and material due to Khomeini’s insistence that the elimination of Saddam Hussein was a religious duty and that the war could not end without achieving that goal. There are no grounds to believe that the possession of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change these patterns of behavior.

Midterms DA Iran Prolif – Aff

Uniqueness

GOP Wins

GOP will win – more winning combinations John Cassidy, top politics and economics reporter for New Yorker, 7-30-2014, “Can the GOP take the senate?” New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/can-republicans-take-senate Just in case you haven’t had enough bad news, here’s a bit more from the domestic-politics desk. With less than a hundred days until the midterm elections, the Republicans now have a very realistic chance of retaking the Senate, which would leave them in over-all control of Capitol Hill for the next two years. (Virtually all the pundits reckon that it is a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will also maintain their majority in the House of Representatives.) It’s not by any means a slam dunk, but in a number of key states the opinion polls have recently moved in the G.O.P.’s direction. For what they are worth, the statistical forecasting models agree that a Republican majority is now the most likely outcome. To win control, the party needs to pick up six seats, and, as of now, it has a number of ways to get there. Election Lab, a model operated by the Washington Post ‘s Monkey Cage blog, puts the probability of a G.O.P. takeover at eight-two per cent. Leo, the model constructed by the Upshot team at the Times, is less definitive, but it puts the chances of a new Republican majority at fifty-three per cent.

GOP winning Senate – retirements and party favorites Chris Cillizza, political analyst, 8-11-2014, “Republicans chances of winning Senate majority continue to brighten” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- fix/wp/2014/08/11/republicans-chances-of-winning-senate-majority-continue-to-brighten/ The decision by Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) not to seek election in November in the wake of a plagiarism scandal is the latest piece of good news for Republicans as they strive to take control of the Senate in less than three months. Walsh’s departure from the race came in the same week that two Republican senators — Pat Roberts in Kansas and Lamar Alexander in Tennessee — defeated tea party challengers in primary fights, ensuring that every GOP senator seeking reelection would be the party’s nominee. These past seven days typified the fates of the two parties this election cycle. Democrats have been hit by retirements in tough states — Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and, to a lesser extent, Iowa — and Republicans haven’t nominated the sort of extreme candidates who lack broader appeal in a general election. Those realities — along with a national playing field in which a handful of incumbent Democrats are defending Republican-leaning seats in places where President Obama is deeply unpopular — have made a GOP takeover a better-than-50/50 proposition.

GOP winning now but margin will be close – best stats Anthony Salvanto, Doug Rivers, and Andy Guess, polling experts, 7-17-2014, “Republicans narrowly favored to capture Senate in November” CBS, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014- midterms-republicans-narrowly-favored-to-capture-senate-in-november/ A new CBS News/New York Times Battleground Tracker estimate finds the Republicans positioned to take the Senate this year, with a likely 51-49 seat edge if the November election were held right now. The margin of error on that current seat estimate, at plus or minus 2 seats, means Democrats still have a real possibility to keep the chamber and that we head into campaign season with control up for grabs -- with a closely-divided Senate surely coming in 2015 in either case. The data is based on more than 100,000 interviews conducted online for CBS News and the New York Times by YouGov exclusively as

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 430 part of this joint project, with samples for every individual Senate race and House race, oversamples in competitive races, and each matched to the demographics and voter characteristics in the states and districts.

Topic Link Turns

Aquaculture

Public support is building for aquaculture The Fish Site News Desk, 4-17-2007 “Economic Benefit and Public Support for Aquaculture Confirmed” http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/4086/economic-benefit-and-public-support-for- aquaculture-confirmed A recent public opinion poll undertaken by Ipsos Reid on behalf of the BCSFA shows increasing support for sustainable aquaculture in British Columbia. A majority of respondents (65%) said they support the development of a sustainable salmon farming sector in BC; and less than one per cent identified salmon farming as the top environmental issue facing BC today. These results complement an earlier survey commissioned by the Northwest Institute and undertaken by market research company, Synovate, which showed that 60 per cent of respondents believed salmon farming increased job opportunities and 41 per cent said a benefit of salmon farming was that it resulted in less pressure on wild salmon stocks.

The aff builds upon new support among environmental groups Steven Hart, executive director of the Soy Aquaculture Alliance, 2-12-2014 “Soybean industry plans aquaculture promotion” Hagstrom Report http://www.hagstromreport.com/2014news_files/2014_0212_soybean-industry-plans-aquaculture- promotion.html Michael Rubino, director of NOAA’s Office of Aquaculture, said his agency is primarily focused on managing fishing in federal waters, but that as aquaculture is becoming more popular, fishermen are becoming less resistant and environmentalists have begun to see it as a solution rather than a problem. “These things are building a base of support for what you collectively would like to do in marine aquaculture,” he said.

Offshore Drilling – General

Energy is a key issue – rolling back drilling regulations is popular Jennifer A. Dlouhy, writer for FuelFix, 8-15-2012, “Big Oil raises voice as election nears” http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/08/15/big-oil-raises-voice-as-election-nears/ Already, many believe energy is an important issue heading into the election, according to a poll the industry group released on Tuesday. The survey, conducted by Harris Interactive with 1,016 registered voters, found 92 percent of respondents believed “energy security and producing more oil and natural gas here at home” is important to them as they look ahead to the election. About seven out of 10 voters surveyed also said they support changing U.S. policy to allow more oil and natural gas development along the nation’s coastline, a signal that Americans’ views on offshore drilling have rebounded since the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Expanding offshore drilling is massively popular – GOP owns the issue now Jennifer Dlouhy, staff writer, 8-14-2012, “Survey says voters back offshore drilling,” Fuel Fix, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/08/14/survey-says-voters-back-offshore-drilling/ Roughly seven out of 10 voters support changing U.S. policy to allow more oil and natural gas development along the nation’s coastline, according to a new Harris Interactive poll released today. That matches the level of support for offshore drilling that was documented by other polls conducted before the Deepwater Horizon disaster two years ago briefly turned some Americans off to the idea. In the wake of the 2010 oil spill, support for offshore drilling declined slightly, according to some surveys. For instance, Rasmussen Reports found that 56 percent of U.S. voters it surveyed in July 2010 backed offshore oil drilling. The new survey of 1,016 registered voters, conducted Aug. 9-12, was commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute to broadly assess views about energy policy less than three months before the presidential election. Not surprisingly, 92 percent of the voters surveyed in the poll said “energy security and producing more oil and natural gas here at home” was somewhat or very important to them as they looked ahead to the election in November. Jack Gerard, president of API, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday that the poll shows “the vast majority” of Americans support boosting access to domestic oil and natural gas resources. For instance, he noted that according to the survey, 9 out of 10 voters agree that “increased access to domestic oil and natural gas resources could lead to more American jobs.” When gasoline prices spiked earlier this year, industry representatives — including API — and many congressional Republicans seized on the issue and argued that more domestic oil and gas development would help lower prices at the pump.

Offshore Drilling – Gas

Expanding natural gas production is popular Renee Hopkins, writer for McCombs Today, 4-10-2012, “Energy Poll Reveals Strong Support For More Domestic Production” http://www.today.mccombs.utexas.edu/2012/04/energy-poll-reveals-strong- support-for-more-domestic-production The poll also offered insights in how energy issues may affect the upcoming presidential election, with more than 65 percent of the 2,371 poll respondents saying that energy is important to them. Respondents generally favor candidates whose policies would increase domestic energy production, and expanded natural gas development had the most support among consumers, with 61 percent saying they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who backs this issue. Consumers also support an increase in renewable forms of energy, with 59 percent saying they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports additional financial incentives for companies engaged in renewable technologies, as well as a candidate who would require utilities to obtain a designated percentage of their electricity from renewable sources.

Offshore Drilling – Oil

Record percentages of Americans support offshore drilling Gallup, 3-14-2011, “U.S. Oil Drilling Gains Favor With Americans” http://www.gallup.com/poll/146615/oil-drilling-gains-favor-americans.aspx Bottom Line A solid majority of Americans currently favor increased offshore oil drilling in U.S. coastal areas and a record-high 49% favor opening the Alaskan wilderness to oil exploration. These trends might best be understood in terms of Americans' ongoing anxiety about the nation's economic problems coupled with their expectation that today's already elevated gas prices will continue to rise. While Americans care about environmental protection -- 61% in 2010 called themselves active in or sympathetic to the environmental movement -- the possible benefits of achieving greater oil independence may be gaining appeal.

Deepwater Horizon had no long-term impact on support – drilling is popular Pew Research, 4-19-2011 “Offshore Drilling Support One Year after Gulf Oil Spill” http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/offshore-drilling-support-one-year-after-gulf-oil-spill/ A year ago today, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that would eventually spill an immense amount of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The accident had a sustainable effect on public support for drilling. The percentage of Americans favoring more oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters fell from 63% in February 2010 to 44% in June 2010 . In a survey taken roughly a year after the disaster, however, support for drilling has rebounded, increasing 13 points from the June poll. In a March 2011 survey, 57% of the public favored more oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters while just 37% opposed it. While support for oil and gas drilling has increased across political groups in the past year, there is still a wide partisan divide. In the March 2011 survey, 81% of Republicans favored allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters, compared with 54% of independents and 46% of Democrats.

A majority of the public supports drilling – even post-Deepwater Horizon Jody Broder, political reporter, 6-16-2011, “Americans Support Offshore Drilling, but Washington Wavers” New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy- environment/17drilling.html?_r=1& Since the beginning of 2010, Washington has caromed from a restrictive approach to drilling to a permissive policy closely mirroring that of the Bush administration to a near-total shutdown of offshore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. After that fatal accident, the administration decreed a deepwater drilling moratorium, lifted it six months later, then took five more months before beginning to issue drilling permits. Throughout that time, the American public’s attitudes toward domestic oil and gas development have been remarkably consistent: Americans are in favor of it, though Democrats and those on the coasts are much less likely than Republicans and those in the South and Southwest to be supportive. National support for offshore drilling and for domestic oil and gas development generally dipped for a time after the BP disaster — from a strong majority to a bare majority — but quickly rebounded. A Gallup poll taken immediately after the gulf spill showed that 50 percent of Americans supported offshore drilling while 46 percent opposed it. By March of this year, public support had risen to 60 percent versus 37 percent. The administration’s offshore drilling policy, like its fervor for domestic production more generally, has gone through rapid changes. In March 2010,

President Obama announced that the United States would make vast tracts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Arctic oceans available for leasing by oil and gas companies. After the BP spill began on April 20, 2010, he declared those areas off-limits for at least five years. Then, last month, the president announced that he would permit accelerated development in Alaska, the gulf and along parts of the Atlantic coast. Administration officials defend the policy changes as reasonable responses to changed circumstances.

Offshore Wind

Americans love offshore wind – clean energy, oil independence, green jobs Summer Lilley and Jonathan Charles, PhD in Marine Biology, 8-3-2010, “NAVIGATING A SEA OF VALUES: UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD THE OCEAN AND OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES” http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf The analysis conducted in Chapter 5 highlights a number of important issues regarding support levels for offshore oil drilling and wind development. The data show that whereas a majority of respondents support both forms of energy development, offshore wind is favored by more. Again these findings relate to public opinion in 2008 – a more detailed discussion of how people’s views might have changed is provided below. Large differences exist between Republicans and Democrats, men and women, and those with at least some college education and those without. Interestingly, no significant differences between support levels were found among the various regions, and both coastal and inland residents have a similar outlook to offshore energy development. Of the reasons why people support offshore drilling, reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil is the clear favorite. For offshore wind, the allure of developing a clean energy source proves to be most popular, although both reducing dependence on foreign oil and creating green jobs resonate with the public as well. Of those who oppose either oil or wind development, the threat of environmental damage is the main concern. The notion that enough wind power exists on land to disregard the need for development offshore is also found in the data, along with the sentiment that the country should be reducing the amount of oil it uses, a finding which in itself is very revealing. The data here strongly imply that the idea of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil is starting to take hold. However, neither cost, risk of environmental damage, nor a lack of reliable technology is the reason why people think the U.S. does not currently have any offshore wind facilities. Instead, blame is directed at the government as well as oil and gas companies who many Americans believe, rightly or not, are hindering development of the resource.

Offshore wind enjoys broad-based public support Summer Lilley and Jonathan Charles, PhD in Marine Biology, 8-3-2010, “NAVIGATING A SEA OF VALUES: UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD THE OCEAN AND OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES” http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf Offshore wind development enjoys strong public support. Although some specific projects, such as Cape Wind, have come under criticism from local opposition groups, others enjoy considerable support (e.g., Bluewater Wind), and overall there is broad support among both coastal and inland residents for installing offshore wind turbines. The issue also appears to be apolitical, with high levels of support from both Democrats and Republicans. While the survey also found that a majority supported (at least in 2008) offshore drilling, both coastal and inland residents are less enthusiastic about drilling than they are about wind development. Additionally, offshore drilling does not enjoy the same level of cross-party support that wind power does.

Internals

National Issues Not Key

Democrats are localizing politics – national issues not key Ashley Parker, writer at New York Times, 5-28-2014, "Democrats, to Counter G.O.P., Turn Their Focus to Local Issues for Midterms", www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/us/politics/senate-democrats-turn-focus- to-local-issues-for-midterms.html If Republicans are trying to nationalize the 2014 midterms, tying Democrats to President Obama and his signature health care law, Democrats considered vulnerable are countering by going local, doubling down on state-specific issues that are more typically the province of Republicans. Facing a hostile national climate — with Mr. Obama’s approval rating stalled below 50 percent and that of Congress barely in double digits — Democrats say they believe their path to victory hinges on a series of individual contests rather than a referendum on the president and his policies. “The only people that can vote for me are people in Louisiana,” Ms. Landrieu said, “and I never forget that and try to come up here and work on the issues they care about.” In a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “six-year itch,” the party that holds the White House historically loses seats during the midterm elections of a president’s second term. For Democrats to perform well in 2014, said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, they will need to make the election about their particular candidates, rather than the overall political environment. (The playbook is similar to the one Democrats ran in 2010, when control of the Senate was also in play.) “In red states, if this election is a referendum on the Democrats, we don’t do well,” Mr. Mellman said. “The people in these red states have already made the party choice, and it’s not with us. But if our candidates can make it a personal choice about them and their opponents, then we can win that.” In 2006, Democrats tried to nationalize the election, focusing on the unpopular Iraq War under President George W. Bush. (“2006 was Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and nothing but Iraq,” said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.) And in 2008, Democrats again seized on national issues, trying to ride Senator Barack Obama’s wave of hope and change while simultaneously highlighting what they saw as the failures of Mr. Bush’s presidency. But now, Democrats are going local. In Arkansas, for instance, Mr. Pryor has taken the Democrats’ push for a federal minimum wage of $10.10 by 2015 and applied it to his state. While he does not support an increase in the federal minimum wage to $10.10, he has supported an Arkansas ballot initiative that would increase the state’s minimum wage to $8.50 by 2017. “He found that happy place,” Ms. Duffy said, where he can back a more modest minimum wage increase in Arkansas and “say no to the president at the same time.” In Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic Senate nominee, is painting her Republican opponent, Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, as a figure of entrenched Washington interests, having served in the Senate for nearly three decades. “I think the theme of our race certainly is Kentucky versus Washington, and our ads reflect that,” said Jonathan Hurst, Ms. Grimes’s campaign manager. Mr. Hurst said that even many of the national Democratic issues — the minimum wage, pay equity, violence against women — “are all things we’ve localized, and we’ve talked about how they affect the 120 counties across Kentucky.”

Plan not key – Senate races aren’t determined by national issues Chris Cillizza, political analyst, 5-11-2014, “In midterm elections, Democrats can have some hope of retaining control of Senate,” Washington Post,http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-midterm- elections-democrats-can-have-some-hope-of-retaining-control-of-senate/2014/05/11/560476c6-d913- 11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html, accessed: July 6, 2014, KEC]

Senate races are not House races. This seems obvious. But amid increasing chatter about just how bad the national environment will be for Democrats in midterm elections this fall, it’s an important point to remember. House races, in this modern political age, are almost entirely dictated by the national landscape. It’s virtually impossible for any House candidate to stand out (or above) the national environment. Senate races — featuring better-known candidates and lots more money — can buck national trends (although they don’t always). Senate races have become, in effect, mini presidential races and, like presidentials, can create their own gravitational pull. “The recent generic ballot numbers showing the GOP ahead add very little to the debate over whether Republicans will take over the Senate,” said Neil Newhouse, a prominent Republican pollster and partner at Public Opinion Strategies. “No one, repeat, no one on our side is measuring the drapes for GOP control of the Senate. Campaigns matter, and this one has only just begun.” Let’s dig into those generic ballot numbers Newhouse mentioned. Many Republicans — though not Newhouse — were over the moon when new Pew Research Center polling showed Republicans with a 4- percentage-point edge when voters were asked which party they would like to see control Congress after the November elections. (A CNN survey released shortly after showed Republicans with a 1-point edge on the generic ballot question.) The Pew numbers compare very favorably to where things stood at this time in 2010 — Democrats had a 10-point edge in the generic then — just months before Republicans took back the House by picking up 63 seats. That is, without doubt, very good news for Republicans hoping to maintain or perhaps even increase their 17-seat majority in the House. But, in truth, no one but the biggest Democratic homers thought that the House was in play in this election. Between a Republican-dominated redraw of congressional lines in 2010 and the weight of history (the president’s party has lost an average of 29 House seats in second-term midterms since World War II), the high likelihood — even before the national environment started to tip toward Republicans — was that Democrats would remain in the House minority. The tendency in political circles is to extrapolate those House projections onto the Senate playing field. And, there is little doubt that people like Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Kay Hagan in North Carolina would rather be running in a national environment that looks more like 2008 than the one they are likely to have to deal with this year. But, assuming that simply because Republicans are poised to easily hold the House this fall means they also have in the bag the six seats needed to retake the Senate suggests a lack of understanding of how different the races for the two chambers are. First, races for Senate traditionally feature more established and better-known candidates. Typically, the nominees for Senate are elected officials — at the state or federal level — and have run and been elected statewide previously. This gives them a base of name recognition and support that people running for the House — up to and including incumbents — typically do not enjoy. That makes it harder — though far from impossible — to savage a Senate nominee as a tool of an unpopular national party. Second, Senate races attract so much more money than House races. The most expensive Senate race in 2012, according to calculations made by CQ Roll Call, was the Massachusetts contest between Elizabeth Warren (D) and Scott Brown (R), which had a $85 million price tag. The most expensive House race was in Florida’s 22nd District, where $29 million was spent. The spending — by candidates as well as outside groups — means that voters in Senate races almost always are making a candidate-based decision rather than a party-based one. North Dakota in 2012 is indicative of these differences. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won the state by nearly 20 points, and Kevin Cramer, the Republican, cruised to a win in the state’s open House seat. Yet, Heidi Heitkamp (D) managed to win the state’s open Senate seat over then-Rep. Rick Berg (R). To be clear: You’d still rather be Senate Republicans than Senate Democrats right now. Although the national environment will be far less decisive in Senate races than in House contests, it is still likely to matter at the margins — and often those margins are where close contests are decided. And the states in which the Senate majority will be decided — including Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana — lean heavily toward Republicans. But national environment isn’t entirely decisive in modern Senate races. Candidates and the campaigns they run matter, too. And that’s why Democrats still have some hope of holding on to the Senate in November.

AT: Iran Deal Scenario

AT: Iran Deal Good – Deal Fails/Hardliners

Deal fails – too much opposition and won’t solve prolif Matthew Kroenig, Associate Professor and International Relations Field Chair in the Department of Government at Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, 1-7-2014, “Still Time to Attack Iran,” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140632/matthew-kroenig/still-time-to-attack-iran?nocache=1 It is tempting to believe that the new atmosphere of détente between the Iranian and U.S. governments makes launching a military operation against Iran politically infeasible. In fact, a number of scenarios could trigger an attack. First, the diplomatic track might break down altogether. Congress might pass sanctions that scuttle the deal; Iranian hard-liners might do their part to undermine it; Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, might be unwilling to make necessary concessions; or the diplomats might simply fail to come to mutually acceptable terms. If any of these things happen and Iran resumes its nuclear activities, Washington would then have months to either use force or prepare for a nuclear- armed Iran. Second, diplomats might fail to produce a comprehensive deal and instead settle for making the interim deal permanent. The text of the interim deal states that it is “renewable by mutual consent,” but renewing the current deal would leave Iran’s program perpetually two or three months away from a breakout capability -- a very thin margin of error for U.S. policymakers. Any suggestion that Iran was violating the terms of the deal would have to lead to immediate consideration of a military option. Rouhani can’t get it done – hardline opposition Tracy Connor, writer at NBC News, 2-18-2014, Iran's Ayatollah 'Not Optimistic' as Nuclear Talks Resume, www.nbcnews.com/news/world/irans-ayatollah-not-optimistic-nuclear-talks-resume-n32056 Six world powers and Iran met in Vienna to begin hashing out a long-term deal on Tehran's disputed nuclear program Tuesay -- but the Islamic Republic's supreme leader predicted negotiations "will lead nowhere." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's pessimistic comments underscore the difficulty diplomats face as they try to seal a final agreement before an interim pact expires in July. "Some of the officials of the previous government as well as the officials of this government think the problem will be resolved if they negotiate the nuclear issue," Khamenei, who is Iran's most powerful political leader, said on his website, according to Agence France Presse. "I repeat it again that I am not optmistic about the negotiations and they will lead nowhere but I am not against them," he added. "The work that has been started by the foreign ministry will continue and Iran will not violate its commitment, but I repeat it again, it will lead to nowhere." The Vienna meeting is expected to last two or three days. The election of moderate Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran and his September phone call with President Obama during the United Nations General Assembly buoyed hopes of a new chapter opening between Iran and the West. In November, Iran and the so-called P5+1 — U.S. Security Council permanent members Britain, France, the U.S., Russia and China, plus Germany — inked a preliminary accord in which Tehran agreed to freeze uranium enrichment in exchange for an easing of crippling sanctions. Now the two sides must get down to the nitty-gritty, haggling over details like how many centrifuges Iran should be allowed to keep running and the future of a heavy-water reactor that the U.S. fears could be used to produce plutonium for a bomb. Geneive Abdo, an Iran expert at the non-partisan Stimson Center, thinks it's unlikely a major deal will come out of the talks being headlined by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. "It seems that Rouhani is losing the window of opportunity he was given when he was elected," she said, citing Khamenei's remarks and other anti-U.S. sentiment coming out of Iran in recent weeks. "The hardliners still control much of the

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 443 government and much of the decision-making and just because a pragmatist was elected, doesnt meant he’s going to be given free reign to govern." Iran denies that its nuclear program has a military purpose and its leaders have said dismantling its infrastructure is a non-starter. Meanwhile, the Obama administration had to fend off a move by some in Congress to vote for more sanctions against Iran. Some Iran analysts say that if some progress is made during the new round of talks, the two sides might agree to an extension of the interim accord. Abdo, however, said a more drawn-out process may be less likely to produce results. "In fact, Rouhani has very little time," she said. "We’re already seeing the hardliners trying to regain their power."

AT: Iran Prolif MPX

2AC AT: Iran Prolif – General

Iran can be deterred – no impact to Iran prolif Christopher Layne, Professor of International Studies at the University of Miami, 2007, American Empire: A Debate. pg. 79-80 The same architects of illusion who fulminated for war with Iraq now are agitating for war with Iran. If Iran gets nuclear weapons they say, three bad things could happen: it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; it might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists; and Tehran could use its nuclear weapons to blackmail other states in the region or to engage in aggression. Each of these scenarios, however, is improbable in the extreme. During the early 1960s, American policy-makers had similar fears that China’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would trigger a proliferation stampede, but these fears did not materialize—and a nuclear Iran will not touch off a proliferation snowball in the Middle East. Israel, of course, already is a nuclear power (as is Pakistan, another regional power). The other three states that might be tempted to go for a nuclear weapons capability are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. As MIT professor Barry Posen points out, however, each of these three states would be under strong pressure not do to 50.84 Egypt is particularly vulnerable to outside pressure to refrain from going nuclear because its shaky economy depends on foreign—especially U.S.—economic assistance. Saudi Arabia would find it hard to purchase nuclear weapons or material on the black market—which is closely watched by the United States—and, Posen notes, it would take the Saudis years to develop the industrial and engineering capabilities to develop nuclear weapons indigenously. Turkey is constrained by its membership in NATO and its quest to be admitted to membership of the European Union. Notwithstanding the near-hysterical rhetoric of the Bush administration and the neoconservatives, Iran is not going to give nuclear weapons to terrorists. This is not to say that Tehran has not abetted groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hamas in the Palestinian Authority. Clearly, it has. However, there are good reasons that states—even those that have ties to terrorists—draw the line at giving them nuclear weapons (or other WMD): if the terrorists were to use these weapons against the United States or its allies, the weapons could be traced back to the donor state—which would be at risk of annihilation by an American retaliatory strike. Iran’s leaders have too much at stake to run this risk. Even if one believed the administration’s overheated rhetoric about the indifference of rogue state leaders about the fate of their populations, they do care very much about the survival of their regimes —which means that they can be deterred. For the same reason, Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons will not invest Tehran with options to attack or intimidate its neighbors. Just as it did during the Cold War, the United States can extend its own deterrence umbrella to protect its clients in the region—like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Turkey. American security guarantees not only will dissuade Iran from acting recklessly but will also restrain proliferation by negating the incentives for states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to build their own nuclear weapons. Given the overwhelming U.S. advantage in both nuclear and conventional military capabilities, Iran is not going to risk national suicide by challenging America’s security commitments in the region. In short, while a nuclear-armed Iran hardly is desirable, neither is it “intolerable,” because it could be contained and deterred successfully by the United States.

AT: Iran Prolif – Deterrence

US retaliation deters Iranian nuclear use, transfer of nuclear weapons, and aggression Micah Zenko, Fellow in the Center for Preventative Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Michael A. Cohen, Fellow at the Century Foundation, March-April 2012, “Clear and Present Safety” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137279/micah-zenko-and-michael-a-cohen/clear-and-present- safety?page=show Of course, the gravest concerns about Iran focus on its nuclear activities. Those fears have led to some of the most egregiously alarmist rhetoric: at a Republican national security debate in November, Romney claimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon is “the greatest threat the world faces.” But it remains unclear whether Tehran has even decided to pursue a bomb or has merely decided to develop a turnkey capability. Either way, Iran’s leaders have been sufficiently warned that the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use or transfer of nuclear weapons. Although a nuclear Iran would be troubling to the region, the United States and its allies would be able to contain Tehran and deter its aggression -- and the threat to the U.S. homeland would continue to be minimal.

Deterrence checks Iran – they wouldn’t use nukes Seyed Hossein Mousavian, Research Scholar at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, 12-4-2012, “Ten Reasons Iran Doesn’t Want the Bomb” http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ten-reasons-iran- doesnt-want-the-bomb-7802?page=show A major accusation levied against Iran is that once it acquires nuclear weapons, it will use it against the United States and Israel. This makes no rational sense, since any provocation by Iran against two states that possess thousands and hundreds of nuclear weapons respectively would result in Iran’s total annihilation. Iran has publically acknowledged this fact.

AT: Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Nuclear Terror

Iran wouldn’t give nukes to terrorists James Lindsay, CFR's Director of Studies, and Ray Takeyh, an Iranian-American Middle East scholar, former United States Department of State official, and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, April 2010, “After Iran Gets the Bomb,” Foreign Affairs, 89.2 The prospect that Iran might transfer a crude nuclear device to its terrorist protégés is another danger, but it, too, is unlikely. Such a move would place Tehran squarely in the cross hairs of the United States and Israel. Despite its messianic pretensions, Iran has observed clear limits when supporting militias and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Iran has not provided Hezbollah with chemical or biological weapons or Iraqi militias with the means to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Iran's rulers understand that such provocative actions could imperil their rule by inviting retaliation. On the other hand, by coupling strident rhetoric with only limited support in practice, the clerical establishment is able to at once garner popular acclaim for defying the West and oppose the United States and Israel without exposing itself to severe retribution. A nuclear Iran would likely act no differently, at least given the possibility of robust U.S. retaliation. Nor is it likely that Iran would become the new Pakistan, selling nuclear fuel and materials to other states. The prospects of additional sanctions and a military confrontation with the United States are likely to deter Iran from acting impetuously.

Iran won’t give weapons to terrorists – they know it’s suicide and lack of CBW transfers prove Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President of Defense at the Cato Institute, 2007, Med. Quarterly 18.1, “Toward A Grand Bargain With Iran,” http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mediterranean_quarterly/v018/18.1carpenter.html But how likely is it that Iran would make such a transfer? At the very least, it would be an incredibly high-risk strategy. Even the most fanatical mullahs in Tehran realize that the United States would attack the probable supplier of such a weapon—and Iran would be at the top of Washington's list of suspects. It is significant that Iran has possessed chemical weapons for decades, yet there is no indication that it has passed on any of those weapons to Hezbollah or to Palestinian groups that Tehran supports politically. Why should one assume that the mullahs would be more reckless with nuclear weapons when the prospect of devastating retaliation for an attack would be even more likely? The more logical conclusion is that Iran, like other nuclear powers, would jealously guard its arsenal.

Politics Agenda Ex-Im Bank DA - Neg

1NC Shell Thesis: The U.S. Export-Import Bank (“Ex-Im”) is up for renewal. Obama is pushing hard for renewable as a push for job creation and global competitiveness. The GOP largely support the measure, but are on the fence due to opposition from conservatives and the Tea Party. Supporters can now overcome opposition but need as many Republicans as possible. A. GOP divisions put Ex-Im on the brink. It needs as many GOP as possible to overcome Keith Laing, Staff Writer, August 23, 2014, “Obama pushes for Ex-Im Bank extension,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/215803-obama-pushes-for-ex-im-bank-extension, Accessed 8/24/2014 Republicans have been divided over whether the Ex-Im Bank should be renewed. Some conservatives have argued the bank is a form of corporate welfare, but Democrats have said the program is needed to keep the United States economically competitive with countries that heavily subsidize industries. Obama said in his address there was precedent for bipartisan support for the Ex-Im Bank in the past. “Past Congresses have done this 16 times, always with support from both parties,” he said. “Republican and Democratic presidents have supported the bank, too. This time around shouldn’t be any different. Because the bank works. It’s independent. It pays for itself. But if Congress fails to act, thousands of businesses, large and small, that sell their products abroad will take a completely unnecessary hit.” B. Ocean policy sparks partisan conflicts in Congress Tom Allen, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers and a board member of the Ocean Conservancy, December 4, 2013, “Challenges of a Changing Ocean: Can Congress Act in Time? | Commentary,” Roll Call, http://www.rollcall.com/news/challenges_of_a_ changing_ocean_can_congress_act_in_time_commentary-229390-1.html?pg=2&dczone=opinion, Accessed 8/24/2014 The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful long-term engagement to protect and enhance ocean quality over the all-too-common knee-jerk hostility toward any new government initiative. Ironically, ocean issues didn’t generate such partisan conflict until recently. As a founding member of the bipartisan House Oceans Caucus, I can say that working across the aisle on ocean issues used to be far more commonplace. For example, the idea of a permanent ocean endowment was proposed back in 2004 by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy — a commission appointed entirely by President George W. Bush. When the commission first floated the idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft report and asked governors for comment, support was overwhelming and bipartisan. Of the 20 coastal governors who submitted comments on an ocean trust fund, 19 supported the idea — six Democrats and 13 Republicans. Only one Democratic governor expressed any opposition. C. The Ex-Im bank is crucial to U.S. trade and competitiveness Raju Chebium, Staff Writer, August 20, 2014, “Congress could close Export-Import Bank,” Visalia Times-Delta, http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/2014/08/20/congress-close-export-import- bank/14373581/, Accessed 8/24/2014 In a unified show of support, House Democrats are backing a proposal to renew the Ex-Im Bank's charter for seven years and increase its lending cap from $140 billion to $175 billion. Freshman lawmakers like Rep. Raul Ruiz, D-Palm Desert, and long-timers like 22-year veteran Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, are among the 201 lawmakers co-sponsoring the bill. "By opening foreign markets to American-made products we put more money in the hands of local companies, which in turn, allows them to employ more people,"

Farr said in a statement. "The Ex-Im Bank is a vital link to the global marketplace that connects American businesses to millions of consumers around the world." The bank provides U.S. exporters and farmers with billions of dollars in financing to sell their products to foreign buyers. It also provides credit insurance, loan guarantees and loans to overseas buyers of U.S.-made goods and crops.

1NC Shell D. Major economic downturn leads to war Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, February 4, 2009, “Only Makes You Stronger: Why the recession bolstered America,” The New Republic, http://www.cfr.org/world/only-makes-you-stronger-why-recession-bolstered- america/p18340, Accessed 5/20/2014 None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a n ormal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Uniqueness

Ex-Im renewal will pass now Republicans are on the fence, but business group alliances mean they can be swayed Jack Newsham, Staff Writer, August 24, 2014, “Future of Export-Import Bank on ropes,” Boston Globe, http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/08/23/trade- war/YMVGgXLDGD7fwZ04YVig7M/story.html, Accessed 8/24/2014 Despite company failures and other problems that can derail repayment of loans, the Export-Import Bank has a delinquency rate, 0.24 percent, that is less than third of the rate for private lenders. Business groups, including traditional allies of Republican politicians, have come out in support of the Export- Import Bank. An executive from the US Chamber of Commerce called the bank “indispensable” in an opinion piece published in Roll Call, a Washington publication that focuses on Congress. The US Chamber was one of 865 trade organizations to sign a letter in June calling on Congress to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank. Brian Gilmore, an executive vice president of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said exporters he had spoken to were befuddled by Republican opposition to the bank. He added that many Massachusetts companies may not receive direct funding from the Ex-Im Bank, but they benefit by supplying products and services to larger companies that do get support and increase sales overseas.

Links

Algal Biofuels Algal biofuels are unpopular and undermine Democrats Jim Lane, Editor & publisher of Biofuels Digest, the most widely-read biofuels daily and newsletter, February 27, 2012, “Obama touts algal biofuels; $14M in new R&D funding; $2.28 per gallon algal biofuels in sight?”, Biofuels Digest, http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2012/02/27/obama-touts- algal-biofuels-14m-in-new-r-2-28-per-gallon-algal-biofuels-in-sight/, Accessed 8/25/2014 Obama’s algae program “weird”: Gingrich In Washington, Newt Gingrich rebutted Obama’s algae program, deeming it “weird”. Gingrich has been mocking the speech since Thursday night, when he stood in front of an Idaho crowd suggesting that he should take a bottle of algae with him and “go around and we can have the Obama solution.” The Republican candidate indicated concerns that algae would end up the next Solyndra “You know the President had this magnificent solar power investment and took 500 something-million of your money, (he) visited the plant because it was the plant of the future,” Gingrich said. “I suspect in the next few weeks we’ll see him at some algae plant.” Obama responded to critics, thus: “You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices. If we’re going to take control of our energy future and avoid these gas price spikes down the line, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, and more.” Smearing the sector But CJ Ciaramella penned a scathing critique of the US Government’s algal biofuels, in an article focused on Sapphire Energy and Obama Administration support, entitled “SAPPHIRE IN THE ROUGH: $100M in federal money; 36 jobs created,” which highlighted Sapphire Energy lobbying expense and drew attention to Democratic-leaning political donations by the company and its executives. Republicans oppose algal biofuel production Michael Cacciatore, Ph.D., Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, et al. Spring/Fall 2012, “Public attitudes toward biofuels,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 31(1-2), pp. 36-51. Similarly, there is evidence of motivated reasoning among Republicans, who appear predisposed to oppose biofuels. As Republican respondents integrate and interpret new media information they tend to see fewer benefits relative to risks from alternative fuel. Again, this is not entirely surprising given some of the strong criticisms directed toward biofuels investment by Republican leaders. For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has called investments in algae-based fuels a "pipe dream," while Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) has questioned the legitimacy of an energy policy that seeks to increase domestic production of renewables, including biofuels. Next, we discuss the significant interactions.

Coral Protection Coral reef conservation leads to GOP backlash against Obama Abigail Golden, Staff Writer, June 23, 2014, “Republicans: Obama’s Ocean Protection Plan Evidence of ‘Imperial Presidency’,” The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/23/republicans-obama-s-ocean-protection-plan- evidence-of-imperial-presidency.html, Accessed 8/25/2014 President Obama announced last week that he plans to add massive amounts of territory to the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine Monument, a tract of ocean surrounding seven hard-to-reach islands and atolls in the south-central Pacific Ocean. Obama’s decision will expand the original reserve, created by George W. Bush in the last days of his presidency, by almost five times its original size. The expanded national monument will quintuple the number of seamounts, or underwater mountains, under federal protection, and close almost 780,000 square miles of ocean to tuna fishing. Obama’s decision has been hailed for its conservation impact by scientists and even by the New York Times editorial board. Gareth Williams, a researcher at Scripps who studies the coral reefs within the reserve, hailed the expanded national monument as protecting some of the most intact natural areas left on the planet. “It’s almost impossible to find another example of that, forests included,” Williams told The Daily Beast. “There are always examples of degradation, but there are very few examples of ecosystems left that are that pristine.” But plenty of people aren’t happy with Obama’s decision, and the next few months—in which the exact details of the expansion will be up for review—may be contentious ones. These are the groups that have most at stake in opposing the expanded Remote Pacific Islands reserve: 1. Republican lawmakers. Obama’s use of an executive order to establish the reserve expansion angered Republicans in government, who viewed it as an attempt to test the limits of White House authority. Congressman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, was quick to denounce Obama as an “Imperial President” who is “intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape.”

Exploration Funding Ocean exploration funding sparks partisan conflicts Anne Merwin, Ocean Conservancy Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Director, May 16, 2014, “Attack on National Ocean Policy Defeated; Lost Opportunity to Create a National Endowment for the Ocean,” Ocean Conservancy, http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2014/ 05/16/attack-on-national-ocean- policy-defeated-lost-opportunity-to-create-a-national-endowment-for-the-ocean/, Accessed 8/25/2014 This week, after nearly 6 months of negotiation, a final deal was announced. Thanks to your help, the threat to the National Ocean Policy was resoundingly rejected. Champions in the Senate and White House heard you, and successfully negotiated to remove the “Flores rider”—inserted by Rep. Bill Flores who represents a landlocked district in central Texas— from the final bill. If it had been successful, this misguided attempted to undermine the National Ocean Policy would have prohibited the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a key coastal and ocean management agency, from coordinating with coastal states, other federal agencies and the public as they engage in smart ocean planning. With this threat removed, the multiple states that are already working on smart ocean planning can move forward unimpeded with the full cooperation and participation of the federal government. Unfortunately, the proposed new National Endowment for the Ocean was collateral damage in the negotiations. It is frustrating and disappointing that despite strong public demand and the recommendation of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, partisan politics derailed this opportunity to create a permanent, sustainable fund for our oceans’ future. However, we appreciate the Administration and Senate’s full- throated defense of the National Ocean Policy, and look forward to working with them to advance ocean planning priorities.

LOST Even if the GOP likes LOST, key members spread propaganda and threaten primaries Andrew Burt, Staff Writer, May 25, 2012, “Why the U.S. Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/229559-why-us-senate-should-ratify- law-of-the-sea-treaty, Accessed 8/25/2014 But doubts over finding the 67 votes needed in the Senate remain. The last time UNCLOS made it to the floor was under the George W. Bush Administration’s backing. Mark Helmke, a spokesman for Senator Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), a key supporter of the treaty, explained that effort to me in a conversation last year: “It’s a classic case where a well-organized minority can stop something that is supported by the broad majority.” Far-right groups used the “internationalist” threat they saw in the treaty for fundraising, and Lugar’s office was berated with phone calls from constituents who sincerely worried “that the law of the sea meant the U.N. could take over every single fishing pond in the state.” UNCLOS died on the Senate floor. The Obama Administration deserves credit for tackling a long-ignored but pressing issue, especially in an election year. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to take note: the longer it waits to ratify the treaty, the blacker Uncle Sam’s eye will be.

NOAA Funding NOAA funding causes politics fights in Congress Bill Frezza, fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, November 26, 2012, “Regulatory Uncertainty Drives Fish Farmer to Foreign Waters,” Real Clear Markets, http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/26/regulatory_uncertainty_drives_fish_farmer_to_ foreign_waters_100008.html, Accessed 8/25/2014 NOAA made several attempts a decade ago to promote a national aquatic farming initiative that would cut through the red tape and set up a one-stop-shop for deep-water fish farming permits. Bills were introduced in Congress twice but were shot down due to opposition from entrenched fishing interests. While this sort of short-term protectionism is always politically popular, the reality is that domestic fisheries continue to shrink due to catch limitations. A thriving deep water aquaculture industry could provide sustainable jobs for old fishing communities, repurposing much of the fishing fleet and dockside infrastructure to handle the new business. Perhaps someday. As for now, Brian is focused on making his venture a success in a country that still understands the value of economic freedom.

Ocean Policy/General Big ocean policies get bogged down in partisan Congressional controversy David Helvarg, Founder and president of the Blue Frontier Campaign, February 14, 2014, “The oceans demand our attention,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361- the-oceans-demand-our-attention, Accessed 8/24/2014 Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail). In 2004 ocean conservationists held their first ‘Blue Vision Summit’ in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) called for a “Big Ocean Bill,” to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon panels to examine the state of America’s blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency, George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal commission’s recommendations along with those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now retired), Leon Panetta. As a result America’s seas continue to be poorly managed by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal approach to their oversight under 144 separate laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions’ recommendations that he agreed to do. By the time of the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear Congress had become too polarized to pass major ocean reform legislation at the level of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered there were thrilled to hear the new White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses. Ocean policies are historically unpopular. The National Ocean Policy debate proves Pete Stauffer, Ocean Program Manager for the Surfrider Foundation, June 1, 2014, “Texas Lawmaker Leads Attack on our National Ocean Policy,” http://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/congress- takes-aim-at-our-national-ocean-policy, Accessed 8/25/2014 When the National Ocean Policy was established by President Obama in 2010 it signaled a serious attempt to address the many shortcomings of our nation’s piecemeal approach to ocean management. Taking its cue from the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy - a bipartisan body established by President George W. Bush - the policy emphasizes improved collaboration across all levels of government to address priorities such as water quality, marine debris, and renewable energy A cornerstone of the policy is the establishment of regional ocean parterships (ROPs) that empower states to work with federal agencies, stakeholders, tribes, and the public to plan for the future of the ocean. In just three years, important progress has been made, despite a glaring lack of support from Congress. An Implementation Plan has been released with hundreds of actions that federal agencies are taking to protect marine ecosystems and coastal economies. Collaborative projects are moving forward to restore habitats, advance ocean science, and engage stakeholders. And finally, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast regions have begun ocean planning to enusure that future development will mimize impacts to the environment and existing users. Of course, such success stories do not resonate well in Washington D.C., where controversy rules the day and political parties instinctively oppose each other’s

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 461 proposals. As an initiative of the Obama Presidency, the policy has suffered from partisan attacks, despite the collaborative framework it is based upon. Yet, such political gamesmanship by our federal leaders is obscuring an important truth - the principles of the National Ocean Policy are taking hold in states and regions across the country, even without the meaningful support of Congress.

Ocean Policy/General There is almost no support in Congress for new ocean policies Emily Migliaccio, Vermont Supreme Court legal extern, Spring 2014, Vermont Law School, “The National Ocean Policy: Can it reduce marine pollution and streamline our ocean bureaucracy?,” http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/files/2014/04/Migliaccio_FORPRINT1.pdf, p. 646, Accessed 8/25/2014 The Obama Administration issued Executive Order 13,547, intending for Congress to "show support for effective implementation of the NOP, including the establishment of an ocean investment fund"--the hope being that Congress would codify the Order in subsequent legislation. At present, Congress is wrestling with some bills relating to the NOP; however, not all proposals support the policy. For example, the House has adopted an amendment to the Water Resources and Development Act ("WRDA") that would bar the Obama Administration from implementing marine spatial planning under the WRDA, specifically "preventing the Army Corps of Engineers and other entities that receive money from the bill from implementing such planning as part of the National Ocean Policy." Then again, also before Congress is a bill that seeks to establish a National Endowment for the Oceans, which would fund programs and activities to "restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their habitats and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. . . ." For this bill to pass, House and Senate members must agree to prioritize ocean conservation and research, and allocate funds to the initiative. Although the NOP is appearing on the Congressional docket, it is hard to find hope for successful ocean reform in the current congressional atmosphere. GOP hates ocean policies because they fear new regulations Michael Conathan, Center for American Progress Ocean Policy Director, November 19, 2013, “Establish the National Endowment for the Oceans,” Center For American Progress, http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/11/19/79615/establish-the-national- endowment-for-the-oceans/, Accessed 8/25/2014 Prior to final passage of its WRDA bill, the House voted 225–193 to include an amendment by Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) that would prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—the primary agency regulated by WRDA—from participating in any activities related to the National Ocean Policy. Rep. Flores has successfully included several similar anti-National Ocean Policy provisions to bills in the past, despite its potential benefits for coastal states and regions. The National Ocean Policy, initiated under President George W. Bush and implemented via executive order by President Barack Obama in 2010, has become a punching bag for Flores and other conservatives, particularly those on the Natural Resources Committee. They irrationally fear that it could make an end run around congressional authority and lead to imposition of new regulations. In reality, the policy permits government agencies to operate more efficiently and reduce duplication of effort while allowing different regions of the country to prioritize the ocean issues and concerns that matter most to them.

OCS The GOP will backlash against any Obama drilling policy Ben Geman, Staff Writer, April 1, 2010, “Drilling push shakes up climate fight,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-, Accessed 8/25/2014 While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power, expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would require congressional approval. That will surely play a role in the fight over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called Obama’s plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo new support. “One obvious implication of today’s announcement: delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] sales gives lawmakers the opportunity to ‘sweeten’ a climate bill by restoring or accelerating sales,” ClearView states. But the White House and the architects of Senate legislation — Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — risk losing support among liberal Democrats and environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling. For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) attacked the plan Wednesday. “Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jersey’s beaches and vibrant coastal economies,” Lautenberg said in a prepared statement. Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill — such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council — also slammed the proposal. Drilling policies are partisan Margaret Hobson, Staff Writer, April 18, 2012, “Obama's development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill,” E&E News, www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1, Accessed 8/25/2014 Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Offshore Wind Republicans oppose offshore wind as part of Obama’s energy agenda Todd Sperry, Staff Writer, August 16, 2012, “Wind farm gets US approval despite controversy,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/wind-farm-faa/index.html , Accessed 8/25/2014 A massive offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has generated fierce political and legal controversy has cleared all federal and state regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape Wind project, the first of its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain conditions. Previous agency approvals were challenged in court, including a ruling last year that forced the latest FAA safety evaluation. A leading opposition group said another legal challenge was possible. The Obama administration first approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for more than a decade, in April 2010 despite opposition from residents. Opponents over the years have included the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family compound is in Hyannis Port. 125 years of wind power Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would threaten wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents also fear it will drive down property values. The administration has pushed a "green energy" agenda nationally as a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil imports. That effort, however, has been sharply criticized by congressional Republicans who have said certain high-profile projects are politically driven. They also have skewered certain Energy Department programs that extended millions in taxpayer loans and other aid to alternative energy companies or projects that faltered or did not meet expectations. Offshore wind sparks controversy. GOP and environmentalists will backlash to Obama’s push Darrell Delamaide, master's degree from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. April 30, 2010, “U.S. Approval of Cape Cod Offshore Wind Project Will Not End Controversy,” OilPrice.com, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/U.S.-Approval-Of-Cape-Cod-Offshore- Wind-Project-Will-Not-End-Controversy.html, Accessed 8/25/2014 The Obama administration approved the controversial Cape Wind project, which calls for a wind farm of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound and will be the first offshore wind project in the country. But it is sure to generate more controversy as opposition was voiced by everyone from environmental groups to Native American tribes to Cape Cod residents, who are disturbed at the prospect that they will see the wind turbines as specks on the horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their closest point, and 14 miles and their most distant. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy opposed the project because the turbines will be visible from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, however, welcomed the project and was present at the Boston announcement of the federal government approval. The state wants to have 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made it clear that the decision is final and that the administration is confident it can withstand the court challenges that are sure to come. The project has been under review for nearly 10 years. There are about a dozen other offshore projects being contemplated, most of them off the Eastern seaboard north of Chesapeake Bay. A number of northern European countries are already operating offshore wind farms in the north Atlantic. The Cape Wind farm is expected to begin generating electricity by the end of 2012, pending the outcome of the legal challenges. It will provide sufficient electricity for three-quarters of the 225,000 residents of Cape Cod. An attempt to block the project by the American Council on Historical Preservation, which cited the historical value of the Kennedy compound and other sites on the Cape, was opposed by Patrick and governors from

Delaware, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland. Environmentalists oppose the project because it interferes with habitats of numerous marine animals and birds, and because of its visual impact on the scenery.

Port Dredging Port dredging is unpopular because it requires earmarks Associated Press, Staff Writer, February 7, 2011, “U.S. ports race to keep up with bigger Panama Canal,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-02-07-panama-canal_N.htm, Accessed 8/25/2014 "Certainly every port is counting on it having a big impact," said Bernard Groseclose, former chief executive of South Carolina's seaports who now works as a private consultant. "Everyone is telling the same story: We're getting ready for the Panama Canal expansion." But getting funding may have just gotten tougher. Federal dollars used for dredging projects and the studies required to approve them typically get added to congressional budget bills as "earmarks" — line items requested by individual lawmakers to benefit their districts back home. Yet earmark spending was widely denounced as government waste in the 2010 elections that swept Republicans back in control of the U.S. House. As a result, GOP lawmakers in both the House and Senate have sworn off earmarks for the time being. It's not clear how else port projects would obtain federal money. "It has the potential to have a dramatic impact," said Nagle, who insists port projects aren't waste. "There clearly is a distinction between these types of projects and what is typically the target of the ban." Both Nagle and Groseclose agree not all ports seeking to supersize their harbors will get approved — and both don't think every U.S. port needs to be deep enough for the largest ships. But some are questioning how the federal government decides which projects move forward.

Internal Links

Bipartisanship is Key Bipartisan support is essential to renew the Ex-Im bank Raju Chebium, Staff Writer, August 20, 2014, “Congress could close Export-Import Bank,” Visalia Times-Delta, http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/2014/08/20/congress-close-export-import- bank/14373581/, Accessed 8/24/2014 Congress could close an 80-year-old federal bank that has helped thousands of California companies and farms increase overseas sales and has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout much of its existence. Conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill want to kill off the Export-Import Bank of the United States this year. GOP leaders who've previously supported the New Deal-era institution say — publicly at least — it may be time to wind down the institution. Congressional Democrats and GOP-aligned business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers are pushing to renew the Ex-Im Bank's charter beyond its Sept. 30 expiration. And they want to increase its lending authority. The debate over the Ex-Im Bank exposes the deep divisions between congressional Democrats and Republicans and underscores the battle between ultraconservative and moderate factions within the GOP. Renewing the bank's charter used to be a routine matter but that's no longer the case — and may not happen at all unless supporters and critics reach a deal after Congress returns from the summer recess after Labor Day.

Boehner is Key Boehner is key to Ex-Im renewal John Shaw, Staff Writer, August 18, 2014, “US Hill Fight Over Export-Import Bank Shows GOP Fissures,” MNI News, https://mninews.marketnews.com/index.php/us-hill-fight-over-export-import- bank-shows-gop-fissures?q=content/us-hill-fight-over-export-import-bank-shows-gop-fissures, Accessed 8/24/2014 House Speaker John Boehner, who has supported the Export-Import Bank in the past, has told reporters that he is trying to broker a consensus within the GOP on the future of the agency. "My job is to work with our members to get to a place where the members are comfortable. Some people believe that we shouldn't have it at all, others believe that we should reauthorize it with significant reforms. We're going to work our way through this," he said earlier in the summer. Frenzel from Brookings believes Boehner will be the key figure in negotiating a way forward on the Export-Import Bank, but predicts he will not broker an agreement until after the mid-term elections on Nov. 4. "My guess is they will find a way to keep Ex-Im running through the fall, probably by tucking it into the CR (stop-gap funding bill) that will run through December," Frenzel says. "But at some point Boehner is going to have to make a decision on Ex-Im. It's an issue that divides Republicans but it's not like some of crunch issues such as abortion and gay marriage. But the politics within the Republican Party on Ex-Im are now tricky enough that Boehner wants to move very careful," Frenzel adds.

GOP is Key Republicans are oscillating on Ex-Im but bipartisan support can happen John Shaw, Staff Writer, August 18, 2014, “US Hill Fight Over Export-Import Bank Shows GOP Fissures,” MNI News, https://mninews.marketnews.com/index.php/us-hill-fight-over-export-import- bank-shows-gop-fissures?q=content/us-hill-fight-over-export-import-bank-shows-gop-fissures, Accessed 8/24/2014 Of the many ways to view the ongoing congressional battle to renew the Export-Import Bank, perhaps the most relevant is as a current manifestation of a long-simmering debate within the Republican Party about the size and scope of the federal government. The current debate is also a battle between the business wing of the party and the more purist free market faction of the GOP. "Republicans have always been fighting about the Export-Import Bank," says Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman who is now a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution. "The battle has been between the big business folks and the free market gang and in the past, after hammering each other for a time, the big business faction always won on Ex-Im," Frenzel says. "This year, the balance of forces seems to have shifted. The energy and the passion seems to be with the free market group which sees the bank as a kind of corporate welfare, as an institution giving subsidies to powerful corporations who don't even need government assistance like GE, Caterpillar and Boeing," Frenzel says. Republican opposition is the key stumbling block David Sirota, Staff Writer, August 1, 2014, “Obama Slams GOP For Blocking Bank He Once Derided As 'A Fund For Corporate Welfare',” International Business Times, http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-slams- gop-blocking-bank-he-once-derided-fund-corporate-welfare-1646792, Accessed 8/24/2014 Yet less than four years later, Obama signed a bill reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank and said the bank helps "thousands of businesses sell more of their products and services overseas." With the bank again up for review, Obama is now leading the charge, and, according to the Huffington Post, nearly every House Democrat has signed on in support of reauthorization. In the time Democrats and Republicans have reversed their positions, lawmakers did not fundamentally alter the Export-Import Bank's policies. It is only a question of GOP support John Shaw, Staff Writer, August 18, 2014, “US Hill Fight Over Export-Import Bank Shows GOP Fissures,” MNI News, https://mninews.marketnews.com/index.php/us-hill-fight-over-export-import- bank-shows-gop-fissures?q=content/us-hill-fight-over-export-import-bank-shows-gop-fissures, Accessed 8/24/2014 The Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization expires Sept. 30 and a fierce battle has broken out over whether it should be renewed. The battle is occurring almost exclusively within the Republican Party. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling came out aggressively against renewing the Export-Import Bank in a May speech at the Heritage Foundation and continues to push hard to kill or, at a minimum, fundamentally overhaul, the agency. He has called it an offensive form of corporate welfare. The GOP are already threatening to dismantle Ex-Im Jack Newsham, Staff Writer, August 24, 2014, “Future of Export-Import Bank on ropes,” Boston Globe, http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/08/23/trade- war/YMVGgXLDGD7fwZ04YVig7M/story.html, Accessed 8/24/2014

The Export-Import Bank — Ex-Im, for short — is a federal agency that for the past 80 years has been the primary means of government support for US companies trying to expand into overseas markets. Providing credit, insurance, and other services, the bank in 2013 alone helped over 3,000 US businesses export $46 billion in goods and services. But the future of the Export-Import Bank is now at the center of another battle in Congress as Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, threaten to dismantle the program after the bank’s operating authority expires at the end of next month. Once again, the debate focuses on government’s role in the economy as Republicans argue that the Ex-Im bank’s activities amount to corporate welfare and are best left to private financial firms.

GOP is Key Obama is pushing for Ex-Im Bank renewal but it needs strong GOP support Newsmax.com, Staff Writer, August 23, 2014, “Obama Urges Renewal of US Export-Import Bank, http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-weekly-address-bank/2014/08/23/id/590441/, Accessed 8/23/2014 President Barack Obama is trying to rally support for a taxpayer-subsidized bank that he says creates jobs. In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama urges business owners to lobby Congress to renew the U.S. Export-Import Bank. The bank provides loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to foreign buyers of U.S. products. But it will cease functioning unless Congress renews its charter before October. Some Republican lawmakers who supported the bank in past years now want to put it out of business.

Impacts

Ex-Im Bank is crucial to U.S. Trade and Competitiveness Ex-Im provides billions in revenue for the government Jack Newsham, Staff Writer, August 24, 2014, “Future of Export-Import Bank on ropes,” Boston Globe, http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/08/23/trade- war/YMVGgXLDGD7fwZ04YVig7M/story.html, Accessed 8/24/2014 Today, the Ex-Im Bank offers more services, like insurance for transactions and multiyear loan terms. It usually ends the year with a surplus from the fees and interest it charges, which it turns over to the Treasury. Last year, the Ex-Im Bank returned $1 billion. But some congressional Republicans and libertarian analysts say the Ex-Im Bank isn’t worth it. They’ve accused it of “crony capitalism” for helping well-connected corporations like Boeing, which was involved in more than a third of long-term financing deals the bank made in its last fiscal year. While Ex-Im says nearly 90 percent of its clients are small businesses, the bank’s critics point out that most of the money — 80 percent — goes to large corporations, such as Boeing Co., the Chicago aerospace company. The Ex-Im Bank is responsible for billions in growth and competitiveness The Heritage Foundation, Staff Writer, July 28, 2014, “Facts About the Export-Import Bank,” Heritage Foundation Factsheet #149 on Economy, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/07/facts-about-the-export-import-bank, Accessed 8/24/2014 The bank funnels billions of taxpayer dollars each year to overseas businesses for the purchase of American products. These subsidies put U.S. firms at a competitive disadvantage. Ex-Im financing of coal mining in Colombia, copper excavation in Mexico, and airplanes for India has been identified as contributing to job losses among domestic companies. Failure to renew the Ex-Im bank tanks U.S. competitiveness Raju Chebium, Staff Writer, August 20, 2014, “Congress could close Export-Import Bank,” Visalia Times-Delta, http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/2014/08/20/congress-close-export-import- bank/14373581/, Accessed 8/24/2014 Supporters say killing the bank would hurt American exporters because the Chinese, Europeans and other competitors help their exporters sell their products in the U.S. The Export-Import Bank has aided $234 billion in U.S. exports since 2007, supporters say, noting that the bank costs U.S. taxpayers very little because it supports itself through interest payments and fees and makes money for the federal government.

Competitiveness is key to U.S. Leadership The perception of American competitiveness is key to US leadership Leslie H. Gelb, a former senior official in the state and defense departments, is currently president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Summer 2010, “Fashioning a Realistic Strategy for the Twenty-First Century?,” Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol.34:2, http://ui04e.moit.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/34-2pdfs/Gelb.pdf, Accessed 8/25/2014 Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do something they do not want to do by means of your resources and your position. It was always that. There is no such thing in my mind as “soft” power or “hard” power or “smart” power or “dumb” power. It is people who are hard or soft or smart or dumb. Power is power. And people use it wisely or poorly. Now, what has changed is the composition of power in international affairs. For almost all of history, international power was achieved in the form of military power and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it has become more and more economic. So power consists of economic power, military power, and diplomatic power, but the emphasis has shifted from military power (for almost all of history) to now, more economic power. And, as President Obama said in his West Point speech several months ago, our economy is the basis of our international power in general and our military power in particular. That is where it all comes from. Whether other states listen to us and act on what we say depends a good deal on their perception of the strength of the American economy. A big problem for us in the last few years has been the perception that our economy is in decline.

Politics Agenda Ex-Im Bank DA - Aff

Uniqueness Answers – Ex-Im won’t pass now Ex-Im won’t be renewed now because of bailout fatigue and Tea Party opposition Jack Kenny, Staff Writer, August 25, 2014, “Obama's About-face on Ex-Im Bank Recalled,” New American, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/18979-obama-s-about-face-on-ex- im-bank-recalled, Accessed 8/25/2014 President Barack Obama, who once called the U.S. Export-Import bank "little more than a fund for corporate welfare," urged business owners Saturday to press members of Congress to renew the bank's charter, due to expire on September 30. Expiration of the charter would mean the end of the bank and its ability to help finance U.S. exports with loans to foreign customers at below-market interest rates, with the American taxpayers stuck for the bill whenever loans are not repaid. The charter has been renewed by Congress more than 40 times though the 80-year history of the bank, which was created in 1934 by executive order of President Franklin Roosevelt. But the massive government bailout of the financial industry in 2008-2009 planted the seeds of a growing mistrust of the alliance between big government and big business — sometimes called "corporate welfare" — particularly within the Tea Party movement, which has taken root and grown into a political force since the bailouts. Opposition had been building as well among members of Congress willing to let the bank become history at the end of next month — a movement the president tried to blunt with his remarks Saturday. The GOP won’t give up on opposition based on corporate welfare John Shaw, Staff Writer, August 18, 2014, “US Hill Fight Over Export-Import Bank Shows GOP Fissures,” MNI News, https://mninews.marketnews.com/index.php/us-hill-fight-over-export-import- bank-shows-gop-fissures?q=content/us-hill-fight-over-export-import-bank-shows-gop-fissures, Accessed 8/24/2014 The House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the Export-Import Bank in late June and most of the witnesses were staunch foes of the agency. In his opening remarks, Hensarling assailed the Export-Import Bank as little more than a tool of "some of the largest, richest, most politically-connected corporations in the world - like Boeing, General Electric, Bechtel and Caterpillar." "Ex-Im may not just be guilty of cronyism: it may be guilty of corruption as well. Now I will admit that Republicans may disagree on whether Ex-Im should be reformed or allowed to expire ... but we are united in believing we cannot reauthorize the status quo," Hensarling said. Ex-Im won’t pass. Hensarling will block Dan Freedman, Staff Writer, August 11, 2014, “Banking on the future of Ex-Im New York lawmakers scramble to protect jobs and businesses,” Times-Union, http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Banking-on-the-future-of-Ex-Im-5664690.php, Accessed 8/25/2014 New York manufacturers have a lot to lose at the hands of U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling. As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, the Texas Republican has been using his considerable influence and libertarian views to change the way the federal government supports the economy. Out are bailouts and government-backed loan programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Export-Import Bank, which facilitates overseas purchases of U.S. products. Unfettered free enterprise and free markets — with minimal governmental involvement — are in. Hensarling's offensive, which could bring the Export- Import Bank to a screeching halt at the end of September, has New York lawmakers scrambling to protect institutions they once took for granted. "Any effort to eliminate the Export-Import Bank is completely misguided,'' said Sen. Charles Schumer, a member of the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban

Affairs Committee who is working to reauthorize the bank. "It is a critical lifeline for businesses around (New York) state that creates jobs and grows domestic manufacturing.'' Bank officials say it supports $37 billion in exports and more than 200,000 American jobs through loans and loan guarantees to foreign states and enterprises purchasing American products. In April, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand toured industrial facilities in Syracuse, Niagara Falls and Ogdensburg that have benefited from Export-Import Bank financing, which backers say support jobs in regions of the state that have suffered through decades of U.S. manufacturing decline. "Every $1 billion in exports of American goods and services supports about 5,000 U.S. jobs," Gillibrand said. "We want to make sure that our companies here in New York have the tools and resources they need to be successful exporters." Business interests are particularly incensed over Hensarling's bid not to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Since 2007, Ex-Im has financed $7 billion in New York state exports, with General Electric among the top three beneficiaries. Ex-Im supported 272 exporters in that time, 163 of which were small businesses.

Uniqueness Answers – Ex-Im won’t pass now Reauthorization without reforms is impossible Jack Kenny, Staff Writer, August 25, 2014, “Obama's About-face on Ex-Im Bank Recalled,” New American, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/18979-obama-s-about-face-on-ex- im-bank-recalled, Accessed 8/25/2014 Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, has drafted a bill for a three-year renewal of the charter with reforms designed to increase the bank's efficiency, reduce the risk to taxpayers, and ensure that the Ex-Im Bank is the lender of last resort. "A reauthorization with reforms, in my view, is the only thing actually that could get 218 votes and pass the House floor," Campbell told Politico.

Uniqueness Answers – Midterms gridlock Nothing will pass until after midterms Chuck Todd, Mark Murrary, and Carrie Dann, Staff Writers, June 26, 2014, “Stick a Fork in this Congress: It's Done Until Midterms”, NBC News, http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/stick-fork- congress-its-done-until-midterms-n141481, Accessed 8/25/2014 Sick a fork in this Congress; it’s done at least until the midterms (and maybe until Jan. 2017) Mark yesterday, June 25, on your calendars: It was the day Congress all but closed up shop to focus on the midterms -- after House Speaker John Boehner announced he would introduce legislation next month to authorize a lawsuit against President Obama over his executive actions in office. “President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce,” he wrote. Tellingly, Boehner’s letter didn’t cite a specific example of illegal or unconstitutional executive action, but his aides say the suit will likely focus on the health-care laws and energy regulations. But how do you expect Congress to get anything done for the rest of the year when the House has decided to sue the president? Immigration reform? Forget about it (and it was already on life support). Any other big items? Done. Of course, there’s always the possibility that SOMETHING might take place during the lame duck. But only the stuff that HAS to get done to avoid operational shutdowns. Yet for now, House Republicans have signaled they’re done working with the White House and Democrats. And the White House and Dems are pretty much saying the same thing. “I’m not sure an announcement that House Republicans are preparing a taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the president for doing his job is going to be warmly received by the American public,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday.

No Link: Ocean Renewables Congress supports renewable energy from the ocean NELHA, July 23, 2012, Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority, Environmental Impact Assessment, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Technology Research, Development and Demonstration Facility Ke’Ahole, North Kona, and Hawaii,” http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/ Shared %20Documents/EA_and_EIS_Online_Library/Hawaii/2010s/2012-07-23-DEA-Ocean-Thermal-Energy- Conversion-Research-Development.pdf, Accessed 8/25/2014 The energy policy of the Obama Administration lists the guiding principles of the administration regarding energy and the environment. They are: creating new clean energy jobs and technologies, making America more energy independent, and reducing carbon emissions. Many of the Obama Administration's initiatives were undertaken as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and many of those investments were specifically in clean energy. The White House website states that the Recovery Act provided over $80 billion in clean energy investments. The President and Congress have dramatically increased funding for the U.S. Department of Energy’s wave and tidal technologies program. In addition, President Obama has advocated that by 2012, 10 percent of our domestic energy supply should come from renewable resources, increasing to 25 percent by 2025. Also, now that federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is increasingly likely, the focus is on reducing CO2 emissions through the renewable energy sector.

No Link: OCS The GOP overwhelmingly supports OCS oil and gas development Laura Barron-Lopez, Staff Writer, August 1, 2014, “House GOP urges Interior to open up new offshore drilling areas,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/214045-house-gop-urges-interior-to-open-up-new- offshore-drilling-areas, Accessed 8/24/2014 More than 160 House Republicans are urging the Obama administration to open up more areas to offshore drilling in a new five-year lease plan for oil and gas development. The Republicans claim that opening areas of the Outer Continental Shelf that have otherwise remained off-limits, such as the Atlantic, Arctic, and parts of the Pacific oceans, would generate roughly $160 billion between 2017 and 2035. OCS has bipartisan support Laura Barron-Lopez, Staff Writer, August 1, 2014, “House GOP urges Interior to open up new offshore drilling areas,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/214045-house-gop-urges-interior-to-open-up-new- offshore-drilling-areas, Accessed 8/24/2014 The Interior Department is currently gathering comments from oil and gas companies, conservation groups and others to determine which parts of the seabed will be included in its lease sales for 2017– 2022. "We believe the Department must move forward with a five-year program that continue to lease in the Gulf of Mexico but also includes new areas with the greatest resources potential as well as areas such as the Mid-and-South Atlantic, or the Arctic, where there is strong bipartisan support from members of Congress, governors, state legislators, local leaders and the general public for allowing oil and natural gas development," the letter sent to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell on Friday states.

No Link/Non-Unique: Offshore Wind The offshore wind industry is advancing now Jesse Broehl and Michael Ernst, Staff Writers, August 6, 2014, “Embryonic No More,” North American Wind Power, http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php? content.13273, Accessed 8/24/2014 At long last, the U.S. offshore wind industry is showing real progress toward putting steel in the water. The offshore sector is progressing not only with key projects like Cape Wind and the Block Island wind farm, but also more broadly as the federal government provides new grants and works with coastal states to offer large leases for future offshore development. As of the end of July, the developer behind the 468 MW Cape Wind project had secured close to two-thirds of the approximately $2.5 billion needed for the wind farm, to be located off the coast of Cape Cod, Mass. In addition, the developer sold more than 77% of the projected output (363 MW) through stable, 15-year power purchase agreements (PPAs) at $0.187/kWh plus inflation.

Political Capital Link Turn Ex-Im is a flip-flop for Obama and should be rejected as corporate welfare Keith Laing, Staff Writer, August 23, 2014, “Obama pushes for Ex-Im Bank extension,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/215803-obama-pushes-for-ex-im-bank-extension, Accessed 8/24/2014 House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) chastised President Obama on Saturday for pushing an extension of the Export-Import Bank. In his weekly address, Obama said lawmakers should extend the Export-Import Bank, which provides financing for projects designed to increase U.S. exports, when they return to Washington because it “helps many American entrepreneurs take that next step and take their small business global.” However, Hensarling said Saturday that Obama was not always in favor of the Ex-Im Bank. “President Obama was right in 2008 when he called the Export-Import Bank ‘little more than a fund for corporate welfare’ and wrong today when he cheerleads for its renewal,” he said. Flip-flops kill the agenda. It’s the most destructive political label in America James Rainey, Staff Writer, June 25, 2008, “Candidates Show Lack of Leadership on Iraq," Daily Herald, http://www.heraldextra.com/component/option,com_contentwire/task,view/id,61544/Itemid,5 3/, Accessed 8/25/2014 The Iraq experts I interviewed agreed that one of the most problematic barriers to a real debate is -- as author and journalist George Packer said -- a culture that has "made flip-flopper the most feared label in American politics." They could point to another politician, fact averse but stalwart, who took too long to adapt once it became clear Iraq was going sideways. "It seems in America you are stuck with the position you adopted, even when events change, in order to claim absolute consistency," Packer said. "That can't be good."

Impact Answers: Not help Small Businesses Ex-Im hurts small businesses Diane Katz, Staff Writer, August 24, 2014, “The Obscure Government Agency That Big Business Loves,” The Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/24/obscure-government-agency-big-business-loves/, Accessed 8/25/2014 Instead, Ex-Im financing primarily benefits multi-national corporations, the top 10 of which profited from 75 percent of bank financing in FY2013. These include Boeing ($91 billion market capitalization); General Electric ($267 billion); Bechtel (2013 revenues: $39.4 billion); and Caterpillar (2013 sales and revenues: $55 billion). In some instances, Ex–Im actually harms small business by providing their overseas competitors with financing at artificially low rates. Recently, for example, the bank approved $694 million in financing for the purchase of U.S. equipment to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in Australia (owned by that country’s richest woman). The deal was consummated despite warnings from the United Steel Workers, the Iron Mining Association, and all four senators from Minnesota and Michigan that the subsidies would jeopardize thousands of U.S. mining jobs. Ex-Im does not help small businesses Dave Boyer, Staff Writer, August 23, 2014, “Obama: Americans should pressure GOP to reauthorize Export-Import Bank,” The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/23/obama-americans-should-pressure-gop- reauthorize-ex/, Accessed 8/23/2014 The president said the bank promotes “thousands of businesses, large and small.” Critics say those firms are mostly large. Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, said less than 20 percent of the Export-Import Bank’s portfolio benefits small companies. “Even this is misleading, since the Ex-Im Bank’s definition of a ‘small business’ isn’t exactly small,” she wrote in an op-ed at Az.com. “Ex-Im Bank defines small businesses as companies with up to 1,500 employees or annual revenue up to $21 million.” She said data from the U.S. Census and from the Ex-Im Bank’s records show that only 0.3 percent of all small-business jobs received assistance from the bank in 2007, the most recent year for which the full Census data is available. Small business arguments are a lie! Ex-Im renewal is corporate welfare Diane Katz, Staff Writer, August 24, 2014, “The Obscure Government Agency That Big Business Loves,” The Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/24/obscure-government-agency-big-business-loves/, Accessed 8/25/2014 Congress is debating the fate of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, an obscure government agency that funnels subsidies to foreign firms for the purchase of American exports. Proponents claim the bank aids small business, creates jobs and “levels the playing field” in global trade. In fact, Ex-Im does nothing of the kind, and Americans deserve to know the truth about what is little more than a conduit for corporate welfare. In an Aug. 10 commentary, for example, Jay C. Moon, president and CEO of the Mississippi Manufacturers Association, asserted that nearly 90 percent of Ex-Im transactions in 2013 helped small businesses. However, “transactions” simply refers to applications. When it comes to actual dollars, barely 20 percent of the bank’s financing benefits small business. That equates to about one-half of 1 percent of all U.S. small businesses.

Impact Answers: Not key to the economy Ex-Im is not a strategic trade instrument Salim Furth, Ph.D. and Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation, August 7, 2014, “The Export-Import Bank: What the Scholarship Says,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2934 on Economy, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/08/the-export- import-bank-what-the-scholarship-says, Accessed 8/24/2014 The arguments in favor of Ex-Im usually focus on one secondary aspect of its function. Few are making reasoned arguments that recognize and embrace Ex-Im’s core function as an instrument of strategic trade policy designed to increase the profits of U.S.-based corporations at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and foreign corporations. But that is the case that was made in the strategic trade literature of the 1980s and largely rejected for practical application by the same researchers as the theory deepened and was disciplined by the data. And that is the case that explains the bulk of Ex-Im’s activities. In fact, the case for Ex-Im is so narrow that a robust case against Ex-Im could be made consisting only of the caveats of its proponents. The best economic models dispute any real economic value of the Ex-Im Bank Salim Furth, Ph.D. and Senior Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation, August 7, 2014, “The Export-Import Bank: What the Scholarship Says,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2934 on Economy, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/08/the-export- import-bank-what-the-scholarship-says, Accessed 8/24/2014 The theoretical models that attempted to justify the existence of export subsidies were shown to depend on a very narrow set of assumptions. Empirical evaluation of those models found even less certainty—even in the cases that best matched the narrow assumptions, reality was too complex. There never was, nor is there now, a good economic case for export subsidies, nor, by extension, for the existence of the Export-Import Bank.

Free Market Environmentalism CP

The free market counterplan (which also has a disadvantage shell) works best against overfishing, marine sancturary/protected areas/reserves cases, and other conservation-based affirmatives. If you add a tax incentives component, it can be run against renewables affirmatives that don’t use incentives.

The argument: Government intervention dilutes the strength of property rights and distorts the market. A strong property and market regime, combined with tort law for actual environmental threats or damages, best protects the environment and is key to human happiness as well. Treating pieces of the environment as private property ensures they will be protected. Regulations, subsidies, government involvement in general all distort the market--and accurate markets are key to preserving the value of particular environments.

The solvency mechanisms of the free market are: Catch Shares and Transfer quotas, which use the market to regulate the total amount fished; Conservation Easements, which allow conservation restrictions to be part of either land transfer agreements or “covenants”; Tax Incentives (only for ocean renewable energy affs, and you’ll want to change the link/net benefit evidence in the 1NC); and Tort Law/Common Law, which solves better than regulations.

Three important clarifications about this file: 1. It contains a disadvantage and a counterplan--those are not to be run together. Piracy is an impact extension for the disadvantage and an advantage to the counterplan. 2. You will need to insert terminal impacts for economy and environment arguments that are in this file. There is "property rights key to survival" in the extensions that debaters may wish to read in the 1NC. 3. Permutation answers also serve as disadvantage link extensions, but are not labeled as such in the file; likewise, permutations in the affirmative file are also link answers to the disadvantage.

Free Market Environmentalism 1NC Counterplan 1/2 Text: Excluding current reserves and protected areas, the USFG will privatize its EEZ ocean waters, utilizing catch shares and individual transferable quotas, and providing for conservation easements. The counterplan is net-beneficial: Regulations, subsidies, and government mandates distort competition, increasing competitors' costs and damaging the free market José Carlos Laguna de Paz, Professor of Administrative Law at the Valladolid University Law School (Spain), March 6, 2012 "Environmental Regulation Should Not Distort Competition," Penn Program on Regulation, http://www.regblog.org/2012/03/environmental-regulation-should-not-distort-competition.html (accessed 5/24/2014) Environmental regulation can promote certain activities at the expense of competing ones. For example, a policy that encourages wind energy can discourage the development of other renewable energy sources, just as creating exclusive rights in order to develop environmental activities can eliminate competition in the market. Likewise, a public contract awarded on environmental grounds, like securing electricity from renewable energy sources, may harm other energy producers, which could be better able to take on the contract. Standardization agreements intended to achieve environmental benefits could lead to higher prices or new entry barriers to the market. Pro-environmental subsidies distort the market, since they grant economic advantages favoring certain productions or undertakings, which can increase the costs of competitors. The counterplan solves ocean resources through responsible ownership Logan Albright, fellow at the Prosperity Caucus, October 22, 2013 "Let's Privatize the Oceans," Ludwig Von Mises Institute Canada, http://mises.ca/posts/blog/lets- privatize-the-oceans/ (accessed 5/22/2014) The world’s oceans are in rather sorry shape. Pollution and overfishing have been a continuous problem that governments have struggled to deal with. Vast fluid bodies that span the globe and encircle the continents are not easily regulated by a central authority. Now, some biologists are proposing what should have been the obvious answer all along: privatization. The inherent difficulty of keeping the oceans clean results from what economists refer to as the Tragedy of the Commons. The basic idea is that when a resource is shared among many different people, the individual has an incentive to overutilize it, trying to extract as much as possible with little regard for the damage caused by his actions. When someone dumps pollutants into the ocean, they do so in the knowledge that others will have to bear the bulk of the cost. On the other hand, they would never dream of behaving so destructively towards a resource to which they possessed an exclusive right. It does not pay to shoot oneself in the foot.

Free Market Counterplan 1NC 2/2 Free markets save the environment Josiah Neeley, Policy Analyst at Armstrong Center on Energy & the Environment, April 7, 2014 "Right on Green: In Search of Authentic Free-market Environmentalism," Texas Public Policy Foundation, http://www.texaspolicy.com/center/energy-environment/opinions/right-green-search-authentic-free- market-environmentalism (accessed 5/15/2014) It’s an economic commonplace that people tend to take better care of things they own. There is a reason why cattle, unlike the buffalo, are not at risk of extinction. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and response to consumer demand have historically proven to be much better at meeting people’s needs than government command and control. That is as true when it comes to environmental goals as when it comes to economic goals. While new technologies and increased efficiency contributed to massive declines in harmful pollutants in the U.S., the old Soviet Union created some of the world’s greatest environmental calamities. The counterplan is modeled internationally: Ocean market environmentalism spreads internationally through consultation efforts and literature James Workman‚ visiting professor at Wesleyan University’s College of the Environment, May 13, 2014 "The Ocean's Offshore Enviropreneurs," PERC Report Vol. 33 No. 1, http://perc.org/articles/ocean-s- offshore-enviropreneurs (accessed 5/15/2014) A step-by-step “here’s-how-to-bake-a-perfect-catch-share” cookbook really does exist, bound up with dozens of proven recipes from Chile to Alaska and Spain to Japan. And Kate Bonzon is the 2003 enviropreneur who wrote it, along with several other related manuals, which are now marketed to the world. After a summer at PERC, Bonzon went on to develop a nonprofit lending institution to smooth fishermens’ scary and financially painful transition from open-access regulation to a catch-share system. She then assembled and led a team—which, in the interest of full disclosure, includes your correspondent—who transform small scale, commercial, and recreational fisheries globally. As an authority on rights-based systems, cooperatives, and Territorial Use Rights to Fisheries, she knows what will or won’t perform. Performance outcomes involve more than economic metrics. Ecologically careful, scientifically sound, and socially inclusive design can make or break a developing world’s fishery, noted Mark Gibson, class of 2012, who helped strengthen property rights in Latin American fisheries.

Free Market Environmentalism Disadvantage 1NC 1/2 Free market environmentalism will continue to grow in popularity as regulatory approaches fail Reed Watson, Executive Director of the Property and Environment Research Center, April 2, 2014 "Reed Watson, the New Face of Free-Market Environmentalism," Conserve Fewell, http://conservefewell.org/?p=4618 (accessed 5/22/20140 Shellenberger and Nordhaus hit the nail on the head by describing modern environmentalism as its own special interest, but they failed to mention that modern environmentalism, as a special interest, prioritizes its own preservation over the environment’s preservation. Environmentalism is not dying— the big players are raising more money than ever—but the era of sweeping environmental legislation is probably over. To be clear, the impotence of modern environmentalism does not concern me in the least. PERC’s research has shown that comprehensive, top-down environmental legislation often wastes more resources than it conserves. Moreover, as sincere conservationists abandon the top-down model, alternative approaches like free market environmentalism should gain even more of a following. Regulations, subsidies, and government mandates distort competition, increasing competitors' costs and damaging the free market José Carlos Laguna de Paz, Professor of Administrative Law at the Valladolid University Law School (Spain), March 6, 2012 "Environmental Regulation Should Not Distort Competition," Penn Program on Regulation, http://www.regblog.org/2012/03/environmental-regulation-should-not-distort-competition.html (accessed 5/24/2014) Environmental regulation can promote certain activities at the expense of competing ones. For example, a policy that encourages wind energy can discourage the development of other renewable energy sources, just as creating exclusive rights in order to develop environmental activities can eliminate competition in the market. Likewise, a public contract awarded on environmental grounds, like securing electricity from renewable energy sources, may harm other energy producers, which could be better able to take on the contract. Standardization agreements intended to achieve environmental benefits could lead to higher prices or new entry barriers to the market. Pro-environmental subsidies distort the market, since they grant economic advantages favoring certain productions or undertakings, which can increase the costs of competitors.

Free Market Environmentalism Disadvantage 1NC 2/2 Free markets solve ocean resource production and distribution through responsible ownership Logan Albright, fellow at the Prosperity Caucus, October 22, 2013 "Let's Privatize the Oceans," Ludwig Von Mises Institute Canada, http://mises.ca/posts/blog/lets- privatize-the-oceans/ (accessed 5/22/2014) The world’s oceans are in rather sorry shape. Pollution and overfishing have been a continuous problem that governments have struggled to deal with. Vast fluid bodies that span the globe and encircle the continents are not easily regulated by a central authority. Now, some biologists are proposing what should have been the obvious answer all along: privatization. The inherent difficulty of keeping the oceans clean results from what economists refer to as the Tragedy of the Commons. The basic idea is that when a resource is shared among many different people, the individual has an incentive to overutilize it, trying to extract as much as possible with little regard for the damage caused by his actions. When someone dumps pollutants into the ocean, they do so in the knowledge that others will have to bear the bulk of the cost. On the other hand, they would never dream of behaving so destructively towards a resource to which they possessed an exclusive right. It does not pay to shoot oneself in the foot. Free markets save the environment Josiah Neeley, Policy Analyst at Armstrong Center on Energy & the Environment, April 7, 2014 "Right on Green: In Search of Authentic Free-market Environmentalism," Texas Public Policy Foundation, http://www.texaspolicy.com/center/energy-environment/opinions/right-green-search-authentic-free- market-environmentalism (accessed 5/15/2014) It’s an economic commonplace that people tend to take better care of things they own. There is a reason why cattle, unlike the buffalo, are not at risk of extinction. Entrepreneurship, innovation, and response to consumer demand have historically proven to be much better at meeting people’s needs than government command and control. That is as true when it comes to environmental goals as when it comes to economic goals. While new technologies and increased efficiency contributed to massive declines in harmful pollutants in the U.S., the old Soviet Union created some of the world’s greatest environmental calamities.

Piracy Advantage Ocean privatization prevents piracy Peter T. Leeson, Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University and author of The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates, April 13, 2009 "Want to Prevent Piracy? Privatize the Ocean," The Corner: National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/180288/want-prevent-piracy-privatize-ocean/peter-t-leeson (accessed 5/16/2014) Predictably, the absence of ownership of these waters means no one has had much incentive to prevent activities that destroy their value — activities such as piracy. The result is a kind of oceanic “tragedy of the commons” whereby, since no one has an incentive to devote the resources required to prevent piracy, piracy flourishes. In contrast, if these waters were privately owned, the owner would have a strong incentive to maximize the waters’ value since he would profit by doing so. That would mean suppressing and preventing pirates. Piracy kills coastal economies Teo Kermeliotis, producer of CNN's Inside Africa, April 12, 2013 "Somali Pirates Cost Global Economy $18 Billion a Year," CNN Marketplace Africa, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/12/business/piracy-economy-world-bank/ (accessed 5/16/2014) The Somali pirates roaming the waters off the Horn of Africa push global trade costs up by billions of dollars per year and severely affect the economic activities of neighboring countries, a new World Bank report has found. Although hijackings in the region have dropped significantly since last year, piracy could still cost the global economy an estimated $18 billion annually, according to the "Pirates of Somalia: Ending the Threat, Rebuilding a Nation" report, launched Thursday in the Somali capital of Mogadishu.

Piracy Advantage: Privatization Solves Piracy Lack of private ownership decreases incentives for meaningful protection from piracy —governments aren’t filling in the gap Veronique De Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, July 2009 "Paying the Pirate's Price," Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/15/paying-the-pirates-price (accessed 5/15/2014) In an ideal world, we would leave protection up to the owner of the water in question. But today no one really owns the waters where pirates operate. And if no one owns them, no one protects them. Usually governments exercise an implicit ownership of the waters off their coast, but the absence of credible government in Somalia bars that possibility. What’s more, today’s pirates also operate far from any coasts, in water that nobody claims. Privatization could include buy-ins of pirates or former pirates, and gives shipping companies incentives to pay for protection. Veronique De Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, July 2009 "Paying the Pirate's Price," Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/15/paying-the-pirates-price (accessed 5/15/2014) If possible, it would be productive to find ways to privatize those pirate-infested seas. There are obvious difficulties, though not insurmountable ones, in the Somali case, where there’s no central government capable of conducting an auction. The alternative, a bottom-up homesteading approach, might end up granting the waters to the pirates themselves, but the best way to pacify the pirates may be to allow them formal ownership rights. In the long run, privately controlled waters would generate new solutions to the piracy problems. Former pirates, for example, could serve as escorts to commercial ships, not unlike the way retired hackers often emerge as computer security consultants. No matter what solution emerges, shipping companies, not taxpayers, would bear the costs of their own protection. That in itself is enough reason to start thinking creatively about privatization. Piracy is a result of lack of ownership Peter T. Leeson, Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University and author of The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates, April 13, 2009 "Want to Prevent Piracy? Privatize the Ocean," The Corner: National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/180288/want-prevent-piracy-privatize-ocean/peter-t-leeson (accessed 5/16/2014) The solutions suggested so far are what you might expect: Hit the Somali pirates at home with overwhelming force; reestablish “law and order” in Somalia so that pirates can’t flourish; and, closely- related, focus on state building in Somalia so citizens have lucrative employments other than piracy to turn to. One suggestion that isn’t being considered, but should be, is to privatize the seas — especially those off Somalia’s coast. As the old adage (at least among economists) goes, “What nobody owns, nobody takes care of.” This is as true for oceans as it is for anything else. Piracy is just one manifestation of nobody taking care of what nobody owns when that “what” is the sea.

Piracy Advantage: Piracy Hurts Economies Piracy increases the cost of routing, fuel, insurance and security, kills tourism and fishing, and damages the East African economy Teo Kermeliotis, producer of CNN's Inside Africa, April 12, 2013 "Somali Pirates Cost Global Economy $18 Billion a Year," CNN Marketplace Africa, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/12/business/piracy-economy-world-bank/ (accessed 5/16/2014) The increased costs come as shippers are forced to change trading routes, sending fuel bills soaring, as well as pay higher insurance premiums and security bills for guards on board. But apart from making international trade more expensive, the threat of piracy in one of the world's most important trade gateways is also an economic blow for neighboring East African countries, particularly in the pillar sectors of tourism and fishing, said the report. Looting costs tens of millions of dollars Kaija Hurlburt, Oceans Beyond Piracy, and D. Conor Seyle, PhD., One Earth Future Foundation, 2012 "The Human Cost of Maritime Piracy," Intercargo Working Paper, http://www.intercargo.org/pdf_public/hcop2012fullreport.pdf (accessed 5/15/2014) In the course of their attacks, West African pirates steal refined petroleum products estimated to be worth between $2 million and $6 million on average, with values reaching as high as $10 million.16 With seven incidents of oil theft reported, the value of stolen petroleum in 2012 is estimated to have been between $14 million and $42 million. Piracy undermines seafaring economy Kaija Hurlburt, Oceans Beyond Piracy, and D. Conor Seyle, PhD., One Earth Future Foundation, 2012 "The Human Cost of Maritime Piracy," Intercargo Working Paper, http://www.intercargo.org/pdf_public/hcop2012fullreport.pdf (accessed 5/15/2014) In addition to the physical and psychological ramifications of piracy, seafarers risk of financial difficulties in both the short and long term. There are a number of ways in which piracy can negatively impact seafarers financially. Some of the most common include the loss of personal belongings for which they are not reimbursed, loss of pay, and financial loss from changing careers to avoid returning to sea.

Free Markets Increasing Now Libertarianism is increasing Aaron Blake, Staffwriter for Washington Post, October 29, 2013 "Poll: 22 Percent of Americans Lean Libertarian," Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/29/poll-22-percent-of-americans- lean-libertarian/ (accessed 5/24/2014) Libertarians have gained political power in recent years, thanks in large part to the ascendance of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) in the 2012 presidential race. Paul previously ran as the Libertarian party presidential nominee in 1988. His son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), also identifies with a libertarian political philosophy (as well as the tea party) but differs from his father on issues of foreign policy, in particular. The Libertarian Party nominee in 2012, former Republican New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, took more raw votes than any Libertarian nominee in history, winning about 1 percent of the popular vote -- just less than the previous percentage high of 1.1 percent. The trend is toward increased free markets, which grow in popularity as people see their prosperity Julie Novak, senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, January 24, 2014 "It's Not Just the Rich who Benefit from Free Markets," Australian Broadcasting System, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-24/novak-its-not-just-the-rich-that-benefit-from-free- markets/5217778 (accessed 5/22/2014) Far from being a "winner-takes-all" system, the growing, but incomplete, embrace of market reforms, such as greater respect for private property rights, free trade and deregulation, has meant new opportunities for people to feed, clothe and house themselves and their families. And that translates into real wealth gains for many people, in economic terms, which can only be a good thing.

Overfishing: Regulated Commons Approach Fails Status quo fishermen have no incentive to consider future stocks, guaranteeing depletion Donald Leal, senior fellow at fellow at Property and Environment Research Center, Summer 2010 "Helping Property Rights Evolve in Marine Fisheries," PERC Report Vol. 28, http://perc.org/articles/helping-property-rights-evolve-marine-fisheries (accessed 5/15/2014) Because property rights in wild ocean fish stocks are not yet a reality, ocean fishers operate under a much different set of incentives. Specifically, they operate under the incentives of the commons, which leads to the well-known “tragedy of the commons” scenario. Catching fish today means those fish will not have the opportunity to grow larger and to reproduce, yet fishers have no incentive to leave a fish because a fish left for tomorrow can be caught by others. Hence, the incentive is for fishers to ignore the future value of the resource and catch more than a sustainable amount of fish. In addition, each fisher can reap the full benefits of catching more fish while facing only a fraction of the depletion costs—these costs are shared among all fishers who exploit a fish stock. Such a distorted calculus further depletes marine resources. Regulatory approaches drive up costs, spur overcapitalization, and don’t solve overfishing Robert N. Stavins, Professor of Business and Government, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, March 31, 2009 "Using Markets to Make Fisheries Sustainable," Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center, http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2009/03/31/using-markets-to-make-fisheries-sustainable/ (accessed 5/15/2014) Conventional regulatory approaches have driven up costs, but not solved the problem. And we know why. If the government limits the season, fishermen put out more boats. If the government limits net size, fishermen use more labor or buy more costly sonar. Economists call this over-capitalization. Costs go up for fishermen (as resources are squandered), but pressure on fish stocks is not relieved. Regulatory approach doesn’t instill conservation incentives—it causes a race for better extractive technology, guaranteeing overfishing Donald Leal, senior fellow at fellow at Property and Environment Research Center, Summer 2010 "Helping Property Rights Evolve in Marine Fisheries," PERC Report Vol. 28, http://perc.org/articles/helping-property-rights-evolve-marine-fisheries (accessed 5/15/2014) For decades, government regulations dictating when, where, and how to fish have been the tool of choice in managing fisheries. Unfortunately, such an approach fails to instill in each fisher a regard for the future value of the resource, as a rancher has in owning land. Nor does it force each fisher to take into account the cost of taking one more fish. Moreover, a “regulated” commons still allows shares of the catch to be up for grabs, often leading to a destructive race for fish. In an effort to win the race for fish, each fisher is compelled to invest in bigger boats and more elaborate gear. Not only does fishing become wastefully expensive, but preventing overfishing through regulations such as shortened seasons and limits on fishing trips becomes problematic as the ability to catch more fish in smaller increments of time increases. The results have not been good environmentally or economically.

Overfishing: FME Solves Privatization solves quickly—speeds up both conservation and recovery and generates billions in quick revenue James Workman‚ visiting professor at Wesleyan University’s College of the Environment, May 13, 2014 "The Ocean's Offshore Enviropreneurs," PERC Report Vol. 33 No. 1, http://perc.org/articles/ocean-s- offshore-enviropreneurs (accessed 5/15/2014) The alchemy is dramatic and fast. The value of the fish left in the sea becomes apparent. Ensuing ecological benefits generated by catch shares include less waste, cleaner harvests, faster recovery, gentler gear, fewer impacts, higher-quality products, and a reduction in the amount of unwanted and unintentionally captured animals, known as bycatch. Economic payoffs are equally powerful: By catching fewer fish over longer seasons, safer fishing practices earn higher profits, better wages, and contribute more back to society through tax revenues and fees for science and monitoring. In fact, if the United States established restorative catch shares nationwide it could generate $31 billion and create 500,000 jobs, while “meeting our national goal of rebuilding and sustaining” all fish stocks, said former assistant Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Eric Schwaab. Assigning property rights produces sustainable catches and profits Donald Leal, senior fellow at fellow at Property and Environment Research Center, Summer 2010 "Helping Property Rights Evolve in Marine Fisheries," PERC Report Vol. 28, http://perc.org/articles/helping-property-rights-evolve-marine-fisheries (accessed 5/15/2014) The good news is that there is a better way to manage an ocean fishery. A growing body of research reveals that fisheries that have adopted rights-based management strategies achieve sustainable catches and profits. As with other natural resources, the ideal approach is to establish well-defined, enforceable, and transferable property rights in the resource itself. But this approach has been slow to develop because, unlike land, most marine species are mobile and access is difficult to monitor. For now, specifying rights in either the harvest of fish or in the area of harvest has proven more feasible. ITQs empirically solve Robert N. Stavins, Professor of Business and Government, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, March 31, 2009 "Using Markets to Make Fisheries Sustainable," Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center, http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2009/03/31/using-markets-to-make-fisheries-sustainable/ (accessed 5/15/2014) The answer is to adopt in fisheries management the same type of innovative policy that has been used for decades in the realm of pollution control – tradeable permits, called “Individual Transferable Quotas” ( ITQs) in the fisheries realm. Sixteen countries – some with economies much more dependent than ours on fishing – have adopted such systems with great success. New Zealand regulates virtually its entire commercial fishery this way. It’s had the system in place since 1986, and it’s been a great success, putting a brake on over-fishing and restoring stocks to sustainable levels - while increasing fishermen’s profitability!

Overfishing: FME Solves Property rights empirically solve wherever they are implemented and global research shows they can reverse depletion Donald Leal, senior fellow at fellow at Property and Environment Research Center, Summer 2010 "Helping Property Rights Evolve in Marine Fisheries," PERC Report Vol. 28, http://perc.org/articles/helping-property-rights-evolve-marine-fisheries (accessed 5/15/2014) The most prominent of these rights-based approaches is individual transferable quotas (ITQs), which entitle a quota holder to catch a specific share of the total allowable catch set by fishery managers. The shares are also tradable. Another approach involves the fishers themselves structuring their own harvesting agreements, often resembling ITQs but privately administered. Yet another approach, well suited for species of limited mobility, is the establishment of exclusive harvest rights to marine areas. Economists have documented the economic benefits from implementing these approaches, such as higher fishing incomes, better product quality, and lower fishing costs. Using a global data base, scientists reported in Science in 2008 that such approaches have the wherewithal to halt and even reverse the global trend in stock depletion. Once these approaches are adopted, the next phase of property rights evolution in fisheries may well entail the assumption of management rights and duties by fishers themselves. This has been a historical feature of some community-oriented coastal fisheries, and it has now emerged in New Zealand in some ITQ fisheries. Catch shares solve overfishing James Workman‚ visiting professor at Wesleyan University’s College of the Environment, May 13, 2014 "The Ocean's Offshore Enviropreneurs," PERC Report Vol. 33 No. 1, http://perc.org/articles/ocean-s- offshore-enviropreneurs (accessed 5/15/2014) These people don’t launch business ventures for nature or set up green enterprises. They don’t buy or sell outdoor products or contract for environmental services. Instead, they pry open opportunities for others. More specifically, they devote careers to fencing off living portions of the ocean. They replenish marine life and diversity to robust health. And they do so by establishing tenure-based programs of transferable quotas of fish: a diverse portfolio of management systems now commonly known as catch shares. Catch shares and market mechanisms have proven solvency in practice James Workman‚ visiting professor at Wesleyan University’s College of the Environment, May 13, 2014 "The Ocean's Offshore Enviropreneurs," PERC Report Vol. 33 No. 1, http://perc.org/articles/ocean-s- offshore-enviropreneurs (accessed 5/15/2014) A catch-share fishery operates by establishing an annual “total allowable catch” with portions of the limit divided among participants. With a secure privilege to the total catch, fishers or fishery associations have the ability to catch a certain amount of fish each year. This system ends the insanity of a reckless, dumb, wasteful, and frenzied open-access “race for fish.” First in theory, then in practice, scholars in economics and political science from H. Scott Gordon to Elinor Ostrom to Don Leal have long shown the transformation that occurs when fishing communities gain secure, exclusive rights to a portion of the marine resources they harvest.

Overfishing: FME Solves Market environmental approaches to fishing bring environmentalists and producers together and empirically solve Robert N. Stavins, Professor of Business and Government, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, March 31, 2009 "Using Markets to Make Fisheries Sustainable," Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center, http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2009/03/31/using-markets-to-make-fisheries-sustainable/ (accessed 5/15/2014) A decade ago, environmental advocates – led by the Environmental Defense Fund – played a central role in the adoption of the sulfur dioxide allowance trading program that’s cut acid rain by half and saved electricity generators and rate-payers nearly $1 billion annually, compared with conventional approaches. The time has come for environmentalists to join forces with progressive voices in the fishing industry and in government to set up ITQ systems that can keep fishermen in business while moving fisheries onto sustainable paths. Privatized quotas solve overcapitalization and improve safety Robert N. Stavins, Professor of Business and Government, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, March 31, 2009 "Using Markets to Make Fisheries Sustainable," Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center, http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2009/03/31/using-markets-to-make-fisheries-sustainable/ (accessed 5/15/2014) Making the quotas transferable eliminates the problem of overcapitalization and increases efficiency, because the least efficient fishing operations find it more profitable to sell their quotas than to exploit them through continued fishing. If you can’t catch your whole share, you can sell part of your quota to someone else, instead of buying a bigger boat. In addition, these systems improve safety by reducing incentives for fishermen to go out (or stay out) when weather conditions are dangerous. And it was just such perverse incentives of conventional fisheries regulation that were blamed for the tragic loss of life when a fishing boat was lost in a storm off the New England coast just a few winters ago. Startup privatization is occurring in U.S. waters now with potential to expand Donald Leal, senior fellow at fellow at Property and Environment Research Center, Summer 2010 "Helping Property Rights Evolve in Marine Fisheries," PERC Report Vol. 28, http://perc.org/articles/helping-property-rights-evolve-marine-fisheries (accessed 5/15/2014) The obstacles to property rights in the world’s fisheries remain formidable, but there has been progress. In the United States, a moratorium on ITQs in federally managed fisheries was imposed in 1996. Thanks to PERC research, education, and outreach as well as collaborative efforts with the Environmental Defense Fund, Reason Foundation, and fishing groups, Congress allowed the moratorium to expire in 2002. The number of federal fisheries adopting rights-based approaches has grown from four in 1995 to 15 today, with several more major fisheries in the planning stage.

Conservation Easements Solve Ocean Resources Groups can buy species protection directly from producers through easements— privatization would make it as easy as it currently is on land Daniel Zummo, Research Fellow, Fisheries Law Center, August 1, 2013 "Free Market Environmentalism: Using Land-Based Conservation Easements as a Model for Marine Conservation Easements," Fishlaw.org, http://fishlaw.org/marine-conservation-easements/ (accessed 5/15/2014) Marine Conservation Easement (MCE) is a term that is used to describe legally binding agreements between commercial fishermen (grantors) and conservation NGOs (grantees) that amend certain fishing practices in exchange for payment.[9] The foremost difference between land-based conservation easements and marine-based conservation easements is that no one person or entity owns the ocean, while this is not the case in relation to land.[10] This is a major obstacle in creating a MCE because conservation NGOs do not have an owner to negotiate with. However, many regulation schemes pertaining to fishery management create a property right to use the habitat in various ways and at specific times and places in the form of ITQs. It is with this property right holder that a conservation NGO will have the ability to negotiate with in order to form a MCE. There has been a growing concern for the dwindling of fish stock, triggered by the advancement in fishing technology and the impact of climate change. A MCE could be the next logical step for parties that are interested in conserving fish stock. The grantor may retain the right to harvest target species as regulated by law, but agree to amend the methods of fishing for the benefit of non-commercial stocks and habitats in exchange for payment from a conservation entity. Easements compensate holders for restrictive use, protecting the restricted environments through economic incentives Daniel Zummo, Research Fellow, Fisheries Law Center, August 1, 2013 "Free Market Environmentalism: Using Land-Based Conservation Easements as a Model for Marine Conservation Easements," Fishlaw.org, http://fishlaw.org/marine-conservation-easements/ (accessed 5/15/2014) One of the newest instruments used by environmentalists to protect land in the United States is the conservation easement. Easements have been instrumental in preserving rural and agricultural landscapes, from family farms to working ranches and timberlands. Between 1992 and 1997, more than 11 million acres of rural land in the United States was converted to developed use — an area five times the size of Yellowstone National Park.[1] The conservation easement was created as a way to compensate landowners for restricting the use and development of their property and help stop the flood of development in rural America. In the marine context, conservation easements can be used as restrictive covenants that tie to the fishing permit/license and its subsequent holders. Just like the land- based conservation easement, the marine conservation easement will compensate the permit/license holder for the restrictive use of their permit/license.

Tax Incentives Solve Ocean Renewables Tax incentives decrease the cost of projects and encourage development Robert K. Harmon, President and CEO at EnergyRM, July 2011 "Incentivizing Ocean Energy," Oregon Wave Energy Trusts, http://oregonwave.org/oceanic/wp- content/uploads/2013/05/Incentivizing-Ocean-Energy-%E2%80%93-July-2011.pdf (accessed 5/15/2014) Renewable energy developers, like all other U.S. businesses, are subject to an elaborate system of federal, state and local taxation. Taxes increase the cost of developing and installing a renewable energy system. While taxes are not the source of ocean energy’s above- ‐market cost, preferential tax treatment in the form of offsets and credits can substantially reduce the cost of a project. Many incentive-based solvency mechanisms exist to encourage investment and use Robert K. Harmon, President and CEO at EnergyRM, July 2011 "Incentivizing Ocean Energy," Oregon Wave Energy Trusts, http://oregonwave.org/oceanic/wp- content/uploads/2013/05/Incentivizing-Ocean-Energy-%E2%80%93-July-2011.pdf (accessed 5/15/2014) Tax incentives for renewable energy include corporate, personal, sales tax and property tax incentives. These can be issued by the federal, state or local government, as well as U.S. territories. Five tax incentives are widely used to provide financial support for the development of renewable technologies: Production tax credits allow investors to earn a fixed credit against their tax burden for each unit of renewable energy produced. Investment tax credits allow a specified portion of the investment in the renewable technology to offset a portion of the recipient’s tax burden. Sales tax exemptions allow the exemption from state or local sales taxes of certain classes of goods and services, such as the materials and labor used to construct renewable energy devices. Property tax exemptions allow property owners to claim exemption from some state and local property taxes for installing qualifying renewable energy generation. Incentives solve renewables by accounting for start-up risks and sending message of support Mona L. Hymel, C.P.A., J.D., University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, March 2013 "Environmental Tax Incentives in the United States: Will Recent Market Incentives Reduce the U.S.’s Dependence on Oil," Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 13-17, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2233970_code575020.pdf? abstractid=2233970&mirid=1 (accessed 5/15/2014) If we consider the risk rationale for subsidizing alternative fuel technologies, the significant risks involved with entry into the market could justify the current tax incentives. Entering into the energy industry with its deeply entrenched gasoline fuel infrastructure presents potential investors with difficult barriers. Very large investments are required in both the fuel and vehicle industries. In fact, without the federal tax incentives to keep its price competitive with conventional fuels, no market would exist for alcohol fuels, and thus, no capital.152 The federal tax incentives were instrumental in overcoming the risk factor and establishing this industry.153 Thus, tax incentives (or other incentives) are necessary to the development of alternatives. The reason is basically the same as it was 100 years ago for using incentives to stimulate the petroleum industry: (1) to overcome the high initial start-up costs; (2) to minimize the high risk associated with new industries; and (3) to send a message of support for this new way of living.

FME Solves Environment Markets outperform government regulation on environmental protection Josiah Neeley, Policy Analyst at Armstrong Center on Energy & the Environment, April 7, 2014 "Right on Green: In Search of Authentic Free-market Environmentalism," Texas Public Policy Foundation, http://www.texaspolicy.com/center/energy-environment/opinions/right-green-search-authentic-free- market-environmentalism (accessed 5/15/2014) The free market is such a superior system, that oftentimes it can beat government regulation without even trying. In 2009, the U.S. Congress declined to pass a massive cap and trade bill. Yet the U.S. is now on track to meet the reduction targets contained in the Kyoto Protocol not through any government action, but through ordinary market developments. By contrast, the European Union’s cap and trade scheme has been beset by numerous problems. Empirically, voluntary buyouts protect endangered species better than regulations Shawn Regan, research fellow at Property and Environment Research Center, April 22, 2014 "A Peaceable Solution for the Range War Over Grazing Rights," Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304311204579511573372292740 (accessed 5/15/2014) Free-market environmentalism offers a better approach. Since 2002 the National Wildlife Federation has secured more than half a million acres of federal grazing land outside Yellowstone National Park to provide habitat for bison, grizzly bears and wolves. The group negotiates voluntary buyouts with ranchers and pays for the federal grazing permits with its own money. Rick Jarrett had a permit to graze cattle on 8,000 acres in the Gallatin National Forest outside Yellowstone but was losing livestock to bears and wolves. "I was looking for solutions, not playing politics," Mr. Jarrett told the National Wildlife Federation magazine after striking a deal to sell his permit to the group in 2008. "I guess that's why it worked so well." Markets build community-based sustainability and responsible environmental stewardship Peter Jones and Wanfei Qiu, University College London (UCL), UK, and Elizabeth De Santo, Dalhousie University, Canada, 2011 "Governing Marine-Protected Areas: Getting the Balance Right," Division for Environmental Policy Implementation, United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/Portals/7/governing-mpas-final-technical-report-web- res.pdf (accesed May 15, 2014) Connecting local people to external markets is also seen as a means of increasing the probability that community-based conservation will be successful by increasing local economic benefits from sustainable and compatible natural resource exploitation activities (Berkes and Seixas 2008), as is the assignation of property rights – tenure – to local people (Hayes and Ostrom 2005), by increasing their ownership of local resources and thereby promoting their role as responsible stewards.

FME Solves Environment Creation of property rights spurs new, cooperative, innovative solutions to environmental impacts Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 Defining rights in threatened resources creates opportunities for property owners and offending facilities to develop new means of reducing the environmental impacts of polluting behavior. Consider the experience of North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico River Basin and the development of a local nutrient pollution trading system (Riggs 1997; Riggs 1999, 167; Adler 2001a). While often celebrated as an example of successful water pollution trading, it is perhaps more notable as an example of institutional evolution spurred by the enforcement of a harm-based ecological constraint.

Regulations fail and markets solve the environment—global analysis proves James M. Roberts, Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth, Heritage Foundation, and Ryan Olson, Research Assistant, Heritage Foundation, September 11, 2013 "How Economic Freedom Promotes Better Health Care, Education, and Environmental Quality," Heritage Foundation Special Report #139 on Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/how-economic-freedom-promotes-better-healthcare-education-and-environmental-quality (accessed 5/27/2014) Critics of the free market sometimes complain that environmental degradation is the result of “market failure,” whereby negative externalities are created through the private sector’s production of goods and services for which individuals and firms are not held accountable. Thus they defend the necessity of imposing government regulations to control these negative externalities. But their arguments are hollow: Economically freer countries throughout the world continue to outperform their repressed counterparts on environmental protection. Economic freedom, and the wealth that flows from it, is wholly consistent with, and supportive of, a healthy environment. The environment is also better protected when larger percentages of land and other real property are privately held and protected by a country’s judicial system. Coercive government action to regulate the environment threatens the very means by which economically free countries have been able to clean up their environments in the first place.

FME Solves Environment FME solves non-excludability, restricting access to exploiters and protecting goods Charles D. Kolstad, Professor of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Summer 2011 "The Promise and Problems of Free Market Environmentalism," PERC Report Vol. 29 No. 2, http://perc.org/articles/promise-and-problems-free-market-environmentalism (accessed 5/16/2014) One type of market failure is the inability to exclude individuals from using the good. Economists call this nonexcludability. Excludability is necessary for a market to operate so that individuals can exchange money for access to the good. Free market environmentalism focuses on designing property rights— institutions that can overcome the nonexcludability. With well-defined property rights, I can restrict your access to a good that I may own. Natural resource problems, which are plagued by nonexcludability only (open-access problems) are perfect candidates for FME solutions. Only free markets allow for entrepreneurial solution-building, which introduces unique perspectives into the ossified regulatory environmental regime Shawn Regan, research fellow at Property and Environment Research Center, March 27, 2011 "Debunking myths about free-market environmentalism," Grist, http://grist.org/article/2011-03-27-the- misguided-critique-of-free-market-environmentalism/ (accessed 5/15/2014) Free-market environmentalism recognizes that when property rights are well defined, disputes over resource use can often be resolved locally and cooperatively. This is in sharp contrast to the conventional command-and-control approach to environmentalism that is characterized by top-down management, special interests, and zero-sum “I-win-you-lose” outcomes. This is not to say free-market environmentalists don’t believe in the presence of high transaction costs. To be sure, sufficiently high transaction costs can present significant hurdles for market-based solutions. But oftentimes, this presents an opportunity for entrepreneurs to step in and define property rights that lower such costs. These environmental entrepreneurs, call them “enviropreneurs,” are the often-unrecognized agents of change that contract with rights holders to keep water instream for fish and wildlife habitat, compensate livestock owners for their losses due to wolf depredation, and develop ecosystem-services markets for water quality and endangered species habitat. Property rights solve environmental degradation through stewardship and the profit motive James M. Roberts, Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth, Heritage Foundation, and Ryan Olson, Research Assistant, Heritage Foundation, September 11, 2013 "How Economic Freedom Promotes Better Health Care, Education, and Environmental Quality," Heritage Foundation Special Report #139 on Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/how-economic-freedom-promotes-better-healthcare-education-and-environmental-quality (accessed 5/27/2014) This association should not be surprising. Using private property as a tool for conservation and resource management works because it “empowers owners to act as stewards of environmental resources and facilitates conservation efforts in the private sector.”[32] The concept behind this is simple. Because land values usually increase over time, owners have an incentive to maintain the quality of the land and its improvements in order to preserve its value. Owners of private property have no interest in destroying the value of the land or its environmental qualities, because they would not profit from such

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com West Coast Publishing September 2014 Ocean Policy File Page 506 degradation.[33] For example if timber producers are allowed to own and exploit the resources of their land for timber production, they will have the incentive to maintain that land, and replant the trees as they fall (or are harvested). Without investing in sustainable timber production, these companies would be left without timber to use, and would be paying property taxes on unproductive land.

Common Law Solves Environment On balance, common law solves better than regulations, and gives states incentives Henry N. Butler, Senior Lecturer in Law and Executive Director, Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth, Northwestern University School of Law, 2008 "A Defense of Common Law Environmentalism: The Discovery of Better Environmental Policy," Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 58, No. 3, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/fulltime/butler/papers/ADefenseofCommonLaw_Butler.pdf (accessed 5/27/2014) In this decentralized world, where only property rights and the common law protect environmental assets, it would be highly unlikely for environmental quality to spiral downward. If State A does not suffer significant environmental degradation under the common law, then State B might wonder why it should bother with providing a regulatory structure to protect its environment. State B might recognize that it receives little, if any benefit at substantial cost, and decide to repeal its regulatory structure in favor of common law environmental protections. This simple model establishes a simple point— dismantling the current regulatory regime, at least in terms of dealing with local pollution, is not likely to result in environmental catastrophe. Different institutional arrangements are likely to yield different environmental outcomes; and different environmental outcomes may better match the environmental preferences of communities with different preferences. This is not Nirvana; it is not perfect. Policy mistakes may occur. Indeed, as in evolutionary biology, a policy mistake (that is, a mutation) may lead to the discovery of superior means of environmental protection. Increased reliance on the common law could be a major improvement over the current regulatory regime. Property rights regime channels private litigation to solve better than regulation— channels bargaining and other strategies to solve Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 Establishing property rights in potentially threatened resources also helps channel private litigation concerning environmental harm toward those cases that actually matter to environmental quality. Those with rights to a resource are likely to be the first to be aware of a given environmental threat, and are most likely to take action against it. By the same token, a property owner is less likely to use her property as a proxy for another interest in legal action if doing so could compromise the protection of the resource. Equally important, once property rights are established, Coasian bargaining and other efforts to arrive at optimal resource management arrangements are possible. This sort of bargaining already occurs where rights are defined. Absent the definition of property rights, however, such innovation is difficult if not impossible.

Free Market Environmentalism is Internationally Modeled

New forms of property rights make the current era ripe for globalization of ocean property rights Becky Mansﬁeld, Department of Geography, Ohio State University, 2004 "Rules of Privatization: Contradictions in Neoliberal: Regulation of North Pacific Fisheries," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 94 Number 3, http://www.uky.edu/~tmute2/geography_methods/readingPDFs/mansfield_rules-privatiz.pdf (accessed 5/23/2014) Although privatization of fisheries is not yet globally widespread, over the past two decades, fisheries economists and policymakers inceasingly have tried to close access to fisheries by devising new forms of property rights. Privatization of the Alaska pollack fishery is an important step toward encosure of the oceans in general, given that this fishery is the largest single-species fishery in the world, and the U.S. portion is the largest fishery in the United States, with a catch of 1.2 metric tons (2.6 billion pounds) in 2000 (NMFS 2001b). Because the fishery has such global significance, neoliberal restructuring of this ﬁshery marks an important moment in the shift from public to private control of the North Pacific and, more generally, the world’s oceans. Privatization advocates in the U.S. apply their models internationally James Workman‚ visiting professor at Wesleyan University’s College of the Environment, May 13, 2014 "The Ocean's Offshore Enviropreneurs," PERC Report Vol. 33 No. 1, http://perc.org/articles/ocean-s- offshore-enviropreneurs (accessed 5/15/2014) Daylin Muñoz-Nuñez, a marine scientist who worked for the Cuban Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, applied her enviropreneurial skill set to coordinate solutions for key fisheries in Mexico, Belize, and her home country of Cuba. Further offshore, she advanced the tri-national collaborative management of shark fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, using innovative market-based tools that were modeled after catch shares. Her fellow 2011 enviropreneur Jingjie Chu works to scale up local lessons by encouraging agencies in places such as Vietnam, China, and Myanmar. “Rights-based fishery management works and a well-designed catch-share system customized to the local culture and history will work even in underdeveloped countries,” argues Chu, a natural resource economist in the Global Program on Fisheries at the World Bank, which aims to meet the ambitious goal of having 50 percent of global fisheries under catch-share management in ten years.

Permutation Answers: Solvency Deficit The permutation incurs a solvency deficit: Firms will not enter into bargains with the threat of any resurgence of regulations hanging over their heads. This kills market solvency. Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 One of the things that makes this type of arrangement possible and stable over time is the regulatory agencies' commitment to forego the imposition of yet another round of regulatory requirements on companies that hold up their end of the bargain. Without this reassurance, firms will not enter into this sort of arrangement, nor will they negotiate environmentally superior alternatives to reflexive compliance with permit conditions. Absent some limitation on the universe of potential citizen-suit plaintiffs, no such deal is possible between violating firms and members of potentially affected communities. When regulatory schemes utilize particular market instruments, this distorts competition and favors particular businesses based on subjective standards José Carlos Laguna de Paz, Professor of Administrative Law at the Valladolid University Law School (Spain), March 6, 2012 "Environmental Regulation Should Not Distort Competition," Penn Program on Regulation, http://www.regblog.org/2012/03/environmental-regulation-should-not-distort-competition.html (accessed 5/24/2014) Competition concerns also arise with regard to market-based instruments, which have gained a growing importance in environmental regulation. For instance, the effects of a tax on fuel may vary depending on its intended use. The same variability occurs when environmental goals are achieved through group- related charges. Applying pricing measures on plastic products favors biodegradable alternatives. An inadequate design and execution of a right of use scheme may distort competition by favoring some companies to the detriment of others. Similarly, allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances could unduly distort competition among states, if there is no correspondence between the rights received and the potential of their industry or by introducing differences between industries or undertakings not based on objective reasons.

Permutation Answers: Solvency Deficit Government action and funding of resources distorts their true scarcity, undermining conservation Reed Watson, executive director of Property and Environment Research Center, and Greg Sauer, director of Citizen Outreach at Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, December 10, 2013 "Innovation Overcomes Scarcity: Nickel Pig Iron Edition," PERC.org, http://perc.org/blog/innovation- overcomes-scarcity-nickel-pig-iron-edition (accessed 5/25/2014) As a resource become scarcer, the price increase motivates entrepreneurs to use less and find substitutes. This phenomenon, perhaps best demonstrated by the Simon-Ehrlich wager, is worth remembering anytime someone claims China’s demand for natural resources will exhaust supplies. But markets only promote resource conservation when prices reflect actual resource scarcity. Government intervention into the marketplace, in the form of taxes and subsidies, distorts market prices and garbles the scarcity message for everything from water to energy. Collaborative rulemaking fails: government overwhelms the industries, destroying effectiveness Karen Meyers, chair of Unitary Regulatory Committee, May 1, 2012 "Increased Regulatory Burden Hurts Innovation," Contractor, http://contractormag.com/management/increased-regulatory-burden-hurts-innovation (accessed 5/22/2014) In the past 12 to 15 months, the number of rulemakings that the DOE and other regulatory bodies have issued to manufacturers has spiked dramatically. The sheer amount of urging, educating, reasoning, negotiating and even pleading from trade associations, manufacturers, distributors and contractors involved with each rulemaking is an enormous and exhaustive effort. Unfortunately, the constantly changing nature of today’s regulatory environment doesn’t even give manufacturers and trade associations enough time to respond to regulators’ demands, which greatly hinders a collaborative rulemaking process.

Permutation Answers: Hurts Economy Involving aloof government agencies undermines innovation Karen Meyers, chair of Unitary Regulatory Committee, May 1, 2012 "Increased Regulatory Burden Hurts Innovation," Contractor, http://contractormag.com/management/increased-regulatory-burden-hurts-innovation (accessed 5/22/2014) Keith Bienvenu, president of the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors — National Association, pointed out in the February 2012 issue of Contractor that the current Administration has made a shift to move its agenda through the regulatory process instead of the legislative process. The result: lawmakers elected by voters are, essentially, removed from the rulemaking process and, in turn, regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), take a driving role in developing regulations that impact entire industries. These regulatory agencies aren’t tied to standard lawmaking processes, which means agenda items can get pushed through more quickly — sometimes without properly vetting the consequences of how the new regulation will impact the day- to-day operations of an industry. Innovation is key to economic growth Patrick Gallagher, U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, June 20, 2012 "Innovation as a Key Driver of Economic Growth & Competitiveness," Remarks at FedScoop's U.S. Innovation Summit, Newseum, Washington, DC, http://www.nist.gov/director/speeches/innovation- summit.cfm (accessed 5/22/2014) But I want to back up a little bit and from a very government-centric viewpoint, talk about why we're talking about innovation. And I'm going to be more specific—we're talking about technological innovation. The reason we're focused on it, the reason the President, for me, did this rather startling thing of putting it at the centerpiece of our economic agenda, is because the truth of the matter is it has been the key driver to our economy. Well over half of the economic growth in this country since the end of World War II has been directly attributable to technological innovation. It accounts for most of the positive difference in per capita income. It drives almost all of the growth in economic output and productivity. And it's really the key to competitiveness for almost every company that's there. If you look at how innovative companies are, you can directly correlate that with how competitive and successful they are. So in the midst of one of the deepest recessions this country has had since the Great Depression, the reason we're talking about innovation is because it matters. It drives our economy.

Markets Don't Prop Up Corporate Capitalism State intervention causes corporatism Edmund S. Phelps, Nobel laureate in economics and Professor of Political Economy at Columbia University, and Saifedean Ammous, lecturer in economics at the Lebanese American University, February 1, 2012 "Blaming Capitalism for Corporatism," Nation of Change, http://www.nationofchange.org/blaming- capitalism-corporatism-1328114007 (accessed 5/22/2014) This shift of power from owners and innovators to state officials is the antithesis of capitalism. Yet this system’s apologists and beneficiaries have the temerity to blame all these failures on “reckless capitalism” and “lack of regulation,” which they argue necessitates more oversight and regulation, which in reality means more corporatism and state favoritism. It seems unlikely that so disastrous a system is sustainable. The corporatist model makes no sense to younger generations who grew up using the Internet, the world’s freest market for goods and ideas. The success and failure of firms on the Internet is the best advertisement for the free market: social networking Web sites, for example, rise and fall almost instantaneously, depending on how well they serve their customers. Intervention mis-shapes market interactions and replaces peaceful economic exchange with bureaucracy Sheldon Richman, vice president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, January 6, 2012 "Corporatism vs. the Free Market," Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/06/corporatism-vs- the-free-market (accessed 5/22/2014) Those who advocate the freeing of markets have no reason to receive the news of the gap defensively. If we are right about the breadth and depth of bureaucratic interference with the peaceful, creative activities of individuals, as well as the extent of government privileges for the well-connected—and we are—then drags on mobility are at least partly the consequence of that interference. In other words, the mobility gap can’t be the result of the free market because there isn’t one. The economy is systematically misshapen by intervention. Western countries aren’t capitalist; they’re state-corporatist and this causes their abuses of power Sheldon Richman, vice president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, January 6, 2012 "Corporatism vs. the Free Market," Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/06/corporatism-vs- the-free-market (accessed 5/22/2014) This will be readily conceded by free-market advocates, but some harbor a belief that the U.S. economy is much freer than Europe’s and Canada’s socialistic welfare states and so to make negative comparisons with those countries is to cast aspersions at freedom. Not so. The economies of America, Canada, and Europe are all variations of corporatism in which government power primarily benefits the well- connected and well-to-do, with secondary interventions intended in part to ameliorate some of the harsher consequences of the primary interventions. As I wrote on another occasion: In reality the debate [between America and Europe] is not between socialism and free enterprise. Rather it’s between two forms of corporatism, America-style and European-style.

Property Rights Generally Good Property rights are key to human survival Peter Boettke, Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, April 2005 "The Role of Private Property in a Free Society," Virginia Viewpoint, http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2005_04_2.html (5/25/2014) Few concepts have been more important for human survival, yet maligned as unjust by intellectuals, as the concept of private property rights. Since at least the time of Aristotle, the superiority of private property over collective ownership in generating incentives to use scarce resources effectively has been recognized. It was a core idea of the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume and Adam Smith, as well as the American Revolutionaries such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. Historical evidence concludes private property averts political and environmental disasters, solves poverty and increases productivity Peter Boettke, Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, April 2005 "The Role of Private Property in a Free Society," Virginia Viewpoint, http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2005_04_2.html (5/25/2014) Historical experiences with the disaster of collective ownership and the benefits of private ownership can be found in the examples of the Jamestown and Plymouth colonies, the Soviet Union, and today's less developed countries. Collective ownership, or poorly defined and weakly enforced private property rights, leads to perverse incentives with regard to the use of scarce resources and insecurity with regard to investment in the improvement of those resources. In the Plymouth colony, for example, the attempt was made to rely on Christian principles to induce hard work for the communal good, but the colony was on the verge of starvation when it switched to a private property system in 1623. Within a short period after this change, the lives of the inhabitants were richly improved. Similarly, in the former communist countries, where less than 1% of the agricultural land was held in private plots, these private plots outperformed the collective farms. In the less developed world of Latin America and Africa, insecurity of ownership and the constant threat of predation by public and private actors has destined millions of people to live in squalor and poverty. Property rights increase life expectancy Werner Troesken, September 13, 2013, Professor of Economics at the University of Pittsburgh, "Property Rights and the Emergence of Modern Life Expectancies," PERC.org, http://perc.org/blog/property-rights-and-emergence-modern-life-expectancies (accessed 5/23/2014) To the extent that property rights and the protection of municipal creditors made investments in public water supplies possible, or at least hastened them, secure property rights were responsible for much of the improvement in human longevity observed between 1850 and 1950, the largest and most rapid improvement in human health in recorded history.

Free Market Environmentalism CP Answers

Permutation Solvency Permutation solves by creating a hybrid of regulation and common law; regulations will roll back to an appropriate balance level Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 If the common law has difficulty incorporating certain values, aggregating multiple parties, or accommodating particular interests, it may be possible for regulations to supplement common law actions through disclosure requirements, the creation of default rules and presumptive thresholds for nuisance actions, and other measures to reduce transaction costs and facilitate legal enforcement of private rights in environmental values. Permutation is the less rigid approach, and allows common law to inspire better regulations Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 There is room to conceive of a less rigid and prescriptive regulatory regime that advances environmental protection while accommodating private ordering and negotiated settlements to property disputes. In this way environmental regulation could become more consistent with common law principles and the FME ideal. Permutation solves best because of pragmatism: We must reject the ideological divide between markets and regulations Peter Jones and Wanfei Qiu, University College London (UCL), UK, and Elizabeth De Santo, Dalhousie University, Canada, 2011 "Governing Marine-Protected Areas: Getting the Balance Right," Division for Environmental Policy Implementation, United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/Portals/7/governing-mpas-final-technical-report-web- res.pdf (accesed May 15, 2014) There is a growing recognition in governance debates that there is a need to move beyond ideological arguments as to which approach is ‘best’ or ‘right’ and, instead, develop governance models, frameworks and approaches that combine the steering role of states, markets and people. Such integrated, pragmatic perspectives enable us to move on from ideological debates about whether we should rely on the strong hand of state power, the ‘invisible hand’ of market forces or the democratic hands of the people, and to consider how the three approaches can be effectively combined.

Permutation Solvency Regulations don't preclude common law solutions Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Legal Studies Research Paper 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 If common law actions were so effective where did they go? In making the case for greater reliance on common law legal actions to control pollution, FME advocates often imply (if not assert) that modern environmental regulation has preempted most common law remedies. Yet in reality, most common law causes of action against polluting activity are not legally precluded, at least not in the United States.15 As Frank Cross (1999, 966) notes, the common law is largely intact. Most major federal environmental statutes contain “savings clauses” that expressly preserve state law causes of action. Top-down and bottom-up incentives both may be used to achieve biodiversity Peter Jones and Wanfei Qiu, University College London (UCL), UK, and Elizabeth De Santo, Dalhousie University, Canada, 2011 "Governing Marine-Protected Areas: Getting the Balance Right," Division for Environmental Policy Implementation, United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/Portals/7/governing-mpas-final-technical-report-web- res.pdf (accesed May 15, 2014) The debates as to the merits of topdown and bottom-up approaches to co-management are thus paralleled in debates as to the merits of different incentive approaches, recognising that equity and justice issues are multidimensional, i.e. international, intrasocietal, intergenerational, etc. Whilst market incentives can therefore be considered to be pervasive in such debates, it is important to recognise that the aims and means of such incentives are interpreted very differently depending on the perspective adopted, i.e.top-down or bottom-up. Markets and regulations both solve in different contexts Peter Jones and Wanfei Qiu, University College London (UCL), UK, and Elizabeth De Santo, Dalhousie University, Canada, 2011 "Governing Marine-Protected Areas: Getting the Balance Right," Division for Environmental Policy Implementation, United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/Portals/7/governing-mpas-final-technical-report-web- res.pdf (accesed May 15, 2014) In examining the relative roles of the state, markets and people, the use of different case studies examined in this research project will explore the proposition that whilst certain governance approaches are effective to address some challenges in some contexts, other approaches are generally also required to address other challenges in other contexts. The effectiveness of an approach or, more likely, a combination of approaches in a given case will depend significantly on the challenge and the attributes of the local context in which the challenge has emerged. In addition, the national and international contextual attributes, particularly those related to strategic statutory biodiversity conservation obligations, need to be considered.

Market Solvency Answers Property rights alone incur a solvency deficit: Marine areas need restrictive protection beyond market incentives Peter Jones and Wanfei Qiu, University College London (UCL), UK, and Elizabeth De Santo, Dalhousie University, Canada, 2011 "Governing Marine-Protected Areas: Getting the Balance Right," Division for Environmental Policy Implementation, United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/Portals/7/governing-mpas-final-technical-report-web- res.pdf (accesed May 15, 2014) Whilst such biodiversity conservation benefits can be delivered through the assignation of property rights, there is no guarantee that they will be nor can it be taken for granted that they will be. This is particularly the case given the divergences between sustainable resource use and biodiversity conservation objectives (Jones 2007, Jones and Burgess 2005). Beddington et al. (2007) stress that “the simple creation of rights-based incentives does not automatically deal with ecosystem problems” and that MPAs therefore have an essential role in addressing the impacts of fishing in relation to ecosystem conservation priorities. No evidence supports FME or the indictment of the regulatory approach Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 There are examples of companies taking precautionary measures to avoid potential liability or seeking ways to profit from the recovery and reuse of residuals. Yet there are just as many, if not more, examples of companies engaging in polluting behavior, despite the continued existence of common law causes of action. Some cases of pollution may be caused or exacerbated by governmental interventions to subsidize environmentally harmful activity or sabotage traditional legal remedies, but such cases do not account for the lion’s share of pollution problems about which contemporary environmental advocates are concerned. FME alone cannot address market failures Charles D. Kolstad, Professor of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Summer 2011 "The Promise and Problems of Free Market Environmentalism," PERC Report Vol. 29 No. 2, http://perc.org/articles/promise-and-problems-free-market-environmentalism (accessed 5/16/2014) The other type of market failure is more subtle and has to do with the nature of consumption. If my consumption of a good precludes your consumption of a good, economists call the good rival (e.g., a hamburger). If my consumption of a good does not diminish what is available to you, we call the good nonrival (e.g., open space or pollution). Rivalry is necessary for a market to function efficiently. Environmental problems that involve nonrivalry are not “fixed” by well-defined property rights. Here, markets may function but they will not function efficiently. In this case, FME may improve an allocation but FME cannot “fix” the market failure.

Market Solvency Answers More study is necessary before conceding the effectiveness of common law as regulatory tool Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 If the common law is to be taken seriously as a viable alternative to conventional regulation, much work needs to be done. Making the case for the common law – or even for a regulatory system that embodies common-law values – requires additional research and analysis into how common law systems operate in practice to address environmental concerns, how they can be improved, and how they compare with the available regulatory alternatives. Common law doesn't solve environment Jonathan H. Adler, Director of Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, March 21, 2012 "Is the Common Law the Free Market Solution to Pollution?" Critical Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2012; Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-9, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2027134_code217551.pdf? abstractid=2027134&mirid=1 Commentators regularly cite the failure of common law institutions to protect environmental values as a reason for the adoption of prescriptive environmental regulations in the post-WWII period (see e.g. Hines 1966, 195; Cross 1999, 977; Percival 1998). “Traditional tort doctrine proved unable to provide meaningful redress to the new class of environmental injuries” (Lazarus 2004, 114). As a leading environmental law casebook explains, environmental legislation was, in part, driven by “dissatisfaction” with the common law’s capacity to address “modern concerns about environmental quality” (Percival 1996). Industries alone cannot develop rules; they need no-take areas to facilitate solvency and the state must be the regulatory agent Peter Jones and Wanfei Qiu, University College London (UCL), UK, and Elizabeth De Santo, Dalhousie University, Canada, 2011 Symes (2000) similarly argues that rights-based approaches to fisheries management would be unlikely to address wider societal concerns about the impacts of fishing on the productivity, diversity, integrity and service provision functions of marine ecosystems and that ecosystem based approaches such as no- take MPAs to address such concerns “are not the kinds of actions that can reasonably be left to the fishing industry to formulate and implement”. He concludes that the state must act as the regulating authority and that responsibility and powers of sanction to conserve marine ecosystems can only reside with the state.

Markets Don't Solve Overfishing Free markets increase overfishing Paul Hallwood, Professor of Economics at the University of Connecticut, 2014 Economics of the Oceans: Rights, Rents and ResourcesEconomics of the Oceans: Rights, Rents and Resources (Google eBook), http://books.google.com/books? id=gkbIAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT143&ots=RfiUYKdD1V&dq=free%20market %20oceans&pg=PT143#v=onepage&q=free%20market%20oceans&f=false (accessed 5/15/2014) The outcome, however, is very different when fishing is left to the "free market" -- to the individual decisions of many individual fishermen and women. Free market organization of fishing leads to overfishing, what has been called the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy is that in Figure 8.3, instead of the socially efficient, economically marximizing set (Emey, Cmey, Pmey), free market open access ends up with the socially inefficient open access set of (Eoa, Coa, Poa). In other words, the operation of the unfettered market leads to too much fishing effort, a smaller than optimal fish stock and a smaller than possible fish catch. Moreover, all economic rent is competed away. Catch-share won’t provide conservation incentives Rebecca M. Bratspies, Professor of Law at the CUNY School of Law, August 3, 2009 "Why the Free Market Can't Fix Overfishing," The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2009/08/why-the-free-market-cant-fix-overfishing/22524/ (accessed 5/15/2014) That brings us to the real problem with fisheries: overcapacity. There are simply too many boats chasing too few fish. The catch-share approach tries to solve this problem by creating a permit trading market. The thinking is that the permits will consolidate in the hands of "rational and efficient" producers who will voluntarily forego using a portion of their shares. That won't happen. The recent financial crisis ought to give anyone pause about the claim that markets inherently promote choices that are in everyone's long-term best interest. Catch shares increase monopolization and fail in conservation Mark J. Spalding, President, The Ocean Foundation, March 13, 2013 "Catch Shares: Not the Silver Bullet They Hoped For," The Ocean Foundation, http://www.oceanfdn.org/blog/?p=1218 (accessed 5/27/2014) Of particular concern is that “catch shares,” despite rosy predictions from economics experts, have failed in their purported roles as 1) a conservation solution, as fish populations have continued to decline in areas subject to ITQs/catch shares, and 2) a tool for helping sustain traditional marine cultures and small fishers. Instead, an unintended consequence in many places has been the increasing monopolization of the fishing business in the hands of a few politically powerful companies and families. The very public troubles in the New England cod fisheries are just one example of these limitations.

Markets Don’t Solve Overfishing Catch shares destroy local economies and violate human rights Food and Water Watch, July 16, 2011 "Fish, Inc.," Food & Water Watch Reports, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/fish-inc/ (accessed 5/27/2014) The federal law governing our nation’s fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act, specifies that fishery management must support the long-term economic health of fishing communities, but catch shares are responsible around the world for destroying the economic health of coastal ports. Further, an international court found that catch shares violated human rights by creating a privileged class of fishermen in a privatized industry. Large corporations will benefits from the rules, while small fishers will continue to overfish Paul Hallwood, Professor of Economics at the University of Connecticut, 2014 Economics of the Oceans: Rights, Rents and ResourcesEconomics of the Oceans: Rights, Rents and Resources (Google eBook), http://books.google.com/books? id=gkbIAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT143&ots=RfiUYKdD1V&dq=free%20market %20oceans&pg=PT143#v=onepage&q=free%20market%20oceans&f=false (accessed 5/15/2014) One of the paradoxes I find is that the large energy corporations in the business of offshore oil, with plenty of money to spend on lobbyists, are well-regulated and share significant amounts of the economic rents they make with their respective governments. The much smaller fishing concerns and individuals are the ones who often run amok with resulting over-fishing and low or nonexistent economic rents. Even FME advocates concede it won't solve fisheries Charles D. Kolstad, Professor of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Summer 2011 "The Promise and Problems of Free Market Environmentalism," PERC Report Vol. 29 No. 2, http://perc.org/articles/promise-and-problems-free-market-environmentalism (accessed 5/16/2014) Managing ocean fisheries presents another challenge for FME as fisheries are not fenced and are thus nonexcludable. Yet the emergence of creative property rights regimes to overcome the open-access problem is addressing this issue. Catch-share systems have evolved to allocate an exclusive share of the total allowable catch to individual fishers or cooperatives. Such property-rights regimes work when fisheries fall within a country’s economic zone. In some cases, countries such as Canada and the United States can cooperate to manage fisheries that span across more than one country. But property-rights regimes that cover fish that migrate over long distances, such as tuna, will be more difficult to develop.

Free Market Environmentalism Bad: Corporatism Turn Free market environmentalism empowers corporate capitalism Brian Tokar, director of the Institute for Social Ecology, Winter 2014 "The Myths of 'Green Capitalism,'" New Politics, http://newpol.org/content/myths-%E2%80%9Cgreen- capitalism%E2%80%9D (accessed 5/25/2014) While the prospects for meaningful climate legislation in the U.S. have faded for now, market-oriented approaches to the environment continue to thrive, both in the corporate world as well as in more progressive circles. In the 1990s, green business pioneer Paul Hawken likened businesses to living organisms and embraced Pigovian taxes as a “pathway to innovation.” He suggested that the proper mix of pollution taxes, new technologies, and improved measures of economic well-being could help make business a real force for social and environmental progress. Hawken himself has since become more critical of the market, placing his hopes instead on a new constellation of social and environmental movements. But many others still follow in his original footsteps, arguing that socially responsible investing and “triple bottom lines” (monetary, social, and environmental) can sufficiently transform the business world. Environmental economists have come up with far more sophisticated measures of social and environmental costs and benefits, seeking to substitute more nuanced measures of “genuine progress” for conventional GDP calculations. All these approaches, however, serve to obscure the inherently anti-ecological character of capitalism. A system that concentrates political and economic power in the hands of those who pursue the accumulation of capital without restraint is going to continue to demand expansion and growth, however skilled we may become at measuring our ecological footprint. Corporate capitalism wipes out all life on earth. Richard Smith, economic historian with post-doctoral fellowships at the East-West Center in Honolulu and Rutgers University, November 26, 2013 "Sleepwalking to Extinction," Information Clearing House, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36870.htm (accessed 5/20/2014) Corporations aren’t necessarily evil, though plenty are diabolically evil, but they can’t help themselves. They’re just doing what they’re supposed to do for the benefit of their shareholders. Shell Oil can’t help but loot Nigeria and the Arctic and cook the climate. That’s what shareholders demand. BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and other mining giants can’t resist mining Australia’s abundant coal and exporting it to China and India. Mining accounts for 19% of Australia’s GDP and substantial employment even as coal combustion is the single worst driver of global warming. IKEA can’t help but level the forests of Siberia and Malaysia to feed the Chinese mills building their flimsy disposable furniture (IKEA is the third largest consumer of lumber in the world). Apple can’t help it if the cost of extracting the “rare earths” it needs to make millions of new iThings each year is the destruction of the eastern Congo — violence, rape, slavery, forced induction of child soldiers, along with poisoning local waterways. Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science have no choice but to wipe out bees, butterflies, birds, small farmers and extinguish crop diversity to secure their grip on the world’s food supply while drenching the planet in their Roundups and Atrazines and neonicotinoids. This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on earth in the course of a routine business day. And the bigger the corporations grow, the worse the problems become.

Corporate Capitalism Impacts: Destroys the Planet Market transactions contain inefficiencies that risk total system collapse Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 7, 2013 "Will Capitalism Destroy Civilization?" Truthout.org, http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14980-noam- chomsky-will-capitalism-destroy-civilization (accessed 5/22/2014) The official doctrines suffer from a number of familiar “market inefficiencies,” among them the failure to take into account the effects on others in market transactions. The consequences of these “externalities” can be substantial. The current financial crisis is an illustration. It is partly traceable to the major banks and investment firms’ ignoring “systemic risk” – the possibility that the whole system would collapse – when they undertook risky transactions. Corporatism drives consumerism, which destroys the planet Simon Butler, contributing writer for Green Left Weekly in Australia, December 3, 2011 "Are Consumers Destroying the Earth?" Climate and Capitalism, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/12/03/are-consumers-destroying-the-earth/ (accessed 5/22/2014) This cycle begins with the extraction of raw materials from the earth. The throwaway economy needs to turn more and more of nature into products for sale: fossil fuels, soil nutrients, fresh water, metals and timber. The cycle ends with the steady release of waste back into the ecosphere: waste gases into the sky, waste pollutants into water, and waste chemicals and toxics into the soil. In the rich nations and the upper class enclaves in the South, mass consumer society has also given rise to its own culture, which encourages individuals to define their happiness and social status by the things they consume. Globally, corporations spend trillions on marketing and advertising each year. Advertising doesn’t make people mindless: everyone resists and disregards sales pitches every day. But this huge, continuous sales effort helps reinforce the values of a consumer society. Advertising fosters compulsive consumer habits and creates new “needs”.

Corporate Capitalism Impacts: Destroys the Planet Capitalism causes inevitable environmental disasters, undermining possibility of survival Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 7, 2013 "Will Capitalism Destroy Civilization?" Truthout.org, http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14980-noam- chomsky-will-capitalism-destroy-civilization (accessed 5/22/2014) Environmental catastrophe is far more serious: The externality that is being ignored is the fate of the species. And there is nowhere to run, cap in hand, for a bailout. In future, historians (if there are any) will look back on this curious spectacle taking shape in the early 21st century. For the first time in human history, humans are facing the significant prospect of severe calamity as a result of their actions – actions that are battering our prospects of decent survival. Corporate market rivalry causes capitalist expansions that demand maximum consumption Ian Angus, editor of The Global Fight for Climate Justice and co-author of Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis, June 13, 2012 "Is 'conspicuous consumption' destroying the earth?" Climate and Capitalism, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2012/06/13/conspicuous-consumption-destroying-earth/ (accessed 5/22/2014) The answer is that growth isn’t a response to consumer demand. Capitalism functions through competition between capitalist firms, each seeking to maximize its own profit. The internal logic of capitalist production is grow or die: A capitalist who chooses not to grow will soon be marginalized by the capitalist economy, and eventually will have no more capital. Corporations can survive only by constantly expanding production and profitability. But they can’t make profits unless they sell the ever- increasing volume of products they produce – and that’s why they spend billions to persuade us to buy more. As one observer comments: “Capitalism … has become expert in a new branch of manufacturing: the manufacture of desires. The genius of contemporary capitalism is not simply that it gives consumers what they want but that it makes them want what it has to give.” In other words, the problem is not conspicuous consumption as such, but the profit system that makes conspicuous consumption both possible and necessary.

Free Markets Destroy the Oceans Free markets turn back the evolutionary clock, destroying the oceans Paul B. Farrell, behavioral economics writer for Marketwatch and former executive vice president of the Financial News Network, December 4, 2013 "10 ways capitalists get rich destroying our oceans," Marketwatch, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-ways-capitalists-get-rich-destroying-our-oceans-2013-12-04 (accessed 5/14/2014) Evolution in reverse? Yes, planet Earth is regressing eons to an earlier primitive era. Unregulated free- market competition on the high seas is turning back the evolutionary clock. That doesn’t bother today’s short-term-thinking capitalists. But it should. Because, ironically, shifting evolution into reverse will also self-destruct the very global economy that capitalism needs for future growth. Today’s capitalists see another three billion people as the new customers needed to expand free markets globally. But in the process they are also cutting their own throats, unaware they’re pushing a hidden self-destruct button lodged in their brains. Privatization destroys the environmental commons, making resources subject to private exploitation with no external protection Chris Frid, Chair of Marine Biology at the University of Liverpool, December 21, 2013 "Privatizing the Oceans is a Bad Idea," Harry Blutstein: Making Sense of Globalization, http://harryblutstein.com/environment/privatizing-the-oceans/ (accessed 5/24/2014) From an economic point of view, creating a market – attributing value to, buying and selling areas of the sea – would contribute to economic indicators such GDP as these “services” currently rendered gratis would now be captured in the trading accounts of companies. But ultimately it would take something that is the common property of all and sell it (one assumes governments would sell rather than give) to corporations and consortia. These would then trade the sea floor like any other property. From an ecological point of view the proposal is flawed. The seawater that carries fish larvae, plankton and other foods, and pollutants too, will wash in and out of these regions without any regard for boundary lines drawn on maps and charts. Similarly, fish will swim in and out of the areas without checking in at border control. These cross-boundary movements would render many of the possible protective measures ineffective. When we own land we generally erect a fence or wall to keep our livestock in and to prevent others from gaining access to or damaging or our property. The land ownership analogy is simply not appropriate in the context of the oceanic world. The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) follows the principle that the high seas are international and owned by no nation, and are the common heritage of mankind (Article 136). A policy of privatisation of the seas therefore involves setting aside this principle.

Free Markets Destroy the Oceans Mobility of marine life incentivizes short-term harvest regardless of other market incentives Chris Frid, Chair of Marine Biology at the University of Liverpool, December 21, 2013 "Privatizing the Oceans is a Bad Idea," Harry Blutstein: Making Sense of Globalization, http://harryblutstein.com/environment/privatizing-the-oceans/ (accessed 5/24/2014) If your fish move in and out of your patch it will always pay to catch them now, rather than let them go to be caught by someone else, or risk them moving to another area and not returning. The “noble savage” living in balance with nature is simply a romantic Victorian construct. Archaeological evidence shows clear over exploitation of fisheries resources by Stone Age peoples. The world’s fish catch peaked in the 1980s; even from the 1960s on it was clear many stocks were severely over exploited. In the 50 years since then we have seen proposal after proposal to save the seas – reduce pollution, introduce Marine Protected Areas, extend Exclusive Economic Zones to 200 miles, and others. None has really delivered. Speaking as an ecologist, the answer is simple – we need to reduce fishing. We need to do this urgently, make a significant change, and in one or two decades we might have healthier stocks which can then sustain catch rates similar to now. But talk of privatizing the sea is just another example of how politicians are unwilling to face the challenge head on. The premise of FME is wrong: Oceans are unregulated and subject to the free market now, and it's destroying them Paul B. Farrell, behavioral economics writer for Marketwatch and former executive vice president of the Financial News Network, December 4, 2013 "10 ways capitalists get rich destroying our oceans," Marketwatch, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-ways-capitalists-get-rich-destroying-our-oceans-2013-12-04 (accessed 5/14/2014) Yes, many capitalists are getting rich off the high seas, a vast reservoir of wealth holding 95% of the planet’s water, spanning 70% of the Earth’s surface. Often called the last frontier, a return to America’s 18th century Wild West. it’s virtually unregulated, a new free market where capitalists roam like pirates, plundering wealth and treating our oceans as a freebie gold mine and trash dump. Powerful private interests will strip all protections away Paul B. Farrell, behavioral economics writer for Marketwatch and former executive vice president of the Financial News Network, December 4, 2013 "10 ways capitalists get rich destroying our oceans," Marketwatch, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-ways-capitalists-get-rich-destroying-our-oceans-2013-12-04 (accessed 5/14/2014) The recent Warsaw Agreement on Climate Change, like earlier United Nations accords in Kyoto and Copenhagen, exposes how capitalist power-players control governmental decision-makers, prompting Sielen’s final warning: “So long as pollution, overfishing, and ocean acidification remain concerns only for scientists ... little will change ... Diplomats and national security experts, who understand the potential for conflict in an overheated world, should realize that climate change might soon become a matter of war and peace ... Business leaders should understand better than most the direct links between healthy seas and healthy economies ... And government officials, who are entrusted with the public’s well-being, must surely see the importance of clean air, land, and water.”

Capitalism Destroys Environment Environmental degradation is intrinsic to capitalism Victor Wallis, instructor in Liberal Arts department at the Berklee College of Music, February 2010 "Beyond 'Green Capitalism,'" Monthly Review, Vol. 61 issue 9, http://monthlyreview.org/2010/02/01/beyond-green-capitalism (accessed 5/22/2014) A disdain for the natural environment has characterized capitalism from the beginning. As Marx noted, capital abuses the soil as much as it exploits the worker.1 The makings of ecological breakdown are thus inherent in capitalism. No serious observer now denies the severity of the environmental crisis, but it is still not widely recognized as a capitalist crisis, that is, as a crisis arising from and perpetuated by the rule of capital, and hence incapable of resolution within the capitalist framework. Environmental degradation irreversible under capitalism Victor Wallis, instructor in Liberal Arts department at the Berklee College of Music, February 2010 "Beyond 'Green Capitalism,'" Monthly Review, Vol. 61 issue 9, http://monthlyreview.org/2010/02/01/beyond-green-capitalism (accessed 5/22/2014) Such manifestations are not inherently cyclical; they are permanent trends. They can be sporadically offset, but for as long as capitalism prevails, they cannot be reversed. They encompass: (1) increased concentration of economic power; (2) increased polarization between rich and poor, both within and across national boundaries; (3) a permanent readiness for military engagement in support of these drives; and (4) of special concern to us here, the uninterrupted debasement or depletion of vital natural resources. Growth imperative guarantees loss of diversity and destabilization of climate Brian Tokar, Director of Institute for Social Ecology, Winter 2014 "The Myths of 'Green Capitalism,'" New Politics, http://newpol.org/content/myths-%E2%80%9Cgreen- capitalism%E2%80%9D (accessed 5/23/2014) The imperative to grow and accumulate in turn redoubles the economy’s impacts on the earth’s threatened ecosystems. While environmentalists continue to work toward feasible near-term solutions to pollution, biodiversity loss, and the destabilization of the climate, it is also essential to look forward toward a genuinely ecological and democratic alternative both in economics and politics.

Free Market Doesn’t Get Renewables The market can’t drive technological innovation by itself Richard Newell, Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, and Nathan Wilson, Economist with Energy Information Administration, 2005 “Technology Prizes for Climate Change Mitigation,” Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-05-33.pdf (accessed 5/25/2014) This reflects the fact that research is characterized by market imperfections that reduce incentives for investment. First, the benefits of developing a new technology or product do not accrue only to its discoverer. Rather, they spill over, benefiting society and other firms. This is the inverse of the pollution externality problem, where the benefits are concentrated in the polluter and the environmental damages are diffuse. Second, the impact of a technological advance tends to be positively associated with the extent of its adoption, which means that the innovating firm’s returns are contingent on factors beyond its control. The government can successfully pick winners better than the private sector Michael Borrus, Co-Director of the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, and Jay Stowsky, Director of Research Policy and Development for the University of California System, 1997 “Technology Policy and Economic Growth”, The Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, CIAO, http://brie.berkeley.edu/publications/WP%2097.pdf (accessed 5/25/2014) As previously noted, empirical evidence suggests that as a result of spillovers of all kinds, the social returns to R&D spending on new technologies far exceed the private returns, perhaps by as much as 50 to 100%. Appropriability problems lead to over-investment in some technologies and under-investment in others relative to the social optimum. Markets also deal inadequately with technological progress because of the highly contingent nature of innovation. Rather than being preordained by scientific logic, technology development is contingent upon the actions of developers, producers and users, as they perform their respective roles, interact, and accrue different kinds of know-how over time. The contingent nature of technical progress means that perfect information is impossible; neither innovators nor the private capital markets that fund them are fully capable of accurately evaluating the risks involved. Therefore, private capital markets and innovators alike must misallocate their investment and effort. Some bets will pay off big; some not at all. Winners and losers can only be positively identified in the revealing gaze of hindsight. This is as true for private as public investment. Private sector doesn’t innovate the best projects—government has higher standards Michael Borrus, Co-Director of the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, and Jay Stowsky, Director of Research Policy and Development for the University of California System, 1997 “Technology Policy and Economic Growth”, The Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, CIAO, http://brie.berkeley.edu/publications/WP%2097.pdf (accessed 5/25/2014) For every winner in a venture portfolio, there are untold losers that get nowhere near the publicity. Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence, beyond the economist's leap of faith, that private investment is any more capable than public investment of separating the winners from the losers before the fact. The major difference is that private losers exit the market, while publicly backed losers are held to the higher standard of wasting taxpayers' money. In short, picking winners and losers is the wrong metaphor to characterize the government's socially useful and necessary activity of supporting the process of innovation. Government is actually placing bets on our collective future.

FTAAP CP Good

FTAAP CP Explanation This counterplan has the US propose and attempt to sign a trade deal called Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific of FTAAP for short. The purpose of this counterplan is to try and solve any affirmatives trade advantages. The counterplan does this by integrating nearly half of the world’s economy under one trade system. This increases pressure on other countries to come to the table on global trade talks. Even if those countries don’t want to make concessions, the FTAAP is sufficiently large by itself to resolve the vast majority of trade impacts the affirmative can claim.

1NC FTAAP CP The United States Department of State and United States Trade Representative should engage the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation in negotiations and participation in a comprehensive study on creating a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific including the United States but open to all members of APEC, although not requiring all members to join. FTAAP solves trade and diffuses global tensions Jeffrey J. Schott et al., Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 12-28-2011, “The Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific: A Constructive Approach to Multilateralizing Asian Regionalism,” ADBI Working. Accessed 4-8-2014. This paper examines the prospect of realizing regional economic integration via the mechanism ¶ of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). The FTAAP initiative represents a politically¶ ambitious, high potential benefit option for achieving Asian regional integration. Among its¶ desirable attributes, the FTAAP initiative could help revive and promote a successful conclusion¶ of the Doha Round negotiations; constitute a “Plan B” hedge if Doha fails; short-circuit the¶ further proliferation of bilateral and sub-regional preferential agreements that create substantial¶ new discrimination and discord within the Asia-Pacific region; defuse the renewed risk of¶ “drawing a line down the middle of the Pacific” as East Asian, and perhaps the Western¶ Hemisphere, initiatives produce disintegration of the Asia-Pacific region rather than the¶ integration of that broader region that the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum¶ was created to foster; channel the People’s Republic of China (PRC)-United States economic¶ conflict into a more constructive and less confrontational context; and revitalize APEC, which is¶ of enhanced importance because of the prospects for Asia-Pacific and especially the PRC-US ¶ fissures. An incremental approach to the FTAAP, explicitly embodying enforceable reciprocal¶ commitments, offers the best hope delivering on the concept’s abundant benefits. The CP’s gradual approach gets FTAAP through Jeffrey J. Schott et al., Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 12-28-2011, “The Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific: A Constructive Approach to Multilateralizing Asian Regionalism,” ADBI Working. Accessed 4-8-2014. Is such an initiative feasible? Region-wide efforts toward free trade remain on the¶ back burner for many APEC members—though Chile and Singapore are trying to ¶ create a regional network of bilateral FTAs that would effectively build an Asia- Pacific ¶ FTA over time.2 But the issue has been engaged in APEC deliberations. In the¶ autumn of 2004, the APEC Business Advisory Council issued a report recommending¶ renewed efforts to build an FTAAP. Not surprisingly, the official reaction was muted¶ and APEC members deferred consideration of the proposal for several years.¶ However, at their meeting in Hanoi in November 2006, the APEC leaders called for¶ “further studies” on approaches to regional economic integration, including the¶ FTAAP “as a long-term prospect.” Subsequently, the APEC leaders’ meeting in¶ Sydney in September 2007 committed to “examine the options and prospects for a¶ Free Trade Area of the Asia- Pacific” by reviewing, among other things, existing pacts¶ among APEC members, academic analyses of them and of a potential FTAAP, and¶ “the feasibility of docking or merging” FTAs.¶ In the past decade, most APEC members have demonstrated a capacity to enter into ¶ enforceable preferential trade agreements, and it thus is worth considering whether ¶ 15 years after turning into the cul-de-sac of “concerted unilateralism” that it might be ¶ possible to actualize the Bogor vision of free trade in the Asia-Pacific region.¶ Admittedly, the goal is dauntingly ambitious, but it may be possible to achieve it ¶ incrementally by building outwardly from a core group of liberalizers to encompass ¶ the whole region.

FTAAP Solves – Trade The CP saves jumpstarts global trade – restarts the bicycle of trade liberalization C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, November 2006 "The Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific Is the Next Step Forward for APEC (and for the World Trading System)", http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=687, Accessed 4-8-2014. An APEC launch of serious consideration of a FTAAP is the only available initiative that can respond effectively to all four of these concerns. First a launch of a FTAAP effort would simultaneously provide the best prospect for restarting the Doha Round and a highly attractive “Plan B” if that preferred course still did not prevail.5 The last successful global trade negotiation, the Uruguay Round, succeeded in December 1993 after a three- year hiatus only because the European Union was sufficiently shocked by the initial APEC summit in Seattle, with its declaration of intent to achieve free trade in the region, to drop its opposition to the needed liberalization of its Common Agricultural Policy. The leverage of a FTAAP to revive the multilateral system would be even greater today, because the main resistance to a successful Doha outcome comes from India and Brazil, as well as the European Union, all of which are outside APEC. None of these countries could afford to run the risk that the Asia–Pacific region would develop a new preferential compact that excluded them. Hence they would be compelled to make the necessary concessions, with full reciprocity from APEC members themselves of course, to bring Doha to a successful conclusion. Their alternative would be to pursue their own “bilateral” agreements with East Asia, but they would be starting far behind the APEC process, would probably have to make even greater concessions than would be required to revive Doha, and would intensify the proliferation of preferential accords that would further weaken the global system if successful. If those countries were still unwilling to permit Doha to succeed, the FTAAP offers the best possible alternative for restarting the “bicycle” of trade liberalization. APEC encompasses about half the world economy and world trade. Achievement of truly free trade in the Asia–Pacific region, even with its inevitable exclusions and rules of origin, would in fact accomplish a much greater reduction in global barriers—with the bulk of the gains, as well as the adjustment requirements, of course accruing to the APEC members themselves—than the most ambitious possible outcome of Doha. A study prepared for ABAC in 2004 shows that every APEC economy gains more from a FTAAP than from nondiscriminatory liberalization by APEC, the only other route to achievement of the Bogor goals, and that almost all East Asian economies (including China, Japan, and Korea) gain more from a FTAAP than from an “ASEAN plus 3” FTA.6 Even if unsuccessful, working toward an FTAAP still solves Doha Myron Brilliant, vice president for Asia Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, September 2007, A Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific: An Idea with Merit, but Is It Feasible?, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/09northeastasia_brilliant.aspx, Accessed 4-8-2014. Indeed, even modest progress in launching talks on an FTAAP might serve as a catalyst to inject new energy into the stalled Doha negotiations. The prospect of a new APEC liberalization initiative would force non-APEC economies to recognize the risk they face of being left out of economic integration efforts beyond of their influence. It might serve as a wake-up call for the European Union, Brazil, India, and others to start removing barriers to progress in the Doha negotiations.

FTAAP Solves – Trade Even if we don’t go for the CP, lack of a FTAAP prevents solvency C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, November 2006 "The Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific Is the Next Step Forward for APEC (and for the World Trading System)", http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=687, Accessed 4-8-2014. First the suspension of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations in the World Trade Organization seems likely to continue indefinitely. This would represent the first failure of a global trade initiative since the 1930s.1 In the absence of a revival of Doha, or the launch of a promising “Plan B” for world trade, there is virtually no chance that the US Congress will extend the President's Trade Promotion Authority after it expires in July 2007. Hence the United States would be unable to participate in, let alone lead, any major trade initiative (including Doha itself), and further global liberalization will be impossible. As a result, the “bicycle” of trade-liberalizing momentum will topple. Protectionism and new forms of mercantilism (see more on this below) inevitably will fill the vacuum, as is already the case to some degree, and is extremely disturbing in light of the strength of the world economy. These risks are compounded by the world's large and growing trade and current account imbalances, most notably within APEC with the deficits of the United States mirrored largely by the surpluses of China, Japan, and other East Asian countries.2 The world, and especially the trade-dependent APEC region, would suffer large economic and indeed security costs from a reversal of the liberalization trend of the past 50 years. Second without a comprehensive Asia–Pacific free trade initiative, the failure of Doha (and implicitly of the entire multilateral system) will spawn a further explosion of bilateral and subregional trade agreements. The Asia–Pacific regional, as well as global, trading systems will disintegrate further. The APEC's fathers' dreams and its Bogor goals to forge “free and open trade and investment in the region” will be shattered, perhaps irrevocably. The FTAAP would solve trade and heg in Asia US Fed News, 2-18-2009, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE PADILLA SPEAKS ON ASIAN ECONOMIES IN TRANSITION, Accessed 4-8-2014. America is a proud founding member of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and APEC remains an important vehicle for multilateral economic engagement in Asia. In 2011, the United States will host APEC for the first time in 18 years, providing a unique opportunity to set an agenda for economic openness in Asia. The next Administration should be creative and ambitious in launching new bilateral and regional trade agreements and working toward a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). It is not something that will happen overnight, but our strategy must be to work toward an FTAAP to achieve APEC's core agenda of trans-Pacific economic integration. It would have the benefit of bringing under one umbrella the plethora of sub-regional and bilateral free trade agreements which now exist in Asia, with harmonized rules and disciplines. It could serve as a useful catalyst for multilateral trade negotiations in the WTO, or could liberalize trade even further through WTO-plus commitments. And, perhaps most importantly, FTAAP would include the United States. The key question is whether America will remain committed to economic openness - to open trade, open investment, and the more open movement of people and ideas across borders. If the United States turns away from openness, drifting toward trade protectionism and restrictive investment and immigration policies, then Asia is likely to proceed on its own with regional integration that leaves the United States behind. This would leave leadership on the Asian economic playing field largely to China, which is the fastest-growing and most dynamic Asian economy. A hesitant, timid, and inwardly-focused America could give rise to an economic "Pax Sinica," in which China has the opportunity to shape Asia's economic architecture as it would prefer, rather than as we might like. Others in Asia might have little choice but to accommodate themselves to this economic reality.

FTAAP Solves – PTAs The CP solves PTAs and domestic protectionism C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Briefs, PB 07-2, 2007, "Toward a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific",http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/pb/pb07- 2.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. The FTAAP initiative that APEC has already undertaken may well turn out to be the best, or perhaps only, way to • catalyze a substantively successful Doha Round; • offer an alternative Plan B to restore the momentum of trade liberalization if Doha fails or continues to falter badly; • prevent a further, possibly explosive, proliferation of bilateral and subregional PTAs, which create substantial new discrimination and discord within the Asia-Pacific region; • avoid renewed risk of “drawing a line down the middle of the Pacific” as East Asian, and perhaps Western Hemisphere, initiatives produce disintegration of the Asia Pacific rather than broader regional integration APEC was created to foster; • channel the China–United States economic conflict into a more constructive and less confrontational context, which could defuse at least some of its attendant tension and risks; • revitalize APEC itself, which is now of enhanced importance because of the prospects for Asia Pacific and especially China–United States fissures; and, perhaps most important in the short and even medium run, • maintain US engagement in Asian, and even global, trade relations by providing a basis for congressional extension of TPA in mid-2007 and a negotiating momentum that the next US president in early 2009 will feel compelled to honor. PTAs are inevitable – assimilating them all into a large FTA solves their fragmentary effects Robert Scollay, Associate prof and director of APEC Study Centre at the University of Auckland, 2007, Chapter 7: Prospects for Linking PTAs in the Asia-Pacific Region, in in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC- Trade-Agenda-FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. The trend to proliferating PTAs is however likely to be irreversible in the short run, since the magnetic attraction of the larger economies as preferential trading partners has given rise to a “domino effect”, whereby smaller economies of the region find themselves impelled to seek their own bilateral agreements with major trading partners, to avoid being disadvantaged relative to their competitors. A tendency toward the emergence of “hub and spoke” configurations of PTAs is a further consequence of this effect, in which the benefits of preferential trade liberalisation accrue disproportionately to the “hubs”. From a business perspective, concern over the fragmentation effect of multiplying PTAs has centred on the potential for increased transaction costs associated with the development across the region of a “spaghetti bowl” of PTAs containing inconsistent provisions on matters such as rules or origin. The proposals for a regional trade bloc in East Asia have also drawn concern over the likely consequence of a “split down the 117 middle of the Pacific” between separate trading blocs on either side of the ocean, again limiting the potential for the region as a whole to benefit from the full integration of its markets. Given these concerns it is not surprising that increasing attention has been given to exploring ways of countering the fragmentation effects of multiplying PTAs. One possible avenue, which is the subject of this paper, is the promotion of “convergence” between existing and future PTAs in the region.

FTAAP solves damaging PTAs C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, November 2006 "The Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific Is the Next Step Forward for APEC (and for the World Trading System)", http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=687, Accessed 4-8-2014. Second a FTAAP could shelter the 40 or so bilateral and subregional preferential trade agreements (PTAs) that are already underway in the region and the scores of additional agreements that would undoubtedly ensue in its absence. The most likely alternative to a FTAAP is in fact a series of further trans-Pacific PTAs, most importantly an agreement between the United States and Japan as soon as success of the United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is assured

(along with conclusion of other pending US FTAs with Malaysia, Thailand, and probably then Indonesia), which would represent a “hub and spoke” system centered on the United States that surely would be inferior for all Asian countries. Hence a FTAAP could sharply limit the discrimination that increasingly pervades the region and will otherwise proliferate further, at a minimum eliminating the plethora of conflicting tariff preferences that will otherwise increasingly plague all member economies. It could also roll together the conflicting rules of origin that are becoming so costly to business and trade throughout the region.

FTAAP Solves – China Trade War FTAAP integrates half the world – larger than any other deal C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 8-16-2006, Financial Times, "Plan B for World Trade: Go Regional", http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=655, Accessed 4-8-2014. The indefinite suspension of the Doha round of world trade talks creates big risks for the world economy. A new explosion of discriminatory bilateral and regional agreements is likely to substitute for global liberalization. This will inevitably erode the multilateral rules-based system of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The backlash against globalization will generate more protectionism in the vacuum left as momentum toward wide-ranging reduction of barriers ceases, especially as the world economy slows and global trade imbalances continue to rise. Financial markets will become more unstable as international economic cooperation breaks down further. Hence there is an urgent need for a "plan B" to get world trade policy back on track. That strategy should have three key objectives: to spur the revival of Doha, to offer an ambitious alternative to restart the process of liberalization on the widest possible basis if that primary goal fails, and to counter the proliferation of preferential deals among small groups of countries. The best candidate for this is for leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum to launch a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific region (FTAAP) when they meet in Hanoi in November. The 21 APEC members account for more than half the world economy and almost half of world trade. The group includes most of the world's most dynamic economies. APEC leaders committed themselves to achieve "free and open trade and investment in the region" at their initial summit meetings in 1993 and 1994. They pursued that goal effectively over the next few years, but the effort has faltered of late. APEC's business advisory council has thus recommended since 2004 that the leaders undertake an in-depth study of how to realize their ambitions by negotiating an FTAAP. If Doha continues to languish, the study could be commissioned in November and negotiations begun under the chairmanship of pro-trade Australia in 2007. Achievement of an FTAAP would have huge positive effects on global output. Realization of anything close to free trade by half the world would deliver much larger benefits than even the most ambitious outcome of Doha, which at best seeks modest reductions in market impediments. The CP prevents US-China trade frictions C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, November 2006 "The Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific Is the Next Step Forward for APEC (and for the World Trading System)", http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=687, Accessed 4-8-2014. Third a FTAAP would foster integration rather than disintegration of the Asia Pacific. This would be particularly valuable with respect to relations between China and the United States, which face a very uncertain future in both their economic and security dimensions.7 It would also especially be helpful for Japan and Korea, and ASEAN countries as well, by reducing the risk that they would have to “choose between China and the United States” in pursuing their interests in both East Asia and across the Pacific. Increased US engagement in Asia via a FTAAP would also seem to be of considerable value to most Asian countries by contributing to the “hedging strategies” they are seeking to adopt against the risk of rising domination by China. It would be very risky for the Asians to construct their own regional arrangements first, viewing an Asia–Pacific accord only as a later step, because of the very large uncertainties and long time lag involved in ever getting to the final agreement.

FTAAP Solves – China Trade War FTAAP prevents Sino-American trade disputes from escalating C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 8-16-2006, Financial Times, "Plan B for World Trade: Go Regional", http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=655, Accessed 4-8-2014. Indeed, one of the key advantages of the FTAAP is that it would sweep together the smaller deals already in place and head off those that will otherwise ensue. An important element in the picture is a possible East Asia free trade area, whose creation is virtually certain to accelerate with the demise of Doha and erosion of the WTO system. Japan's new proposal for a "pan-Asian comprehensive economic partnership" would expand this idea to include India, Australia, and New Zealand. Either of these would create a new Asian bloc that, along with the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement, would produce a tripolar world with all its inherent instabilities. By contrast, an FTAAP would embed these Asia-only arrangements in a broader Asia-Pacific framework. It would prevent the creation of a new division across the Pacific, with its adverse security as well as economic consequences for relations between East Asia and the United States. The United States and China would be the natural leaders of an FTAAP process and could simultaneously improve the prospects for resolving their bilateral trade tensions through such a regional framework.

AT: China Says No China gets on board Sheng Bin, professor at APEC study centre, Nankai University, China, senior researcher at the Institute of International Economics, 2007, Chapter 4: The Political Economy of an Asia Pacific Free Trade Area: A China Perspective, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda-FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. A number of proponents have suggested that the FTAAP negotiations could be a separate process independent of existing institutions which would maintain the APEC approach and organization. China would be under substantial pressures in the scenario that the FTAAP is launched outside APEC framework without Chinese approval, because of the possible significant trade diversion effects and discrimination against non-members. It is obviously not expected by the Chinese government. Therefore, such a “competitive liberalization” pressure, which was first raised by Bergsten, will induce China to seriously consider the possibility of joining the FTAAP at a later time, albeit its reluctance at the very beginning.

US Solves – Follow on Just signaling US commitment to the FTAAP is enough to get other countries on board C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics, 2007, Chapter 2: A Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific In the Wake of the Faltering Doha Round: Trade Policy Alternatives for APEC, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda-FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. The FTAAP idea must of course be credible if it is to provide the numerous substantial benefits suggested above. This does not require the United States and the other major APEC powers, especially China and Japan, to fully endorse the idea at this time. It does require them to accede to at least the first stages of the process, an official APEC study and/or exploratory discussion of the concept, and it requires a plausible prospect that they will eventually come to embrace it. The most salient criticism of the FTAAP to date has been that “it will never fly” with the big countries, especially the United States.9 The United States is probably the most important single variable in this equation. It remains not only the largest APEC economy and trading nation but the traditional leader, to which most of the other members (including even China and Japan) look, on trade policy issues at both the global and regional levels. It was the chief driver of the Bogor Goals at Seattle and at Bogor itself, and their very positive interaction with the Uruguay Round in the GATT, and would probably have to play that same role again if Bogor were to be revived via an FTAAP. Everyone would jump on board and the next president couldn’t roll the CP back C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Briefs, PB 07-2, 2007, "Toward a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific",http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/pb/pb07- 2.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. As noted already, the assumption of congressional control in early 2007 by a Democratic majority greatly increases the stakes of the rest of the world in US policy toward the FTAAP (and all other trade issues). The economic partners of the United States, especially those that depend as heavily on trade as virtually all of the Asians do, have a major interest in avoiding an antiglobalization or protectionist turn in American policy. Hence they should eagerly cooperate with the Bush administration in forging initiatives, like the FTAAP, that will provide a compelling case for the extension of TPA in mid-2007. They should also seek to engage the United States in international negotiations that would be difficult, if not impossible, for a new president in 2009 to repudiate even if she or he wanted to do so.

US Solves – Follow on The US commitment is key to getting others onboard C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Briefs, PB 07-2, 2007, "Toward a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific",http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/pb/pb07- 2.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. The FTAAP idea must be credible if it is to provide the numerous substantive benefits suggested above. This requires the United States and the other major APEC powers, especially China and Japan, to eventually endorse and embrace the idea. The most salient criticism of the FTAAP to date has been that “it will never fly” with the big countries. The United States is probably the most important single variable in this equation. It remains not only the largest APEC economy and trading nation but the traditional leader, to which most of the other members look, on trade policy issues at both the global and regional levels. It was the chief driver of the Bogor goals at Seattle and at Bogor itself and of their very positive interaction with the Uruguay Round in the GATT. President Bush’s decision to take the lead in placing the FTAAP squarely on the APEC agenda in late 2006 is thus an enormously important step forward. At the same time, however, I have already noted that the rise of the Democrats to control of the Congress (and possibly control of the White House in two years) raises important new questions about overall US trade policy, including this element of it. Though virtually all of Asia appears to welcome the renewed focus on the region suggested by the president’s initiative, skepticism still abounds on whether the United States will stick with it. FTAAP is the best way forward – the coming PTAs will devastate world trade and the economy Jeffrey J. Schott et al., Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 12-28-2011, “The Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific: A Constructive Approach to Multilateralizing Asian Regionalism,” ADBI Working, Accessed 4-8-2014. In this context, FTAAP represents a way to achieve the APEC liberalization goals. ¶ With the Doha negotiations adrift, the “noodle bowl” proliferation of sub-optimal and ¶ potentially inconsistent preferential agreements is likely to accelerate. FTAAP can ¶ subsume many of them under one umbrella. Ultimately, it should seek to achieve a¶ harmonization of the conflicting rules of origin that are an impediment to business¶ and trade, following the precedent of the 1997 Pan- European Cumulative System¶ that multilateralized the panoply of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) then¶ existing in Europe (Baldwin 2006).4¶ Importantly, the FTAAP advances political and economic objectives. It reinforces the ¶ longstanding APEC interest in ensuring a strong and enduring US presence in the ¶ region and mitigates concerns that intra-Asian pacts would, in the memorable words¶ of former US Secretary of State James Baker, “draw a line down the middle of the ¶ Pacific.” This consideration is especially important in light of the steady movement of¶ the East Asian members of APEC toward establishing their own region-wide¶ preference area. Creation of an East Asian Community, or even an East Asian Free ¶ Trade Area, could contribute substantially to liberalization and thus have a positive ¶ impact on the world economy. Yet it would also generate major new discrimination ¶ within the broader Asia-Pacific setting. One model found that the US could lose as ¶ much as $25 billion of annual exports solely from the static discriminatory effects of ¶ an East Asian Free Trade Area (Scollay and Gilbert 2001) while another, dynamic,¶ model concluded that real welfare loss could approach $5 billion (Jiang and McKibbin¶ 2008). Such losses could add substantially to the protectionist and isolationist ¶ pressures that are of worrisome strength in the US.

FTAAP Solves – Laundry List The CP solves global trade and domestic protectionism C. Fred Bergsten, Dir. Peterson Institute for International Economics, 8-16-2006, Financial Times, "Plan B for World Trade: Go Regional", http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=655, Accessed 4-8-2014. But would the launch of an FTAAP revive the prospects for Doha or, as some charge, further undermine them? The last global trade negotiation, the Uruguay Round, missed its initial deadline in 1990 and was suspended for three years because the European Union was then also unwilling to reform its farm policies. In November 1993, the first APEC summit shocked the world with its commitment to achieve free trade. Less than a month later, the European Union suddenly embraced enough agricultural liberalization not only to revive Uruguay but also to bring it to a successful conclusion. When asked to explain the abrupt change in their position, top European negotiators replied that the decisive element was the APEC decision because it "showed us you had an alternative that we did not." The leverage of an FTAAP in 2006–07 would be much greater than that of the APEC declaration in 1993. Operational results would be foreshadowed and thus generate much stronger inducements for countries outside APEC to restore the multilateral track. A broader group of naysayers would be jolted into supporting the global approach, including India and Brazil as well as the European Union because they would be so adversely affected if "plan B" were to supplant Doha. The prospect of eliminating most of Asia's trade barriers would also provide a powerful incentive for the US Congress to extend President George W. Bush's negotiating authority, which will expire next summer and doom any chance of reviving Doha unless there is a strong tangible reason to keep it alive. Credible launch of an FTAAP could thus save the global trading system, whether it restored Doha or itself became a second-best but still powerful engine of new liberalization for the world economy.

FTAAP CP Aff Responses

FTAAP Fails FTAAP fails – no political will Charles E. Morrison, president of the East West Center, international chair of the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, 2007, Chapter 1: An APEC Trade Agenda, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda- FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. The main reason for this assessment is that the political challenges of negotiating an FTAAP are so massive when placed against any likely political will. Even before any negotiations could begin, they would require major and controversial changes in APEC’s “social contract,” which our studies indicate is likely to be resisted by a number of important member-economies. Even if this high entry barrier could be surmounted, an FTA compatible with the WTO and with APEC’s own enunciated standards for “high quality,” must cover highly controversial sectors, such as agriculture and complicated behind-the- border issues. There are powerful political interest groups in the APEC economies that will oppose concessions in these areas. Even if there were “a unity of vision” among China, Japan, and the United States, the negotiations will take a likely minimum of 5 years. The FTAAP, requiring almost exclusive attention from trade ministries during this period, would cause postponement of other negotiations that are of high priority to some of the key APEC economies. Regional trade negotiators are unenthusiastic because they see little likelihood of success given that less ambitious projects – such as the FTAA and the DDA – have floundered. The US will torpedo any finalized FTAAP Vinod K. Aggarwal, professor of political science at Haas School of Business, chairman of the Political Economy of Industrial Societies program, directo of the Berkeley Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Centre at UC Berkeley, 2007, Chapter 3: The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific: A U.S. Perspective, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda-FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. If the Doha Round fails, might the FTAAP emerge as a second best solution? This notion also is problematic from a political economy perspective because U.S. goals are widely divergent in the two forums. What the U.S. is seeking in the Doha negotiations—significant agricultural market access in the EU and industrial market access in large emerging markets such as Brazil and India—are goals that cannot be achieved to any significant extent at an Asia-Pacific bargaining table. Although some might argue that an FTAAP might have better prospects than the currently moribund Doha Round as the number of states involved would be smaller, this view reflects a misunderstanding of the political economy of trade negotiations. In fact, with a larger number of states as in the Doha Round, the horse trading necessary to achieve a successful outcome would yield an agreement that stands a significantly better chance of being approved in the U.S. than a minilateral agreement that narrowly focuses on states with whom the U.S. runs massive trade deficits.

FTAAP Fails – Trade FTAAP doesn’t solve trade or Doha Jagdish Bhagwati, prof of economics and law at Columbia, senior fellow at the CFR, November 3, 2006, Why Asia must opt for open regionalism on trade, Financial Times, http://www.columbia.edu/~jb38/APEC%20FT.doc, Accessed 4-8-2014. Second, that Apec should instead launch a Free Trade Agreement of Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP), converting Apec into a "regional" free trade area. This opposing proposal has resurfaced after being dismissed in earlier Apec deliberations in favour of "open regionalism". An FTAAP would aim to eliminate trade barriers only for the Apec members while maintaining discriminatory, higher barriers against non-members. The latter proposal is wrong-headed and the arguments advanced in its favour fail to persuade. The former leads one to ask: how might Apec reinforce efforts to conclude the Doha round? The proposal to turn Apec into a free trade area runs into insuperable political and technical difficulties. At the political level, the chief problem is that the Asian nations in Apec have a growing Asian identity that is separate from the identity sought around the Pacific ocean. Many preferential trade agreements (PTAs) are already in place and others are afloat that seek to extend discriminatory - often bilateral and sometimes sub-regional - preferential agreements within Asia alone. There are also proposals to include other Asian nations such as India instead, while excluding the western Pacific nations such as the US. At the technical level, the problem is compounded by the proliferation of bilateral free trade agreements that has now spread to Asia. These create what I have called the "spaghetti bowl" problem of criss-crossing bilateral agreements that create a chaotic system of discriminatory tariffs depending on source. Optimists such as Koichi Hamada, professor of economics at Yale University, believe merging them would turn the bilateral spaghetti into a (regional) lasagna. But lasagna cannot be made from spaghetti: it needs flat pasta! We would face the impossible technical problem of folding several FTAs together that have different tariff rates and innumerable rules of origin (often defined differently by product) for preferences to kick in. The final argument is mainly emanating from think-tanks in Washington long identified with the embrace of bilateralism. They argue the FTAAP, were it somehow to surmount these difficulties magically, could invigorate the "virtually dead" Doha negotiations. The free trade area would be a threatening alternative to the non-Apec nations - the European Union, India and Brazil - that are refusing to make the concessions necessary to close the round. If that fails, the FTAAP would be the next-best big-scope trade liberalisation option. But Doha is far from dead. Pascal Lamy, World Trade Organisation director-general, has only "suspended" the talks. Can anyone seriously believe that an FTAAP - requiring free trade among countries as diverse as China, Japan and the US - can be agreed more easily than Doha can be concluded?

FTAAP kills multilateral trade negotiations Charles E. Morrison, president of the East West Center, international chair of the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, 2007, Chapter 1: An APEC Trade Agenda, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda- FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. Finally, with respect to the impact on the WTO and APEC’s own credibility, the FTAAP carries high side risks of diverting rather than galvanizing the DDA and of further jeopardizing APEC’s credibility. Given the political unreality of the FTAAP proposal, a formal study of an FTAAP is unlikely to be taken so seriously by outsiders to result in changes in bargaining positions on the DDA. However, it could help reinforce a further sense of erosion of the world trading system into competing blocs. In hoping to erase a potential line down the Pacific, the FTAAP proposal could create other lines, ones down the Atlantic or across the Eurasian landmass.

FTAAP Fails – Trade The FTAAP will kills trade Vinod K. Aggarwal, professor of political science at Haas School of Business, chairman of the Political Economy of Industrial Societies program, directo of the Berkeley Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Centre at UC Berkeley, 2007, Chapter 3: The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific: A U.S. Perspective, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda-FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. What are the prospects for a free trade area in the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP)? This paper addresses this question from the perspective of the political economy of U.S. trade policy and the current role of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC). To preview my argument, although such an agreement may well be beneficial from a narrowly economic standpoint, the reality of U.S. trade politics, of relations between Northeast Asian economies, and of APEC’s relative institutional weakness make it highly unlikely that an FTAAP will come to fruition in the short to medium term, regardless of whether the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is successful or not. Moreover, even the tactical use of an FTAAP to advance the WTO agenda is likely to backfire and simply further undermine prospects for successful completion of the Doha Round. Instead, I suggest that APEC should play an active role in monitoring the proliferation of bilateral trade agreements in the region and work to promote the multilateral trade agenda. To briefly elaborate, the logic of my argument runs as follows. With respect to the current U.S. political economy of trade, two developments are of particular significance. First, the U.S. strategy of “competitive liberalization” in which it pursues bilateral and minilateral agreements, both sectorally and broadly, with the intent of stimulating the multilateral path of the WTO has fractured the domestic coalition for free trade.19 Ironically, in their zeal to push forward the agenda of free trade—an agenda which I share—proponents of competitive liberalization have undermined the very movement to free trade that they so ardently advocate through a politically naïve understanding of trade politics. Creating piecemeal liberalization through open sectoral agreements such as the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) and bilateral trade agreements has undercut the coalition for free trade. By giving specific industries what they wanted, this policy has left protectionists in agriculture, steel, textiles, and others in control of the trade agenda. Thus, those who bemoan the proliferation of bilateral and regional initiatives and the lack of progress in the WTO fail to recognize the obvious unfortunate causality connecting these two approaches to trade. In my view, it is their very advocacy of a policy of competitive liberalization that has been a key contributor to the Doha Round’s troubles. FTAAP doesn’t solve US-China trade tensions Sheng Bin, professor at APEC study centre, Nankai University, China, senior researcher at the Institute of International Economics, 2007, Chapter 4: The Political Economy of an Asia Pacific Free Trade Area: A China Perspective, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda-FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. Nevertheless, the proposed FTAAP can not be expected too much to lessen bilateral collisions because none of the problems listed above are easily touched and dealt with in a pan-regional trade agreement. They are either too particular for both parties concerned or too problematic and sensitive for all other APEC economies at the same time. Thus, the best and most efficient approach of treating the China-US relationship is not in a regional framework, but essentially through a special bilateral senior dialogue mechanism, which aims to build confidence and credibility in mutual cooperation as well as to undertake well-designed structural reforms similar to the U. S.-Japan negotiation in the 1980s.

FTAAP Fails – Trade The FTAAP won’t solve trade Guy de Jonquieres, Financial Times, August 23, 2006, Do-it-yourself is free trade’s best ‘plan B’ http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto082320061457404956, Accessed 4-8-2014. When gardens are neglected, weeds sprout. The withering of the Doha world trade round has led, predictably, to a flourishing crop of alternatives. As well as accelerating the growth of preferential bilateral deals, which frequently generate more political puffery than economic substance, the collapse of the talks has revived interest in grand initiatives spanning entire regions. One is Japan's big idea of expanding existing plans for an east Asian economic community to include India, Australia and New Zealand. A yet more ambitious proposal, floated by Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics in Washington DC, on this page last week, is for a free trade area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) embracing the 21 members of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (Apec). Such schemes may excite diplomatic war-gamers. But as trade liberalising tools they are no magic bullets. Mr Bergsten thinks fear of exclusion from an FTAAP would shock Doha laggards out of their inertia. But even leaving aside the fact that the Doha talks have foundered partly on US agricultural protectionism, the argument is tenuous, being based on a version of history subscribed to in Washington but nowhere much else.

FTAAP negotiations will fail George Manzano and Myrene Bedano, University of Asia and the Pacific, June 2008, EVSL Redux: An Alternative to the FTAAP? Implications on the Philippines, http://www.apec.org.au/docs/08_ASCconf/004_Manzano_pr.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. Feasibility of the FTAAP. As discussed earlier, while the FTAAP possesses certain merits there are serious questions about its feasibility in the foreseeable future. One difficulty pertains to the plethora of interests and sensitive political dynamics among major players, which makes it difficult to peddle the FTAAP. There are also a number of practical difficulties in negotiating such a large-scale arrangement which could dampen the expectations of a successful conclusion in the near future. Some of these are: First and foremost, the extraordinary heterogeneity of APEC members, especially in their stages of economic development, acts as a very significant roadblock in the way of the FTAAP. Because of a variety of APEC's composition, with members ranging from small to large developed, developing, and transition economies, finding common grounds will not be very easy. Negotiations are expected to bring to surface divergent priorities and approaches to trade treatise. Developed members would likely bat for a ‘high-quality’ agreement with a more expansive agenda, covering aside from merchandise trade, provisions on investment, services, trade facilitation, intellectual property rights, and competition policy among many others. Whereas developing members that are used to having some ‘breathing room’ in the implementation of their trade liberalization commitments would put more focus on negotiating flexibility in the form of special and differential treatment, trade remedy measures, etc. (Bergsten, 2007). Secondly, though the FTAAP would only involve 21 economies in contrast to the 151-member WTO, and absent some of the countries (i.e., India, Brazil and France) that have held back the Doha process, there is no guarantee that negotiations would be more manageable. Negotiations would just as well document the polarized interests of developed and developing members at the WTO. Expectedly, sticky issues that are hard to tackle in the Doha negotiations would be as difficult in the FTAAP. Thirdly, while several controversial issues have to do with economics, a number of issues are more political in nature, including historical grievances (i.e., China-Chinese Taipei), geopolitical rivalries (i.e., US-Japan and China-Japan), and strained diplomatic relations (i.e., US-China). Specifically, Aggarwal (2007) considers the reported trade deficit of the US with China, which has ballooned from US$ 83.8 B in 2000 to US$ 256.3 B in 2007 , makes any bid for an RTA with the trade giant “dead on arrival” in the US congress. Morrison (2007) expressed strong apprehension that members would entertain the FTAAP idea for its overall political unpalatability. The FTAAP would necessitate a modification of the fundamental characteristics of APEC – from ‘voluntary’, ‘non- binding’, and ‘non-discriminatory’ to its absolute anti-thesis, ‘obligatory’, ‘legally- binding’, and ‘discriminatory’ – considering that most members would resist the change is enough to shoot down the proposal. Furthermore, members fully aware of the difficulties of negotiating such a large-scale arrangement and given the unimpressive track record of APEC are not much inspired by the idea. In addition, the long period of time it would take to hammer out the RTA and the suggested standstill of all other ongoing integration negations are particularly discouraging. The negotiations would also require strong leadership by key APEC economies throughout the process, particularly US, Japan, and China, either singly or in some combination; however, these economies harbor political sensitivities involving trade that may work against the FTAAP.

FTAAP Fails FTAAP is too hard to complete Charles E. Morrison, president of the East West Center, international chair of the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, 2007, Chapter 1: An APEC Trade Agenda, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda- FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. An implicit assumption underlying the FTAAP proposal – and particularly the notion that of the FTAAP as a “Plan B” in the event of an unsuccessful DDA – is that the constellation of political and economic interests in the Asia-Pacific venue makes trade liberalization politically more attractive. While some of the economies that have complicated the WTO negotiations (e.g., EU, India, Brazil) are left out, the FTAAP is so large and diverse, it still encompasses many protectionist interests. And the goal of the FTAAP – free trade – is much more politically demanding than the much less ambitious DDA goals. This would be true even if the standards were somewhat relaxed and a true FTA is not fully achieved. Therefore, as the gains from smaller size are cancelled out by a much more politically demanding agenda, there is no particular political advantage to the FTAAP venue. The FTAAP can’t solve the WTO – it is too complex to be successful Sheng Bin, professor at APEC study centre, Nankai University, China, senior researcher at the Institute of International Economics, 2007, Chapter 4: The Political Economy of an Asia Pacific Free Trade Area: A China Perspective, in An APEC Trade Agenda? The Political Economy of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific A Joint Study By The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council & The APEC Business Advisory Council, http://www.ncapec.org/reports/APEC-Trade-Agenda-FTAAP.pdf, Accessed 4-8-2014. In Scollay’s study paper (Scollay, 2004), a high quality FTAAP agreement is characterized as including few (or preferably no) exclusions in product or sector coverage, simple and transparent rules of origin, clear and minimal safeguard provisions, prohibition on anti-dumping measures and agreement to deal with the relevant issues via competition policy, extensive trade facilitation provisions, full coverage of government procurement, full liberalization of investment flows, and a transparent and effective dispute settlement process. If all these elements could be incorporated in the final treaty, China would undoubtedly benefit from joining the agreement, and therefore it would be likely that China would join. However, achieving a high quality agreement is highly unlikely because of the complexity of the issues as well as the number of sectors involved in the discussions. A low quality FTAAP with limited coverage and considerable exemptions will just make an APEC-wide FTA like “a new piece of spaghetti in the bowl”, and such a situation can not be considered a useful contribution to both WTO and APEC.

Deep Ecology Kritik

Deep ecology is a paradigm affirming the intrinsic worth of all living beings and, in a larger sense, the moral consideration of the ecosphere itself as a living system. The kritik holds that efforts to either exploit or manage ocean resources (even toward the goal of conserving some of those resources) entrench the false assumptions that humans are apart from nature, the owners and subjugators of nature, and entitled to its resources.

The alternative mechanism to the criticism assumes an intellectual and moral gesture, a re-thinking described by the Arne Naess (pronounced Arnah Ness) evidence when Naess talks about the sudden realization that he is the same as the flea in the laboratory, or the children realize they should not kill animals because of the pain involved. Although competition for the criticism mainly occurs through net benefits, it's also true that deep and shallow ecology are philosophically opposed in such a way as to make it impracticable to work together.

Affirmative strategy against deep ecology consists of impact turns (deep ecology does make brutal judgments about humanity and seeks to enforce such judgments possibly violent coercion), and permutations based on the real world observation that actual marine-based and other nature-based policymakers combine elements of deep and shallow ecology all the time.

Deep Ecology Kritik 1NC Shell 1/3 A. Recognition and solvency of environmental harms for functionalist reasons guarantees there will be no systemic solutions to environmental harms; shallow ecology worsens the ecological crisis Joseph Kirby, Fellow at Institute for Christian Studies, July 2013 "Toward an Ecological and Cosmonautical Philosophy," Journal of Evolution and Technology, Vol. 23 No. 1, http://jetpress.org/v23/kirby.htm (accessed 6/11/2014) In the discourse of deep ecology, the term “shallow ecology” is used to refer to an environmental vision that recognizes environmental degradation as a serious issue, but only insofar as it infringes upon humanity’s continued prosperity and happiness. The term “deep ecology,” by contrast, is used to refer to a vision that sees environmental degradation as bad not just because of its adverse effects on humanity, but also because life itself is being damaged. In contrast to shallow ecology’s anthropocentrism, which focuses only on human concerns, deep ecology posits an ecocentrism that sees the proper goal of environmentalist thought and action as being to promote the good of life itself. The deep perspective further argues that the shallow perspective will ultimately be unable to respond adequately to the current predicament, a crisis so severe that only a thorough reorientation of our entire value system, toward a recognition of the inherent good of life, will be able to respond adequately to the dreadful situation that has been created and only continues to get worse. B. Ocean resource management is violative and assumes ownership over the rest of nature Katriina O'Kane, filmmaker and researcher in Department of Geography, McGill University, November 30, 2011 "Deep Sustainable Development: New Visions for an Important Concept," Squarespace.com, http://static.squarespace.com/static/502b0fd4e4b0030d11efeea5/t/518011fae4b01333da00b916/1367 347706412/Deep%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf (accessed 6/11/2014) Whereas traditional notions of sustainable development promote reduced resource extraction on the basis of being able to provide for future generations, deep ecology calls for an even more drastic reduction, so as to protect vital ecosystems functions and promote long-range environmental vivacity (Naess 1995(b), 72). Lastly, when evaluating policies for land and ocean management, current policies are quick to divide ecosystems into fragments, each of which is “owned” by a human or group of humans. However, deep ecology allows us to understand the interconnected nature of systems, and thus focus on more broad scale conservation efforts. It also emphasizes that the earth does not belong to humans, and thus calls for less invasive interference, only to satisfy vital needs (Naess 1995(b), 74).

Deep Ecology Kritik 1NC Shell 2/3 C. Paradigms which view natural organisms as resources for human use guarantee perpetuation of the global extinction crisis Douglas Tompkins, President of the Foundation for Deep Ecology, 2012 "Our Mission," Foundation for Deep Ecology, http://www.deepecology.org/mission.htm (accessed 6/10/2-14) We believe that stopping the global extinction crisis and achieving true ecological sustainability will require rethinking our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. Nature can no longer be viewed merely as a commodity—a storehouse of “resources” for human use and profit. It must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise. D. Human-centered ecological assumptions will destroy the planet Stan Rowe, former Professor of Plant Ecology at the University of Saskatchewan, 2000 "An Earth-Based Ethic for Humanity," Ecocentrism Home Page, http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RoweEarthEthics.html (accessed 6/10/2014) Beyond that, humanism is a danger to the planet and to ourselves because of its excessive narrowness. It has outlived its usefulness. One species, infatuated with itself to the exclusion of 20 or 30 million other co-evolved life-forms and their life-giving milieu, is putting all Earth at risk. A broader, more encompassing, outward-looking ethic is needed. Such a post-humanist ethic is unlikely to come from religious traditions that are inward-looking, centered on humanity. This essay explains the basis for a faith and an ethic focused not on the human species but on its source and support, the Earth. Ecology points the way. E. The alternative is to re-envision nature as inherently valuable, and we a part of it. Securing the health of the ecosphere is the foremost ethical question Stan Rowe, former Professor of Plant Ecology at the University of Saskatchewan, 2000 "An Earth-Based Ethic for Humanity," Ecocentrism Home Page, http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RoweEarthEthics.html (accessed 6/10/2014) Suppose that the planetary Ecosphere within which we live, move and have our being is taken as the primary reality. Suppose it is accepted as inherently valuable, an ethical thing-in-itself, producing life and continuously sustaining its many organic forms which are, however, secondary in significance. Such a novel viewpoint brings a radical shift in the orientation of ethical thought. No longer does it proceed by extension from the inside outward, from the self to like organisms, but instead from the outside in, from the Ecosphere to its contents. Then the foremost ethical question is reframed: How shall the health, beauty, diversity and permanency of the Ecosphere and its sectoral ecosystems be secured? After that, secondly, how shall people and societies fit their activities creatively to the Ecosphere's maintenance? A greater-than-human goal guides human goals. The saving attitude is ecocentrism that identifies the Ecosphere as the centre. This is the focal point for ethics, for art, and for religion recast in an Earth- revering form.

Deep Ecology Kritik 1NC Shell 3/3 F. The alternative renders the permutation unnecessary: the initial step of ecocentric consciousness builds understanding with all countervailing tendencies, and overcomes hierarchies Sebastian Malette, Professor of Social and Political Science at University of Melbourne, 2012 "From Knowledge to Ontological Awakening: Thinking Nature as Relatedness," The Trumpeter, Vol. 28, No. 1, http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1273/1621 (accessed 6/10/2014) Such shift could also have significant impacts on the various Western cosmologies, haunted by the problem of finding a single cause or point of origin to the world (rather than accepting the impossibility of having a single point of origin for the world if we accept a relational ontology) or by the hierarchical understanding of ontology, rating beings from dependent (inferior) to independent (superior). This could provide a conceptual canvas to negotiate our differences from an immanent standpoint, without imposing or sacrificing any universality and particularity that may be expressed in the experience in question. A relational ontology could help us to open ourselves to the plenum of an encounter, and to better attune with what we may perceive as otherness by inviting on an equal standing the relations by which the singularities of each and everyone— humans, non-humans and more-than-humans—are revealed.

Links: Shallow Ecology, Resource Management Shallow ecology racks up meaningless policy successes while never changing the underlying worldview that causes environmental harm David Suzuki, Professor of Genetics at University of British Columbia, May 3, 2012 "The Fundamental Failure of Environmentalism," Science Matters, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/05/the-fundamental-failure-of- environmentalism/ (accessed 6/10/2-14) Environmentalism has failed. Over the past 50 years, environmentalists have succeeded in raising awareness, changing logging practices, stopping mega-dams and offshore drilling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we were so focused on battling opponents and seeking public support that we failed to realize these battles reflect fundamentally different ways of seeing our place in the world. And it is our deep underlying worldview that determines the way we treat our surroundings. Viewing the external world as containing resources enables managerial regimes that deplete the environment for the sake of the economy David Suzuki, Professor of Genetics at University of British Columbia, May 3, 2012 "The Fundamental Failure of Environmentalism," Science Matters, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/05/the-fundamental-failure-of- environmentalism/ (accessed 6/10/2-14) This perspective is reflected in spiritual practices that understand that everything is interconnected, as well as traditional societies that revere "Mother Earth" as the source of all that matters in life. When we believe the entire world is filled with unlimited "resources" provided for our use, we act accordingly. This "anthropocentric" view envisions the world revolving around us. So we create departments of forests, fisheries and oceans, and environment whose ministers are less concerned with the health and well-being of forests, fish, oceans, or the environment than with resources and the economies that depend on them. Making economy arguments in the context of natural resources separates the economy of nature, deprioritizing the harmony demanded by our reliance on the biosphere David Suzuki, Professor of Genetics at University of British Columbia, May 3, 2012 "The Fundamental Failure of Environmentalism," Science Matters, http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/05/the-fundamental-failure-of- environmentalism/ (accessed 6/10/2-14) This emphasis of economy over environment, and indeed, the separation of the two, comes as humanity is undergoing dramatic changes. During the 20th century, our numbers increased fourfold to six billion (now up to seven billion), we moved from rural areas to cities, developed virtually all of the technology we take for granted today, and our consumptive appetite, fed by a global economy, exploded. We have become a new force that is altering the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale. In creating dedicated departments, we made the environment another special interest, like education, health, and agriculture. The environment subsumes every aspect of our activities, but we failed to make the point that our lives, health, and livelihoods absolutely depend on the biosphere — air, water, soil, sunlight, and biodiversity. Without them, we sicken and die.

Links: Survival Rhetoric, Sustainable Development Focus on exclusively human survival is anthropocentric, ignores humans’ impact on the natural world, and overpopulation George Sessions, professor of philosophy at Sierra College, 1995 Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, p. xi, full text available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/79035813/Deep-Ecology-for-the-Twenty-First-Century (accessed 6/11/2014) Another version of environmentalism arose in the 1960s in reaction to the increasing industrial/chemical pollution of the environment after World War II. Many leaders of this aspect of environmentalism, such as the biologist Barry Commoner and Ralph Nader, did not have a background either in ecology or in the Thoreau/Muir/Leopold conservation tradition. Partly as a result, this newer strain of “human survival environmentalism” was anthropocentric, urban pollution-oriented, and narrowly focused on the issue of human survival. Commoner was once quoted as saying that “I happen to think that humans are more important than whooping cranes.” Commoner soon took the position, against Paul Ehrlich and most other ecologists, that there was no human overpopulation problem in the world. While urban pollution problems have become an increasingly central and crucial part of the environmental crisis since the 1960s, the major flaw in “human survival environmentalism” has been the failure to take a wider “ecological perspective” that involves a concern for the ecological integrity of the Earth and the well-being of other species, along with humans. And sometimes the quality of life (for both humans and nonhumans) is more important than mere survival Sustainable development assumes nature is a resource to serve humanity, and is based on faulty assumptions about capacity Donald Worster, Professor of Environmental History at University of Kansas, 1995 “The Shaky Ground of Sustainability,” in George Sessions, Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, p. 384- 385, full text available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/79035813/Deep-Ecology-for-the-Twenty-First- Century (accessed 6/11/2014) I find the following deep flaws in the sustainable development ideal: First, it is based on the view that the natural world exists primarily to serve the material demands of the human species. Nature is nothing more than a pool of “resources” to be exploited; it has no intrinsic meaning or value apart from the goods and services it furnishes people, rich or poor. The Brundtland Report makes this point clear on every page: the “our in its title refers to people exclusively, and the only moral issue it raises is the need to share what natural resources there are more equitably among our kind, among the present world population and among generations to come. That is not by any means an unworthy goal, but it is not adequate to the challenge. Second, sustainable development, though it acknowledges some kind of limit on those material demands, depends on the assumption that we can easily determine the carrying capacity of local regional ecosystems. Our knowledge is supposedly adequate to reveal the limits of nature and to exploit resources is supposedly adequate to reveal the limits of nature and to exploit resources safely up to that level. In the face of new arguments suggesting how turbulent, complex, and unpredictable nature really is, that assumption seems highly optimistic.

Links: Science and Utilitarianism Scientific reductionism absent an ontological commitment to deep ecology makes the alternative harder to understand Sebastian Malette, Professor of Social and Political Science at University of Melbourne, 2012 "From Knowledge to Ontological Awakening: Thinking Nature as Relatedness," The Trumpeter, Vol. 28, No. 1, http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1273/1621 (accessed 6/10/2014) The assumption that we first need to isolate the units, elements, numbers, agents, structures, causes and effects, referents, actors or persons in a self-enclosed or self-referential ways to formulate discriminating statements about the world makes it so much harder to understand the proposition that our ecological wellbeing is weaved at an ontological level that might precede what we perceive as isolated entities. To generate a foreseeing ecological wisdom capable of integrating the notion of ontological relatedness capable of supporting actions and policy remains therefore a tricky project, especially when the privileged scientific methodology is bounded by an empirical reductionism and verifiabilism hostile to metaphysical synthesis concerning Nature (empirical reductionism), when we believe that Nature is merely a conceptual fiction (idealistic reductionism), or when we look at Nature as a threat to our political freedoms which need to be protected against any derivative notions that could superimpose or dictate our choices, preferences or lifestyles (anthropocentric politics). Even the most progressive utilitarians unjustly privilege sentience in nature, entrenching shallow ecology Brian G. Wolff, University of Minnesota Conservation Biology Program, 2009 "Environmental Studies and Utilitarian Ethics," Bioscience Vol. 43, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ889705.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) The rejection of anthropocentrism did not necessitate a refutation of utilitarian ethics. However, a nonanthropocentric utilitarian approach to environmental ethics only broadens the set of morally relevant organisms to include, in addition to humans, elephants, cetaceans, great apes, and a handful of other sentient organisms. Utilitarianism has, therefore, been roundly criticized by those ethicists that reject sentientism and believe a legitimate environmental ethic must go further and assign moral standing to such insentient entities as plants, species and/or ecosystems. Utilitarianism can’t recognize the intrinsic value of any being Brian G. Wolff, University of Minnesota Conservation Biology Program, 2009 "Environmental Studies and Utilitarian Ethics," Bioscience Vol. 43, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ889705.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) Intrinsic value or inherent worth is what makes trees, species, and ecosystems the subjects of direct moral concern in the minds of many environmental ethicists, so its importance to the field can hardly be overstated. Because utilitarians recognize only the intrinsic value of pleasure or desire satisfaction, the commitment to intrinsic value in environmental ethics has also driven a rather deep wedge between environmental ethics and the ethics of utilitarianism.

Impacts: Anthropocentrism Bad Anthropocentrism is ecologically irrational, guaranteeing extinction Melanie Ahkin, Invoicing and Contracts Administrator at InfoXchange, 2010 “Human Centrism, Animist Materialism, and the Critique of Rationalism in Val. Plumwood’s Critical Ecological Feminism,” Emergent Australasian Philosophers, Issue 3, http://www.eap.philosophy- australia.com/issue_3/EAP3_AHKIN_Human_Centrism.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) Such an anthropocentric framework creates a variety of serious injustices and prudential risks, making it highly ecologically irrational. The hierarchical value prescriptions and epistemic distortions responsible for its biased, reductive conceptualisation of nature strips the non-human natural realm of non- instrumental value, and impedes the fair and impartial treatment of its members. Similarly, anthropocentrism creates distributive injustices by restricting ethical concern to humans, admitting partisan distributive relationships with non-human nature in the forms of commodification and instrumentalisation. The prudential risks and blindspots created by anthropocentrism are problematic for nature and humans alike and are of especial concern within our current context of radical human dependence on an irreplaceable and increasingly degraded natural environment. These prudential risks are in large part consequences of the centric structure's promotion of illusory human disembeddedness, self-enclosure and insensitivity to the significance and survival needs of non-human nature: Within the context of human-nature relationships, such a logic must inevitably lead to failure, either through the catastrophic extinction of our natural environment and the consequent collapse of our species, or more hopefully by the abandonment and transformation of the human centric framework. Anthropocentrism is the same as racism Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, May 15, 2003 “Animal Liberation at 30” The New York Review of Books, Vol. 50, No. 8, http://www.animal-rights- library.com/texts-m/singer04.htm (accessed 6/10/2014) In the text that followed, I urged that despite obvious differences between humans and nonhuman animals, we share with them a capacity to suffer, and this means that they, like us, have interests. If we ignore or discount their interests, simply on the grounds that they are not members of our species, the logic of our position is similar to that of the most blatant racists or sexists who think that those who belong to their race or sex have superior moral status, simply in virtue of their race or sex, and irrespective of other characteristics or qualities. Should treat harm to animals the same as we treat harm to humans Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, May 15, 2003 “Animal Liberation at 30” The New York Review of Books, Vol. 50, No. 8, http://www.animal-rights- library.com/texts-m/singer04.htm (accessed 6/10/2014) Although most humans may be superior in reasoning or in other intellectual capacities to nonhuman animals, that is not enough to justify the line we draw between humans and animals. Some humans— infants and those with severe intellectual disabilities—have intellectual capacities inferior to some animals, but we would, rightly, be shocked by anyone who proposed that we inflict slow, painful deaths on these intellectually inferior humans in order to test the safety of household products. Nor, of course, would we tolerate confining them in small cages and then slaughtering them in order to eat them. The fact that we are prepared to do these things to nonhuman animals is therefore a sign of "speciesism"—a prejudice that survives because it is convenient for the dominant group— in this case not whites or males, but all humans.

Impacts: Shallow Ecology Destroys All Life Failure to assign primary importance to the ecosphere as a whole threatens all life on the planet Douglas Tompkins, President of the Foundation for Deep Ecology, 2012 "Our Mission," Foundation for Deep Ecology, http://www.deepecology.org/mission.htm (accessed 6/10/2-14) We begin with the premise that life on Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, of the entire ecosphere it all its beauty and complexity including the natural processes that create and shape life's diversity. It is the grave and growing threats to the health of the ecosphere that motivates our activities. We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances: The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Any assumption of human superiority to other life forms is incompatible with continued life on earth Douglas Tompkins, President of the Foundation for Deep Ecology, 2012 "Our Mission," Foundation for Deep Ecology, http://www.deepecology.org/mission.htm (accessed 6/10/2-14) Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose. The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of Nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the rush to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological sustainability on a finite Earth. Even if it’ not a quick collapse, ecocide is irreversible Thomas Berry, Director of Riverdale Center for Religious Research, 1995 “The Viable Human,” in George Sessions, Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, available online at The total extinction of life is not imminent, though the elaborate forms of life expression in the earth’s ecosystems may be shattered in an irreversible manner. What is absolutely threatened is the degradation of the planet’s more brilliant and satisfying forms of life expression. This degradation involves extensive distortion and a pervasive weakening of the life system, its comprehensive integrity as well as its particular manifestations. While there are pathologies that wipe out whole populations of life forms and must be considered pernicious to the life process on an extensive scale, the human species has, for some thousands of years, shown itself to be a pernicious presence in the world of the living on a unique and universal scale.

Alternative Solves We must prioritize the entire geo-ecosystem rather than just particular organisms if we want to preserve all life Stan Rowe, former Professor of Plant Ecology at the University of Saskatchewan, 2000 "An Earth-Based Ethic for Humanity," Ecocentrism Home Page, http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RoweEarthEthics.html (accessed 6/10/2014) (7) Preservation of "life" means protection of Nature-as-Earth against human simplifying activities that destroy the diversity of geoecosystems. As a corollary, preservation of organic species (including Homo sapiens) can only be successful with preservation of the evolving geoecosystems of which they are parts. (8) An Earth ethic is the reasonable replacement for the destructive ethic of humanism, shifting the focus of importance from the one species Homo sapiens to the living Ecosphere, its geoecosystems, and their inorganic/organic contents. Ecocentrism allows human and non-human interests to collude Stan Rowe, former Professor of Plant Ecology at the University of Saskatchewan, 2000 "An Earth-Based Ethic for Humanity," Ecocentrism Home Page, http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RoweEarthEthics.html (accessed 6/10/2014) Important implications follow from the metaphorical linking of Ecosphere with Life, as listed below: (1) The world did not suddenly "come alive" three and a half billion years ago from a smear of bacteria on its hitherto "dead" surface. The first complex protein molecules, the first bacteria, gained their vitality from the animated seas of a lively Gaia. (2) When the self-organizing powers of Earth are recognized, the idea that "life" arrived from Mars or some other extra-terrestrial source as a bacterium or other organism is superfluous. (3) The misnamed "abiotic environment" of air-water-land that keeps organisms alive, and from which people draw the so-called "raw materials" and "natural resources," with a pay-back of industrial pollutants and garbage, merits special care and protection as the "Mother of All Aliveness." (4) "Environment," hitherto conceived as a packet of abstracted factors (light, heat, moisture, nutrients) influencing organisms, is reinterpreted as the volumetric geoecosystems (geographic sectors of the Ecosphere) within which organisms function as animated parts. (5) Anthropocentrism (the philosophy that only humans matter) and Biocentrism (the philosophy that only organisms matter) are revealed as untruths and receive the jolting shake-up they deserve. Ecocentrism, the philosophical view that places Earth as the central reality, comes to the fore, as does Ecology defined as study of Earth's geographic sectors and their inorganic/organic contents which include humans and their cultures.

Deep ecology yields better understanding of the environment Bill Devall, professor of sociology at Humbolt, and George Sessions, professor emeritus of philosophy 1985 (Bill, professor of sociology at Humboldt State Univ., and George at Sierra College. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, p. 65) The essence of deep ecology is to keep asking more searching questions about human life, society, and Nature as in the Western philosophical tradition of Socrates. As examples of this deep questioning, Naess points out “that we ask why and how, where others do not. For instance, ecology as a science does not ask what kind of society would be the best for maintaining a particular ecosystem—that is considered a question for value theory, for politics, for ethics.” Thus deep ecology goes beyond the so- called factual scientific level to the level of self and Earth wisdom. Deep ecology goes beyond a limited piecemeal shallow approach to environmental problems and attempts to articulate a comprehensive religious and philosophical worldview. The foundations of deep ecology are the basic intuitions and experiencing of ourselves and Nature which comprise ecological consciousness. Certain outlooks on politics and public policy flow naturally from this consciousness.

Alternative Solves Alternative solves ocean exploitation and environmental degradation Stan Rowe, former Professor of Plant Ecology at the University of Saskatchewan, 1988 "Ethics and the Sea," Ecocentrism Home Page, http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RoEthSea.html (accessed 6/10/2014) Morality and ethics express human values, and human values enter consciousness as the sense of importance. Peoples' expressions of right and wrong are translations of what they believe to be important: it is wrong to kill people; one shouldn't kill more than six ducks a day; it is OK to pour pollutants into the ocean and kill the inshore waters. These value judgments signal the conventional hierarchy of importance. If only people are thought to be important, as many religions teach, then ethical action will be homo-centric and let the world be damned. If only living things are considered important, ethical action will be bio-centric, expressing in its higher form a reverence for all creatures great and small, but still by default letting the greater world be damned. When the essential ecological message is understood, that the Ecosphere, the home-sphere, the Home of all homes, is of surpassing importance, then ethics will be eco-centric and people will not allow the world to be damned. Then love and respect for the world will bring sensitive, compassionate, ethical treatment of its land, atmosphere, and seas. The land will be maintained in beauty and health because it is venerated, and not for the crops it produces. The air will be kept clean, fresh, and unpolluted, not because of anti-asthma campaigns and fears of greenhouse gases but because of its intrinsic value. And the ocean will be revered not for the riches of its waters but as the mysterious heart of the planet that continually draws us back to its shores. Voting negative builds a non-anthropocentric ethic by introducing the environment as a political interest Steve F. Sapontzis, professor emeritus of philosophy at California State University, East Bay, 1995 “The Nature of the Value of Nature,” EJAP: The Electronic Journal of Philosophy, http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html Finally, if the motivating concern about the value of nature really is practical, it must be political. In order to overcome the environmental crisis, we must convince peoples and governments to change their behaviors and institutions in the ways necessary to achieve that end. If the peoples and governments which are devastating nature are anthropocentric, then environmentally enlightened anthropocentric arguments have an immediate relevance to political debates concerning environmentally significant practices.

Alternative Solves We must question whether our political strategies reiterate anthropocentric logic Kevin Michael DeLuca, Associate Professor of Speech Communication and adjunct in the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia, 2005 “Thinking with Heidegger Rethinking Environmental Theory and Practice”, Ethics & the Environment Vol. 10, No. 1, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40339096? uid=3739736&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104199336497 (accessed 6/13/2014) The question moves, then, from asking whether a strategy is effective or moral, to asking, "Does a strategy contribute to machination?" As our discussion should have made clear, machination is about a logic, not a particular machine. (This same point is true of Heidegger's later critique of technology.) Heidegger's critique of the logic of machination has the advantage of being able to be clearly distinguished from any particular machine or technology. Machination, to reiterate, is a logic characterized by calculation, giganticism, acceleration, and technicity wherein animals, plants, and the earth become objects, mere resources, and humans, also, are reduced to the service of a ravenous progress. To ask if a strategy contributes to machination, then, is to ask whether it contributes to the degradation of the earth and the hollowing-out of the world, a particularly pressing question for environmentalists. Asking the deep ecological question overcomes the invisibility of speciesist thought, which is the pillar of the dominant system: exposing speciesist practice is key Adam Weitzenfeld, Professor of Philosophy at University of North Texas, and Melanie Joy, professor of psychology and sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, 2014 "An Overview of Anthropocentrism, Humanism, and Speciesism in Critical Animal Theory," Defining Critical Animal Studies, http://www.academia.edu/6086062/An_Overview_of_Anthropocentrism_Humanism_and_Speciesism_i n_Critical_Animal_Theory# (accessed 6/10/2014) Dominant ideologies and narratives, and the complexes they inevitably form, maintain power largely by remaining invisible. The invisibility of the carnist-speciesist complex — and of its defenses — form some of the central pillars on which the system stands. The transformative vegan counternarrative discourses and practices must therefore not only provide alternative narratives but explicitly expose the fictions of the speciesist-carnist narratives. In other words, as mentioned earlier, vegan praxis cannot replace the speciesist-carnist complex without first exposing normalized practices and affects of these systems, making such practices visible objects to confront and transform.

Alternative Solves The alternative overcomes the default assumptions of infinite growth, power, and domination Sebastian Malette, Professor of Social and Political Science at University of Melbourne, 2012 "From Knowledge to Ontological Awakening: Thinking Nature as Relatedness," The Trumpeter, Vol. 28, No. 1, http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1273/1621 (accessed 6/10/2014) But the suggestion of a relational paradigm is precisely questioning the values at the center of the modern understanding of reality, showing that the cult of infinite accumulation, growth, power and domination can be replaced by an understanding of reality based on a different valuation, namely a mutualistic and relational valuation of wellbeing for all sentient and non-sentient beings. It also challenge the dualistic tradition that has cultivated the assumption so far nowhere found in Nature that what is pure, uncaused, immaterial, eternal and so on, is superior to its contrary. It asserts that, on the contrary, cultivating what binds us together as interdependent beings in a direction that maximize the wellbeing of all parties involve is a better wisdom than modeling on such mono-fantasy to cultivate selfish, greedy, solipsistic and anthropocentric conceptions of what is a successful life. Deep ecology solves by increasing self-awareness alongside awareness of our place in nature Brenden James MacDonald, author of Insights Toward Sanity: The Art of Having Schizophrenia, 2012 "Spinoza, Deep Ecology, and Human Diversity—Schizophrenics and Others Who Could Heal the Earth If Society Realized Eco-Literacy," The Trumpeter, Spinoza, Deep Ecology, and Human Diversity— Schizophrenics and Others Who Could Heal the Earth If Society Realized Eco-Literacy," The Trumpeter, Vol. 28, No. 1, http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1229/1619 (accessed 6/10/2014) By promoting a deep and social eco-literacy, Deep Ecological thinkers have a hope of leading individuals to self-realization of their life in Nature and their life with Gaia. We must learn about how life actually operates, and slowly dissolve our fanciful imaginings into wild, well-ordered involvement and enchantment, with the myriad beings that share and make complex our nature and our knowledge of our nature. I am reminded most poignantly of Spinoza’s discussion in the Ethics concerning the genesis of our knowledge of emotions. If it is indeed true like Spinoza holds that any interaction with a thing which affects us tells us more about our own constitution and susceptibility to modifications then it does about what externally affects us, then it seems also true that to reach understanding about and respect for life external to us, it will be most doable if we first inspire an understanding about and respect for our own inherent human nature and potential.

Alternative Solves Two stories illustrate how the initial gesture of identification shifts our ecological consciousness, forcing us in each instance to acknowledge beings’ desire to live, overcoming intellectual alienation from nature Chris Diehm, Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 2011 "Ecotage, Ecodefense, and Deep Ecology," The Trumpeter, Vol. 27, No. 2, http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1160/1581 (accessed 6/10/2014) In the essay “Self-Realization: An Ecological Approach to Being in the World,” Naess recounts what he calls a “paradigm situation” of identification. One day while working in a laboratory, he witnessed the death of a flea that had jumped into some chemicals he was observing on a microscope slide. Watching the fleaʼs struggle, he recalls, evoked in him a strong sense of compassion. But he believes that more basic than such compassion, and actually what made it possible, was his identification with the tiny animal, the fact that, as he says, “I saw myself in the flea.” Elaborating upon this statement, he writes, “If I had been alienated from the flea, not seeing intuitively anything even resembling myself, the death struggle would have left me feeling indifferent.” A similar account of identification is given in Ecology, Community and Lifestyle, where Naess describes a scenario in which an adult comes upon some children killing insects with bug spray, and poses to them the question, “perhaps those animals might, like you, prefer to live rather than to die?” Such a question could, Naess says, encourage the children to identify with the insects, to “see and experience spontaneously and immediately the insects as themselves, not only as something different but in an important sense like themselves.” The science generated by deep ecology carries its own transformational power, overcoming human/nature dualism Isobel Blackthorn, Author and PhD in Western Esotericism from University of Western Sydney, 2013 "A Post-Constructionist Context and the Re-emergence of Monism," Epistemology, http://isobelblackthorn.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chapter-4-epistemology-part-2.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) In deep ecology ethics and metaphysics are construed in terms of interconnectedness, and great value is placed upon ecological sustainability. The science of ecology is essentially life-centred and consequently carries transformational power in shifting our conceptualizations from the traditional dual focus of humanity and nature.

The alternative reconceptualizes the self as part of the whole of nature, overcoming environmental alienation Chris Diehm, Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 2011 "Ecotage, Ecodefense, and Deep Ecology," The Trumpeter, Vol. 27, No. 2, http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1160/1581 (accessed 6/10/2014) In many places Naess argues that, traditionally, we in the West have not looked upon ourselves as part and parcel of the natural world, or viewed ourselves as members of ecological communities. Instead, we have taken ourselves to be either isolated individuals or, at most, members of human social groups. Accordingly, Naess claims that we have become largely “alienated” from nature: we regard ourselves as separate, discrete entities with no essential relatedness to ecological realities, as beings fundamentally disconnected from the world outside ourselves. Hence, in part because this outlook is thought to be metaphysically false, and in part because it is believed to have highly undesirable ethical implications, Naess urges us to replace it with one that is appropriately ecologically-expanded. He urges us, that is, to develop our narrow sense of “self” into a far more inclusive ecological “Self.”

Answers to Permutations The views of deep and shallow ecology are truly mutually exclusive and the plan exerts control rather than letting nature be Isobel Blackthorn, Author and PhD in Western Esotericism from University of Western Sydney, 2013 "A Post-Constructionist Context and the Re-emergence of Monism," Epistemology, http://isobelblackthorn.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chapter-4-epistemology-part-2.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) Shallow ecology supports the status quo, and tends to be reformist through its concerns for economic rather than ecological sustainability. In contrast, deep ecology is relational, adopts a total field image in which organisms are knots in the biospherical field of intrinsic relations and humans are just one strand in the web of life. ‘The intrinsic value of the nonhuman members of the biotic community is recognized and the right of these members to pursue their own evolutionary destinies is taken as an intuitively clear and obvious value axiom’. Deep ecology sees unity in process, all things being internally related and in flux. This view is organismic, panpsychic, and pantheistic (therefore all of nature is sacred), and therefore monist. Deep ecology prefers to ‘let be’, rather than seek to control. The state dilutes the power of radical thinking when the two are combined Dimitris Papadopoulos, lecturer at the School of Management, University of Leicester, 2010 “Insurgent posthumanism,” Ephemera, http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/insurgent- posthumanism (accessed 6/10/2014) It is true that left politics have largely ignored the complexity and unpredictability of the entanglement between a deeply divided society and that of a deeply divided nonhuman world. The principle avenue for social transformation, at least in the main conceptualisations of the political left, passes through seizing the centres of social and political power. The dominant motivation for left politics after the revolutions of 1848 (and definitely since 1871) has been how to conquer institutional power and the state. Within this matrix of radical left thinking the posthumanist moment becomes invalidated, subsumed to a strategy focused solely on social power. Deep ecology and nonhuman life have no representation in existing political systems Helen Kopnina, coordinator of Sustainable Business program at the Hague University of Applied Sciences, December 12, 2012 "The Lorax complex: deep ecology, ecocentrism and exclusion," Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 4, http://www.academia.edu/2121808/The_Lorax_Complex_Deep_ecology_Ecocentrism_and_Exclusion (accessed 6/12/2014) The problem is that no existing political system, democratic or less so, seems to actually employ a panel of ‘‘moral experts,’’ particularly the one representing the deep ecological perspective or simply, representing the non-human entities (Lidskog and Elander 2010). While historically the anthropocentric position of individuals ‘‘in power’’ did not threaten bio-diversity due to lower population density and non-industrial system of production, the present-day anthropocentrism has salient implications for the well-being and even the very survival of non-human species.

Answers to Permutations Integration of deep ecology into policymaking doesn’t solve our impacts because anthropocentric interests will dominate the process. A proactive commitment to deep ecology must happen first Helen Kopnina, coordinator of Sustainable Business program at the Hague University of Applied Sciences, December 12, 2012 "The Lorax complex: deep ecology, ecocentrism and exclusion," Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 4, http://www.academia.edu/2121808/The_Lorax_Complex_Deep_ecology_Ecocentrism_and_Exclusion (accessed 6/12/2014) To sum up, and returning to the question of limitations of ‘‘economic capture’’ approach, the ‘‘moral expert’’ approach combining ethical elements provided by the deep green perspective might be extremely useful in targeting biodiversity loss. Multi-level environmental governance (Lidskog and Elander 2010) and deliberate democracy (Dobson 2003) do provide room for integration of deep ecology advocates. However, while the inclusion of such moral experts within existing political systems is feasible, there are no guarantees that anthropocentric interests will not dominate, as they do now. The type of ‘‘aﬃrmative action’’ by governments, informed not just by dominant anthropocentric but ecocentric ethics might thus be needed to assure that deep ecology is integrated in political interests. Integration into anthropocentric value systems will destabilize deep ecology; the ethical change must happen first Richard Sivil, lecturer at the School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics at University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2001 "Why We Need a New Ethic for the Environment,” Cultural Heritage Vol. 2, No. 7, http://www.crvp.org/book/series02/ii-7/chapter_vii.htm (accessed 6/12/14) Non-human entities, held captive by the needs and interests of humans, are open to whatever fancies the interests of humans. In light of the above, it is my contention that anthropocentric value systems fail to provide a stable ground for the development of an environmental ethic. It is fair to say that the success of the environmental movement is largely "a result of the power of anthropocentric arguments, for the general population began to realise that the degradation of the natural environment would have serious consequences for human health, safety, and survival" (Katz 1999: 378). This is of little relevance when regarding the development of an environmental ethic, for the awareness raised by anthropocentric arguments is restricted to the consequences affecting humans alone. Above I argued that anthropocentric value systems are unsuitable to the development of an environmental ethic. Traditional ethical theories (teleological, utilitarian, and deontological) were shown to be anthropocentric. This makes such theories unsuitable to the development of an environmental ethic. Clearly a wider and more encompassing ethic is required, one which extends moral concern beyond human boundaries. What is required is a "change in the ethics, in attitudes, values and evaluations" (Zimmerman 1998: 17), with the assumptions of an environmental ethic being "broader and more inclusive than the mere consideration of human interests" (Katz 1999: 378).

Answers to Permutations Inclusion of a state-centric narrative undermines ecocentrism Bill Devall, professor of sociology at Humbolt State University, 1988 http://books.google.com/books/about/Simple_in_Means_Rich_in_Ends.html?id=zf9-AAAAMAAJ (accessed 6/10/2014) Since Arne Naess introduced the distinction between shallow (reform) environmentalism and deep ecology in 1972, the distinction has gained general acceptance among philosophers and environmental educators (Miller 1985). I this chapter I discuss the relationship between reform and deep ecology. In practical political debates, arguments based on reform and deep perspective are both appropriate in certain situations. But the weakness of reform arguments should also be noted. In particular I am concerned with the dilemma of environmental activists who feel they must use reform arguments in order to be understood by political decision-makers and who reject using deep arguments because they are seen as too subversive. In using reformist arguments, however, activists help to legitimate and reinforce the human-centered (anthropocentric) worldview of decision-makers. Other approaches are incompatible with deep ecology Richard Sivil, lecturer at the School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics at University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2001 "Why We Need a New Ethic for the Environment,” Cultural Heritage Vol. 2, No. 7, http://www.crvp.org/book/series02/ii-7/chapter_vii.htm (accessed 6/12/14) I argue that anthropocentric value systems are not suitable to the task of developing a comprehensive environmental ethic. Firstly, anthropocentric assumptions have been shown to be largely responsible for the current environmental crisis. While this in itself does not provide strong support for the claim, it does cast a dim light on any theory that is informed by such assumptions. Secondly, an environmental ethic requires a significantly wide range of focus. As such, it should consider the interests of a wide range of beings. It has been shown that anthropocentric approaches do not entertain the notion that non-human entities can have interests independent of human interests. "Expansionist", "conservationist" and "preservationist" approaches only acknowledge a value in nature that is determined by the needs and interests of humans.

Fishing is Evil: Carnalism The affirmative takes the consumption of fish as a given: Failure to ask the question of meat consumption keeps systems of oppression invisible Adam Weitzenfeld, Professor of Philosophy at University of North Texas, and Melanie Joy, professor of psychology and sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, 2014 "An Overview of Anthropocentrism, Humanism, and Speciesism in Critical Animal Theory," Defining Critical Animal Studies, http://www.academia.edu/6086062/An_Overview_of_Anthropocentrism_Humanism_and_Speciesism_i n_Critical_Animal_Theory# (accessed 6/10/2014) The primary carnistic defense is denial: denying that there is a problem in the first place erases any responsibility for addressing it. The main cultural narratives told by denial are “there is no problem,” “there is no system,” “there is no oppression,” and “there is no counternarrative.” Denial is expressed largely through invisibility, and the main way carnism remains invisible is by remaining unnamed: if carnism is not named, it cannot be conceptualized, questioned, or challenged. The invisibility of carnism is why eating animals appears to be a given, rather than a choice. Thus, carnism strips human consumers of animal others of their freedom of choice, because without awareness, there is no free choice. Taking carnalism as natural and a given entrenches its ideological underpinnings Adam Weitzenfeld, Professor of Philosophy at University of North Texas, and Melanie Joy, professor of psychology and sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, 2014 "An Overview of Anthropocentrism, Humanism, and Speciesism in Critical Animal Theory," Defining Critical Animal Studies, http://www.academia.edu/6086062/An_Overview_of_Anthropocentrism_Humanism_and_Speciesism_i n_Critical_Animal_Theory# (accessed 6/10/2014) Carnistic discourse plays a key role in reinforcing carnistic ideology, largely through the use of an inaccurate and misleading lexicon. For instance, the phrase “meat eater” describes a behavior as though it were divorced from a belief system (hence vegans are not referred to as “plant eaters”), in essence reinforcing the invisibility of the ideology. And both “omnivore” and “carnivore” refer to one’s biological predisposition rather than one’s ideological choice; these terms reinforce the assumption that eating animals is natural, one of the most entrenched and compelling carnistic justifications. Because of the power of discourse to construct perceptions and affect to reinforce the dominant narrative, it is particularly important that the vegan counterdiscourse not mirror the language of oppression. In other words, moving toward total liberation means examining internal and external structures and taking steps toward shifting such ways of seeing, communicating, and being.

Fishing is Evil: Carnalism Institutional carnalism is mutually dependent with personal canalism; we must fight on both ends Adam Weitzenfeld, Professor of Philosophy at University of North Texas, and Melanie Joy, professor of psychology and sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, 2014 "An Overview of Anthropocentrism, Humanism, and Speciesism in Critical Animal Theory," Defining Critical Animal Studies, http://www.academia.edu/6086062/An_Overview_of_Anthropocentrism_Humanism_and_Speciesism_i n_Critical_Animal_Theory# (accessed 6/10/2014) Carnistic defenses operate on two levels: they are institutionalized and internalized, and each level reinforces the other. Carnistic defenses exist to construct fictitious cultural narratives that both validate carnism and invalidate veganism. These narratives tell the respective stories that “eating animals is the right thing to do” and “not eating animals is the wrong thing to do.” Carnistic defenses are at once discrete and interrelated; they are distinct but overlap with and reinforce one another, the whole they create becoming greater than the sum of its parts.

AT Capitalism The growth imperative and eco-alienation aren’t unique to capitalism David Orton, Deep Ecology co-founder and author of Left Biocentrism Primer, December 21, 2008 "Why I am not an ecosocialist," Climate and Capitalism, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/23/deep-ecology-versus-ecosocialism-part-two/ (accessed 6/10/2014) Stan Rowe (1918-2004), a Canadian eco-philosopher, was also a socialist. But he noted in his writings that we are first Earthlings, part of mother Earth, and only in second place human beings. For Stan, both capitalism and socialism as social systems express the basic problem of species selfishness. As he pointed out in his first book of essays Home Place, “Neither philosophical liberalism championing liberty nor philosophical socialism championing equality will save us from ourselves. Human history will end in ecology, or nothing.” Eco-justice is more important than social justice David Orton, Deep Ecology co-founder and author of Left Biocentrism Primer, December 21, 2008 "Why I am not an ecosocialist," Climate and Capitalism, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/23/deep-ecology-versus-ecosocialism-part-two/ (accessed 6/10/2014) Social justice for humans is of course necessary, but it must be subordinate to Earth justice for all species. As Rowe has said, although socialism and capitalism share a common “rapacious” anthropocentric view towards Earth exploitation, “socialism has the virtue of extending the circle of care beyond the selfish individual, at least turning our vision outward in the right direction.” (p. 193) But social justice for humans cannot be at the expense of the ecology. “Community” has to include not just humans but other animals, plants and the Earth itself.

Answers to Deep Ecology Kritik

Permutations Combining deep ecology with pragmatic policy solutions is the only way to preserve biodiversity Helen Kopnina, coordinator of Sustainable Business program at the Hague University of Applied Sciences, December 12, 2012 "The Lorax complex: deep ecology,ecocentrism and exclusion," Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 4, http://www.academia.edu/2121808/The_Lorax_Complex_Deep_ecology_Ecocentrism_and_Exclusion (accessed 6/12/2014) Various authors have argued that pursuit of biodiversity conservation will fail without addressing democratic questions of human rights to livelihoods and access to landscapes (Western 1994; Wilshusen et al. 2002, 2003). Robyn Eckersley (2002) has discussed how political dilemmas such as these can be framed within two alternative approaches: ecocentric (deep green perspective approach) and environmental pragmatism (shallow ecology), suggesting that both need to be clearly articulated in order for dialogue between diﬀerent value holders as well as solutions to biodiversity issues can be found. Deep ecology doesn't preclude ocean management Katriina O'Kane, filmmaker and researcher in Department of Geography, McGill University, November 30, 2011 "Deep Sustainable Development: New Visions for an Important Concept," Squarespace.com, http://static.squarespace.com/static/502b0fd4e4b0030d11efeea5/t/518011fae4b01333da00b916/1367 347706412/Deep%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf (accessed 6/11/2014) Deep ecology provides sustainable development with several concepts that can turn theory into action. It provides a mantra: cultivating a sincere internal love for nature, that has the power to inspire us to act. It also provides mandates: addressing issues through the lens of the eight points of the Deep Ecology Platform, and by further offering solutions to other common problems including pollution, resource depletion, and land and ocean management. Nature occurs on a continuum; interaction with the non-natural environment is part of a species’ being Eva Perez de Vega, architect, designer, assistant professor at New School for Social Research, 2010 "Thinking the Ecological Present," Eistudeo.net, http://www.eistudio.net/ACADEMIC/epdvs_ThinkingTheEcologicalPresent.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) Ecology thus understood, is the relational manifestation of nature-culture entities which operate in a continuum, and the environment is the physical manifestation of that ecology. But the environment isn’t just our physical manifestation; our Being is expressed in our environment, in our territoriality. Our Being doesn’t stop at the physical manifestation of our entity; it is extended in our environment: “an organism is defined both by its spatial architecture, as well as by the different materials (bone, muscle) which give that architecture its specific mechanical qualities.” Thus a spider’s Being, or in material term, DNA, is expressed in its web; a beaver’s DNA doesn’t stop at its whiskers, but rather is revealed in its dam. Thus our environment is an indistinguishable part of our Being/DNA, it is our ontology, but more importantly it is our expressivity.

Permutations Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism don’t truly compete: the perspectives can be combined Helen Kopnina, coordinator of Sustainable Business program at the Hague University of Applied Sciences, December 12, 2012 "The Lorax complex: deep ecology,ecocentrism and exclusion," Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 4, http://www.academia.edu/2121808/The_Lorax_Complex_Deep_ecology_Ecocentrism_and_Exclusion (accessed 6/12/2014) It is not impossible to reconcile deep and shallow ecology visions, as ecocentric and anthropocentric positions are often intimately interlinked (as most mainstream proponents of any form of environmental protection – for human as well as for intrinsic value purposes would probably agree on). Just as pet-owner’s commitment to their cat can be an expression of both ecocentric (loving a non- human being) and anthropocentric (the cat is used as a companion, fed cat food possibly originating from other slaughtered animal, etc.) values, so can care for the environment in general be hopefully combined – when both deep ecology and shallow ecology objectives can be clearly stated. The permutation embraces diverse disciplinary approaches to ecology and rejects nature-essentialism Eva Perez de Vega, architect, designer, assistant professor at New School for Social Research, 2010 "Thinking the Ecological Present," Eistudeo.net, http://www.eistudio.net/ACADEMIC/epdvs_ThinkingTheEcologicalPresent.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) Environmental problems will not go away once we forge a new vision for the environment. But it is a start to admit that machinic processes happen all the time in nature, and natural processes of self- assembly happen all the time in the artificial world. This is an uncanny ecology which includes the ecology of waste, development, leisure, not to mention war, politics or terrorism; it is an ecology which implies the complex interplay of uncertain agents, both human and nonhuman. This ecology is by definition incompatible with fixed categories; incompatible with essences. It demands the incorporation of disparate disciplines. It demands us to look at the uncanny possibility of simultaneously ‘becoming animal’ and ‘becoming machine’. It demands outrageous imagination and creativity. What we might learn from this ecology is a more flexible form of practice itself: a series of working concepts flexible enough to accommodate the wildly improbable demands for present and future ‘ecological action’.

Permutations Deep ecology is only one of several moral and spiritual perspectives that can protect the environment Balbhim L. Chavan, professor of environmental science at Marathwada University (India), 2011 "Environmental Ethics with Reference to Climate Change," International Conference on Climate Change & Social Issues, http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/7751 (accessed 6/11/2014) Ethical concepts can help to reduce climate change in many ways by controlling our unnecessary activities like burning of trash in agriculture, dumping of hazardous and solid waste in open without any treatment which latter add carbon dioxide in the environment, unsafe disposal of radioactive and chemical wastes. There are many such environmental problems which need spiritual approach and include transcendentalism, deep ecology, eco-feminism, Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Islam and other Asian religions. Most of these spiritual approaches are ultimately afford an opportunity to construct a useful and satisfying environmental ethics. Deep ecology proponents can use utilitarian arguments to win over more adherents, increasing solvency of the alternative Brian G. Wolff, University of Minnesota Conservation Biology Program, 2009 "Environmental Studies and Utilitarian Ethics," Bioscience Vol. 43, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ889705.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) Many environmental ethicists and educators unjustly equate anthropocentric ethics and utilitarianism, in particular, with destructive environmental policies and methods of valuation that lead to environmental degradation. This is extremely unfortunate because traditional utilitarian and rights- based ethics can be used to reject the very practices they are often blamed for endorsing, and resonate with most Americans. When anthropocentric arguments are used to defend destructive and unsustainable environmental policies, the benefits to humans are nearly always exaggerated and/or the costs of environmental degradation to present and future human beings are underestimated. This being the case, such policies can usually be shown to be unethical from a utilitarian perspective. Prefer the permutation: No tenet of deep ecology can actually be proven Brian G. Wolff, University of Minnesota Conservation Biology Program, 2009 "Environmental Studies and Utilitarian Ethics," Bioscience Vol. 43, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ889705.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) The recognition of intrinsic value in environmental ethics creates further difficulties. An environmental ethic based on the intrinsic value of insentient organisms, species, communities and/or ecosystems is committed to an ethical position the validity of which cannot be objectively demonstrated. Unless all parties are willing to accept that such value exists, as a matter of faith or intuition, staunch advocates of intrinsic value theories can only presume to hold a superior moral position. Furthermore, even if it is agreed that species, etc. possess some form of intrinsic value, it must be demonstrated that such value is morally relevant or should be preserved. As noted previously, this has proven to be difficult.

Anthropocentrism is Inevitable and Desirable Anthropocentric solutions can solve the environmental crisis—better solvency than the alternative because deep ecology won’t spark political change Steve F. Sapontzis, professor emeritus of philosophy at California State University, East Bay, 1995 “The Nature of the Value of Nature,” EJAP: The Electronic Journal of Philosophy, http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html In contrast, arguments employing ideas of the overriding, objective value of nature are politically irrelevant until these anthropocentric, nature-devastating peoples and governments come to believe that nature has such value. While neither task is easy, convincing peoples and governments to change their fundamental value systems seems a far more problematic and time-consuming task than convincing them that continuing their nature-devastating practices is contrary to their anthropocentric values. Especially in a time of crisis, pursuing the less problematic and time-consuming course of argument is the course to take to make a real, political difference. Consequently, the practical motivation of overcoming the environmental crisis does not direct us to establish the overriding, objective value of nature; rather, it directs us to develop politically compelling, anthropocentric arguments for environmentalism. Anthropocentrism is necessary for any ethics at all Martin Drenthen, professor of philosophy at Radboud University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, June 2011 "Ecocentrism as Anthropocentrism," Ethics, Policy and Environment, Vol. 14, No. 2, http://home.xmsnet.nl/drenthen/publicaties/EcocentrismAsAnthropocentrism.pdf (accessed 6/12/2014) Burms believes that anthropocentrism is unavoidable for those who want to articulate an ethical perspective on the world. He notes, however, that not all forms of anthropocentrism are equally problematic. Apart from the current ‘humanistic anthropocentrism’, which starts from the conviction that non-human entities can have value if and only if they are valuable (useful or pleasant) for humans, other (traditional or post-scientific) forms of anthropocentrism exist (‘metaphysical anthropocentrism’) that start from the idea that humans are not in the center of the world.

We must be anthropocentric in order to view and transcend the limits of anthropocentrism Tim Hayward, Professor of Politics at University of Edinburgh, 1997 "Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem," Environmental Values, Vol. 6, http://timhayward.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hayward-anthropocentrism-misunderstood- problem.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) Humans are just a part of the natural order. This cognitive displacement of human beings from centre stage in the greater scheme of things has been made possible, above all, by developments in modern science. This detached view of humans has been made possible by just that kind of objectivating knowledge which more recently has been held to lie at the root of an attitude toward the natural world to be condemned as anthropocentric. For what the rise of objectivating science has done is bring with it the idea that humans can in some ways stand apart from the rest of nature: the achievement of objectivity carries with it an enhanced view of the power and autonomy of subjectivity; and this is at the heart of a set of attitudes which privilege human faculties, capacities and interests over those of nonhuman entities. There thus appears to be a paradox: the overcoming of anthropocentrism so far has been brought about by just those developments which are now seen by many as lying at the root of unacceptably anthropocentric attitudes and values.

Anthropocentrism is Inevitable and Desirable The alternative won’t overcome anthropocentrism—acknowledging we are part of nature and that all beings are equally valuable still binds us to human subjectivity Martin Drenthen, professor of philosophy at Radboud University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, June 2011 "Ecocentrism as Anthropocentrism," Ethics, Policy and Environment, Vol. 14, No. 2, http://home.xmsnet.nl/drenthen/publicaties/EcocentrismAsAnthropocentrism.pdf (accessed 6/12/2014) It may very well be that the normative core of species egalitarianism is not the belief that all beings are equally valuable but, rather, the humbling insight that we are part of a larger context that does not revolve around us. When we conceive of nature as a network of interdependent living beings of which we are part, this provides us with a context out of which we can understand ourselves and articulate a vision of what our life is about. Yet, ultimately, we are bound to the human perspective. Anthropocentrism is inevitable and not intrinsically harmful Tim Hayward, Professor of Politics at University of Edinburgh, 1997 "Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem," Environmental Values, Vol. 6, http://timhayward.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hayward-anthropocentrism-misunderstood- problem.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) To begin with, there are some ways in which humans cannot help being human-centred. Anyone’s view of the world is shaped and limited by their position and way of being within it: from the perspective of any particular being or species there are real respects in which they are at the centre of it. Thus, as Ferré for instance points out, to the extent that humans ‘have no choice but to think as humans’ what he calls ‘perspectival anthropocentrism’ would appear to be inescapable (Ferré, 1994, p.72). It would also appear to be unavoidable that we should be interested in ourselves and our own kind. There may indeed be respects in which human-centredness is unobjectionable – for humans, like any other beings, have legitimate interests which there is no reason for them not to pursue. Acknowledging that other creatures lack the capacity for human intelligence is not speciesism Tim Hayward, Professor of Politics at University of Edinburgh, 1997 "Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem," Environmental Values, Vol. 6, http://timhayward.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hayward-anthropocentrism-misunderstood- problem.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) It is inappropriate to label as speciesist a systematically developed argument to the effect, for instance, that animals lack a morally relevant feature necessary for worthiness of respect. For what is actually at issue here concerns precisely the criteria in terms of which discrimination might be claimed to be arbitrary or otherwise. Therefore to counter such an argument one must either show that the animal in fact does possess the relevant feature, or else provide reasons why the feature is not a necessary condition of worthiness of respect. Yet it may often be difficult to present a definitive and incontestable argument of either of these sorts. For this reason, suspicions of human chauvinism will be hard to prove conclusively.

Deep Ecology Bad: Ecotage Radical identification with nature justifies property damage to guard against development Chris Diehm, Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 2011 "Ecotage, Ecodefense, and Deep Ecology," The Trumpeter, Vol. 27, No. 2, http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1160/1581 (accessed 6/10/2014) In its particulars, the ecodefense argument is a variant of the position that asserts that while it is usually wrong to damage or destroy another person's private property, it is also usually permissible to defend oneself against undue harm or violation, and if such self-defense ever were to require breaking the prohibition against property destruction, self-defense would take priority and the property destruction would be morally justified. Clearly, in this line of reasoning, the higher moral principle is the principle of self-defense, which is given precedence over respect for other people’s property in conflict cases. In the above formulation, however, the argument is not yet an argument for “eco-” defense. Where it takes on its expressly ecological cast is the point at which one introduces the notion of an ecological Self into the principle of self-defense, which effectively extends the range of actions that fall under that principle to include actions done in defense of nature. The thinking here, in other words, is that if nature is an extended part of oneself, then to protect it is to protect one's Self, and thus property destruction on nature's behalf is as permissible as property destruction on behalf of oneself. The alternative will spark acts of violent property damage, which empirically costs hundreds of millions of dollars Chris Diehm, Professor of Philosophy at University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 2011 "Ecotage, Ecodefense, and Deep Ecology," The Trumpeter, Vol. 27, No. 2, http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/1160/1581 (accessed 6/10/2014) Over the past several decades, thousands of environmentally motivated acts of sabotage—commonly referred to as “ecosabotage” or “ecotage”—have caused millions of dollars in damages to individuals, organizations, businesses and governments involved in projects with controversial environmental effects. Indeed, it is believed that between 1997 and 2006 one group alone, the Earth Liberation Front, has been responsible for $100 million in property damage. The resulting backlash undermines the overall environmental movement, killing the solvency of the alternative Steve Vanderheiden, Professor of Political Science at University of Colorado at Boulder, April 2008 "Radical environmentalism in an age of antiterrorism," Environmental Politics, Vol. 17, No. 2, http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steve_Vanderheiden/publication/258148373_Radical_Environme ntalism_in_an_Age_of_Antiterrorism/file/e0b49527aa826c1bfe.pdf (accessed 6/11/2014) In reaffirming these moral limits and articulating more clearly when ecotage might be defensibly used and when it must be avoided, radical greens might be able to make a more sympathetic public case for the issues for which the tactic is endorsed, and reign in extremists within their ranks that may be tempted to overstep those boundaries and commit acts or threats of violence against persons. But in doing so, they risk a public backlash against environmental concerns that have been associated with terrorism, invite increased law enforcement scrutiny and potential disruption of legitimate environmental groups deemed guilty by association, and significantly raise expected costs for potential activists interested in joining the struggle for more effective environmental protection.

Deep Ecology Bad: Capitalism Deep Ecology obfuscates capitalism Andrew Blackman, former Wall Street Journal staff writer, March 6, 2013 "Recovering Bookchin," Andrew Blackman Web Site, http://andrewblackman.net/2013/03/recovering- bookchin/ (accessed 6/10/2014) Bookchin, on the other hand, emphasised the social causes, and believed in social solutions. He said the Ethiopians were starving “not because of nature. It is because of civil war, agribusiness, social problems.” The deep ecologists’ emphasis on population as a problem ignored the fact that it’s rich societies that consume most of the resources and reap most of the ecological havoc; it blamed poor Ethiopian farmers for the problems created by CEOs and politicians. The very idea of an ecological balance, he said, made no sense in a world already heavily affected by human development. The solution is not to turn back the clock to find a mythical balance, but to participate in creating solutions using the consciously-formed communities that are humanity’s unique achievement. By seeking to redress the anthropocentric view of the world, the deep ecologists went too far and made humans into a kind of scourge that existed outside nature. Bookchin’s idea was to create a truly ecological society that respected nature and saw humans as part of nature, not separate from it. Capitalism is the root cause of environmental harm Devon G. Peña, Professor of Anthropology and Chicano Studies at University of Washington, September 24, 2012 "Why Capitalism, Not Population Is Our Greatest Environmental Threat," http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-capitalism-not-population-our-greatest-environmental- threat (accessed 6/10/2014) First, capitalism requires an unlimited supply of “cheap” labor and this means that policies favoring high birth rates were (and still are) the norm wherever the capitalist system has taken root. Third is the problem of the “second contradiction” of capitalism: To exist, capitalism cannot accept limits to growth; capital must constantly expand its production and hence consumption; it must break down barriers to expand markets and access to natural resources for raw materials and exploitable sources of labor. Since capitalism is inherently expansionist it eventually and inevitably must degrade the environment. This is the second contradiction: Because of its expansionist quality, capitalism inevitably destroys the natural conditions of production (land, water, other resources, and labor). Deep ecologists are wrong: capitalism, not general development or industrialism, is the root cause of environmental degradation Devon G. Peña, Professor of Anthropology and Chicano Studies at University of Washington, September 24, 2012 "Why Capitalism, Not Population Is Our Greatest Environmental Threat," http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-capitalism-not-population-our-greatest-environmental- threat (accessed 6/10/2014) Now, most scientists and environmentalists have argued that this is the case with capitalism but also with all other forms of industrial economic organization including socialism and communism. The problem is not capitalism as such but industrialism (deep ecologists are principal proponents of this view). This is a flawed argument since industrialism predates capitalism and yet plenty of cases exist where industrial organization did not bankrupt or degrade nature on a massive scale.

Deep Ecology Bad: Racism, Misanthropy Deep Ecology is racist Brian Tokar, Director of Institute for Social Ecology, March 12, 2012 "Toward a New Social Ecology," Philosophers for Change, http://philosophersforchange.org/2012/03/12/toward-a-new-social-ecology/ (accessed 6/10/2014) Deep ecology has inspired an extensive literature in environmental ethics, eco-psychology, conservation biology, and other fields, and in the 1980s formed the underlying world view of most of the founders of the Earth First direct action movement. While Earth First’s often-dramatic action campaigns in defense of endangered forests helped redefine radical environmentalism in the 1980s and beyond, several of that movement’s founders began to articulate shockingly regressive views on a variety of crucial issues, rooted in a grim and avowedly misanthropic view of human nature. In their attempts to overturn what they viewed as an inherently destructive ‘anthropocentrism’, even among dedicated environmentalists, prominent authors in the Earth First! journal railed against Native American hunting practices and primitive agriculturalists, touted AIDS and famine as ‘natural’ cures for human overpopulation, and blamed refugees from Mexico for despoiling the deserts of the American Southwest. [5] Journal editor Foreman (1987) insisted that his focus on population control should be ‘an absolute litmus test’ for whether one ‘belongs’ in Earth First. Deep ecology is anti-human, not pro-nature Ian Angus, Professor of Humanities at Simon Fraser University, June 19, 2011 "Deep Ecology Versus Ecosocialism," Climate and Capitalism, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/19/deep-ecology-versus-people/ (accessed 6/10/2014) For deep ecologists, people as such are the world’s biggest problem. In her insightful critique of deep ecology, Janet Biehl writes: “Deep Ecology … regards the mere biological presence of human beings in any large numbers as intrinsically harmful to first nature … Of paramount importance to deep ecology is a radical and potentially ruthless scaling-down of the human population – indeed, population reduction as an issue has been named the ‘litmus test’ of deep ecology.” (“Theses on Social Ecology and Deep Ecology“). As a result, whatever the illusions and desires of its advocates, deep ecology is profoundly anti-humanist, anti-humanitarian, and anti-humane.

Deep Ecology Bad: Population Control Radical environmentalism’s belief in population control is the basis of militarism, imperialism, and xenophobia Robert Zubrin, New Atlantis contributing editor, Spring 2012 "The Population Control Holocaust," The New Atlantis, No. 35, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust (accessed 6/10/2014) There is a single ideological current running through a seemingly disparate collection of noxious modern political and scientific movements, ranging from militarism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radical environmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, and totalitarian communism. This is the ideology of antihumanism: the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity. The founding prophet of modern antihumanism is Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), who offered a pseudoscientific basis for the idea that human reproduction always outruns available resources. Following this pessimistic and inaccurate assessment of the capacity of human ingenuity to develop new resources, Malthus advocated oppressive policies that led to the starvation of millions in India and Ireland. Population control facilitates sterilization of women and other human rights violations Robert Zubrin, New Atlantis contributing editor, Spring 2012 "The Population Control Holocaust," The New Atlantis, No. 35, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust (accessed 6/10/2014) Fifth, the programs are cruel, callous, and abusive of human dignity and human rights. A frequent practice is the sterilization of women without their knowledge or consent, typically while they are weakened in the aftermath of childbirth. This is tantamount to government-organized rape. Forced abortions are also typical. These and other human rights abuses of the population control campaign have been widely documented, with subject populations victimized in Australia, Bangladesh, China, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kosovo, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tibet, the United States, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

Deep Ecology Bad: Population Control Deep ecologists call for culling (killing) people to decrease the population by two- thirds Anne Barbeau Gardiner, Professor Emerita of English at John Jay College of the City University of New York, 2008 "Deep Ecology and the Culture of Death," Life and Learning Conference XVII, http://www.uffl.org/vol17/GARDINER07.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) In the platform co-authored by Arne Naess and George Sessions, we find the following, startling statement related to population control: The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease. Note the chilling phrase a substantial decrease of the human population. The term substantial means to a large degree. Does this imply half, or even two-thirds of the world’s population? Note the next statement as well, that non-human life today requires such an ample decrease in human numbers. The word requires implies that the speedy culling of our mammalian species is a matter beyond dispute. Population control is racist and based on hatred of the other Robert Zubrin, New Atlantis contributing editor, Spring 2012 "The Population Control Holocaust," The New Atlantis, No. 35, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust (accessed 6/10/2014) Sixth, the programs are racist. Just as the global population control program itself represents an attempt by the (white-led) governments of the United States and the former imperial powers of Europe to cut nonwhite populations in the Third World, so, within each targeted nation, the local ruling group has typically made use of the population control program to attempt to eliminate the people they despise. In India, for example, the ruling upper-caste Hindus have focused the population control effort on getting rid of lower-caste untouchables and Muslims. In Sri Lanka, the ruling Singhalese have targeted the Hindu Tamils for extermination. In Peru, the Spanish-speaking descendants of the conquistadors have directed the country’s population control program toward the goal of stemming the reproduction of the darker non-Hispanic natives. In Kosovo, the Serbs used population control against the Albanians, while in Vietnam the Communist government has targeted the population control effort against the Hmong ethnic minority, America’s former wartime allies. In China, the Tibetan and Uyghur minorities have become special targets of the government’s population control effort, with multitudes of the latter rounded up for forced abortions and sterilizations. In South Africa under apartheid, the purpose of the government-run population control program went without saying. In various black African states, whichever tribe holds the reins of power regularly directs the population campaign towards the elimination of their traditional tribal rivals. There should be nothing surprising in any of this. Malthusianism has always been closely linked to racism, because the desire for population control has as its foundation the hatred of others.

Deep Ecology Bad: Totalitarianism Implementing the deep ecology alternative will require forced migration, displacement, and ethnic cleansing Ian Angus, Professor of Humanities at Simon Fraser University, June 19, 2011 "Deep Ecology Versus Ecosocialism," Climate and Capitalism, http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/19/deep-ecology-versus-people/ (accessed 6/10/2014) In order to create an unchanging wilderness that hasn’t existed since cyanobacteria destroyed their own environment by producing oxygen several billion years ago, the world’s poorest and most exploited people must be dispossessed. Who will decide which human beings must leave the places where they and their ancestors have lived for millennia? Who will enforce the compulsory migrations, and how will they do it? Where will the victims be moved to? Sarkar is silent on such questions. And, since we must also “stop all kinds of economic growth” – not just capitalist growth, not just ecologically damaging growth, but all growth – how can we possibly meet the physical, social and psychological needs of hundreds of millions of deep ecology refugees? How will they survive in their new homes? Will they even have new homes? You can call this deep ecology: a better label is ethnic cleansing. Deep ecology proponents believe the masses can only change their behavior through force and coercion Anne Barbeau Gardiner, Professor Emerita of English at John Jay College of the City University of New York, 2008 "Deep Ecology and the Culture of Death," Life and Learning Conference XVII, http://www.uffl.org/vol17/GARDINER07.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) And this is where politics becomes “the real heart of Naess’s deep ecology.” Maskit explains that Naess wanted both “personal change and political change” to occur at the same time, because persuading people to think in ecocentric terms does not necessarily change their behavior: “Policy changes are therefore needed to force even those who ‘know better’ to behave in a way commensurate with their beliefs.” Note the words force and even those in the last sentence. All people are to be forced to behave as if they believed they were merely part of nature, even those who already accept ecocentrism but whose behavior has not caught up with their conviction. Government “policies” are to serve as an “externalized will” in place of “the will that we don’t have,” and thus to “force us to act as we would if we were fully realized beings.” Again, note the use of the word force in this last sentence: Maskit says that policies can force everyone to conform, regardless of their interior views. What room will be left for free will? Virtually none.

Deep Ecology Bad: Genocide

Deep ecology prioritizes nature over humans Wesley J. Smith, Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute, 2009 "Poverty is the Answer: Radical Environmentalism Leading Us to a New Form of Human Sacrifice," Wellsphere, http://www.wellsphere.com/bioethics-article/poverty-is-the-answer-radical- environmentalism-leading-us-to-a-new-form-of-human-sacrifice/632295 (accessed 6/20/2014) I have written how radical environmentalism is becoming distinctly anti-human. With the fervent ideology of Deep Ecology, it is explicitly stated. But some of what we are witnessing among the neo Greens is a drive to sacrifice human flourishing and prosperity--without the explicitly stated misanthropic dogmas. This willingness to sacrifice human welfare is reaching a fever pitch among those who believe that global warming is a crisis of unimagined proportions-- a belief that can border on quasi-religion or pure ideology. This leads to genocide Wesley J. Smith, Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute, 2009 "Poverty is the Answer: Radical Environmentalism Leading Us to a New Form of Human Sacrifice," Wellsphere, http://www.wellsphere.com/bioethics-article/poverty-is-the-answer-radical- environmentalism-leading-us-to-a-new-form-of-human-sacrifice/632295 (accessed 6/20/2014) For the same reason, once we accept the fundamental premise of the piece--that we must sacrifice human prosperity to "save the planet"--the misanthropic ideology of Deep Ecology--humans as a viral infection afflicting Gaia--with radical depopulation as the cure--consider the genocidal implications-- become a logical next step And thus we see how the healthy environmentalism that cleaned up filthy rivers and reduced Los Angeles air pollution is quickly mutating into an implicit and explicit antihumanism that is in danger of leading to becoming so degraded in our self perception, that we could reach the point of being urged (forced?) to become human sacrifices on Gaia's altar.

Deep Ecology Bad: Causes Infanticide, Ignores Suffering Deep ecology justifies killing infants and allowing massive die-offs Anne Barbeau Gardiner, Professor Emerita of English at John Jay College of the City University of New York, 2008 "Deep Ecology and the Culture of Death," Life and Learning Conference XVII, http://www.uffl.org/vol17/GARDINER07.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) When traditional morality has been subsumed into deep ecology’s Self-realization and Self-defense of nature, the culture of death will surely rule the earth. What criminal law will be able to punish infanticide if the action was taken in so-called Self-defense of the ecosystem? Here we see how anarchic deep ecology may come to be in practice. For should the doctrine of Self-defense be widely propagated, violent conflicts would erupt everywhere on behalf of the ecosystem. Fanatics would claim that trees or streams were part of their own bodies. Human life would be of little value to these zealots who even now believe that nature requires a substantial decrease in the size of our population and who see no need for a system of morality like the Ten Commandments. Ecocentrism ignores both human and non-human suffering Anne Barbeau Gardiner, Professor Emerita of English at John Jay College of the City University of New York, 2008 "Deep Ecology and the Culture of Death," Life and Learning Conference XVII, http://www.uffl.org/vol17/GARDINER07.pdf (accessed 6/10/2014) As John Cobb observes, deep ecologists “for the most part do not attend to the question of individual animal suffering. Their concern for the health of the biosystem leads them to accept animal suffering as the natural course of things.... Their concern is directed chiefly to the wild and to how human beings rightly fit into the order of the wild.” Marc Fellenz adds that for deep ecologists “the enormous mortality which removes the majority of the newborn every year from nearly every species” is simply one of the “value-neutral inevitabilities in the natural world.” Suffering is of no importance from their impartial ecosystem-favoring viewpoint.

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com