Case

Solvency

Status Quo Solves

The DOE already made a demonstration plantOTEC 13 Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation is a private business specializing in the development of OTEC technology, “Investors’ Common Questions”, 10/24/13, otecorporation.com, http://www.otecorporation.com/investors-common-questions.html//OFIs OTEC a proven technology? Yes. Over $300 million has previously been spent in Research & Development to prove OTEC, mostly by the United States Department of Energy in the 1990s. With that DOE funding, a land-based demonstration OTEC plant was successfully operated in a series of trials from 1992-1998, proving that OTEC can produce clean baseload (24/7) electricity, without the use of fossil fuels. That successful demonstration plant was built and operated on the Big Island of Hawaii at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA). Today at that NEHLA site, the deep cold water pipes are still operational (having withstood category IV hurricane, earthquake and numerous tropical storms) and have given rise to thriving businesses, including multiple water bottling plants as well as sustainable fish-farming.

Literally everyone has built OTEC – at least disproves the solvency mechanismNELHA 13 the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority is a government-sponsored energy research and development program in Hawaii, “ENERGY PORTFOLIO”, 10/6/13, Hawaii.gov, http://nelha.hawaii.gov/energy-portfolio//OFOCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION (OTEC). HOST Park has established itself as a leading test facility for OTEC technology since 1974. Closed and open cycle systems, as well as onshore and offshore systems which aim to produce electricity using the temperature difference between cool deep and warm shallow sea water have been built and tested by various groups including the University of Hawaii, Lockheed Martin, Makai Ocean Engineering, and the US Navy. Projects have been funded over the years by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), the US Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research (PICHTR), the US Department of Energy (DOE), the State of Hawaii and from private sources. HOST was the site of the first net energy producing OTEC plant. The park also operated a 250kW plant for 6 years in the 1990 s. More recently, ′ Makai Ocean Engineering completed the construction of a heat exchanger test facility in 2011 and has since received funding to install a 100 kW turbine which will be connected to the HOST Park research campus micro grid. NELHA is currently negotiating with OTEC International LLC for a 1 MW OTEC facility at HOST Park.

OTEC Fails

OTEC can’t solve- too expensive, vulnerable to storms, and it’ll corrodeFriedman 14 Becca Friedman is a writer for the Ocean Energy Council, “EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION”, March 2014, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion//OFHuge Capital, Huge Risks Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.

AT Aquaculture

Aquaculture Doesn’t Solve

Aquaculture doesn’t solve food security---focus on carnivorous fish wipes out the benefitsRosamond L. Naylor 1, professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford, Director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment, Ph.D. in applied economics from Stanford, Rebecca J. Goldburg, Jurgenne Primavera, Nils Kautsky, Malcolm C. M. Beveridge, Jason Clay, Carl Folke, Jane Lubchenco, Harold Mooney, and Max Troell, “Effects of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies,” Issues in Ecology Number 8, Winter 2001, http://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/issue8.pdfProduction of farmed fish and shellfish currently adds to net global fish supplies, although many types of aquacuture result in a net loss of fish. Rapid growth in this net-loss sector is severely limiting the potential contribution of aquaculture to future world food supplies. The benefits of aquacuture , and indeed the potential growth of the industry itself, are diminished by escalating production of species fed carnivorous diets and by aquaculture practices that lead to coastal habitat destruction, biological pollution, and discharge of untreated fish wastes into some of the world’s most diverse and productive

marine habitats. Continued expansion of aquaculture will require healthy coastal and freshwater ecosystems. Without clear recognition by the industry of its dependence on natural ecosystems, aquaculture is unlikely to develop to its full potential or continue to supplement ocean fisheries . We therefore suggest that governments and development agencies, as well as the aquaculture industry and its trade organizations, adopt four major priorities: 1) expansion of the farming of non-carnivorous fish; 2) reduction of fish meal and fish oil inputs in feed; 3) development of integrated farming systems that use multiple species to reduce costs and wastes and increase productivity; and 4) promotion of environmentally sound aquaculture practices and resource management.

Food security benefits are exaggeratedJulio E. Perez 3, Professor at the Instituto Oceanográfico de Venezuela, PhD in Biology from the University of Southampton, Carmen Alfonsi, Assistant Professor at IOV-UDO, Mauro Nirchio. Associate Professor at Escuela de Ciencias Aplicadas del Mar, Carlos Muñoz, Associated Professor in the Departamento de Ciencias del Mar at Universidad Arturo Prat, and Juan A. Gómez, Doctor in Marine Sciences from IOV-UDO and Professor at the Centro de Investigaciones Marinas y Limnología, Universidad de Panamá, “THE INTRODUCTION OF EXOTIC SPECIES IN AQUACULTURE: A SOLUTION OR PART OF THE PROBLEM?” Interciencia v.28 n.4, http://www.scielo.org.ve/scielo.php?pid=S0378-18442003000400010&script=sci_arttextAquaculture makes unique contributions to nutrition throughout the world, thanks to its extremely high productivity in many situations. Aquatic crops are primarily protein sources rather than of starch and in the conversion of primary foods certain aquatic organisms may be more efficient than ruminants, fowl or even pigs. Some aquatic organisms, such as filter-feeding fish and mollusks, feed on microscopic plankton that cannot be used directly for human consumption. In terms of nutritional energy, fish production is more efficient than any type of animal

husbandry. On the other hand, local governments must be made aware of the fact that aquaculture is not a panacea for the economic woes or nutritional problems of any country.¶ In the past thirty years, aquaculture has been actively promoted as a means of providing food to satisfy nutritional needs of populations in developing countries, obtaining extra economic resources from exports and diminishing pressure on fisheries.

Promotion of aquaculture in the 70s by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was accompanied by spectacular projects mainly

designed by their aquaculture consultants. But a few years of experience showed that those grandiose development

projects had either a small impact or no impact at all on ordinary people’s lives. Strong criticism forced the FAO to reappraise its aquaculture activities, and the results of their evaluation seem to have reoriented some policies (Cross, 1991).¶ If the purpose of aquaculture is to eliminate hunger and rural poverty, fish farming in rural communities ought to be on such a scale that modest farmers may adopt it. Small ponds, cheap fertilizers and easy to breed fish are essential for family needs. If the purpose is to farm fish for export, it must be done on a technological scale that requires costly equipment and well-trained staff. Adequate funding must be available, and special consideration must be given to sanitary regulations that are rather demanding and often difficult to comply with, but are compulsory in developed countries. To make their investment worthwhile, farmers must produce high-value products, such as salmon and shrimp. However, it should be noted that wealth derived from these products is frequently concentrated away from the lower economic classes and does not

yield any important social benefit. As a third purpose, promoters of aquaculture generally claim that it relieves pressure on fisheries .

However, this is not true for carnivorous species. Farmed species such as shrimp and salmon are fed nutrient-rich diets that contain large amounts of fish meal

and fish oil extracted from wild-caught organisms. Fish product input is 2 to 4 times the output from these crops (Naylor et al., 1998), depleting rather than increasing fishery resources.

Doesn’t cause a net gain in food securityPatrik Ronnback 2, PhD in Systems Ecology from the University of Stockholm, Ian Bryceson, PhD in Marine Biology from the University of Dar es Salaam, Prof at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, and Nils Kautsky, professor of marine ecotoxlcology at Stockholm University, “Coastal Aquaculture Development in Eastern Africa

and the Western Indian Ocean: Prospects and Problems for Food Security and Local Economies,” Ambio Vol. 31 No. 7-8, Dec. 2002, http://oceandocs.net/bitstream/1834/725/1/jhexxx1027-537.pdfFOOD SECURITY: DOES AQUACULTURE ALWAYS GENERATE A NET GAIN OF FISH AND SHELLFISH? ¶ Many people believe continued growth in aquaculture will automatically relieve pressure on deteriorating wild fish stocks, allowing their populations to recover while supplying an ever-increasing demand for protein to nourish a growing human population. However , current trends in the world aquaculture industry do not always support that belief. As practiced today, aquaculture is a mixed blessing for the sustainability of ocean fisheries . The diversity of production systems leads to

an underlying paradox: aquaculture is a possible solution, but may also be a contributing factor, to the collapse of fisheries stocks worldwide. The full acknowledgement of this paradox is vital for the successful development of aquaculture in eastern Africa.

OTEC Doesn’t Solve

Environmental impact of fish populations offsets gain in fishingVega 1999 (PhD,U Hawaii.“OceanThermalEnergyConversion(OTEC),” http://www.otecnews.org/articles/vega/03_otec_env.html. )OTEC plant construction and operation may affect commercial and recreational fishing. Fish will be attracted to the plant, potentially increasing fishing in the area. Enhanced productivity due to redistribution of nutrients may improve fishing. However, the losses of inshore fish eggs and larvae, as well as juvenile fish, due to impingement and entrainment and to the discharge of biocides may reduce fish populations. The net effect of OTEC operation on aquatic life will depend on the balance achieved between these two effects. Through adequate planning and coordination with the local community, recreational assets near an OTEC site may be enhanced.¶ Other potentially significant concerns are related to the construction phase. These are similar to those associated with the construction of any power plant, shipbuilding and the construction of offshore platforms. What is unique to OTEC is the movement of seawater streams with flow rates comparable to those of rivers and the effect of passing such streams through the OTEC components before returning them to the ocean. The use of biocides and ammonia are similar to other human activities. If occupational health and safety regulations like those in effect in the USA are followed, working fluid and biocide (most probably anhydrous ammonia and chlorine) emissions from a plant should be too low to detect outside the plant sites. A major release of working fluid or biocide would be hazardous to plant workers, and potentially hazardous to the populace in surrounding areas, depending on their proximity. Both ammonia and chlorine can damage the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes, and can inhibit respiration. Should an accident occur with either system, the risks are similar to those for other industrial applications involving these chemicals. Ammonia is used as a fertilizer and in ice skating rink refrigeration systems. Chlorine is used in municipal water treatment plants and in steam power plants. Chlorine can be generated in situ; therefore storage of large quantities of chlorine is not recommended.

SQ Solves Aquaculture

Status quo solves---aquaculture production will increase rapidly through 2030World Bank 14, Feb 5 2014, “Fish Farms to Produce Nearly Two Thirds of Global Food Fish Supply by 2030, Report Shows,” http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/02/05/fish-farms-global-food-fish-supply-2030WASHINGTON, February 5, 2014 - Aquaculture – or fish farming – will provide close to two thirds of global food fish consumption by 2030 as catches from wild capture fisheries level off and demand from an emerging global middle class, especially in China, substantially increases.¶ These are among the key findings of “Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture” – a collaboration between the World Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), released today. The report highlights the extent of global trade in seafood which tends to flow heavily from developing to developed countries.¶ According to the FAO, at present 38 percent of all fish produced in the world is exported and in value terms, over two thirds of fishery exports by developing countries are directed to developed countries. The “Fish to 2030” report finds that a major and growing market for fish is coming from China which is projected to

account for 38 percent of global consumption of food fish by 2030. China and many other nations are increasing their investments in aquaculture to help meet this growing demand.¶ Asia – including South Asia, South-East Asia, China and Japan – is projected to make up 70 percent of global fish consumption by 2030. Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, is expected to see a per capita fish consumption decline of 1 percent per year from 2010 to 2030 but, due to rapid population

growth of 2.3 percent in the same period, the region’s total fish consumption will grow by 30 percent overall. ¶ The report predicts that 62 percent of food fish will come from aquaculture by 2030 with the fastest supply growth likely to come from tilapia, carp, and catfish. Global tilapia production is expected to almost double from 4.3 million tons to 7.3 million tons a year between 2010 and 2030.¶ “The fast-moving nature of aquaculture is what made this a particularly challenging sector to model – and at the same time, embodies the most exciting aspect of it in terms of future prospects for transformation and technological change,”

said one of the report’s authors Siwa Msangi of IFPRI.¶ “Comparing this study to a similar study we did in 2003, we can see that growth in aquaculture production has been stronger than what we thought .”

Aquaculture production is increasing faster than the world populationAquanue 13, supplier of intensively-farmed live groupers, 3/4/13, “NO SLOWING GROWTH IN AQUACULTURE,” http://www.aquanue.com/aquanue-journal/2013/3/4/no-slowing-growth-in-aquaculture.html#.U73J8fldX5IIn contrast, global aquaculture production attained another all-time high in 2010 , at 60 million tonnes (excluding aquatic plants and

non-food products), worth US$119bn. When farmed aquatic plants and non-food products are included, world aquaculture production in 2010 was 79 million tonnes, worth US$125 billion.¶ According to the FAO, world fisheries and aquaculture production is projected to rise to about 172 million tonnes in 2021, 15 percent up from the average level for 2009-2011. Aquaculture output is expected to rise 33 percent over the next decade , to reach to 79 million tonnes. This is in stark comparison to the projected 3 percent growth of capture fisheries. The top ten species account in total for about 30 percent of world marine capture fisheries production. Most of these are fully exploited and have no potential for increases in production¶ Interestingly, by 2020 the average world price for aquaculture species is expected to increase by a significant 50%

(compared to the average 2008-10), but by only 23 % for captured species.¶ Even with inefficient traditional systems, aquaculture continues to be the fastest-growing animal- food-producing sector and continues to outpace population growth. In the last three decades (1980–2010), world food fish production of aquaculture has expanded by almost 12 times, at an average annual rate of 8.8 percent.¶ Aquaculture continues to grow – it is still the fastest-growing animal food production sector. It can only fill the growing supply-demand gap if it is managed and promoted in a responsible and sustainable fashion.

Industry reports proveErich Luening 14, Aquaculture North America: The Fish Farmer’s Magazine, “Forecasts project continued growth for aquaculture sector,” http://aquaculturenorthamerica.com/News/forecasts-project-continued-growth-for-aquaculture-sector/Several recent industry reports on the current and forecast status of the global aquaculture industry over the next several years

show an uptick in growth, revenues, and species diversity.¶ And in the United States the fish farming sector shows positive lift owing to the economic recovery; the continued slide of domestic capture fisheries; and increases in capital investments in aquaculture.¶ According to a recent report provided to Aquaculture North America by the industry and market research firm IBISWorld, over the last three years US aquaculture has

fared better than some wild fisheries which were negatively impacted by the Gulf oil spill in 2010.¶ “Despite the publicity surrounding the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil gusher in

the Gulf of Mexico, the spill failed to adversely impact the Fish and Seafood Aquaculture industry,” the 2013 report explained.¶ “While the fishing industry, which depends on wild catches to drive revenue, experienced negative effects, aquaculture firms maintained business as usual given the inland nature of their captive-freshwater operations. In fact, the oil leak benefited the aquaculture industry, as demand shifted toward fish in light of a low wild seafood supply.”¶ However, overall demand for seafood in the US has been hampered during the past five years. Domestic demand fell due to reduced per capita disposable income related to the recession. Additionally, a recession-related double-digit dip in 2009

curbed growth in exports, industry analysts explain.¶ Significant growth potential¶ But because seafood demand is recovering, aquaculture products in the US market

have significant growth potential over the coming five years , according to the report.¶ “The industry is projected to experience price growth as a result of excess demand for seafood; however, the industry’s ability to take advantage of this potential is currently limited because of legislative stagnation for measures like the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act,” analysts stated in the report. “Still, growth potential remains on the back of rising demand from emerging economies, especially in Asia and Latin America. IBISWorld forecasts US industry revenue to increase at an annualized rate of 3.0% during the five years to 2018, reaching an estimated $1.4 billion.”¶ Global outlook¶ Though

international aquaculture markets are in a better position than their US counterparts because of fewer regulatory restrictions, the global aquaculture industry also declined during the economic crisis between 2008 and 2009, according to reports released by other research firms like MarketLine and Research and Markets

in 2013.¶ However, the global aquaculture market saw a positive trend with recovery in the world’s major economies and subsequent increase in production levels . ¶ The global market for aquaculture was valued at USD $135.10 billion in 2012 and is expected to reach USD $195.13

billion in 2019, growing at 5.1% from 2013 to 2019. In volume, global production was 66.5 million tons in 2012 and is expected to grow about 2.3% from 2013 to 2019.

SQ Solves Food Security

Squo solves – global efforts will foster food securityIgoe 7/7 Michael Igoe is a Global Development Reporter for Devex. Based in Washington, he covers US foreign aid and emerging trends in international development and humanitarian policy, “Global food security: Why it affects us all”, 7/7/14, Devex.com, https://www.devex.com/news/global-food-security-why-it-affects-us-all-83805//OFThe African Union has declared 2014 the Year of Agriculture. The emerging post-2015 global development framework, drafted at the behest of the United Nations, may seek to end hunger by 2030. And India is implementing a new food security law which by October seeks to provide subsidized food grains to more than 1 billion people. But the food security conversation has also moved beyond calorie counts and famine relief funding. Many development donors have turned their attention and funding — finally, according to some advocates — to the quality and nutritional value of the foods that are available. Nutrition has risen to the fore of the global development agenda, prompting further efforts to break down funding and programmatic silos and address the links between health, food, markets, land rights and governance. A new campaign by Devex and partners shines a light on ways to feed our planet’s growing population. The U.S. Agency for International Development’s “360-degree” nutrition strategy, launched by National Security Advisor Susan Rice in May, prioritizes programs for expectant mothers and infants to reduce developmental “stunting” due to undernutrition. And the Food and Agriculture Organization’s International Conference on Nutrition, its first since 1992, will kick off in Rome in November. Governments in the United States and elsewhere are revamping their approaches to ensuring access to food; programs to build stable food systems in the face of climate change and other potential shocks tend to focus on strengthening supply chains and eliminating waste. Responding with expensive food shipments, year after year, to the same list of disaster-prone places may soon be a thing of the past. And in all of these areas, new attention is falling on the role of the private sector to scale and sustain food security gains by integrating successful projects into robust markets, boosting productivity through technology and finance, and providing families with the income to buy foods that nourish their productivity and wellbeing.

AT Climate Leadership

Not Zero-Sum

The US-China “Green tech race” is all hype—renewable energy is not zero sumLarson 10 (Christina, Christina Larson is a journalist focusing on international environmental issues, based in Beijing and Washington, D.C., “America’s Unfounded Fears of¶ A Green-Tech Race with China”, Environment360 2/8/10, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/americas_unfounded_fears_of_a_green-tech_race_with_china/2238/, accessed 7/10/14, MB) “Even when you are looking at these big numbers that are coming out of China today, I think it really pays to give a close look at what is actually happening on the ground,” says Elizabeth Economy, director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of The River Runs Black. “Then you begin to get a different, more nuanced picture than what is blasted on the business section of the New York Times.”¶ The first essential fact to be aware of is that most news stories about China’s greentech gains are about manufacturing. China is becoming the wind-turbine factory to the world for much the same reasons it has long been the TV and t-shirt factory to the world:

lower wages, lower land prices, fewer regulatory and other requirements, etc. This isn’t particularly surprising, and it shouldn’t be seen as a reversal of the status quo. What’s changed most dramatically in the last five years has been growing global demand. With significant government investment, Chinese factories have planned for and stepped up production accordingly.¶ Yes, this is bad news for U.S. cities like Detroit, where planners have recently been retrofitting old hot-rod factories into wind-turbine factories, such as an old Ford Thunderbird plant in Michigan that’s being converted into a green-tech manufacturing center in a bid to boost the local economy. China’s RESEARCHlabs are politically constrained, limiting their ability to attract top talent. Manufacturing in China, especially low and medium-tech manufacturing, has certain clear economic advantages. But it’s also worth considering a few other facts. Most of the green manufacturing jobs that the U.S. stands to “lose” haven’t in fact been created yet; China will gain thousands of new jobs, but not necessarily at America’s expense . Moreover, the United States will still gain many new green-collar jobs, in installation and maintenance, which can only be locally based, as well as sales teams, conference planners, and other positions already arising to support the growing green-tech field. ¶ Besides green-tech hardware, there’s also the question of the technology that enables it. Who will be responsible for the innovation that drives the low-carbon future? At present, America still has significant advantages — including the world’s leading university system and the entrepreneurial culture and venture-capital spigots of technology hubs, particularly Silicon Valley. “Intellectual property rights have done a lot to hamper China’s development of green technology,” says Linden Ellis, U.S. director of nonprofit China Dialogue. “People would rather come to Silicon Valley and develop a technology where they know it will be protected by the law, right down to every line, than go to China and try to develop a technology there where maybe the components will be cheaper and there is a lot of interest, but people do not trust that their findings will be protected.” ¶ Similar concerns have, for the past two decades, grounded Beijing’s attempts to build a domestic airline industry, considered the pinnacle of high-tech manufacturing. Foreign companies and top-notch engineers have simply been unwilling to share technology with China (Boeing has even avoided building factories in China, for fear of commercial espionage). The result: Planes that fly from Beijing to Shanghai today are still built by Boeing and Airbus.¶ Of course, most green-energy equipment won’t match the complexity of assembling something like Boeing’s new Dreamliner, but the airplane situation sheds light on two points: that cheap labor is hardly the only factor driving business decisions, and that, despite substantial government support, China’s domestic aerospace engineers have not yet produced research to rival that of Western competitors. (China’s university system and research labs are famously politically constrained, limiting their ability to attract top global talent.)¶ Of course, China would like to change this. Beijing is doing its best to both allay the fears of international partners and to nurture its own homegrown innovators. A program known as the “State High-Tech Development Plan,” launched by Beijing in March 1986 and nicknamed the “863 Program,” aims to develop top scientists in China and to incubate cutting-edge technology projects in energy and other sectors. So far, its results have been modest over two decades: birthing a family of computer processors known as Loongson, and some technology used in the Shenzhou spacecraft. While the 863 Program’s track record should certainly dispel Western assumptions that no good research can come from China, it also disproves the notion that money alone can clone a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Sergey Brin.¶ This should allay some anxiety in Washington about America having fallen behind, but it is not a reason to become complacent. America has neither relinquished, nor is forever assured, her innovation crown.¶ Meanwhile, folks in the green-tech and environmental frontlines — as opposed to politicians and commentators — don’t see a “race” at all. “I do not see such a pattern exists,” says Wen Bo, a Beijing

environmentalist. “The clean-tech war is overblown from the start,” says Richard Brubaker, an American environmental

entrepreneur in Shanghai. To them, the green-tech “race” is not one that one side wins and the other loses, but a scenario where partnerships are sought out and the final equation doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.¶ “For now at least, there is a great symbiotic relationship with California and the east coast of China on green technology,” says Linden Ellis. “Where California has the know-how, the technology, the universities and programs dedicated to developing technology, people who are interested in piloting it on a very expansive scale, or trying new combinations, often seek out research partners in China.” Similar partnerships can exist even when the focus shifts from research to commercial activity. Kevin Czinger, the CEO of a Santa Monica-based electric car company that partners with a Chinese battery company, noted

in a New Yorker article that if the U.S. would stop feeling threatened by China’s progress on clean technology, it might begin to recognize its own strengths in this field.¶ It is telling what is left out of the increasingly dominant “U.S. versus China” green-tech “race” narrative. For starters, there are a lot of other countries at work developing green-tech and becoming significant green-tech markets — the low-carbon future, after all, isn’t solely a G-2 aspiration. Yet because the politics are different (there’s not the anxiety of the reigning superpower nervously eyeing the new kid on the block), the green aspirations of any country not named China are viewed through an entirely different prism by U.S. commentators. Germany, for instance, is home to the world’s top two solar manufacturing companies. Yet we don’t read headlines about Old Europe “cleaning our clock” to the 21st century.¶ “You haven’t seen this green-tech race raised over last 10 years while the Europeans have been innovating in this space more than the U.S.,” says Charles McElwee, an international environmental lawyer for Squires, Samson, and Dempsey based in Shanghai, “although that would have made more sense [than a U.S. versus China frame].”¶ Even as China’s solar panel exports grow, it continues to purchase clean locomotives from an American company, GE. Germany has developed world-class “green” metro cars, with China being a top customer. And French companies are among the world’s top innovators in water solutions. In other words, green-tech encompasses a lot more than windmills and solar panels — and progress in developing it can be a two-way street.

The “cleantech race” is not zero sum—Chinese green energy investment benefits the US Hargreaves 11 (Steve, writer for CNN Money, “U.S. wins when China invests in green”, CNN Money 4/7/14, http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/07/news/international/china_renewables/, accessed 7/10/14, MB)LAGUNA NIGUEL, Calif. (CNNMoney) -- The United States wins when China invests in renewable energy.¶ That was the

message from Matthew Kahn, an economics professor at UCLA, speaking Wednesday at Fortune's Brainstorm Green conference.¶ The U nited S tates wins because Chinese investment provides a market for U.S. companies in the alternative energy space . Plus, Chinese investment helps advance clean energy, bringing it closer to cost competitiveness with fossil fuels. ¶ "This is not a zero sum game," said Kahn, speaking on a panel about China's green investments. "This makes the United States better off." ¶ And China is certainly investing.¶ The Chinese government poured $120 billion into renewable energy last year while the U.S. invested just $20 billion, according to

numbers cited at an earlier Fortune panel. China recently overtook the United States as the world's top market for attracting private capital for renewable energy investments. ¶ All that money has left many concerned that the United States is losing the so-called clean energy race to China, and the jobs that go with it.¶ "China is where the large scale action is happening today," said fellow panelist Li Lu, head of the investment firm Himalaya Capital Management. "China is on the cutting edge of implementing leading technology and infrastructure."¶ All the panelists agreed that support from

the Chinese government is essential for sustaining the renewable energy industry in that country.¶ The Chinese government has a vested interest in finding cleaner energy sources. The country currently burns massive amounts of coal, and its citizens are literally suffocating under air pollution.¶ Lu said the push into renewables may ultimately help clean up the air, but probably not as fast as another new technological advancement: the ability to extract natural gas from shale rock.¶ "There are good reasons to believe that China will have as much shale gas as the United States," he said.¶ Advances in drilling technology have allowed the United States to unlock vast quantities of natural gas in the last few years -- some say over 100 years worth of new supply.¶ Natural gas can be burned to make electricity and is cleaner than coal, although extracting it from shale has led to concerns over water pollution. To top of page

Alt Causes US Leadership

Booming natural gas and oil production has decimated US climate leadership beyond repair—other countries are taking the lead Magill 13 (Bobby, Bobby Magill is a senior science writer for Climate Central, focusing on energy and climate change, “Scientists: U.S. Climate Credibility Getting Fracked”, Climate Central 10/10/13, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-top-oil-producer-but-scientists-worry-about-credibility-on-climate-16590, accessed 7/10/14, MB)As fracking catapults the U nited S tates to the top of t he list of the world’s largest crude oil and natural gas producers , climate scientists worry that the nation's booming fossil fuels production is growing too quickly with too little concern about its impact on climate change, possibly endangering America’s efforts to curb global greenhouse gas emissions . ¶ The U.S. is likely to become the world’s top producer of crude oil and natural gas by the end of 2013, producing more hydrocarbons than either Russia or Saudi Arabia, the Energy Information Administration recently announced.¶ An oil and gas production site and crude oil storage tank near Dacono, Colo.¶ Credit: Bobby Magill¶ America achieved its new role as world leader in crude oil and natural gas production because of advancements in HORIZONTAL DRILLINGand hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, technology, that have made tapping hard-to-reach shale gas and oil deposits more economically feasible than ever before, according to the EIA.¶ Energy development in four shale oil plays alone — in Texas, along the Gulf Coast, in North Dakota and in California — was tapping a store of 24 billion barrels of crude oil considered technically recoverable, according to a 2011 EIA report on emerging U.S. shale oil and gas plays.¶ But it’s also happening in the suburbs of Denver, where oil and gas wells tapping the Niobrara shale and other hydrocarbon-bearing formations are being drilled in and around residential neighborhoods. It's happening in North Dakota, where companies tapping the Bakken shale hope to send their crude to market using the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. It’s happening in the Marcellus shale of western Pennsylvania and throughout the Northeast, where the EIA reported this week that natural gas production has increased 30 percent — an increase of 3.2 billion cubic feet per day — so far this this year over 2012.¶ The EIA reported Oct. 4 U.S. petroleum production has increased 7 quadrillion Btu (British thermal units) since 2008, particularly because of growth in oil production in the Eagle Ford shale region of South Texas, the Permian Basin area of West Texas and in the Bakken shale region of western North Dakota. At the same time, natural gas production increased by 3 quadrillion Btu, primarily because of production growth in the eastern U.S.¶ The U.S. is also the world’s chief crude oil consumer, burning 18.6 million barrels of crude and other liquid fossil fuels per day in September and producing 10.9 million barrels per day. China, the world’s chief oil importer, used 10.9 million barrels and produced 4.6 million barrels, the Associated Press reported Thursday.¶ Climate scientists say America’s oil and gas boom is having unintended consequences, not just for the climate or the local environment in energy producing regions, but for America's global role in tackling climate change . ¶ “As we produce more, we burn more, and we send more CO2 per person into the atmosphere than almost any other country,” said Susan Brantley, geosciences professor and director of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University. “We are blanketing our world with greenhouse gas, warming the planet.” ¶ An oil and gas well is completed near the Medicine Bow Mountains in Colorado's North Park near Walden, Colo.¶ Credit: Bobby Magill¶ Several years ago in Pennsylvania, scientists were talking about carbon sequestration in shale formations deep underground, she said.¶ “However, since 2005, we have been fracking shales and have drilled 6,000 shale gas wells,” she said. “This extraordinary rate of development is good for our country in terms of jobs and ENERGY PRICES, but bad in that we are not worrying as much about the greenhouse gas problem as we are about exploiting gas with hydrofracking.¶ “It is hard for us to have credibility in global discussions of greenhouse gas unless we can use this new source of gas a transitional fuel that bridges us from hydrocarbons to renewable, non-carbon fuels,” she said.¶ Even among advocates for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, there is disagreement about what the U.S. role as chief oil and gas producer means for America’s credibility on climate change.¶ “Those who already see the U.S. as a major bad actor will CONTINUE to do so, and cite this hydrocarbon boom as further evidence,” said Armond Cohen, executive director of the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force. “By contrast, if the U.S. took a more progressive global stance on overall emissions control, increased domestic production would be probably irrelevant; the world would be relieved to see U.S. leadership.”

AT Oil

SQ Solves

Squo solves energy independence – shale boom – even if we’re wrong, it at least proves that the free market will innovate to solveYdstie 12 John Ydstie (citing market research and industry insiders) is a reporter for NPR, “Is U.S. Energy Independence Finally Within Reach?”, 3/7/12, http://www.npr.org/2012/03/07/148036966/is-u-s-energy-independence-finally-within-reach//OFRising gas prices have been the big energy story of the past several weeks. But many energy experts say that's a sideshow compared with the really big energy event — the huge boom in oil and natural gas production in the U.S. that could help the nation reach the elusive goal of energy independence. Since the Arab oil embargo of 1973, energy independence has been a Holy Grail for virtually every American president from Richard Nixon to Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama. But now, it might just be within reach. The Shale Gale "Energy self-sufficiency is now in sight," says energy economist Phil Verleger. He believes that within a decade, the U.S. will no longer need to import crude oil and will be a natural gas exporter. What's Behind These High Gas Prices? News GRAPHIC: What's Behind These High Gas Prices? Verleger says all of the previous presidents fighting for energy independence would be quite surprised by how this came about: It's not the result of government policy or drilling by big oil. "This is really the classic success of American entrepreneurs," he says. "These were people who saw this coming, managed to assemble the capital and go ahead." Small energy companies using such controversial techniques as hydraulic fracturing, along with horizontal drilling, are unlocking vast oil and natural gas deposits trapped in shale in places like Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Texas. North Dakota, for instance, now produces a half-million barrels a day of crude oil, and production is rising. Amy Myers Jaffe, of Rice University's Baker Institute, also believes U.S. energy self-sufficiency is within reach. "I would say we're the closest to being able to fashion a policy that would get us to energy self-sufficiency in decades," she says. That policy would include continuing the green light on developing shale oil and gas, she says, while making sure it is done in an environmentally safe manner and continuing to require higher fuel efficiency in cars and trucks. "This shale gale, I describe it as the energy equivalent of the Berlin Wall coming down. This is a big deal," says Robin West, chairman and CEO of PFC Energy, who has been in the energy consulting business for decades. Related NPR Stories Natural gas is burned off next to an oil well being drilled at a site near Tioga, N.D., in August. U.S. oil production started increasing a few years ago and is predicted to continue to rise, reducing the country's dependence on oil imports. Energy Foreign Oil Imports Drop As U.S. Drilling Ramps Up Workers move a section of well casting at a natural gas well site in Pennsylvania. Energy expert Daniel Yergin says that in addition to trucks and traffic, natural gas production can bring jobs and economic growth to gas-rich areas. Author Interviews Daniel Yergin Examines America's 'Quest' For Energy "We estimate that by 2020, the U.S. overall will be the largest hydrocarbon producer in the world; bigger than Russia or Saudi Arabia," he says.

No Peak Oil

No peak oil – our ev indicts their studiesBlackmon 13 David Blackmon (Citing published estimates and oil insiders) is a contributor to Forbes magazine, “The Illogic And Folly Of Peak Oil (Or Is It Peak Gas?) Alarmism”, 5/13/13, Forbes.com, http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/05/13/the-illogic-and-folly-of-peak-oil-or-is-it-peak-gas-alarmism//OFThe “peak oil”, “peak gas”, or peak-whatever-you-want-to-call-it mini-movement continues on, despite all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Last week it even made its way onto the Forbes.com website in the form of this piece authored by economist Robert U. Ayres. This piece is so filled with illogic, factual errors and omissions of context that it requires a response. Let’s start with the opening statement: “No one is questioning the fact that we have either reached or will soon reach ‘peak oil’;”. Really? No one? Literally everyone believes “we have either reached or will soon reach ‘peak oil’“??? You could have fooled noted energy expert and IHS IHS -0.47% Vice Chairman Daniel Yergin, who details his thoughts about the illogic and folly of “peak oil” alarmists throughout history, beginning as far back as the 1880s in this piece in the Wall Street Journal. Porter Stansberry, founder and publisher of Stansberry & Associates Investment Research, published this devastating piece debunking “peak oil” theory last September. We could go on and on and on listing noted energy experts who completely disagree with “peak oil” theory. A simple Google GOOG +0.57% search brings back hundreds of results. The reality is that very few serious people who know anything about this subject truly believe “we have either reached or will soon reach ‘peak oil’.” Or maybe it all depends on what one’s definition of the word “soon” is. After all, if by “soon”, Mr. Ayres means by the year 2300, then he probably would find an army of serious people willing to sign on to that belief. Of course, if that’s what he means, then his thesis would have no connection or relevance at all to the current energy equation. Moving on into his piece, Mr. Ayres says “The shale gas enthusiasm has been inspired partly by an advertising campaign financed by T. Boone Pickens (“The Pickens Plan”)”. Forget for the moment that the author attempts to prop up “peak oil” theory with an allusion to an advocacy campaign related to a separate commodity that trades in an entirely separate market. Focus instead on the reality that Mr. Ayres would have you believe that some of the smartest corporate leaders at some of the largest and most successful corporations on the face of the earth – ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips COP -0.02%, Anadarko Petroleum, Apache Corporation, Devon Energy, to name just a few – have made decisions to invest hundreds of billions of capital dollars in shale resources over the last several years based largely on an ad campaign. Mr. Pickens himself has become a multi-billionaire thanks to his wise investing of capital dollars. This isn’t a bunch of yayhoos making these decisions – these are very sophisticated, highly-intelligent men and women whose very jobs depend on investing their capital dollars wisely. Indeed, in his very next paragraph, the author notes that “Investment in shale in 2010 and 2011 was apparently a trillion dollars”. The utter lack of logic, context, or knowledge about how decisions about capital allocation are made within these companies, as we detailed in this piece a few weeks ago, is almost breathtaking. In his next paragraph, Mr. Ayres tells us the following: The Eagle Ford Shale and Bakken Shale are in North Dakota and Montana (This would come as a great surprise to all my friends and relatives in South Texas, where 267 rigs were actively drilling Eagle Ford wells last week); and The “current wisdom” of the USGS is that these two shale plays combined contain “3 to 4.3 billion barrels” of recoverable oil (In fact, these numbers are from a 2007 USGS assessment of the capacity of the Bakken Shale only, an assessment that was updated – and doubled – just a few weeks ago, before Mr. Ayres wrote his piece); The author makes no mention of the fact that USGS estimates of ultimate recoveries are notoriously ultra-conservative, based on what is recoverable with current technology – and technology advances on a daily basis in the oil and gas industry – or the fact that corporate executives who make the decisions to invest billions in developing the Bakken Shale believe the potential resource recovery is many multiples of the USGS number. Continental Resources CEO Harold Hamm, who has been drilling wells in the Bakken Shale as long as anyone, told the Wall Street Journal that he believes the Bakken could ultimately produce up to 24 billion barrels, which would make it ultimately larger than Prudhoe Bay. Whose estimate should we rely on - the guy who has been risking billions of dollars drilling thousands of wells in the resource itself, or some guys sitting behind desks at the USGS, smart and qualified as they may be? Seems like a pretty easy choice. The author also makes no mention of the many other massive US oil shale reservoirs like the Cline Shale in West Texas or the Monterey Shale in California, both of which are estimated to contain more recoverable oil than the Bakken or Eagle Ford. Nor is there any mention of the fact that the shale oil and gas industry is barely beginning to scratch the surface on producing potential, given that it is barely a decade old. He simply dismisses the Bakken as if it were an insignificant resource, and moves on. No attack piece on shale oil and natural gas would be complete without resorting to hyperbole about supposed, but unquantified, threats to the environment, and Mr. Ayres’ piece is no exception: “The environmental effects of fracking are as yet unknown. The water requirements are very large, and the waste water may be a problem in itself. The shale-gas industry has been very reluctant to identify the chemicals in use on grounds of proprietary secrecy. There is an obvious threat to aquifers.” First, in Texas, representatives from the state’s Water Development Board told multiple recent legislative hearings that fresh water usage by the oil and gas industry in Texas – home to 40% of the nation’s active drilling rigs, 30% of US natural gas production, and 32% of US oil production – is less than 1% of the state’s overall fresh water consumption. So while each hydraulic fracturing job uses a significant volume of water, that pales in significance when put into a real context. Also, Mr. Ayres naturally fails to mention all the myriad efforts within the industry to conserve and recycle water, nor does he point out that the percentage of brackish water used in frac jobs, as well as other substances like propane and carbon dioxide, is steadily on the increase. The reality is that, in just a few years, we may live in a world where fresh water is no longer widely

used in hydraulic fracturing operations. Second, the “shale-gas industry” has in fact worked diligently with policymakers to get workable requirements governing disclosure of chemical content in fracturing fluids put into place in well over a dozen states to this point, with several more states to come this year. In addition, the “shale-gas industry” funded and worked with the Groundwater Protection Council to establish FracFocus.org, the voluntary disclosure website where, as of this writing, the chemical content of 42,709 hydraulic frac jobs has been disclosed. Third, the author talks about hydraulic fracturing as if it is something new, when in fact it has been in use by the oil and natural gas industry since 1949, encompassing well over 1.2 million frac jobs in the intervening 64 years. If we don’t know what, if any, “environmental effects” are present in hydraulic fracturing after all this time, and all of these applications, when, oh, when will we ever obtain such knowledge? If the “threat to aquifers” is so “obvious”, why hasn’t the EPA, even in the Obama Administration, been able to identify a single instance in which a hydraulic fracturing operation has contaminated one? Predictably, the author offers no answers to these obvious questions. But then, this is “peak oil” theory (or is it “peak gas”?), where every day and everything is a crisis, the world is always about to run out of oil (or is it gas?) “soon” (whatever that word means), and such inconvenient questions never need be asked, much less answered. As it has been since the late 19th century, “peak oil” (or is it “peak gas”?) theory is based on highly selective use of data, lack of understanding of resource assessments, lack of understanding of how investment decisions are made within companies, and most importantly, lack of vision about the future.

Peak oil isn’t true and even if it is alternatives will solve in the squoEdison 10 Dennis Edison (citing market research) is a contributor to Oilprice.com, an online periodical that specializes in energy news, “Debunking the Myth of Peak Oil - Why the Age of Cheap Oil is Far From Over (Part 1)”, 3/17/2010, Oilprice.com, http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Debunking-The-Myth-Of-Peak-Oil-Why-The-Age-Of-Cheap-Oil-Is-Far-From-Over-Part-1.html//OFIf I may, I would like to rebut or add a little objectivity to the flood of “Peak Oil” articles circulating around. When I see another crisis looming in the balance, and dramatized articles that warn of the “Dangers of Peak Oil,” I must question the validity or how this will effect the world, the USA, and you and I personally, and if indeed a crisis is at hand. As for world oil, if you ask the right questions, there are several new technologies/methods/alternatives and new finds that can easily supply enough hydrocarbon fuel for the next century or more. The latest new find in the news today, a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=PETR4:BZ">Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Brazil's state-controlled oil company, said its Tupi field may contain as much as 8 billion barrels of oil and natural gas, an amount that could boost the country's reserves by 62 percent. But you ask, how can one or two new oil fields make a difference? Wrong question, because the finding of new oil is continuous. Over the past 33 years mankind has consumed more than three times the world’s known oil reserves in 1976 – and today proven oil reserves are nearly double what they were before we started. The story with natural gas is even better – here and around the world enormous amounts of natural gas have been found. More will be found. But if you had asked in 1976 what the supply of oil would be like given the demand of 2010, you would have come up with the “Peak Oil” theory then, and we would have supposedly run out of oil decades ago; an ongoing impending crisis. I think the key to the argument of Peak Oil, is that it not only ignores the huge amounts of oil yet to be found, but other hydrocarbon fuels as well. Even if the “theory” holds water, which I argue on its face (or in your face, as some so delightedly pointed out), we will not be out of hydrocarbons and our cars stranded on the side of the road during this century. This is the perceived “crisis” of Peak Oil that tells us that declining production and increasing demand will cause a disruption in supply. But if we are to be limited in our driving, because of gasoline shortages, we can simply switch over to other alternatives and install a methane tank to convert over to natural gas, right now, today. Or switch to electric. How about fuel cells? Carry a kite or put up a sail. Limited driving due to shortages is the same as higher prices, and are not a crisis, unless the majority can no longer afford it. There will never be "no oil" in your lifetime, so relax, and discern the truth for yourself when you get the facts. If you are old enough to read this, your shiny car will have plenty of gasoline for your lifetime. You may not be able to afford it, but the world cannot possibly run out. Allow me to explain. Whenever there is GREAT change, there is also GREAT opportunity. It is impossible to be otherwise. Instead of worrying about the black hole right now, look for new opportunities... it won't take long, they're EVERYWHERE. Now that oil is $80/bbl, it opens the door to production of different grades of oil and different kinds of oil, and new places that oil was never thought to exist. America has developed new technologies to develop oil production from the many known shale oil fields containing a trillion barrels of oil, that has never been tapped until two years ago, because it was too expensive to extract, and the technology has not yet been improved enough to tackle it before then. But money solves a lot of problems, and $100/bbl oil would certainly do it. You will have to be surprised how fast the technology will ramp up when there's a profit to be made. Just type in “shale oil reserves” into your little Search Bar, and you’ll come up with hundreds of new projects that have never before been thought possible. And these are primarily domestic, where the oil in America was thought to be depleted! Ever heard of the Bakken Formation? No? Why not? GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind. a href="http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911">http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 At first the Bakken field was thought to be the largest domestic oil discovery in the USA since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, but has since been downsized, then increased 25 fold by the USGS when shale production is taken into account. There’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 40 years straight. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL! Well, except we know those damn oil barrons are going to gouge us, but cheap oil nonetheless. Another example of huge unexpected and unknown reserves are the "Coal Oil" sands in Canada that they are already extracting by truck and converting to usable

oil. It's slower to extract and convert than to simply produce liquid oil, but the one field they are producing from today is bigger than the Saudi field, which is the biggest in the world. And that isn't the only "Coal Oil" field in Canada, and certainly not the only one in the world. These Coal Oil fields contain almost as much oil as the Saudi Arabian oil fields. Most people don't realize that we only produce about 20% of the oil from a producing oil sand (conventional production), and leave the rest of it there because it was too expensive to produce by secondary or tertiary recovery methods. That is no longer true , so the natural oil reserves just doubled, when the price of oil doubled. One more real obvious report is the the Stansberry Report from 2006. Hidden only 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies several more billion barrels (again, this report was an overestimation in the beginning, but still a huge find). Governments don’t care about the truth or the facts and are good at creating crisis after crisis, so that they can be your friend and be the only one to solve the problem, that is, by taking control, taking your rights, enacting more laws, forming more committees out of their cousins, and generally living like Kings off of years of perceived crisis. Oh yeah, and they can take over whole countries if they need to and the gullible public is behind them on an invasion, and they can get enough young people to fight their special-interest wars for them. No sir, the only real perceived crisis here is that the great masses of people will figure out that there is not a shortage, but rather an EXCESS of oil, for centuries to come, and that the price of oil should be back down around $20/bbl. Whatta ya’ know, we’ve been lied to again. When I was in college in the 1970's, the known problem of that time was that temperatures were getting "colder." By the year 2030, it would be so cold that plants could not live and man would face extinction without drastically changing things. That was to be in my lifetime. But now the "experts" claim "Global Warming." It's all just a theory, like Evolution, but after so many "experts" parrot the "truth" in the media, and even colleges and universities begin teaching it as truth, then it becomes "truth,' even when at best it's a 50-50 shot. I’ve read that 63% of those surveyed were “concerned” about Global Warming. Geez, don’t people even know how to ask the right questions anymore? Why make a crisis out of something? There's money to be made, control to be taken, and new gov't offices to fill. And of course, the 30-year cooling trend that prompted the global cooling scare in the mid-70s abruptly ended in the late 70s, replaced by with a 20-year warming trend that peaked in 1998. Watch this short video from the founder of the Weather Channel how he blows Al Gore's climate change scam out the window showing the fallacy of the concept of "global warming". a href="http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a">www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a What I’m really arguing is not only is there enough oil, but really an excess, but that the new discoveries and technologies and alternatives will buy us enough time for the whole Peak Oil thing to be prolonged into the next century, which means there is no crisis . At least, there is nothing yet to have a war over. No, natural gas cannot replace oil, but all of the alternatives together with new technologies and hydrocarbon finds shows me there is no crisis or emergency of shortage during this century. I would think that within this century, some yet undiscovered energy source or method of extracting energy from hydrogen or even something as crazy as a water fuel cell will be discovered. Biofuels look promising as a cheap growable and rampable alternative to diesel fuel, already field testing. Just convert all the trucks on the road away from oil dependency, and you've made a huge impact.

AT Ocean Tech

Alt Causes to Naval Power

Navy decline caused by a decrease in ships not tech Eaglen 13(Mackenzie Eaglen has worked on defense issues in the U.S. Congress, both House and Senate, and at the Pentagon in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and on the Joint Staff. “Shipbuilding plan portends a Navy in decline” April 25, 2013http://www.aei.org/article/foreign-and-defense-policy/defense/shipbuilding-plan-portends-a-navy-in-decline/ accessed 7/10/14) Listening to the Secretary of the Navy testify before Congress this week, one might be lulled into thinking all is well with U.S. Navy shipbuilding. But the president’s budget for 2014 shrinks and diminishes the Navy’s fleet. Again. Last year’s budget accelerated these same trends while permanently downsizing the Navy’s long-standing fleet goal from 313 to 298 ships. ¶ In taking credit for his tenure, Mr. Mabus was quick to tell Congress that the Obama Administration has placed 43 ships under contract. While this is surely an improvement over recent years, it is artificially inflated because it counts the deal cut with Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) producers to fix the price of 20 ships vice actually acquiring them, which it does not. The Navy continues to purchase these ships in tranches on an annual basis, as opposed to the multi-year procurements of attack submarines and major surface combatants. ¶ The bottom line remains the same: the Navy is retiring more ships than it plans to build in the President’s 2014 budget request. Over the next five years, the Navy hopes to build 41 ships -- that is if sequestration is repealed or replaced -- but will retire 42 during the same period.¶ Whereas two years ago the administration planned to build 57 ships over five years, last year’s plan shrank to 41 new ships. This year’s five-year plan treads water at 41 new construction ships again.¶ But the Navy’s shipbuilding plan is overly optimistic because it ignores sequestration and current law. Were the Pentagon to implement sequestration, it would surely accelerate ship retirements and slow shipbuilding further. The Navy also incorrectly assumes it will receive more money than planned regardless due to rosy budget assumptions based on unrealistic lifecycle estimates for the surface fleet. Further stretching the bounds of credulity, the last year of the budget submission (FY 2018) features the largest number of ships to be constructed in the period with no ship retirements. ¶ Not only is the fleet shrinking and aging, but it is also changing its composition by trading powerful combat ships before the end of their service lives for larger numbers of smaller and less capable ships. The latest interim plan will cause aggregate combat power to decline along with numbers, leaving the fleet less capable of dealing with open ocean submarine threats, enemy surface fleets, and the majority of threat aircraft and missiles. Additionally, the Navy continues to under-resource its amphibious ships, meeting neither the Marine Corps’ combat requirement of 38 ships nor the worldwide combatant commanders’ requirement for a similar number.

Alt cause to navy decline- carrier destruction, small fleet, budget cutsMcGarth 14(Bryan McGarth is the founding Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group LLC, a niche consultancy specializing in naval and national security issues. “The Navy is in Decline and the CNO Believes the Answer is More Jointness” 4/9/14 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/04/the-navy-is-in-decline-and-cno-believes.html accessed 7/10/14) The Navy is bureaucratically trying to kill a carrier it believes it can no longer afford. It is proposing long term lay-up of eleven cruisers as a fall-back force structure preservation measure. It is truncating its small surface combatant program (under pressure) in search of additional lethality and survivabilty, injecting unwelcome churn into a program that has finally begun to hit reasonable unit production costs, while likely creating a hole in its shipbuilding plan. It is reducing its buy of fifth generation fighters. It is closing down the production line of one of is most successful weapons--the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile--without an identified replacement and several years until that replacement is in production. It is struggling to afford two attack submarines a year even as its highest priority acquisition program--the follow-on ballistic missile submarine--looms on the horizon with its cost likely to consume nearly half the shipbuilding budget for ten years. And its shipbuilding plan--the one now aiming at 308 ships--is underfunded to the tune of nearly $4B a year when compared to historical levels of spending, realistically pointing toward a fleet at least 20% smaller than is planned. ¶ Simultaneously, the importance of a powerful, globally employed Navy to our security and prosperity rises. China continues to play the part of the rising power whose respect for the current global order and what it takes to maintain it is questionable . Russia has decided to use its military and economic power to re-assert itself as a brooding Eurasian power . North Africa and the Mediterranean rim are increasingly unstable, Turkey is having a hard time figuring out what kind of nation it wants to be, and Israel remains in the crosshairs of nations and movements who want it gone. ¶ All of which it occurs to me, argues for a greater emphasis on American Seapower, for the kinds of capabilities ONLY a force that is persistent, powerful, and self-sustaining can provide. A force that brings with it both the helping hand for those facing disaster and the mailed fist of deterrent strength to remind those who would disturb regional security.

Alt cause to Naval power projection – unbalanced fleet investmentsHammond 13 Lt. Colonel James W. Hammond III, Marine Corps (Retired), “A Fleet out of Balance”, February 2013, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings magazine, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-02/fleet-out-balance//OFWhile naval strike capacity has grown since the Cold War, it’s come at a cost to the amphibious capabilities vital to U.S. power projection. The Navy and Marine Corps face a number of challenges in the immediate future: austere budgets, resetting the force, the growing breadth of threats in a complex security environment, increasing anti-access/area denial capabilities, and more. Those are all important, but make no mistake, the greatest challenge is an internal one: the over-investment in strike warfare at the expense of other critical power-projection capabilities. Today, to a degree not seen in more than 60 years, a balanced naval capability is indispensable to underwriting American global leadership. The increasing over-optimization of naval forces for strike missions and the concomitant marginalization of expeditionary forces threaten our ability to project the power and influence necessary to affect international stability and the global peace and prosperity that flow from it. Standoff destruction, in comparison with littoral maneuver, limits our capacity to exploit control of the sea or enable the establishment of some measure of control on land when needed. At its heart, the resultant Fleet bias reflects a failure to maximize the full scope of sea power and its contribution to strategy. War is not simply a targeting process but a struggle of competing wills, both in the physical and cognitive domains, to achieve some desired level of control. In his study of military strategy, Rear Admiral J. C. Wylie noted that the maritime theory of strategy has two major parts: “the establishment of control of the sea, and the exploitation of the control of the sea to establish control on land.” 1 Fires, while important, tend to produce only ephemeral effects, while effective maneuver forces employ fires to generate exploitable tactical and operational conditions, creating more enduring levels of desired control.

Alt cause to Naval power – Obama Kredo 3/25 Adam Kredo is a contributor to the Washington Times, “Obama to kill Navy’s Tomahawk, Hellfire missile programs in budget decimation”, 3/25/14, Washingtontimescom, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/obama-kill-navys-tomahawk-hellfire-missile-program/?page=all//OFPresident Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades. The Tomahawk missile program—known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile”—is set to be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy. In addition to the monetary cuts to the program, the number of actual Tomahawk missiles acquired by the United States would drop significantly—from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number will then drop to zero in 2016. The Navy will also be forced to cancel its acquisition of the well-regarded and highly effective Hellfire missiles in 2015, according to Obama’s proposal. The proposed elimination of these missile programs came as a shock to lawmakers and military experts, who warned ending cutting these missiles would significantly erode America’s ability to deter enemy forces. “The administration’s proposed budget dramatically under-resources our investments in munitions and leaves the Defense Department with dangerous gaps in key areas, like Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles,” said Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), a member of House Armed Services Committee. “Increasing our investment in munitions and retaining our technological edge in research and development should be a key component of any serious defense strategy,” he said. The U.S. Navy relied heavily on them during the 2011 military incursion into Libya, where some 220 Tomahawks were used during the fight. Nearly 100 of these missiles are used each year on average, meaning that the sharp cuts will cause the Tomahawk stock to be completely depleted by around 2018. This is particularly concerning to defense experts because the Pentagon does not have a replacement missile ready to take the Tomahawk’s place. “It doesn’t make sense,” said Seth Cropsey, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower. “This really moves the U.S. away from a position of influence and military dominance.” Cropsey said that if someone were trying to “reduce the U.S. ability to shape events” in the world, “they couldn’t find a better way than depriving the U.S. fleet of Tomahawks. It’s breathtaking.” The Navy has used various incarnations of the Tomahawk with great success over the past 30 years, employing them during Desert Storm and its battle zones from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Balkans. While the military as a whole is seeing its budgets reduced and equipment scaled back, the Tomahawk cuts do not appear to be due to a lack of funds. The administration seems to be taking the millions typically spent on the Tomahawk program and investing it in an experimental missile program that experts say will not be battle ready for at least 10 years. “It is definitely short-sighted given the value of the Tomahawk as a workhorse,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a former Pentagon staffer who analyzes military readiness. “The opening days of the U.S. lead-from-behind, ‘no-fly zone’ operation over Libya showcased how important this inventory of weapons is still today.” Overall, the Navy has essentially cut in half its weapons procurement plan, impacting a wide range of tactical weapons and missiles. Navy experts and retired officials fear that the elimination of the Tomahawk and Hellfire systems—and the lack of a battle-ready replacement—will jeopardize the U.S. Navy’s supremacy as it faces increasingly advanced militaries from North Korea

to the Middle East. The cuts are “like running a white flag up on a very tall flag pole and saying, ‘We are ready to be walked on,’” Cropsey said. Retired Army Lt. Col. Steve Russell called the cuts to the Tomahawk program devastating for multiple reasons. “We run a huge risk because so much of our national policy for immediate response is contingent on our national security team threatening with Tomahawk missiles,” said Russell, who is currently running for Congress. “The very instrument we will often use and cite, we’re now cutting the program,” Russell said. “There was a finite number [of Tomahawk’s] made and they’re not being replenished.” “If our national policy is contingent on an immediate response with these missile and we’re not replacing them, then what are we going do?” Russell asked. North Korea, for instance, has successfully tested multi-stage rockets and other ballistic missiles in recent months. Experts say this is a sign that the Navy’s defensive capabilities will become all the more important in the Pacific in the years to come. Meanwhile, the experimental anti-ship cruise missile meant to replace the Tomahawk program will not be battle ready for at least 10 years, according to some experts. The Long Range Anti Ship Missile has suffered from extremely expensive development costs and has underperformed when tested. “You have to ask yourself: An anti-ship missile is not going to be something we can drive into a cave in Tora Bora,” Russell said. “To replace it with something not needed as badly, and invest in something not even capable of passing basic tests, that causes real concern.”

Alt causes to Navy decline- lack of ships, it never sees fighting action Kaplan 07(Robert Kaplan is the chief geopolitical analyst for Stratfor, and a national correspondent for The Atlantic. “America’s Elegant Decline” 11/1/2007 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/america-s-elegant-decline/306344/ accessed 7/10/14) Are we prepared to fight these wars? Our Army and Marine Corps together constitute the most battle- hardened regular land force in the world. But it has been a long time since our Navy has truly fought another navy, or our Air Force another air force. In the future they could be tested to the same extent that the Army and Marine Corps have been. The current catchphrase is boots on the ground; in the future it could be hulls in the water. ¶ Democracy and supremacy undermine the tragic sense required for long-range planning. A “peaceful, gain- loving nation” like the United States “is not far-sighted, and far-sightedness is needed for adequate military preparation, especially in these days,” warned Navy Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan in 1890, a time when—although the Panama Canal was soon to be built and World War I lay just over the horizon—America was still preoccupied with land-based westward expansion (Wounded Knee, the last battle of the Indian Wars, was fought that year). Mahan notwithstanding, too few strategists at the time were thinking seriously about sea power. Today we are similarly obsessed with dirty land wars, and our 300-ship Navy is roughly half the size it was in the mid-1980s. ¶ A great navy is like oxygen: You notice it only when it is gone. But the strength of a nation’s sea presence, more than any other indicator, has throughout history often been the best barometer of that nation’s power and prospects. “Those far-distant storm-beaten ships upon which [Napoleon’s] Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world,” Mahan wrote, describing how the British Royal Navy had checked Napoleon’s ambitions. In our day, carrier strike groups, floating in international waters only a few miles off enemy territory, require no visas or exit strategies. Despite the quagmire of Iraq, we remain the greatest outside power in the Middle East because of our ability to pro ject destructive fire from warships in the Indian Ocean and its tributary waters such as the Persian Gulf. Our sea power allows us to lose a limited war on land without catastrophic consequences. The Navy, together with the Air Force, constitutes our insurance policy. The Navy also plays a crucial role as the bus driver for most of the Army’s equipment, whenever the Army deploys overseas.

Naval Power Fails

Naval Power fails – can’t engage in modern warfareWatts 9 Captain R.B. Watts, Coast Guard, “The End of Sea Power”, September 2009, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings magazine, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2009-09/end-sea-power//OFBut this ascendancy comes at a price. While history may have ended in our vision of sea power, for the rest of the world it is moving rapidly forward. Command of the seas has not solved the problem of the asymmetric threat of the 21st century. Eight years ago, 19 men in four planes changed the world; since then, we have been engulfed in widespread 4th-Generation Warfare, with minimal contribution from traditional sea power. Despite much postulating about the need to evolve and change, for U.S. naval strategists, "history" remains frozen by choice. In naval circles we have seen very little action in terms of evolving fleet power to meet the current threat. Rhetoric aside, the Navy has not effectively deployed a new class of ship to deal with anything but conventional large-scale fleet combat for years . Blue-water combatants, carriers, and nuclear-powered submarines remain the focus of our shipbuilding efforts, and training remains focused on defeating an equally capable blue-water opponent. The limited use of these assets against asymmetric enemies is either rationalized in vague strategic terms or simply ignored. This worked in the past when the events of 9/11 were seen as an aberration. No longer. The United States is the only nation capable of rapidly deploying military power on the sea, yet it has no effective strategy for doing so against the current threat. Despite being actively engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, advocates of Cold War-style sea power consistently look to the next threat or the next war, relying almost exclusively on a vision of frozen history. Despite the longevity of the global war on terrorism, many naval strategists are openly dismissive of the threat, assuming it is simply transitory. Development of systems that can contribute to the current conflict, such as practical littoral combat power, remains subject to ill-defined requirements and cost overruns.

SQ Solves Naval Power

US naval dominance is secure---their evidence is alarmismFarley 07 (Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, University of Kentucky. “The False Decline of the U.S. Navy” OCTOBER 23, 2007 http://prospect.org/article/false-decline-us-navy Accessed 7/10/14) We live in strange times. While the United States is responsible for close to 50 percent of aggregate world military expenditure, and maintains close alliances with almost all of the other major military powers, a community of defense analysts continues to insist that we need to spend more. In the November issue of The Atlantic, Robert Kaplan asserts that United States hegemony is under the threat of “elegant decline,” and points to what conventional analysts might suggest is the most secure element of American power; the United States Navy. Despite the fact that the U.S. Navy remains several orders of magnitude more powerful than its nearest rival, Kaplan says that we must beware; if we allow the size of our Navy to further decline, we risk repeating the experience of the United Kingdom in the years before World War I. Unfortunately, since no actual evidence of U.S. naval decline exists, Kaplan is forced to rely on obfuscation, distortion, and tendentious historical analogies to make his case. ¶ The centerpiece of Kaplan’s argument is a comparison of the current U.S. Navy to the British Royal Navy at the end of the 19th century. The decline of the Royal Navy heralded the collapse of British hegemony, and the decline of the U.S. Navy threatens a similar fate for the United States. The only problem with this argument is that similarities between the 21st century United States and the 19th century United Kingdom are more imagined than real. It’s true that the relative strength of the Royal Navy declined at the end of the 19th century, but this was due entirely the rise of the United States and Germany. But the absolute strength of the Royal Navy increased in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as the United Kingdom strove to maintain naval dominance over two countries that possessed larger economies and larger industrial bases than that of Great Britain. In other words, the position of the Royal Navy declined because the position of the United Kingdom declined; in spite of this decline, the Royal Navy continued to dominate the seas against all comers until 1941. Britain’s relative economic decline preceded its naval decline, although the efforts to keep up with Germany, the United States, and later Japan did serious damage to the British economy. The United States faces a situation which is in no way similar.

AT Warming

Alt Causes

Alt causes to warming – methane, nitrous oxides, and CFCsNational Geographic 7 National Geographic is a publication that specializes in environmental science, “Causes of Global Warming”, 4/25/2007, nationalgeographic.com, http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes//OFScientists have spent decades figuring out what is causing global warming. They've looked at the natural cycles and events that are known to influence climate. But the amount and pattern of warming that's been measured can't be explained by these factors alone. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. To bring all this information together, the United Nations formed a group of scientists called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The IPCC meets every few years to review the latest scientific findings and write a report summarizing all that is known about global warming. Each report represents a consensus, or agreement, among hundreds of leading scientists. One of the first things scientists learned is that there are several greenhouse gases responsible for warming, and humans emit them in a variety of ways. Most come from the combustion of fossil fuels in cars, factories and electricity production. The gas responsible for the most warming is carbon dioxide, also called CO2. Other contributors include methane released from landfills and agriculture (especially from the digestive systems of grazing animals), nitrous oxide from fertilizers, gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes, and the loss of forests that would otherwise store CO2. Different greenhouse gases have very different heat-trapping abilities. Some of them can even trap more heat than CO2. A molecule of methane produces more than 20 times the warming of a molecule of CO2. Nitrous oxide is 300 times more powerful than CO2. Other gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons (which have been banned in much of the world because they also degrade the ozone layer), have heat-trapping potential thousands of times greater than CO2. But because their concentrations are much lower than CO2, none of these gases adds as much warmth to the atmosphere as CO2 does. In order to understand the effects of all the gases together, scientists tend to talk about all greenhouse gases in terms of the equivalent amount of CO2. Since 1990, yearly emissions have gone up by about 6 billion metric tons of "carbon dioxide equivalent" worldwide, more than a 20 percent increase.

CO2 Turn

OTEC brings carbon rich water to the oceans surface—releases CO2 into the atmosphere—that causes warming Quinby-Hunt et al. 87 (M.S, author of Polarized light scattering by aerosols in the marine atmospheric boundary layer, Collisions with ice/volatile objects: Geological implications, D. Sloan, P. Wilde, “POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ¶ CLOSED-CYCLE OCEAN THERMAL ¶ ENERGY CONVERSION”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1987, http://ac.els-cdn.com/0195925587900357/1-s2.0-0195925587900357-main.pdf?_tid=59a3a226-0617-11e4-a5cb-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1404765988_dd01cec6ca4a8f88e6acfb02c198a730, Accessed 7/7/14, MB) Release of Carbon Dioxide and Other Gases¶ Gas solubility in sea water decreases with increasing temperature (Weiss 1970).¶ Thus, cold, deep water allowed to come to equilibrium with warm, surface water ¶ would release CO2 and other gases when the cold deep water is brought to the ¶ surface. Outgassing of CO2 occurs naturally in tropical waters (Keeling 1968).¶ Mercury released during natural upwelling is detectable (Fitzgerald et al. 1984).¶ Outgassing from OTEC- cycled water may alter local rates of outgassing, but as¶ the gases are eventually redissolved into seawater at higher latitudes and colder¶ temperatures, the total volume of gas in the almosphere is changed little (OTC/MSG¶ 1985). On the other hand, when fossil fuels are burned, the CO2 produced is¶ "new," formed by combining carbon from ancient geologic sinks with atmospheric¶ oxygen during combustion.¶ Some concern has been expressed (NRC 1983b; EPA 1983a) regarding possible ¶ climate effects due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere--the greenhouse¶ effect (Brewer 1978). OTEC plants bring water containing CO2 at levels greater ¶ than saturation to the surface . As the dynamics of CO2 release are determined¶ by a complex set of environmental conditions and chemical reactions, only a¶ worst-case order of magnitude (at best), estimate of CO2 release by OTEC¶ operations (OTC/MSG 1985; MSG 1985) is discussed here.¶ At an OTEC facility, CO2 may be released to the atmosphere (Table 1, Figure¶ 2). Residence time and pressure shifts are insufficient to allow significant gas¶ evolution from the cold-water reservoir, a confined space through which water¶ passes rapidly (Morse 1984). After discharge, CO2 or other gas concentrations¶ in the effluent would approach equilibrium with gases at that point of discharge,¶ as a worst case, in the mixed layer. The maximum CO2 that could evolve due¶ to OTEC operations is the difference between the CO2 in deep and surface waters.¶ For example, the CO2 concentration in surface water is approximately 2.0 mmole/kg¶ seawater (Takahashi et al. 1970). Water from 700 m contains approximately 2.4¶ mmole CO2/kg (Takahashi et al. 1970). Therefore, the maximum CO2 released¶ would be 0.4 mmole/kg, or 0.018 g/kg. If a 40-MW OTEC plant pumps 90¶ m3/sec (7.8 × 109 kg/day) of deep water to the surface, approximately 1.4 × 105¶ kg of CO2 could be released each day if all excess CO2 was outgassed (OTC/MSG¶ 1985).

No Warming

Warming isn’t real – five warrantsHawkins 2/18 John Hawkins (Citing climate scientists) is a freelance columnist, “5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening”, 2/18/14, TownHall.com, http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-warming-isnt-happening-n1796423/page/full//OFHow did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved? Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all. 1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?" 2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science. 3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well. 4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong. Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).” There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless. 5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there. Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming. If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?

AT Water Scarcity

Virtual Water Trd Solves

Virtual water trade solves scarcityDr. Benjamin L. Ruddell 13, Senior Sustainability Scientist at the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability, Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering and Computing Systems at Arizona State’s College of Technology and Innovation, Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Indirect management of cross-boundary water sustainability using Virtual Water,” Dec 9 2013, http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2013/12/09/indirect-management-of-cross-boundary-water-sustainability-using-virtual-water/Meanwhile, an indirect cooperative solution to local and regional water scarcity has emerged. Virtual water is an indirect or outsourced water resource impact, usually via economic trade . For example, whenever you turn on your lights at home, you are outsourcing water use and many other indirect impacts of electrical generation to the power utility, and importing virtual water embedded in that power. This concept illustrates that there are

substitutes6 for local water use. Economic trade is mankind’s ten-thousand year old cooperative solution to every kind of localized resource scarcity. Because many parts of the Earth are still rich in water, trade in the services of water has the potential to affordably address local and regional water scarcity problems .7¶ If water were the main factor in economic decisions, markets would already source less valuable virtual water imports from water-rich locations and to suppliers with less costly, and usually less water-efficient, production processes. This is an effective and desirable cooperative arrangement for both importers and producers of virtual water. However, because water is only one factor among many affecting trade8, the virtual water trade network tends to be a side effect of non-water macroeconomic and

market forces9, rather than a result of strategic cooperative decisions to advance water sustainability.¶ In the absence of clear market signals for water scarcity, a savvy virtual water importer should strategically manage its water supply chain. The network of indirect impacts is essential knowledge for water and climate sustainability, and for the resilience of the coupled natural-human system that binds the Earth’s ecosystems, rivers, climate, and economies together. Every indirect impact implies indirect exposure to distant water resource risks. Virtual water importers should maximize the sustainability, diversity, and reliability of their direct and indirect Water Footprints10. As with carbon footprints11 and sustainable forestry standards12, an enterprise can promote water sustainability13 by sourcing virtual water imports from locations with abundant water and strong

governance. This is a key to cooperation across hydrological and political boundaries. Virtual water importers can apply pressure upstream through the supply chain to enhance their suppliers’ water sustainability, by adopting a policy of doing business with suppliers that minimize unsustainable water resource impacts .¶ Simple water use efficiency or consumptive water use metrics are inadequate foundations for sustainability policy because they ignore the value of the water resource itself, which changes from place to place, time to time, and user to user. Even today, many water impacts are essentially free, meaning they have negligible opportunity costs because they are below applicable Adverse Resource Impact14 thresholds. It is important to distinguish between these free water impacts as compared with impacts in excess of cost thresholds. Water sustainability indices, including both virtual water and water footprint indices, should consider thresholds15 established in each location to safeguard the most priceless non-market social and environmental values of water. Water sustainability indices that consider cost thresholds, such as Water Scarcity FootprintsF1, provide more information for policy because they consider the cumulative impacts of all users, in excess of cost and value thresholds. Such alternative indices may be used in place of standard water footprints for virtual water accounting.¶ Wealthy and water-scarce regions apply increasingly intense16 indirect pressure against global water resources, through demand for virtual water imports. Savvy virtual water importers can strategically use this market pressure to advance water sustainability in distant locations. In anticipation of mounting global market pressures on local water resources, some farsighted water authorities14 are working to identify their freshwater ecosystem thresholds and to compare the values that can be created through direct and indirect uses of water. These local authorities and users have the final say in what values are ultimately promoted by direct water use within

their hydrological and political boundaries. Via economic trade in water-related goods and services, indirect cross-boundary cooperation between virtual water importers and producers will increasingly control the fate of our water resources. Strategic management of this indirect cooperation can help us achieve water sustainability in an increasingly globalized and water-scarce 21st century.

Virtual water allows water-short countries to conserve waterArjen Y. Hoekstra 11, Professor in Water Management at the University of Twente, “The Global Dimension of Water Governance: Why the River Basin Approach Is No Longer Sufficient and Why Cooperative Action at Global Level Is Needed,” Water vol. 3, p 21-46, 2011, http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2011-Global-Dimension-of-Water-Governance.pdfThe virtual water content of a product is the volume of water used to produce it, measured at the place where it was actually produced. The adjective ‘virtual’ refers to the fact that most of the water used in the production is in the end not contained within the product. The real water content of products is generally negligible if compared to the virtual water content. The (global average) virtual water content of wheat for instance is in the order of 1,500–1,600 m3/ton, while the real water content is obviously less than 1 m3/ton [56,57]. While transfer of real water over long distances is very costly and therefore generally not economically feasible,

transfer of water in virtual form can be an efficient way of obtaining water-intensive products in places where water is very scarce. The concept of ‘virtual water import‘ as a means of releasing the pressure on domestic water resources was introduced by Allan [14,58] when he studied the water scarcity situation of the Middle East. Virtual water import could be regarded as an alternative water source, alongside endogenous water sources. Imported virtual water has therefore also

been called ‘exogenous water‘ or ‘embedded water‘ [59]. ¶ An increasing number of water-short countries, most particularly in North Africa and

the Middle East, seek to preserve their domestic water resources through the import of water in virtual form, by importing water-intensive commodities (relatively high water input per dollar of product) and exporting commodities that are less water-intensive. Jordan, as an example, imports about five to seven billion cubic meters of virtual water per year [60,61], which is much more than the one billion cubic meter of water annually withdrawn from its domestic water sources. Even Egypt, with water self-sufficiency high on the political agenda and with a total water withdrawal within the country of 65 billion cubic meters per year, still has an estimated annual net virtual water import of 10 to 20 billion cubic meters

[61,62]. ¶ Further removal of trade barriers, as foreseen for the future, particularly in the case of agricultural commodities, will facilitate increased international trade in water-intensive commodities. Virtual water import as a

tool to reduce the pressure on domestic water resources can thus become attractive to an increasing number of water-short nations [63]. Disregarding political objectives that might work in a different direction, according to international trade theory the people of a nation will seek profit by trading products that are produced with resources that are relatively abundantly available within their country for products that need resources that are relatively scarce. This theory, known as the theory of comparative advantage, has been proposed as a useful analytical tool to study the economic attractiveness of virtual water import for nations that have comparatively little water and of virtual water export for nations that have comparatively abundant water resources [64].

No Shortage

No water shocks- there is no water shortageRadford 08 (Benjamin Radford is a Research Fellow with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. “The Water Shortage Myth” June 23, 2008http://www.livescience.com/2639-water-shortage-myth.html accessed 7/10/1) It's true that there is cause for alarm, but to understand the problem people need to read behind the headlines to understand one little fact: There is no water shortage.¶ Our planet is not running out of water, nor is it losing water. There's about 360 quintillion gallons of water on the planet, and it's not going anywhere except in a circle. Earth's hydrologic cycle is a closed system, and the process is as old as time: evaporation, condensation, precipitation, infiltration, and so on. In fact, there is probably more liquid water on Earth than there was just a few decades ago, due in part to global warming and melting polar ice caps.

Water shocks aren’t coming- they can easily be solved by raising prices so people don’t over consume Zetland 08(David Zetland writes for Forbes magazine, “The Water Shortage Myth” 7/15/2008http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/14/california-supply-demand-oped-cx_dz_0715water.html accessed 7/10/14) The real problem is that the price of water in California, as in most of America, has virtually nothing to do with supply and demand. Although water is distributed by public and private monopolies that could easily charge high prices, municipalities and regulators set prices that are as low as possible. Underpriced water sends the wrong signal to the people using it: It tells them not to worry about how much they use. ¶ Low prices lead to shortages . Water managers respond to them with calls for conservation. But this often fails. Residents in San Diego County, for example, were asked in June 2007 to cut their water use by 20 gallons a day. They used more. When voluntary conservation fails, water agencies impose mandatory rationing, which is unfair and inefficient because people who have historically been water misers are cut back by the same percentage as water hogs. ¶ If water was priced to reflect scarcity, a decrease in supply would lead to an increase in price, and people would demand less. Consider another precious liquid: oil. Despite popular perception, there is no shortage of oil; supply does equal demand at the present price. It’s just that supply meets demand at a higher price than it did a few years ago.¶ In a sensible water pricing system, everyone would be guaranteed a base quantity of water at a low price. Those who used more would face a steep price hike. ¶ As it stands, Los Angeles households pay $2.80 for the first 885 gallons they use per day. That’s enough water to fill 18 bathtubs. The next 18 tubs cost $3.40, which is only 20% more. Most L.A. households don’t even see this price increase, since the average household of three uses just 350 gallons–about seven bathtubs–each day. For that water, the household pays only $35 a month. If they use twice the amount, the bill merely doubles.¶ I propose a system where every person gets the first 75 gallons, or 1.5 bathtubs, per day for free but pays $5.60 for each 75 gallons after that. Under my system, the monthly bill for the average household of three would come to $95.¶ My system is designed to reduce demand rather than cover costs. Revenue paid by guzzlers would cover the costs of those who use only a small amount of water. Any leftover profits could be refunded to consumers or used to enhance the quality or quantity of the water supply. We can solve America’s water “shortage” in the same way that we would solve a shortage in any market. Increase prices until the quantity demanded falls to equal supply. This pricing system would ensure that everyone gets a basic allocation of cheap water while forcing guzzlers to pay a high price.Want to use more water? Pay for it.

No water shortages- amounts just vary by region and demandBall 10(Tim Ball writes for the Canada press “There Is No Water Shortage” 11/5/2010 http://archive.lewrockwell.com/spl2/there-is-no-water-shortage.html accessed 7/10/14) There is no shortage of water. Amounts available vary regionally and change over time as precipitation amounts vary. Demand also changes with increases in population and economic development. Crude estimates indicate water use per person is 15 liters in undeveloped countries and approximately 900 liters in developed countries. Throughout history humans have developed remarkable techniques and technologies to deal with these issues. Few of these attempted to reduce demand, most worked to increase supply.¶ Some societies went to great lengths. The extent of the Roman Empire is delineated by the construction of aqueducts and lead mines developed to produce pipes to carry their water.¶ Major advances, considered important turning points in human development, are technological controls over weather. Fire, housing

and clothing created microclimates and the ability to live in more extreme conditions. Irrigation was first introduced in the Fertile Crescent (Figure1) driven by a climate change. A region that produced crops gradually became drier with the onset of a warm period called the Holocene Optimum. Besides the decrease in precipitation there is, at least initially, an increase in variability.

No War

Water scarcity doesn’t cause warHarrington 4/15 Cameron Harrington is the 2014 NRF Global Change Postdoctoral Fellow in the Global Risk Governance Program at the University of Cape Town, where he researches conflict and cooperation along vulnerable river catchments. He received his PhD in Political Science from Western University in London, Canada, “Water Wars? Think Again: Conflict Over Freshwater Structural Rather Than Strategic”, 4/15/14, Newsecuritybeat.com, http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2014/04/water-wars//OFThe global water wars are almost upon us! At least that’s how it seems to many. The signs are troubling: Egypt and Ethiopia have recently increased their aggressive posture and rhetoric over the construction of the Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in the headwaters of the Blue Nile, Egypt’s major artery since antiquity. India continues to build new dams that are seen by its rival Pakistan as a threat to its “water interests” and thus its national security. Turkey, from its dominant position upstream, has been diverting the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and increasing water

stress in the already-volatile states of Iraq and Syria. States rarely, if ever, fight over water; in fact, the opposite is true.It has been claimed for decades that a confluence of factors, including water scarcity, societal unrest, and strategic maneuvering, will inevitably push states and other actors to act aggressively, perhaps even violently, to secure precious water resources. So are we finally witnessing the first flashes of the coming age of water wars? To put it simply: no. These visions of future water wars miss one very important point: States rarely, if ever, fight over water; in fact, the opposite is true. Cooperation over transboundary water resources is much more common, even in the most sensitive geopolitical hotspots. In other words, the way many understand water conflict is fundamentally misguided and risks being a largely diversionary exercise that obscures other, non-military types of water problems occurring every day around the world. Focusing on War a Distraction While traditional organized warfare over water is essentially non-existent in the historical record, water insecurity is pervasive. From time to time this insecurity manifests itself in violent ways, but far more common is the day-to-day injustice endured by hundreds of millions from fundamentally inadequate water supplies and sanitation, a result of political, economic, and social failings . Water is the lifeblood of human societies. It sustains and nurtures our ability to lead full lives. When water supplies are diverted, polluted, blocked, or overdrawn, it directly impacts the possibilities of human life. That is the real story of water insecurity. Aaron Wolf on updating ‘Basins at Risk,’ transboundary water conflict and cooperation This does not mean military- or strategically-

minded interpretations of water security are unimportant. It should make news when Egypt threatens “escalatory steps” if Ethiopia continues to build the Renaissance Dam. But we should still question the fascination with so-called “water wars.” It may be a tempting story to tell because it plays upon our deepest, most human insecurities, and despite its tenuous links to reality, it feels all-too-real in the face of the harrowing climate predictions we hear today. Maybe the alliteration just sounds good. The effects, though, can be dangerous. Our fear of, and obsession with, water wars diverts our attention and decreases our awareness of the very daunting and very immediate problems of freshwater resources. According to the latest measurements, 768 million people do not use an improved source of drinking water, and 2.5 billion lack access to improved sanitation. It is safe to say that these problems will not be solved in the war rooms of generals or on the computers of security analysts. It should make news when Egypt threatens “escalatory steps” if Ethiopia continues to build the Renaissance Dam One telling example of the complexity of water problems comes from the theme of this year’s World Water Day, celebrated on March 22: water and energy. Thousands of individuals, organizations, and governments used the opportunity to raise awareness and advocate for better policy that takes stock of the interconnections between water and energy consumption. According to the OECD’s International Energy Association, global energy needs are set to increase by 33 percent by 2035, with China requiring 65 percent more water in order to meet the demands of its industrial and energy sectors. All told, 15 percent of the world’s total freshwater withdrawal is used for energy production. Given the increasing energy needs of developing countries, the impact this growing demand will have on already-strained water resources is likely to be significant. Rather than war, however, the main problems are much more likely to be significant ecological degradation and adverse impacts on human health and well-being. Build Resilience Through Collaboration Rather than finding new “hotspots” where water wars will break out, it better serves us to focus on ways to build resilience and adaptation. The water-energy nexus is but one aspect of the multi-faceted global challenges to securing sustainable water resources, yet it can tell us much more about water security than the water wars thesis ever could. One of the principal ways to build resilience and adaption is to forge partnerships among various groups and interested actors. Not only does it promote responsible water management, it also leads to interactions that highlight the shared risks communities face from degraded water quality and diminishing water quantity. Far more prevalent is the daily structural violence and injustice related to underdevelopment, poverty, and environmental degradation An innovative strategy being pursued in countries as diverse as Canada, India, and South Africa is to include “ecological infrastructure” in larger national investments in a country’s built infrastructure. Ecological infrastructure is a concept that views healthy ecosystems as drivers of economic and social well-being, in ways no less important than roads, railways, and ports. Viable ecosystems provide crucial services like fresh water, soil formation, disaster risk reduction, climate regulation, as well as cultural and recreational outlets. When properly managed they can provide high levels of economic and social development. Promoting ecological infrastructure will require a collaborative effort from a variety of stakeholders – farmers, banks, municipalities, etc. – to promote the shared value of sustainably managing water resources and the shared risk of inaction. It is this type of thinking that is needed to build resilient societies

that can promote human and environmental security, not the incessant doomsday prophesizing that is characteristic of so much of the water wars literature. While the world faces multiple water crises of varying levels of severity, the prospects for all-out war are slim. Far more prevalent is the daily structural violence and injustice related to underdevelopment, poverty, and environmental degradation, which is itself a symptom of water insecurity. We should focus less on the specter of armed conflict and instead channel our efforts towards building environmentally and socially resilient societies.

Water scarcity does not lead to warIdean Salehyan 7, Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas, “The New Myth About Climate Change Corrupt, tyrannical governments—not changes in the Earth’s climate—will be to blame for the coming resource wars.” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/08/13/the_new_myth_about_climate_changeFirst, aside from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity and changing environmental

conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased

dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts around the world. Between 1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique,

Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food Programme warns that 5 million people in Malawi have been experiencing chronic food shortages for several years. But famine-

wracked Malawi has yet to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated

millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict than resource scarcity and natural disasters.

Water scarcity doesn’t cause warJeremy Allouche 11 is currently a Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. "The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade" Food PolicyVolume 36, Supplement 1, January 2011, Pages S3-S8 Accessed via: Science Direct SciverseWater/food resources, war and conflictThe question of resource scarcity has led to many debates on whether scarcity (whether of food or water) will lead to conflict and war. The underlining reasoning behind

most of these discourses over food and water wars comes from the Malthusian belief that there is an imbalance between the economic availability of natural resources and population growth since while food production grows linearly, population increases exponentially. Following this reasoning, neo-Malthusians claim that finite natural resources place a strict limit on the growth of human population and aggregate consumption; if these limits

are exceeded, social breakdown, conflict and wars result. Nonetheless, it seems that most empirical studies do not support any of these neo-Malthusian arguments. Technological change and greater inputs of capital have dramatically increased labour productivity in agriculture. More generally, the neo-Malthusian

view has suffered because during the last two centuries humankind has breached many resource barriers that seemed unchallengeable.¶ Lessons from history: alarmist scenarios, resource wars and international relations¶ In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number of alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use of water resources and food insecurity with wars. The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international organizations (UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that ‘water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict’ (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and conflict are here used for raising water/food as key policy priorities at the international level.¶ In the Middle East, presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers have also used this bellicose rhetoric. Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; ‘the next war in the Middle East will be over water, not politics’ (Boutros Boutros-Gali in Butts, 1997, p. 65). The question is not whether the sharing of transboundary water sparks political tension and alarmist declaration, but rather to what extent water has been a principal factor in international conflicts. The evidence seems quite weak. Whether by president Sadat in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan, none of these declarations have been followed up by military action.¶ The governance of transboundary water has gained increased attention these last decades. This has a direct impact on the global food system as water allocation agreements determine the amount of water that can used for irrigated

agriculture. The likelihood of conflicts over water is an important parameter to consider in assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food systems.¶ None of the various and extensive databases on the causes of war show water as a casus belli . Using the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set

and supplementary data from the University of Alabama on water conflicts, Hewitt, Wolf and Hammer found only seven disputes where water seems to have been at least a partial cause for conflict (Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In fact, about 80% of the incidents relating to water were limited purely to governmental rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001, p. 18).¶ As shown in The Basins At Risk

(BAR) water event database, more than two-thirds of over 1800 water-related ‘events’ fall on the ‘cooperative’ scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes into account a much longer period, the following figures clearly demonstrate this argument. According to studies by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), organized political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more than 3600 water-related treaties, and approximately 300 treaties dealing with water management or allocations in international basins have been negotiated since 1945 ([FAO, 1978] and [FAO, 1984]).¶ The fear around water wars have been driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates

scarcity with violence, conflict and war. There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and transboundary conflict . Most specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se but rather the allocation of water resources between the different riparian states (see for example [Allouche, 2005], [Allouche, 2007] and [Rouyer, 2000]). Water rich countries have been involved in a number of disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example India/Pakistan or Brazil/Argentina). The perception of each state’s estimated water needs really constitutes the core issue in transboundary water relations. Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality, perceptions of the amount of available water shapes people’s attitude towards the environment (Ohlsson, 1999). In fact, some water experts have argued that scarcity drives the process of co-operation among riparians ([Dinar and Dinar, 2005] and [Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006]).

Off-Case

Environment DA

Envi DA 1NC

OTEC wrecks marine ecosystemsAbbasi and Abbasi 2k (S.A and Naseema, authors @ Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University, “The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources”, Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University 2000, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S030626199900077X/1-s2.0-S030626199900077X-main.pdf?_tid=18472ccc-0611-11e4-8d30-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1404763302_1faf691f701304776ea778a07c1765c1, accessed 7/7/14, MB)Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) power plants have the potential to ¶ cause major adverse impacts on the ocean water quality. Such plants would require ¶ entraining and discharging enormous quantities of seawater . The plants will displace¶ about 4 m3 of water per second per MW electricity output, both from the surface¶ layer and from the deep ocean, and discharge them at some intermediate depth¶ between 100 and 200 m. This massive flow may disturb the thermal structure of the ¶ ocean near the plant, change salinity gradients, and change the amounts of dissolved ¶ gases, nutrients, carbonates, and turbidity. These changes could have adverse ¶ impacts of magnitudes large enough to be highly significant.¶ The enrichment of the near-surface waters with the nutrient-rich cold water¶ brought up from a depth of 1000 m is of particular significance. Natural upwellings¶ of cold water from great depths in the ocean produce sites that are enormously rich in marine life. One of the well-known natural upwelling sites is where the Humboldt¶ current off Peru enriches the surface waters. The productivity there is so high that¶ almost one-fifth of the world's fish harvest comes from this region. It would be¶ possible to use the cold water effluent from an OTEC plant for the cultivation of¶ algae, crustaceans, and shellfish. In the nutrient-rich water, unicelluar algae grow to¶ a density 27 times greater than the density in surface water and are in turn consumed¶ by filter-feeding shellfish such as clams, oysters, and scallops. However, abundance of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems can spell serious trouble¶ as it can lead to eutrophication and all the adverse consequence associated with¶ eutrophication.¶ Further, if the algal blooms caused by artificial upwelling include certain dinoflagellates, there may be other problems. For example shellfish consume dinoflagellates¶ and if these shellfish are consumed by humans, it can lead to serious illness . OTEC¶ advocates hope that, by designing the OTEC plant to discharge its water below the¶ photic zone (the region in the surface waters where photosynthesizing organisms live),¶ the surface waters will not be enriched. Furthermore, the fish living below the photic¶ zone do not feed on these nutrients. However, these are unknowns and, g iven the ¶ magnitude of disturbances that would be caused by OTEC, may not be as easily ¶ controllable as the proponents of OTEC may like to believe . If nutrient-rich water is ¶ discharged anywhere near the surface water intake valves, it could cause biofouling ¶ inside the pipes. ¶ Marine biota may be impinged on the screens covering the warm and coldwater intakes ¶ of an OTEC plant. Small fishes and crustaceans may be entrained through the system,¶ where they will experience rapid changes of temperature, salinity, pressure, turbidity, and¶ dissolved oxygen. A major change occurring in the cold water pipe is the depressurization¶ of up to 107 pascals in water coming from a depth of 1000 m to the surface.¶ Sea surface temperatures in the vicinity of an OTEC plant could be lowered by the ¶ discharge of effluent from the cold water pipe. This will have impacts on organisms and ¶ microclimate. The pumping of large volumes of cold water from depths of the ocean to ¶ the surface will release dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide , oxygen, and nitrogen to the ¶ atmosphere. This would influence water pH and DO status, causing stress to marine life.¶ Biocides, such as chlorine , used to prevent biofouling of the pipes and heat¶ exchanger surfaces may be irritating or toxic to organisms . If ammonia is the working fluid and it leaks out, there could be serious consequences to the ocean ecosystem¶ nearby. In summary, there is lot more to OTEC than mere utilisation of the thermal ¶ gradiant across ocean depth. The large-scale utilisation of this phenomenon can ¶ profoundly disturb the fragile marine ecosystems. Further, the disturbance being¶ `non-point' in nature, can be very difficult to control or mitigate. All this puts serious ¶ question marks before the viability of OTEC.

ExtinctionRobin Kundis Craig 3, Associate Professor of Law, focusing on Environmental Law, at Indiana University School of Law, Winter 2003, “ARTICLE: Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii,” 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, lexisBiodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean

ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real

and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life . ¶

Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems . Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity.¶ [*265] ¶ Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the

reef system. n860¶ Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide . Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.¶ However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine

ecosystems that may be unique in the world.¶ We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves , and we will take most of the biosphere with us . The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.¶ The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with [*266] shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis. n865¶ Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the coasts of major

cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. n866 Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the U nited S tates should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.

Link---General

OTEC decimates biodiversity—disrupts thermal equilibrium, releases toxic chemicals and kills local marine organismsPelc and Fujita 2 (Robin, indepdendent researcher @ Monterey Bay Aquarium, Rod, Director of Research and DEVELOPMENT¶ Environmental Defense Fund, “Renewable energy from the ocean”, Marine Policy 7/6/2002, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0308597X02000453/1-s2.0-S0308597X02000453-main.pdf?_tid=bfb3d322-0547-11e4-9365-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1404676824_0b47f20ac48256872b358af611a02b00, Accessed 7/6/14, MB)Though fairly benign in environmental impact compared to traditional power plants, OTEC poses some potential environmental threats , especially if implemented on a large scale . Data from existing electric generating stations on the coast provide insight into possible impacts of OTEC plants. These stations impact the surrounding marine environment mainly through heating the water , the release of toxic chemicals , impingement of organisms on intake screens, and entrainment of small organisms by intake pipes, all of which are concerns for OTEC . Large discharges of mixed warm and cold water would be released near the surface, creat ing a plume of sinking cool water . The continual use of warm surface water and cold deepwater may, over long periods of time, lead to slight warming at depth and cooling at the surface [6]. Thermal effects may be significant, as local temperature changes of only 3–4°C are known to cause high mortality among corals and fishes . Aside from mortality, other effects such as reduced hatching success of eggs and developmental inhibition of larvae, which lower reproductive success , may result from thermal changes [14]. Increased nutrient loading resulting from the discharge of upwelled water could also negatively impact naturally low-nutrient ecosystems typical of tropical seas. ¶ Toxic chemicals, such as ammonia and chlorine, may enter the environment from an OTEC plant and kill local marine organisms. Ammonia in closed-cycle systems would be designed not to contact the environment, and a dangerous release would be expected to result only from serious malfunction such as a major breakdown, collision with a ship, a greater than 100-yr storm, terrorism, or major HUMAN error [6]. The impact of chlorine will likely be minimal, as it would be used at a concentration of approximately 0.02 ppm daily average, while the EPA standard for marine water requires levels lower than 0.1 ppm [6].¶ Impingement of large organisms and entrainment of small organisms has been responsible for the greatest mortality of marine organisms at coastal power plants thus far [14]. The magnitude of this problem depends on the location and size of the plant; however, if marine life is attracted to OTEC plants by the higher nutrient concentrations in the upwelled cold water, large numbers of organisms, including larvae or juveniles, could be killed by impingement or entrainment. For floating plants, victims of impingement would be mainly small fish, jellyfish, and pelagic invertebrates, while for land-based plants crustaceans would be the most affected [6].¶ Finally, a small amount of CO2 is released to the atmosphere by OTEC power generation. Bringing deepwater to the surface where pressure is lower allows some of the sequestered CO2 in this deepwater to outgas, especially as the water is warmed, reducing the solubility of CO2. However, this carbon emission is very minute compared to the emissions of fossil fuel plants.

Link—Biocides

Toxic biocides released from OTEC plants kill surrounding biodiversity Quinby-Hunt et al. 87 (M.S, author of Polarized light scattering by aerosols in the marine atmospheric boundary layer, Collisions with ice/volatile objects: Geological implications, D. Sloan, P. Wilde, “POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ¶ CLOSED-CYCLE OCEAN THERMAL ¶ ENERGY CONVERSION”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1987, http://ac.els-cdn.com/0195925587900357/1-s2.0-0195925587900357-main.pdf?_tid=59a3a226-0617-11e4-a5cb-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1404765988_dd01cec6ca4a8f88e6acfb02c198a730, Accessed 7/7/14, MB) Atmospheric emissions from a closed-cycle OTEC facility will be minor except¶ during construction or in the case of accidental working fluid or biocide releases. ¶ Routine working fluid and biocide releases are expected. Artificial upwelling¶ may cause local fogs. Worst case estimates (see below) indicate that it is improbable¶ that local atmospheric climates would be affected significantly due to¶ the effects of cooling of surface waters by plant effluent and release of carbon¶ dioxide (CO2) and other trace gases.¶ Impacts of Construction and Deployment¶ Air quality may be degraded by dust and exhaust fumes generated during grading ¶ of roads, blasting, trenching, or other construction activities. By their nature,¶ construction-related emissions are temporary. During plant operation, movement¶ of service and maintenance vehicles may increase total exhaust emissions . If the¶ prevailing winds are offshore, air emissions from construction and operation will¶ affect only the plant area. However, where winds are onshore, a larger area may¶ be affected.¶ Large amounts of working fluid or biocides may be stored at or near the plant¶ site. Working fluid systems may develop leaks due to wear corrosion , aging, ¶ malfunction, maintenance operations, or accidents . Large releases could be caused¶ by sabotage, ship collisions, or catastrophic events, such as earthquakes or storms¶ of greater magnitude than those used in defining standards for construction.¶ Biocides by their nature are toxic . Extreme care in storage and handling is¶ necessary, as spills or leaks could occur at any time during use. Although Ocean¶ Thermal Corporation suggested storing large quantities of chlorine at the proposed¶ OTEC plant at Kahe Point, Oahu (OTC/MSG 1985), chlorine can be¶ generated in situ, eliminating the risk of storing such a hazardous material.¶ If occupational health and safety regulations are followed, working fluid and¶ biocide (most probably ammonia and chlorine) emissions from a plant should¶ be too low to detect outside the plant sites (OTC/MSG 1985). A major release ¶ of working fluid or biocide would be hazardous to plant workers and potentially ¶ to the populace in surrounding areas depending on their proximity. Both ammonia ¶ and chlorine can damage the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes, and can inhibit ¶ respiration (Sax 1979). Should an accident occur with either system, the risks¶ are similar to those for other industrial applications involving these chemicals.¶ Ammonia is used as a fertilizer and in ice skating rink refrigeration systems.¶ Chlorine is used in municipal water treatment plants and as an antifoulant in¶ steam electric power generation systems (EPA 1974). If large volumes of both working fluid and biocide are stored at the plant site , ¶ then the hazards associated with a simultaneous release of both need to be ¶ considered. Serious problems could result if both the ammonia and chlorine¶ systems ruptured simultaneously. The reaction of ammonia with chlorine in air ¶ can result in the formation of highly toxic or explosive chemicals (Sax 1979;¶ NFPA 1975). The probability of such an occurrence is low, particularly if US¶ Coast Guard (46 CFR 106) and other applicable regulations are followed.

Link—Algal Blooms/Phytoplankton

OTEC introduces deep nutrients to the ocean’s surface—that causes the proliferation of algal bloom and phytoplankton Makai Ocean engineering No Date (an ocean engineering company focused on providing design engineering and development services to a broad range of clientele both foreign and domestic. Practice areas include engineering for ocean based RENEWABLE ENERGY including OTEC, “OTEC – Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”, Makai Ocean engineering, from an assessment report of OTEC, http://www.makai.com/otec-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/, Accessed 7/8/14, MB) Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) uses large flows of warm surface sea water and cold deep sea water to generate clean electricity. The tropical ocean at a typical OTEC site has two distinct layers: a warm surface layer with low nutrient levels, and a cold deep layer that is nutrient-rich . Introducing deep NUTRIENTS into the ocean’s sun-lit upper layers could potentially increase plankton growth or cause algal blooms. Thus, seawater discharged from an OTEC plant should be returned into the ocean deep enough so that these nutrients don’t trigger biological growth.¶ The U.S. Department of Energy has released a report describing the simulated biological impact from operating large OTEC plants. The study was performed by Makai Ocean Engineering under a cost-shared GRANT and can be downloaded here. This report has been peer reviewed by DoE Peer Review for Marine & Hydrokinetic Energy Devices on pages xii and 167 here.

The combination of phytoplankton and algal bloom proliferation devastates affected environments—that spills over to other ecosystems Anderson 5 (Donald, Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “The ecology and oceanography of harmful algal blooms”, Intergovernmental Oceanographic commission 2005, http://lib.ruppin.ac.il/multimedia_michmoret/Anderson_BruunMemorialLecture2005.pdf, Accessed 7/8/14, MB) ¶When toxic phytoplankton are filtered from the water as food by shellfish, their ¶ toxins accumulate in those shellfish to levels that can be lethal to humans or ¶ other consumers. The poisoning syndromes have been given the names

paralytic, diarrhetic,¶ neurotoxic, amnesic, and azaspiracid shellfish poisoning (PSP, DSP, NSP, ASP,¶ and AZP respectively). Except for ASP, all are caused by biotoxins synthesized by a ¶ class of marine algae called dinoflagellates. The ASP toxin, domoic acid, is produced¶ by diatoms that until recently were thought to be free of toxins. A sixth human illness,¶ ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP) is caused by toxins produced by dinoflagellates that¶ live on surfaces in many coral reef communities Ciguatoxins are transferred through¶ the food chain from herbivorous reef fishes to larger carnivorous, commercially valuable¶

finfish.¶ Another type of HAB impact occurs when marine fauna are killed by algal species ¶ that release toxins and other compounds into the water . Fish and shrimp mortalities¶ from these types of HABs have increased considerably at aquaculture sites in recent¶ years. HABs also cause mortalities of wild fish, seabirds, whales, dolphins, and other¶ marine animals, typically as a result of the transfer of toxins through the food web. A

poorly defined but potentially significant concern relates¶ to sublethal, chronic impacts from toxic HABs that can ¶ affect the structure and function of ecosystems. Adult fish ¶ can be killed by the millions in a single outbreak, with longand¶ short-term

ecosystem impacts (Fig. 2). Likewise, larval ¶ or juvenile stages of fish or other commercially important ¶ species can experience mortalities from algal toxins . Impacts¶ of this type are more difficult to detect than the acute¶ poisonings of humans or higher predators, since exposures¶ and mortalities are subtle and often unnoticed. Impacts¶ might not be apparent until a year class of commercial fish¶ reaches harvesting age but is in

low abundance. Chronic ¶ toxin exposure may therefore have long-term consequences ¶ that are critical with respect to the sustainability or recovery ¶ of natural populations at higher trophic levels. Many believe that ecosystem-level effects from toxic algae are more pervasive than we realize, ¶ affect ing multiple trophic levels , depending on the ecosystem and the toxin involved ¶ (Ramsdell et al., 2005).¶ Non-toxic blooms of algae can cause harm in a variety of ways. One prominent mechanism ¶ relates to the high biomass that some blooms achieve. When this biomass ¶ decays as the bloom terminates, oxygen is consumed, leading to widespread mortalities ¶ of plants and animals in the affected area. These “high biomass” blooms are sometimes ¶ linked to excessive pollution inputs, but can also occur in pristine waters. Large,

prolonged blooms of non-toxic algal species can reduce ¶ light penetration to the bottom, decreasing densities ¶ of submerged aquatic vegetation that can have dramatic ¶ impacts on coastal ecosystems , as these grass beds serve¶ as nurseries for the food and the young of commercially¶ important fish and shellfish. Macroalgae (seaweeds) also¶ cause problems. Over the past several decades, blooms of¶ macroalgae have been increasing along many of the world’s¶ coastlines. Macroalgal blooms often occur in nutrient-enriched¶ estuaries and nearshore areas that

are shallow enough¶ for light to penetrate to the sea floor. These blooms ¶ have a broad range of ecological effects, and often last longer ¶ than “typical” phytoplankton HABs. Once established,¶ macroalgal blooms can remain in an environment for years¶ unless the nutrient

supply decreases. They can be particularly ¶ harmful to coral reefs (Fig. 3). Under high nutrient conditions, opportunistic¶ macroalgal species out-compete, overgrow, and replace the coral.

Link—BioD—Entrainment/impingement

Impingement of marine organisms and entrainment of plankton by OTEC plants disrupts an ecosystems food chain—that leads to a biod collapse Quinby-Hunt et al. 87 (M.S, author of Polarized light scattering by aerosols in the marine atmospheric boundary layer, Collisions with ice/volatile objects: Geological implications, D. Sloan, P. Wilde, “POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ¶ CLOSED-CYCLE OCEAN THERMAL ¶ ENERGY CONVERSION”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1987, http://ac.els-cdn.com/0195925587900357/1-s2.0-0195925587900357-main.pdf?_tid=59a3a226-0617-11e4-a5cb-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1404765988_dd01cec6ca4a8f88e6acfb02c198a730, Accessed 7/7/14, MB) Impingement and entrainment occur at both the warm-water and cold-water ¶ intakes . Organisms impinged by an OTEC plant are caught on the screens protecting ¶ the intakes. In general, impingement is fatal to the organism . An entrained ¶ organism is drawn into and passes through the plant . Entrained organisms may ¶ be exposed to biocides, physical abuse (acceleration, impaction, shear forces,¶ and abrasion), and temperature and pressure shock (OTC/MSG 1985). Entrained¶ organisms may also be exposed to working fluid and trace constituents (trace¶ metals and oil or grease). Intakes should be designed to limit the inlet flow¶ velocity to minimize entrainment and impingement. If inlet-induced flow velocities¶ do not exceed average ambient tidal current amplitudes, they should not¶ enhance local sediment transport (Hove et al. 1982). The inlets need to be tailored¶ hydrodynamically so that withdrawal does not result in turbulence or recirculation¶ zones in the immediate vicinity of the plant.¶ Many, if not all, organisms impinged or entrained by the intake waters may ¶ be damaged or killed . Although experiments suggest that mortality rates for ¶ phytoplankton and zooplankton entrained by the warm-water intake may be less ¶ than 100 percent, in fact, only a fraction of the phytoplankton crops from the¶ surface may be killed by entrainment (Bienfang and Johnson 1980). The avoidance¶ capability of micronekton may reduce the percentage killed in the warmwater¶ system to below 100 percent. Prudence suggests that for the purpose of¶ assessment, 100 percent capture and 100 percent mortality upon capture should¶ be assumed unless further evidence exists to the contrary.¶ OTEC-induced mortality of ichthyo plankton may affect local fish populations ¶ significantly. In the Kahe Point example, significant rates of biomass loss were ¶ expected ( OTC/MSG 1985). If benthic organism and fish populations within the¶ region of impact are based upon the recruitment of planktonic larvae produced¶ within the region of impact, then population decreases within the region can be¶ expected. The decline in population size depends upon the extent of increased ¶ larval mortality due to plant operation and the extent of recruitment from breeding ¶ within the region of impact. Natural rates of mortality of eggs and larval stages¶ are large and variable so that induced mortality has a less predictable effect on¶ rates of recruitment. Site-specific studies are necessary in determining ichthyoplankton¶ losses (OTC/MSG 1985).

OTEC pipes would entrain micro-organisms—that destroys biodiversityComfort and Vega 11 (Christina, GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY ¶ OF HAWAI`I OF MĀNOA, Luis, Ph.D @ THE UNIVERSITY ¶ OF HAWAI`I, “Environmental Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion in Hawaii”, Environmental Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion in Hawaii 2011, http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Environmental-Assessment-of-OTEC-in-Hawaii1.pdf, accessed 7/6/14, MB) Beyond productivity and nutrients, which have been monitored consistently through HOTS, most knowledge of Oahu’s biological oceanography comes from individual studies. Therefore, it is patchy and limited in scope, but there is a good deal of useful work that can be used to design an efficient baseline monitoring strategy. Studies based on net tows, acoustic backscatter, and data from the NELHA facility on the Big Island are a readily available starting point.¶ Lethal entrainment of organisms in the intake pipes is one of the most direct impacts OTEC can have on the environment. Small nekton may also be impinged on the intake screen, if their swimming capacity is less than the approach velocity of the water [4]. Estimates of organism density and depths of occurrence are necessary to estimate the impact of OTEC entrainment or impingement on a population. Studies investigating the plankton community at discrete depths, rather than net tows which integrate across the water column are relatively rare, but one thorough study of larval fish does exist and is a valuable resource for OTEC environmental assessment [22]. A small selection of other plankton has been characterized with respect to depth and onshore-offshore distribution, including heteropod mollusks [23] and nemerteans [24].¶ An example from Boehlert and Mundy’s larval fish database is a study of scombrid larvae [10]. The researchers used MOCNESS (multiple opening-closing net and environmental sensing system) to sample larvae at 8 depth bins, both during the day and at night. Multiple species and genera of tuna were characterized by their relationship with depth, temperature, and salinity. At the location of an offshore OTEC plant, most tuna larvae are found in 10-20m depth water, putting them at high risk for entrainment in the warm water intake at 20m [10]. Conversely, the larvae of other

species such as billfish are found primarily in the neuston, where they are unlikely to be entrained [25].¶ Deeper-dwelling organisms are also subject to entrainment in the cold water pipes. Because an intake screen cannot be cleaned at depth, the mouth of the intake pipe will be open, allowing entrainment of larger organisms [3]. Some entrainment monitoring has been carried out at an operational cold water pipe at Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) in Kona. For example, a high school group sampled the deep water sump for 2 months and identified macro-organisms which had been entrained at 1000m (Table 1) [26]. Data from this site is an ideal way to predict the biomass and types of organisms which may be entrained at 1000m depth. Baseline studies of the deep water habitat should ideally include more formal monitoring of entrainment at the NELHA site.¶ Nekton which may be impinged on the warm-water intake screens are difficult to sample at discrete depths due to their ability to evade the MOCNESS device, but integrated net tows are fairly effective for studying micronekton distributions. In March 2011, micronekton was sampled with a Tucker trawl along the Waianae coast of Oahu. Sampling ranged from 0-2000m depth. The results showed expected diurnal patterns reflecting diel vertical migrations [27], with gonostomatids, myctophis, and sergestid and caridean shrimp undertaking large vertical migrations related to time of day. While this method cannot determine which specific organisms are more likely to be entrained or impinged, it does add to the understanding of the ecosystem and how animals move in the water column.¶ Acoustic backscatter techniques can also identify micronekton and larger organisms subject to impingement on intake screens, and this method was used to study the spatial ecology of the Hawaiian mesopelagic boundary community [28]. The mesopelagic boundary community is diel migratory community that is an important foraging base for spinner dolphins and large predatory fish, but fortunately the behavior of the community is likely to prevent a high rate of entrainment or impingement from occurring. Daytime residence depths are around 400-700m, and nighttime depths, ranging from 0-400m, are farther inshore than the proposed OTEC facilities [29].

Impingement on a large scale would result in population damage—collapses biodiversity Meyers et. al. 86 (Edward, Ocean Minerals and Energy Division, ¶ Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, ¶ National Ocean Service, NOM, “The Potential Impact of ¶ Ocean Thermal Energy ¶ Conversion (OTEC) ¶ on Fisheries”, 1986, https://137.110.142.7/publications/CR/1986/8672.PDF, accessed 7/7/14, MB) Impingement--Impingement at coastal power plants has been an ¶ ecological problem (loss of a large number of organisms), an operational¶ problem (reduction in cooling water flow), and a cost problem¶ (removal and disposal of organisms). Impingement occurs when¶ organisms too large to pass through the intake screen, are pulled ¶ against it, and are unable to escape due to the current velocity.¶ Schooling fish es are especially susceptible, and impingement mortalities ¶ may involve millions of individuals. In one incident, 2 million¶ menhaden at the Millstone Plant in Connecticut were impinged and¶

caused a shutdown of the plant by reducing the cooling water flow.¶ These mortalities are believed by some ecologists to be reaching ¶ proportions which may cause population damage (Van Winkle¶ 1977). As a result, data on impingement of fish have been collected¶ from many operating plants (Adams 1969; Marcy 1971; Jensen¶ 1974; Uziel 1980).

Link—CO2 turn

OTEC brings carbon rich water to the oceans surface—releases CO2 into the atmosphere—that causes warming Quinby-Hunt et al. 87 (M.S, author of Polarized light scattering by aerosols in the marine atmospheric boundary layer, Collisions with ice/volatile objects: Geological implications, D. Sloan, P. Wilde, “POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ¶ CLOSED-CYCLE OCEAN THERMAL ¶ ENERGY CONVERSION”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1987, http://ac.els-cdn.com/0195925587900357/1-s2.0-0195925587900357-main.pdf?_tid=59a3a226-0617-11e4-a5cb-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1404765988_dd01cec6ca4a8f88e6acfb02c198a730, Accessed 7/7/14, MB) Release of Carbon Dioxide and Other Gases¶ Gas solubility in sea water decreases with increasing temperature (Weiss 1970).¶ Thus, cold, deep water allowed to come to equilibrium with warm, surface water ¶ would release CO2 and other gases when the cold deep water is brought to the ¶ surface. Outgassing of CO2 occurs naturally in tropical waters (Keeling 1968).¶ Mercury released during natural upwelling is detectable (Fitzgerald et al. 1984).¶ Outgassing from OTEC- cycled water may alter local rates of outgassing, but as¶ the gases are eventually redissolved into seawater at higher latitudes and colder¶ temperatures, the total volume of gas in the almosphere is changed little (OTC/MSG¶ 1985). On the other hand, when fossil fuels are burned, the CO2 produced is¶ "new," formed by combining carbon from ancient geologic sinks with atmospheric¶ oxygen during combustion.¶ Some concern has been expressed (NRC 1983b; EPA 1983a) regarding possible ¶ climate effects due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere--the greenhouse¶ effect (Brewer 1978). OTEC plants bring water containing CO2 at levels greater ¶ than saturation to the surface . As the dynamics of CO2 release are determined¶ by a complex set of environmental conditions and chemical reactions, only a¶ worst-case order of magnitude (at best), estimate of CO2 release by OTEC¶ operations (OTC/MSG 1985; MSG 1985) is discussed here.¶ At an OTEC facility, CO2 may be released to the atmosphere (Table 1, Figure¶ 2). Residence time and pressure shifts are insufficient to allow significant gas¶ evolution from the cold-water reservoir, a confined space through which water¶ passes rapidly (Morse 1984). After discharge, CO2 or other gas concentrations¶ in the effluent would approach equilibrium with gases at that point of discharge,¶ as a worst case, in the mixed layer. The maximum CO2 that could evolve due¶ to OTEC operations is the difference between the CO2 in deep and surface waters.¶ For example, the CO2 concentration in surface water is approximately 2.0 mmole/kg¶ seawater (Takahashi et al. 1970). Water from 700 m contains approximately 2.4¶ mmole CO2/kg (Takahashi et al. 1970). Therefore, the maximum CO2 released¶ would be 0.4 mmole/kg, or 0.018 g/kg. If a 40-MW OTEC plant pumps 90¶ m3/sec (7.8 × 109 kg/day) of deep water to the surface, approximately 1.4 × 105¶ kg of CO2 could be released each day if all excess CO2 was outgassed (OTC/MSG¶ 1985).

Link—Water

OTEC plants would disrupt the oceanic waters around themAbbasi and Abbasi 2k (S.A and Naseema, authors @ Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University, “The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources”, Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University 2000, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S030626199900077X/1-s2.0-S030626199900077X-main.pdf?_tid=18472ccc-0611-11e4-8d30-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1404763302_1faf691f701304776ea778a07c1765c1, accessed 7/7/14, MB)Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) power plants have the potential to ¶ cause major adverse impacts on the ocean water quality. Such plants would require ¶ entraining and discharging enormous quantities of seawater. The plants will displace¶ about 4 m3 of water per second per MW electricity output, both from the surface¶ layer and from the deep ocean, and discharge them at some intermediate depth¶ between 100 and 200 m. This massive flow may disturb the thermal structure of the ¶ ocean near the plant, change salinity gradients, and change the amounts of dissolved ¶ gases, nutrients, carbonates, and turbidity. These changes could have adverse ¶ impacts of magnitudes large enough to be highly significant.¶ The enrichment of the near-surface waters with the nutrient-rich cold water¶ brought up from a depth of 1000 m is of particular significance. Natural upwellings¶ of cold water from great depths in the ocean produce sites that are enormously rich in marine life. One of the well-known natural upwelling sites is where the Humboldt¶ current off Peru enriches the surface waters. The productivity there is so high that¶ almost one-fifth of the world's fish harvest comes from this region. It would be¶

possible to use the cold water effluent from an OTEC plant for the cultivation of¶ algae, crustaceans, and shellfish. In the nutrient-rich water, unicelluar algae grow to¶ a density 27 times greater than the density in surface water and are in turn consumed¶ by filter-feeding shellfish such as clams, oysters, and scallops.

Link- Algal Blooms/Eutrophication

The discharge of nutrient rich water by OTEC plants cause eutrophication Abbasi and Abbasi 2k (S.A and Naseema, authors @ Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University, “The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources”, Centre for Pollution Control & Energy Technology, Pondicherry University 2000, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S030626199900077X/1-s2.0-S030626199900077X-main.pdf?_tid=18472ccc-0611-11e4-8d30-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1404763302_1faf691f701304776ea778a07c1765c1, accessed 7/7/14, MB)However, abundance of nutrients in aquatic ecosystems can spell serious trouble¶ as it can lead to eutrophication and all the adverse consequence associated with¶ eutrophication.¶ Further, if the algal blooms caused by artificial upwelling include certain dinoflagellates, there may be other problems. For example shellfish consume dinoflagellates¶ and if these shellfish are consumed by humans, it can lead to serious illness . OTEC¶ advocates hope that, by designing the OTEC plant to discharge its water below the¶ photic zone (the region in the surface waters where photosynthesizing organisms live),¶ the surface waters will not be enriched. Furthermore, the fish living below the photic¶ zone do not feed on these nutrients. However, these are unknowns and, g iven the ¶ magnitude of disturbances that would be caused by OTEC, may not be as easily ¶ controllable as the proponents of OTEC may like to believe . If nutrient-rich water is ¶ discharged anywhere near the surface water intake valves , it could cause biofouling ¶ inside the pipes.

Eutrophication results is the growth of harmful algal blooms—that destroys affected ecosystemsSolow 4 (Andrew, Andrew Solow is Director of the Marine Policy Center and a Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “Red Tides and Dead Zones¶ The coastal ocean is suffering from overload of nutrient”, Oceanus Magazine 12/22/04, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/red-tides-and-dead-zones, Accessed 7/9/14, MB)The most widespread, chronic environmental problem in the coastal ocean is caused by an excess of chemical NUTRIENTS. Over the past century, a wide range of human activities—the intensification of agriculture, waste disposal, coastal DEVELOPMENT, and fossil fuel use—has substantially increased the discharge of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients into the environment. These nutrients are moved around by streams, rivers, groundwater, sewage outfalls, and the atmosphere and eventually end up in the ocean.¶ Once they reach the ocean, nutrients stimulate the growth of tiny marine plants called phytoplankton or algae. When the concentration of nutrients is too high, this growth becomes excessive, leading to a condition called eutrophication.¶ There is a clear connection between eutrophication and two significant environmental problems: harmful algal blooms (HABs) and the depletion of oxygen dissolved in bottom waters (hypoxia). The effects of both HABs and oxygen depletion are felt throughout the coastal ecosystem , with direct and indirect effects on human health, food supplies, and recreation. ¶ For scientists seeking to understand it, eutrophication is a challenge because the physical and biological processes linking nutrients and their impacts are complex. For policymakers seeking to manage these impacts, the challenge is weighing the economic benefits of the activities that generate nutrients with the environmental costs of eutrophication.¶ Too much of a good thing¶ In the ocean, as on the land, photosynthesis combines energy from the Sun, carbon dioxide, and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus to produce carbon-rich plant material. This natural process is called primary production and forms the base of the marine food chain. It also provides most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Without primary production, the world would be a much different (and a good deal less pleasant) place.¶ But every silver lining has a CLOUD. Of the thousands of species of algae, perhaps only a hundred are toxic. When these species occur in high concentrations, they can color the water and produce what are popularly referred to as “red tides” or “brown tides.” Scientists prefer to call these outbreaks harmful algal blooms or HABs. (See The Growing Problem of Harmful Algae.)¶ Toxic algae enter the marine food chain when they are consumed by small marine animals called zooplankton and by fish or shellfish. The toxins that accumulate in these consumers are then passed up the food chain to marine mammals , seabirds, and even humans, where they can cause illness or even death . ¶ Blooms of some non-toxic species of algae can also cause problems. For example, the North Atlantic right whale is in grave risk of extinction. This species feeds seasonally off Cape Cod on concentrated patches of zooplankton called copepods. In some years, an algal species called Phaeocystisblooms in Cape Cod Bay. Although Phaeocystis is not toxic, large blooms essentially clog surface waters and right whales cannot find the copepod patches they need to eat.¶ Non-toxic HABs include large blooms of seaweed or macroalgae that can coat beaches, interfering with recreational activities. Other HABs clog seagrass beds and coral reefs, which provide nurseries for commercially important fish and support high levels of biological diversity necessary

for a healthy environment. ¶ Harmful algal blooms occur in every part of the world. In the U.S. and other developed countries, monitoring efforts and fishery closures have reduced the incidence of human illness caused by toxic algae. However, both monitoring and closures have economic costs that can be substantial. Perhaps the most striking example of this is the COMPLETE loss of the wild shellfish resource in Alaska—which once produced 5 million pounds annually—to persistent paralytic shellfish poisoning.¶ It is difficult to assess the precise way in which human activities influence the occurrence and severity of HABs. The physical and biological processes involved are not well understood, and long-term observations are sorely lacking. To complicate matters, HABs can and do occur in relatively pristine conditions. But there is a clear connection between nutrient levels and primary production, and there is general agreement among scientists that, other factors being equal, the conditions that favor high levels of primary production also favor HABs.

States CP

States Solve

States have no problem getting privates on board – Makai and Lockheed Martin proveEnay 11 Shara Enay is a writer for Hawaii Business magazine, “Hawaii’s Natural Energy Laboratory fuels innovation”, November 2011, Hawaii Business Magazine, http://www.hawaiibusiness.com/Hawaii-Business/November-2011/Hawaiis-Natural-Energy-Laboratory-fuels-innovation/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc//OFMakai Ocean Engineering Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is not a new concept at NELHA. In fact, the park was built three decades ago specifically to conduct OTEC research: generating electricity using the temperature difference between deep-ocean water and surface water. While the concept is well established, the creation of a commercially viable system has been an engineering and financial challenge, says Michael Eldred, project manager at Makai Ocean Engineering. The high price of imported oil and the public’s desire for clean-energy solutions have renewed interest in OTEC. Many, including Mayor Kenoi, hope the latest round of R&D could lead soon to an OTEC plant in Hawaii. Makai Ocean Engineering’s Heat Exchanger Test Facility opened in July and was designed for R&D and expansion. By adding a turbine and generator to the facility, electrical power can be provided to the grid, and operation and control procedures can be perfected before creating a full-scale OTEC plant. Photo: Courtesy of Makai Ocean Engineering In July, Makai commissioned the first heat exchanger test facility in Hawaii, a five-story structure at NELHA. Heat exchangers are the most expensive component of an OTEC plant, so their cost, longevity and performance will make or break the project’s economic feasibility. “What we have here is about one-tenth the size of an actual heat exchanger needed for a real OTEC plant,” says mechanical engineer Robert Loudon. “We’re in the R&D stage right now, but if we had an investor willing to take this project to the next level, we could bring it to a commercial scale pretty quickly.” Loudon says in order for an OTEC plant to make economic sense, it would need to generate at least 100 megawatts of energy. With current technology, that kind of plant would cost about $1.5 billion, but Makai is testing aluminum as a substitute for titanium in the heat exchangers, which would lower costs dramatically. Makai has teamed with Lockheed Martin’s Alternative Energy Development team to create a pilot OTEC plant for Hawaii , which would be the first of its kind in the world. It has also received support from the Japanese government and the U.S. military is also interested in OTEC technology, but Eldred says construction of a plant would still require significant private investment. “Our plan is to have a two- to four-megawatt pilot plant offshore by 2014,” Eldred says, “and then we could test the reliability of an OTEC system. Nobody’s ever plugged in something like this to the grid, so we would need to know if it’s reliable and cost effective.” Eldred says a successful OTEC operation would not only reduce Hawaii’s dependency on foreign oil and create clean energy, but a refined system could also decrease the price of electricity by up to 10 cents per kilowatt hour, or about $90 a month for the average Hawaii household, which consumes 900 kilowatt hours of energy per month

CP solves – companies will be able to commercialize but upfront investment is keyDaly 11 John Daly is a reporter for Oilprice.com, a news website for oil/gas price news as well as general energy news, “Hawaii About to Crack Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Roadblocks?”, 5/12/11, Oilprice.com, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Hawaii-About-To-Crack-Ocean-Thermal-Energy-Conversion-Roadblocks.html//OFBut there is a renewable technology being developed in America’s 50th state which savvy investors should keep a weather eye on. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) utilizes temperature differentials between deep, cold ocean water and warm, tropical surface waters to run a heat engine to produce electricity. It is in deep tropic waters that OTEC offers the greatest possibilities, as it is there that the temperature differentials are highest, with surface waters often reaching up to 80 degrees Fahrenheit, while deep water can be as low as several degrees above water’s freezing temperature of 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Heat from the warm surface water is used to vaporize ammonia, which turns a turbine to drive a generator to produce electricity. OTEC has the potential to offer global amounts of energy that are 10 to 100 times greater than other ocean energy options such as wave power and unlike solar and wind power, OTEC plants can operate continuously providing a base load supply for an electrical power generation system. Energy specialists estimated that that 10 OTEC plants producing 100 megawatts of electricity could power all of Oahu. 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. The idea has a long genesis, with the theory first being proven in the 1930s by Frenchman Georges Claude, who deployed a small OTEC plant in Cuba. In the 1970s during the post 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which caused oil prices to triple, the federal government poured $260 million into OTEC research, which saw Lockheed Martin begin to cooperate with Oahu-based Makai Ocean Engineering. After Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidential election, federal OTEC funding essentially ceased. Makai Ocean Engineering has soldiered on however, and over the past three years, surging hydrocarbon energy prices, rising environmental concerns and new U.S. Department of the Navy energy policy have led to government and commercial support to improve key OTEC technologies, which among other

things caused Makai Ocean Engineering and Lockheed Martin to rekindled their earlier OTEC collaboration of nearly forty years previously. That partnership in July led to the opening by the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) of a new testing facility at Keahole Point on The Big Island, to be overseen by - Makai Ocean Engineering. NELHA CEO Jan War said, “It certainly falls within our initial goals to provide a support facility for research on the OTEC process .” Hawaii currently has no OTEC commercial scale facilities, but that is Makai Ocean Engineering’s ultimate goal. The new Keahole facility will test different coatings or alloys for increasing heat exchange efficiency. Makai Ocean Engineering is investing $2.3 million in the project while Lockheed Martin provided some of the structural parts for the test facility’s 40-foot tower. But the issue is still investment money, which hinges upon the project’s success in improving the heat exchange ratios. The Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, a research group and part of the University of Hawaii Manoa director Richard Rocheleau stated bluntly, “People are not going to invest in this if the heat exchangers aren’t tried and tested to the fullest degree” even as Makai Ocean Engineering Vice President Reb Bellinger complained, “The whole effort hinges upon how much money we can get in certain periods of time. We can’t just stop part of the project because we don’t have enough money.” And Makai Ocean Engineering has a mainland competitor, Baltimore-based OTEC International, which last month NELHA selected for lease negotiation to build a one megawatt ocean thermal energy conversion demonstration plant on six acres of its 870-acre ocean, science and technology park on the Big Island. While negotiations of a lease agreement and terms have yet to be finalized, NELHA executive director Greg Barbour estimated the cost of the project at $30 million. What is puzzling about the NELHA- OTEC International arrangement is that the one megawatt ocean thermal energy conversion demonstration plant is to be onshore, rather than in the deep ocean. On its website OTEC International states that the onshore plant will “demonstrate the OTEC power cycle before it undertakes the capital intensive offshore, deep-ocean floating platform. This one megawatt pilot plant will demonstrate the OTEC power cycle and the scalability of the technology in the near term, enabling OTI to proceed to commercial scale projects more quickly.” 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.

AT Budgets

Budgets aren’t a problem – states have ways to effectively finance renewable projects without federal supportMikalonis 14 Saulius Mikalonis is an attorney at the Bloomfield Hills office of Plunkett Cooney, practicing environmental law for over 25 years, “Despite budget constraints, less federal support, states move forward in promoting renewables”, 2/14/14, Crain’s Detroit Business Newspaper, http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140214/BLOG103/140219920/despite-budget-constraints-less-federal-support-states-move-forward//OFIn my review of the Energy Information Agency annual report on the future of energy, I mentioned the forecast of the increasing use of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. This increase will occur even in the face of decreasing support by the federal government of subsidies and incentives for renewables (although the subsidies for traditional fuels will likely continue unabated). With no action on the federal level to promote renewables or energy efficiency that is likely to see the light of day, it will be up to the states to bridge the gap. State governments’ own budget constraints have not stopped them from moving ahead with some innovative solutions. The most comprehensive is Connecticut’s Clean Energy and Investment Authority (CEFIA). The CEFIA is a quasi-public corporation that can raise capital and provide low-cost loans for clean energy projects. Connecticut had a variety of programs and sources of funds for the development of clean energy projects. With the establishment of the CEFIA, these programs and funds were consolidated into one program. In addition to already existing sources of public funding, the Connecticut legislature authorized the CEFIA to issue $50 million in bonds and notes. The money available to the CEFIA is then leveraged by working with sources of private capital. The CEFIA may finance up to 80 percent of clean energy projects and up to 100 percent of energy efficiency projects. As the borrowers pay back the loan, that money is then reused to fund other types of projects. All of the CEFIA’s operations are subject to audits and public disclosure. Michigan has the small business pollution prevention (P2) assistance loan fund, which is similar in design, if not scope. State money, leveraged with private money, can provide borrowing for specific projects up to $400,000 for qualifying small businesses. Qualifying projects are those projects that reduce or eliminate waste, reduce energy use or minimize public health hazards. The loan amount is split evenly between a private bank and the State of Michigan. Another similar program is known as a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. Michigan’s PACE program empowers local governments to provide financing for businesses to fund energy efficiency and alternative energy projects with the loan secured by the value of the property and paid back as a part of the owner’s property tax burden. The longest running such program is Ann Arbor’s PACE program, which is funded through bonds and allows owners to install projects with eligible costs between $10,000 and $350,000. If Michigan is serious about the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, its legislators know how to develop public-private programs to incentivize those types of projects. The main benefit of these types of programs is that they reduce the burden on public coffers, but still provide means by which we reduce reliance on more polluting fuels and develop innovative technologies at home.

Elections

Plan Unpopular

OTEC unpopular---NIMBYismOEC 14 (03/14) http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/Non-profit organization advocating the development and implementation of ocean renewable energy, articles published through review of various studies/artciles,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.”

Even if people support renewables in the abstract specific projects cause strong, concentrated oppositionDaily Climate 12 (01/04/12)http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/01/green-nimbyism he Daily Climate is an independent media organization focusing on climate change, including its scope and scale, potential solutions and the political processes that impede or advance them.So-called "NIMBY" activism, once reserved for projects like landfills, prisons and big box stores, has started to impact proposed renewable energy projects throughout the nation. Last year, not-in-my-backyard opposition delayed or cancelled a wide range of proposals involving wind and solar power and biofuels production nationwide.¶ Siting for renewables certainly has gotten very challenging. - Nathanael Greene, NRDC¶ "Siting for renewables certainly has gotten very challenging," said Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council.¶ In California, public opposition has successfully blocked or stalled major wind and solar energy projects, many of them in wilderness areas. But it is not just big projects that are attracting opposition. A homeowners' association in Palos Verdes, Calif., in December rejected the installation of household rooftop solar panels in the community.¶ In Amesbury, Mass., residents are trying to block a developer's plan to erect enough solar panels to power 16 homes.¶ wind-nimby-horizontal"It's not 'not in my backyard,' it's everybody's backyard," a nearby neighbor told the local Eagle Tribune. Researchers say that, while public opinion polls show strong support for renewables as an antidote to energy production that contributes to climate change, the support wanes if the proposed project is nearby. ¶ In Oklahoma, the Osage Nation filed a lawsuit to block the construction of an 8,300-acre wind farm. The tribe was concerned that 94 wind turbines and their network of electrical lines and roads would harm the tallgrass prairie. ¶ "In some areas, those big projects just cannot get over those hurdles," said Frank Maisano, an energy specialist with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm Bracewell & Guiliani, which represents the wind power industry.¶ wind-nimby-tallIn Michigan, a $235 million, 56-turbine wind farm was greeted by a public protest and a lawsuit to block the project. Among the reasons for opposition: Turbine noise and diminished property values. The 101-megawatt project was to be completed in 2012. Now, the completion date is uncertain. ¶ Meanwhile, efforts to build a 200-turbine, 1,000-megawatt offshore wind farm in Lake Michigan have stalled in the face of public hearings packed with irate residents and skeptical local officials. To the east, in Ontario, legislators in February enacted a moratorium on all off-shore projects – two years after passing the Green Energy Act calling for a 20 percent increase in renewable energy generation by 2015.¶ A University of California, Santa Barbara, study [pdf] identified the basis for that opposition. Wind power in general has overwhelming support – roughly 72 percent of the public say they support it. But when a site is close to home, support drops to 53 percent, researchers found.¶ "A distrust of developer objectives, and lack of local ownership [are] the foremost reasons why they oppose wind farms," the study concluded.

Plan Popular

Strong public support for OTECOcean Potential 2012, database that collects data from global archives in relation to OTEC and compiles it for assessments, http://www.oceanpotential.com/ocean-thermal-energy/The enormous global potential of OTEC is increasingly visible, not least because leading publications such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and IIASA Global Energy Assessment reports acknowledge the huge technical and economic potential. According to the latest IPCC report, Ocean Thermal Energy has the largest recoverable potential from all renewable ocean energy technologies. The global potential that can harnessed from the ocean without harming the natural ocean cycles and at competitive costs is estimated to be between 5 and 10 TW, more than two times our current global electricity demand. Additonionally, OTEC has a capacity factor between 80% and 100%, meaning that OTEC electricity production is very reliable and predictable.¶ The cost of fossil fuels continues to increase in a time where ‘cheap oil’ seems to be over. At the same time, the associated effect of large scale consumption of fossil fuels on climate change comes with large (environmental) costs. Today, global public opinion is increasingly supporting renewable energy technologies like OTEC, and the need to transition to a clean and renewable energy use has never been more apparent. Ocean thermal energy conversion is considered a key technology to make this energy transition happen.

Majority of Americans staunchly support renewable investment.The Hill 14 (04/09/14), The Hill is a congressional newspaper that publishes daily when Congress is in session, and holds a large reader base online.http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/203099-most-americans-support-renewable-fuel-standard-poll-shows¶ Sixty-five percent of people in the United States support the renewable fuel standard (RFS) that mandates production and blending of a certain

amount of fuel from renewable sources, according to a survey commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA).¶ ¶ This is the third year in a row that RFA surveys have shown a majority favors the standard, the group said Wednesday. Support has grown since 2012, when 61 percent favored

it.¶ ¶ Twenty-six percent of people oppose the standard, the RFA said.¶ ¶ ¶ “It is telling that support for the RFS continues to grow in spite of the relentless attacks on ethanol and the RFS financed by Big Oil’s deep pockets,” RFA President Bob Dinneen said in a statement. “Repeatedly Americans have decisively said they place a premium on energy independence, job creation and a cleaner environment.”¶ The same day that the RFA released its survey, the American Petroleum Institute, which opposes the mandate, said 10 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency supporting its proposed renewable fuel mandate levels for 2014.¶ ¶ The EPA’s proposal, released last year and not yet made final, seeks to lower the amount of renewable fuels blended into traditional ones.¶ ¶ “The goals behind the RFS were well-intentioned, but in 2007, the energy market and our nation’s energy landscape were very different than today,” the members said. Thirteen members of the Congressional Black Caucus sent a similar letter in January.¶ ¶ The RFA’s survey also found majority support

for incentives to develop cellulosic ethanol and mandates to build cars that run on alternative fuels. Most Americans oppose the tax credits that oil companies receive, the RFA said.