Aff

1AC

Plan
The United States federal government should expand necessary incentives,
permitting, and siting to facilitate offshore wind power in the United States ocean
Exclusive Economic Zones.

Climate

AT US Not Key
US is the main polluter of CO2
Blakemore, ABC News domestic and foreign correspondent, 12
[Bill, 7-22-12, ABC News, Whos Most to Blame for Global Warming?,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/07/whos-most-to-blame-for-global-warming/, accessed 711-14, AKS]

Whos most to blame for global warming?

Nobody meant it to happen.
But it has, and theres no debate among the worlds scientists about which country is most responsible.
That is, about which nation has injected the greatest amount of the heat-trapping invisible gas CO2 into to
the atmosphere, where a lot of it remains for years, piling up and only adding to the heat.
The answer: United States has, with China a distant second.
And figured on a per person basis, the most responsible is the United Kingdom, with the United
States a close second, Germany a close third, and China a distant seventh.
If youre surprised the most to blame isnt China, the explanation is simple:
In about 2007, China did pass the United States in putting the greatest amount of CO2 into the air
per year, but Chinas economic boom only got started recently and they still have a couple of
decades to go (if there are no drastic changes) before they catch up with the United States in the
total cumulative amount of heat-trapping CO2 they will have been piling up in the air.
(Regarding the per person way of thinking, the United Kingdoms population is about 62 million,
Americas is just over 310 million, Germanys about 82 million, and Chinas about 1.4 billion.)
The graphs below from NASA show all this responsibility in simple form. Most 12-year-olds understand
them in a matter of minutes.

US key to solve Emits 1/3 of greenhouse gases

Spross, Climateprogress, 13
(Jeff, 6-6-13, Thinkprogress, Heres Why The U.S. Is Morally Obligated To Act On Climate Change,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/06/2110951/us-obligated-climate-change/, accessed 7-19-14,
CLF)

Internationally, the big hurdle to fighting climate change and global warming is figuring out a fair way to
divvy up responsibility. Serious efforts to curb carbon emissions will require considerable upfront
investment, so who should make those investments and how much? That impasse then influences
domestic political reluctance in the United States. If the rest of the world isnt moving, why should we?

Earlier this week, Bloomberg flagged work by the Stockholm Environment Institute and others to nail
down answers to those questions with hard numbers. Their conclusion?
As of now, the United States bears fully one third of the burden to reduce global carbon emissions,
with much of Europe shouldering nearly another third. Its a bracing conclusion. The latest analysis
suggests the per-unit social and economic damage from carbon emissions due to global warming is
as much as twice what we thought. Several countries with much more modest obligations than
Americas have already moved to price carbon, leaving the U.S. sticking out like a sore thumb. Even
China is tip-toeing up to it.
Much of the researchers work comes from the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework. First, they
set a global threshold for living standards, below which people are considered free from the responsibility
to sacrifice in the fight against climate change. They came up with $7,500 a year in dollars (adjusted for
purchasing power parity) its the living standard at which malnutrition, infant mortality, low education,
and other problems of poverty begin to fade, plus a bit of breathing room. Even then, about 70 percent of
the globe lives at or below this level, and taken all together is responsible for only 15 percent of the
cumulative global emissions.
Capacity to invest in climate mitigation and adaptation was then defined as all income per person falling
above that threshold. As you can see below, the United States capacity swamps that of both India and
China, despite the much larger populations of the latter two countries:
Source: The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework
The researchers then tried to quantify responsibility for climate change by accounting for
cumulative emissions since 1990, and all projected emissions going forward, while excluding all
emissions associated with income below the threshold. Putting it all together, they calculated the
responsibility and capacity indicator (RCI) for each country. In other words: everyones fair share
of the responsibility to reduce carbon emissions enough to keep the planets climate under two
degrees Celsius of warming.
The result? The United States has 33.1 percent of the global RCI in 2010, dropping to 25.5 percent in
2030. The European Union has 25.7 percent in 2010 and 19.6 percent in 2030. Thanks to its economic
growth, China does jump from 5.5 percent in 2010 to 15.2 percent in 2030. But no other country even
cracks 8 percent, or changes much over that period.
Source: The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework
This shouldnt be surprising. Other data suggests the U.S. can claim a third of the worlds carbon dioxide
emissions since the mid-1800s, and our per capita emissions top nearly every other nation. Were also
the most economically developed nation without a price on carbon, meaning we implicitly subsidize
fossil fuel use far more than anyone else.

Wind Solves Climate

Offshore wind can help stop warming
National Wildlife Federation, Wildlife preservation organization, 14*
(NWF (organization helping wildlife survive the challenges of the 21st century like climate change and
habitat loss), 2014, NWF, Offshore Wind Power, http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-andClimate/Renewable-Energy/Offshore-Wind.aspx, accessed 7-11-14, CLF)
*last date cited

Offshore wind energy has great potential to help America forge a clean, independent energy
future. There are currently nearly 2,000 offshore wind turbines spinning in Europe but not a single one
can be found here in America, despite the immense potential for clean energy generation right off
our shores.
National Wildlife Federation is working with a broad coalition of partners to build momentum and
support for the rapid, environmentally-responsible development of our offshore wind energy resources. If
we are to protect wildlife from the dangers of climate change, we can no longer afford to ignore this
massive local clean energy source.
Offshore Wind Potential in the Atlantic Ocean
Over 1.5 million acres off the Atlantic Coast of six states already designated for wind energy development
could generate over 16,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power over five million homes. Catching
the Wind: State Actions Needed to Seize the Golden Opportunity of Atlantic Offshore Wind Power equips
Atlantic Coast state leaders with five recommendations on how to build the long-term market certainty
needed to fully launch offshore wind power for America.
Download the full report (pdf)
The Atlantic Ocean is one of the best attainable renewable energy resources in the United States
with the potential to create local jobs while reducing global warming pollution.
America has some of the best offshore wind resources in the world, particularly along the Atlantic
coast where over 1,300 GW of energy generation potential has been identified. Harnessing just a
fraction of our offshore wind resource52 GWcould power about 14 million U.S. homes with
local, pollution-free energy while creating over $200 billion in new economic activity along the
coast. New analysis shows that a robust offshore wind industry could create 300,000 jobs here in
America.
By tapping the power of offshore wind, America can help ensure energy security, price stability, and
decreased pollution, while decreasing the use of fossil fuels that pose the biggest threat to our
wildlife and ocean resources.

Wind turbines curb emissions and hurricanes

Dance, Weather & Science Reporter, 14

(Scott, 2-26-14, The Baltimore Sun, Offshore wind turbines could weaken hurricanes, study finds,
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/weather/weather-blog/bal-wx-offshore-wind-turbines-could-weakenhurricanes-study-finds-20140226,0,3734586.story, accessed 7-11-14, CLF)
Massive wind turbines that could dot the horizon from Ocean City within a few years could affect
more than the power grid -- they might offer some protection from hurricanes, a study has found.
The idea is that the turbines' rotation saps some of the energy out of the atmosphere along the coast,
according to a study published online today in the journal Nature Climate Change. That means the
ingredients a storm needs to maintain or gain strength could be reduced.
That could end up providing fodder for offshore wind proponents' arguments, because the study suggests
the value of hurricane damage that could be avoided could be added to any cost-benefit analysis of
offshore wind.
Researchers at the University of Delaware and Stanford University used a model that forecasts climate,
weather, air pollution and ocean conditions to explore how the presence of offshore windmills would have
affected the strength and the tracks of hurricanes like Sandy and Katrina. They had previously used the
model to test whether wind energy generation contributed to global warming, as some had suggested in
the past, said Cristina Archer, an associate professor at Delaware and co-author of the study.
The model suggested that in the case of Sandy, Katrina and Hurricane Isaac, the wind turbines would
have indeed had an impact.
The model found that the wind farms would have caused slight shifts in the storms' routes to shore,
and would have slightly lessened wind speeds before, during and after landfall. The models also
suggested slightly higher pressure in the storms' center, meaning they would be slightly weaker overall.
The model also found reductions in air pollution and other factors that helped to make wind power more
cost-effective. Critics have fought efforts by Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration to build wind power
because of its high cost.
"In sum, large arrays of offshore wind turbines seem to diminish hurricane risk cost-effectively
while reducing air pollution and global warming and providing energy supply at a lower net cost
than conventional fuels," the study's authors wrote.

Laundry List Impact

Laundry listWarming disrupts the fishing industry, destroys coral reef habitats,
drowns wetlands and other land ecosystems, and causes acidification of the ocean
meaning fish cant form their skeletons
Fujita, Environmental Defense Fund research and development director, 13
(Rod, 10-8-13, Environmental Defense Fund, Five ways climate change is effecting our oceans,
http://www.edf.org/blog/2013/11/14/five-ways-climate-change-affecting-our-oceans, accessed 7-11-14,
CLF)

Much attention has been focused on the effects of climate change on forests, farms, freshwater sources
and the economy. But what about the ocean? Even with its vast capacity to absorb heat and carbon
dioxide, the physical impacts of climate change on the ocean are now very clear and dramatic.
According to a recent report, temperatures in the shallowest waters rose by more than 0.1 degree Celsius
(0.18 degree Fahrenheit) a decade for the 40 years through 2010 . . . Average sea levels have increased
worldwide by about 19 centimeters (7.5 inches) since 1901. What are the effects of these warmer
temperatures?
Coral bleaching
As early as 1990, coral reef expert Tom Goreau and I pointed out that mass coral bleaching events
observed during the 1980s were probably due to anomalously warm temperatures related to
climate change. Mass coral bleaching results in the starvation, shrinkage, and death of the corals
that support the thousands of species that live on coral reefs.
Fish migration
In addition, many fish species have moved toward the poles in response to ocean warming,
disrupting fisheries around the world.
Drowning wetlands
Rising sea levels, partly the result of heat absorbed by the ocean, is also drowning wetlands.
Wetlands normally grow vertically fast enough to keep up with sea level rise, but recently the sea
has been rising too fast for wetlands to keep their blades above water. Coral reefs and sea grass
meadows are also in danger of drowning since they can only photosynthesize in relatively shallow
water. (Their depth limits are greater when the water is extremely clear, but deforestation, farming,
construction, and other activities adjacent to coral reefs are all reducing water clarity and thus
exacerbating the risk of drowning.)
Ocean acidification
The ocean has absorbed about 30% of all of the carbon dioxide we humans have sent into the
atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution some 150 billion tons. However, this great
service, which has substantially slowed global warming, has been accomplished at great cost: the trend
in ocean acidification is about 30 times greater than natural variation, and average surface ocean
pH (the standard measure of acidity) has dropped by 0.1 unit (a highly significant increase in acidity).

This is damaging many ocean species that use calcium carbonate to form their skeletons and shells.
Recentstudies show that calcium carbonate formation is disrupted if water becomes too acidic.
Ocean acidification also appears to be affecting whole ecosystems, such as coral reefs, which depend
on the formation of calcium carbonate to build reef structure, which in turn provides homes for
reef organisms.
A disastrous positive feedback loop
Finally, acidification also appears to be reducing the amount of sulfur flowing out of the ocean into
the atmosphere. This reduces reflection of solar radiation back into space, resulting in even more
warming. This is the kind of positive feedback loop that could result in runaway climate change
and of course, even more disastrous effects on the ocean.
For decades, the ocean has been absorbing carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil
fuels. It has also absorbed a lot of the extra heat produced by elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
But even the ocean has limits, and we are bumping up against them, with damaging consequences for the
whole world.

Economy

Economy Uniqueness
US economy fragile now could go back into recession
Booker, Seeking Alpha Value Walk columnist, 6-26-14
[Brian, 6-26-14, SeekingAlpha, American GDP Shrinks 2.9%: U.S. Economy On The
Verge Of Recession?, http://seekingalpha.com/article/2287983-american-gdp-shrinks2_9-percent-u-s-economy-on-the-verge-of-recession, accessed: 7-11-14, CLF]
Many analysts were expecting the U.S. economy to contract in the first quarter, however the severity of
the decline has shocked some. Revised datapoints to a 2.9% contraction, far worse than most analysts
had predicted. So could the United States be teetering towards a recession, yet again?
Economic indicators are often revised as more and more info and data becomes available. In April, the
government released a report stating that the economy had actually expanded by .1 percent. As more data
came in economists began to revise the data downwards, with predictions averaging out to a 1.7%
decline. The revision from tepid growth to an outright retreat is rather worrisome.
Economy appears to have since rebounded
Most analysts aren't too worried over the shockingly poor numbers from the first quarter. Since the
sharp decline, the economy appears to have rebounded quite dramatically. Hiring is up, the
manufacturing sector isreporting its best numbers in four years, and all 12 of the Federal Reserve
banks are reporting that the economy is indeed growing.
At the same time, many economists are pointing to the particularly harsh winter as restraining the
economy. During the winter some economic activities are constrained. Obviously, farms won't be in full
operation, but also consumers will be less likely to head to the store, movies, or restaurants.
As the weather warms, people tend to head outside and out of their homes more often. And when they do,
there's an increased likelihood of them opening up their wallets. With the summer having finally set in, it
does indeed appear that economic activity is picking up. This should bolster growth, though seasons
always change and it's only a matter of months before winter comes around again.
Meanwhile, the economy has added over a million jobs in the last five months. Increased employment
generally leads to increased spending, which bolsters economic growth. Economists point out that such
hiring generally suggests an economy that is growing between 2 to 3 percent, and certainly not one that is
in the midst of a contraction.
All of these factors combined suggest that the economy is growing, at least at the moment . There
are numerous other indicators that suggest, however, that the economy is still on weak ground and
could fall back into negative territory.
Not all of the data is good
While the United States economy is almost certainly not in recession (as a recession is defined as two
quarters of negative growth), not all of the economic indicators look good. While the U.S. economy has

been adding jobs, wages are largely stagnant and participation in the work force has actually been
shrinking.

Solvency

US Modelled
US action and development will spill over internationally
Global Wind Energy Council, 13
[No Author, September, GWEC, Global Offshore, http://www.gwec.net/global-figures/global-offshore/,
accessed July 19, 2014, EK]
The potential of offshore wind is enormous. It could meet Europes energy demand seven times
over, and the United States energy demand four times over.
Offshore wind is a relatively new technology, so costs will reduce and the technology will advance,
helping offshore wind to be more efficient and cost competitive in the near term. But this exciting
technology is already being incorporated into governments energy planning around the world.
More than 90% of the worlds offshore wind power is currently installed off northern Europe, in the
North, Baltic and Irish Seas, and the English Channel. Most of the rest is in two demonstration projects
off Chinas east coast.
Offshore wind is an essential component of Europes binding target to source 20% of final energy
consumption from renewables, and China has set itself a target of 30 GW of installations off its coast by
2020. The United States has excellent wind resources offshore, and many projects are under development,
but there is no offshore wind power installed yet.
The key benefits of offshore wind are:
The wind resource offshore is generally much greater, thus generating more energy from fewer turbines;
Most of the worlds largest cities are located near a coastline. Offshore wind is suitable for large scale
development near the major demand centers, avoiding the need for long transmission lines;
Building wind farms offshore makes sense in very densely populated coastal regions with high property
values, because high property values makes onshore development is expensive sometimes leads to public
opposition.
Although offshore wind is often the most talked about part of the wind sector, today it represents
about 2% of global installed capacity. In 2012 1,296 MW of new offshore capacity was added, a
33% increase from 2011 market, bringing the total to 5,415 megawatts.
Our projections show that by 2020, offshore wind will be about 10% of global installed capacity.

US offshore wind will be modelledbut strong investment commitment will be key.

Pratt, Credit Week, 12
[Terry A., May 23, Standard & Poors Rating Services: Credit Week, Strong Growth Of Global Offshore
Wind Power Needs Substantial Investment Overview,
http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/upload/Ratings_US/CreditWeekMay232012OffshoreWindandRene
wables.pdf, p. 17-19, accessed July 19, 2014, EK]

Electricity comes from many sources, but there is one source that only a few countries in Western
Europe, along with China, take advantage of, and it is in growing abundance: offshore wind power .
The industry began in Sweden and Denmark in 1991 but had not grown significantly until recently.
European utilities and project developers have built more than 3,800 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind
power capacity, according to the European Wind Energy Assn., and another 2,400 MW will become
operational globally in 2012 or early 2013, mostly offshore of the U.K. and Germany and to a lesser
extent China. Countries are increasingly relying on offshore wind power to help meet social and
economic policies over the next decade, but the investment required globally to meet this vision is
immense (see table 1).
The factors behind the industrys growth their resource arsenals, especially where for this relatively
new asset class, but in Western Europe and China are fuel large demand centers are near favorable
these will not be nearly enough to fund diversification, climate-change mitiga-tion, and, more
recently, job creation. For the same reasons, governments and stakeholders in many other countries are
looking to add offshore wind power to their resource arsenals, especially where large demand centers are
near favorable locations for offshore wind farms.
Funding will be a key issue for industry growth. Utility balance sheets and state lending
organizations have been the dominant sources of funding for this relatively new asset class, but these
will not be nearly enough to fund the ambitious investment needed by 2020. Standard and Poors Rating
Services estimate that the amount needed to meet U.K. and German gov-ernment goals by 2020 falls
between 91 billion ($117 billion) and 104 bil- lion ($133 billion).
Favorable Regulations Are the Key to Increasing Investment
Electricity from offshore wind costs much more to produce than that from conventional fossil fuels that
dominate supply in most countries. Consequently, offshore wind owes its existence to regu-latory
support. We do not see this changing for years to come. Countries are investing in renewable energy
not so much to produce electricity at the lowest cost, but more to meet the goals of energy security,
climate-change mitigation, industrial policy, or a combination of the three. Government policies have
been effective in attracting offshore wind proj-ects to the U.K., Germany, and Denmark, but not yet in the
U.S. Interestingly, diverse policies result in favorable investment frameworks and rapid growth.

AT Doesnt Solve Fossil Fuels

Plan offsets need for oil and gas, and produces net more jobs in the process
Oceana, 12
[Oceana, Could Offshore Wind Displace Oil?, http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/cleanenergy/learn-act/could-offshore-wind-displace-oil, accessed 7-10-14, AFB]

Wind power can directly offset oil consumption in the electricity generation and home heating
sectors. Currently, 43.7 million barrels of oil are consumed annually to generate electricity across
the country. This amount of electricity could easily be generated by offshore wind in an affordable
way that creates more jobs than offshore oil and gas.
Offshore wind could generate nearly 30% more electricity than offshore oil and gas resources
combined. Learn More
Offshore wind power could provide enough electric heat for every home in the country and then
some, more than new offshore oil and gas combined. Learn More
Offshore wind energy could power 55% more vehicles as the fleet becomes electrified, more than
new offshore oil and gas development combined.
Developing offshore wind would cost about $36 billion less over 20 years than the estimated cost of
producing oil, but unlike oil and natural gas, offshore wind will not be depleted in that period of
time. Learn More
Offshore wind could provide about three times as many jobs as could be created by the offshore oil
and gas industries.

AT Turbines Break
Wind turbines built to withstand wear and tear
Sustainable Business, 13
[No author, February 12, 2014, Sustainable Business, Maine Leads Trend Toward Floating Offshore
Wind Turbines, http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/24556, accessed July
17, 2014, EK]

As countries around the world focus more on offshore wind, scientists are working on next-generation
turbines that float rather than having to be anchored into the sea bed.
Having to anchor them to withstand extreme winds or rough seas limits offshore turbines to being sited in
water no deeper than about 165 feet (50 meters).
But if wind turbines can float, they can be installed in water up to 2,300 feet deep. "Many countries
all over the world have steeply sloping coast," says Frank Sandner, an engineer at the University of
Stuttgart. "Floating wind turbines are the only chance to utilize the wind energy out on the ocean."
A $120 million demonstration project starts this year off the coast of Maine - the first test for floating
turbines in the US. They will ride on the surface of the water and simply be tethered to the ocean
floor.
Four, 3-megawatt (MW) turbines will be deployed two miles off Boothbay Harbor in the Gulf of Maine.
Norwegian energy company Statoil is developing the project using Hywind turbines similar to those used
in its home country since 2009.
Hywind turbines have exceeded expectations, performing well in 50-foot waves and hurricane-force
winds.
Wind turbines sit on giant, bottle-shaped buoys - the tower with rotor blades sits tall above the water's
surface and the body floats deep below, weighed down by a cement ballast and tethered to the ocean floor.
The Department of Energy (DOE) gave a $4 million grant to both Statoil and the University of Maine for
the project, because their partnership it's likely to improve performance of offshore wind technologies.
"This is an opportunity for many Maine companies to develop cutting-edge expertise on energy
projects not just in Maine but around the world," says State Senator Troy Jackson, who serves on
Maine's Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee.
Maine has local manufacturer that will receive contracts to help build the array and a consortium of
companies, the Maine Wind Industry Initiative, will provide expertise. A lab at the University of Maine is
devoted to advancing these technologies.
Floating Wind Farms Take Many Shapes
Although Statoil's Hywind design is the most advanced, scientists are looking at other options for floating
wind farms.

An alternative being designed by Sweden's Hexicon uses a massive pontoon that's a quarter mile long and
can support 24, 3 MW turbines for a total generating capacity of 72 MW. It would be a floating wind
park with its own power station.
Hexicon Wind
Another model, the "Windfloat," has a triangular base with three corner floating pontoons, forming a
"floating island" that supports turbines from 3 MW to 10 MW in size. One has already been installed off
the coast of Portugal.
Floating turbines cost less to install than conventional tower-based designs. They can be assembled
onshore and then towed out to the installation site, eliminating the expensive and arduous process of
building them out in the open ocean.
On the flip side, the huge amount of steel needed to make turbines sturdy and heavy enough to withstand
rough waves is too expensive. Engineers are working on solutions to get around that, such as intelligent
systems that pump ballast water from one tank to the next as a way to stabilize turbines.
One thing that's clear is the need for specialized turbine blades that can produce energy even as
they rock and tilt on ocean waves. All that motion means more wear and tear and can also interfere
with power generation.

Offshore wind turbines are sturdy, light, compact, and built to withstand marine
conditions
AREVA, No Date
(AREVA: Forward Looking Energy, no date, AREVA, POWERFUL WIND TURBINES DESIGNED
FOR OFFSHORE USE, http://www.areva.com/EN/global-offer-713/wind-turbines-for-offshore-windfarms-renewable-energies-solutions.html#, accessed 7-17-14, CLF)

Windmills in the Alpha Ventus wind farm in the North Sea

With power of 5 and 8 MW, the M5000 and AREVA 8MW wind turbines are intended for offshore wind
farms. Sturdy, light and compact, they entirely designed to withstand the stress and severe
conditions of the marine environment.
Today, offshore wind farm operators require strong partners offering large turbines with enhanced
reliability, proven track record, high-performance and cost-effective design for higher water depths
and greater distance to shore.
Find out how AREVA is helping utilities to make offshore wind projects successful.
Read the Field Report
OPTIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
M5000 Multibrid turbine leaving the production hall
Powerful: the M5000 delivers up to 5 MW (for an average wind speed of around 12 m/s). The AREVA
8MW wind turbine delivers up to 8 MW (for an average wind speed of around 12 m/s).

Corrosion resistant: AREVA wind turbines are equipped with a patented air handling system that protects
the interior of the facility. The principle consists of purifying the air entering the facility and preventing
any unpurified air from entering, thereby creating an internal overpressure phenomenon.
Reliable: number of turning components reduced to a minimum; redundancy of auxiliary equipment and
sensors; compact platform.
Easy to assemble: lightness of the platform and rotor ; the entire unit is compact.
Easy to maintain: the continuous remote surveillance of the wind turbine in operation and the
presence of auxiliary emergency components enable less frequent interventions and enable them to
be planned in accordance with the weather conditions.

AT NIMBY
No NIMBYlocals support offshore wind projects
Kraemer, Environment Journalist, 9
[Susan, writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has
also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific
America, September 24, Clean Technica, No Off-Shore Wind NIMBYism, Gigantic Potential for MidAtlantic States, http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/24/no-off-shore-wind-nimbyism-gigantic-potentialfor-mid-atlantic-states/, accessed July 17, 2014, EK]

An amazingly high percentage of people who live down the Mid-Atlantic Seaboard from New York
to Virginia want wind turbines off their coast.
Even if they can be seen from the shoreline, 67% support off-shore wind power, according to a new
poll of coastal residents of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia .
If the turbines are out of sight, the level of support goes up to an astounding 82%.
A full 25% of the population of the US lives in the nine Atlantic states from Massachusetts to North
Carolina. The potential is staggering. So it is very fortunate that so many people in the middle of part
of the region with such great potential for wind power feel this way.
Off-shore wind power off the Atlantic could take one third of the US population off the fossil grid.
The off-shore energy potential down all nine Atlantic states is a colossal 330 gigawatts. That is almost
twice the total amount the nine states use: 185 gigawatts. The job would take over 160,000 5 MW
turbines spaced about a mile apart down the coast. This would be an energy superhighway.
NIMBYism has been the impediment for development of off-shore wind power off the East Coast. This
poll certainly had surprising findings, for the middle five of this nine-state wind powerhouse.
Most of the residents polled in the five middle states lived within a block or so of the ocean, three
quarters of them are homeowners; about 15% with waterfront property. A third of the people are
60 or older. Fully 90% of these coastal dwellers really get out and enjoy beach activities, swimming,
walking, crabbing and clamming and they put a higher priority on protecting the coastal
environment (76%) than improving the economy (69%), lowering taxes (65%), improving
education (64%), or controlling growth (56%)
In March 2009, the governors of the five states in the middle of this wind energy goldmine had initiated
an effort to develop an interstate agreement on ocean and coastal management for the Mid-Atlantic
region. While NOAA funded a grant for the Urban Coast Institute and Polling Institute at Monmouth
University to do the poll, coincidentally, the governors of the five states would need to know if there was
any agreement on coastal development.
The Department of the Interior is developing a Comprehensive Energy Plan on the U.S. Outer Continental
Shelf. There is a surprising level of agreement among coastal residents in the five states about what the
government should do on a range of issues of interest to coastal dwellers.

While the poll questions covered many coastal issues, what jumped out at me was that these
residents really agree on wind power off the Atlantic Seaboard.

AT Environment Args

Turbines Help Biodiversity

Turbines increase biodiversity
Osborne, Fellow at George Weidenfeld Programme, 2014
[Louise, 1/24/2014, Deutsche Welle, Booming German offshore wind power industry puts pressure on
marine life, http://www.dw.de/booming-german-offshore-wind-power-industry-puts-pressure-on-marinelife/a-17339633, accessed 7/11/2014 CK]

A recent report released by Germany's Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, known as the BSH,
on the wind farm Alpha Ventus has sought to soothe conservationists' fears. According to the
report, the effects on fish, birds and marine mammals are minimal.
Conducted over five years, the study looked at the ecological effects of the 12 turbines at Alpha
Ventus, a test site run jointly by energy firms EWE, E-ON and Vattenfall, 60 kilometers off the
German coast in the North Sea. It revealed an increase in the biodiversity at the bases of the
turbines.
"Life on the ground had very much intensified because small life-forms such as mussels, starfish
and sea anemones, were able to find a new surface on which to grow and multiply, much stronger
than on the sand that was already there," said Monika Breuch-Moritz, president of the BSH.
"That is actually just a normal result, you see similar things on every shipwreck," she told DW.

AT Wind Kills Birds

Annually, fossil fuels kill exactly 2,071 times more birds than wind turbines
Sovacool, National University of Singapore Energy Governance Program, 9
(Benjamin K, Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 9/13/09, NukeFree.org, Avian mortality from wind
power, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity,
http://www.nukefree.org/news/avianmortalityfromwindpower,fossil-fuel,andnuclearelectricity, accessed
7/11/14) NM

Fossil-fueled facilities are 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per GWh basis than wind power. Wind
turbines may have killed about 7000 birds, but fossil-fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear
327,000.
This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent
literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating
performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number
of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems.
The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and
0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for
about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the
estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006
but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes
that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat
to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies.

AT Fishing Industry

Turn Wind Helps Fish Industry

Offshore wind increases fish population good for fishing industry
Garus, Sun & Wind Energy, 13
(Katrina, 10-31-13, Sun & Wind Energy, Offshore wind farms increase biodiversity,
http://www.sunwindenergy.com/news/offshore-wind-farms-increase-biodiversity, accessed 7-11-14, CLF)

Contrary to what many fear, offshore wind farms do not have a negative effect on plants and wildlife.
A study conducted at the alpha ventus wind farm under the auspices of the German Federal Maritime and
Hydrographic Agency (BSH) shows that neither the obliteration of fauna nor mass killings of birds need
be feared.
"We are pleased that there has been no negative impact on the marine environment here," BSH
President Monika Breuch-Moritz said. The opposite is actually the case: The foundations of offshore
wind turbines form artificial reefs, on which mussels, sea anemones, sea lilies and starfish settle.
The researchers noticed increased biodiversity.
The fish population at the alpha ventus wind farm also shows greater biodiversity. New species found
in the area include long-spined scorpionfish, mackerel and dragonet. To detect the fish, the scientists used
a special fish sonar for the first time, which they set up next to the wind turbines on the seabed.
Another important result of the research project is a binding guideline for methods to perform underwater
acoustic measurements. It is the basis for DIN and ISO guidelines, which serve as a template for
European countries. During the project, new methods were developed for detecting and evaluating
populations of birds, marine mammals, fish and benthos in the vicinity of the offshore wind farms.

TurnWind turbines increase fish population and create habitats for new fish
speciesSolves fishing DA
Leonhard, et al., Technical University of Denmark Aqua associates, 11
(S.B., C. Stenberg, J. Stttrup, 2011, Science Daily, Fish Thriving around wind farms,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120410093318.htm, accessed 7-1-14, CLF)

The first Danish study into how one of the worlds largest wind farms affects marine life is now
completed. It shows that the wind turbines and the fish live quite happily together. Indeed some
species of fish have actually increased in number.
As work is just beginning on Denmark's newest and so far largest offshore wind farm off the island of
Anholt, comes some hopefully good news for all fish in the area. A new report from the Danish windpark Horns Rev 1, one of the world's largest offshore wind farms, shows that offshore wind farms
and fish can live together in harmony.
The 80 huge turbines at Horns Rev 1 are located just off Denmark's westernmost point and will be
celebrating their tenth birthday in just over a year's time. Like other offshore wind farms, it is located in

relatively shallow water, no more than 20 meters deep, and thus in an area which is typically
teeming with fish.
Even before the park was built, researchers from DTU Aqua, National Institute of Aquatic Resources in
Denmark, sailed out to conduct a survey of fish life in the area. Biologists then compared the data
gathered at that time with the situation in the area seven years after the wind turbine blades began
to turn.
"Our study showed that the turbines have not adversely affected fish life in the area," says biologist
Claus Stenberg from DTU Aqua.
Several new species
Offshore turbines at Horns Rev are sunk deep into the seabed and surrounded by a rim of large
piles of stones, which prevents the sea currents eroding deep trenches in the sand around the turbines.
The study suggests that these stone structures also act as artificial reefs , providing enhanced
conditions for fish, with an abundant supply of food and shelter from the current, and attracts fish
which like a rocky sea bottom. As such, the turbines have created habitats for a number of new
species in the area.
"Species such as the goldsinny-wrasse, eelpout and lumpfish which like reef environments have
established themselves on the new reefs in the area -- the closer we came to each turbine foundation, the
more species we found," says Claus Stenberg.
Fish living at the bottom of the sea thriving The researchers were keen to see how the fish species that
live on the large fine-grained sand banks that the mills were constructed on would be affected -- species
that include, for example, the sand eel, which is one of the most important fish for the Danish fishing
industry.

AT Hegemony

No Link Mitigation
There are mitigation processes in place to secure radar
Ling et al, University of Texas at Austin electrical and computer engineering
professor, 13
[Hao, Mark F Hamilton, UTA professor of electrical and computer engineering, Rajan Bhalla, PhD
Electrical Engineering, Walter E Brown, UTA faculty, Todd A Hay, UTA post-doctoral, Nicholas A
Whitelonis UTA fellow, Shang-te Yang, UTA graduate research assistant, Aale R Naqvi, UTA teaching
associate, 9-30-13, Final Report DE-EE0005380 Assessment of Offshore Wind Farm Effects on Sea
Surface, Subsurface and Airborn Electronic Systems,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/assessment_offshore_wind_effects_on_electronic_systems.pdf,
accessed 7-17-14, AKS]

First, mitigation processes are in place to deal with existing interference of land-based wind farms
on critical land-based radar systems in weather, air traffic control, and long-range surveillance.
These processes include mechanisms to evaluate new wind farm proposals, funded research and
development programs to examine the various mitigation approaches, and new software tools to
better predict the impact. They will be very useful in dealing with the effect of future US offshore
wind farms on these same systems.

No Link Doesnt Hurt Military Ops

Offshore wind has no effect on military operations Virginia proves
Associated Press, 10
[Associated Press, 5/4/10, ABC 13 (WVEC), Report: Offshore wind farm wouldn't affect military ops
off Va. Beach, http://www.wvec.com/news/Report-Va-offshore-wind-farm-wouldnt-affect-DOD92670939.html, accessed 7/16/14, GNL]

RICHMOND (AP) -- The development of a turbine manufacturing industry along Virginia's coast is
key to creating jobs and reducing the costs of offshore wind energy, according to the most detailed
analysis yet of the state's offshore wind prospects.
The report by the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium concludes that the development of an
offshore supply industry in Hampton Roads would generate thousands of jobs and reduce the estimated
kilowatt hour cost of energy generated by wind turbines off the coast.
"The greatest upside opportunity for reducing the cost of offshore wind energy in Virginia is to attract
major elements of a Mid-Atlantic offshore wind supply chain to the state," the report, Virginia Offshore
Wind Studies, states.
Using existing coastal facilities, the manufacture of huge components needed to capture winds off the
Virginia coast would create thousands of jobs, the study found.
"The shipbuilding and port facilities in Hampton Roads are well positioned to manufacture, stage and
install foundations, towers and turbines anywhere on the Mid-Atlantic continental shelf," wrote George
Hagerman, who led the research.
"Attracting investment in offshore wind turbine manufacturing to our region would create thousands of
new, career-length jobs and reduce offshore wind energy costs by 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour," said
Hagerman, who is with Virginia Tech's Advanced Research Institute.
Other key findings of the study:
-- Researchers identified 25 leasing sectors that could generate 3,200 megawatts of offshore wind
generating capacity without interfering with shipping lanes, Navy training or space launches from
NASA's Wallops Island facility on the Eastern Shore. The Navy and NASA have expressed concerns
about offshore energy developments, and NASA has stated serious reservations about ocean
structures within its flight path.
-- Turbine manufacturing in Virginia would decrease the capital costs of wind projects by 15 percent and
generate an investment of $403 million in the local economy.
-- Within two decades, 9,700 to 11,600 jobs could be created with the development of 3,200 megawatts of
offshore wind.
-- Research on the environmental impacts to shore and sea birds is scant and will require additional
studies. A separate report will address that issue in June.

At least two energy companies have formally expressed interest in developing wind farms 12 miles off of
Virginia Beach.
Proponents of developing offshore wind resources received the most significant boost in years last week
with federal approval of the nation's first offshore wind in the waters off Massachusetts' Cape Cod. The
developers want to generate power by 2012.
The $2 billion project still faces opposition in the courts, which could cool investors necessary to bankroll
it.
In Virginia, Gov. Bob McDonnell has pushed for offshore energy development, including wind power,
and a coalition of industry groups and seacoast mayors are lobbying for offshore wind.
"Virginia has a really unique asset when it comes to offshore winds," said Maureen Matsen, the
governor's energy adviser. "We have a relatively shallow continental shelf but with very strong winds.
That's a very unusual combination."

AT Oil DA
No link plan primarily affects electricity not driven by oil
Palmer et al., Resources for the Future, 10
[Karen, Richard Sweeney, and Maura Allaire, Oct 2010, "Modeling Policies to Promote Renewable and
Low-Carbon Sources of Electricity" http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-BCK-Palmeretal%20LowCarbonElectricity-REV.pdf, p.2, accessed 7-10-14]
A greater reliance on domestic renewable sources of electricity may also be associated with energy
security benefits, although the fact that very little electricity comes from oil means that the benefits from
reduced oil consumption are likely to be small.

Prices are set to crash structural changes in oil trade- US reductions and Chinese
fill-in
Hill, Washington Times Chief Economic Correspondent, 13
[Patrice, 2/3/13, Washington Times, Major changes from oil revolution,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/4/sea-changes-from-oil-revolution/ accessed 7-17-14,
AAZ]

Something very dramatic happened in world oil in 2004. We left behind a world of $20 oil
and entered the world of $100 oil, which corresponds with gasoline prices of $3 to $4 a
gallon on average, Mr. Yergin said in an interview with McKinsey & Co. last year. What
happened was the recognition of the impact of emerging market countries and what their
demand would be, and that growth in world oil demand would shift from the traditional
industrial countries to these emerging markets. That has carried us to a new higher price
plane and launched the drive to exploit huge unconventional oil reserves that is now
bearing fruit in North America. The higher prices of the past decade kick-started the trend
toward energy conservation that has shaved billions of dollars off U.S. oil trade deficits. The trend
promises to accelerate as the Obama administration ratchets up fuel efficiency standards for cars
and trucks. Technologies and materials also are making possible average miles per gallon of 50 or
higher in cars and sport utility vehicles.
The combination of fuel savings and increased production from unconventional sources has allowed
Americans to entertain hopes for energy independence. Although it will take heroic efforts to
achieve, Mr. Yergin said, oil independence is no longer just a chimera held out by politicians as it
once was.
OPECs China pivot
That prospect also ushers in a major shift in OPEC exports toward China and the rest of emerging
Asia especially as Iraq ascends once again as a game-changing exporter in a development that also
has important implications for the U.S., Mr. Yergin said. While triggering a potentially fundamental

reordering of U.S. priorities in the Middle East, it also heightens the importance of the U.S. managing its
relationship with China so that the competition between the two economic giants over securing energy
supplies doesnt turn into outright conflict over such issues as Beijings energy claims in the South China
Sea, he said.
China already consumes more energy from all sources coal, oil, gas and renewable fuels than
the United States, and it has an increasingly urgent need to secure its supplies much as the U.S. did
when it shifted to heavy dependence on imports in the 1970s. Demand for oil continued to strengthen in
China even during the recession, while oil consumption in the U.S. and other developed nations peaked
years ago, with U.S. demand down 10 percent since 2005.
The more confident the Chinese are about their sources of energy, the more comfortable everyone will
be, Mr. Yergin said.

AT Politics

Congressional Support
Wind industry has congressional support
Salerno, Vice president of Industry Data and Analysis at the American Wind Energy
Association, 1-10-14
[Elizabeth, The Hill, Wind energy credit is successful, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energyenvironment/194975-wind-energy-credit-is-successful, Accessed: 7/11/14, JO]

With the support of the PTC, wind power attracts an average of $18 billion annually in private
investment, with a record $25 billion in 2012. That money, combined with lease payments to property
owners and taxes paid to local and state authorities translates into significant economic gains for those
who host wind farms, particularly rural communities.
With wind industry activity in 70 percent of all U.S. Congressional districts , those gains arent
missed by legislators, Republican and Democrat , who support wind power on the grounds that it is
creating jobs , diversifying regional economies , and saving consumers (constituents) money on their
power bills.
In November, The Governors Wind Energy Coalition, a bipartisan group that includes the
governors of 23 states from every U.S. region, noted that adding wind power does reduce total
consumer energy costs over time, diminish our dependence on foreign oil , decrease the trade
deficit , and lessen carbon emissions.

Bipartisan support for the plan

Margaronis, Rebuild the United States president, 12
[Stas Margaronis, founder and president of Rebuild the United States an organization with the goal of
putting 20 million Americans back to work through investment in renewable energy, 10/30/12, RBTUS,
OFFSHORE WIND: DEVELOPERS SAYS COAST GUARD REPORT RESTRICTS ATLANTIC
COAST DEVELOPMENT, http://rbtus.com/offshore-wind-developers-says-coast-guard-report-restrictsatlantic-coast-development/, accessed 7/11/14, GNL]

This is happening just as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is to announce funding for offshore
wind demonstration projects.
In early 2013, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is expected to announce six new demonstration projects
for offshore wind energy that will include the Atlantic Coast, Pacific Coast, the Great Lakes and perhaps
the Gulf Coast, according to the OWDC.
Lanard says DOEs new projects will create a national offshore wind presence that should
demonstrate to developers, suppliers, and public officials that the lights are about to be turned on
for offshore wind power.

In addition, Lanard says that he has a high degree of confidence that Congress will re-authorize tax
credits for onshore and offshore development after the November election: a Senate Finance
Committee bi-partisan vote of 19-5 supported the tax credit extension.
Lanard says 84% of land-based, turbine installations occur in Republican congressional districts,
which encourages bi-partisan support.

[*Note: Lanard is the President at OffshoreWindDevCo]

Offshore wind has political support - local energy incentive and Cape Wind prove
Fairley, MIT Technology Review contributing editor, 10
[Peter Fairley, contributing editor at MIT Technology Review, 5/3/10, MIT Technology Review,
Offshore Wind: Expensive but Politically Popular,
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/418767/offshore-wind-expensive-but-politically-popular/,
accessed 7/11/14, GNL]

An environmental permit granted last week for the Cape Wind power project is not the last hurdle
facing the most advanced offshore wind farm proposed for the United States. However, wind power
technology developers and analysts express confidence that the nine-year-old offshore wind project will
get built, and that more like it will dot U.S. coastal waters by 2020.
The drive toward offshore wind, however, may be driven more by politics than economic and
energy policy. Offshore wind farms cost up to twice as much as land-based wind installations, but they
offer political leaders in densely populated U.S. coastal states a source of local energy other than
offshore oil and gas. They want their energy to be local. They want to harvest it inside their own
state. And for the first time they can conceive of that possibility, says Walt Musial, who leads offshore
wind energy research activities for the U.S. Department of Energys National Renewable Energy
Laboratory in Golden, CO.
Musials analyses show that the 28 U.S. coastal states consume 78 percent of the nations electricity,
but only six could meet even one-fifth of their power demand with land-based wind energythe
fastest growing source of energy. Add in offshore wind potential in shallow waters, however, and
that number jumps to 26 states; for many it could serve 100 percent of power demand. But
achieving favorable economics will be hard.
Cape Winds top challenge now is to get a deal with an electric utility. Proving that it has a firm buyer and
price for its energy is a prerequisite to then clearing the next hurdle, which is raising the close to $2
billion in financing thats likely necessary to build the 130-turbine, 468-megawatt project. Cape Wind and
local utility National Grid say they are negotiating an agreement.
The difficulty is that offshore wind is pricey compared to onshore wind power, the leading alternative by
which utilities are meeting renewable portfolio standards. Onshore wind costs about five cents per
kilowatt-hour today, whereas Musial says offshore costs start at nine cents per kilowatt-hour for the best
European projects and can rise as high as 25 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending on such factors as water
depth, distance to shore, and wind conditions.

Matthew Kaplan, a senior analyst tracking North American wind energy markets for Cambridge, MAbased consultancy Emerging Energy Research, says recent examples show that offshore wind projects
require additional intervention by states to get launched. The Long Island Power Authority, for example,
killed a deal for power from a proposed 144-megawatt project in 2007 after an independent assessment
pegged the cost at 29 cents per kilowatt-hour. And just last month, a 28.8-megawatt demonstration in
Rhode Island hit the rocks when the states Public Utilities Commission recently rejected the agreement
signed by National Grid, which would have paid project developer Deepwater Wind 24 cents per
kilowatt-hour.
Kaplan says only state intervention sealed the deal between project developer NRG Bluewater Wind and
Wilmington-based Delmarva Power. Delaware regulators changed state rules, more than tripling the
credits Delmarva will earn toward the states renewable portfolio standard and enabling it to spread the
cost to rate-payers. In the end, the state had to step in to make the costs more palatable, says Kaplan.
There is, as yet, no sign of government sweeteners for Cape Wind, but it is clear that it enjoys
strong political support. Cape Wind will be built, says Musial. The approval from the top of the
U.S. government shows theres political will to do this.
Musial adds that the presidents budget proposal for 2011 requests $49 million for offshore wind R&D
the first targeted request for offshore windprovides another significant signal that offshore wind is on
the table as a new direction for the Department of Energy.
Still, building the offshore wind industry in the U.S. could be a slow process. Cape Wind says it hopes to
begin construction this year, but Kaplan bets that Cape Wind will likely generate power in 2013 at the
earliest. Further projects in the pipeline are years away, he says, mostly due to the federal environmental
review process.
Then there is the challenge of developing the infrastructure to build, install, and maintain offshore wind
turbines, their foundations, and the underwater power lines to link them with shore. Musial says that
incentives introduced in Ontario recently could accelerate that process by creating another North
American foothold for offshore wind power. Ontarios feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, akin to price
supports that many European countries provide, guarantee a price of 19 cents per kilowatt-hour for
offshore turbines installed in the Great Lakes.
Kaplan estimates that 8,100 megawatts of offshore wind power will be installed in the United States by
2025, with most of the construction taking place starting in 2018. That is still a fraction of wind power
installation in the U.S., which Kaplan expects to reach 192,000 megawatts by 2025. But it could go much
further according to 2008 report from the DOE, in which it determined that wind energy could provide 20
percent of U.S. power by 2030. In that scenario, shallow offshore wind farms provide fully 54 gigawatts
of the 300 gigawatts envisioned.

Business Lobbies Support

The plan has massive lobbying supportGeneral Electric, Google, Warren Buffet,
retired congressman from both parties, and more will jump on board the plan
Carney, The Examiner senior political columnist, 2012
[Timothy P., 12-30-12, American Enterprise Institute, Lobbying blitz to save tax credits for wind
energy, http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/lobbying-blitz-to-save-tax-credits-forwind-energy/, Accessed: 7/1/14, JO]

The lobbying team to renew the tax credit is formidable, packed with Obama's closest corporate
confidants as well as former congressmen from both parties .
General Electric in 2002 inherited Enron's wind energy business and is now the top U.S.-based
supplier of wind turbines and a leading lobbying force for extending the PTC. The company is
famously cozy with the Obama administration. CEO Jeffrey Immelt has served as Obama's jobs czar
for two years.
GE spent more on lobbying Washington in Obama's first term -- $120 million from January 2009
through September 2012 -- than any other company . GE's hired guns lobbying on the PTC include
the K Street firm McBee Strategic Consulting.
McBee is a premier lobbying force on green energy subsidies. The firm is also pushing the PTC on
behalf of Obama-friendly Google, which has invested a billion dollars in wind farms and other
green energy. Google was Obama's No. 3 source of funds, according to data from the Center for
Responsive Politics, and CEO Eric Schmidt has been floated as a possible commerce secretary.
China-based Goldwind, the second-largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, is also paying
McBee to lobby on the PTC, federal lobbying filings show.
Germany-based Siemens is lobbying on the PTC, led by its VP for federal lobbying, David
McIntosh. McIntosh was a Democratic Senate aide before serving on Obama's transition team, then
held various senior roles in Obama's Environmental Protection Agency. He gave the maximum
donation to Obama, skirting Obama's prohibition on lobbyist donations because he made the donations on
June 23, 2011, and didn't register as a lobbyist until the third quarter, which began nine days later.
Billionaire Obama adviser and fundraiser Warren Buffett is also behind the push to renew the credit.
His company Berkshire Hathaway owns MidAmerican Energy, which describes itself as "No. 1 in
the nation in ownership of wind-powered capacity among rate-regulated utilities." Lobbying filings
show MidAmerican lobbying on the PTC.
NextEra Energy is a leading beneficiary of the PTC. NextEra has retained K Street powerhouses
Quinn Gillespie & Associates. The company, which has paid no corporate income tax in three years
despite billions in profits, also retains Capitol Counsel, a leading lobbyist on the PTC.
Capitol Counsel's Jim McCrery, the former congressman who was recently the top Republican on
the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee , lobbies on the tax credit for NextEra. He also
represents the American Wind Energy Association, the wind industry's D.C.-based lobbying group.
McCrery is not the only former congressman lobbying on the tax credit. Delaware Republican Mike
Castle , now at DLA Piper, is lobbying for Cape Wind, while Maryland Democrat Albert Wynn , at
Dickstein Shapiro, is lobbying for Covanta, which turns trash into energy.

Wind Lobbies Support

Wind lobbies make the plan popular and the public supports the plan
LaRussa, OpenSecrets.org Journalist, 2010
[Cassandra, 3-30-10, OpenScrets.org, Solar, Wind Power Groups Becoming Prominent Washington
Lobbying Forces After Years of Relative Obscurity , https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/03/solarwind-power-becoming-prominent/, Accessed: 7/11/14, JO]

In 1998, the entire alternative energy industry barely even registered as a political player in
Washington, spending a mere $2.4 million on lobbying the federal government. Meanwhile, in the same
year, the oil and gas, electric utilities and mining industries spent a combined $142 million advancing
their own legislative interests.
That landscape, however, has changed considerably.
By 2007, the alternative energy industry had begun to drastically increase its lobbying spending,
almost doubling its expenditures from the previous year. In 2009, alternative energy organizations
shelled out an unprecedented $30 million to protect and promote their interests on Capitol Hill.
The alternative energy industrys lobbying expenditures have grown to 12 times from its 1998 level.
In comparison, oil and gas spending and mining spending have grown less than three times their
1998 amount, and electric utility spending has grown to just twice its 1998 amount.
The growing involvement of the alternative energy industry in legislative affairs is reflected not just
in increased spending, but also in the number of companies and organizations that employ federally
registered lobbyists.
In the late 1990s, only about 20 alternative energy industry organizations used federal lobbyists.
By 2009, there were about 200 alternative energy companies and organizations employing lobbyists to
help advance the industrys interests.
The American Wind Energy Association is one of those organizations that recently and significantly
increased lobbying efforts.
Until 2008, AWEA failed to crack the $1 million mark in annual lobbying expenditures and most
years, it spent less than $500,000. In 2009, its expenditures experienced a drastic increase, and the
group spent almost $5 million on lobbying for issues related to the wind power industry.
But why did AWEA, and scores of other alternative energy corporations, trade organizations and nonprofits, get involved in legislative affairs so suddenly and with such gusto?
The involvement stems from the growth in number of alternative energy companies, which was
made possible by the growth in popularity of wind power in the national consciousness , said
Christine Real de Azua, an AWEA spokeswoman.
Real de Azua states that this, in turn, increased AWEAs ranks by more than 1,000 new business
members in 2009 alone, many of them companies entering or seeking to enter the wind turbine
supply chain.
Last year was a record year for wind power in the U.S., Real de Azua said. The industry installed
10,000 megawatts last year, enough to generate as much new electricity as three new nuclear plants.

AT Other DAs

AT Federalism
No Link CZMA has checks to federalist take overspecifically for offshore wind
Environmental Law Institute, 13
[Environmental Law Institute for the Mid Atlantic, April 2013, A Guide to State
Management of Offshore Wind Energy in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Although state primary jurisdiction ends at the 3nmi mark, a state can influence any federal activity,
regardless of where it will take place, when the activity in question may affect the uses or resources
of the states coastal zone. This authority applies to federal activities occurring within the affected
states lands and waters or federal waters (federal consistency review). It also applies to federal
activities located within another states land or waters (interstate consistency review) if NOAA has
approved the reviewing states list of activities that will trigger interstate consistency.
This authority stems from the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which provides that any state
with a federally approved coastal management program (CMP) may review federal activities to
make sure they are consistent with the affected states enforceable coastal management policies.
Federally licensed or permitted activities must be fully consistent with the enforceable policies, while
direct federal activities must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable. An enforceable
policy is one of the policies of the states coastal management program, made legally binding by a state
constitution, law, regulation, land use plan, ordinance, or judicial or administrative decision, which a state
uses to exert control over land and water uses and natural resources.
The policy must have been previously approved by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At present, each Mid-Atlantic
state has an approved coastal management program with a broad spectrum of enforceable policies.
The type of federal action can affect the states influence on and opportunity to review the proposal,
based on the language of the CZMA and implementing regulations. For example, responses to the
following questions may materially change whether and how a state reviews a project: Is it a direct
federal action, or a federally permitted or licensed action? For direct federal actions (such as wind
energy leases ), the federal agency must provide a consistency determination to the relevant state
coastal zone agency, which then has 60 days to concur with or object to the federal determination. If
the state objects, the federal agency may not proceed unless it determines that federal law prevents
the federal agency action from being consistent. For federal permits or licenses (such as development
permits), the applicants must provide a certification and supporting data, then the state has six
months to concur, concur with conditions, or object. In these instances, if the state objects, the Secretary
of Commerce can override the state objection if he or she finds that the activity is consistent with the
objectives or purposes of the CZMA or necessary for national security purposes

AT Transit
Expedited studies resolve shipping and environmental issues
Michler, Inhabitat New York City, 12
(Andrew, Inhabitat New York City, New York and NOAA Release Study to Streamline Offshore Wind
Power Projects, Inhabitant New York City, http://inhabitat.com/nyc/new-york-and-noaa-release-study-tostreamline-offshore-wind-power-projects/, Accessed 7/11/14, ESB)

Fresh on the heals of NYCs announcement for a clean energy project at Freshkills Park, a study just
released by New York State and NOAA aims to make off-shore wind development become a reality
sooner than later. The study reveals environmentally sensitive areas as well as commercial shipping
lanes with the goal of helping wind developers quickly determine good sites to install wind farms
without having to wait for a long environmental review for each project. And since New York is hot
on the trail for developing substantial renewable energy projects, the study could not come too soon.
The East Coast has ideal conditions for wind power not too far from shore, and it is already the focus of
substantial infrastructure investments with the goal of creating a renewable energy super grid. NOAA and
New York spent two years indentifying environmentally rich areas and commercial shipping lanes to help
developers hone in on the best placement for wind projects. The study revels deep sea coral beds,
boidivesity regions, and seabird territories to help redline potential sites for environmental review and to
provide technical assistance to New York as they assess and integrate ecological and human use
information, and identify significant offshore wildlife habitats.
The study also maps commercial shipping traffic to hopefully avoid commercial stress resulting
from proposed wind farms. NOAA is viewing this as a prototype study to help move wind energy
projects along the permit process at a greater speed. With heavy weights like Google, Co-ops, and
local governments vying to make the resource of wind energy a reality on the eastern seaboard, the
study is another key part of making large scale clean power a reality.

Rerouting ships would be easy and harm free and would solve the DA
Messmore communications specialist in the Environmental Public Education Office,
5/19
(Teresa, University Of Delaware, 5/19/2014, Changing Shipping Routes,
http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2014/may/shipping-routes-051914.html, Accessed 7/11/14, ESB)

Rerouting ships to open up areas for offshore wind development could save billions of dollars in
construction and operating costs for the renewable energy source, according to new findings by the
University of Delawares College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment (CEOE).
The savings come at a relatively small expense for sending commercial ships slightly farther out to
sea when traveling between Mid-Atlantic ports, the research shows. The analysis was part of an

economic study on societal costs and benefits of allocating ocean space off the coast for wind energy
development.
Offshore wind projects are being considered in the United States with aims of improving air quality,
increasing energy security and supporting domestic manufacturing. Numerous factors play into
decisions on where to place wind turbines, from wildlife migrations and fishing hotspots to boat
traffic, ocean depth and seafloor geology.
Its a big ocean, but there are a lot of users that need to work with each other to maximize benefits
to society, said study co-author Jeremy Firestone, CEOE professor of marine policy and director of
the Center for Carbon-free Power Integration.
Coastal and marine spatial planning is one common method used for mapping out and weighing the
various options. Economic factors are typically left out of the mix, however, so UD researchers
decided to examine the question of which would cost more to place farther off the coast:
commercial shipping traffic or wind farms.
The team considered several hypothetical, large-scale offshore wind projects that could be built in
the Mid-Atlantic region. Based on current shipping data, researchers considered deep-draft vessels
like tankers and container ships that make approximately 1,500 trips between New Jersey,
New York, Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay ports each year.
In one scenario, ships traveled at their present distance of about 33 miles from shore and wind projects
were built beyond that. In a second scenario, ships traveled 46 miles from shore and wind projects were
built where the ships used to go.
Researchers calculated the added cost of having ships travel farther by considering capital, fuel and
operating costs and cost to society of emissions of CO2, NOx, SOx, and particulate matter emitted
during ships voyages. The cost of offshore wind projects included capital costs of foundations,
transmission cables and installation, as well as the cost of maintaining the turbines.
Directing ships farther out from shore added $0.2 billion to the cost of their voyages over the course
of three decades. This would increase the direct cost of transporting a metric ton of goods by 25
cents. Building wind turbines farther out beyond the shipping routes added a cost of $13.4 billion to
the cost of projects.
Overall, the savings from changing the routes would add up to $13.2 billion.
If the U.S. is to advance toward meeting its goal to build 54 GW (gigawatts) of offshore wind capacity
by 2030, finding cost-effective locations for these wind projects is critical, the researchers wrote in
the study. By modifying vessel routes, shallow, nearshore sites in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic could be
opened for wind development, allowing consumers to have the benefit of clean, domestic, carbonfree wind energy at a cheaper price.
The study focused on the economic costs and benefits, but other factors such as safety measures to
avoid ship collisions would still need to be considered.
It is also important to note that because the study analyzed a hypothetical scenario, any actual
changes to vessel routes would be done after an extensive consultation with stakeholders.

We expect that if safety aspects to such a rerouting can be addressed, the shipping industry will come
to support this accommodation as it has with, for example, North Atlantic right whales, the authors
said.

CP Answers

Certainty Key to Wind Development

Wind lobbies hate the counterplans uncertainty Only the aff accesses the link
turn and the CP cant solve market certainty which is key to spillover
LaRussa, OpenSecrets.org Journalist, 2010
-Azua de Real: AWEA Spokesperson
-AWEA: American Wind Energy Association
[Cassandra, 3-30-10, OpenScrets.org, Solar, Wind Power Groups Becoming Prominent Washington
Lobbying Forces After Years of Relative Obscurity , https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/03/solarwind-power-becoming-prominent/, Accessed: 7/11/14, JO]

The recent involvement of AWEA in federal affairs, she said, reflects the urgency of the industrys
number one priority passing a national renewable electricity standard with aggressive, binding
near- and long-term targets, as part of comprehensive energy and climate legislation.
Azua de Real cites market certainty as a concern of AWEAs members, who need legislative
support of their industry in order to expand their operations and invest in new manufacturing as well
as new wind farm facilities. She added that it is imperative to the members of AWEA that the U.S.
government steps up and clearly commits to developing renewable energy.
AWEA cites the sheer potential of wind energy and the opportunity for job creation as two key points that
their lobbyists emphasize in the fight for favorable legislation.

States CP Answers
Permutation is normal means The states and the federal government will
inevitably work together
Schroeder, University of California-Berkeley, School of Law JD, 10
[Erica, October 2010, Turning Offshore Wind On, California Law Review, Vol 98,
Issue 5, Article 4 pg 1643-1645, PAC]
A. Federal Jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction begins more than three nautical miles from the shore, along the Outer
Continental Shelf, and ends two hundred nautical miles out to sea. n98 Analyses of offshore wind
capacity typically assume that wind farms will be built in federal waters, more than five miles from
the coast. n99 Thus, federal jurisdiction covers the generation component of an offshore wind
project, mainly the turbines. n100 This includes site approval and permitting for project construction.
n101
Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 grants the Department of the Interior (DOI) primary
authority over offshore wind farm approval and permitting. n102 Section 388 specifies that the Minerals
Management Service (MMS), a branch of DOI, controls the offshore wind facility permitting
process; the Secretary of the Interior makes the final permitting decision. n103 This grant of authority
extends MMS's existing authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which gives it
management rights over the Outer Continental Shelf primarily for offshore fossil fuel extraction. n104
Because of MMS's experience with managing offshore oil and gas extraction, Congress deemed it the
proper body for offshore wind permitting as well. n105 Opponents of the decision have been concerned
with MMS's lack of experience with marine habitat regulation and protection. n106 Fortunately, MMS
appears receptive to coordinating with other agencies with relevant experience, like the Army Corps of
Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, Coast Guard, Department of Energy, and Environmental
Protection Agency, as well [*1644] as appropriate state actors. n107
Section 388 came in response to controversy over which federal agency had permitting authority during
the early stages of the Cape Wind project, which is described in more detail in Part IV. While Section 388
does not resolve all of the issues relating to federal jurisdiction over offshore wind, n108 its designation
of MMS as the primary permitting agency marks Congress's first step toward a unified review
process for offshore alternative energy. n109 Nonetheless, the current federal regulatory environment
for offshore wind remains confusing. In April 2009, President Obama took a first step toward remedying
some of that confusion by announcing a coordinated program, headed by DOI, for federal offshore
renewable energy permitting. The program will cover not only offshore wind power generation, but also
other offshore renewable energy, such as electricity generated from ocean currents. n110 Despite this
progress toward an improved federal regulatory program, barriers to offshore wind power still
exist, largely due to the absence of a strong and effective federal mandate promoting offshore wind
power development and the powers that states retain over project siting. n111
B. State Jurisdiction
Under the Submerged Lands Act, state jurisdiction generally covers ocean territory three miles or less
from the coast, n112 an area known as the Coastal Zone. n113 As noted previously, any electricity

generated in an offshore facility must be transmitted to land through the state controlled Coastal
Zone. Therefore, state - and sometimes local - authorities ultimately have a role to play in any
offshore wind project through the siting and permitting of transmission cables that are necessary to
bring electricity from the turbines to land. Although state and localities may only exert direct control
over the permitting of transmission cables, they will almost certainly consider the impact of the
generation turbines on their aesthetic view environment. They know that denying transmission
permits effectively stalls or destroys the construction of generation facilities. States will also likely
consider such [*1645] aesthetic and environmental considerations in the federal consistency review
process, with which they may also block federal activities and permits. n114 Federal consistency review
is a component of the CZMA, and will be described in more detail below.
Because most of the costs of offshore wind power development are local, there is a strong argument for
state and local control over offshore wind project siting: because localities must deal with the downsides
of offshore wind projects, they should control where those projects are placed. n115 On the other hand,
there are broader, positive effects of offshore wind power development - such as energy security
improvement and environmental benefits like climate change mitigation - that imply a need for
stronger federal intervention to balance appropriately the costs and benefits of offshore wind. n116
The CZMA attempts to provide a formal structure for such balancing, but it ultimately leaves the
states with too much power, and the federal government and offshore wind farm proponents with no
formal federal encouragement or support.

Germany CP Answers
Germany cannot solve eurozone
Kundnani, European Council on Foreign Relations research director, 12
[Hans, 4/5/2012, German Council on Foreign Relations, What Hegemon?, https://ipjournal.dgap.org/en/ip-journal/topics/what-hegemon, accessed 7/11/2014 CK]

However, instead of making enlightened use of power like the US after 1945, Germany has seemed
during the last two years to simply impose its own preferences on others in the eurozone, in so far as
it could, and to pursue short-term rather than long-term interests. Given Germanys clear interest
in the survival of the euronot least because its weakness compared to the Deutsche Mark benefits
its exportsthe equivalent of the US role towards Europe after 1945 might have been to take
measures to reduce its trade surplus, to allow a moderate increase in inflation, or to act as a
consumer of last resort in order to help indebted economies grow their way out of recession and
thus reduce their debt.
However, Germany has consistently refused to take such an approach. Instead, it has insisted on
austerity throughout the eurozone, which has made it harder for the periphery to grow its way out
of recession and may exacerbate the debt crisis. Thus while unemployment in Germany is now at its
lowest level since reunification, it has reached record levels in other countries such as Spain. It
appears as if Germanys approach to the euro crisis is not so much in the European interest as a
whole as in Germanys own national interest. There has surely been no Marshall Plan for the
indebted economies of Europe.
In fact, in some ways, Germany has not created stabilitythe central role of a hegemon but
instability in Europe. Of course, German rhetoric focuses on stability: it talks about a stability union
and is proud of its Stabilittskultur, or stability culture. But it defines it extremely narrowly: when
Germany talks about stability it means price stability and nothing else. In fact, in attempting to
export its stability culture, Germany has in a broader sense created instability. In particular, its
ongoing reticence about the extent to which it will accept mutualization of European debt
apparently a deliberate strategy in order to maintain pressure on indebted countries to reform
has created a climate of uncertainty. Thus one might almost speak of a German instability culture.
As I have argued elsewhere, the German question has now re-emerged in geo-economic rather than
geopolitical form.[4] The size of Germanys economy, and the interdependence between it and those
around it, is now creating instability within Europe. This is exacerbated by German economic policy,
which sometimes seems inappropriate for a country of its size. In particular, German policymakers
seem to ignore the effects their economy has on the rest of Europe. As Simon Tilford of the Centre for
European Reform has argued, an economy as big as Germanys cannot depend indefinitely on
exports to drive real GDP growth without imposing intolerable pressures on other members of
EMU.[5] Thus German pursues the economic policy of a small country rather than a hegemon.
As a result, Germany has faced, still faces, and will likely continue to face resistance from other
eurozone members, including France, to its attempts to impose norms. In fact, although Germany is
more powerful than ever before in the EU, it is, as Charles Grant has pointed out, also in some ways
more isolated than ever.[6] This is not hegemony: there is a lack of hegemonic consent. In fact, if one

looks at the current situation in European in a historical perspective, it appears that Germany is in many
ways less of a hegemon than it used to be. As a cooperative hegemon together with France before
German reunification and European enlargement, it successfully uploaded its own preferences with the
consent of its European partners.[7]

Northern European weather leads to cost overuns

Block, Worldwatch Institute, 9*
[Ben, 2009* last date referenced, Worldwatch Institute, European Offshore Wind Projects Confront
Challenging Seas, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6279, accessed 7/11/14 CK]

Rdsand 2, a 90-turbine project sited three kilometers from Denmark's southern coast, is scheduled to
supply 200,000 households with electricity by next September as part of the country's drive for wind
energy to supply at least 50 percent of electricity consumption by 2025 [PDF].
The project is still in the installation stage, and costs climb for every day that construction crews sit
idle. Poor weather conditions prevented crews from working for almost twice the number of days in
August than the project owner, German energy company E.ON, had predicted.
"We damn the wind because we can't go out there if the waves are more than 75 centimeters high,"
Haxgart said.
E.ON is not the only developer frustrated by the challenges of establishing offshore wind farms. Project
developers across Europe have found that mastering turbulent seas and harsh weather is more
difficult than many expected, especially as projects are sited farther from the coast and are built
with larger turbines.
Denmark's Horns Rev 2, the largest offshore wind project in the world, was inaugurated this
September following two months of installation delays due to bad weather. The London Array, a 1
gigawatt (GW) project set to be the largest offshore project when it is completed, is still on track
with a 2.2 billion ($3 billion) initial investment despite nearing financial ruin on several occasions.
Alpha Ventus, Germany's first offshore wind farm, went online in August after a year of delays that
led the project's budget to increase from $270 million to $357 million.
"Wind projects are lagging behind. There should be offshore wind by now, but it isn't there yet,"
said Malte Kreutzfeldt, environment editor of the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung. "It turns out it's
a lot more expensive than people thought, a lot more complicated."
Regardless, several European governments are betting that offshore wind will prove to be affordable.
Denmark plans to expand from its existing and approved 825 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind to more
than 3 GW by 2025. The British government has proposed 14 GW of offshore wind by 2020. The German
government has set a goal of 25 GW by 2030.
Across Europe, seven offshore wind farms were installed last year, with a combined capacity of 1.47 GW.
The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) expects offshore wind to reach 2 GW continent-wide
by the end of 2009, and an additional 1 GW to be installed in 2010. According to the 2010 projection
[PDF], offshore wind would supply 0.3 percent of the European Union's electricity demand.

"This is the big potential for the future and we want to do it," said Sascha Mller-Kraenner, the Berlinbased European representative of The Nature Conservancy. "The future of wind in Europe will be off the
coast."
Even with the recent acceleration of offshore wind projects, the industry has only installed as many
turbines as the onshore wind industry had in the early 1990s. While turbine manufacturers have
found the optimum size and technology for onshore installations, the offshore devices still require
considerable progress.
Most offshore wind farms are found 20 kilometers from shore, at depths of 20 meters. As projects
move to windier areas even farther offshore - German developer Geo GmbH has proposed a 4 GW
project 200 kilometers into the North Sea - the costs for equipment, installation, and maintenance
will rise.
Ultimately, the EWEA envisions projects on the scale of 200-300 MW and beyond. Such a large
investment would encourage more streamlined construction processes and the manufacturing of advanced
installation vessels and technologies.
In the meantime, however, installing 2 GW of offshore wind per year may lead to a shortage of
installation equipment, such as crane-equipped vessels, after 2011, according to New Energy Finance,
an energy analyst.
Projects also lack trained personnel to operate the installation boats and perform regular
maintenance. Rdsand 2 requires 100 workers on a given day, most of whom are trained to construct
harbors, not turbines.
"There is a whole range of issues to be tackled," said Paolo Berrino, an EWEA information officer.
"Installation and maintenance, specific wind turbines for the offshore environment, maritime
spatial planning, development of sub-structures for deep water installations, and most importantly,
the construction of an offshore grid and interconnectors that would integrate the huge potential of
offshore wind into the European electricity system."

Solvency deficit- grid plan, slow timeframe, and not enough wind parks
Hockenos, Political analyst, 12
[Paul, 9/28/2012, German Council on Foreign Relations, Choppy Waters for Offshore Wind, https://ipjournal.dgap.org/en/blog/going-renewable/choppy-waters-offshore-wind, accessed 7/12/14 CK]

Germanys offshore wind power is one of the missing links in the Energiewende. The German
government wants to see a ginormous 25,000 megawatts of offshore wind parks installed in the
Baltic and North Seasthe equivalent of 20 large nuclear power reactors. Yet there are only two wind
parks in commercial operation, and one of them operates at just a fifth of capacity.
Just to illustrate how far Germany has to go: The government wants to have 7.6 gigawatts (7600
megawatts) of capacity installed by 2020 and as much as 26 gigawatts by 2030. In total, the farms
would cover a patch of sea eight times as large as New York City.

Today the combined generation power of Germanys offshore capacity is only a meager 200
megawatts. (Total installed offshore wind capacity in the EU was 3,000 megawatts at the end of 2010.)
Germany has every intention to catch up and surpass the likes of the UK and Denmark. There is a queue
of impatient wind park developers lined up to get cracking ASAP.
The problems? For one, the industry has been waiting for German authorities to finalize a grid plan
for the entire country, one plank of which would address offshore wind. Moreover, the technical and
logistic challenge is immense: the posting of such colossal turbines more than 100 kilometers
offshore and in water over 40 meters deep has never been done beforeanywhere, ever.
But at least things were moving forward until late last year when the transmission system operator
TenneT admitted it lacked the money, the high-voltage direct-current components, and the properly
skilled personnel to build the grid connections it had promised. Everything stopped cold. It appeared
Germany might miss its 2020 and 2030 offshore targets, a major blow for the Energiewende.

Solvency deficit- grid connections and funding

LTKENHORST, German Development Institute Associate Fellow, and PEGELS
German Development Institute Senior Researcher, 2014
[DR. WILFRIED, and DR. ANNA, January 2014, International Institute for Sustainable Development,
Germanys Green Industrial Policy Stable Policies Turbulent Markets: The costs and benefits of
promoting solar PV and wind energy, http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/rens_gip_germany.pdf,
accessed 7/12/2014 CK]

The offshore wind sector is still relatively small, accounting in 2012 for 0.9 per cent of total installed
capacity and 3.3 per cent of the capacity added in that year. Interestingly, its share in total
employment generated by the wind energy sector is significantly higher (largely due to a higher
export share) and stood at 15.3 per cent. Currently, six large-scale projects are under development
in the North Sea with a total capacity of 1,800 MWthat is more than six times the current
offshore capacity in Germany. A total of 29 projects (with an overall capacity of around 10,000
MW) have been licensed, mostly at a distance of 20 to 60 kilometres from the coast.
The offshore wind sector has huge development potential and is forecast to be on par with onshore
wind electricity generation by 2040. According to a recent study (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2012),
by 2021 the sector is expected to generate a turnover of close to 22 billion, with a 60 per cent share
of manufacturing operations. Employment is expected to increase to 33,000 jobs, of which 85 per
cent will be in small- and medium-sized enterprises. Importantly, when considering the entire value
chain, the onshore wind industry is regionally well dispersed. In particular, the component supplier
companies are largely located in traditional Central and Southern industrial centres.
Currently, two major issues dominate the debate around offshore wind. Firstly, the challenge of grid
connections linking generation in the countrys North with electricity consumption centres in the
countrys South has given rise to questions of financial burden sharing, realistic time horizons and
environmental damage. Secondly, the issue of relative priorities for offshore versus onshore wind
generation has been reignited by a recent study (Umweltbundesamt, 2013) that identifies a huge
potential for onshore expansion and calls for a discontinuation of FiTs for offshore wind farms.

It is particularly noteworthy that the share of repowering of existing wind installations is rising
steadily.8 Of total capacity installed in 2012, almost 18 per cent originated from repowering,
leading to higher energy yields due to technological progress in turbine efficiency.

AT Criticisms

AT Capitalism
Turn Green energy offers the transition away from capitalism
Harris, DeVry University Political Economist, 10
(Jerry, October-December 2010, Going Green to Stay in the Black: Transnational Capitalism and
Renewable Energy, Vol. 52 #2, http://netglobalcapitalism.wordpress.com/articles/going-green-to-stay-inthe-black-transnational-capitalism-and-renewable-energy/, accessed 7/10/14, BCG)

But these dreams of national greatest are already outdated. Green energy can indeed extend the life
of capitalism, but not within the confines of nation-centric logic and power. Major wind and solar
corporations already operate on a global scale, with innovations and research ongoing in Europe,
India, Japan, China and the U.S. Furthermore, the scale of the environmental crisis is beyond any
one country to solve. It calls for a global response and advanced sectors of the TCC understand these
world dimensions.
The environmental crisis actually offers an opportunity for capitalism to begin a new cycle of
accumulation. A way to end the repeating failures of financial speculation with a renewal of productive
capital. As Muller and Passadakis explain, the point about the ecological crisisis that it is neither
solved nor ignored in a green capitalist regime, but rather placed at the heart of its growth
strategy.(4) By creating new systems of energy, transportation, architectural design and
reengineering productive processes, capitalism can greatly reduce its abuse of the environment. This
would free capital from environmentally harmful industries for new areas of investment and create
profitable opportunities in dynamic new markets. Such a strategic shift will not only solve the current
crisis but legitimize a new political regime and lay the foundation for a hegemonic bloc with a global
social base. Nonetheless, this transformation will not solve the contradiction between capital and labor,
and the TCC may lack the political resolve to move fast and far enough to avoid major environmental
disasters. But if the transformation does occur over the coming decades, it may solve the most
pressing problems between finite environmental resources and the need of capitalism to grow and
profit.

Post Ecology
<Insert try or die argument>
Climate change can be reversed but it will take less emissions extinction is not
inevitable
Strickland, TechStuff Podcast Host, 10
(Jonathan, 8/10/10, What would it take to reverse global warming?, howstuffworks,
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/reverse-global-warming.htm, accessed
7/10/14, BCG)

So what can be done? Is there a way to reduce or even reverse the warming trend? Or can we only take
measures to avoid making it worse?
The news isn't all bad. There are some measures humans can take to slow, halt or perhaps even
reverse the warming trend. These measures range from changing our behaviors and making some
sacrifices to plans that seem to belong in the realm of science fiction.
One way to affect global warming is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases are
important. Without them, the Earth would lose heat too quickly and life as we know it would be
impossible to sustain. Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor and carbon dioxide, absorb
heat in the lower atmosphere and reflect it back to the Earth. But according to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of more than 2,000 scientists, humans are increasing the
greenhouse gas effect through carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Assuming that the IPCC's conclusions are accurate, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
planting trees could help slow and eventually reverse global warming trends. It takes time for the
environment to absorb carbon dioxide. Right now, humans are producing carbon dioxide faster
than the environment can absorb it. It doesn't help that humans are also clearing large regions of forests
for various reasons -- that reduces the carbon-absorbing abilities of the environment, too.

Neg

Environment

Wind Hurts Keystone Species

Offshore wind farms destroy marine keystone species
Hiscock, Marine Biological Association Associate Fellow, et al. 2
[Keith, Harvey Tyler-Walters, Marine Evidence Team Coordinator at Marine Biological Association of
the UK, Hugh Jones, Marine Biological Association Researcher, August 30, The Marine Biological
Association of the UK, High Level Environmental Screening Study for Offshore Wind Farm
Developments Marine Habitats and Species Project,
http://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Hiscock_et_al._2002.pdf, accessed July 1,2014, EK]

The physical removal of the substratum inhabited or required by the species or community in
question. For example, Newell et al. (1998) reported that trailer suction hopper dredging could result
in dredged tracks 2- 3m wide and 0.5m deep but up to 2m deep in some cases. In comparison,
anchored dredging may result in pits of up to 75m in diameter and 20m deep. Hall (1994) reports pits
3.5m wide and 0.6m deep as a result of suction dredging for Ensis in a Scottish sea loch. The use of
gravity foundations requires seabed preparation, including removal of the surface layer of silt. The
installation of electrical cables between turbines and from the wind farm to shore involves
trenching or ploughing of the substratum. Metoc (2000) concluded that cable laying would result in
considerable sediment disturbance.
The significance of the effect would depend on the extent to the sediment removal compared to the
area occupied by the habitat, or the presence of sensitive, keystone, important, declining, rare or
scarce species.
Benthos. Physical removal of the substratum will remove or damage all the epifaunal and infaunal species
and slow moving species. Only species capable of rapid movement are likely to avoid the factor.
Surviving individuals may be damaged or displaced (see physical disturbance and displacement
below).
For example, Newell et al. (1998) stated that removal of 0.5m of sediment was likely to eliminate benthos
from the affected area. Epifauna, large infaunal species (e.g. the heart urchin Echinocardium cordatum)
and large numbers of molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans, were reported to be killed or damaged by
dredging operations, while the abundance of sessile polychaetes decreased (Eleftheriou & Robertson,
1992; Service & Magorrian, 1997; Elliot et al., 1998). Large numbers of the burrowing sand eel
Ammodytes spp. (an important food source for seabirds) were reported to be destroyed by dredging
(Eleftheriou & Robertson, 1992; Elliot et al., 1998). Therefore, most sublittoral habitats and their species
are likely to be highly sensitive to substratum loss (see Table A3.2).
Mobile sandbanks are subject to considerable natural physical disturbance due to hydrographic
conditions, e.g. strong currents and storms. The resident communities tend to be dominated by relatively
mobile species, e.g. mobile amphipods and mysids. Therefore, mobile sandbanks may be less sensitive to
substratum loss in the short term.
Recoverability will depend on the time taken for the substratum to return to similar condition, pits
or trenches to fill and recolonization to occur. For example, in the Baltic dredged tracks may still be

detectable 12 months later. The time taken for pits to fill in the Dutch Wadden Sea was between 1 year in
high currents, 5-10 years in lower currents and up to 15 years on tidal flats (Newell et al., 1998).
Recolonization of benthic invertebrates is dependent on the availability of colonists, either by dispersal of
adults or recruitment of larvae and juveniles (Hiscock, 1999). Adults may colonize new habitat by
swimming in mobile species (e.g. large crustacea, copepods, and amphipods) or by juveniles due to
passive bed load transport (a influx of sediment carrying juveniles and adults). The availability of larvae
varies seasonally with species and depends on the distance from reproductive populations and
hydrographic conditions. Recruitment between geographically or hydrographically isolated
populations may be slow. Some species demonstrate sporadic and un-predictable recruitment, with
potentially good annual recruitment but experiencing unpredictable pulses of good recruitment
interspersed with periods of poor recruitment, e.g. bivalve molluscs and echinoderms (see Olafsson
et al., 1994; Elliot et al. 1998). However, communities of mobile sandbanks are tolerant of physical
disturbance, mobile and likely to recover quickly (Elliot et al. 1998).

Wind farms kill keystone and endangered species

Hogan, Environmental Systems Laboratory Director, 13
[C. Michael, served a term as Editor in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of Earth which ended in 2012. In
addition to authoring a number of papers for the Encyclopedia of Earth, he is a physicist who has
published over 1220 peer reviewed articles in other journals and government monographs in the fields of
molecular biology, quantum spinwaves, atmospheric physics, biogeochemistry, hydrological modeling,
species population dynamics, ecological modeling and environmental impact analysis. He has served as
the President and Chief Technical Officer of Earth Metrics Inc. and earlier as Director of the
Environmental Systems Laboratory unit of ESL Inc. Earlier professional work includes research scientist
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center and graduate faculty at the
University of Santa Clara and San Jose State University. With emphasis on research in North America, he
has conducted ecological research in 31 different countries. Dr. Hogan has been a member of the National
Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board and a founding Director of the Association of
Environmental Professionals, April 29, Encyclopedia of the Earth, Wind turbine bird mortality,
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/169244/, accessed July 11, 2014, EK]

Wind turbine bird mortality is a by-product of large scale wind farms, which are increasingly
promoted as an alternative to fossil fuel derived energy production. To adequately assess the extent of
impact to avian populations, deeper factors than gross mortality by turbine action must be assessed. In
particular, one must examine: (a) impacts to threatened bird species, (b) total impacts due to avian habitat
loss as well as direct mechanical kill, (c) ecological impacts due to apex predator bird loss and (d) future
siting decisions for windfarms, since much of the prior bird mortality is due to poor siting decisions.
Bird mortality from wind turbines is a significant adverse ecological impact, and threatens to
expand in scope dramatically with the rush to develop new energy sources. This impact is
measured as high due to the loss of threatened species and due to disproportionate mortality of top
level predators, whose decline can unravel the integrity of entire regional ecosystems . The rapid
development of numerous large scale wind farms may be a repeat of the ecological disasters of the
1970s, as the world rushed to produce hydropower from every possible river; decades later, we now
realize the folly of that hydroelectric excess.

Over four million direct kill bird deaths per annum by 2030 are projected in some scenarios of wind
turbine installation. The sheer volume of bird kill does not begin to depict the magnitude of
ecological damage, since the most susceptible species tend to be those which are keystone species or
species already threatened by other human pressures. Additionally, bird mortality due to large
wind farms is exacerbated by inherent linkages between bird behavior and windfarm siting
decisions. Proponents of large scale wind farms (including some federal agencies), for example, tend to
favor sparsely vegetated saddles or other funnel like landforms, which are highly correlated with high
density bird migration routes or raptor soaring locations.
Impacts to Threatened Species
The disproportionate numbers of threatened species killed by large wind turbines, is explained in part
by the fact that many large raptors are vulnerable or endangered species. The following is a partial list of
threatened avian taxa that are present in disproportionately high numbers (relative to the entire species
population) in turbine kill counts:
Whooping crane (Grus americana) [Rare and Endangered]
Greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) [Vulnerable, with one subspecies Endangered]
Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) [Near threatened, IUCN]

Wind turbines kill a laundry list of keystone species

Dr. Hogan, former Encyclopedia of the Earth editor in-chief, 13
(C. Michael, Dr. C. Michael Hogan served a term as Editor in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of Earth which
ended in 2012. In addition to authoring a number of papers for the Encyclopedia of Earth, he is a physicist
who has published over 1220 peer reviewed articles in other journals and government monographs in the
fields of molecular biology, quantum spinwaves, atmospheric physics, biogeochemistry, hydrological
modeling, species population dynamics, ecological modeling and environmental impact analysis. He has
served as the President and Chief Technical Officer of Earth Metrics Inc. and earlier as Director of the
Environmental Systems Laboratory unit of ESL Inc., 4/29/13, The Encyclopedia of Earth, Wind Turbine
Bird Mortality, http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/169244/, accessed 7/11/14) NM

Wind turbine bird mortality is a by-product of large scale wind farms, which are increasingly
promoted as an alternative to fossil fuel derived energy production. To adequately assess the extent of
impact to avian populations, deeper factors than gross mortality by turbine action must be assessed. In
particular, one must examine: (a) impacts to threatened bird species, (b) total impacts due to avian habitat
loss as well as direct mechanical kill, (c) ecological impacts due to apex predator bird loss and (d) future
siting decisions for wind farms, since much of the prior bird mortality is due to poor siting decisions.
Bird mortality from wind turbines is a significant adverse ecological impact, and threatens to expand in
scope dramatically with the rush to develop new energy sources. This impact is measured as high due to
the loss of threatened species and due to disproportionate mortality of top level predators, whose decline
can unravel the integrity of entire regional ecosystems. The rapid development of numerous large scale
wind farms may be a repeat of the ecological disasters of the 1970s, as the world rushed to produce
hydropower from every possible river; decades later, we now realize the folly of that hydroelectric
excess.

Over four million direct kill bird deaths per annum by 2030 are projected in some scenarios of wind
turbine installation. The sheer volume of bird kill does not begin to depict the magnitude of ecological
damage, since the most susceptible species tend to be those which are keystone species or species already
threatened by other human pressures. Additionally, bird mortality due to large wind farms is exacerbated
by inherent linkages between bird behavior and windfarm siting decisions. Proponents of large scale wind
farms (including some federal agencies), for example, tend to favor sparsely vegetated saddles or other
funnel like landforms, which are highly correlated with high density bird migration routes or raptor
soaring locations.
The disproportionate numbers of threatened species killed by large wind turbines, is explained in part by
the fact that many large raptors are vulnerable or endangered species. The following is a partial list of
threatened avian taxa that are present in disproportionately high numbers (relative to the entire species
population) in turbine kill counts:
Whooping crane (Grus americana) [Rare and Endangered]
Greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) [Vulnerable, with one subspecies Endangered]
Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) [Near threatened, IUCN]
A 2003 compilation of bird deaths by wind turbines indicated that the non-California mortality included
an astonishing 78 percent of all bird deaths as protected passerines pursuant to the U.S.Migratory Bird
Treaty Reform Act; moreover, this percentage is viewed as a possible underestimate of this group of
threatened species, due to the relative difficulty of detected small passerine carcasses and a suspected lack
of adequate sampling during passerine migrations.
Raptors as well as well as predator seabirds represent an important class of apex (or high level) predators
in ecosystems around the world, and are disproportionally present in bird kill numbers, because of their
flight habits requiring extensive distances travelled in soaring during predation. Example species counted
in high numbers from turbine mortality are:
Griffin falcon (Gyps fulvus)
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Old world kestrel (Falco tinnuculus)
American Kestrel (Falco sparvenius)
Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)
Northern gannet (Morus bassanus)
Some wind farms have been sited in known areas of high raptor use, such as the West Ridge unit in the
Tehachapi Pass of California. This location also correlates with relatively high abundance of rodents and
other raptor prey. Correspondingly this facility has accumulated high occurrences of raptor mortality.
Understanding effects of offshore wind farms is becoming more significant as terrestrial platforms are
coming under greater scrutiny. From observations at the Nysted wind farm in Denmark, before and after
construction, there is some evidence to suggest seabird avoidance behavior may be greater than for
terrestrially anchored turbines.

There are important instances of wind farm siting decisions which reveal a great lack of biological
insight. Chief among these are two large wind farms near the Strait of Gibraltar and the California
installation of Altamont Pass. Research summaries have stressed the need to view avian mortality as a
regional issue, in order to assess thoroughly the true impact upon bird migration patterns and the total
ecological impact. The use of national statistics can mask ecological effects by yielding gross counts that
may have little meaning of regional ecological consequence.
It is useful to examine some statistics relevant to major windfarm installations. Rotor diameters are
typically in the range of 42 to 72 meters, the latter being achieved in the Mountaineer, West Virginia
array; consequently the vertical area swept by a single turbine is generally in the range of 1500 to 4000
square meters. As maximum heights of these farms have crept upward over the years to capture higher
winds and more area, there is a greater likelihood of intercepting nocturnal passerine migration paths,
which are typically in excess of about 130 meters above ground surface.
The number of individual wind turbines in a windfarm typically ranges from 16 to 143, the latter number
being evinced in the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota Phase One Array. However, some very large windfarms
have been constructed such as the gigantic array at Altamont Pass in California, which has over 4900
individual wind turbines. This poorly sited array has turbines, and is noted as the largest bird killing field
in North America. One reason for the high mortality at Altamont is the early development of this facility,
prior to the availabiltiy of present data on siting criteria; unfortunately the state and federal regulations
have not added a great deal to reduction in mortality, although they have produced many bureaucratic
hurdles to the process. In terms of the mechanics of mortality, it has been generally assumed that bird
collisions with the rotor blade cause most mortality; however, compilations of data from the U.S. National
Research Council do not fully support this premise in the case of passerines. Other mechanisms clearly
contribute, such as collisions with support structures or guy wires. Statistics clearly show that passerine
mortality increases with the use of guy wiring. Another aspect of tower design which influences bird
deaths is adherence to Federal Aviation Administration guidelines requiring night illumination for taller
towers. Bird deaths are greater at illuminated towers. Knowledge of how deaths occur will help alleviate
problems in the future An obvious geometric consideration, for example, is to array turbines such that the
rotor planes are parallel to any known bird migration corridors. Another ecological mitigation is to avoid
placing wind turbine arrays between bird foraging and resting areas.
Small scale wind power systems offer a much more viable solution to bird conservation since wind
hardware is of smaller scale and typically situated in more urbanized areas where migration routes and
raptor hunting are not as intense as the open high wind velocity landscapes typically chosen for large
commercial windfarms.
Any future windfarms should be preceded by much more detailed ecological studies than were
characteristic of installations over the last three decades. Firstly siting decisions must reflect knowledge
of bird migrations as well as occurrences of threatened species. On a more detailed level, it is desirable to
survey for patterns of raptor use of thermals and other local patterns of predation. There are even more
subtle factors, such as aerial courtship of certain species known to utilize turbine height airspace for their
courtship rituals; USA examples of such species are the Horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), Vesper
sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) and Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus).
Design of individual turbines should reflect the best state of the art features in reducing bird mortality. For
example, lattice support structures have been shown to attract more birds by offering perching
opportunities, compared to the superior design of tubular mounts.

Planners and ecologists should be attentive to other mortality caused by windfarms, particularly to bats;
moreover, the ecological implications to a broad palette of species is present, due to habitat alteration
during windfarm construction and due to selective removal of apex and threatened species.

Wind Increases Invasive Species

Offshore wind farms increase invasive species in marine ecosystemsthreatening
global biodiversity
Langhamer, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 12
[Olivia, Department of Biology Researcher for the Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
December 6, 2014, HINDAWI Publishing Corporation: The Scientific World Journal, Artificial Reef
Effect in relation to Offshore Renewable Energy Conversion: State of the Art,
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2012/386713/, accessed July 11, 2014, EK]

One mitigating effect of offshore renewable energy on the local biodiversity may occur due to
colonization by invasive species. Ever since international shipping started, marine organisms have
been distributed all over the world by ballast water or as fouling on boat hulls. This introduction of
alien species has dramatic ecological effects, since it can be a threat to global biodiversity [52, 53]
and lead to local extinctions and fishery collapses [53]. Artificial hard substrates offer habitats for a
large number of invasive species normally attached to rocky reefs [54]. In general, artificial structures do
not host exactly the same species as a natural hard substrate [55, 56]. The installation of offshore
renewable energy parks may not only introduce hard substrata in otherwise sandy-dominated
bottoms, but can also provide new habitats for invasive species. Different hydrodynamics, such as
more shelter due to new structures may lead to colonization of organisms very different to those on
nearby hard substrates and thereby establish and spread nonindigenous species [57]. On wind
turbine constructions in the North Sea and in the Baltic Sea the presence of alien species has been
recorded [5860] and may provide stepping-stones for spread, which could facilitate the
establishment of the new taxa in the recipient region.

Wind Hurts Whales

Wind turbine sonar devastates whale populations
The Telegraph, 2012
[9-18-12, The Telegraph, Environmentalists link whale beachings to offshore windfarm sonar , full
URL, Accessed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9550229/Environmentalists-linkwhale-beachings-to-offshore-windfarm-sonar.html, JO]

Seismic surveys could be disorientating the whales and driving them to their deaths on the beaches
of Fife and Angus, Scotland, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society said.
A number of vessels have been carrying out the high-tech scans in the Firth of Forth and North Sea in
recent weeks.
Seventeen pilot whales died after a mass beaching in the East Neuk of Fife earlier this month.
A second pod of 24 pilot whales was spotted in shallow water by Cellardyke around the same time but
returned to sea without beaching.
The mass beaching occurred just a day after a minke whale was found dead near the Bell Rock
Lighthouse, off the coast of Angus.
Last week there was another death, with a 40-foot Sei whale washed up on the shore at Arbroath.
The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) said that sonar, being used in seismic surveys to
map the ocean floor to find the best places to site windfarms, could be causing the whales to
become disorientated and swim dangerously close to land.
The WDCS claims the loud, low-frequency pulses used to chart the ocean depths interfere with the
sonar whales and dolphins use to navigate.
British Divers Marine Life Rescue, which coordinated the rescue attempt on September 2 after the pilot
whales beached between Anstruther and Pittenweem, agreed that seismic surveys can disorientate
whales and other sea creatures.
British Divers Marine Life Rescue spokesman Stephen Marsh said there had been a lot of seismic survey
activity in the Firth of Forth and that a larger survey by the survey ship Polarcus Adira had been due to
start just two hours after the mass beaching in Fife was discovered.
Although Mr Marsh said the surveys could not be blamed directly for the deaths, all the companies
carrying out surveys around the Firth of Forth agreed to stop until the whales had safely returned to sea.
Seismic surveys use large air guns to create loud, low-frequency sounds underwater. The seabed can
then be mapped by timing how long it takes the soundwaves to bounce off the seabed and the
direction they travel in. They can take several weeks to complete.
Danny Groves of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society said more had to be done to limit noise
pollution in seas and oceans to protect marine wildlife.
He said: "It is too early to determine what may have caused these recent standings in Scotland and, if a
post mortem is not carried out soon after the death of a stranded whale, the reason for a stranding may
never be known.
"Standings are often the result of an individual being old, sick, or injured in fishing gear or collision with
a boat. Sometimes the animals may seek to help a sick or injured individual and become stranded
themselves as a result, which is often the case with pilot whales for example.

"But excessive noise in the water can kill whales and dolphins. They live in a world of water and
sound. They feed, communicate and find their way around their world using sound.
"If you introduce high levels of unnatural noise into that world, then they will suffer."

Whales Keystone Species Impact

Whales are critical to the entire marine ecosystem
Simon, Journalist for Oceana, a non-profit environmental group, 7-10-14
[Madeleine, 7-10-14, Oceana, Whales Found to be Crucial for Healthy Ocean Ecosystems,
http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/07/whales-found-to-be-crucial-for-healthy-ocean-ecosystems, Accessed:
7/11/14, JO]

In June, researchers found that whale poo is highly beneficial to marine ecosystems in the Southern
Ocean since it is rich in iron. Now, new findings show that whales contribution to the sea goes far
beyond just their excrements.
In a paper released earlier this month, University of Vermont conservation biologist Joe Roman and
a team of other biologists found that baleen and sperm whalesreferred to as great whalesare what
Roman calls the oceans ecosystem engineers . The study revealed that whales have a positive effect
on the oceans from global carbon storage to the overall health of commercial fisheriescontrary to
some claims that whales provide competition for fishermen.
The scientists found they play a large role in ocean functionality, particularly when it comes to the
food chain: Great whales eat a wide variety of fish and invertebrates, act as prey to other predators
like killer whales, and distribute nutrients throughout the water. And, long after theyve died, these
whales even continue to benefit ecosystems as their carcasses provide food and habitat to an abundance of
marine creatures, many of which rely exclusively on the carcasses to survive. The large carcasses also
store a significant amount of carbon in the deep sea.
For centuries, whale populations have been devastated by overhunting, bycatch, vessel strikes, and
pollutionand its estimated that great whales have declined by at least 66 percent, but possibly by as
much as and perhaps as high as 90 percent. In the study, Roman and his colleagues write that the decline
in great whale numbers in particular have likely altered the function of the oceans, but recovery is
possible and in some cases already beginning.
The continued recovery of great whales may help to buffer marine ecosystems from destabilizing
stresses, Roman wrote in the press release. As long-lived species, they enhance the predictability
and stability of marine ecosystems.
The paper is a compilation of research made by Roman and his team over several decades on whales from
all over the world. Using technology like radio tagging, the biologists were able to directly observe and
study the roles of whalessomething that wasnt fully possible without these new resources.

Wind Kills Birds

Wind farms kill apex predator birds and cause massive ecological disasters
Hogan, Encyclopedia of Earth Editor in Chief, 13
[C Michael, 4-29-13, Encyclopedia of Earth, Wind turbine bird mortality,
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/51cbf1cc7896bb431f6a6cee/, accessed 7-11-14, PAC]

Wind turbine bird mortality is a by-product of large scale wind farms, which are increasingly
promoted as an alternative to fossil fuel derived energy production. To adequately assess the extent of
impact to avian populations, deeper factors than gross mortality by turbine action must be assessed.
In particular, one must examine: (a) impacts to threatened bird species, (b) total impacts due to avian
habitat loss as well as direct mechanical kill, (c) ecological impacts due to apex predator bird loss and
(d) future siting decisions for windfarms, since much of the prior bird mortality is due to poor siting
decisions.
Bird mortality from wind turbines is a significant adverse ecological impact, and threatens to
expand in scope dramatically with the rush to develop new energy sources. This impact is measured
as high due to the loss of threatened species and due to disproportionate mortality of top level
predators, whose decline can unravel the integrity of entire regional ecosystems. The rapid
development of numerous large scale wind farms may be a repeat of the ecological disasters of the
1970s, as the world rushed to produce hydropower from every possible river; decades later, we now
realize the folly of that hydroelectric excess.
Over four million direct kill bird deaths per annum by 2030 are projected in some scenarios of wind
turbine installation. The sheer volume of bird kill does not begin to depict the magnitude of
ecological damage, since the most susceptible species tend to be those which are keystone species or
species already threatened by other human pressures. Additionally, bird mortality due to large wind
farms is exacerbated by inherent linkages between bird behavior and windfarm siting decisions.
Proponents of large scale wind farms (including some federal agencies), for example, tend to favor
sparsely vegetated saddles or other funnel like landforms, which are highly correlated with high
density bird migration routes or raptor soaring locations.

Offshore wind turbines affect bird behaviorthrows off the entire food-chain
Hiscock, Marine Biological Association Associate Fellow, et al. 2
[Keith, Harvey Tyler-Walters, Marine Evidence Team Coordinator at Marine Biological Association of
the UK, Hugh Jones, Marine Biological Association Researcher, August 30, The Marine Biological
Association of the UK, High Level Environmental Screening Study for Offshore Wind Farm
Developments Marine Habitats and Species Project,
http://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Hiscock_et_al._2002.pdf, accessed July 1,, 2014,
EK]

Metoc (2002) suggested that the presence of wind turbines may cause:
disturbance to bird feeding areas in the proximity of the turbines;
direct collision of birds with turbine and rotor blades;
effects on the bird flight patterns in the vicinity of the wind farm;
potentially attract birds to the turbines, either in search of food, or due to night-time illumination
by
navigational lights, and
indirect effects due to changes in prey species.
Turbine towers and their rotors potentially present a physical barrier to bird flight feeding and
migration (see sensitivity to physical disturbance for further detail). In poor visibility conditions (e.g.
fog) and/or at night the navigational lights may attract birds to the wind farm, increasing the potential risk
of bird strike and resultant mortality.
Noise and vibration
Turbines generate mechanical noise due to movement of the gearbox and generators, and aerodynamic
noise due to movement of the blades through the air (Metoc, 2000; Vella et al., 2001). Noise and vibration
from the turbines will be transmitted down the tower into the foundations and transmitted as vibration
into the water column and through the sediment (Vella et al., 2001).
Turbine noise may disturb feeding seabirds and seals, however under water noise could potentially
disturb or displace populations of sea mammals and fish (Metoc, 2000) depending on intensity. The
proposed lifetime for wind farms is 20 years, so that any effects caused by operational noise and
vibration are likely to be long term (see section 3.2).

Wind Kills Eagles

Turbines kill eagles
Cappiello, NBC News, 13
(Dina, 12/6/13, NBC News, Wind farms can kill eagles without penalty,
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/wind-farms-can-kill-eagles-without-penaltyf2D11702834, accessed 7/11/14) NM

Under pressure from the wind-power industry, the Obama administration said Friday it will allow
companies to kill or injure eagles without the fear of prosecution for up to three decades.
The new rule is designed to address environmental consequences that stand in the way of the
nation's wind energy rush: the dozens of bald and golden eagles being killed each year by the giant,
spinning blades of wind turbines.
An investigation by The Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles
around wind farms, the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to
help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. President Barack Obama has championed the pollutionfree energy, nearly doubling America's wind power in his first term as a way to tackle global warming.
But all energy has costs, and the administration has been forced to accept the not-so-green sides of
green energy as a means to an end.
Another AP investigation recently showed that corn-based ethanol blended into the nation's gasoline has
proven more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and worse than the government
acknowledges.
These examples highlight Obama's willingness to accept environmental trade-offs pollution, loss
of conservation land and the deaths of eagles in hopes that green energy will help fight climate
change.
The new rule will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects if
companies obtain permits and make efforts to avoid killing protected birds.
Companies would have to take additional measures if they killed or injured more eagles than they
had estimated they would, or if new information suggested that eagle populations were being
affected. The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit
reports of how many eagles they killed. Now, such reporting is voluntary, and the Interior
Department refuses to release the information.
"This is not a program to kill eagles," said John Anderson, the director of siting policy at the American
Wind Energy Association. "This permit program is about conservation."
But conservation groups, which have been aligned with the industry on other issues, said the
decision by the Interior Department sanctions the killing of an American icon.

"Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind
industry a blank check," said Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold in a statement. The group said
it would challenge the decision.
Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a
passenger jet's wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds of up to
170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.
Flying eagles behave somewhat like drivers texting on cellphones; they don't look up. As they scan
below for food, they don't notice the blades until it is too late.
Until now, no wind energy company has obtained permission authorizing the killing, injuring or
harassment of eagles, although five-year permits have been available since 2009. That has put the
companies at legal risk and has discouraged private investment in renewable energy.
It also hasn't helped eagles since, without permits, companies are not required to take steps to
reduce their impact on the birds or report when they are killed.
The new rule makes clear that revoking a permit which could undermine investments and
interest in wind power is a last resort under the administration's energy policy. "We anticipate
that implementing additional mitigation measures ... will reduce the likelihood of amendments to, or
revocation of, the permit," the rule says.
The wind energy industry has said the change mirrors permits already in place for endangered species,
which are more at risk than bald and golden eagles. Bald eagles were removed from the endangered
species list in 2007 but are still protected under two federal laws.
The regulation published Friday was not subjected to a full environmental review because the
administration classified it as an administrative change.
"The federal government didn't study the impacts of this rule change even though the (law)
requires it," said Kelly Fuller, who formerly headed the wind campaign at the American Bird
Conservancy. "Instead, the feds have decided to break the law and use eagles as lab rats." However,
the Fish and Wildlife Service said the new rule will enable it to better monitor the long-term
environmental effects of renewable energy projects. "Our goal is to ensure that the wind industry sites
and operates projects in ways that best minimize and avoid impacts to eagles and other wildlife," the
agency said in a statement. Last month, Duke Energy Corp. pleaded guilty to killing eagles and other
birds at two wind farms in Wyoming, the first time a wind energy company had been prosecuted
under a law protecting migratory birds.
A study by federal biologists in September found that wind farms since 2008 had killed at least 67
bald and golden eagles, a number that the researchers said was likely underestimated. That did not
include deaths at Altamont Pass, an area in northern California where wind farms kill an estimated
60 eagles a year.
It's unclear what toll, if any, wind energy companies are having on eagle populations locally or
regionally. Gunshots, electrocutions and poisonings almost certainly kill more bald and golden eagles
than wind farms. But the toll could grow along with the industry.
A recent assessment of the status of the golden eagle in the western U.S. showed that populations have
been decreasing in some areas but rising in others.

Wind farms kill eagles

Dinan, Washington Times 13
(Stephen, 12/6/13, The Washington Times, Wind farms: Interior Department sacrifices eagle protection
for alternative energy, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/6/obama-issues-permits-windfarms-kill-more-eagles/?page=all, accessed 7/11/14) NM

The Interior Department will finalize a rule Monday that would grant permits to let wind farms kill
eagles for up to 30 years, six times longer than current permits allow. While acknowledging that the
science is uncertain and standards on the best ways to reduce eagle deaths have not been implemented,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the eagle population has remained steady for the past 40 years and
that its worth testing a longer permit for bird kills.
Wind farms are the fields of turbines that dot the landscape. They kill about 440,000 birds a year,
including some iconic bald eagles, golden eagles and other protected species, raising questions about
the balance between renewable energy production and the environment it is supposed to be
helping.
Permits to kill eagles just seems unpatriotic, and 30 years is a long time for some of these projects to
accrue a high death rate, said Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican and a critic of the Interior
Department.
He and fellow Republicans said the administration has been tougher on traditional energy sources
such as oil and gas when it comes to bird kills, but has been more lenient on renewable energy.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican, said the new rule amounts to federal hunting licenses
for wind farms to kill eagles.
We need even treatment of the law for energy development, regardless of source, and this revised
rule misses the mark by giving continued leniency to renewable energy projects, such as wind
farms, Mr. Alexander said.
The rule was released last week and will be published officially Monday. The Fish and Wildlife Service
said that although it is raising the maximum permit to 30 years, it could issue more restrictive wind farm
permits.
The permits also may include requirements for extra steps the wind farms must take to try to
reduce eagle kills particularly if evidence suggests the turbines are killing more eagles than
expected.
But the service said it makes sense to grant a longer eagle-kill permit because renewable-energy projects
life spans are generally far longer than the five years currently allowed.
Federal law generally prohibits killing bald and golden eagles but gives the government power to
grant exemptions.
Permits may authorize lethal take that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, such as
mortalities caused by collisions with wind turbines, power line electrocutions, and other potential
sources of incidental take, the agency said in its official rule posting. Although the agency said eagle

populations have been stable for 40 years, it acknowledged a lot of uncertainty about wind farms and
their effects.
In the case of managing eagle populations in the face of energy development, there is considerable
uncertainty. For example, evidence shows that in some areas or specific situations, large soaring birds,
specifically raptors, are especially vulnerable to colliding with wind turbines, the agency said.
However, we are uncertain about the relative importance of different factors that influence that risk, the
agency said. We are also uncertain which strategies would best mitigate the effects of wind energy
developments on raptors. Populations of raptors with relatively low fecundity, such as golden eagles, are
more susceptible to population declines due to new sources of mortality. Late last month, the Obama
administration made headlines when it fined Duke Energy Corp. $1 million for killing 14 eagles and 149
other birds at wind farms.
That was the first time the federal government had fined wind farms for bird kills.

Wind turbines slaughter eagles

Associated Press 13
(9/11/13, The Washington Times, Eagle slaughter: Wind farms kill 67 eagles in 5 years,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/eagle-slaughter-wind-farms-kill-67-eagles-5-years/,
accessed 7/11/14) NM

WASHINGTON (AP) Wind energy facilities have killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles in the
last five years, but the figure could be much higher, according to a new scientific study by
government biologists.
The research represents one of the first tallies of eagle deaths attributed to the nations growing
wind energy industry, which has been a pillar of President Barack Obamas plans to reduce the pollution
blamed for global warming. Wind power releases no air pollution.
But at a minimum, the scientists wrote, wind farms in 10 states have killed at least 85 eagles since
1997, with most deaths occurring between 2008 and 2012, as the industry was greatly expanding.
Most deaths 79 were golden eagles that struck wind turbines. One of the eagles counted in the
study was electrocuted by a power line.
The president of the American Bird Conservancy, Mike Parr, said the tally was an alarming and
concerning finding.
A trade group, the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement that the figure was
much lower than other causes of eagle deaths. The group said it was working with the government and
conservation groups to find ways to reduce eagle casualties.
Still, the scientists said their figure is likely to be substantially underestimated, since companies
report eagle deaths voluntarily and only a fraction of those included in their total were discovered
during searches for dead birds by wind-energy companies. The study also excluded the deadliest
place in the country for eagles, a cluster of wind farms in a northern California area known as
Altamont Pass. Wind farms built there decades ago kill more than 60 per year.

The research affirms an AP investigation in May, which revealed dozens of eagle deaths from wind
energy facilities and described how the Obama administration was failing to fine or prosecute wind
energy companies, even though each death is a violation of federal law.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has said it is investigating 18 bird-death cases involving windpower facilities, and seven have been referred to the Justice Department.
Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a
passenger jets wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds up to 170
mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes.
Wind farms in two states, California and Wyoming, were responsible for 58 deaths, followed by
facilities in Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, Utah, Texas, Maryland and Iowa.
In all, 32 facilities were implicated. One in Wyoming was responsible for a dozen golden eagle
deaths, the most at a single facility.
The research was published in the Journal of Raptor Research.

Species Cascade Internal Link

Spills over to cascading biodiversity loss
McKinney, University of Texas Environmental Studies Director, & Schoch, Boston
College Natural Science Associate Professor, 3
(Michael, Robert M., 2003, Google Books, Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions, Pg. 274,
http://books.google.com/books?id=NJUanyPkh0AC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=manatees+
%22keystone+species%22&source=bl&ots=rB1vju6y6v&sig=isIAuB81ZM_Hv4PAMp2EKt4lH8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kaX7T_GoEYiorQHfrZ2LCQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCA#v=o
nepage&q=manatees%20%22keystone%20species%22&f=false, Accessed 7/11/14, AA)

Are All Species Equally Important? With so many species at risk, triage decisions cannot be made on
the basis of risk alone. Conservation biologists therefore often ask whether one species is more important
than another. Ethically, perhaps one could argue that all species are equal; an insect may have as much
right to live as a panther.
But in other ways, in particular. In ecological and evolutionary importance, all species are not equal.
Ecological importance reflects the role a species plays in its ecological community. Keystone species
play large roles because they affect so many other species. Large predators, for example, often
control the population dynamics of many herbivores. When the predators, such as wolves, are
removed, the herbivore population may increase rapidly, overgrazing plants and causing massive
ecological disruption. Similarly, certain plants are crucial food for many animal species in some
ecosystems. Extinction of keystone species will often have cascading effects on many species, even
causing secondary extinctions . Many therefore argue that saving keystone species should be a
priority.

Species Obligation Impacts

Preserving endangered species is an ethical obligation regardless of its benefits to
humanity
Wildland Management Center, School of Natural Resources, University of
Michigan, 85
[May 1985, Why Save Endangered Species: An Ethical Perspective, Endangered
Species: Technical Bulletin Reprint, Vol 2 Num 7, PAC]
Most arguments for the preservation of endangered species rest on their actual or potential
usefulness to human beings, either economic or aesthetic. It is invaluable in our efforts to preserve
species to accept their value, their right to exist, as independent of direct human benefit. Some would
argue that this is impossible, because humans make ethical systems and ascribe values, and values cannot
therefore be truly intrinsic to anything but humans. But while ethics may be a human invention, it is
not uncommon for us to ascribe value to those who cannot directly be involved in its formulation,
like the very young or the mentally retarded. The crucial point is that while endangered species may not
be moral agents, they may nevertheless have intrinsic value which requires us to preserve them
even if they do not seem valuable for specific human ends.

We have a moral responsibility to protect endangered species

Rolston, Colorado State University, Philosophy, Distinguished Professor, 10
[Holmes III, Endangered Species and Ethical Perspectives, Encyclopedia of Animal
Rights and Animal Welfare, Second Edition, pg 206-207, PAC]
Few persons doubt that humans have obligations to endangered species. People are helped or hurt by
the condition of their environment, which includes a wealth of wild species, many of which are
currently under threat of extinction. Whether humans have duties directly to endangered species is a
deeper question, part of the larger issue of biodiversity conservation, but many believe so. The United
Nations World Charter for Nature states that, "Every form of life is unique, warranting respect
regardless of its worth to man." The Biodiversity Convention affirms "the intrinsic value of biological
diversity." Both are signed by over a hundred nations.
Many endangered species have no resource value, nor are they particularly important for the usual
humanistic reasons: medical, industrial, agricultural resources, scientific study, recreation, ecosystem
stability, and so on. Many environmental ethicists believe that species are good in their own right,
whether or not they are good for anything. The duties to-persons-only line of argument leaves deeper
reasons untouched.
Questions are at two levels: (1) facts (a scientific issue, about species), and (2) values (an ethical issue,
involving duties). Sometimes species can seem questionable, since some biologists regularly change their
classifications as they attempt to understand and classify nature's complexity. From a more realist
perspective, a biological species is a living historical form, an ongoing lineage expressed in

organisms and encoded in the flow of genes. In this sense, species are objectively therefound, not
made up.
Responsibility to species differs from that to individuals, although species are always exemplified in
individuals. When an individual dies, another replaces it. As it tracks its environment, the species is
conserved and modified. Extinction shuts down the generative processes, as a kind of superkilling.
This kills forms (species) beyond individuals, and kills collectively, not just distributively. To kill a
particular animal is to stop a life of a few years or decades, while other lives of such kind continue
unabated; to superkill a particular species is to shut down a story of many millennia, and leave no
future possibilities.
A species lacks moral agency, reflective self-awareness, sentience, or organic individuality. An ethic that
features humans or sentient animals may hold that specific-level processes cannot count morally. But each
ongoing species defends a form of life, and these forms are, on the whole, good.
The wrong that humans are doing, or allowing to happen through carelessness, is shutting down the
life stream, in the most destructive event possible. One argument is that humans ought not play the role
of murderers or superkillers. The duty to species can be overridden, for example, by pests or disease
organisms. Increasingly, humans have a vital role in whether these species continue. The duties that
such power generates no longer attach simply to individuals, but are duties to the species lines, kept
in ecosystems, because these are the more fundamental living systems, the wholes of which individual
organisms are the essential parts. In this view, the appropriate survival unit is the appropriate level of
moral concern.
It might seem that for humans to terminate species now and again is quite natural. Species go
extinct all the time. But there are important theoretical and practical differences between natural
and anthropogenic (human-generated) extinctions. In natural extinction, a species dies when it has
become unfit for its habitat, and other species appear in its place; this is a normal turnover. By contrast,
artificial extinction shuts down speciation. One opens doors, the other closes them.
Humans generate and regenerate nothing in this extinction; they dead-end these lines. Relevant
differences make the two as morally distinct as death by natural causes and murder.
Humans appear late in the scale of evolutionary time. Even more suddenly, they have increased the
extinction rate dramatically. What is wrong with such conduct is the maelstrom of killing and the
insensitivity to forms of life that it creates. What may be required is not just prudent preservation
of resources, but principled responsibility to the Earth.

Wind Upsets Water Cycle

Offshore wind increases erosion and disturbs water flowaffects both marine and
land biodiversity
Hiscock, Marine Biological Association Associate Fellow, et al. 2
[Keith, Harvey Tyler-Walters, Marine Evidence Team Coordinator at Marine Biological Association of
the UK, Hugh Jones, Marine Biological Association Researcher, August 30, The Marine Biological
Association of the UK, High Level Environmental Screening Study for Offshore Wind Farm
Developments Marine Habitats and Species Project,
http://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Hiscock_et_al._2002.pdf, accessed July 1,, 2014,
EK]

The base of the tower and foundations will alter the local water flow across the sediment, resulting
in localized sediment scour in the lee of the tower and deposition to the front the tower. Metoc
(2000) suggested that the need to space wind turbines far apart to prevent wind shadow should minimize
impact. A gap of >300m between monopiles should be adequate to ensure that the 'wake' effects around
the base of the monopile are minimized (Metoc, 2000).
Sedimentary habitats are primarily controlled by the hydrographic regime and the availability of
sediment. The type of sediment present in any location, its stability, grain size, dynamics and bedform are dependant on the current strength and direction, seasonal changes in currents, storms,
wave action (especially in the intertidal), and the resultant equilibrium between accretion and
erosion. Any structure that affects water flow or wave action is likely to change the sediment dynamics
locally and potentially over a wide area within any given sediment cell. Sedimentary communities are
themselves dependant on the stability of the sediment, its grain size and hence porosity, organic content
and nutrient cycling, oxygen content and redox potential (see Elliot et al., 1998; Parkinson 2002).
Therefore, an activity or structure that changes the hydrography is likely to affect the benthic
communities present.
The presence of multiple turbines and foundations could potentially affect water flow around and
through the development area. In addition, diffraction or interference of wave energy through or
around the development area could potentially affect the amount of wave energy impinging on the
adjacent coastal habitats, affecting wave action. Wave action is an important factor determining the
structure and function of both rocky and sedimentary intertidal communities, as well as influencing
coastal accretion or erosion.

Wind Causes Chemical Spills

Offshore wind construction leads to chemical spills which have detrimental effects
on local environments.
Navitus Bay Development, 13
[No author, September, Navitus Bay Development Limited, Proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park:
Preliminary Environmental Information 2, Chapter 9 Benthic Ecology,
http://www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk/sites/default/files/users/hannah/pei3_ch_9_benthicecology.pdf,
accessed July 11, 2014, EK]

[Note: VECs are Valued Ecological Components]

Accidental spillages of chemicals
9.103. Accidental spillages or release of chemicals such as grouting, fuel and oil during the
construction of the wind farms may potentially impact upon benthic ecology VECs. The severity of
this effect depends upon the quantities and nature of the spillage / release, the dilution and dispersal
properties of the receiving waters and the bio-availability of the contaminant to species.
Assessment of effect
9.104. In the worst case scenario the magnitude of effect would be high . Depending upon the nature
of the spill, sensitivity of VECs would be high. Impact significance would therefore be major.
However, the likelihood of such an event occurring would be negligible based on embedded mitigation
measures which include the development and implementation of construction environmental management
plans. Accordingly, the overall likely effect on benthic ecology is considered to be Not Significant.

Wind Causes Upwellings

Offshore wind environmental damage is magnified by upwellings
Roberts, Environmental Journalist, 8
[Jeanne Roberts, December 20, Celsias: Climate Change is not a Spectator Sport, Offshore Wind Power:
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, http://www.celsias.com/article/offshore-wind-power-good-bad-andugly/, accessed July 11, 2014, EK]

Offshore wind farms, currently proposed or in development from the Gulf of Mexico to Massachusetts including one massive proposal for the Great Lakes - could rescue America from Mideast oil energy
dependency and provide enough energy to power the entire country from one renewable resource. The
question is: who will rescue the fish and large mammals impacted by such proposals? That answer is
still blowing in the wind.
In a November paper published in the Journal of Marine Systems, Norwegian meteorologist Goran
Brostrom reports that winds blowing at as little as 11 miles per hour can be disrupted by large wind
farms and cause downwind ocean upwelling. Brostrom's study presupposes wind turbines in about 300
feet of water, which is deeper than most offshore wind farms currently go, primarily because maintenance
costs rise exponentially with each mile from shore.
The change may seem small (about 3 feet per day), and the wind farms have to be large - about 2 square
miles - to produce the agitation and subsequent upwelling, but the same was once said about carbon
dioxide emissions, which are currently generating climate change on a scale never anticipated a few
decades ago. As one writer pointed out, everything affects everything.
At first glance, this potential upwelling in the lee of wind farms looks like it might actually be
beneficial to marine ecosystems. By bringing nutrient-rich waters toward the surface, fish
populations are enhanced. The phytoplankton, by being moved closer to the surface and the effects of
sunlight, are also encouraged to spread, and the resultant "blooming" feeds more marine species.
Some blooms, like the notorious "red tide", are harmful, producing natural poisons like brevetoxin
that kill marine species and birds and deplete the water of oxygen. Other plankton are beneficial,
delivering oxygen to ocean waters through photosynthesis, fixing free carbon atoms to reduce the effects
of climate change, and serving as part of the ocean's food chain by feeding krill, the staple food of some
species of whale. Wind farms are fairly common in Europe, notably Denmark, the UK, Sweden and the
Netherlands. In the United States, offshore wind is a dream and a hope, but nothing has actually been
built. Because of the location of U.S. wind farms, the nation became the world's largest producer of
energy from the wind in mid-2008 , but all the installations are inland, primarily in Texas and California.

Offshore wind farms cause upwellings that alter the natural geochemical cycles
Brostrm, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, 8
[Gran, May 15, Journal of Marine Systems by Science Direct, On the inuence of large wind farms on
the upper ocean circulation, https://wiki.met.no/_media/windfarms/brostrom_jms_2008.pdf, accessed
July 11, 2014, EK]

The basic oceanic response depends on the reduction in the wind stress at the sea surface, both in
magnitude and the size of the affected area. From a literature review it appears that these quantities
have not yet been studied in sufciently detail to provide a reliable description of these features. Most
studies of wind-farm inuence on the wind focuses on the wind structure within the farm and how it will
affect the efciency of the wind farm. However, the far-reaching wind decit and the wind stress at
the sea surface have not been subjected to in substantial investigations. Thus, it is probably necessary
with complementing studies of these issues before accurate estimates of the inuence on the upper ocean
physics can be established. Here, it should also be underlined that the size of the wind farm is a very
important factor and that the oceanic response rapidly becomes much stronger when the size of the wind
farm becomes larger than the internal radius of deformation.
Examples of how divergence of the wind causes upwelling in the ocean are when winds blow along a
coast, over an island, or along the MIZ (Gill, 1982; Red and O'Brian, 1983; Okkonen and Niebauer,
1995; Valiela, 1995; Botsford et al., 2003; Dugdale et al., 2006). With a wind-driven transport directed
out from the coast the water that is transported out from the coast will be replaced by water from
deeper layers through upwelling. These types of systems and the ecosystem response to the
upwelling of nutrient rich, but also plankton poor, deep water have been studied extensively
(Valiela, 1995; Botsford et al., 2003; Dugdale et al., 2006). However , there is an important difference
between the upwelling forced along a coast and the type of upwelling that may be forced by large
wind farms. In the coastal upwelling case, the presence of land implies that the ecosystem properties
cannot be supplied from upstream condition; the wind-farm induced upwelling on the other hand, has an
important upstream import of water that carries the properties of the ecosystem. The situation along the
MIZ is probably more relevant but has not been studied to the same degree; one difference here is
that the position of MIZ change with time and reacts to the wind forcing while a wind farm has a
xed position.
We have not outlined the barotropic response in this study; this response is somewhat different but needs
to be addressed. To the lowest order approximation the geostrophic balance inhabits vertical movements
and the ow follows depth contours, or more specically closed f/H contours. The basic steady state
balance is characterized by a state where the net divergence over a closed f/H contour due to wind
forcing is balanced by the net divergence induced by the Ekman layer at the bottom (Walin, 1972;
Dewar, 1998; Nst and Isachsen, 2003). It should be noted that the divergence of the wind eld is
generally small given the large size of atmospheric low-pressure systems. Accordingly, the wind tends to
generate relatively weak barotropic signals around depth contours having small horizontal scales (say 100
km). The presence of a wind farm may create a substantial divergence of the wind eld in the immediate
vicinity of the wind farm. If the farm is placed close to a sloping bottom it is thus possible that the
wind farm may provide a substantial additional forcing of the barotropic-current system in an
ocean area. However, more studies using realistic systems are needed before it is possible to judge
the strength of this forcing mechanism. Furthermore, if a substantial part of an enclosed or semienclosed ocean area is subject to wind farms there may be a measurable affect on the major basinscale circulation and the associated pathways of nutrients.

REM Production Hurts Environment

Turnwind energy is net worse for the environment--REM productionempirics
prove
Parry and Douglas, UK Daily Mail Journalists, 11
[Simon and Ed, 1/26/11, Daily Mail, In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power
experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-

1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrousscale.html, accessed 7/11/14, AC]

On the outskirts of one of Chinas most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across
an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat
and corn.
Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he
despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.
Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us, he says. But these people only care about money. They have
destroyed our lives.
Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of
the worlds legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to
make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.

Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an
appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green
technology.
The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and
unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast manmade lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively
profitable rare-earths industry that the green companies profiting from the demand for wind
turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.
Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled
by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile wide tailing lake. It has killed farmland for miles
around, made thousands of people ill and put one of Chinas key waterways in jeopardy.
This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of
mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot
furnaces to extract its components.
Rusting pipelines meander for miles from factories processing rare earths in Baotou out to the manmade lake where, mixed with water, the foul-smelling radioactive waste from this industrial process
is pumped day after day. No signposts and no paved roads lead here, and as we approach security guards

shoo us away and tail us. When we finally break through the cordon and climb sand dunes to reach its
brim, an apocalyptic sight greets us: a giant, secret toxic dump, made bigger by every wind turbine we
build.
The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and
a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.
For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but
those who live in Mr Yans village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every
day.
Retired farmer Su Bairen, 69, who led us to the lake, says it was initially a novelty a multi-coloured
pond set in farmland as early rare earth factories run by the state-owned Baogang group of companies
began work in the Sixties.
At first it was just a hole in the ground, he says. When it dried in the winter and summer, it turned into
a black crust and children would play on it. Then one or two of them fell through and drowned in the
sludge below. Since then, children have stayed away.
As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew
more overwhelming.
It turned into a mountain that towered over us, says Mr Su. Anything we planted just withered, then
our animals started to sicken and die.
People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white
at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children
were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.
Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of
cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lakes radiation levels
are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found.
Since then, maybe because of pressure from the companies operating around the lake, which pump out
waste 24 hours a day, the results of ongoing radiation and toxicity tests carried out on the lake have been
kept secret and officials have refused to publicly acknowledge health risks to nearby villages.
There are 17 rare earth metals the name doesnt mean they are necessarily in short supply; it refers to
the fact that the metals occur in scattered deposits of minerals, rather than concentrated ores. Rare earth
metals usually occur together, and, once mined, have to be separated.

Neodymium is commonly used as part of a Neodymium-Iron-Boron alloy (Nd2Fe14B) which, thanks to

its tetragonal crystal structure, is used to make the most powerful magnets in the world. Electric
motors and generators rely on the basic principles of electromagnetism, and the stronger the magnets they
use, the more efficient they can be. Its been used in small quantities in common technologies for quite a
long time hi-fi speakers, hard drives and lasers, for example. But only with the rise of alternative
energy solutions has neodymium really come to prominence, for use in hybrid cars and wind
turbines. A direct-drive permanent-magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use
4,400lb of neodymium-based permanent magnet material.

In the pollution-blighted city of Baotou, most people wear face masks everywhere they go.
You have to wear one otherwise the dust gets into your lungs and poisons you, our taxi driver tells us,
pulling over so we can buy white cloth masks from a roadside hawker.
Posing as buyers, we visit Baotou Xijun Rare Earth Co Ltd. A large billboard in front of the factory shows
an idyllic image of fields of sheep grazing in green fields with wind turbines in the background.
In a smartly appointed boardroom, Vice General Manager Cheng Qing tells us proudly that his
company is the fourth biggest producer of rare earth metals in China, processing 30,000 tons a year.
He leads us down to a complex of primitive workshops where workers with no protective clothing
except for cotton gloves and face masks ladle molten rare earth from furnaces with temperatures of
1,000C.
The result is 1.5kg bricks of neodymium, packed into blue barrels weighing 250kg each. Its price has
more than doubled in the past year it now costs around 80 per kilogram. So a 1.5kg block would be
worth 120 or more than a fortnights wages for the workers handling them. The waste from this highly
toxic process ends up being pumped into the lake looming over Dalahai.
The state-owned Baogang Group, which operates most of the factories in Baotou, claims it invests tens of
millions of pounds a year in environmental protection and processes the waste before it is discharged.
According to Du Youlu of Baogangs safety and environmental protection department, seven million tons
of waste a year was discharged into the lake, which is already 100ft high and growing by three feet each
year.
In what appeared an attempt to shift responsibility onto Chinas national leaders and their close control of
the rare earths industry, he added: The tailing is a national resource and China will ultimately decide
what will be done with the lake.
Jamie Choi, an expert on toxics for Greenpeace China, says villagers living near the lake face horrendous
health risks from the carcinogenic and radioactive waste.
Theres not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment.
Ores are being extracted by pumping acid into the ground, and then they are processed using more
acid and chemicals.
Finally they are dumped into tailing lakes that are often very poorly constructed and maintained.
And throughout this process, large amounts of highly toxic acids, heavy metals and other chemicals
are emitted into the air that people breathe, and leak into surface and ground water. Villagers rely
on this for irrigation of their crops and for drinking water. Whenever we purchase products that contain
rare earth metals, we are unknowingly taking part in massive environmental degradation and the
destruction of communities.
The fact that the wind-turbine industry relies on neodymium, which even in legal factories has a
catastrophic environmental impact, is an irony Ms Choi acknowledges.

Fossil Fuel DAs

Wind Trades Off with Oil & Gas

Offshore wind trades off with oil and gas
Mahan, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Renewable Energy Manager, 10
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil,, http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p.
6, accessed 7/11/14, AC]

Despite this apparent disconnect, wind power can directly offset oil consumption in the electricity
generation and home heating sectors. Currently, 43.7 million barrels of oil are consumed annually to
generate electricity across the country.72 This amount of electricity73 could easily be generated by
offshore wind
Approximately 7 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind power would be needed to replace the oil
currently used in power generation.74 While this may seem like a small amount it would be an
important step in moving away from fossil fuels and cutting down climate change pollutionand it is
clearly achievable. The U.S. already has about 35 GW of onshore wind in place and more on the way. The
U.S. could have 20 GW of offshore by 2020 if it made the commitment to do sothe United Kingdom,
which has made such a commitment, plans to install 33 GW of offshore wind by 2020. The sooner
renewable energies begin to replace oil in the electricity generating sector, the sooner carbon dioxide
emissions and petroleum demand can begin to be reduced.
Another immediate way offshore wind energy can cut oil and natural gas consumption is through
heating. Many homes and buildings still use fuel oil and natural gas for heating purposes such as space
heating, cooking, and water heating.75 On the East Coast, nearly 7 million homes rely on fuel oil as the
primary source of heating, representing about 88 percent of the countrys heating oil demand.76
Switching these homes from fuel oil to electric heating (nearly 16.6 million homes on the East Coast
already use electricity for their primary source of heating), almost 123 million barrels of oil would be
conserved annually. About 5 GW of wind power would be needed to provide the electricity to heat these
7 million homes, an amount that is well in line with the projected 20 GW of offshore wind that could be
in place by 2020.

Oil Key to Economy

The oil industry creates more jobs and invests more than any sector of the economy
Johnson, American Petroleum Institute Senior Tax Advisor, 12
(Brian M., 11/12/12, JOHNSON: U.S. oil and gas industry could be key to economic recovery,
Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/12/johnson-us-oil-and-gasindustry-could-be-key-econo/, accessed 7/11/2014, KS)

There are many tough challenges facing our nation. Americas oil and natural gas industry could
play a large role in solving many of them if we committed to more domestic energy production. Homegrown American energy could raise investment in the United States economy by hundreds of billions of
dollars, create vast numbers of jobs, generate billions of dollars to the government, and increase our
global security.
Arguably no industry sector is more integrated with the U.S. economy than the oil and natural gas
industry, and few make comparable contributions. Our products are used in almost every aspect of
our day-to-day lives. From petroleum that fuels transportation to plastics used in everything from
the latest high-tech gadgets to medical and sports equipment, our industry meets the needs of a
complex and ever-expanding economy.
Currently, Americas oil and natural gas industry supports 9.2 million jobs in the United States and
7.7 percent of our nations Gross Domestic Product. Every day we deliver more than $86 million to
federal coffers in rents, royalties, bonus payments and income tax payments. Our effective tax rate
averaged over the years 2006 through 2011 is 44.3 percent, well above the 35 percent general
corporate tax rate.
In addition to paying more than most American companies to federal and state governments, and
investing in Americas future by injecting billions of dollars directly into our economy, between 2008
and 2010, Americas oil and natural gas industry spent nearly $156 billion each year investing in
Americas infrastructure. To put this in context, the oil and natural gas industry accounts for almost
14 percent of all U.S. industries capital expenditures during that period. This is more than the
capital expenditures of the utilities and transportation industries combined.
We also invest in Americas workforce. During the recession, as the U.S. economy was struggling to
find its footing, the oil and natural gas industry was there to provide stability in an otherwise
uncertain economy. From 2006 through 2011, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry directly created
119,511 jobs. Meanwhile, the other sectors of the economy lost over 4.5 million jobs. Also, wages in
our industry grew by over 20 percent in that period. The average annual non-station salary for our
industry in 2011 was $92,645. Thats 93 percent higher than the average private-sector salary of
almost $48,000.

Oil sector key to economy spurs direct job growth and growth in related sectors
Blackmon, Forbes, 2/20/14

(David, 2-20-14, Oil & Gas Boom 2014: Jobs, Economic Growth And Security,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2014/02/20/oil-gas-boom-2014-jobs-economic-growth-andsecurity/, accessed 7-11-2014, KS)

Despite all the climate-based hysteria put out into the public domain in recent weeks attacking the oil
and natural gas industry (even the Weather Channel got into that act recently), three key factors continue
to give policymakers pause about acting in ways that would negatively impact the ongoing boom.
Those factors are:
Jobs;
Ancillary stimulative impacts on other industries; and
National Security.
The reality for the United States is that the oil and natural gas industry has greatly enhanced the
picture around all three of these critical factors in recent years, nowhere more than in my home state of
Texas.
Where jobs are concerned, Texas has consistently outperformed the national economy in terms of job
creation and rate of unemployment in every month since the advent of the Great Recession and the
discovery of the Eagle Ford Shale play, both of which took place in October of 2008. Indeed, during the
24 month period from July 2009 through June of 2011, Texas created 49% of all new jobs created in the
United States, and the vast majority of those jobs were either directly or indirectly the result of the states
oil and natural gas boom, centered in plays like the Eagle Ford in South Texas, the Permian Basin of West
Texas, and the Granite Wash play in the Texas Panhandle.
Nationally, the story is almost as good. Investors Business Daily ran a great piece on February 19
detailing much of the story from a national standpoint. Here is a key excerpt:
The oil and gas boom is producing millions of jobs, and not just where you might expect. Employment
is up 40% in the oil and gas fields since the recession began in late 2007. But in every one of the 10 states
where hydrocarbon production is on the rise, overall employment growth has outperformed the nation.
Direct employment in the oil and gas industry rose 40% from 2007 through 2013, as compared to a
decline of about 3% in the overall U.S. economy. All the new oil production that has come online
since 2008 has reduced oil imports by about 50%, and lower natural gas prices brought about by
the boom in supplies of that commodity. This has in turn attracted a rush to invest in new plant and
equipment among industries that use petroleum products as feedstocks think fertilizers,
chemicals, plastics, cosmetics and many more or service or sell products to the industry.
IBD points out that more than 100 new plants and factories in a variety of such industries are
planned to come online by 2017, and When all are up and running, another $300 billion will be
pumped into GDP and 1 million more jobs created.
One industry that is often overlooked in this discussion is the U.S. shipping industry, which is
experiencing a boom of its own as demand increases for the ability to move oil and liquefied natural
gas between U.S. ports or overseas. As CNBC pointed out last October, the Jones Act mandates that
all goods moved from one U.S. port to another as much crude oil must be in order to be refined
be carried on vessels that are built and flagged in the United States. U.S. shipbuilders are having a

field day attempting to fill this new, growing demand for their products, and according to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, are experiencing their largest boom in more than 2 decades.
And the boom cascades on down to the ports that service and supply the ships. About mid-year in
2013, the Port of Houston surpassed the port of New York City to become the nations top export
market. To no ones surprise, this was due mainly to the surge in oil and gas related activity at the
port.

Gas Key to Emissions Reductions

Natural Gas reduces more carbon than all renewables combined and yields greater
economic benefits
Breitling, 6/30/14
(Energy Corporation, 2014, Oil and Gas Online, U.S. Fracking Has 'Cut Carbon More Than The Whole
World's Wind And Solar', http://www.oilandgasonline.com/doc/u-s-fracking-has-carbon-more-wholeworld-s-wind-solar-0001, accessed 7-11-2014, KS)

Fracking in the US has led to a greater reduction in carbon emissions than all the wind turbines
and solar panels across the entire globe put together. This is the stark fact presented at a meeting at the
Council of Europe in Strasbourg last week.
Chris Faulkner, who is chief executive of Breitling Energy Corporation based in Texas, explained:
"Fracking has succeeded where Kyoto and carbon taxes have failed. Due to the shale boom in the
US, the use of clean burning natural gas has replaced much more polluting coal by ten per cent. In
2012, the shift to gas has managed to reduce CO emissions by about 300 megatonnes (Mt).
"Compare this to the fact that all the wind turbines and solar panels in the world reduce CO
emissions, at a maximum, by 275 Mt. In other words, the US shale gas revolution has by itself reduced
global emissions more than all the well-intentioned solar and wind in the world.
The economic impacts of fracking and shale gas are also indisputable: as natural gas prices in the
European Union have doubled since the year 2000, US prices have fallen by about 75 per cent in the
past few years. Annually, the global solar and wind subsidies cost $60B, whereas the US is saving at
least $100B from cheaper energy
The Economist predicts that by 2020 the fracking revolution will have added 2 to 4 per cent ($380
$690B) to American GDP and created more than twice as many jobs as car makers provide today.
US GDP today is about $16T, and US car makers employ about 800,000 people.
Chris Faulkner continued: "Many countries in Europe, and across the world, have similar opportunities to
reduce their carbon footprint, and to experience the same economic benefits.
"These are not opportunities governments should overlook, or discount, as carbon reduction
targets will not be achieved through renewables or any other current energy generation technology.

Oil & Gas Key to Economy

New oil and natural gas booms are creating more affordable energy and creating
more jobs than any other sector of the economy
Mullaney, USA Today, 13
(Tim, 9-4-13, U.S. energy lifting economy more than expected,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/04/us-energy-economy-impact/2742461/,
accessed 7-11-2014, KS)

Newly found sources of domestic oil and natural gas are having an even bigger impact on the
economy than first projected, adding more than $1,200 last year to the discretionary income of the
average U.S. family, a new study says.
The explosion in domestic energy production now supports 1.2 million jobs, directly or indirectly,
says consulting firm IHS, in a study released Wednesday. That number will grow to 3.3 million by
2020, and new energy's contribution to U.S. families' disposable incomes will hit $2,000 per
household per year by 2015, said IHS.
IHS' numbers are larger than findings by other economists, which also point to a major impact from shale
oil and gas. The introduction of technologies like hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, which
made it practical to recover previously unused oil reserves, has helped drive a 58% increase in natural
gas reserves since 2007, cut the price of natural gas by nearly three-fourths, and sparked more than $120
billion in U.S.-based investment last year, IHS said. Its study was partly financed by a number of
energy and manufacturing industry groups.
"Anyone who doubts the reality of this is not paying attention,'' said John Larson, vice president of IHS
and co-leader of a team of 13 contributors from the firm's energy, economics and manufacturing-industry
consulting groups. "You're seeing the production numbers in both gas and oil to support it.''
The biggest impact on many U.S. households is lower electricity and heating bills, accounting for
about 75% of the average household's gains, Larson said. About $800 of that represents lower
prices for natural gas-fueled heat and cooking, and $100 to $150 is from electricity rates lower than
they otherwise would be, he said.
Government data back up most of this analysis. Residential natural-gas prices, which vary widely
by state, have fallen between 12% and 32% since 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Electricity prices, however, have risen slightly on average. IHS' numbers were based on assumptions
about what households would have spent if U.S. natural gas prices stayed near 2008 levels, Larson said.
Natural gas prices in much of Europe are three times U.S. levels, and Asian prices are even higher,
reflecting the lack of new supplies there, he said.
Cheaper electricity also shows up in the price of other manufactured goods, and some families get a
paycheck from producing oil and gas, or working for companies that ship petroleum or make
supplies for drilling and pipelines, he said.

Earlier, IHS had only estimated the impact of new gas supplies, without attempting to quantify the effects
of new oil supplies pouring out of places such as North Dakota and the Eagle Ford shale in Texas. In
December 2011, it had said the shale gas industry was supporting 600,000 jobs by 2010.
Moody's Analytics, another leading economics consulting firm, estimates that 1 million of the 2.7
million jobs gained in the U.S. between 2002 and 2012 were related to shale oil and gas drilling,
Moody's economist Chris Lafakis said.
Growth in shale-related employment since 2008 was almost four times as much as Moody's forecast
in 2009, and is growing twice as fast as the overall economy despite a hiring lull caused by lower
natural gas prices, Lafakis said.
'It's difficult to overstate the shale revolution's profound contributions to the US. economy,''
Lafakis said.

Hegemony Links

Wind Hurts Military Effectiveness

Offshore wind disrupts military activity
Firestone et al., University of Delaware Associate Professor and Senior Research
Scientist, 10
[Jeremy Firestone, University of Delaware Associate Professor and Senior Research Scientist, Willett
Kempton, Professor and Center Director, Blaise Sheridan, Research Assistant, Scott Baker, Research
Assistant, 2/18/10, Abell Foundation Marylands Offshore Wind Power Potential,
http://www.abell.org/sites/default/files/publications/env_Offshore.full_.report-2-18-10.pdf, page 11,
accessed 7/11/14, GNL]

According to a November 20, 2009 article, representatives of the U.S. Navy command and the state's
naval community shared their concerns [about offshore wind turbines] in Baltimore with officials of
the Maryland Energy Administration, the Department of Business and Economic Development and other
entities (Brody 2009). The article quotes Todd Morgan, president of the Southern Maryland Navy
Alliance, saying that the concern is over wind turbines producing artificial images that could
disrupt military activity. According to the author, the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in St. Mary's
County, Wallops Island on Virginia's Eastern Shore, and the Oceana Naval Air Station in the Hampton
Roads region all use the open area over the ocean for military activities.
The interaction between military radar and wind turbines is a use conflict that needs greater
examination and better understanding by all parties involved: military, state and federal government, and
developer. Exactly which areas, if any, would need to be excluded is unknown at this time.

Most of the ocean is off limits for offshore wind laundry list of reasons
Murawski, News & Observer, 12
[John, 12/13/12, McClatchy DC, N.C. ocean waters chosen for offshore wind
farm,http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/13/177272/nc-ocean-waters-chosen-for-offshore.html,
accessed 7/11/14, GNL]

But offshore wind energy remains among the most expensive forms of electricity today, and
building a wind farm in the sea has proven an elusive goal in this country. The industry is still
distrusted by some as a subsidy-dependent boondoggle, even though advocates depict wind energy as
a clean and safe alternative to mining, fracking, energy imports and nuclear waste.
An offshore wind farm long planned in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod in Massachusetts is tied up in
legal challenges, while plans to build one in Delaware waters fell through in recent weeks because of the
likely expiration of federal tax incentives for these multibillion dollar projects.
The biggest challenge is: Whos going to buy the power? said Brian OHara, president of the N.C.
Offshore Wind Coalition. If you can figure that out, then youve got a project.

One company that expects to file a notice of interest in bidding for leases is Arcadia Offshore, the New
Jersey company whose Delaware deal collapsed for lack of subsidies. Arcadia president Peter
Mandelstam said the process will be complex and time-consuming, requiring extensive
environmental analyses and public hearings; even if everything goes smoothly, construction could
take five years to get under way and two years to complete.
Absolutely, Mandelstam said of his goals off North Carolina. Were gonna do it.
But he acknowledged that with historically low natural gas prices, no utility is likely to buy offshore
wind power unless its required to do so by state regulators or lawmakers. The argument for
investing in wind power is that its an emissions-free source of electricity with a fixed price, as
opposed to wagering on natural gas, which could spike in price and strand consumers with soaring
bills, he said.
One of the many advantages of wind is that its guaranteed stable-price power for the next 20, 25 years,
he said.
The areas identified as suitable by a federal panel represent less than 20 percent of the Atlantic Ocean
originally under consideration off the shore of North Carolina. The Wilmington block begins seven miles
offshore, while the Kitty Hawk block starts six miles from shore.
Much of the sea waters have been deemed off-limits because an offshore wind project would
conflict with military operations, fish habitats, bird migratory patterns, shipping routes and other
concerns.
The soaring turbines have to be anchored to the sea floor and designed to withstand hurricane-force
winds.
Offshore wind farms now face the looming prospect of losing an important federal subsidy that is set to
expire Dec. 31. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the cost of building the project.
Mandelstam said the tax credit substantially reduces the cost of an offshore wind farm and makes it more
palatable to utilities, public officials and customers. Getting one built is a giant undertaking that
hinges on an electric utility committing to buy the wind farms power output through a long-term
power purchase agreement.
Historically it has been done because of a push from the legislature or from a public service
commission, he said. Its going to be hard for developers to spend capital in North Carolina when
theres no visibility of a purchase power agreement.

Offshore wind disrupts Coast Guard activities

Margaronis, Rebuild the United States president, 12
[Stas Margaronis, founder and president of Rebuild the United States an organization with the goal of
putting 20 million Americans back to work through investment in renewable energy, 10/30/12, RBTUS,
OFFSHORE WIND: DEVELOPERS SAYS COAST GUARD REPORT RESTRICTS ATLANTIC
COAST DEVELOPMENT, http://rbtus.com/offshore-wind-developers-says-coast-guard-report-restrictsatlantic-coast-development/, accessed 7/11/14, GNL]

In its announcement, the Coast Guard explains the rationale for PARS:
In order to provide safe access routes for the movement of vessel traffic proceeding to or from
ports or places along the eastern seaboard of the United States, the Coast Guard is conducting a
Port Access Route Study (PARS) to evaluate the continued applicability of, and the need for
modifications to, current vessel routing measures. The data gathered during this Atlantic Coast
PARS may result in establishment of one or more new vessel routing measures, modification of
existing routing measures, or disestablishment of existing routing measures off the Atlantic Coast
between Maine and Florida.
However, when the Coast Guard published its interim report in July, it admitted facing challenges
in the lack of Coast Guard (CG) capability to fully analyze AIS (Automatic Identification System)
data This resulted in an inability to predict changes in traffic patterns or determine the resultant
change in navigational safety risk given different siting scenarios of offshore renewable energy
installations.
The studys authors felt that they could still decide areas to reject or question for offshore wind
development because they had developed a methodology for initially classifying lease blocks as not
suitable.or may be suitable or are suitable. The authors say this methodology provided sufficient
confidence to make these recommendations to the lead agency reviewing wind farm applications: the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).
The authors then conclude that given the lack of complete AIS data and rudimentary analysis to
date, that recommending even preliminary routing measures is not appropriate at this time [1]
George Detweiler, US Coast Guard marine transportation specialist said that the Coast Guard reports
inclusion of preliminary routing measures in an Appendix that suggested shipping lanes of
between 5 miles wide to 20 miles wide on a north-south axis was a what if and not a proposal and
we (USCG) should not have called them routing measures.
Detweiler admits that adoption of sea lanes could take until 2016 and could have a bearing on wind
energy area approvals by BOEM. The Coast Guard recommends to BOEM, but its recommendations are
likely to be requirements in the permit approval process.
Detweiler said:The Coast Guard is now attempting to process AIS data, which provides vessel routing
through computer processing provided by the Pacific Northwest Research Center. We hope to have good
modeling data by mid-2014. The Coast Guard was able to identify some wind energy sites as not
appropriate because, in one case, the proposed site blocked a navigational lane to the Delaware Bay
leading to Philadelphia.
He also said: The Coast Guard currently identifies 10 TSS (Traffic Separation Scheme) routes along the
Atlantic coast beginning in Maine and ending in North Carolina. Lanard questioned why the existing
TSS structure was not sufficient and why the Coast Guard was developing a potential Atlantic Coast TSS,
to which Detweiler replied that a final determination would need to await the processing of the AIS data
in 2014, but he indicated the Coast Guard was leaning toward an Atlantic coast TSS from Maine to
Florida.
Detweiler also noted that the Gulf of Mexico has a less stringent system of sea lane regulation than what
is proposed for the Atlantic coast. The less rigorous sea lane enforcement was the result of oil rigs being
there before we developed the fairways. Sea lane regulation in the Gulf of Mexico for ships navigating

past offshore oil rigs utilizes a fairway lane that is two miles wide with no traffic separations as
required for the Atlantic coast TSS system.

Offshore wind leads to miscalc and a misuse of weaponry

Brody and Sedam, Maryland Independent, 9
[Alan Brody, Maryland Independent reporter, Sean. R Sedam, staff writer for Maryland Independent,
12/9/09, Washington Post, Military's worries tangle plans for offshore wind farm,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120104883_pf.html,
accessed 7/11/14, GNL]

Gov. Martin O'Malley's desire to build offshore wind turbines as part of Maryland's renewable
energy program is running into an unexpected source of resistance: the military.
The fear is that turbines placed in the Atlantic Ocean could disrupt flight and weapon test ranges, as
well as erroneously appear on radar as unidentifiable aircraft, which could trigger false alarms in
an era of high terrorism alerts, military officials said.
"When you start to place turbines out in the Atlantic Ocean, they will create an artificial image on
the radar, and we might not be able to see aircraft because we think the aircraft is really the turbine
spinning around out there," said Todd Morgan, president of the Southern Maryland Navy Alliance,
a group of civic leaders that works to enhance relations between the Navy and the community.
Representatives of the U.S. Navy command and the state's naval community shared their concerns Nov.
18 in Baltimore with officials of the Maryland Energy Administration, the Department of Business and
Economic Development and others.
Attendees said that they hoped a middle ground could be reached.
"I think there's plenty of room and opportunity to have shared usage," said Ross J. Tyler, the state energy
administration's director of clean energy. Other states are facing the same challenges on how to
balance such interests, he said.
On Nov. 10, O'Malley (D) joined with the Democratic governors of Virginia and Delaware to launch a
collaborative effort in harnessing vast offshore wind resources in the mid-Atlantic region. Officials also
have touted the potential to create thousands of jobs.
The development of offshore wind farms is critical to meeting O'Malley's standard of producing 20
percent of the state's energy through alternative sources by 2022.
Three major military installations -- Patuxent River Naval Air Station in St. Mary's County,
Wallops Island on Virginia's Eastern Shore and Oceana Naval Air Station in the Hampton Roads
region -- regularly use the airspace off the Atlantic coast for training missions and flight testing,
Morgan said.
At the meeting, both parties indicated a desire to not sacrifice one side's interests for the other.

"Our first and foremost mission is to keep the base going and keep it vibrant," Morgan said.
"Anything that gets in the way, we're going to be there and not jump on something just because it's
a green initiative."
Although renewable energy is a worthwhile initiative that could save money in the long term, it is not
worth risking billions of dollars in economic investment that the Navy spends in Maryland each
year at Patuxent and elsewhere, Morgan said.
"I'm optimistic that all this can be accomplished and think the Navy left more sanguine about finding a
solution," said J. Michael Hayes, managing director of the Department of Business and Economic
Development's Office of Military and Federal Affairs.
St. Mary's County drafted a zoning amendment last year that permits small, home-based wind turbines
that do not interfere with operations of the Patuxent River base.
Navy officials "don't say yes or no, but they provide feedback," said Robert R. Schaller, the county's
economic and community development chief. Protecting the interests of Pax River, by far its largest
employer, is the county's foremost concern, he said.
Although it is unclear where wind turbines off Maryland's coast would be built or whether the location
would interfere with naval operations, Tyler said Virginia has identified a site near Oceana.
To date, one offshore wind energy project has received approval in Delaware. None has been approved in
Maryland or Virginia. It could take anywhere between two and six years for such a project to become
operational, depending on how quickly federal regulatory hurdles can be cleared and how fast a
developer is procured.
The region has some of the strongest winds on the East Coast, and the development of offshore turbines
would go a long way toward meeting the governor's renewable energy goal, Tyler said. No offshore wind
turbines operate in the United States.

Offshore wind threatens military efficiency and sea lanes

Szkotak, Associated Press, 11
[Steve Szkotak, Associated Press reporter, 6/22/11, Defense officials worry about Va. wind farms,
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20110622/NEWS/106220310/Defense-officials-worry-about-Va-windfarms, accessed 7/11/14, GNL]

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. Defense officials, the commercial fishing industry and the Virginia Port
Authority said Wednesday they all have interests that need to be considered during the siting of
wind turbines in waters off the coast.
While each said those possible conflicts could be worked out, their comments underscored what one
official called the very busy waters off Virginia that are being considered for the development of the
renewable energy.
Ships homeported at Naval Base Norfolk, the world's largest naval base and home to the East
Coast's carrier fleet, all sail in these waters and conduct a variety of trials, some including live
weapons.

The state's port, the sixth largest in the nation, also has concerns about huge wind towers possibly
interfering with shipping lanes.
The concerns and possible conflicts were discussed by a panel at the Virginia Offshore Wind Conference.
The conference brought together advocates of offshore winds, government officials and industry
representatives.
The various interests on the panel said they wanted their concerns known now before the ocean bottom is
carved up for offshore wind farms.
"I think that's the whole idea, to create the awareness with those who are going to decide where the proper
siting is for offshore development," Jeff Keever of the Virginia Port Authority said after the panel
discussion.
"Hopefully they can make a better informed decision that eliminates conflict, or certainly reduces conflict
with commercial shipping, considering that shipping plays such a vital role in the economy of the
commonwealth," he said.
The port handles 110 million tons of cargo annually and even larger ships are expected to serve
Virginia once an expansion of the Panama Canal is completed.
An official with the Interior Department played down the differences, and said leasing offshore tracts
could begin as soon as 2012. That would then trigger at least two years of environmental reviews.
Ned Farquhar, deputy assistant secretary at Land and Minerals Management, said sorting out various
conflicts is simply a matter of sitting down all the parties and deciding what are the lowest impact areas
for wind development.
He cited the Gulf of Mexico, where thousands of offshore oil rigs exist within shipping lanes for busy
ports such as New Orleans, Corpus Christi and Houston.
"It's a big coast," he said of the waters off Virginia. "It's a neighborhood that's full. This is a new use. It
just means we've got to figure out how to adapt to it."
Various speakers at the conference displayed graphics that showed areas off the coast in which they have
vital interests, ranging from the shipping lanes that converge at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to areas
absolutely off limits because of national defense concerns. Turbines, for instance, can interfere with radar.
Some areas, the military said, can be used with conditions.
NASA also operates a flight center on the Eastern Shore.
Virginia is seen as a prime area for the development of offshore winds because of the relatively
shallow ocean bottom 20 miles out to sea and the optimal winds out there. The state also has a deepwater port and a coastal industrial base needed to support an offshore wind industry.
Joan Bondareff, a maritime law specialist and a member of the Virginia Offshore Wind Development
Authority, said it's key to know now where conflicts arise so wind farms can be sited without conflicts
with other ocean uses.
"We have to try to work these out now," she said. "I think these are conflicts that can be resolved."
Michelle E. Gryga, an attorney representing commercial fishing interests, said fishing is already federally
regulated in terms of where they can fish, and wind turbines have the potential to further limit their
fishing grounds.

Wind turbines pose a particular risk to long-line fishermen and scallop trawlers.
"They trail their gear behind their boats," Gryga said. "So turning around a windmill, especially if they're
close, is just not going to happen."
In an interview, Dominion Virginia Energy's senior vice president for alternative energy solutions added
another challenge about offshore development: the cost.
"Right now it boils down to the costs for ratepayers," Mary Doswell said. "We realize that and it's not to
say it's too costly to give up on."
The costs involve the manufacturing and fabricating of huge towers and blades hundreds of feet across,
plus procuring U.S. ships that can deliver the towers and turbines offshore.
In terms of megawatts, however, offshore winds deliver scale like no other renewable source of energy,
Doswell said.
First, however, Dominion is looking at ways to deliver offshore electricity at rates their customers can
afford to pay, she said.
"We're talking to other companies, other players where we might have opportunities for cost reduction,"
said. "We've got a lot of wheels turning."

Wind Turbines Undermine Radar

Turbines cause serious military radar complications
Brody, Maryland Independent, 9
[Alan, 12-3-9, Washington Post, Military's worries tangle plans for offshore wind farm,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120104883.html, accessed 718-14, AKS]

Gov. Martin O'Malley's desire to build offshore wind turbines as part of Maryland's renewable
energy program is running into an unexpected source of resistance: the military.
The fear is that turbines placed in the Atlantic Ocean could disrupt flight and weapon test ranges,
as well as erroneously appear on radar as unidentifiable aircraft, which could trigger false alarms
in an era of high terrorism alerts, military officials said.
"When you start to place turbines out in the Atlantic Ocean, they will create an artificial image on
the radar, and we might not be able to see aircraft because we think the aircraft is really the turbine
spinning around out there," said Todd Morgan, president of the Southern Maryland Navy Alliance, a
group of civic leaders that works to enhance relations between the Navy and the community.
Representatives of the U.S. Navy command and the state's naval community shared their concerns
Nov. 18 in Baltimore with officials of the Maryland Energy Administration, the Department of Business
and Economic Development and others.

Mobility Key to Readiness

Troop movement speed and military efficiency is key to check conflict
Goure, Lexington Institute VP, 12
[Daniel Goure, VP of Lexington Institute a nonprofit public-policy research organization headquartered in
Arlington, Virginia, M.A. in international Relations, Ph.D. in Russian Studies, Former Deputy Director,
International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, former adjunct
professor in graduate programs at the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University,
and an adjunct professor at National Defense University since 2002, 8/21/12, Lexington Institute,
Cutbacks In Critical Enablers Threaten To Undermine New Defense Strategy,
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/cutbacks-in-critical-enablers-threaten-to-undermine-new-defensestrategy/, accessed 7/11/14, GNL]

The Obama Administrations Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) is long on missions the military
will be required to perform. These missions range from the rapid countering of aggression in two
different regions of the world to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
rapidly responding to humanitarian disasters. At the same time, defense budgets are coming down
and the overseas deployment of U.S. forces is being reduced. The so-called strategic pivot to the
Asia-Pacific region is not going to be accompanied by much of a shift in deployed forces. It is going to
take a decade to finally deploy some 1,500 Marines to Australia.
The military not only is being asked to do the same with less but it is being told to do it from an
increasingly disadvantageous strategic posture. A military that is smaller and more centrally
located at home must be more agile and responsive if it is going to be effective. Yet, many of the
critical enablers to support such a response, never entirely adequate, are further reduced in the
administrations force structure plans. To the administration, this is called taking risk. For
military planners it means increased casualties, prolongation of the crisis/conflict and courting
failure.
The results of the U.S. Armys year-long campaign of learning effort are illustrative in this regard. A
critical factor in the success of U.S. intervention across a number of potential scenarios is the earliest
possible initial deployment of joint forces. The mere possibility of early entry by U.S. forces can both
deter aggressors and reassure allies. In addition, speed of response is critical to a successful
outcome in scenarios involving failed states, loose nukes or major natural disasters. After a year of
analyses, war games, seminars and workshops, the Army concluded that it can no longer guarantee that it
can meet all the requirements of the Defense Planning Guidance. Among the critical shortfalls are
insufficient strategic mobility assets, inadequate prepositioned stocks, a lack of the necessary capabilities
to support operations from austere air airfields and ports and inadequate ISR to support the required
intelligence preparation of complex environments.
The situation at Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) would suggest that the Armys assessment is
correct. TRANSCOM not only manages all the military air and sea lift assets but maintains extensive
contracts with commercial air and sea carriers. Commercial shippers provide the support and maintenance
of at-sea preposition stocks of equipment and materials. In addition, TRANSCOM contracts with
commercial carriers for the movement of people and cargoes as part of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet

program and Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement that allow the Department of Defense to call on
those private companies in time of crisis or conflict. According to recent reports, TRANSCOM is
confronting the distinct possibility that there may not be enough money or demand soon to maintain a
viable relationship with commercial lift providers. Without ready access to commercial lift providers, the
pace at which U.S. forces could deploy abroad would slow dramatically and our ability to supply those
forces once they were deployed would be in doubt.
It is bad enough asking a smaller military to do as much as it was required to do when it was larger. It is
worse to make this request of a military that is largely based in the United States. It is almost criminal to
make this request and short-change that military on critical enablers that will allow it to get overseas and
operate once deployed.

Navigation Shift
Offshore wind turbines divert large cargo ships, causing more carbon dioxide
emissions and threats to maritime security and the shipping industry
Gray, science correspondent, 8
[Richard, 10-25-08, The Telegraph, Wind farms may pose risk to shipping,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3258362/Wind-farms-may-pose-risk-to-shipping.html, Accessed 7-1114, CX]

The Department for Transport has told the wind energy industry that shipping operators have serious
concerns about plans to build thousands of huge wind turbines out at sea in a bid to meet the
Government's ambitious renewable energy targets.
Cargo ship owners and yachting groups fear the turbines, which will in some cases be more than 600 ft
tall as high as three Nelson's Columns will pose a navigation hazard in already-busy stretches of
water.
They claim that diverting large cargo ships and tankers around wind farms will lead to an increase
in carbon dioxide emissions from heavy shipping, which would cancel out much of the carbon
dioxide savings wind farms are intended to deliver.
There is also research that suggests such large structures cause interference to ships' radar, making it
hard to spot other craft.
Speaking at a conference organised by the wind energy industry, Ian Woodman, director of maritime and
dangerous goods at the Department for Transport, warned that wind farm developers faced significant
objections to their plans for offshore turbines.
It comes just days after the Crown Estate, holder of the Queen's property and owner of almost the entire
sea bed up to 12 nautical miles from the UK coast, revealed that 110 companies and consortia have
expressed interest in building new offshore wind farms.
The Crown Estate has promised to assist developers by paying up to half of all pre-construction
development costs, sparking a surge in applications for licenses to build in UK territorial waters.
But Mr Woodman said the shipping industry feared new developments would have adverse impacts on
the way they run their business.
He said: "They certainly are aware of the extent of the offshore wind farm applications and they are quite
concerned about the potential implications it has for the way they go about their jobs and for what
it means for maritime safety.

Federalism

1NC Federalism Net Benefit Shell

A. UQ- States are taking action on offshore wind energy sector nowfederal action
guts effectiveness, oil drilling proves
Powell, Boston University Law School JD Candidate, 13
[Timothy H., Colgate BA in Environmental Economics12-12-13, Boston Law Review, Revisiting
Federalism Concerns In The Offshore Wind Energy Industry In Light Of Continued Local Opposition To
The Cape Wind Project,
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume92n4/documents/POWELL.pdf, p.
2048-2049, accessed 7-11-14, J.J.]
In a dissent from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courts opinion upholding approval of Cape Winds
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed: The stakes are high. As we
have recently seen in the Gulf of Mexico, the failure to take into account in-State consequences of
federally authorized energy projects in Federal waters can have catastrophic effects on State
tidelands and coastal areas, and on all who depend on them.161 Chief Justice Marshall refers to the
devastating environmental and economic impacts of the BP oil spill of April 2010,162 while the Cape
Wind opposition predominately fears damage to aesthetic, cultural, and historic resources. But these are
only differences in kind (and perhaps magnitude) of harm, not in relevance. Just as fishermen in the Gulf
of Mexico felt the economic impact of the loss of fish stocks in the wake of the oil spill,163 the Alliance
and the Wampanoag Tribe fear a significant loss of resources, as evidenced by the considerable time and
financial resources they have expended to defend them.164
Indeed, drawing analogies to the federalism concerns involved in offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of
Mexico is particularly illuminating. In her article Federalism and Offshore Oil Leasing Resources,
Margaret A. Walls concluded that the current system of federal ownership and regulation of offshore
oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf was leading to an inefficient amount of development .165
In particular, Walls made the prescient observation that because citizens of the coastal states bear all
of the costs and reap very few benefits, they have strong incentives to fight development. 166 Walls
argued that efficiency would be enhanced if states owned the Outer Continental Shelf lands off their
coasts: They would then take into account all of the benefits and costs of leasing and, as long as
they acted to maximize the welfare of their citizens, would lease the efficient amount of land.167

B. Link- Its a state issue, climate change doesnt justify federal meddling
Eberhardt, Harvard JD, 6
[Robert W., 2006, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl.
L.J. 374, FEDERALISM AND THE SITING OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
FACILITIES, pg. 11, Lexis, J.J.]
As an environmental concern, the international scope of climate change presents distinctive
questions about the appropriate division of authority between the state and federal government
over the siting of offshore wind energy facilities. In particular, several theoretical justifications exist for
federal greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies, and these strategies could include federal
regulation of offshore wind energy siting that would preempt more restrictive state regulation. However,
state and federal governments have not taken actions on climate change consistent with predictions

that provide the basis for the theoretical justifications for federal regulation. In contrast, many states
(including those that likely would host offshore wind energy facilities) have taken the lead on
climate change mitigation measures, while the federal government has taken a more cautious
approach. In particular, some states poised to host offshore wind energy facilities have shown an
ability to consider the emissions reductions that potentially would result from offshore wind energy
development.

C. Federalism is key for a laundry list of reasons resolves conflicts, prevents

tyranny, and increases efficiency
Zeigler, Professor of Politics and Government at University of Puget Sound, & Dye,
President of the Lincoln Center for Public Service, 1983
[Thomas R. & L., excerpt from American Politics in the Media Age,
http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0495913510_265742.pdf, accessed 7-1114, J.J.]
The argument for American federalismfor dividing powers between national and state governments
(and for further dividing state powers among many types of local governments)centers on the
advantages of decentralization, which are as follows:
1. Federalism permits diversity. Local governments may deal directly with local problems. The
entire nation is not straitjacketed with a uniform policy to which every state and community must
conform. State and local governments may be better suited to deal with specific state and local
problems. Washington bureaucrats do not always know the best solution for problems in Commerce,
Texas.
2. Federalism helps manage conflict. Permitting states and communities to pursue their own
policies reduces the pressures that would build up in Washington if the national government had to
decide everything. Federalism permits citizens to decide many things at the state and local levels of
government and avoid battling over single national policies to be applied uniformly throughout the land.
3. Federalism disperses power. The widespread distribution of power is generally regarded as a
protection against tyranny. To the extent that pluralism thrives in the United States, state and local
governments have contributed to its success. State and local governments also provide a political base for
the survival of the opposition party when it loses national elections.
4. Federalism increases political participation. It allows more people to run for and hold political
office. Nearly a million people hold some kind of political office in counties, cities, townships, school
districts, and special districts. These local leaders are often regarded as closer to the people than
Washington officials. Public opinion polls show that Americans believe that their local governments are
more manageable and responsive than the national government.
5. Federalism improves efficiency. Even though we may think of eighty thousand governments as
inefficient, governing the entire nation from Washington would be even worse. Imagine the bureaucracy,
red tape, delays, and confusion if every government activity in every community in the nationpolice,
schools, roads, fire departments, garbage collections, sewage disposal, street lighting, and so onwere
controlled by a central government in Washington. Even in the Soviet Union, where centralized discipline
and party control are a matter of political ideology,

[Need a terminal impact for this]

Federal Wind Violates Federalism

Federal wind policy violates federalism
Powell, Boston University Law School JD Candidate, 13
[Timothy H., Colgate BA in Environmental Economics12-12-13, Boston Law Review, Revisiting
Federalism Concerns In The Offshore Wind Energy Industry In Light Of Continued Local Opposition To
The Cape Wind Project,
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume92n4/documents/POWELL.pdf, p.
2050-2051, accessed 7-11-14, J.J.]
What strengthens the argument for the proposal here, however, is further illustrated by the differences
between offshore oil drilling and offshore wind energy. For offshore oil, the impacts are even less local:
oil is extracted off the shore of a coastal state, may be refined in another state, and then shipped
nationwide, or even internationally.168 In contrast, wind energy is converted to electricity immediately
and fed directly into the local electric power transmission network.169 In that sense, offshore wind
energy is more akin to traditional land-based electricity generating facilities, whose siting and
permitting are subject to state control.170 Ultimately, the only distinction between offshore wind
energy facilities and their land-based counterparts is that the former happen to extend three miles
offshore, triggering federal permitting jurisdiction.
What results under the current system is an imbalance of power where the federal government
controls regulation of an inherently local concern, leading to an inefficient allocation of offshore
wind resources. The proposal here would correct this imbalance by shifting permitting power to the
states. This in turn would enhance democratic accountability.171 As Justice Sandra Day OConnor
observed in New York v. United States, [w]here Congress encourages state regulation rather than
compelling it, state governments remain responsive to the local electorates preferences; state
officials remain accountable to the people.172 With more direct political accountability, each states
permitting scheme would more accurately reflect the collective interests of its citizens in promoting
offshore wind energy, likely reducing the occurrence and magnitude of local opposition to
permitting decisions. In addition, any such local opposition that does occur would be focused in only
one forum: the state courts. This proposal would free up federal agencies to deal only with concerns of
national magnitude, and only after localized concerns are resolved at the state level, making federal
involvement more worthwhile and preserving those resources. Thus, granting states control over
permitting decisions would allow for more efficient management of local opposition.

States CP

Solvency Solve Offshore

States are willing and able to develop offshore windcomparatively solve better
than the governmentstate resistance derails federal development
Environmental Law Institute 13
[April 2013, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, A Guide to State Management of
Offshore Wind Energy in the Mid-Atlantic Region, http://midatlanticocean.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/A-Guide-to-State-Management-of-Offshore-Wind-Energy-in-the-MidAtlantic-Region.pdf, accessed 7/11/14, AC]

There is tremendous wind energy potential located off the shores of the United States. The states of
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New
York, and Virginia recognize this substantial potential and are working to support its responsible
development. This Guide explores four key coastal-related aspects of the movement to develop offshore
wind energy:
The states want to develop renewable energy resources, and offshore wind shows significant
potential.
Within 50 nautical miles of the shore from New Yortk to Virginia, there are roughly 410 gigawatts of
wind energy potential covering an area of 82,000 square kilometers (km2 ). Much of that area is
accessible, with a gently sloping, shallow continental shelf and steady offshore winds. The federal
government and the five state governments are actively exploring offshore energy for its potential to
promote energy independence and to help meet renewable energy standards.
At the same time, the states want to protect coastal resources and uses.
There are many natural resources and human uses located within the coastal zones of the five MARCO
states. Important coastal resources include beaches and dunes, fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, birds,
critical habitats and migratory pathways, high quality air and water, scenic viewsheds, and areas of
historical and archeological significance, among others; important coastal uses include tourism and
recreation, commercial fishing, shipping, mineral extraction, electrical generation and transmission,
scientific research, and military activity, among others. The MARCO states desire to ensure that these
resources and uses are considered as part of the decision-making process.
The MARCO states have a strong role in offshore energy development, and want to maximize
coordination with all parties involved.
The coastal states in the Mid-Atlantic have jurisdiction over the waters and submerged lands within
their borders and out to a distance of three nautical miles from shore. Under the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), any federal activity, including authorized uses of federal waters, that
may affect the uses or resources of a states coastal zone must be consistent with that states
enforceable coastal management policies: federally leased or permitted activities must be fully
consistent with the enforceable policies, while direct federal agency actions must be consistent with
enforceable state coastal policies to the maximum extent practicable. The MARCO states have a
responsibility to their citizens and exercise their CZMA authorities consistent with that

responsibility. The states objectives are to work with federal agencies, wind energy developers, and
other interested parties to achieve sustainable solutions through close cooperation from start to
finish, in compliance with the provisions of the CZMA.

The CP is a prerequisite to solvencylegally, federal and private development of

offshore resources must be consistent with state policies
Coastal Zone Management Act 72
[16 USC 1456 (Pub.L. 92-583), 10/27/1972, NOAA, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/about/czma.html, accessed 7/11/14, AC]
(2) Any Federal agency which shall undertake any development project in the coastal zone of a state
shall insure that the project is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the enforceable
policies of approved State management programs.
(A) After final approval by the Secretary of a state's management program, any applicant for a
required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside of the coastal zone, affecting
any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the
application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies
with the enforceable policies of the state's approved program and that such activity will be
conducted in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the applicant shall furnish to
the state or its designated agency a copy of the certification, with all necessary information and data. Each
coastal state shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of all such certifications and, to the
extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection therewith. At the earliest
practicable time, the state or its designated agency shall notify the Federal agency concerned that the state
concurs with or objects to the applicant's certification. If the state or its designated agency fails to furnish
the required notification within six months after receipt of its copy of the applicant's certification, the
state's concurrence with the certification shall be conclusively presumed. No license or permit shall be
granted by the Federal agency until the state or its designated agency has concurred with the applicant's
certification or until, by the state's failure to act, the concurrence is conclusively presumed, unless the
Secretary, on his own initiative or upon appeal by the applicant, finds, after providing a reasonable
opportunity for detailed comments from the Federal agency involved and from the state, that the activity
is consistent with the objectives of this chapter or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national
security.
(B) After the management program of any coastal state has been approved by the Secretary under section
1455 of this title, any person who submits to the Secretary of the Interior any plan for the
exploration or development of, or production from, any area which has been leased under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) and regulations under such Act shall, with respect
to any exploration, development, or production described in such plan and affecting any land or water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone of such state, attach to such plan a certification that each
activity which is described in detail in such plan complies with the enforceable policies of such
state's approved management program and will be carried out in a manner consistent with such
program. No Federal official or agency shall grant such person any license or permit for any
activity described in detail in such plan until such state or its designated agency receives a copy of
such certification and plan, together with any other necessary data and information, and until--

(i) such state or its designated agency, in accordance with the procedures required to be established by
such state pursuant to subparagraph (A), concurs with such person's certification and notifies the
Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior of such concurrence;

States Key to Coastal Zone

Any offshore wind project must involve coastal zone useotherwise, they dont
solvetheir authors agree
Schroeder, 1AC Author and Berkeley JD, 10
[Erica, October 2010, University of Cal, Berkeley, School of Law, Turning Offshore
Wind On, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1069&context=californialawreview, p.1, AC]
Under the Submerged Lands Act, state jurisdiction generally covers ocean territory three miles or
less from the coast, n112 an area known as the Coastal Zone. n113 As noted previously, any
electricity generated in an offshore facility must be transmitted to land through the state controlled
Coastal Zone. Therefore, state - and sometimes local - authorities ultimately have a role to play in
any offshore wind project through the siting and permitting of transmission cables that are
necessary to bring electricity from the turbines to land. Although state and localities may only exert
direct control over the permitting of transmission cables, they will almost certainly consider the
impact of the generation turbines on their aesthetic view environment. They know that denying
transmission permits effectively stalls or destroys the construction of generation facilities. States will
also likely consider such [*1645] aesthetic and environmental considerations in the federal consistency
review process, with which they may also block federal activities and permits. n114 Federal consistency
review is a component of the CZMA, and will be described in more detail below.

Germany CP

Germany CP 1NC Solvency

German offshore wind energy can solve worldwide
Osborne, George Weidenfeld Programme fellow, 14
[Louise, 1/24/2014, Deutsche Welle, Booming German offshore wind power industry puts pressure on
marine life, http://www.dw.de/booming-german-offshore-wind-power-industry-puts-pressure-on-marinelife/a-17339633, accessed 7/11/2014 CK]

According to the German Offshore Wind Energy Foundation, which works closely with the German
environment ministry, offshore wind turbines generated 520 Megawatts (MW) of electricity in
September 2013. The government plans to increase that figure to 25,000 MW by 2030.
"We're not talking about one site, but hundreds over decades," says Fabian Ritter. "You could say you are
changing an ecosystem, sound-wise."
Even so, Andreas Wagner, manager of the German Offshore Wind Energy Foundation's Berlin office,
which worked with the energy firms to build the Alpha Ventus wind farm, said there was a lot of
effort being taken by industry to reduce the potential ecological impacts.
A crane completes construction on a wind turbine
"We have more than half a dozen commercial offshore wind farms under construction right now,
but they are not all being built at the same time and not installing the foundations at the same time,
so there are not many cumulative effects in reality," he said.
Many conservationists say they do not want to see less development in the sector of offshore wind
energy, but greater consideration of the potential effects of offshore wind farms.
"We think it's the future of the energy development in Germany and maybe in Europe and
worldwide," says Fabian Ritter, from the Whale and Dolphin Conservation organization. "But you
have to look at what you can do to minise harm to the marine environment."

Germany key cost competitive and long term vision

Vasagar, Financial Times, 13
[Jeevan, 11/25/2013, Financial Times, German wind power hits turbulence,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3254c876-4dee-11e3-8fa5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz37BSdueYM,
accessed 7/11/14 CK]

The offshore wind industry is young; but if Germany is to achieve its goal of at least 35 per cent of
energy from renewable sources by 2020, it forms a vital part of the mix.
Out at sea, the wind blows for longer and more consistently than on land, though the risks and
associated costs are greater.

Mr Heinrich, of Fichtner, says: Because of the burden of wind and waves, you need to be securely
founded. There are factors relating to the establishment of turbines, the technical equipment [you
need], special ships, with proportionate costs. Theres an enormous weather risk.
Costs will go down as the industry chalks up experience, achieves greater economies of scale, and
there is more competition. As the industry learns to manage its risks, cheaper credit will play a part
in bringing down costs, Mr Heinrich predicts: A fifth of the reduction in price [that we foresee] is a
reduction in financial costs.
Today, offshore projects suffer from more expensive credit than onshore. When offshore receives
cheaper credit, it will be cheaper.
In talks to form a governing coalition in Germany, negotiators have agreed to contain the ballooning costs
of the countrys shift to renewable energy. The target for offshore wind turbines has been reduced
from 10GW to 6.5GW by the end of this decade. The offshore target for 2030 has been reduced
from 25GW to 15GW.
The proposals, part of a programme that includes reducing subsidies for offshore wind farms, aim
to tackle the costs of Germanys transition to sustainable energy. The reforms have been welcomed
as setting more realistic goals.

CP Feasible
Germany investing and producing wind energy now
Nicola, United Press International correspondent, 14
[Stefan, 2/11/2014, Bloomberg, Germany to Expand Offshore Wind-Power Capacity Fourfold in 2014,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/germany-to-expand-offshore-wind-power-capacityfourfold-in-2014.html, accessed 7/11/2014 CK]

Germany will expand its offshore wind-power capacity fourfold this year as projects totaling 1.5
gigawatts are expected to begin generating, according to Stiftung Offshore-Windenergie, an industry
group.
Six farms including the 400-megawatt Global Tech I project and EnBW Energie BadenWuerttemberg AG (EBK)s 288-megawatt Baltic 2 plant are seen starting up in 2014, the group said
today in a study commissioned by the Environment Ministry. Two more are being built and expected to
operate from next year, it said.
Three farms with a combined capacity of 520 megawatts are in operation in the German North and
Baltic Sea, the group said. Construction of at least three more projects with 800 megawatts will
start in the course of this and next year, it said.

CP Solves Emissions
Germany solves carbon emissions but financing is key
Schwartzman, International consultant, 14
[Oriane, 4/4/2014, Blackstone Group. Construction Completed on Germanys First Privately-Financed
Offshore Wind Farm, http://www.blackstone.com/news-views/press-releases/details/constructioncompleted-on-germany-s-first-privately-financed-offshore-wind-farm-meerwind-s%C3%BCd-ost,
accessed 7/11/2014 CK]

Within the last day, WindMW installed its 80th and final offshore turbine and completed the
installation of Meerwinds 3,500-tonne offshore converter substation. Construction of Meerwind
began in 2012 and was completed on schedule within 18 months.
Jens Assheuer, CEO of WindMW said: I would like to thank the projects investors, staff, suppliers and
other stakeholders for their significant commitment and support. The completion of the project on
schedule and at the highest quality standards is a result of the contributions of all parties involved.
The 288 MW project will produce enough clean power to service approximately 360,000 households
and will help Germany eliminate approximately one million tons of carbon emissions per year.
Meerwind was the first German offshore wind project to be fully financed by private investors, was
the largest German offshore wind farm to achieve a full financial closing, and was the first to close
under Germanys KfW financing program, which is focused on helping Germany meet its
renewable energy targets by providing debt financing to greenfield energy projects.
Sean Klimczak, Senior Managing Director at Blackstone said: We are very pleased to have reached
this important project milestone, bringing Germany one step closer to meeting its green energy
targets. Together with our partners, we would like to thank our suppliers and their hard-working teams
for their efforts to make our project vision a reality."
A total of EUR 1.2 billion was invested in the construction of the wind farm Meerwind SdOst,
which is situated 23 kilometers north of Helgoland, Germany.

Eurozone Net Benefit

Eurozone econ on the brink Eurozone key to world markets
Baetz, Associated Press, 14
[Juergen, 2/15/2014, Business Today, Eurozone recovery accelerates but jobs elusive,
http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/eurozone-recovery-accelerates-but-jobs-elusive/1/203370.html,
accessed 7/11/14 CK]

Europe's economy is growing faster , raising hopes for a sustainable recovery, but that may not be
enough to bring sky-high levels of unemployment down anytime soon.
The economy of the euro bloc grew 0.3 per cent in the October-December period from the previous
quarter, the Eurostat statistics office said on Friday. That was slightly more than expected and up
from the third quarter's 0.1 per cent.
The recovery remains tepid, however, at least by global standards. The eurozone's annualized rate of
about 1.2 per cent is less than half the US's 3.2 per cent rate during the same period.
"While still far from dynamic, it is a step back in the right direction," said analyst Howard Archer of
IHS Global Insight.
The eurozone is central to the global economy as Europeans are big buyers of goods from the
United States and Asia. Uncertainty over the bloc's future in recent years weighed on growth and
corporate earnings around the world.

Unemployment tanks the eurozone

Baetz, Associated Press, 14
[Juergen, 2/15/2014, Business Today, Eurozone recovery accelerates but jobs elusive,
http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/eurozone-recovery-accelerates-but-jobs-elusive/1/203370.html,
accessed 7/11/14 CK]

One of the biggest economic problems facing Europe is unemployment, particularly among the
young in those countries at the forefront of the region's debt crisis.
The eurozone economy emerged from recession last year as its financial crisis eased, but employers
haven't started hiring much. The unemployment rate has remained around 12 per cent since late
2012.
As well as creating uncertainty in households and stifling consumer spending, unemployment is a
burden to a country's coffers as the government pays benefits and misses out on tax revenue from
payrolls and economic activity.

German offshore wind creates jobs

Shahan, director of CleanTechnica, 12
[Zachary, 2/21/2012, CleanTechnica, 33,000 More Offshore Wind Power Jobs in Germany by 2021,
Study Finds, http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/21/33000-more-offshore-wind-power-jobs-in-germanyby-2021-study-finds/, accessed 7/11/14 CK]

The news: A new study Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), Volle Kraft aus Hochseewind (Full
power from offshore wind), has found that Germany will have a not-so-tiny 33,000 jobs in the
offshore wind power sector by 2021! Thats 18,000 more than in 2010.
Even more good news: small and midsize companies will be providing about 90% of the added
value, according to the report.
In the fields of project development, the supply chain, construction services, and other services, I
still see a lot of growth opportunity for midsize companies, Thomas Ull, SME expert at PWC loan,
said. Companies all over Germany, providing components for the offshore wind industry, would
benefit.
In total, PWC estimates Germany will have 8.7 gigawatts (8,700 megawatts) of offshore wind power
capacity up and running by 2021.

Wind energy solves jobs- Bremerhaven proves

Jackson, Boston Globe, 13
[Derrick Z., 5/26/2013.Boston globe, New Bedford looks to Wind City,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/05/25/new-bedford-looks-windcity/7XnssjgXcWhVEAtFdgdkhJ/story.html, accessed 7/11/14 CK]

By 1999, Bremerhavens shipbuilding and fishing industries had crashed. A US military base had
shut down, leaving shopkeepers idle and their landlords empty handed. Unemployment hit 25
percent. A quarter of its population disappeared. This once-proud gateway to the North Sea was
now a windy, empty town filled with just old people, according to Annette Schimmel of the port
handler BLG Logistics.
I compare it to a little Detroit, said Jens Eckhoff, president of the German Offshore Wind Energy
Foundation and a former senator. I made a lot of visits to schools and it was horrifying to talk to
the young people. Their first question was always, How do I get out of Bremerhaven?
Former Mayor Jorg Schulz said, People compared us to Eastern Europe and said we should just close up
the door. My job was to keep going to meetings and asking everybody, Do you really want to close the
door?
Instead, a new door opened. Once a windy, empty town of 113,000, Bremerhaven now appears on
maps under the moniker Wind City. In 2000, the German government launched one of the
worlds most aggressive renewable energy efforts, unleashing billions of dollars in public and
private investments in offshore wind. Bremerhaven and Cuxhaven, a smaller city 25 miles to the

north that still had major container terminals and frozen fish processors, had room to
accommodate the outsized demands of the offshore wind industry: turbine blades with the wingspans
of passenger jets and towers with the heft of scores of elephants. It also had high-powered cranes to load
the giant equipment onto specially fortified ships.
This is our German moon landing, said Ronny Meyer, managing director of WAB, a public-private
wind agency in Bremerhaven. Like John F. Kennedys speech launching the aerospace industry, we are
doing something weve never done before in the ocean.
Top turbine companies set up shop in the area. Electronics, engineering, hydraulics, welding,
plastics, and carbon-fiber companies were joined by gear, bolts, and tool manufacturers to create a
supply chain. Local universities set up programs to retrain idle fishermen and ship builders for the
offshore wind industry.
Now, more than 10 years later, 5,000 jobs tied to offshore wind energy have been created in the
Bremerhaven/Cuxhaven region. Downtown Bremerhaven gleams with new buildings, including
museums that celebrate the ports role in immigration and teach children about the climate.
Unemployment has been halved to 12 percent in Bremerhaven and nearly halved in Cuxhaven,
dropping from 11 percent to 6 percent.
There is still a long way to go, officials admit, particularly in Bremerhaven. But Germanys first
offshore wind farm was commissioned only three years ago. Now, so many projects are underway
that the number of jobs in Germanys offshore wind industry is expected to soar from 10,000 to an
estimated 33,000 by 2021.
After a week of touring factories where workers constructed turbine foundations, watching welders
sparks cascading in blinding firefalls, New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell said, Its hard to avoid the adage
that seeing is believing. It was like watching an update of an old World War II documentary of factories
that were hives of activity, with welders cranking out submarines and workers bending steel on vessels
except that it was giant tripods for wind turbines. Bremerhaven was in a Depression-era situation, but
now has its own center of gravity. That is what we want.

Economic and energy security are key to heg

Rhle, NATO's Emerging Security Challenges Division Energy Security Section
head, 12
[Michael, 11/15/2012, German Council on Foreign Relations. The Primacy of Economic Interests,
https://ip-journal.dgap.org/en/ip-journal/topics/primacy-economic-interests, accessed 7/11/14 CK]

As traditional security policy is superseded by economic and energy interests, we must begin to
discuss the economization of security policy the implications of which go far beyond the current
global financial crisis and its effects on the security policy of the West. One voice inside NATO
describes what needs to be done to ensure that this commercialization of security will still allow the
friendly member countries of NATO and the EU to avoid 21st century conflicts and to continue to act
collectively.
The global financial crisis will significantly affect the security policy of the West for years to come.
It has already hit all members of NATO and EU, including those who have long been able to sustain

high defense budgets. Equally importantly, the sheer duration of the crisis means that crucial
investments in the development and procurement of key military capabilities will not be made
resulting in a growing modernization gap that will become ever harder to close. Given this
background, it is not surprising that the security implications of the financial crisis are discussed
mainly in categories of reduced military capabilities and, accordingly, reduced political ambitions.
The solutions that are being advanced are equally unsurprising: pleas for more multinational armaments
projects, suggestions for the pooling and sharing of certain national capabilities, and the familiar call
for Europe to finally shoulder more responsibility in defense matters.

Climate

Turbines Cause Warming

Offshore wind causes warming empirical studies prove
Gray, Telegraph Environmental Correspondent, 12
[Louise, 4-29-12, The Telegraph, Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-newstudy.html, Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

Usually at night the air closer to the ground becomes colder when the sun goes down and the earth cools.
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is
warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.
Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind
farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are
built.
This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms.
It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and
even wind speeds.
It is reported China is now erecting 36 wind turbines every day and Texas is the largest producer of wind
power in the US.
Liming Zhou, Research Associate Professor at the Department of Atmospheric and Environmental
Sciences at the University of New York, who led the study, said further research is needed into the affect
of the new technology on the wider environment.
"Wind energy is among the worlds fastest growing sources of energy. The US wind industry has
experienced a remarkably rapid expansion of capacity in recent years, he said. While converting
winds kinetic energy into electricity, wind turbines modify surface-atmosphere exchanges and
transfer of energy, momentum, mass and moisture within the atmosphere. These changes, if
spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate.
The study, published in Nature, found a significant warming trend of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per
decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions.
The team studied satellite data showing land surface temperature in west-central Texas.
The spatial pattern of the warming resembles the geographic distribution of wind turbines and the yearto-year land surface temperature over wind farms shows a persistent upward trend from 2003 to
2011, consistent with the increasing number of operational wind turbines with time, said Prof Zhou.

Backup Generation Uses Fossil Fuels

Offshore wind causes more fossil fuel use resulting in foreign oil and gas
dependency
Telegraph view, editorial, 13
[6-15-13, The Telegraph, Wind power has failed to deliver what it promised,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10121584/Wind-power-has-failed-to-deliver-whatit-promised.html, Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

Wind farms can end up being surprisingly environmentally unfriendly, too. When the wind does not
blow and the turbines fail to do their job, consumers have to fall back on the very fossil fuels that
they were designed to replace. The result is that we come to rely on foreign imports of oil and gas
that hit the household budget hard (domestic coal stations that ought to supply more of the demand
have been closed in order to meet carbon-emission reduction targets). Moreover, wind farms can be a
blot on the landscape: the dormant turbines take up large tracts of land and kill wildlife; it is the visual
pollution of our beautiful countryside that has led some communities to protest against their presence.

Plan doesnt solve fossil fuels plants must generate electricity in mere seconds if
the wind stops blowing
Vartabedian, LA Times National Correspondent, 12
[Ralph, 12-9-12, Los Angeles times, Rise in renewable energy will require more use of fossil fuels,
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/09/local/la-me-unreliable-power-20121210, Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

One of the hidden costs of solar and wind power and a problem the state is not yet prepared to meet
is that wind and solar energy must be backed up by other sources, typically gas-fired generators. As
more solar and wind energy generators come online, fulfilling a legal mandate to produce one-third of
California's electricity by 2020, the demand will rise for more backup power from fossil fuel plants.
"The public hears solar is free, wind is free," said Mitchell Weinberg, director of strategic development
for Calpine Corp., which owns Delta Energy Center. "But it is a lot more complicated than that."
Wind and solar energy are called intermittent sources, because the power they produce can suddenly
disappear when a cloud bank moves across the Mojave Desert or wind stops blowing through the
Tehachapi Mountains. In just half an hour, a thousand megawatts of electricity the output of a
nuclear reactor can disappear and threaten stability of the grid.
To avoid that calamity, fossil fuel plants have to be ready to generate electricity in mere seconds.
That requires turbines to be hot and spinning, but not producing much electricity until complex
data networks detect a sudden drop in the output of renewables. Then, computerized switches are
thrown and the turbines roar to life, delivering power just in time to avoid potential blackouts.

The state's electricity system can handle the fluctuations from existing renewable output, but by 2020 vast
wind and solar complexes will sprawl across the state, and the problem will become more severe.
Just how much added capacity will be needed from traditional sources is the subject of heated debate by
utility officials, government regulators and policy experts. The concerns are expected to come to a head
next year when the state must adopt a 10-year plan for its energy needs.
"This issue is someplace between a significant concern and a major problem," said electricity system
expert Severin Borenstein, a professor at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "There is definitely
going to be a need for more reserves."
Borenstein said state legislators and the governor did not consider all of the details, such as unleashing
this new demand for fossil fuel generators, when they set the 33% mandate for renewable energy. The
state now gets 20% of its power from renewables, in part from older hydro and geothermal energy. Gov.
Jerry Brown has advocated upping the goal to 40%.
The cost to consumers in the years ahead could be in the billions of dollars, according to industry experts.
California's electricity prices are already among the highest in the nation and are projected to rise
sharply in coming years. At the moment, the need for reserve power isn't considered a cost of
renewable power, though consumers have to bear its costs as well.

AT Storms
Wind farms wont slow down hurricanes it would take 78,000 turbines and they
would be shut down before the hurricane reached them anyways
Wong, staff writer, 14
[Kristine, 2-27-14, Take Part, Can Offshore Wind Farms Really Slow Down Hurricanes?,
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/02/27/can-offshore-wind-farms-really-slow-killer-hurricanes,
Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

We found that when wind turbines are present, they slow down the outer rotation winds of a
hurricane, said lead author Mark Jacobson, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Stanford
University. This feeds back to decrease wave height, which reduces movement of air towards the center
of the hurricane, increasing the central pressure, which in turn slows the winds of the entire hurricane and
dissipates it faster.
Using a computer model hes been developing for 20 years, Jacobson examined the relationship among
air pollution, energy, weather, and climate. The simulations showed dramatic results: By the time Katrina
made landfall, the offshore wind farm could have slowed the hurricanes speeds from 140 miles per hour
to 92.
Considering the reality of todays offshore wind farms and the design limitations of the turbines
themselves, the findings, though striking, are a bit far-fetched.
One of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, the London Array, in the United Kingdoms
Thames Estuary, has just 175 turbines. Jacobsons simulation used 450 times this number. Its not
practical78,000 turbines, Dominique Roddier, the co-inventor of a structure designed to support
floating wind turbines, told USA Today. Thats an insane number of wind turbines. You cant build that
many.
Another debatable finding is Jacobsons assertion that the offshore wind turbines could withstand a
hurricane of Katrina-level proportions (its top wind speeds reached 140 miles per hour). Operators
shut down current wind farms when gusts reach 125 miles per hour, according to Scientific
American.
We found that whether its the Gulf Coast or the East Coast, the hurricane actually dissipates by the
time it reaches the turbines such that the wind speeds never get up to the destruction wind speed of
the hurricane, even in something so powerful as Hurricane Katrina, Jacobson said in a video. In the
Katrina simulation, the turbines were located 62 miles off the Louisiana coastline.

Energy Poverty

Wind Increases Energy Costs

Turn Wind energy incentives massively increase poverty best data proves
Lomborg, former Environment Assessment Institute Director, 14
[Bjorn, Dr. Bjrn Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School. According to the UK
Guardian, he is one of the 50 people who could save the planet. 4/28/14, Project Syndicate, The Poverty
of Renewables, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-says-that-the-prevailingsolution-to-global-warming-is-hurting-the-poor-more-than-the-problem-is, accessed 7/11/14, AC]

Solar and wind power was subsidized by $60 billion in 2012. This means that the world spent $60
billion more on energy than was needed. And, because the total climate benefit was a paltry $1.4
billion, the subsidies essentially wasted $58.6 billion. Biofuels were subsidized by another $19 billion,
with essentially no climate benefit. All of that money could have been used to improve health care, hire
more teachers, build better roads, or lower taxes.
Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the
economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates
that the total cost of the EUs climate policy will be 209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020
until the end of the century.
The burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the worlds poor, because the rich can easily
pay more for their energy. I am often taken aback by well-meaning and economically comfortable
environmentalists who cavalierly suggest that gasoline prices should be doubled or electricity
exclusively sourced from high-cost green sources. That may go over well in affluent Hunterdon
County, New Jersey, where residents reportedly spend just 2% of their income on gasoline. But the
poorest 30% of the US population spend almost 17% of their after-tax income on gasoline.
Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the United Kingdom have reduced their
electricity consumption by almost 10% since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a
50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from
1.8% to 4.6%.
The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10%, whereas the rich
have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63% more
expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17% of households are now energy poor that is,
they have to spend more than 10% of their income on energy; and, because elderly people are typically
poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep
warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their
homes cold.
In Germany, where green subsidies will cost 23.6 billion this year, household electricity prices have
increased by 80% since 2000, causing 6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. Wealthy
homeowners in Bavaria can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish subsidies
essentially paid by poor tenants in the Ruhr, who cannot afford their own solar panels but still have
to pay higher electricity costs.

The list goes on. In Greece, where tax hikes on oil have driven up heating costs by 48%, more and
more Athenians are cutting down park trees, causing air pollution from wood burning to triple.
But climate policies carry an even larger cost in the developing world, where three billion people
lack access to cheap and plentiful energy, perpetuating their poverty. They cook and keep warm by
burning twigs and dung, producing indoor air pollution that causes 3.5 million deaths per year by
far the worlds biggest environmental problem.
Access to electricity could solve that problem, while allowing families to read at night, own a
refrigerator to keep food from spoiling, or use a computer to connect with the world. It would also allow
businesses to produce more competitively, creating jobs and economic growth.
Consider Pakistan and South Africa, where a dearth of generating capacity means recurrent
blackouts that wreak havoc on businesses and cost jobs. Yet the funding of new coal-fired power
plants in both countries has been widely opposed by well-meaning Westerners and governments.
Instead, they suggest renewables as the solution.
But this is hypocritical. The rich world gets just 1.2% of its energy from hugely expensive solar and
wind technologies, and we would never accept having power only when the wind was blowing. Over
the next two years, Germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants to keep the lights on.
In 1971, 40% of Chinas energy came from renewables. Since then, it has powered its explosive
economic growth almost exclusively with highly polluting coal, lifting 680 million people out of
poverty. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23% of its energy from wind and solar. By contrast, Africa
gets 50% of its energy today from renewables and remains poor.
A new analysis from the Center for Global Development quantifies our disregard of the worlds
poor. Investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $500. But, using gas
electrification, we could pull more than four people out of poverty for the same amount. By
focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three out of four people
in darkness and poverty.
Addressing global warming effectively requires long-term innovation that makes green energy
affordable to all. Until then, wasting enormous sums of money at the expense of the worlds poor is
no solution at all.

Turnempirically, wind energy creates more energy poverty

Der Spiegel 13
[Der Spiegel is Germanys largest newspaper and one of the most influential in the EU, 9/4/13, Der
Spiegel, Germany's Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good,

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-torenewable-energy-a-920288.html, accessed 7/11/14, AC]

Altmaier and others are on a mission to help people save money on their electricity bills, because
they're about to receive some bad news. The government predicts that the renewable
energy surcharge added to every consumer's electricity bill will increase from 5.3 cents today to
between 6.2 and 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour -- a 20-percent price hike.

German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is
failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the
horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country's most
important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.
After the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan two and a half years ago, Merkel quickly decided to begin
phasing out nuclear power and lead the country into the age of wind and solar. But now many Germans
are realizing the coalition government of Merkel's CDU and the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) is
unable to cope with this shift. Of course, this doesn't mean that the public has any more confidence in a
potential alliance of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens. The political world is
wedged between the green-energy lobby, masquerading as saviors of the world, and the established
electric utilities, with their dire warnings of chaotic supply problems and job losses.
Even well-informed citizens can no longer keep track of all the additional costs being imposed on
them. According to government sources, the surcharge to finance the power grids will increase by
0.2 to 0.4 cents per kilowatt hour next year. On top of that, consumers pay a host of taxes, surcharges
and fees that would make any consumer's head spin.
Former Environment Minister Jrgen Tritten of the Green Party once claimed that switching Germany to
renewable energy wasn't going to cost citizens more than one scoop of ice cream. Today his successor
Altmaier admits consumers are paying enough to "eat everything on the ice cream menu."
Paying Big for Nothing
For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This
year, German consumers will be forced to pay 20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar,
wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over 3 billion. Even the figure of
20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated
with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and
sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states
of energy surplus or deficit.
If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless,
consumers are still paying for the "phantom electricity" the turbines are theoretically generating.
Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what
experts refer to as "negative electricity prices."
On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season,
supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the
gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.
If there is still an electricity shortfall, energy-hungry plants like the ArcelorMittal steel mill in
Hamburg are sometimes asked to shut down production to protect the grid. Of course, ordinary
electricity customers are then expected to pay for the compensation these businesses are entitled to
for lost profits.
The government has high hopes for the expansion of offshore wind farms. But the construction sites
are in a state of chaos: Wind turbines off the North Sea island of Borkum are currently rotating without
being connected to the grid. The connection cable will probably not be finished until next year. In the
meantime, the turbines are being run with diesel fuel to prevent them from rusting.

In the current election campaign, the parties are blaming each other for the disaster. Meanwhile, the
federal government would prefer to avoid discussing its energy policies entirely. "It exposes us to
criticism," says a government spokesman. "There are undeniably major problems," admits a cabinet
member.
But this week, the issue is forcing its way onto the agenda. On Thursday, a government-sanctioned
commission plans to submit a special report called "Competition in Times of the Energy Transition." The
report is sharply critical, arguing that Germany's current system actually rewards the most inefficient
plants, doesn't contribute to protecting the climate, jeopardizes the energy supply and puts the poor at a
disadvantage.
The experts propose changing the system to resemble a model long successful in Sweden. If
implemented, it would eliminate the more than 4,000 different subsidies currently in place. Instead of
bureaucrats setting green energy prices, they would be allowed to develop indepedently on a separate
market. The report's authors believe the Swedish model would lead to faster and cheaper implementation
of renewable energy, and that the system would also become what it is not today: socially just.
Trouble Paying the Bills
When Stefan Becker of the Berlin office of the Catholic charity Caritas makes a house call, he likes to
bring along a few energy-saving bulbs. Many residents still use old light bulbs, which consume a lot of
electricity but are cheaper than newer bulbs. "People here have to decide between spending money on
an expensive energy-saving bulb or a hot meal," says Becker. In other words, saving energy is well
and good -- but only if people can afford it.
A family Becker recently visited is a case in point. They live in a dark, ground-floor apartment in Berlin's
Neuklln neighborhood. On a sunny summer day, the two children inside had to keep the lights on -which drives up the electricity bill, even if the family is using energy-saving bulbs.
Becker wants to prevent his clients from having their electricity shut off for not paying their bill.
After sending out a few warning notices, the power company typically sends someone to the
apartment to shut off the power -- leaving the customers with no functioning refrigerator, stove or
bathroom fan. Unless they happen to have a camping stove, they can't even boil water for a cup of tea.
It's like living in the Stone Age.
Once the power has been shut off, it's difficult to have it switched on again. Customers have to
negotiate a payment plan, and are also charged a reconnection fee of up to 100. "When people get their
late payment notices in the spring, our phones start ringing," says Becker.
In the near future, an average three-person household will spend about 90 a month for electricity.
That's about twice as much as in 2000.
Two-thirds of the price increase is due to new government fees, surcharges and taxes. But despite those
price hikes, government pensions and social welfare payments have not been adjusted. As a result, every
new fee becomes a threat to low-income consumers.

Solvency

NIMBY
Offshore wind faces huge opposition from NIMBYism, Cape Wind proves.
Keller, The Atlantic, former associate editor, 10
[Jared, 4-20-10, The Atlantic, Can Wind Power Survive the NIMBY Syndrome?,
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2010/04/can-wind-power-survive-the-nimbysyndrome/39251/, 7-11-14, AAZ]

But the underlying political principles of the anti-Cape Wind movement speak to tougher challenges
facing Obama's energy agenda, starting with NIMBY.
The American Wind Energy Association says opposition to wind power arises most commonly when
"some people perceive that the development will spoil the view that they are used to ," and Cape
Wind is exhibit A. "The right project in the wrong place," sums up the view of key Cape Wind
opponents, most notably, members of the Kennedy family, whose famous Hyannisport compound
overlooks Nantucket Sound. The late Senator Edward Kennedy twice nearly killed the project with
legislative sleight-of-hand . Eco-activist Robert Kennedy Jr. has railed against the wind farm,
rationalizing his logic in a strained op-ed in the New York Times.
The fallout from this project transcends just a few powerful opponents. Waves of litigation
surrounding Cape Wind have prompted some wind farm developers to seek plots farther offshore
and in deeper waters. The need to address visual-impact complaints adds to the technical complexity
and cost of offshore wind power, potentially deterring large-scale investment. As Karen Ferenbacher puts
it on the website earth2tech, the litigation surrounding Cape Wind is "representative of how
NIMBY-ism and political interests can crush clean power projects."
While Americans were reminded after Scott Brown's surprise Senate victory exactly how complex the
politics of Massachusetts can be, the long struggle of Cape Wind underscores how opposition to wind
power, apart from state-by-state preservation issues, will come down to local preferences and the
concerns of citizens, rather than major policy points.
If the future of offshore wind farming looks like the Cape Wind story, efforts to expand the industry
through national policymaking seem headed for guerilla warfare at the local level. And obstacles to
offshore wind farms at the local level provide fodder for opposition to Obama's national energy
reform package. Wind energy sounds fantastic on the national level, but no number of tax credits,
economic incentives, and inspirational speeches touted by President Obama can trump local concerns
over the erosion of majestic scenery or a much-loved vacation spot . Local NIMBY-ism, while a
marginal issue in the grand scheme of national public policy, lends itself to influence from outside
interests. Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones outlined the role of William Koch -- president of the Oxbow
Group, where he "made his fortune off mining and marketing coal, natural gas, petroleum, and petroleum
coke products," and Cape Cod property-owner -- in bankrolling the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound,
the major Cape Wind opposition group. It's a clinic on how a handful of well-placed local interests can
undermine a national wind power initiative

This is the danger for the Obama administration: a local failure may sow the seeds for a national one .
As we've seen in the healthcare debate, a handful of politicians could be enough to grind policy work to a
halt. After all, if wind power can be stymied in one of the nation's most liberal states, where can it
succeed?
In a recent interview with David Roberts of Grist.com, former Special Advisor on Green Jobs Van Jones
declared clean energy to be a politically safe issue in November's midterm elections. With the Cape
Wind climax at hand, politically volatile might be more like it.

Offshore wind development is crushed massive local and political opposition

creates litigation issues the plan cant overcome
Smith, University of California Santa Barbara, Political Science, 7
[Eric R.A.N., 8-29-07, University of California Santa Barbara, Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind
Power, http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/smith/wind.pdf, 6-11-14, AAZ]

Wind power receives overwhelming support public support in national surveys.

For example, in a recent CBS/New York Times Poll (2007), 75 percent of the respondents said they would
be willing to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources such as wind or solar. In
addition, over 60 percent of respondents supported requiring government office buildings to use
renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind power, even if this kind of regulation resulted in
higher taxes (Carroll 2007).
However, these are curious findings, indeed, because they are contrary to the strong opposition that
wind proposals sometimes face at the local level.
These local protests are characterized as Nimby responses. Nimbyism is an intense, sometimes
emotional and often adamant local opposition to site proposals that residents believe will result in
adverse impacts (Kraft and Clary 1991; 300). This local oppositionstemming most notably from
conflict between developers and activistsis cited as one of the fundamental challenges facing the
wind industry (Bosley and Bosley 1990, 1992).
The criticisms presented by opponents are many. Most notably, critics identify noise, visual
intrusion, electromagnetic interference, harm to birds and other wildlife, distrust of developer
objectives, and lack of local ownership as the foremost reasons why they oppose wind farms (Erp
1997; Krohn and Damborg 1998; Simon 1996; Wolsink 1996).
Almost all of these reasons were cited by those who opposed the now infamous Cape Wind Projecta
130-unit wind turbine plant proposed to be stationed on a 24- square-mile area of Nantucket Sound
(Williams and Whitcomb 2007). The Cape Wind Project has in many ways become emblematic of the
opposition to wind farms at the local level. A group of Massachusetts residents formed the Alliance to
Protect Nantucket Sounda nonprofit group dedicated to preserving the landscape off Cape Cod.
Members and locals alike claimed that the project would ruin the pristine landscape and was
environmentally unsound. Most importantly, these groups opposed the plan because it placed the
publics ocean in the hands of private developers (Ebbert 2006; Kempton et al. 2005, 128). Political
leadersincluding Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass), Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), and Robert

F. Kennedy, a senior attorney for the National Resources Defense Council joined forces and formed
an unlikely coalition opposing the project (Daley 2006; Kennedy 2005; Vennochi 2004). Senator
Kennedy even tried to insert language into a Coast Guard funding bill which would have allowed
then Governor Romney ultimate veto power over the project (Daley, 2006)
This opposition to Cape Wind is not an isolated case . On Long Island, a citizen group known as the
Jones Beach Ad Hoc Committee is committed to preventing forty wind turbines from entering
Jones Beach. Land wind farms have also been subject to fierce, local opposition (Bosley and Bosley
1988; Pasqualetti 2001; Podger 2007; Wolsink 2000)

Attempts at offshore wind only create political opposition and rollback wealthy
land owners NIMBYism
Love, Field and Stream, reporter, 10
[Chad, 4-30-10, Field and Stream, Cape Cod Wind Farms and the NIMBY Syndrome,
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/fishing/2010/04/chad-love-cape-cod-wind-farms-and-nimbysyndrome, 7-11-14, AAZ]

In a groundbreaking decision that some say will usher in a new era of clean energy, U.S. Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar said today he had approved the nation's first offshore wind farm, the
controversial Cape Wind project off of Cape Cod. "This will be the first of many projects up and down
the Atlantic coast," Salazar said at a joint State House news conference with Governor Deval Patrick. The
decision comes after nine years of battles over the proposal. "America needs offshore wind power and
with this project, Massachusetts will lead the nation," Patrick said.
Why did it take nine years to get approval? Because, some argue, it would spoil the summer home
views of a lot of rich and powerful people.
From this column in the Wall Street Journal:
So beautiful Cape Cod may well become home to America's first offshore wind farm, after all. Or maybe
not. On Wednesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar finally gave the go-ahead for the $1 billion Cape
Wind project in federal waters off Massachusetts on Nantucket Sound. The decision is viewed as a
wind-power bellwether, since the industry still hasn't built a single offshore turbine in the U.S. Yet this
sagawhich has already dragged on for most of a decade amid fierce political opposition and claims of
"visual pollution," shorebird Cuisinarts and the desecration of Indian burial groundsstill isn't over.
The Cape Wind company estimates that it has spent more than $45 million in the so-far-endless
gauntlet of regulatory reviews , government studies, public hearings and environmental lawsuits.
The biggest obstacle has been that Bay State liberals support renewable energy, as long it is produced
somewhere else. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a well-funded opposition outfit, has
already vowed to file suit against Mr. Salazar's approval , and the legal battle could stretch out for
another five years or more.

Some of the best cites for offshore wind infringe on tourist zones causes political backlash Harper,

The Virginian-Pilot, 13
[Scott, 6-16-13, Hampton Roads, Outer Banks offshore wind farm plan gets blowback,
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/06/outer-banks-offshore-wind-farm-plan-gets-blowback, 7-11-14, AAZ]

The site recommended by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management would extend along some of
the most popular beaches, starting around Pea Island and heading north past Nags Head, Kill Devil
Hills, Kitty Hawk, Southern Shores and Duck and ending off Corolla, just below the Virginia border - a
45-mile stretch.
Troubling to most of these communities, however, is that the government would allow giant wind
turbines to be built 6 miles from shore, easily visible on most days .
Community leaders fear that hundreds of clean-energy turbines would ruin the laid-back allure of
the Outer Banks and harm the lucrative tourist industry, the backbone of the local economy.
Similarly, the National Park Service has expressed concern about turbines ruining scenic views and
dark night skies from the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and the Wright Brothers National Memorial.
The turbines would require blinking safety lights at night.
No one can say for sure how many windmills might be built - planning still is under way - estimates
indicate that at full capacity, more than 2,000 could fit into the assigned area, which covers more
than 1,000 square nautical miles.
"Once those turbines go in, that's it, you're stuck with them for better or for worse," said Gary Perry,
mayor pro tem of the town of Kitty Hawk, who also was a member of an offshore energy task force under
former Gov. Beverly Perdue.
"Ideally, we'd like no offshore wind in our tourist zone, " Perry added. "But we also recognize offshore
wind energy is probably inevitable, and that its development will likely occur. We just want to have a say
in where it goes."

Even if the affirmative overcomes regulations, opposition can causes delays and
rollbacks. Multiple projects prove.
Maiorino, Public Strategy Group, Inc., 13
[Al, 5-6-13, Energy Manager Today, Placing Wind Farms Offshore Doesnt Deter Opposition,
http://www.energymanagertoday.com/placing-wind-farms-offshore-doesnt-deter-opposition-091615/, 711-14, AAZ]

Offshore wind projects, though they are environmentally friendly and create electricity through wind,
still face opposition from NIMBY (not in my backyard) groups. Many offshore wind projects have and
still are facing opposition today.
Cape Wind

Cape Wind was the first offshore wind project in the United States. The project took place off the
coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The project has taken many years and has been very
controversial . Cape Wind Associates, LLC first applied for a permit in 2001. It was not until 2007
that a Certificate on Cape Winds Final Environmental Impact report was issued by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This process completed the states environmental review of the project.
In 2010, the US federal government finally approved the development of the Cape Wind project.
Cape Wind is still being debated today.
North Carolina
In North Carolina, the Outerbanks Offshore Wind project will help to benefit the states economic
future, supplying the state with 10,000-20,000 new manufacturing jobs. This project started in July 2010
when Apex submitted an unsolicited lease application for 24 lease blocks off the coast of North
Carolina. Since filing the application, the Bureau of Ocean Energy and the State of North Carolina
have put together a task force, with local, state, and federal officials, to decide the targeted areas for the
offshore wind project. The task force has not yet identified the preferred areas, but will identify them
through a formal lease process. This is the beginning a multi-year development process. Opposition to
the project says that the Outerbanks Offshore Wind project will be too expensive and a very long
process.
Virginia
In Virginia the Hampton Roads Offshore Wind project is under review. Apex, one of the interested
companies, has identified an area of interest of 168 square miles. The project would take place over
several years. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be holding an auction for these leasing
blocks in 2013. The Hampton Roads Offshore Wind Project will benefit Virginias economy and will be a
forerunner in future projects. Though the project is being discussed now, there are chances it may not
occur until 2022 or later, because of the process, permits, and opposition.
Maryland
An offshore wind project is in the beginning stages in Maryland as well. In early 2011, Apex submitted
an area of interest located 10 miles off the coast of Maryland. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
the State of Maryland, and stakeholders established the proposed area. The process will begin in 2013,
with a competitive leasing process. Recently, Governor Martin OMalley of Maryland passed The
Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013, which will take advantage of the Maryland coasts for
offshore wind. Though the bill has finally passed after many years, the fight is still not over and
OMalley and his bill still face much opposition.

Permitting Delays
No short-term solvency permitting process is extremely complex and involves
multiple agencies, stakeholders, and conflicts
Analysis Group, Economic, Financial and Strategy Consultants 2013
(June 2013, Planning for Offshore Energy Development: How Marine Spatial Planning Could Improve
the Leasing/Permitting Processes for Offshore Wind and Offshore Oil/Natural Gas Development,
http://www.newventurefund.org/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-Group-Planning-for-Ocean-EnergyDevelopment-Exec-Summary-an....pdf, Accessed 7/11/14, ESB)

The leasing/permitting process is extremely complex and less efficient than it should be:
Although BOEM has primary responsibility to issue leases and plan approvals for offshore energy
projects in the OCS, many other federal governmental entities have an interesteach with its own
responsibility to implement federal statutes that may touch on some aspect of a projects footprint
on the ocean. The table below lists the key federal laws that relate directly or indirectly to offshore energy
resource development, and for which a project developer must make applications/filings and receive
approvals or sign-offs in one form or another. Typically, these reviews are not coordinated, and
the agencies have some times overlapping and often times conflicting (or inconsistent) mandates
when considering an individual project . Often, implementation of some of these statutes involves
rounds of consultation across agencies through processes that are sometimes parallel, sometimes
serial or circular, and sometimes introducing fresh concerns or issues, and/or requirements for new
studies and technical information late in the process. Such inconsistencies and lack of coordination
combine with other features to introduce inefficiency, complexity, and delays in the permitting
processes. From the perspective of offshore energy developers (both fossil and renewable developers), for
example, one of the largest sources of in efficiency in the permitting process is the repetition of multiple
steps, sometimes without the introduction of materially new or different information. This is said to occur
frequently with the multiple rounds of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and additional rounds of consistency reviews under the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)with respect to development in a particular locale. There are also many instances of
overlapping and duplicative filing and study requirements, uncertainties in agency requirements,
and information gaps that often lead to multiple sequential rounds of information filing and
reviews, all of which can significantly delay development. While important policy and legal (including
due process) issues may underpin the value of these reviews, inefficiencies in administering the reviews
may raise costs and create other burdens for the government (and taxpayers), developers, and the
interested public.

Reliability
Offshore wind is too expensive and isnt reliable
Stevens, IER Policy Associate, 13
[Landon, 11-6-13, Institute for Energy Research, N.J. Offshore Wind Project Reveals True Cost to
Taxpayer, http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/n-j-offshore-wind-project-reveals-true-cost-totaxpayer/, Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

As noted previously by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), offshore wind is a terrible investment
economically. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), offshore wind is 2.6 times
more expensive than onshore wind power and is 3.4 times more expensive than power produced by
a combined cycle natural gas plant. On a kilowatt hour basis, offshore wind power is estimated to cost
22.15 cents per kilowatt hour, while onshore wind is 8.66 cents per kilowatt hour, and natural gas
combined cycle is only 6.56 per kilowatt hour. Furthermore, EIA predicts offshore wind farms cost about
$6,230 per kilowatt, while those costs for an onshore wind farm are estimated to be $2,213 per kilowatt
and only $1,023 per kilowatt for combined cycle natural gas.
**Since the availability of wind or solar is dependent on forces outside of the operators control, their
levelized costs are not directly comparable to those for other technologies although the average annual
capacity factor may be similar. Because intermittent technologies do not provide the same
contribution to system reliability as technologies that are operator controlled and dispatched, they
may require additional system investment as back-up power that are not included in the levelized
costs shown below.

Turbines dont produce enough electricity and arent technically feasible

Rosenbloom, National Wind Watch president, 6
[Eric, 9-5-6, Industrial Wind Energy Opposition, A Problem With Wind Power,
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html, Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the
time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind
turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the
British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in
Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000
turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003.
The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power's
contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of
capacity (using the average between the AWEA's figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and
2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every
year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs
during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows,

electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a
power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations
of energy units.]
In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up
of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing
the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades
similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.
Eon Netz, the grid manager for about a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting
large numbers of wind turbines [click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly,
requiring additional reserves of "conventional" capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of
cold and heat correspond to periods of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind
power; wind power needs a corresponding expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage
grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind power makes the grid more unstable. [Click here for a
good explanation of why wind-generated power can not usefully contribute to the grid and only causes
greater problems, including the use of more "conventional" fuel.]

Offshore wind cant replace traditional energy sources and will cause more energy
usage
Rosenbloom, National Wind Watch president, 6
[Eric, 9-5-6, Industrial Wind Energy Opposition, A Problem With Wind Power,
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html, Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

As in Denmark and Germany, the electricity from those towers -- no matter how many -- would be too
variable to provide the predictable supply that the grid demands. They would have no effect on
established electricity generation, energy use, or continuing pollution. Christopher Dutton, the CEO
of Green Mountain Power, a partner in the Searsburg wind farm in Vermont and an advocate of alternative
energy sources, has said (in an interview with Montpelier's The Bridge) that there is no way that wind
power can replace more traditional sources, that its value is only as a supplemental source that has
no impact on the base load supply. "By its very nature, it's unreliable," says Jay Morrison, senior
regulatory counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
As Country Guardian, a U.K. conservation group, puts it, wind farms constitute an increase in energy
supply, not a replacement. They do not reduce the costs -- environmental, economic, and political -of other means of energy production. If wind towers do not reduce conventional power use, then their
manufacture, transport, and construction only increases the use of dirty energy. The presence of
"free and green" wind power may even give people license to use more energy.

Wind power isnt stable or efficient Britain proves

Fin, Energy Journalist, 11
[Al, 2-16-11, Oil Price, Why Big Wind Power Wont Work, http://oilprice.com/AlternativeEnergy/Wind-Power/Why-Big-Wind-Power-Wont-Work.html, Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

...In the recent frigid snap in Britain end 2011, when power demand was at a record high, the
average power generation from Britains wind developments the majority of which are in Scotland
was just about 11% of the total possible of 2,430 MW. On 30 Dec 2010 UK's 3,000 operational wind
turbines produced only 0.04% of the countrys power. There were days when the contribution from
Scotland's forests of wind turbines was precisely nothing. At times it was even worse than that. As the
temperature fell to record lows, the wind turbines had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. So,
at a time when all Britain needed every bit of power, the wind industry was using more electricity
than it generated.
...Depending on the vagaries of the weather, wind power produces anything from zero to 100% of design
capacity. This change can come in a short time and affect large areas of land. Therefore, to maintain
grid stability and the ability to supply customer demand for continuous electricity, every wind farm
has to have a backup generating facility for 100% of the wind capacity, and this backup must be
able to swing into production immediately.
It is even worse than that. Suppose a wind farm is producing an average of 50 MW, but varying from
zero to 100 MW. The backup has to be able to handle both changes, namely a drop of 50 MW and
an increase of 50 MW. So basically, you have to have 100 MW capacity on spinning reserve, but running
at 50% so that you can increase or decrease power by 50 MW. So the backup facility has to have
TWICE the real rated capacity of the wind farm. Imagine what this does to the capital, operating
and maintenance costs if the power company is forced to include wind power in its inventory.

Fossil Fuel Solvency Answers

Wind Doesnt Solve Fossil Fuel Use

Plan doesnt address distribution or purchase of energy cant solve for cheap LNG
and oil prices
Murawski, News & Observer, 12
[John, 12/13/12, McClatchy DC, N.C. ocean waters chosen for offshore wind farm,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/13/177272/nc-ocean-waters-chosen-for-offshore.html, accessed
7/11/14, GNL]

But offshore wind energy remains among the most expensive forms of electricity today, and
building a wind farm in the sea has proven an elusive goal in this country. The industry is still
distrusted by some as a subsidy-dependent boondoggle, even though advocates depict wind energy as
a clean and safe alternative to mining, fracking, energy imports and nuclear waste.
An offshore wind farm long planned in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod in Massachusetts is tied up in
legal challenges, while plans to build one in Delaware waters fell through in recent weeks because of the
likely expiration of federal tax incentives for these multibillion dollar projects.
The biggest challenge is: Whos going to buy the power? said Brian OHara, president of the N.C.
Offshore Wind Coalition. If you can figure that out, then youve got a project.
One company that expects to file a notice of interest in bidding for leases is Arcadia Offshore, the
New Jersey company whose Delaware deal collapsed for lack of subsidies. Arcadia president Peter
Mandelstam said the process will be complex and time-consuming, requiring extensive
environmental analyses and public hearings; even if everything goes smoothly, construction could
take five years to get under way and two years to complete.
Absolutely, Mandelstam said of his goals off North Carolina. Were gonna do it.
But he acknowledged that with historically low natural gas prices, no utility is likely to buy offshore
wind power unless its required to do so by state regulators or lawmakers. The argument for
investing in wind power is that its an emissions-free source of electricity with a fixed price, as
opposed to wagering on natural gas, which could spike in price and strand consumers with soaring
bills, he said.
One of the many advantages of wind is that its guaranteed stable-price power for the next 20, 25 years,
he said.
The areas identified as suitable by a federal panel represent less than 20 percent of the Atlantic Ocean
originally under consideration off the shore of North Carolina. The Wilmington block begins seven miles
offshore, while the Kitty Hawk block starts six miles from shore.
Much of the sea waters have been deemed off-limits because an offshore wind project would
conflict with military operations, fish habitats, bird migratory patterns, shipping routes and other
concerns.
The soaring turbines have to be anchored to the sea floor and designed to withstand hurricane-force
winds.

Offshore wind farms now face the looming prospect of losing an important federal subsidy that is set to
expire Dec. 31. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the cost of building the project.
Mandelstam said the tax credit substantially reduces the cost of an offshore wind farm and makes it more
palatable to utilities, public officials and customers. Getting one built is a giant undertaking that
hinges on an electric utility committing to buy the wind farms power output through a long-term
power purchase agreement.
Historically it has been done because of a push from the legislature or from a public service
commission, he said. Its going to be hard for developers to spend capital in North Carolina when
theres no visibility of a purchase power agreement.

Wind doesnt displace fossil fuel use empirical studies prove

Angus, Eco-socialist Activist, 12
(Ian, socialist activist since 1962, 3/21/12, Green energy wont save the earth without social change,
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2012/03/21/green-energy-alone-wont-save-the-earth/, accessed 7/10/14,
BCG)

The most popular techno-fix for global warming is green energy. If energy companies would only
deploy wind, hydro, solar, geothermal or nuclear, then emission-intensive fossil fuels will eventually
disappear. But will that actually work?
A new study by Richard York of the University of Oregon shows that it isnt that simple. Rather
than displacing fossil fuels, green energy sources have proven to be mostly additive.
Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? published this month in Nature Climate
Change, discusses what happened when alternative energy sources were introduced in countries
around the world, over the past fifty years.
Contrary to the accepted wisdom that new green energy replaces fossil-fuel use, York found that on
average each unit of energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than a quarter of a unit
of energy use from fossil-fuel sources.
The picture is worse with electricity, where each new unit generated from green sources displaced less
than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity.
York writes:
Based on all of the results presented above, the answer to the question presented in the title of this paper
do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? is yes, but only very modestly. The common
assumption that the expansion of production of alternative energy will suppress fossil-fuel energy
production in equal proportion is clearly wrong.
Why dont the new sources replace the old? York identifies two key reasons: the inertia of a huge
existing fossil-fuel infrastructure, and the power and influence of the coal and oil corporations.
The failure of non-fossil energy sources to displace fossil ones is probably in part attributable to the
established energy system where there is a lock-in to using fossil fuels as the base energy source

because of their long-standing prevalence and existing infrastructure and to the political and
economic power of the fossil-fuel industry.
In other words, eliminating fossil-fuel as an energy source is at least as much a social and political
problem as a technical one.

Economy Solvency Answers

AT Wind Solves Jobs

Wind is expensive and doesnt solve jobs in the US California and New York prove
Schulz, Energy Policy and the Environment Manhattan Institutes Center Senior
Fellow, 9
(Max, 2/20/09, Dont Count on Countless Green Jobs, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123509599682529113, accessed 7/40/14, BCG)

If the green-jobs claim sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.
There's an unavoidable problem with renewable-energy technologies: From an economic
standpoint, they're big losers. Renewables simply cannot produce the large volumes of useful,
reliable energy that our economy needs at attractive prices, which is exactly why government
subsidizes them.
The subsidies involved are considerable. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in early
2008 that the government subsidizes solar energy at $24.34 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and wind power at
$23.37 per MWh. Yet even with decades of these massive handouts, as well as numerous state-level
mandates for utilities to use green power, wind and solar energy contribute less than 1% of our
nation's electricity.
Compare the subsidies to renewables with those extended to natural gas (25 cents per MWh in subsidies),
coal (44 cents), hydroelectricity (67 cents), and nuclear power ($1.59). These are the energy sources
(along with oil, which undergirds transportation) that do the heavy lifting in our energy economy.
The alternative technologies at the heart of Mr. Obama's plan, relying on mandates and far greater
handouts, will inevitably raise energy prices -- and high power prices are job killers. Industries that
make physical products, whether cars or chemicals or paper cups, are energy-intensive and gravitate to
low-cost-energy locales.
With some of the highest electricity prices in the country, California and New York have
hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs. California-based Google houses its massive server farms in states
like North Carolina and Oregon, which have lower electricity costs. Policies that drive up energy costs
nationwide, as Mr. Obama intends, will inevitably drive more manufacturing jobs overseas.

Wind farms cause tourism decline and dont actually create enough jobs to improve
the economy
Rosenbloom, National Wind Watch president, 6
[Eric, 9-5-6, Industrial Wind Energy Opposition, A Problem With Wind Power,
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html, Accessed 7-11-14, CX]

Despite the energy industry's claim that wind farms create jobs ("revitalize struggling rural communities,"
says Enxco), the fact is that, after the few months of construction -- much of it handled by imported

labor from the turbine company -- a typical large wind facility requires just one maintenance worker.
Of the 200 workers involved in construction of the 89-turbine Top of Iowa facility, only 20 were
local; seven permanent jobs were created. The average nationwide is 1-2 jobs per 20 MW installed
capacity.
The energy companies also claim that they increase the local tax base. But that is more than offset by the
loss of open land, the loss of tourism, the stagnation or decrease in property values throughout a much
wider area, the tax credits such developments typically enjoy, and the taxes and fees consumers must pay
to subsidize the industry. A lcoal "windfall" may also be offset by a corresponding loss of state funds.
Even surveys by wind promoters show that a quarter to a third of visitors would no longer come if
wind turbines were installed. That is a huge loss in areas that depend on tourism. The wind
developers say that the turbines themselves are an attraction, but visitor centers at wind farms in
Britain are already closing for lack of business. A few people get more money from leasing their land
for the towers (until the developer starts withholding it for some small-print reason, or even disappears
after the tax advantages slow down -- Altamont Pass in California is littered with broken-down wind
towers owned by companies long gone), but that's the opposite of an argument for the general good.

AT Green Jobs Solve Economy

One green job offsets 2.2 jobs somewhere elseSpain empirically proves
Whitcomb, Reuters, 9
[Dan, 4-7-9, Reuters, Do green jobs cannibalize other jobs?,
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/04/07/do-green-jobs-cannibalize-other-jobs/, Accessed:
7/11/14, JO]

President Obama has promised to help create millions of new green jobs, saying that doing so
will spur the U.S. economy toward recovery and has held out Spain as having surged ahead of the
rest of the world by investing in renewable energy.
But a new study of Spains renewable energy initiatives has found that creating green jobs actually
destroys jobs in other sectors and most of the time doesnt lead to permanent employment.
The study, which was directed by an economics professor at Juan Carlos University of Madrid, found
that every green job created by the Spanish government destroyed an average of 2.2 other jobs, and
that only 1 in 10 were permanent.
Spains experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two
different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs
lost for every 4 created, the professor, Gabriel Calzada, wrote in an introduction to the study.
The studys results demonstrate how such green jobs policy clearly hinders Spains way out of the
current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease
their own emergence from the turmoil, Calzada wrote.

Green jobs are short term and cant do enough to dent unemployment
Chen, In These Times Contributing editor, 14
[Michelle, 4-22-14, The Nation, Where Have All the Green Jobs Gone? ,
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179439/where-have-all-green-jobs-gone, Accessed: 7/11/14, JO]

Five years ago, green jobs were all the rage in Washington. The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act was rolled out with a win-win agenda aimed at fixing the economy and healing the
environment at once. Candidate Obama touted a blueprint for a green economy, with plans to create 5
million green jobs.
Then the stimulus sparked hopes of a Green New Dealdirect job creation to transition the workforce to
a low-carbon economy, plus industrial policy to drive investment in green infrastructure and solar and
wind sectors.
Today, the green has begun to wilt. Although the green technology and energy sectors are still
expanding, the administration has offered little beyond the short-lived stimulus package and short-

term tax breaks for renewable-energy development and corporate-friendly public-private

partnerships. The drop in political enthusiasm for green jobs is in part the result of sustained
conservative attacks coupled with continuing economic stagnation. Yet the fading of the green agendas
populist buzz also reflects more profound social challenges in the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable
economy.
Though federal green initiatives have provided vital seed money for wind farms and solargeneration projects nationwide, the blue-collar workers who have the most to gain from the
projected clean-tech boom are still struggling to find any job, much less a green one.
Of course, green jobs are not the boondoggle portrayed by right-wingers. Solar panel companies and
green building firms are hiring people, just not fast enough to dent the unemployment figures . In
2012 and 2013, several hundred projects related to renewables and green infrastructure were announced,
potentially generating more than 180,000 green job openings, according to the green-tech advocacy group
Environmental Entrepreneurs. But new investments have waned recently, in part due to lags in
government supports. For example, many freshly announced new wind projects were halted abruptly in
late 2012 when Congress delayed the renewal of a critical wind-production tax credit (goaded by
aggressive lobbying from the dirty fuels industry). And the investment climate remains unstable, as
another batch of credits remains in limbo for 2014.
Such setbacks demonstrate not only the crucial role of government investment but also the endemic
unreliability of capital as the driver of an eco-conscious economic transition.
Capital has failed even more dramatically to match the hype around green-collar jobs as an
employment program. Overall, even with the expansion of green-oriented businesses in the
manufacturing, construction and technology sectors, workers involved in green goods and
services made up under 3 percent of total employment in 2011. So while green sectors are growing
through both public and private investment, green jobs are just one piece of a long-term fight against
climate change, and they wont solve the current unemployment crisis.
Indeed, some environmentalists say that green jobs might have been a more sustainable political venture
if they had been more realistically billed as part of a broader climate change policy, not a big jobs booster
in a slumped economy.
Jeremy Brecher, co-founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability, an alliance of environmental and
labor organizations, tells The Nation that the stimulus did significantly boost new green energy projects
and opened some opportunities for decently paying jobs in sectors like home weatherization.
But after the stimulus ended, those initiatives waned, and the evaporation of the administrations
political and fiscal support, he says, has left a very bitter taste in the mouth of organized labor,
who thought that by cooperating with Obama and environmental movements they would be able to really
create substantial jobs for American workers. I think that they feel hung out to dry.
Still, Brecher attributes the waning of the green jobs push to the same austerity mentality that has
hampered other social programs: Its not that government cant do anything, but that certain sectors of
our political world have spent thirty years hamstringing and destroying the capacity of government to do
anything.
One political roadblock for green economic development is that the Obama administration oversold green
jobs as a social project. Amid the Great Recession, the initiatives were originally framed as a labor-market

intervention for communities hard hit by unemployment, with grassroots backing from environmental
justice groups like Green For All. These good intentions did not translate into economic revitalization.
Five years on, the workforce programs aimed at low-income and disadvantaged communities have not yet
been scaled up to a level that would have an impact on racial disparities in joblessness. As for generating
skilled labor, a recent study by the Government Accountability Office found that of the 60 percent of
Recovery Act training programs that had run their course by the end of 2012supported by some
$500 million in stimulus fundsonly about half of those trainees had been placed in jobs; many had
received only limited skills training and had trouble breaking into recession-battered labor markets in
construction and manufacturing.
More broadly, lawmakers have neglected the kinds of infrastructure investments the country needs to
really ameliorate unemployment, including green development along with basic public works projects.
According to a 2012 industry analysis by Jobs for the Future, green jobs progress has also been
impeded due to mismatching of labor capacity and employer needs. Training programs, researchers
found, were sometimes ill-suited for skilled technical positions, and many job openings were
concentrated in higher-level production and administrative positions, which were harder for entrylevel workers to break into.

AT Green Jobs Statistics

Green Jobs statistics are a joketheyre vaguely worded to include millions that
have nothing to do with the industry
Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change, Ph.D. in
Economics from George Mason, 2012
[David W., 3-30-12, The Heritage Foundation, The Countless Shades of Green Jobs,
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/03/the-countless-shades-of-green-jobs, Accessed:
7/11/14, JO]
Green jobs - or, as our president calls them, the "jobs of the future" - have been notoriously tough to
define and count. The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics recently did it, though, and now it's the result
that's notorious.
Facing an admittedly difficult project, the BLS created a definition that is so broad as to make it a
meaningless measure of the green economy. Here's a sneak preview: There are 33 times as many
green jobs in the septic tank and portable toilet servicing industry as there are in solar electricity
utilities.
The meaninglessness of the green-jobs count has not stopped the cheerleaders for green mandates and
subsidies from trying to use it to justify more of the same. They point to the nearly 500,000 green jobs
in manufacturing. Maybe they have visions of 500,000 people assembling windmills and hybrid
cars.
If so, they need to put away the rose-colored glasses, get out the green eyeshades, and look at the
data more closely.
The largest green-job producers in manufacturing are steel mills. More than 50 percent of the jobs
in steel mills are counted as green, because most of our steel is made from scrap steel. And according
to Part 3 of the BLS definition, if you recycle, your job is green . The trend toward greater use of scrap
steel, however, goes back decades; it's not the result of green subsidies.
So what do the jobs of the future look like? Here are some industries and the number of green jobs
reported by the BLS:
School bus and employee transportation (private): 160,896.
Waste collection: 116,293.
Used-merchandise stores: 106,865.
Engineering services: 100,847.
Architectural services: 71,891.
It looks as if the new green economy the president promised tilts toward driving school buses,
picking up trash, and working at Goodwill - not designing green buildings and high-tech
equipment, as most imagine.

Yes, many categories include jobs that are green enough to justify inclusion. But they are diluted
with so many others that the total can't be used in any debate about the importance of green jobs to
our economy or the effectiveness of green-jobs policies.
One reporter gushed about the 44,000 green jobs in the electric utility industry. However, more than 80
percent of those jobs are in the nuclear sector, which is not universally loved by the environmental
movement. In addition, since we have not licensed and built a new nuclear power plant in more than 30
years, those jobs are not part of any new economy.
There is yet another irony in the jobs numbers: While social advocacy organizations can claim 20,704
green jobs, the renewable portion of the electric power generation industry (wind, solar, biomass,
and geothermal) have only 4,700. So it looks as if more people have jobs promoting green energy
than making green energy.
Unfortunately, five times as many lobbyists as workers does sound like the economy of the future.

Green Jobs Bad

The plan kills jobs and decreases consumer spending
Schulz, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the
Environment, 2009
[Max, 2-20-09, Wall Street Journal, Don't Count on 'Countless' Green Jobs ,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123509599682529113, Accessed: 7/11/14, JO]

If the green-jobs claim sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.
There's an unavoidable problem with renewable-energy technologies: From an economic
standpoint, they're big losers. Renewables simply cannot produce the large volumes of useful, reliable
energy that our economy needs at attractive prices, which is exactly why government subsidizes them.
The subsidies involved are considerable. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in early
2008 that the government subsidizes solar energy at $24.34 per megawatt-hour (MWh) and wind power
at $23.37 per MWh. Yet even with decades of these massive handouts, as well as numerous statelevel mandates for utilities to use green power, wind and solar energy contribute less than 1% of
our nation's electricity.
Compare the subsidies to renewables with those extended to natural gas (25 cents per MWh in subsidies),
coal (44 cents), hydroelectricity (67 cents), and nuclear power ($1.59). These are the energy sources
(along with oil, which undergirds transportation) that do the heavy lifting in our energy economy.
The alternative technologies at the heart of Mr. Obama's plan, relying on mandates and far greater
handouts, will inevitably raise energy prices -- and high power prices are job killers . Industries that
make physical products, whether cars or chemicals or paper cups, are energy-intensive and
gravitate to low-cost-energy locales.
With some of the highest electricity prices in the country, California and New York have
hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs. California-based Google houses its massive server farms in states
like North Carolina and Oregon, which have lower electricity costs. Policies that drive up energy costs
nationwide, as Mr. Obama intends, will inevitably drive more manufacturing jobs overseas.
What about jobs in the traditional industries currently supplying Americans with reliable, affordable
energy? The American Petroleum Institute reports that the oil and gas industry employs 1.6 million
Americans . Coal mining directly and indirectly supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, according
to the National Mining Association and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. A radical plan to transform
our energy economy will put an untold number of these men and women out of work.
Digging deeper each month to pay for expensive renewable energy, consumers will have less to save
or spend in other areas of the economy. Killing jobs in efficient industries to create jobs in
inefficient ones is hardly a recipe for economic success. There may be legitimate arguments for taking
dramatic steps to fight climate change. Boosting the economy isn't one of them.

AT Manufacturing Solvency
Manufacturing doesnt solve the economy low wages
Kenny, Center for Global Development senior fellow, 14
[Charles, 1-23-14, Bloomberg Businessweek, Factory Jobs Are Gone. Get Over It,
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-23/manufacturing-jobs-may-not-be-cure-forunemployment-inequality, accessed 7-11-14, AKS]

In 1953 manufacturing accounted for 28 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, according to the
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. By 1980 that had dropped to 20 percent, and it reached
12 percent in 2012. Over that time, U.S. GDP increased from $2.6 trillion to $15.5 trillion, which
means that absolute manufacturing output more than tripled in 60 years. Those goods were
produced by fewer people. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of employees in
manufacturing was 16 million in 1953 (about a third of total nonfarm employment), 19 million in 1980
(about a fifth of nonfarm employment), and 12 million in 2012 (about a tenth of nonfarm employment).
Service industrieshotels, hospitals, media, and accountinghave taken up the slack. Even much
of the value generated by U.S. manufacturing involves service workabout a third of the total.
More than half of all people still employed in the U.S. manufacturing sector work in such services
as management, technical support, and sales.
Over the past 30 years, manufacturers have spent more on labor-saving machinery and hired fewer but
more skilled workers to run it. From 1980 to 2012 across the whole economy, output per hour worked
increased 85 percent. In manufacturing output per hour climbed 189 percent. The proportion of
manufacturing workers with some college education has increased from one-fifth to one-half since 1969.
Across richer countries, growth has been accompanied by a decline in the number of manufacturing jobs
and the rise of service jobs. Some of the richer countries, such as France, that have seen the slowest
decline in manufacturings share of employment have actually suffered some of the most sluggish growth.
In the U.S., Eric Fisher of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland suggests that those states where the
shift from manufacturing employment has been the most rapid are those where wages have climbed the
fastest.
Developing countries have taken over much of the low-skilled, low-capital production once done in
the U.S.: Consider the garment industry or tire manufacturing. Such low-tech work is even more
mind-numbing and poorly paid than it was when the work was done in the U.S. through the 1970s.
Many of the workers killed in the recent Rana Plaza garment factory collapse in Bangladesh earned just
$3 a day. Some politicians have regretted the loss of similar jobs in the U.S. The question is: Do we
want such jobs here now?
Shutting the borders to low-cost imports in the hope of reviving low-skilled manufacturing
employment at home would likely kill jobs, not save them. When Obama in 2009 slapped tariffs on
Chinese tire imports that had flooded the U.S. market, he temporarily preserved 1,200 jobs in the
tire industry as supplies tightened and U.S. tiremakers helped make up the difference. But the
impact on the U.S. labor force as a whole was negative. Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute
estimates that the cost to U.S. consumers was more than $1 billion. As tires got more expensive, tire

buyers had less money to spend on other goods. The effect of that drop in demand on retail
employment was a loss of 3,731 jobs, three times the number preserved in the tire industry.

Manufacturing Bad
Weak manufacturing causes a shift toward service jobs Those are comparatively
better for the economy
McCullough, chief marketing officer at ServiceSource, 12
[Natalie, 4/19/12, Forbes, Services, Not Manufacturing, Will Revive The U.S. Workforce ,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/04/19/services-not-manufacturing-will-revive-the-u-sworkforce/, Accessed: 7/11/14, JO]

The debate on how to revive the American economy often revolves around what we can do to
breathe new life into the domestic manufacturing sector. While this is an important discussion, the
emotional nature of the debate can overshadow more important trends.
Americans have a romantic connection to manufacturing. Think the auto industry in Detroit and
Pennsylvania steel. Its part of our culture. On the plus side, the productivity of manufacturing employees
in recent years has risen steadily, and innovations are likely to maintain those advances. But while
manufacturing productivity is up, manufacturing employment is not. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the overall number of jobs in the U.S. has been flat since 2000, and the number of
manufacturing jobs is down. But contrast, jobs in the service sector are up.
The data reflects an ongoing trend: the evolution of American business into a true service economy.
As we look to renew our domestic workforce, bold and successful examples of U.S. companies
embracing the service economy may help balance the debate and even encourage one of our 2012
Presidential candidates to change their campaign slogan to, Its the Services, Stupid!
Apple is one logical example of this concept. In 2003, the launch of iTunes marked the companys first
foray into a service offering. iTunes served as the precursor to the current generation of music, delivered
via digital services like Pandora and Spotify. In the business world, IBM is in the throes of a
revolutionary five-year strategy to shift its product focus to software and services.
When people think services, they may at first think of consumer services, as in the hospitality
industry. But look under the hood. Think about Apple and IBM as service companies. Theres a
much more interesting domestic phenomenon here: the rise of high growth and high value
technicians who deliver a new world of advanced services for businesses and consumers alike. This
important and strategic function has lead to the creation of thousands of new jobs for Americans.
Embracing services will help prepare us for the increasingly inevitable intersection of the two
sectors when iconic American manufacturers like Ford increase the software and services they sell
along with their cars, which in turn can drive increased demand for the myriad of manufactured
goods that technology can now enhance with services.
In the past few years, theres been a sharp rise in the number of companies that have evolved their
business models to deliver services and complex business processes to customers on demand via the
Cloud. This new service economy is brought to life by a combination of people, data and technology. The
people piece of the equation requires an educated and well-trained workforce. Demand for these
new services professionals has lead to an increase in the number of jobs staying in the U.S.

As unemployment rates continue to remain near all-time highs, a message of renewal for American
jobs could not come at a better time. But if we allow our emotional connection to the manufacturing
sector to overshadow the tremendous opportunities our service-based economy offers, we do
ourselves a disservice. A stronger, more educated workforce that can deliver advanced services
contributes to a healthier economy and in the end is good for the country and the world.

Transition to services bolsters US competitiveness

Yoffie, Harvard International Business Administration Professor, 9
[David B., 11-5-9, Harvard Business Review, Why the U.S. Tech Sector Doesn't Need Domestic
Manufacturing, http://blogs.hbr.org/2009/10/services-can-produce-a-bright/, accessed 7-11-14, AKS]

In their article Restoring American Competitiveness, my colleagues Gary Pisano and Willy Shih assert
that excessive outsourcing has undermined the competitiveness of the U.S. high tech sector. I disagree.
The loss of some manufacturing in a high cost country such as the U.S. is inevitable and need not
lead to a decline in competitiveness. Indeed, the future of U.S. competitiveness in high tech
industries such as computers, software, communications, and electronics may depend more on the
transition to services than trying to retain the countrys manufacturing base.
Some of the very examples of harmful outsourcing cited by Pisano and Shih prove my point:
Apple. It was one of the most vertically integrated manufacturers in the computer industry through
the mid-1990s, which almost bankrupted it. While much has rightfully been made of Apples
outstanding design capabilities, Steve Jobss brilliant move to outsource all manufacturing and to
incorporate as many industry-standard components as possible has been a key driver of Apples
profitability. And while still predominantly a product company, Apple has become highly successful
in services, ranging from its bricks-and-mortar retail stores to its iTunes website that distributes
songs, video, and applications.
Hewlett-Packard. HP has become the worlds leading computer company by focusing on sales,
marketing, and distribution of computers made at very low cost in Taiwan and China. In
comparison, archrival Dell, which was widely celebrated 10 years ago as one of the worlds best
manufacturers, is now saddled with high cost factories and is struggling to compete.
Semiconductors. Pisano and Shih lament the migration of semiconductor foundries to Asia. In fact,
companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation, the worlds leading foundry, enabled
the creation of an entirely new business in the U.S: the fabless semiconductor industry. Some of
Americas (and the worlds) most successful semiconductor companies, such as Qualcomm, Broadcom,
and Nvidia, may never have existed without the capabilities that TSMC brought to the market.
Maybe the most important point to make is that U.S. has been moving towards a service economy
for the last 100 years. In the long run, services will become the core of the U.S. tech world as well.
The most successful U.S. computer, software, communications, and electronics companies are
adding services on a global scale to complement and, in some cases, replace their core product
businesses. IBM, for example, has moved from being a product company to the worlds largest
technology-services company. Google, which is widely perceived to be the leading technology
company in the world today, generates all of its global revenues as a service. And Amazon and

Salesforce.com are but two of the many U.S. firms positioned to prosper as cloud computing and
software-as-a-service (SaaS) cause high tech services to accelerate.
In short, the decline of manufacturing in the U.S. will not necessarily bring about the decline of the
U.S. high tech sector. Ultimately, more and more technology will be delivered via services, where
American firms can and should play a world-leading role.

U.S. manufacturing locks in a spiraling system of low wages and massive poverty
Damon, national secretary of the International Youth and Students for Social
Equality, 11
[Andre, 9-29-11, International Committee of the Fourth International, US becomes a center of povertywage manufacturing, http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/09/pers-s29.html, Accessed: 7/1/14, JO]

Earlier this month, the World Socialist Web Site reported that production workers are now being hired
at $12 an hour at Volkswagen's Chattanooga, Tennessee plant, and that BMW has opened a new
assembly line in Spartanburg, South Carolina that employs mostly contract workers earning $15 per hour.
These wages, among the lowest for autoworkers anywhere in the developed world, are the result of
the unrelenting assault on living standards of American workers over the last three decades. This
has reached new heights since the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008.
With the full backing of the Obama administration, US and foreign-based corporations are exploiting
levels of mass unemployment and poverty not seen since the Great Depression in order to transform
the US into a cheap labor platform in direct competition with Mexico, China and other low-wage
countries.
Tennessee, like nearly half of all US states, has an unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent, and its
real jobless rate is probably double. When Volkswagen began taking applications for 1,700 jobs in
Chattanooga, it received over 65,000 responses in the first three weeks. On the basis of cutting labor costs
by at least a third at its US factory, Volkswagen is able to sell cars for $7,000 less than comparable models
made in Germany.
Aided by the plummeting dollar, the wage gap between American workers and their brutally
exploited counter-parts in Mexico and Asia is increasingly being narrowed. Asked by a New York
Times columnist why Siemens chose to build a new plant in Charlotte, North Carolina instead of China, a
spokesman said that for highly skilled work, the labor cost differential wasnt very big. For this kind of
manufacturing, he said, the US can compete with China.
The lowering of wages is a key part of Obama administrations goal of doubling US exports by
2015. While doing nothing to alleviate the jobs crisis, the administration spearheaded the drive to
cut wages during the forced bankruptcies and restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler in
2009.
Using the threat of liquidation, the White House demanded the expansion of near poverty wages
throughout the industry, stripped workers of the right to strike and demanded labor costs be kept

in line with the Asian and European manufacturers operating non-union factories in the South. This
has resulted in booming profits for the US-based automakers, which have, in turn, refused to provide any
wage increases to workers while shoveling out tens of millions in executive bonuses.
Far from defending the interests of workers, the United Auto Workers has facilitated the systematic
lowering of wages. The recent agreement signed by the UAW will increase hourly labor costs for GM by
only 1 percent annually, the smallest amount in the past four decades. This includes plans to sharply
expand the number of low-paid tier-two workers whose current $15 an hour wage brings them on par with
workers at Volkswagens Chattanooga plant.
For decades, the UAW and other unions screamed about workers in low-wage countries taking American
jobs. Now UAW President Bob King is boasting that GM has shifted production from Mexican plants
back to UAW-represented factories in Michigan and other states.
The low-wage benchmark set by the UAW has unleashed a competitive struggle to lower wages
throughout the global auto industry. European workers are now being told they must accept
American-style wage concessions and labor flexibility or their plants will be closed. As the WSWS
noted earlier this month, the same year BMW announced it would move production of its X3 sportsutility vehicle to Spartanburg, South Carolina, it announced 5,000 layoffs in Germany.
The severe decline in living standards for the auto workers is particularly striking because they
have historically been the highest paid industrial workers in the US, making so-called middle class
wages. But the experience of plummeting pay and casual labor conditions is common to every section of
the working class in what has become the new normal in America.