INHERENCY

Despite its potential, there is little investment and a lack of governmental support for
ocean thermal energy conversion in the status quo.
FRIEDMAN, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Political Review, 2014
BECCA, march, Ocean Energy Council, EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY
CONVERSION, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energyconversion/, accessed 7-7-14, Jacob
Although it may seem like an environmentalists fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend
that the technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already
exists in the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections
and promising prototypes, however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky
capital investment have stalled OTEC in its research and development phase. Regardless,
oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department of Energy team on
oceanic energy, told the HPR, If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for
electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times more than
the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other
renewable energy that can compare with OTEC. The Science of OTEC French physicist George
Claude first explored the science of OTEC in the early twentieth century, and he built an
experimental design in 1929. Unfortunately for Claude, the high maintenance needed for an
OTEC plant, especially given the frequency of storms in tropical ocean climates, caused him to
abandon the project. Nevertheless, his work demonstrated that the difference in temperature
between the surface layer and the depths of the ocean was enough to generate power, using
the warmer water as the heat source and the cooler water as a heat sink. OTEC takes warm
water and pressurizes it so that it becomes steam, then uses the steam to power a turbine
which creates power, and completes the cycle by using the cold water to return the steam to its
liquid state. Huge Capital, Huge Risks Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC
prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main
barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual
components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International
Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a
commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five
years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTECs main liability. Weve talked to inventors
and other constituents over the years, and its still a matter of huge capital investment and a
huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce
power with the same certainty, Penney told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to
the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could
completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely

dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a risk
that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to rust or corrode
or fill up with seaweed or mud, according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory
spokesman. Even environmentalists have impeded OTECs development. According to Penney,
people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a
disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution. Given the risks, costs, and
uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming.
Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company specializing in OTEC technology,
told the HPR, Years ago in the 80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC and it
was abandonedThat philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the
Department of Energy who have blocked government funding for this. Its not the Democrats,
not the Republicans. Its a bureaucratic issue. OTEC is not completely off the governments
radar, however. This past year, for the first time in a decade, Congress debated reviving the
oceanic energy program in the energy bill, although the proposal was ultimately defeated.
OTEC even enjoys some support on a state level. Hawaii s National Energy Laboratory, for
example, conducts OTEC research around the islands. For now, though, American interests in
OTEC promise to remain largely academic. The Naval Research Academy and Oregon State
University are conducting research programs off the coasts of Oahu and Oregon , respectively.
Do the Benefits Outweight the Costs? Oceanic energy advocates insist that the long-term
benefits of OTEC more than justify the short-term expense. Huang said that the changes in the
economic climate over the past few decades have increased OTECs viability. According to
Huang, current economic conditions are more favorable to OTEC. At $65-70 per barrel, oil is
roughly six times more expensive than in the 1980s, when initial OTEC cost projections were
made. Moreover, a lower interest rate makes capital investment more attractive. OTEC plants
may also generate revenue from non-energy products. Anderson described several additional
revenue streams, including natural by-products such as hydrogen, ethanol, and desalinated
fresh water. OTEC can also serve as a form of aquaculture. You are effectively fertilizing the
upper photic zoneThe fishing around the sea solar power plants will be among the best fishing
holes in the world naturally, Anderson said. And, he added, these benefits are not limited to
the United States . Look at Africa , look at South America , look at the Far East . It is a gigantic
pot of wealth for everybody People are crying for power. In fact, as the U.S. government is
dragging its feet, other countries are moving forward with their own designs and may well beat
American industry to a fully-functioning plant. In India , there has been significant academic
interest in OTEC, although the National Institute of Ocean Technology project has stalled due to
a lack of funding. Japan , too, has run into capital cost issues, but Saga University s Institute of
Ocean Energy has recently won prizes for advances in refinement of the OTEC cycle. Taiwan and
various European nations have also explored OTEC as part of their long-term energy strategy.
Perhaps the most interest is in the Philippines , where the Philippine Department of Energy has
worked with Japanese experts to select 16 potential OTEC sites. The Future of Oceanic Energy
Were its vast potential harnessed, OTEC could change the face of energy consumption by
causing a shift away from fossil fuels. Environmentally, such a transition would greatly reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and decrease the rate of global warming. Geopolitically, having an
alternative energy source could free the United States , and other countries, from foreign oil
dependency. As Huang said, We just cannot ignore oceanic energy, especially OTEC, because
the ocean is so huge and the potential is so big No matter who assesses, if you rely on fossil
energy for the future, the future isnt very brightFor the future, we have to look into
renewable energy, look for the big resources, and the future is in the ocean.

PLAN
Thus the plan: The United States federal government should commercially develop and deploy
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion power plants.

Solvency: Adv. 1: Warming

OTEC reduces CO2 emissions and causes a massive shift towards clean energy
Websdale, senior communications specialist for the Ocean Thermal Energy
Corporation, 2014
*Emma, BSc in conservative biology, Empower the Ocean, March 5, OTEC Can Help Countries Get Serious About Climate Change,
http://empowertheocean.com/otec-climate-change/, DOI 6/25/2014, MEL]

As these changes in lifestyle and political commitment make clear, countries across the globe are serious about making sustainable changes. One

technology that can benefit nearly all of these locations by helping them reach their clean-energy and
emission-reduction targets is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). By tapping into our most abundant resource, our oceans, OTEC can
allow us to meet energy and water demands sustainably by utilizing temperature differences between warm surface water and cold deep water, all without the use
of fossil fuels.
With the thermal resources of the ocean available day and night, and with only relatively small variations from summer to winter, OTEC

can produce
clean energy 24 hours a day, seven days a week, giving it a great advantage over other important, yet
intermittent, renewable-energy sources.
OTECs ability to help countries reduce their energy-related carbon dioxide emissions is staggering. One
10-MW OTEC plant alone can provide clean, reliable energy for approximately 10,000 people, replacing the
burning of 50,000 barrels of oil and preventing the release of 80,000 tons of CO2 per year into the
atmosphere. When the plants energy is not in demand, that same 10-MW plant can produce as much as
75 million liters of fresh drinking water on a daily basis via desalination (removing salt and other minerals from seawater).
Worldwide, the surge in proposals, bidding, and deployment of desalination plants reflects an awareness of the climate-proof potential for desalination and its
capacity to separate industrial water demand from public water supplies. Already, countries including the United States, Australia, and China manage water
shortages via desalination plants. Meanwhile, countries such as the United Arab Emirates, India, Chile, and Saudi Arabia recognize the crucial role of desalination
and have plans to build plants in the near future.

SDC Plant by using the deep cold water in OTEC plant pipes, energy-intensive central refrigeration methods can be replaced by Seawater Air
Conditioning (SWAC), helping countries reach emission-reduction targets. For large buildings and hotels, particularly in tropical climates, air
conditioning (AC) is the single greatest demand on energy and is responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions. Seawater Air Conditioning
(SWAC), by comparison, has been proven to deliver huge energy savings (up to 90%) and to reduce cooling-associated emissions significantly.

OTECs services can be delivered worldwide. Its global importance is recognized by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of the
United States Department of Energy (DOE), which has listed 68 countries and 29 territories as suitable candidates for OTEC plants. Furthermore, a study performed
by Dunbar identified 98 territories with access to the OTEC thermal resource.
With OTEC plants offering products and services including clean energy, fresh drinking water, and energy-saving air conditioning, the technology is

perfectly positioned to help countries successfully restrict fossil fuel use and move toward clean energy.

Every data method and prediction model indicates fast anthropogenic warming all
natural long-term explanations are flawed the ocean is key to sustainability and
continuation will risk extinction
Geological Society of America 2013
(The Geological Society of America, Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013, citing
dozens of peer-reviewed publications, Climate Change: Rationale,
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm, Accessed: 6/25/14) //AMM
Scientific advances in the first decade of the 21st century have greatly reduced previous uncertainties
about the amplitude and causes of recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a
warming trend of ~0.8 C since the mid-1800s, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow
and Arctic sea ice in the last 40 years; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean over the last 50 years; (3) retreat of
most mountain glaciers since 1850; (4) an ongoing rise of global sea level for more than a century; and (5)
proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives including ice cores, tree
rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic
sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th
century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four
centuries (National Research Council, 2006).
Measurements from satellites, which began in 1979, initially did not show a warming trend, but later studies (Mears and Wentz, 2005; Santer et
al., 2008) found that the satellite data had not been fully adjusted for losses of satellite elevation through time, differences in time of arrival
over a given location, and removal of higher-elevation effects on the lower tropospheric signal. With these factors taken into account, the

satellite data are now in basic agreement with ground-station data and confirm a warming trend since
1979. In a related study, Sherwood et al. (2005) found problems with corrections of tropical daytime radiosonde measurements and largely

recent warming of
Earths surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies and is no
longer open to serious challenge.
resolved a previous discrepancy with ground-station trends. With instrumental discrepancies having been resolved,

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of
greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other
changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these
major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing such as continental positions
and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the
distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth's orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main
sequence star. Cyclic

changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been
correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated
by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth's climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive
capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing,
leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change.
Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies,

several long-term causes of the current warming trend can be

eliminated. Changes in Earths tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in a

rapidly changing 150-year trend. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for
a year or two, and El Nio episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates
longer-term trends. Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation of the recent trend have
similarly failed.
As a result, greenhouse

gas concentrations, which can be influenced by human activities, and solar fluctuations are the
principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain
the observed changes in global temperature. Although the 3rd (2001) IPCC report allowed that solar fluctuations might have
contributed as much as 30% of the warming since 1850, subsequent observations of Sun-like stars (Foukal et al., 2004) and new
simulations of the evolution of solar sources of irradiance variations (Wang et al., 2005) have reduced these estimates. The 4th
(2007) IPCC report concluded that changes in solar irradiance, continuously measured by satellites since 1979,
account for less than 10% of the last 150 years of warming. Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of
strong warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind,
2008).

Greenhouse gases remain as the major explanation for the warming. Observations and climate model assessments of
the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~30% higher than peak levels that
have been measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 2.5 times higher. About
half of Earths warming has occurred through the basic heat-trapping effect of the gases in the absence of any feedback processes. This clearsky response to climate is known with high certainty. The other half of the estimated warming

results from the net effect of

feedbacks in the climate system: a large positive feedback from water vapor; a smaller positive feedback
from snow and ice albedo; a negative feedback from aerosols, and still uncertain,feedbacks from clouds. The vertical
structure of observed changes in temperature and water vapor in the troposphere is consistent with the
anthropogenic greenhouse-gas fingerprint simulated by climate models (Santer et al., 2008). Considered in
isolation, the greenhouse-gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but
negative feedback from aerosols and possibly clouds has offset part of the warming. In addition, because the

oceans take decades

to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of
gas increases in recent decades.
These advances in scientific understanding of recent warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If

greenhouse-gas
emissions follow predicted trajectories, by 2100 atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach two to four
times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of 2 C to 4.5 C compared to 1850. This range of changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes
involve risk to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice with effects on native
cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and
summer runoff for agricultural and municipal water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their
late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and stress on crops; (5) greater soil
erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7) severe
insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the
composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting
of Greenland and West Antarctic ice (still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting
of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause substantial future sea-level rise, affecting densely populated
coastal regions, inundating farmland and dislocating large populations. Because large, abrupt climatic changes
occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as

ice sheets become vulnerable to large greenhouse-gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate
that 1020% of the anthropogenic CO2 pulse could stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel
warming and its effects on humans and other species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for
tens of thousands of years.

Warming is real and causes extinction

Morgan 09 Professor of Current Affairs @ Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea (Dennis
Ray, World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the
human race, Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December 2009, Pages 683-693, ScienceDirect)
As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast-burning nuclear fire may seem, the one consolation is that this future can be
avoided within a relatively short period of time if responsible world leaders change Cold War thinking to move away from aggressive wars over natural resources
and towards the eventual dismantlement of most if not all nuclear weapons. On the other hand, another scenario of human extinction by fire is one that may not so easily
be reversed in a short period of time because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather, a slow burning fire is gradually heating up the planet as industrial civilization
progresses and develops globally. This gradual process and course is long-lasting; thus it cannot easily be changed, even if responsible world leaders change their thinking about progress and

the proverbial
frog in a pot of water who does not realize that the temperature of the water is gradually rising. Instead of trying to escape,
the frog tries to adjust to the gradual temperature change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is debilitated. Though it finally
realizes its predicament and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble attempt is to no avail and the frog dies. Whether this fable can actually be
industrial development based on the burning of fossil fuels. The way that global warming will impact humanity in the future has often been depicted through the analogy of

applied to frogs in heated water or not is irrelevant; it still serves as a comparable scenario of how the slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to a runaway condition and take
humanity by surprise. Unfortunately, by the time the politicians finally all agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is indeed human caused, its development could be too
advanced to arrest; the poor frog has become too weak and enfeebled to get himself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the
WorldMeteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical
and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.*16+.
Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years. Thus far, it has given four assessments.13 With all prior assessments came attacks fromsome parts of the scientific
community, especially by industry scientists, to attempt to prove that the theory had no basis in planetary history and present-day reality; nevertheless, as more andmore research continually
provided concrete and empirical evidence to confirm the global warming hypothesis, that it is indeed human-caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific consensus grew

global warming is verifiable. As a matter of fact, according to Bill McKibben [17], 12 years of impressive scientific
research strongly confirms the 1995 report that humans had grown so large in numbers and especially in appetite for energy that they were now damaging the most basic of
stronger that human induced

the earths systemsthe balance between incoming and outgoing solar energy; . . . their findings have essentially been complementary to the 1995 report a constant strengthening of the
simple basic truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel. *17+. Indeed, 12 years later, the 2007 report not only confirms global warming, with

a stronger scientific

consensus that the slow burn is very likely human caused, but it also finds that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is now increasing at a faster rate
even than before and the temperature increases would be considerably higher than they have been so far were it not for the blanket of soot and other pollution that is temporarily helping

everything frozen on earth is melting. Heavy rainfalls are becoming more common since the air
and cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot
nights, and heat waves have become more frequent. *17+. Unless drastic action is taken soon, the average global temperature is predicted
to rise about 5 degrees this century, but it could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already been evidenced in recent years, the rise in global temperature is melting the Arctic
sheets. This runaway polar melting will inflict great damage upon coastal areas, which could be much greater than what has been previously forecasted.
to cool the planet. *17+. Furthermore, almost

is warmer and therefore holds more water than cold air,

However, what is missing in the IPCC report, as dire as it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but still plausible worst case scenarios, which could prove to have the most
devastating, catastrophic consequences for the long-term future of human civilization. In other words, the IPCC report places too much emphasis on a linear progression that does not take
sufficient account of the dynamics of systems theory, which leads to a fundamentally different premise regarding the relationship between industrial civilization and nature. As a matter of fact,
as early as the 1950s, Hannah Arendt [18] observed this radical shift of emphasis in the human-nature relationship, which starkly contrasts with previous times because the very distinction
between nature and man as Homo faber has become blurred, as man no longer merely takes from nature what is needed for fabrication; instead, he now acts into nature to augment and
transform natural processes, which are then directed into the evolution of human civilization itself such that we become a part of the very processes that we make. The more human
civilization becomes an integral part of this dynamic system, the more difficult it becomes to extricate ourselves from it. As Arendt pointed out, this dynamism is dangerous because of its
unpredictability. Acting into nature to transform natural processes brings about an . . . endless new change of happenings whose eventual outcome the actor is entirely incapable of knowing or
controlling beforehand. The moment we started natural processes of our own - and the splitting of the atom is precisely such a man-made natural process -we not only increased our power
over nature, or became more aggressive in our dealings with the given forces of the earth, but for the first time have taken nature into the human world as such and obliterated the defensive
boundaries between natural elements and the human artifice by which all previous civilizations were hedged in *18+. So, in as much as we act into nature, we carry our own unpredictability
into our world; thus, Nature can no longer be thought of as having absolute or iron-clad laws. We no longer know what the laws of nature are because the unpredictability of Nature increases
in proportion to the degree by which industrial civilization injects its own processes into it; through selfcreated, dynamic, transformative processes, we carry human unpredictability into the
future with a precarious recklessness that may indeed end in human catastrophe or extinction, for elemental forces that we have yet to understand may be unleashed upon us by the very
environment that we experiment with. Nature may yet have her revenge and the last word, as

the Earth and its delicate ecosystems, environment, and atmosphere

reach a tipping point, which could turn out to be a point of no return. This is exactly the conclusion reached by the scientist, inventor, and author, James Lovelock. The creator
of the wellknown yet controversial Gaia Theory, Lovelock has recently written that it may be already too late for humanity to change course since climate centers around the world, . . . which
are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earths physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that

Earths family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilization are in grave
danger. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She
may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the

has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees
centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the

tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation;

this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earths surface we have depleted to feed ourselves. . . . Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight

global dimming is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully
exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fools climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions
of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable. [19]
back to space. This

Moreover, Lovelock states that the task of trying to correct our course is hopelessly impossible, for we are not in charge. It is foolish and arrogant to think that we can regulate the atmosphere,
oceans and land surface in order to maintain the conditions right for life. It is as impossible as trying to regulate your own temperature and the composition of your blood, for those with
failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys *19+.
Lovelock concludes his analysis on the fate of human civilization and Gaia by saying that we will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of
China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate *19+. Lovelocks forecast for
climate change is based on a systems dynamics analysis of the interaction between humancreated processes and natural processes. It is a multidimensional model that appropriately reflects
the dynamism of industrial civilization responsible for climate change. For one thing, it takes into account

positive feedback loops that lead to runaway

conditions. This mode of analysis is consistent with recent research on how ecosystems suddenly disappear. A 2001 article in Nature, based on a scientific study by an international
consortium, reported that changes in ecosystems are not just gradual but are often sudden and catastrophic [20]. Thus, a scientific consensus is emerging (after repeated studies of ecological

stressed ecosystems, given the right nudge, are capable of slipping rapidly from a seemingly steady state to something
entirely different, according to Stephen Carpenter, a limnologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (who is also a co-author of the report). Carpenter continues, We
realize that there is a common pattern were seeing in ecosystems around the world, . . . Gradual changes in vulnerability accumulate and eventually
you get a shock to the system - a flood or a drought - and, boom, youre over into another regime. It becomes a self-sustaining collapse. *20+. If ecosystems are in fact minichange) that

models of the system of the Earth, as Lovelock maintains, then we can expect the same kind of behavior. As Jonathon Foley, a UW-Madison climatologist and another co-author of the Nature
report, puts it, Nature isnt linear. Sometimes you can push on a system and push on a system and, finally, you have the straw that breaks the camels back. Also, once the flip occurs, as
Foley maintains, then the

catastrophic change is irreversible. *20+. When we expand this analysis of ecosystems to the

Earth itself, its frightening. What could be the final push on a stressed system that could break the camels back? Recently, another factor has been discovered in some areas of the
arctic regions, which will surely compound the problem of global heating (as Lovelock calls it) in unpredictable and perhaps catastrophic ways. This disturbing development, also reported in

permafrost that has locked up who knows how many tons of the greenhouse gasses, methane and carbon dioxide.
Scientists are particularly worried about permafrost because, as it thaws, it releases these gases into the atmosphere, thus,
contributing and accelerating global heating. It is a vicious positive feedback loop that compounds the prognosis of global warming in
ways that could very well prove to be the tipping point of no return. Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press describes this disturbing positive feedback loop of
Nature, concerns the

permafrost greenhouse gasses, as when warming . already under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years. Thawed permafrost releases methane
and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on. *21+. The significance and
severity of this problem cannot be understated since scientists have discovered that the amount of carbon trapped in this type of permafrost called yedoma is much more prevalent than
originally thought and may be 100 times *my emphasis+ the amount of carbon released into the air each year by the burning of fossil fuels *21+. Of course, it wont come out all at once, at
least by time as we commonly reckon it, but in terms of geological time, the several decades that scientists say it will probably take to come out can just as well be considered all at once.
Surely, within the next 100 years, much of the world we live in will be quite hot and may be unlivable, as Lovelock has predicted. Professor Ted Schuur, a professor of ecosystem ecology at the
University of Florida and co-author of the study that appeared in Science, describes it as a slow motion time bomb. *21+. Permafrost under lakes will be released as methane while that which
is under dry ground will be released as carbon dioxide. Scientists arent sure which is worse. Whereas methane is a much more powerful agent to trap heat, it only lasts for about 10 years
before it dissipates into carbon dioxide or other chemicals. The less powerful heat-trapping agent, carbon dioxide, lasts for 100 years [21]. Both of the greenhouse gasses present in permafrost
represent a global dilemma and challenge that compounds the effects of global warming and runaway climate change. The scary thing about it, as one researcher put it, is that there are lots
of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off *21+.14 In an accompanying AP article, Katey Walters of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks
describes the effects as huge and, unless we have a major cooling, - unstoppable *22+. Also, theres so much more that has not even been discovered yet, she writes: Its coming out a lot
and theres a lot more to come out. *22+. 4. Is it the end of human civilization and possible extinction of humankind? What Jonathon Schell wrote concerning death by the fire of nuclear
holocaust also applies to the slow burning death of global warming:

Once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no

right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all
the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address
the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species [23].15 When we consider that beyond the horror of nuclear war, another
horror is set into motion to interact with the subsequent nuclear winter to produce a poisonous and super heated planet, the chances of human survival seem even smaller. Who knows, even

mutated, sub-human
creatures might survive such harsh conditions, but for all purposes, human civilization has been destroyed, and the question
concerning human extinction becomes moot. Thus, we have no other choice but to consider the finality of it all , as Schell does: Death lies
if some small remnant does manage to survive, what the poisonous environmental conditions would have on human evolution in the future. A remnant of

at the core of each persons private existence, but part of deaths meaning is to be found in the fact that it occurs in a biological and social world that survives. *23+.16 But what if the world
itself were to perish, Schell asks. Would not it bring about a sort of second death the death of the species a possibility that the vast majority of the human race is in denial about? Talbot
writes in the review of Schells book that

it is not only the death of the species, not just of the earths population on doomsday, but of countless unborn

generations. They would be spared literal death but would nonetheless be victims . . . *23+. That is the second death of humanity the horrifying, unthinkable prospect that there
are no prospects that there will be no future. In the second chapter of Schells book, he writes that since we have not made a positive decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have
chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation is one of uncertainty and nervous insecurity rather than of

the fate of the Earth and its inhabitants has not yet been determined. Yet time is not on our side. Will we
will we continue to gamble with our future at this game of Russian roulette
while time increasingly stacks the cards against our chances of survival?
absolute hopelessness. [23].17 In other words,

relinquish the fire and our use of it to dominate the Earth and each other, or

Co2 is causing ocean acidification- destroys the food chain and leads to extinction
we must act now
Callahan, Staff Writer at the Press Democrat, 6/17/14
*Marry, The Press Democrat, Concern about ocean acidity prompting new attention,
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20140617/articles/140619575#page=0, 6/24/14, TYBG]
BODEGA BAY It's been called the evil twin of climate change, an environmental peril so daunting
and widespread that it could undo much of the world's food web, undermine global nutrition and
devastate coastal economies.
Ocean acidification, however, is often largely overlooked outside the circles of scientists, yet North
Coast Congressman Jared Huffman is seeking to somehow change that and spur action on the issue
before it's too late.
Acidification of the world's oceans, said Huffman, D-San Rafael, is the biggest thing that nobody is
talking about.
Shellfish grown off the nation's West Coast already display the ill effects of rapid changes in the ocean's
chemistry, an early sign that the health of the marine ecosystem could hang in the balance, Huffman
said.
You can't really overstate the impact of this, Huffman said at a news conference this week at Bodega
Marine Laboratory that was attended by representatives from science, aquaculture and government.
We're very, very quickly approaching the tipping point, I believe, Huffman said.
Huffman's district runs from the Golden Gate to the Oregon border, taking in about a third of the coast
of California, where seafood is a $24-billion industry, supporting 145,000 jobs.
The 2nd Congressional District is on the front lines of the issue because the shift toward ocean acidity is
expected to be especially pronounced along the North Coast, said John Largier, an environmental
science and policy professor at Bodega Marine Lab.
Absorption of excess carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere at historically high rates is lowering
the pH of oceans around the planet, scientists say.
Its impact on the North Coast is amplified by a natural upwelling that serves as a kind of conveyor belt,
bringing deep water made naturally acidic and rich in carbon dioxide by decaying organic matter toward
the surface, where it absorbs still more carbon dioxide.
This dynamic effectively puts the northern California coast at the forefront of acidification, said
Largier, who is one of several marine lab scientists studying aspects of acidification and was among
those joining Huffman on Monday.
And yet, while global warming has a high degree of public recognition, ocean acidification is a less
familiar phenomenon, Huffman said.
Terry Sawyer, owner of Hog Island Oyster Co. on Tomales Bay, put it this way: We're dealing with
something that's hard to touch. It's hard to see, hard to taste, smell, etc.

Huffman organized the event in part to highlight bipartisan legislation that he is co-sponsoring with
Washington state Congressman Derek Kilmer.
The Ocean Acidification Innovation Act is intended to spark new research and innovation in adaptive
strategies through X-Prize-style competitions.
The bill would leverage existing federal funds to create competitions for research into solutions,
Huffman said.
But he said he also wanted to awaken public awareness to an environmental threat that has yet to
receive the attention given to climate change.
This one has a potential to just be enormous and overwhelming, he said.
Nothing is quite as scary as acidification, said Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations.
Scientists say the oceans absorb a quarter or more of the carbon dioxide humankind puts into the
atmosphere about 22 million tons a day, on top of the estimated 525 billion tons absorbed over the
past two centuries.
What exactly that means for the planet is still not known, Largier said, though it doesn't look good.
Shellfish, however, and particularly West Coast oysters, are providing some clues. Scientists are looking
at reproductive failures in their midst in recent years problems they ascribe to the interference of low
pH water with the synthesis of calcium carbonate through which oyster larvae, and presumably other
shellfish, develop hard, protective shells.
Sawyer and other West Coast purveyors of farm-raised oysters have seen complete crashes at some
hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest, where he and other producers obtain the oyster larvae to seed their
farms.
Sawyer has had similar die-offs at his Tomales Bay operation, enough so that he's building a new
hatchery in Humboldt Bay to provide seed for his farm.
He and his staff, meanwhile, are working closely with the marine lab to monitor and document
conditions at his facility and develop strategies to try to adapt. The entire fishing industry is at risk, given
the role of calcium carbonate synthesis in skeletal development, potentially disrupting the entire food
web, from the lowest phytoplankton on up, Largier said.
Largier and his colleagues emphasized that the world's oceans are already contending with pollution,
areas of low oxygen and rampant over fishing. Those problems are likely to compound any effects of
acidification.
The science is really early days, Largier said.
UC Davis researcher Daniel Swezey, said one of the alarming features of ocean acidification is that a
certain amount is inescapable, given the volume of past and current carbon dioxide emissions.

We're kind of locked in to a certain amount of change, he said. Largier said reducing carbon dioxide
emissions is the only real fix but conceded that even large-scale, global changes in human behavior
might not be evident for decades.
But that's no reason not to start acting now, Largier said. Even if we completely adapt, said Grader,
if we don't start changing the ways we're doing things now, we're going to lose our ocean. We're going
to lose the planet.

Adv. 2: OIL
OTEC provides an economically, environmentally, and technically viable form of
sustainable hydrogen production
Ryzin, Ph.D in Ocean Engineering, Grandelli, Senior Ocean Engineer in charge of OTEC
design, Lipp, Ocean Engineer working in OTEC software, Argall, Ocean Engineer at
Makai Ocean Engineering, Inc, 2005
*Joseph V., Patrick, David, Richard, 2005, Makai Ocean Engineering, Inc., The Hydrogen Economy of 2050: OTEC Driven?,
http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/energie/hydrogene.pdf, 6-24-14, KB]

Depending upon the outcome of the NAEs four pivotal questions, it will be 10-30 years (or perhaps never) until the hydrogen economy
develops. One

initial method where the U.S. can begin a shift to carbon-free domestic energy using present
technology is to use OTEC-derived hydrogen to produce ammonia. OTEC ammonia would compete with
ammonia made from foreign natural gas, reducing American dependence on imported energy.
The single largest worldwide use of hydrogen (25 million tonnes worldwide) is as an intermediate step in
the production of 140 million tonnes of ammonia from natural gas. High natural gas prices in the U.S. are causing
increased import of ammonia synthesized from low-cost foreign natural gas [26]. In 2004, the U.S. imported 6 million tonnes of ammonia,
equivalent to 1 million tonnes of hydrogen, which represents one-eighth of U.S. hydrogen production. Ammonia is shipped worldwide using
propane tankers much simpler than shipping hydrogen.
We modified our baseline 100-tonne per day OTEC hydrogen model to include costs of the ammonia synthesis reactor vessels, nitrogen air
separation unit, and 14-day storage. Electrolyzer purchase cost was increased to today's value of $1000 per kW [17] instead of the $125 per
kW future value. Financing was modified to 5% interest and a 30-year design life and assumes that federal obligation guarantees, up to $1.65
billion have been obtained from the United States' OTEC Demonstration Fund [27]. Constructing such a plant seems within present offshore
fabrication capabilities. Table 5 presents the costs of major subsystems of this plant.
The cost per tonne of ammonia with these parameters is $494 per tonne, as shown in Fig. 11. This price is 66% more than the current price of
$297 per tonne for imported ammmonia[28]. One or two decades in the future, it is quite conceivable that ammonia from natural gas would
cost the same as ammonia from OTEC.
A tax credit of 1.9 per kWhr for renewable energy production [29] presently exists. If this tax credit is applied to ammonia production, the cost
for Subsidized OTEC 2010 ammonia becomes a nearly competitive $335 per tonne. This subsidized cost would be competitive if natural gas
costs increase 13%.

This study developed a technical and economic model for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion plants
supplying a widespread hydrogen economy. Upon comparing the results with other potential hydrogen
sources, its clear that no source is ideal but OTEC is attractive overall. Momentous choices must be made.

Research done by the International Energy Association indicates that hydrogen energy
offers an alternative to fossil-fuel sources and is a uniquely sustainable resource
Elam, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, et al, 2003
[Carolyn C., Elizabet Fjermestad Hagen, Norsk Hydro, Catherine E. Gregoire Padro, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Gary Sandrock,
SunaTech, Inc., Andreas Luzzi, Australian National Institute, Peter Lindblad, Uppsala University, Realizing the hydrogen future: the
International Energy Agencys efforts to advance hydrogen energy technologies, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 28: No. 6, p.
601-607, KB]

The members of the IEA Hydrogen Agreement recognize that a long-term research and development
effort is required to realize the significant technological potential of hydrogen energy. This effort can
help create competitive hydrogen energy production and end-use technologies, and supports
development of the infrastructure required for its use. The following have been established as the
guiding principles on which the IEA Hydrogen Program is based:
1. Hydrogennow mainly used as a chemical for up-grading fossil-based energy carrierswill in the
future increasingly become an energy carrier itself. It is necessary to carry out the analysis, studies,
research, development and dissemination that will facilitate a significant role for hydrogen in the future.
2. Significant use of hydrogen will contribute to the reduction of energy-linked environmental impacts,
including global warming due to anthropogenic carbon emissions, mobile source emissions such as CO,
NOx;SOx, and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), and particulates.
3. Hydrogen is currently used to up-grade lower-quality, solid and liquid fossil fuels, such as coal and
heavy oils. The use of hydrogen in such applications reduces harmful emissions through more efficient
end-use conversion processes and extends the range of applicability. Ultimately, with the addition of
hydrogen, carbon dioxide emissions can be used to produce useful chemicals and fuels.
4. Hydrogen has the potential for short-, medium- and long-term applications and the steps to realize
the potential for applications in appropriate time frames must be understood and implemented.
5. All sustainable energy sources require conversion from their originaal form. Conversion to electricity
and/or hydrogen will constitute two prominent, complimentary options in the future.
6. Hydrogen can assist in the development of renewable and sustainable energy sources by providing an
effective means of storage, distribution and conversion; moreover, hydrogen can broaden the role of
renewables in the supply of clean fuels for transportation and heating.
7. Hydrogen can be produced as a storable, clean fuel from the worlds sustainable non-fossil primary
energy sourcessolar energy, wind energy, hydropower, biomass, geothermal, nuclear, or tidal.
Hydrogen also has the unique feature that it can upgrade biomass to common liquid and gaseous
hydrocarbons, thus providing a flexible, sustainable fuel.
8. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel for a wide variety of end-use applications including important uses in
the transportation and utility sectors.
9. All countries possess some form of sustainable primary energy sources; hence, hydrogen energy
technologies offer an important potential alternative to fossil fuel energy supply (in many instances to
imported fuels). Utilization of hydrogen technologies can contribute to energy security, diversity and
flexibility.
10. Barriers, both technical and non-technical, to the introduction of hydrogen are being reduced
through advances in renewable energy technologies and hydrogen systems including progress in
addressing hydrogen storage and safety concerns.

11. Hydrogen energy systems have potential value for locations where a conventional energy supply
infrastructure does not exist. The development of hydrogen technologies in niche applications will result
in improvements and cost reductions that will lead to broader application in the future.
If the technological potential of hydrogen is realized, it will contribute to the sustainable growth of the
world economy by facilitating a stable supply of energy and by helping to reduce future emissions of
carbon dioxide. Cooperative efforts among nations can help speed effective progress towards these
goals. Inasmuch as hydrogen is in a pre-commercial phase, it is particularly suited to collaboration as
there are fewer proprietary issues than in many energy technologies.

U.S. dependency causes Chinese Instability and a military buildup race that makes
Sino-American conflict inevitable
Reilly, QUAKER INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE, EAST ASIA , 2013 (James, September 5 , AVOIDING AN ENERGY WAR WITH
th

CHINA, http://www.afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/Avoiding%20an%20Energy%20War%20with%20China.pdf, accessed

6/24/14, LLM)

Chinas dependence on imported oil raises political anxieties in Beijing. Chinas government stakes its political right to
rule on economic performance and rising standards of living. Domestic energy shortages, rising oil costs, and the specter
of long-term global energy scarcity could undermine the countrys economic growth and seriously
jeopardize job creation, raising real risks of social instability in China. Beijing is also worried that the U.S.
seeks to exploit Chinas energy weakness. After all, China sees the U.S. as the global energy giant,
importing almost twice the total oil consumption of China and accounting for one-quarter of the worlds daily oil
consumption. The U.S. is the third largest oil producer in the world after Saudi Arabia and Russia, and wields enormous power in global oil
institutions. The

U.S. navy controls all critical energy transport sea lanes. The U.S. military, having gone to
war twice in Iraq to secure access to Persian Gulf oil, is now expanding its influence into Central Asia and
Africa. U.S. policies have reshaped Iraqs post-invasion oil development to benefit U.S. oil companies.
Chinas global oil strategy responds to these perceived vulnerabilities. Since Western companies
control oil resources from major producers like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, the Chinese government has
encouraged state-owned oil companies to reach extraction agreements with so-called rogue states such
as Iran, the Sudan, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela. After all, seventy-five percent of known available oil reserves are in countries where
outside investment in oil development is excluded or sharply limited. To avoid their vulnerability to domestic instability in oil-producing
countries, Chinese firms try to engage in all stages of oil extraction, refinement, and transport. Meanwhile, the

Chinese military has

modernized its navy and tightened naval ties with countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, in an effort to
ensure secure oil transport through critical sea lanes. This is not an ideal strategy for China. Long-term, high-risk investments in unstable states
carry high economic and political costs for China, while military modernization diverts scarce resources away from economic development at
home. Above

all, Chinas policies are raising tensions with the United States, Chinas largest investor and
trading partner. The China Threat Approach For some people in Washington, Chinas global oil strategy signals a
dangerous threat to U.S. interests. They call for denying China access to energy resources while building
up U.S. military capacity and strengthening alliances with key oil producing states. Africa, which supplies over a quarter of Chinas oil
and gas imports and is expected to provide a quarter of all U.S. oil imports by 2015, is already emerging as the next battleground over oil. The
newest U.S. military command, AFRICOM, focuses on the Gulf of Guinea, a region dominated by major oil producing states. AFRICOM will be
augmented by forward basing and access agreements the U.S. has recently struck across Africa. Efforts to deny China access to oil also are
popular at home, evident in the outcry against China National Offshore Oil Corporations bid for Unocal in 2005, and criticism of Chinas oil
investments in Canada and Venezuela as undermining U.S. oil security. Such rhetoric is often based upon misperceptions about how todays
global oil markets actually work. While China has been widely criticized for rapidly rising world oil prices, many experts argue that given the
rapid increase in U.S. oil imports over the past decade, the U.S. has been much more of a rogue element than China in the world oil market.

Efforts to deny China access to oil are not merely misguided--they are dangerous. If Beijing believes that
the U.S. is manipulating energy policies to weaken and contain China, then China will likely respond by

increasing the pace of its military modernization, tying Chinese energy investments abroad ever more
closely to dubious regimes, promoting security cooperation with adversarial governments, and
politicizing global energy markets. Hardliners in Beijing who warn of the U.S. military threat will be
strengthened, rendering the China threat a self-fulfilling prophesy.

China war escalates to extinction

Wittner 11 professor of history emeritus at SUNY Albany, 2011
[Lawrence, 11-30-2011, Is Nuclear War with China Possible,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-wittner/nuclear-war-china_b_1116556.html, DOI 7/12014]
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries
international conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current
deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this
phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by
China's growing economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China's claims
in the South China Sea, increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the
Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was "asserting our own position as a Pacific power." But need
this lead to nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could. After all, both the United
States and China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China with
nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during their conflict over the future of China's offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the
midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly, and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would "be used just
exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else." Of course, China

didn't have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does,

perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate. But the loose nuclear threats of U.S.
and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations had vast nuclear arsenals,
should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling persists. Some pundits
argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and, admittedly, there haven't been
very many -- at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India and nuclear-armed
Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict almost slipped into a nuclear
war. Pakistan's foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use "any weapon" in its arsenal During. the
conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while India, it is claimed, readied its own
nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don't nuclear weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they?
Obviously, NATO leaders didn't feel deterred, for, throughout the Cold War, NATO's strategy was to
respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western Europe by launching a Western nuclear
attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence
worked, they would not have resorted to championing "Star Wars" and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly
expensive -- and probably unworkable -- military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear
might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be

it is estimated that the U.S. government

possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly
300 . Moreover, only about 40 of these Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would
"win" any nuclear war with China. But what would that "victory" entail? An attack with these Chinese
nuclear weapons would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a great storm of blast
and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation poisoning. The Chinese death
toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced to smoldering, radioactive
wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions would blot out the sun and bring
that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today,

on a "nuclear winter" around the globe -- destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and
generating chaos and destruction. Moreover, in another decade the extent of this catastrophe would be
far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the year 2020 it is
expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the United States. The U.S.
government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars "modernizing" its nuclear
weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade.