You are on page 1of 22

Biofuels 1AC

US Leadership
Current clean energy investment in the United States wanes compared to other
nations voids exist due to declining energy projects revamping commitment is key
to international competitiveness
Ogden et al 14 - Senior Fellow; Director, International Energy and Climate Policy at the Center for
American Progress (Peter, Galvanizing Clean Energy Investment in the United States, Center for
American Progress, 4-3-14,
The United States has long been a top destination for clean energy investment, which has helped it to
capture many of the near-term economic, energy security, and environmental benefits that stem from
expanded domestic clean energy generation. Since 2004, in fact, clean energy investment in the United States increased nearly
250 percent and reached $36.7 billion in 2013. However, America will need to do more to continue to compete
successfully in the burgeoning clean energy economy. After leading the global clean energy investment
race until 2008, the United States has fallen behind China in four of the past five years. The countries
that lead in clean energy investment can increase clean energy manufacturing capacity; secure greater
global market share for their clean energy products; create jobs at home; and help build strong economies
fueled by energy and technologies that hedge against energy price volatility and future carbon pricing. To
maintain its competitiveness, the United States will need to take bold new steps that build on what has been
accomplished over the past five years and fill the voids left by the winding down of many of the
important clean energy and energy-efficiency programs and investments made through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA. Filling those voids, however, will be challenging. The ARRA enabled
investors to finance clean energy projects during a time of capital scarcity and to keep our clean energy
sector competitive during a global recession. It did this by providing more than $90 billion in clean energy investments through
loans and loan guarantees to capital-intensive projects, tax credits to lower project costs for companies, upfront grants to help businesses that
are unable to benefit from tax credits get started, and more. Thanks to these and other federal- and state-level investments and
policies over the past five years, the U.S. clean energy sector has emerged as a powerful economic force
that can drive innovation, create jobs, and expand manufacturing. In 2013, for example, the United States added more
than 4.7 gigawatts of solar photovoltaic capacity, which was a 41 percent increase over 2012 installations and nearly 10 times the capacity
added in 2009. During that same time frame, cumulative wind capacity in the United States has gone up 74 percent and despite limited
deployment in 2013, it still saw more than 12 gigawatts of capacity under construction at the end of the year. In the past five years, wind and
solar power use has more than doubled; they are now 4.4 percent of the U.S. electricity generation mix combined, up from just 1.9 percent in
2009. U.S. wind turbine manufacturing has also expanded, with domestic manufacturers supplying nearly 70 percent of the value of U.S.-
deployed turbines compared to less than 25 percent prior to 2005. Other nations have also redoubled their commitments to developing their
clean energy sector through clean energy targets and programs over the past few years. In fact, 102 other countries currently have
national renewable energy standards. One of the global clean energy leaders, Germany, has created a world-class
solar market by incentivizing deployment through feed-in tariffs, which are payments to clean energy
generators to offset the difference in costs between renewable and conventional energy generation.
China, the current leader in clean energy investment, has claimed this title through a set of ambitious goals to scale up
domestic investment in clean energy. Both countries understand the importance of the race for clean
energy investments and the opportunities that come with an attractive clean energy market. Since 2009,
China has attracted $60.3 billion more in clean energy investments than the United States, amassing a cumulative total of $250.3 billion over
the five-year period. (see Figure 1)
Algae represents a game-changer from current biofuels it significantly aids the US in
clean energy leadership
USU 14 Utah State University (USU researchers: Algae biofuel can help meet energy demand,
Biomass Magazine, 6-5-14,
Microalgae-based biofuel not only has the potential to quench a sizable chunk of the worlds energy
demands, say Utah State University researchers, its a potential game-changer. Thats because microalgae
produces much higher yields of fuel-producing biomass than other sources of alternative fuels and it
doesnt compete with food crops, says Jeff Moody, who completed a masters degree in mechanical
engineering from USU in May. With USU faculty mentors Chris McGinty and Jason Quinn, Moody published findings from
an unprecedented worldwide microalgae productivity assessment in the May 26, online Early Edition of
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The teams research was supported by the U.S.
Department of Energy. Despite its promise as a biofuel source, the USU investigators questioned whether pond scum could be a
silver bullet-solution to challenges posed by fossil fuel dependence. Our aim wasnt to debunk existing literature, but to
produce a more exhaustive, accurate and realistic assessment of the current global yield of microalgae
biomass, Moody says. With advisor Quinn, assistant professor in USUs Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Moody
began building simulations and generating data. As the project progressed, the engineers realized they needed expertise outside their
discipline. They recruited McGinty, associate director of USUs Remote Sensing/Geographic Information Systems Laboratory in the Department
of Wildland Resources, for help in developing the sophisticated spatial interpolations and resource modeling needed to develop their large-
scale model. Visual representations of physical and biophysical processes are very powerful tools, McGinty says. Adding the geospatial
interpolation component brought the data into focus. Using hourly meteorological data from 4,388 global locations,
the team determined the current global productivity potential of microalgae. Our results were much
more conservative than those found in the current literature, Quinn says. Even so, the numbers are
impressive. Algae, he says, yields about 2,500 gallons of biofuel per acre per year in promising locations. In contrast,
soybeans yield approximately 63 gallons; corn about 435 gallons. In addition, soybeans and corn require
arable land that detracts from food production, Quinn says. Microalgae can be produced in non-arable areas unsuitable
for agriculture. The USU researchers estimate untillable land in Brazil, Canada, China and the United States could be used to
produce enough algal biofuel to supplement more than 30 percent of those countries fuel
consumption. Thats an impressive percentage from renewable energy, says Moody, who soon begins a new
position as systems engineer for New Mexicos Sandia National Labs. Our findings will help to justify the investment in
technology development and infrastructure to make algal biofuel a viable fuel source.
Algal biofuels specifically fuel US competitiveness they allow for independence of
the economy and military
Saleh 11 Georgetown University (Sameh, Algae Biodiesel: A Shift to Green Oil?, TTHblog, 11-17-11,
Energy is one of the few commodities that can single-handedly cause economies to crumble, instigate
resource wars, and cripple the fragile balance of the worlds ecosystem all at once. The symbiotic relationship
between consumers and current energy resources can only be sustained as a function of mutual benefit. When the consumer depletes the
available resources without regards for sustainability, diminution of resources gradually intensifies to what is now known as the energy crisis.
For years, sustainability experts and energy engineers have been warning the general public of the
energy crisis, but only recently have heads started to turn. Now, the topic of energy is at the forefront
of the national agenda and a global point of contention and reform. For simplicity, it is helpful to put the crisis in a
more tangible checklist of causes and indicators. Fossil fuels lead to alarming economic, social, and environmental
problems. Whether one supports the science behind global warming or not, the implications of limited
fossil fuel resources for our environment are undeniable. In 2007 The Science Daily pointed out that the last 11 years were
11 of the 13 hottest years in recorded history worldwide1. NASA noted earlier this year that the first half of 2010 has
been the warmest in the 131 years that NASA has been taking such statistics2. Food production has markedly
declined in the southern hemisphere, the polar ice caps are melting, the sea levels are rising, high-intensity storms frequencies have increased,
and the coral reefs are being bleached. But beyond the controversy of global warming, lies the visible problem of
pollution and physical erosion of the environment. For example, the burning of coal, which produces
environmentally toxic acid rain, and the transportation of oil risks spills threaten human health and the
environment. Failing to take collective action against the widespread use of fossil fuels has hurts
Americas soft power to influence global changes. Such lack of development of soft power can be
traced to the economic and geopolitical basis of the energy crisis. As of 2010, the United States still depend on foreign
countries for about 40% of its fossil fuels3. This oil dependence has made the U. S. vulnerable to supply cut-offs at
any time similar to the oil embargo of 1973. Reliance on foreign oil also widens the growing U.S. trade
deficit, which accounts for the low financial value of exports versus imports that threatens the U.S.
economic infrastructure. These two deterrents in a world of competition are resulting in a dramatic shift of wealth from Western
countries to the developing world. Perhaps, Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies stated most accurately: Oil
fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics. It has been transformed into a
determinant of well-being, of national security, and of international power for those who possess this
vital resource, and the converse for those who do not 4. To put the extent of the issue in perspective, the United States
consumes nearly a million dollars of energy for every minute of the 525,600 minutes in a common year, $200,000 of which is spent on foreign
oil imports5. Exploring the possible engineering solutions for an alternative to fossil fuels is an exhaustive subject that requires thorough
analysis and research. Eventually, each alternative energy source is labeled by its debilitating downfall:
inefficiency, cost, environmental danger, et cetera. But, algae biodiesel, formed from the oil of the algal
plant material is a very promising technology on the brink of eluding these pitfalls. The science behind
the process is fairly straightforward: the algae is grown through dark photosynthesis and oil is extracted from the algae through a
press, which will then be converted into a usable biofuel through a chemical process known as transesterification. However, the reality of
proliferating and fine-tuning such a process is understandably more complex. At face value, the benefits of using algae are
astounding and definitely worth the trouble. Not only does algae biodiesel not further the alarming
exponential increase in global pollution, it actually reduces it by absorbing and cutting CO2 emissions
and nitrogen from waste water6. It efficiently produces ten times more fuel per gallon than any other biofuel and has been
estimated by an assortment of different engineering companies to output at least 4,000 gallons per acre of land grown7. The efficiency
can be valued even more when one appraises the fact that algae can be grown in any location or
climate, unlike other forms of renewable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal, which depend on
specific regional resources. Clearly, both the U.S. economy as well as individual citizens can benefit from
the development of algae biofuel. So why is the U.S., the second-leading consumer of energy in the
world, not a leading manufacturer of algae biofuel? Due to its competitiveness as an alternative to oil,
federal algae research funding was stopped for an extended period of time. Mr. Curwin, writer for CNBC notes,
The industryneeds to get Washington on its side. Currently, algael biofuels arent eligible for tax breaks and subsidies going to other biofuels
8. Therefore, businesses perceive that investing in algae biodiesel is risky because there are no incentives to
supplement research and development. Without incentives, algae biodiesel has not been proven on a
mass production scale and suffers from high production costs. However, as recently as February of this year, there have
been impressive strides to overcome the obstacles that face the implementation of algae biodiesel. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency has already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon and is now on track to begin large-scale refining of the fuel for a cost
of less than $3 a gallon9. Currently, the top eight firms in the U.S. that are working with algae have attracted over $350 million in capital over
the past three years, and all of them have aggressive commercialization dates for their technologies within the next three years8. The
strides in finalizing algae biofuel so far have been promising, but relatively gradual. Thus, maximization of
algae fuels potential depends on incentives from the federal government and ultimately on support from its
U.S. economic supremacy prevents several scenarios for nuclear war
Friedberg and Schoenfeld, 2008 *Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princetons Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @
Witherspoon Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, The Dangers of a Diminished America, 10-28,]
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For
decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability
of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying
dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying.
The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths,
while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly
relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power
vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for
Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when
global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and
aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster
exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless
with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial
crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free
fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance
hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic
growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting
economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long
march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to
divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.
Independently, algae biofuels sustain a green navy and air forces its possible by
Grant 13 - consults businesses on environmental issues (Tom, Jet Engine Biofuel Passes Test With
Flying Colors, Biofriendly Corporation, 6-11-13,
On April 25th, 2013, NASA researchers found that a commercial jet could safely fly with jet fuel that also
contained plant oil. In fact, it was reported that a biofuel mix created from camelina plant oil did not affect a DC-8
aircrafts engine performance as high as 39,000 feet. Additionally, it was reported that the biofuel mix
produced 30% fewer emissions than traditional aviation fuel under certain circumstances, which is
excellent news for the environment. The Test Flights The test flights (that took place near Edwards Air Force Base in California)
were conducted between February and April when weather conditions were optimal in order to create contrails. To actually study the
effects on the environment, a specially outfitted HU-25C Guardian airplane was used to analyze the
contrails. In order to do so, the aircraft have to be as close as 300 feet to the DC-8 while in flight. While the emission reductions
were shown to be 30%, it is believed that the reduction would be even greater if jets could run entirely
on biofuel. However, in order to move away from the 50-50 blend, a jet would have to be altered. What Is Camelina Oil? Camelina is an
oilseed crop native to northeastern Europe. It can be cultivated in the United States and is considered to be well-suited for the Northern Plains
states because it can handle low temperatures and requires little water. While the research looks promising for using camelina oil to blend with
traditional aviation fuel, its cost is a major factor in deciding whether or not it is really feasible as an alternative fuel source. With a price tag of
about $18 per gallon, it is far more expensive than the $4 a gallon for traditional aviation fuel. Future Testing With the promising
results from initial tests, more tests are planned for 2014. NASA also wants to do additional flight tests
on other biofuels, such as algae. NASA is interested in using algae to create aviation biofuels in
particular because of the fact that it does not need fresh water to grow. Unfortunately, researchers are limited
because of continuous development of commercial applications and technologies. With the uncertainty of oil prices,
renewable biofuels will decrease the dependency on foreign oils. At the same time, biofuels will reduce
carbon emissions and have a better impact on the environment. Not only do researchers hope to fuel
jets, but the Navy is hoping to have green aircraft and ships as early as 2016. It should also be noted that while
there were small differences in emissions during flight, other research has shown that biofuels can have an even greater
environment impact while jets are grounded. Since idling airplanes at busy airports greatly affect the air
quality, using biofuels can reduce the damage done to the environment. However, more information about the
research will likely be made available to the public, aviation industry, and Environmental Data Resources, in the weeks following the
experiments. Biofuels are the way of the future. With advancements in technology, people will soon be able
to travel more while harming the environment less.
This military power is key to hegemony
Conway, Roughead, and Allen, 07- *General of U.S. Marine Corps and Commandant of the Marine Corps, **Admiral of U.S. Navy and
Chief of Naval Operations, ***Admiral of U.S. Coast Guard and Commandant of the Coast Guard (*James Conway, **Gary Roughead, ***Thad Allen, "A Cooperative
Strategy for 21st Century Seapower", Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Coast Guard,
This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and ashore. The
expeditionary character and versatility of maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric advantage of
enlarging or contracting its military footprint in areas where access is denied or limited. Permanent or
prolonged basing of our military forces overseas often has unintended economic, social or political
repercussions. The sea is a vast maneuver space, where the presence of maritime forces can be adjusted
as conditions dictate to enable flexible approaches to escalation, de-escalation and deterrence of
conflicts. The speed, flexibility, agility and scalability of maritime forces provide 6755 joint or combined
force commanders a range of options for responding to crises. Additionally, integrated maritime
operations, either within formal alliance structures (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or
more informal arrangements (such as the Global Maritime Partnership initiative), send powerful
messages to would-be aggressors that we will act with others to ensure collective security and
prosperity. United States seapower will be globally postured to secure our homeland and citizens from
direct attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our security and prosperity are
inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime forces will be deployed to protect and sustain the
peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law,
people and governance. We will employ the global reach, persistent presence, and operational flexibility
inherent in U.S. seapower to accomplish six key tasks, or strategic imperatives. Where tensions are high
or where we wish to demonstrate to our friends and allies our commitment to security and stability, U.S.
maritime forces will be characterized by regionally concentrated, forward-deployed task forces with the
combat power to limit regional conflict, deter major power war, and should deterrence fail, win our
Nations wars as part of a joint or combined campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime
forces will be globally distributed in order to contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and
sustain cooperative relationships with an expanding set of international partners, and prevent or
mitigate disruptions and crises. Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the Western
Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our friends and allies of
our continuing commitment to regional security, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries and peer
competitors. This combat power can be selectively and rapidly repositioned to meet contingencies that
may arise elsewhere. These forces will be sized and postured to fulfill the following strategic
imperatives: Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime power. Today regional
conflict has ramifications far beyond the area of conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading across
borders, pandemics, and the interruption of vital resources are all possible when regional crises erupt.
While this strategy advocates a wide dispersal of networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere,
and we cannot act to mitigate all regional conflict. Where conflict threatens the global system and our
national interests, maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of national and
multi-national power, to give political leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation and de-
escalation. Maritime forces that are persistently present and combat-ready provide the Nations primary
forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as they provide the means for this Nation to
respond quickly to other crises. Whether over the horizon or powerfully arrayed in plain sight, maritime
forces can deter the ambitions of regional aggressors, assure friends and allies, gain and maintain
access, and protect our citizens while working to sustain the global order. Critical to this notion is the
maintenance of a powerful fleetships, aircraft, Marine forces, and shore-based fleet activities
capable of selectively controlling the seas, projecting power ashore, and protecting friendly forces and
civilian populations from attack.Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous
to global stability as war among major powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nations comparative
seapower advantage is a key component of deterring major power war. While war with another great
power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively
deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of maritime forcesour
lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational
agilityprovide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to
deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally,
unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.
US primacy prevents global conflict diminishing power creates a vacuum that causes
transition wars in multiple places
Brooks et al 13 [Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College.G.
John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton
University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs. He is also a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University.William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel
Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. Don't Come Home,
America: The Case against Retrenchment, Winter 2013, Vol. 37, No. 3, Pages 7-
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one
thing, as noted above, the United States overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from
taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional
hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security
dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal
of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the American Pacifier is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security
competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive wartemptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How
do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not
necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set
of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasias security setting if the United States truly disengaged?).
Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive
realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that
the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasias major states
could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without theAmerican pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that
nonrealist theories point tosuch as democratic governance or dense institutional linkagesare either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however,
that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each
region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the
political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of
securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional
conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising
powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military
presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins toswing toward pessimists concerned that
states currently backed by Washington notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabiamight take actions upon U.S.
retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimismregarding the
regions prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is
that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke
a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity
and were only constrained from doing so by astill-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realisms sanguine portrayal is all of the
research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realisms optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent
on itsparticularand highly restrictiveassumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-
American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external
attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative
to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however,undermines that core assumption: states
have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and theyengage in trade-offs among the various
objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows
that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies
show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these
nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would
result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the worlds key regions. We have already
mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts thatthe withdrawal of the American pacifier will
yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis
instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of
local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war).

Despite increased domestic consumption the US is still heavily oil dependent its
vulnerable to price shocks
Dlouhy 13 - covers energy policy, politics and other issues for The Houston Chronicle and other Hearst
Newspapers from Washington, D.C. (Jennifer, Report: US oil growth having limited effect on energy
security, Fuel Fix, 10-14-13,
WASHINGTON The United States may soon claim the throne as the worlds top crude and gas producer,
but Americas dependence on oil leaves the nation at risk, according to a global energy security
assessment issued Monday. According to the analysis by Roubini Global Economics and Securing
Americas Future Energy, the nations heavy reliance on petroleum fuels threatens to undo U.S. gains in
efficiency and oil and gas production. Heavy oil dependence still renders the country highly vulnerable
to price fluctuations in the short-to-medium term, particularly as economic growth and fuel demand
recovers, according to the report. While physical supplies of oil may be more dependable in the United
States particularly with hydraulic fracturing allowing production of newly recoverable crude and gas resources the nations
overall dependence on oil and inefficient use of it leaves the economy exposed to high and volatile oil
prices. Of 13 countries evaluated in the report, the United States ranks No. 5, behind Canada and the relatively oil efficient nations of
Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan. The United States effectively climbed in the rankings ahead of Australia, Brazil, China and other
countries because of its relatively high levels of domestic oil production, which helped make up for bottom-tier scores tied to consumption.
SAFE CEO Robbie Diamond said the oil security index underscores that the path to true oil security is not paved
by production alone. Even despite the domestic oil boom, U.S. oil security is only middle-of-the-road,
he said. The disconnect between oil production and security also are illustrated by Saudia Arabias dead-
last position, at No. 13. Like the United States, the oil-rich nation is a big consumer of crude. Saudia Arabias long status as a
leading global oil producer also means the country is heavily dependent on crude exports for revenue.
The reports release kicks off a week of events tied to the 40th anniversary of the OPEC oil embargo. An interactive online version of the oil
security index allows users to dig into quarterly data and rankings dating back to 2000. Overall, countries were assessed for their
structural dependency on oil, their economic exposure to oil price volatility and their vulnerability to
physical supply disruptions. For instance, analysts evaluated the structural importance of oil in individual countries by looking at per-
person fuel consumption and the volume of oil consumed per unit of gross domestic product. The economic exposure was
assessed by looking at total spending on oil and net oil imports as a percentage of GDP, among other
factors. In analyzing supply security, Roubini Global Economics looked not only at how vulnerable countries were to physical supply
disruptions but also their capabilities to respond, such as by tapping emergency inventories. Low fuel demand wasnt enough to secure a high
spot. While India has the lowest fuel consumption per person of all the nations assessed in the report, it is near the bottom of the rankings
because of the countrys oil consumption and spending. Nouriel Roubini, chairman of the group, said the security index is meant to capture a
range of diverse factors affecting how nations might be affected by changes in oil supply and demand. Changes in the supply and cost of oil,
and the demand for it, impact individual nations in different ways due to unique national strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and
disadvantages, Roubini said. Some of the reports findings about the United States dovetail with warnings from lawmakers that the U.S. can
attain energy security but will never be truly energy independent. Oil prices are still set globally, so even soaring domestic
production means that when prices climb, Americans get hit with the added cost too. A report issued last
month concluded that the United States rigid dependence on oil to fuel cars and trucks meant that Americans kept buying the stuff over the
past decade, even as prices rose, at a cost of $1.2 trillion in additional federal debt.

Algae biofuels can significantly displace current fossil fuel usage
Darzins et al 10 - principal group manager, leads the research of the Applied Sciences Group in the
National Bioenergy Center (NBC), a multidisciplinary research team responsible for developing and
integrating chemical and biological technologies for the conversion of biomass to transportation fuels
(Al, Current Status and Potential for Algal Biofuels Production, IEA Bioenergy, 8-6-10,
More than 50 years of research have demonstrated the potential of various microalgal species to
produce several chemical intermediates and hydrocarbons that can be converted into biofuels. Figure 1-3 is
a schematic overview of microalgal chemical intermediates and the fuels that can be produced from these important components. The
three major macromolecular components that can be extracted from microalgal biomass are lipids,
carbohydrates, and proteins. These chemical components can be converted into a variety of fuel
options such as alcohols, diesel, methane, and hydrogen. Of the three major microalgal fractions, lipids, by far, have
the highest energy content. Some species, like Botryococcus, are capable of secreting hydrocarbon molecules like, those found in
petroleum oil. Other microalgal species can accumulate significant amounts of triacylglycerides (TAGs). These lipids, which resemble the
triacylglycerides from oilseed crops, can be converted into biodiesel and a synthetic green diesel. Microalgal-derived
carbohydrates can also be converted into a variety of fuels such as ethanol or butanol by standard
fermentation processes. Alternatively, the algal biomass residue remaining after oil extraction can be
converted into methane gas using an anaerobic digestion process or into several different fuel
intermediates through various thermochemical processes. While it is beyond the scope of this report to consider all the
potential conversion processes to produce fuel from microalgal feedstocks, historically the emphasis has been on the high-energy lipids and
oils. Many microalgal species have the ability to accumulate large amounts of triglycerides, especially under stressinduced growth conditions
(Milner, 1976). The vast majority of lipids in most growing cells are typically found in the membrane that surrounds the cell. However, some
strains produce significant amounts of storage lipids and can, when grown, for example, under nutrient limiting conditions, accumulate storage
lipids up to 60 percent of their total weight. The notion of generating biofuels from these microalgal storage lipids was the main focus of the
DOE Aquatic Species Program (1978 - 1996; Sheehan et al., 1998). With the real potential for rising petroleum prices in
the future and ever increasing concerns over energy independence, security, and global warming, the
notion of using microalgal feedstocks for biofuels production has steadily gained momentum over the
last few years. Lipids derived from microalgae have been the predominant focus of this interest because
these oils contain fatty acid and triglyceride compounds, which, like their terrestrial seed oil
counterparts, can be converted into alcohol esters (biodiesel) using conventional transesterification technology (Fukuda et
al., 2001). Alternatively, the oils can be used to produce a renewable or green diesel product by a process known
as catalytic hydroprocessing (Kalnes et al., 2007). The use of vegetable oil and waste fats for biofuel production cannot realistically begin to
satisfy the increasing worldwide demand for transportation fuels nor are they likely in the near term to displace a significant portion of the U.S.
petroleum fuel usage (Tyson et al., 2004). Algalderived oils do, however, have the potential to displace petroleum-
based fuels because their productivities (i.e., oil yield/hectare) can be 10 to100 times higher than that of
terrestrial oilseed crops (see Table 1-1). These comparisons often do not include the land required to support the actual pond.
Activities such as water supply, water treatment, waste disposal and other activities can significantly increase the area required for cultivation
and reduce the effective production rates.

Algae are comparatively better than other biofuel sources
Darzins et al 10 - principal group manager, leads the research of the Applied Sciences Group in the
National Bioenergy Center (NBC), a multidisciplinary research team responsible for developing and
integrating chemical and biological technologies for the conversion of biomass to transportation fuels
(Al, Current Status and Potential for Algal Biofuels Production, IEA Bioenergy, 8-6-10,
The main advantages of using microalgal organisms in a variety of industrial applications are: they
grow rapidly and have a higher solar conversion efficiency than most terrestrial plants they can be
harvested batch-wise or continuously almost all year round -
productive, non- they can utilize salt and waste water sources that cannot be used by conventional
agriculture they can use waste CO2 sources thereby potentially mitigating the release of GHG into the
atmosphere; and, they can produce a variety of feedstocks that can be used to generate nontoxic,
biodegradable biofuels and valuable co-products. Microalgae were among the first life forms on earth (Falkowski et al.,
2004). They are capable of fixing large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) while contributing to approximately 40 percent to 50 percent of the
oxygen in the atmosphere thereby helping to support the majority of life on our planet. Microalgae are highly productive on a global scale, with
cell doublings of 1-4 per day. While microalgae make up only 0.2 percent of global biomass generated through
photosynthesis, they account for approximately 50 percent of the total global fixed organic carbon (Field
et al., 1998). Microalgae, like terrestrial plants, grow and multiply through photosynthesis, a process whereby light energy is converted into
chemical energy by fixing atmospheric CO2 by the following reaction: 6CO2 + 6H2O + light energy C6H12O6 (sugars) + 6O2 The sugars
formed by photosynthesis are converted to all the other cellular components (lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins) that make up the biomass.
The photosynthetic process in microalgae is similar to that found in terrestrial plants. However,
microalgae, due to their simple structure, are particularly efficient converters of solar energy. Because
microalgae do not need to generate elaborate support and reproductive structures, they can devote
more of their energy into trapping and converting light energy and CO2 into biomass. Microalgae can convert
roughly 6 percent of the total incident radiation, into new biomass (Benemann et al., 1978). By comparison, terrestrial crops have generally
lower photosynthetic conversion efficiencies. Sugar cane, one of the most productive of all terrestrial crops, for example has a photosynthetic
efficiency of 3.5 to 4 percent (Odum, 1971). Based upon this distinguishing feature, microalgae have become a
target for scientific studies on biomass energy production, biofuels production, as well as the potential
utilization of CO2 currently being released into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels.

Price shocks destroy the US economy
Koch 13 reporter for USA Today (Wendy, U.S. oil supply looks vulnerable 40 years after embargo,
USA Today, 10-19-13,
In 1973, Archie Bunker's All in the Family topped TV rankings and Tony Orlando's Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Ole Oak Tree led Billboard
charts. On the economic front, the United States depended heavily on foreign oil. This year, Modern Family espouses gay marriage and Miley
"twerking" Cyrus' Wrecking Ball sells big. But on energy, the U.S. still relies on imports for the same share of its petroleum use: 35%. How
different are we? While the nation's social and economic fiber has changed dramatically, including a recent
surge in energy production, could the oil shock of 40 years ago happen again? Today's continuing
dependence suggests, yes, unfortunately, it could. On Oct. 20, 1973, as U.S. oil production stood near its 1970 peak, Arab
countries banned oil exports to the United States in retaliation for its support of Israel during the Yom
Kippur War. The five-month embargo quadrupled energy prices and pummeled the U.S. economy,
causing consumers to wait hours in long lines at gas stations. The embargo helped launch a U.S. energy revolution as
President Nixon, and every successor since, called for "energy independence." Conservation measures ensued, including a doubling of vehicle
fuel efficiency standards, a national 55 mile-per-hour speed limit, pleas for fewer Christmas lights and a "Don't be Fuelish" ad campaign.
Renewable energy got a boost during President Carter's term, when solar panels were installed on the White House roof. Some of these efforts
petered out in the 1980s and 1990s, as Americans recovered from the oil shock, but others held. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the
Department of Energy were established in the mid-1970s, when U.S. funding increased for alternate drilling techniques such as hydraulic
fracturing (or fracking) that are expected soon to make the U.S. the world's largest energy producer. "We've come a long way," Leon Panetta,
President Obama's Defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, tells USA TODAY, citing a push to diversify the U.S. energy portfolio.
Henry Kissinger, who was President Nixon's secretary of State during the 1973 oil crisis, agrees. "We're better prepared now, by far," he told an
energy conference last week in Washington, D.C. If Saudi Arabia cut its production and exports, he said the U.S. could buy elsewhere, adding:
"They've lost the opportunity to blackmail us." Yet not all has changed. "We remain very vulnerable," Panetta says, adding it
wouldn't take much for members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) which launched the 1973
embargo or terrorist groups like al-Qaeda to disrupt supplies. He says the U.S. is using less oil per capita
than decades ago and relying on the Middle East for a smaller share of its imports, but those shifts
almost don't matter. World oil prices, which largely determine what Americans pay at the pump, remain
high, because developing countries including China and India are driving up demand. With global oil
supplies so tight as a result, even a small disruption rattles the markets and causes price spikes. That's
why, despite a 50% increase in U.S. oil production since 2008, the price for a regular gallon of gas
remains so high. It costs, in inflation-adjusted dollars, twice as much as 40 years ago. "We're still part of a global oil
market," says Daniel Yergin oil historian and author of The Quest: Energy Security and the Remaking of the Modern World. He notes petroleum
imports have fallen since their peak in 2005, when they accounted for 60% of what Americans used. But they've simply retreated to the same
share of consumption as in 1973. The Department of Energy expects imports will continue to fall as U.S. oil production increases
because of fracking. This controversial drilling process blasts huge quantities of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, underground to
break apart shale formations and release oil as well as natural gas. "We won't become energy independent, but we'll
become less energy dependent," Yergin says. That's not enough to inoculate the U.S. from future oil
shocks. "Despite the domestic oil boom, America's oil security is only middle-of-the-road," Robbie
Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), a non-partisan group aimed at reducing U.S.
dependency, said this month in releasing a ranking of 13 countries' oil security. The United States ranked fifth best, after Japan (No. 1),
United Kingdom, Canada and Germany. The report says the U.S. is making strides, including Obama's plan to nearly double the fuel efficiency of
new cars and light trucks to 54 miles per gallon by model year 2025. Still, regardless of efficiency gains, it says Americans
use more oil than China, Japan and Russia combined, accounting for 20% of global consumption. "Our
nation's oil dependence leaves the economy dangerously exposed to high and volatile oil prices," says
Diamond, the group's chief executive officer. While an oil shock may rock the economy and influence U.S foreign
policy, a parallel threat to the environment has emerged since the 1973 embargo: climate change. "That was not yet apparent," Kissinger
said at the SAFE-organized conference, adding that even administration critics didn't voice concerns about oil use's environmental impacts in
the 1970s. In 1988, climate scientist James Hansen warned a Senate panel about the climate dangers posed by the heat-trapping greenhouse
gas emissions from the burning of oil, gas and coal. Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies have since shown that rising temperatures are
increasing the risk and severity of heat waves, downpours, drought and wildfire. The United States can't go it alone any more on climate change
than it can on the intertwined issue of oil. Case in point: Its carbon emissions are barely rising in recent years, but global emissions largely
because of China and India's use of oil and coal are soaring. Panetta says climate change adds to the reasons why the
United States should lead world efforts to reduce reliance on oil. He says such dependence can "influence"
decisions such as whether to wage war in the Persian Gulf, adding the U.S. would probably have
imposed sanctions on Iran earlier if it weren't concerned about the impact on oil supplies. Yergin expects
future energy disruptions, noting the Middle East is still in turmoil. He says although Saudi Arabia the center of the 1973
embargo is now America's strongest Arab ally, Iran is now an adversary. Forty years ago, Iran didn't
participate in the embargo, because it was one of the strongest U.S. allies in the Middle East. "Americans
have a short memory," Panetta says, adding they need to be reminded of the myriad costs and lingering risks associated with oil dependence
as shown by the 1973 oil embargo.
Oil dependence reduces US energy security and causes resource grabs
Musolino 13 - research associate in the climate and energy program at the Worldwatch Institute
(Evan, Forty Years of Dependency? Oils evolution since the Embargo, WorldWatch Institute, 10-29-13,
The 40th anniversary of the Arab Oil Embargo offers a unique opportunity to reflect on four decades of developments in the energy sector in
the United States and around the world. In many ways, the shock of the embargo helped reshape the world energy sector, yet four decades
later many of the same problems faced in 1973 persist, especially in the United States. To a large extent, fossil fuels continue to
power global economic growth and energy security, and the competition for these resources remains a
significant concern for governments around the world. Just as in 1973, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) and the oil that its member states produce continue to be an undeniable force in global
geopolitics. OPECs hold over 81 percent of the worlds proven crude reserves gives it a largely
unchecked control over international oil prices, which it achieves by setting OPEC-wide production
targets. Although OPEC has played a key role on the production side of the international oil market over the past four decades, the
consumer landscape has changed dramatically since 1973. Significant economic growth in the
developing world has led to increasing competition for energy resources. Oil demand in developing countries
topped demand in the industrialized nations of the OECD for the first time ever in April 2013, a drastic change from just a decade ago when all
developing countries combined consumed only two-thirds of the oil used in OECD member states (by volume). Led principally by rapid growth
in China, who now rivals the United States as Saudi Arabias largest client for oil exports, these developments have significantly
altered international oil markets. In spite of rapidly growing global demand in emerging markets, OPECs oil
production remains at 30 million barrels per day, the same volume produced in 1973, contributing to prices per barrel that are
5.5 times higher than at the time of the embargo. Despite the challenge of moving beyond fossil fuel dependence, the necessary
technologies now exist at a commercially deployable scale and cost to ensure that the development
pathways of the past do not need to be repeated. Renewable energy technologies are no longer alternative
energy options; rather, they are mainstream energy sources that are increasingly meeting the energy needs of
populations around the world. Likewise, around the world, natural gas is increasingly edging out dirtier burning fuels such as oil and
coal. For renewables, the cost barriers that existed 40 years ago are a thing of the past. The cost of solar pholtovoltaics (PV), for example, has
decreased 99 percent since the late 1970s, falling from US$76.67 per watt in 1977 to US$0.74 per watt today. Cost reductions in solar PV and
other renewable technologies have been met with notable increases in capacity. Modern renewables, including hydropower, now account for
9.7 percent of global final energy consumption and 21.7 percent of global electricity production. Non-hydro renewables now account for 5.2
percent of global electricity generation, up from less than half a percent at the end of the 1970s. Even major fossil fuel exporters are beginning
to recognize the benefits of renewables. Gulf States such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have all set targets to develop
new renewable energy capacity. Yet although renewables such as solar and wind can be critical tools in transitioning the global electricity sector
away from oil, this is only one part of the larger challenge. The U.S. experience over the past four decades shows the difficulty in completely
transitioning away from petroleum fuels and achieving the politically important energy independence that has been espoused by all
presidents since Richard Nixon. In certain ways, development within the country has come full circle. The United States was the worlds largest
oil producer in 1973 and, as of this month, it outpaced both Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the worlds top oil and gas producer. Although
oil from the Persian Gulf now accounts for only 9.6 percent of U.S. consumption, this is nearly 5 percent greater than at the time of the
embargo. And despite growth in domestic production, the United States still remains dependent on fuel
imports to satisfy over a third of its oil demand, the same share as in 1973. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower,
and to a lesser but growing degree other renewable technologies now provide 99 percent of U.S. electricity. Oil, however, continues to
be used extensively in the transportation sector, where petroleum fuels account for 97 percent of the fuel mix. Because
transportation is the countrys second largest energy-consuming sector, this is quite significant. Despite
efforts to maximize the efficiency of fuel use in U.S. transportation, little emphasis has been placed on fuel switching, thus preserving oils
prevalence as a crucial component of the energy mix. Unfortunately, simply maximizing the efficiency of oil use in the
transportation sector has not reduced U.S. price vulnerability. Although the United States has been
successful at reducing demand for oil imports over the past decade, over the same time period the value
of crude has increased fourfold, leading to a doubling of U.S. foreign oil expenditures. Of course, 40 years
removed from the Oil Embargo there are many reasons beyond energy security concerns to transition away from fossil fuels. The past 40 years
of oil dependence in the energy sector have had an extremely detrimental impact on the global environment and is the major driver of climate
change. With the impacts of climate change already being felt, it is clear that we dont have another four decades for a shift away from oil to
Economic decline causes war studies prove

Royal 10
(Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and
the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of
interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow.
First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody
transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises
could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power
balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain
redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek
to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with
parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states arc likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult
to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined
to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either
on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between
economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic
downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour.
Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external
conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an
increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill
across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting
government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic
decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a
'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence
showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009)
suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic
leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence
showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an
increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with
an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic
decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed
conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

Best compilation of scientific data proves consensus warming is real and
Cook et al 13 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia (John, Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic
Global Warming in the Scientific Literature, 5/15/13; <>)
An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support
for climate policy (Ding et al 2011 ). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases peoples acceptance
that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al 2012 ). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide
public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012 , Pew 2012 ). In
the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed
climate papers in Oreskes ( 2004 ). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC,
published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human
activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW). Surveys of climate scientists have found
strong agreement (9798%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009 , Anderegg et al 2010 ).
Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996
to 2009 (Bray 2010 ). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on
the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996 , 2001 , Solomon et al 2007 ). The peer-reviewed scientific literature
provides a ground- level assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of
abstracts published from 19932003 matching the search global climate change found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the consensus
position on AGW (Oreskes 2004 ). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early
1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010 ). Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the US public is that the
scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of
the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening (Nisbet and Myers 2007 ). Similarly,
57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew
2012 ). Through analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the
most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and evolution
of consensus over the last two decades.
Algae conversion to biofuels significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Hughes et al 12 - researcher and lecturer in sustainable aquaculture focusing on the development of
economically and environmentally sustainable production systems for marine plants and animals at the
Scottish Association for Marine Science (Adam D, Biogas from Macroalgae: is it time to revisit the
idea?, Biotechnology for Biofuels, 2012,
There may also be a number of positive benefits; the macroalgal farms effectively acting as no-take zones
for mobile gear fisheries and thus enhancing less destructive static gear fisheries within the cultivation
zone and providing spill over benefits to adjacent waters [59]. In addition, providing the crop is not removed
in its entirety at the end of the cycle it will provide a refuge and a substrate to enhance local
biodiversity. The digestate after AD may be either a valuable by-product or an expensive waste. This will depend on a number of factors
including its contaminant metal burden and whether the macroalgae has been mixed with other organic waste streams in the digestor. A study
on the AD of lipidextracted microalgal biomass [60] suggested that 80% of the nitrogen in the biomass was recoverable as ammonium/
ammonia from the liquid supernatant fraction, and that the remaining nitrogen in the solid digestate fraction had a 40% bioavailability when
applied to soil. A similarly detailed analysis of the fate of nitrogenous emissions following AD of macroalgal biomass is required. Overall the
global effect of using macroalgal culture for biofuel is likely to be positive and an initial full life cycle
analysis of biomethane production from offshore cultivation of macroalgae has shown a 69% reduction
in fossil fuel utilisation when compared to natural gas, a 54% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and
an improvement in the marine eutrophication index [61].
Warming causes extinction pushes us past the tipping point
Guterl 12 Executive Editor of Scientific American, expert in Climate and Environment, Science Policy, citing James Hanson, a NASA
scientist (Fred, Climate Armageddon: How the Worlds Weather Could Quickly Run Amok, 5/25/12; <>)
The world has warmed since those heady days of Gaia, and scientists have grown gloomier in their
assessment of the state of the world's climate. NASA climate scientist James Hanson has warned of a "Venus effect,"
in which runaway warming turns Earth into an uninhabitable desert, with a surface temperature high
enough to melt lead, sometime in the next few centuries. Even Hanson, though, is beginning to look downright
optimistic compared to a new crop of climate scientists, who fret that things could head south as quickly as a handful of
years, or even months, if we're particularly unlucky. Ironically, some of them are intellectual offspring of Lovelock, the
original optimist gone sour. The true gloomsters are scientists who look at climate through the lens of "dynamical
systems," a mathematics that describes things that tend to change suddenly and are difficult to predict.
It is the mathematics of the tipping pointthe moment at which a "system" that has been changing
slowly and predictably will suddenly "flip." The colloquial example is the straw that breaks that camel's back. Or you can also
think of it as a ship that is stable until it tips too far in one direction and then capsizes. In this view, Earth's climate is, or could soon
be, ready to capsize, causing sudden, perhaps catastrophic, changes. And once it capsizes, it could be next to
impossible to right it again. The idea that climate behaves like a dynamical system addresses some of the key
shortcomings of the conventional view of climate changethe view that looks at the planet as a whole,
in terms of averages. A dynamical systems approach, by contrast, consider climate as a sum of many
different parts, each with its own properties, all of them interdependent in ways that are hard to
predict. One of the most productive scientists in applying dynamical systems theory to climate is Tim Lenton at the University of East Anglia
in England. Lenton is a Lovelockian two generations removed his mentors were mentored by Lovelock. "We are looking quite hard at past
data and observational data that can tell us something," says Lenton. "Classical case studies in which you've seen abrupt changes in climate
data. For example, in the Greenland ice-core records, you're seeing climate jump. And the end of the Younger Dryas," about fifteen thousand
years ago, "you get a striking climate change." So far, he says, nobody has found a big reason for such an abrupt change in these past events
no meteorite or volcano or other event that is an obvious causewhich suggests that perhaps something about the way these
climate shifts occur simply makes them sudden. Lenton is mainly interested in the future. He has tried to look for things that
could possibly change suddenly and drastically even though nothing obvious may trigger them. He's come up with a short list of
nine tipping pointsnine weather systems, regional in scope, that could make a rapid transition from
one state to another.
OMEGA also helps marine ecosystems
Harris et al 13 - Scholar at the University Space Research Association in California (Linden Harris,
Potential impact of biofouling on the photobioreactors of the Offshore Membrane Enclosures for
Growing Algae (OMEGA) system, 4 July 2013,
Although biofouling on the upper surface of the OMEGA PBRs is problematic, biofouling on the bottom of the PBRs and the
OMEGA support structures may have environmental and economic bene- fits. Submerged OMEGA
surfaces provide substrate, refugia, and habitat for sessile and associated organisms and a large-scale OME- GA
deployment may help control eutrophication by acting as a floating turf scrubber (Mulbry et al., 2010).
Algae can effectively remove nutrients (Christenson and Sims, 2012), heavy metals and other pollutants (deBashan
and Bashan, 2010). By removing nutri- ents from coastal waters, OMEGA may help prevent unwanted al- gae blooms; by
removing other pollutants, the system may improve coastal water quality. In addition to improving water quality, the
OMEGA flotilla will act as a fish aggregating device or an artificial reef, both of which increase local
species diversity and expand the marine food web (Kerckhoff et al., 2010). Observations at Moss Landing Harbor indicated
that even the small OMEGA PBRs deployed there pro- vided sites for marine birds and sea otters to forage, rest, and play.
Marine ecosystems key to survival additional protection needed.

Sielen 13
ALAN B. SIELEN is Senior Fellow for International Environmental Policy at the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation
at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, The Devolution of the Seas, Foreign Affairs, November/December,
Of all the threats looming over the planet today, one of the most alarming is the seemingly inexorable
descent of the worlds oceans into ecological perdition. Over the last several decades, human activities have so
altered the basic chemistry of the seas that they are now experiencing evolution in reverse: a return to
the barren primeval waters of hundreds of millions of years ago. A visitor to the oceans at the dawn of time would
have found an underwater world that was mostly lifeless. Eventually, around 3.5 billion years ago, basic organisms began to emerge from the
primordial ooze. This microbial soup of algae and bacteria needed little oxygen to survive. Worms, jellyfish, and toxic fireweed ruled the deep.
In time, these simple organisms began to evolve into higher life forms, resulting in the wondrously rich diversity of fish, corals, whales, and
other sea life one associates with the oceans today. Yet that sea life is now in peril. Over the last 50 years -- a mere blink
in geologic time -- humanity has come perilously close to reversing the almost miraculous biological
abundance of the deep. Pollution, overfishing, the destruction of habitats, and climate change are emptying the oceans and enabling
the lowest forms of life to regain their dominance. The oceanographer Jeremy Jackson calls it the rise of slime: the
transformation of once complex oceanic ecosystems featuring intricate food webs with large animals
into simplistic systems dominated by microbes, jellyfish, and disease. In effect, humans are eliminating
the lions and tigers of the seas to make room for the cockroaches and rats. The prospect of vanishing whales, polar
bears, bluefin tuna, sea turtles, and wild coasts should be worrying enough on its own. But the disruption of entire ecosystems
threatens our very survival, since it is the healthy functioning of these diverse systems that sustains life
on earth. Destruction on this level will cost humans dearly in terms of food, jobs, health, and quality of
life. It also violates the unspoken promise passed from one generation to the next of a better future.
Biodiversity loss risks extinction.

Raj 12
(P. J. Sanjeeva Raj, former Head of Zoology Department, Madras Christian College, Beware the Loss of Biodiversity, The Hindu,
September 23, 2012,
He regrets that if such indiscriminate annihilation of all biodiversity from the face of the earth happens for anthropogenic reasons, as has been seen now, it is sure
to force humanity into an emotional shock and trauma of loneliness and helplessness on this planet. He believes that the current wave of biodiversity loss is sure to
lead us into an age that may be appropriately called the Eremozoic Era, the Age of Loneliness. Loss of biodiversity is a much greater
threat to human survival than even climate change. Both could act, synergistically too, to escalate human extinction faster.
Biodiversity is so indispensable for human survival that the United Nations General Assembly has designated the decade 2011- 2020 as
the Biodiversity Decade with the chief objective of enabling humans to live peaceably or harmoniously with nature and its biodiversity. We should be happy that
during October 1-19, 2012, XI Conference of Parties (CoP-11), a global mega event on biodiversity, is taking place in Hyderabad, when delegates from 193 party
countries are expected to meet. They will review the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally introduced at the Earth Summit or the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is the nodal agency for
CoP-11. Today, India is one of the 17 mega-diverse (richest biodiversity) countries. Biodiversity provides all basic needs for our healthy
survival oxygen, food, medicines, fibre, fuel, energy, fertilizers, fodder and waste-disposal, etc. Fast vanishing honeybees, dragonflies,
bats, frogs, house sparrows, filter (suspension)-feeder oysters and all keystone species are causing great economic loss as well as posing an
imminent threat to human peace and survival. The three-fold biodiversity mission before us is to inventorise the existing biodiversity, conserve
it, and, above all, equitably share the sustainable benefits out of it.

The United States federal government should substantially increase its ocean
exploration by increasing its Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae.
Investments in OMEGA overcome status quo challenges to algae cultivation
Rimal 14 - UNESCO Fellow at AGH University of Science and Technology in the Department of
Environmental Biotechnology and Ecology, graduate of Biotechnology from Purbanchal University in
Nepal, focus on bio-energy and cost effective production of second generation biofuels from biomass
When one thinks of algae, it is either the green scum on the surface of stagnant ponds and moist surfaces or some sea-weeds. However, when
it comes to energy, we talk about those algal species which are single celled and microscopic, namely Micro algae. It is widely accepted
that plants generate the atmospheric oxygen which we need to breath, but almost 75% of atmospheric
oxygen is produced by photosynthetic algae and cyanobacteria. Algae mastered the technique of converting the sunlight into
energy sources long before plants. Algae were the first photosynthetic organisms on the Earth. There are number of
alternatives to fossil fuel energies, but why people are talking about these micro organisms is an issue to ponder. There are some micro algae
species like Botryococcus braunii which produce up to 60% oil off their dry weight. Micro algae are not only important for fuel,
but are important to the food and chemical industries as well. These organisms are a promising
alternative to liquid fuels because of their optimum production of energy from limited use of land (arable)
and water resources. Micro algae have the highest conversion efficiency (9% of solar energy to algal biomass) compared to 2-3% for
common C4 plants. Habitat diversity (i.e. ability to grow in different substrates: salty, sugary etc.) and the fact that they do not accumulate
recalcitrant compounds like lignocelluloses, make these advantageous over plant biomass also. Genetic engineering techniques like random
insertional mutagenesis [1] and targeted gene disruption [2] are already established to enhance the bioenergy production from micro algae.
The metabolic pathways of production of energy sources in micro algae are already depicted. The figures below highlight the major processes
that occur in micro algae. With all these possibilities and achievements it seems microalgae are the best alternative source for energy
production. If so, why are not we fuelling our vehicles with algal oil or gas? Micro algae growth is as challenging as it is promising. Growth of
micro algae primarily depends on sunlight intensity and availability, nutrient source, carbondioxide level,
temperature and the system of cultivation. Though the idea looks perfect, when it comes to optimising all these parameters the
problem becomes colossal. Because of huge capital costs, not a single micro algae commercial-scale production
system for energy production exists. Selection of location with proper sunlight exposure is very important. Sometimes higher
exposure to sun can reduce the growth of algae the photo inhibition effect. Locations with insolation not less than 3000hr/yr are supposed to
be good. The water supply is another challenge. Low cost and regular supply of appropriate water is very important for
algae cultivation. An advantage is waste water or sea water can also be used, but the risk of increasing inhibiting factors is always high and pre-
treatment increases the cost of cultivation. Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium are the major nutrients required for micro algae cultivation. A
dried mass of micro algae contains approximately 7% of Nitrogen and 1% of Phosphorus. The nitrogen supplement also leads to additional cost.
To produce 1 kilo of micro algae biomass, 1.83 kg of CO2 is required. Installation of a CO2 generation unit is a poor choice in terms of the cost
and the environmental affect. Therefore, the location must be near a continuous source of CO2. Fossil fuel use cannot be by-passed completely,
even though we want to produce electricity fuels from algae. During the time of cultivation, temperature regulation plays an
important role in producing optimum yields. The use of natural gas during drying processes also demands expense of it.
Chances of soil and water pollution because of Eutrophication of residual nutrients are also high. Despite all these challenges,
investments are increasing more rapidly in algal research and cultivation both at the governmental and
industrial level. This signifies the possibility of using these organisms as a more prominent energy source. However, an
integrated approach of cultivation and use of resources must be applied. Technologies like OMEGA
(Offshore Membrane Enclosure for growing algae) bioreactors [3] invented by NASA would be the best way for
economically viable production. These reactors are based on a systems approach methodology where
production of clean energy includes treatment of waste water, uptakes carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, requires no arable lands or fresh water as well as recycles important nutrients. Similarly,
research on minimizing the cost as well as the detrimental effects of each step in cultivation of algae
and production of biofuels is extensive. Therefore, the prospect of using green scum for a sustainable
future is hopeful!

OMEGA is economically viable industrial symbiosis makes it useful for a multitude of
other issues
Trent 12 - PhD in biological oceanography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, leads the OMEGA
Feasibility Study for Wasterwater to Biofuels, NASA Ames Research Center, December 2012,
Techno-economic modeling indicates that converting algae to biofuels only will be difficult if not
impossible to support economically. By leveraging the potential of the OMEGA platform for other
services and activities, however, may change the economic picture. For example, combining algae
cultivation for biofuels with wastewater treatment, renewable electricity, and aquaculture significantly
changes the economics (Fig. 8). Collocating OMEGA with a municipal wastewater treatment plant provides nitrogen and phosphorus
from wastewater as well as carbon from combustion of biogas. In turn, the algae provide biological nutrient removal and
contaminant remediation for the wastewater. The floating docks supported aquaculture of mussel
production and also provided power for the OMEGA system by providing surfaces for solar panels and
access to vertical-axis wind turbines as well as power buoys. The locally generated power supported cultivation,
harvesting, and bio-oil production with surplus electricity exported to the grid. Bio-oil production used traditional solvent extraction methods,
but hydrothermal liquefaction could reduce the uncertainty of cost estimates. Using this industrial
symbiosis system, and assuming a 10 percent return on investment, the cost of renewable diesel fell
from $6.67/L (without symbiosis) to $5.80/L (13 percent reduction) with wastewater treatment, to $4.20/L (24 percent reduction) with the
addition of renewable electricity sources, and to $1.43/L (41 percent reduction) with revenue from aquaculture. The economic impact
of the integrated system represents a 78 percent reduction in costs (Fig. 8).
US federal investment is key its the world leader and has the most experience
Trentacoste et al 3/6 Scripps Institution of Oceanography at he University of California-San Diego
(Emily M., The place of algae in agriculture: policies for algal biomass production, 6 Mary 2014,
Large-scale cultivation of algae, or algaculture, has existed for over half a century. More recently, algaculture for food and fuel purposes has
begun the transition from R&D and pilot-scale operations to commercial-scale systems. It is crucial during this period that institutional
frameworks (i.e., policies) support and promote development, and commercialization. While the U.S. government has
supported the R&D stage of algaculture for biofuels over the last few decades, it is imperative that
policies anticipate and stimulate the evolution of the industry to the next level. Large-scale cultivation of algae
merges the fundamental aspects of traditional agriculture and aquaculture. Despite this overlap, algaculture has not yet
been afforded an official position within agriculture or the benefits associated with it. Recognition of
algaculture as part of agriculture under the USDA at national, regional, and local levels will expand
agricultural support and assistance programs to algae cultivation, thus encouraging progression of the
industry. The U.S. is currently the world leader in algal biomass technology and hosts a disproportionate
number of companies devoted to the industry (Fig. 4). Continued federal support and initiatives will provide
the spark needed to drive algaculture into the next stage of commercialization.
No one has committed to OMEGA yet NASA commitment and funding is key to
launch sites across the world they have the key tech
Trent 12 - studied at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC-San Diego, specializing in extremophiles,
lead scientist on the OMEGA project at NASA's Ames Research Center in California (Jonathan, Even
greener alternative: Energy from algae, New Scientist, 8-31-12,
OK, if it's so good, where is it? For the past two years, backed by NASA and the California Energy Commission,
and about $11 million, we have crawled over every aspect of OMEGA. In Santa Cruz, Calif., we built and
tested small-scale PBRs in seawater tanks. We studied OMEGA processing wastewater in San Francisco,
and we investigated biofouling and the impact on marine life at the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
in Monterey Bay. I'm now pretty confident we can deal with the biological, engineering, and environmental issues. So will it fly
economically? Of the options we tested, the OMEGA system combined with renewable energy sources
wind, solar, and wave technologiesand aquaculture looks most promising. Now with funds running
out and NASA keen to spin off OMEGA, we need the right half-hectare site for a scaled-up
demonstration. While there is enthusiasm and great potential sites in places ranging from Saudi Arabia
to New Zealand, Australia to Norway, Guantanamo Bay to South Korea, as yet no one has committed to
the first ocean deployment. We could be on the threshold of a crucial transition in human history
from hunting and gathering our energy to growing it sustainably. But that means getting serious about
every option, from alpha to OMEGA.