Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

1NC wind

Ocean Engineering 1nc


Topicality
A. Interpretation ocean development is ocean engineering.
Rawat 12
[Aman. Of the Indian Maritime University. Career in Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering
December 2012 http://www.winentrance.com/career_courses/naval_architecture/]
Ocean Engineering as a discipline encompasses the breadth of engineering sciences
including design. construction. development operation and planning of systems that operate in
an oceanic and marine environment. Naval Architecture. which has traditionally been studied as a
discipline in itself is however a subdivision of Ocean Engineering, that specializes in the design
of ships and other sea going vessels. In Naval Architecture. all structures related to ship building.
i.e.. the ships. boats. submarines, oil rigs, hover crafts. etc.. are to be designed. Therefore. the main activities involved in
the discipline of Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture are the preliminary design of the offshore structures. its
detailed design. construction. trials, operation and maintenance, launching and dry docking works etc.
B. Violation that excludes shipbuilding and offshore
installation production
Feroz 11
[Ocean Engineering Career Last Updated 2011,
http://www.careerinformation.in/ocean-engineering-career.html ]
Ocean Engineering is an ambiguously defined discipline. It may mean Oceanographic Engineering, a term
which may refer to Offshore Engineering, or Maritime Engineering, which is the branch of engineering allied to Civil Engineering and
concerned with the technical aspects of fixed and floating offshore marine structures and systems related to harnessing ocean resources.
These include offshore oil and gas and the rapidly-expanding area of ocean renewable energy, as well as other ocean resource activities such
as sub-sea mining and aquaculture. Ocean Engineering is essentially another name for Offshore Engineering. Ocean
Engineering does not include the design of ships (Naval Architecture) or the design
of electronic, electrical and mechanical systems that exist within ships and
offshore installations .
Vote Negative
1. Limits the topics already huge because theres no functional
limit on the topic denying the affirmative production-oriented
actions that make minor repairs to existing infrastructure is
necessary to exclude a bunch of tiny affirmatives against which
no meaningful literature exists.
2. Ground theres no link UQ against affirmatives that alter
production design or systems of existing oceanic infrastructure
requiring that the affirmative defend more than a minor
repair is necessary to protect the quality of the negative arsenal.
Politics DA
A compromise on the Highway Trust Fund is coming it would
raise the gas tax and stave off transportation collapse
Jones 6-19
[Kevin. Staff Writer for Overdrive. Fuel tax hike proposed in Senate to shore up highway
funding 6/19/14 http://www.overdriveonline.com/fuel-tax-hike-proposed-in-senate-to-
shore-up-highway-funding/ ]
A proposal in the Senate is pursing the oft-cited and trucking-backed solution for shoring up the Highway Trust
Fund: an increase in the tax on diesel and gasoline at the pump. The
proposal by Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Chris Murphy of Connecticut would raise the fuel tax six cents a year over two years, then index
the tax to inflation. The federal fuel tax has not been raised since 1993, and since then the revenue it generates has lost nearly half its buying power. For too long, Congress has shied away from
taking serious action to update our countrys aging infrastructure, says Murphy. Were currently facing a transportation crisis that will only get worse if we dont take bold action to fund the
Highway Trust Fund. I know raising the gas tax isnt an easy choice, but were not elected to make easy decisions were elected to make the hard ones. To offset the revenue raised from
increasing the fuel tax, Murphy and Corker propose providing net tax relief for American families and businesses. An example would be extending some of the tax provisions in the tax extenders
bill that already have broad, bipartisan support, creating potentially billions of dollars in permanent tax relief over the
next 10 years alone, the senators suggest. Growing up in Tennessee as a conservative, I learned that if something was important enough to have, it was important enough to pay for, says Corker.
In Washington, far too often, we huff and puff about paying for proposals that are unpopular, yet throw future generations under the bus when public pressure mounts on popular proposals that
have broad support. Congress should be embarrassed that it has played chicken with the Highway Trust Fund and allowed it to become one of the largest budgeting failures in the federal
government. A number of business, labor and construction groups have already lined up in
support of the Murphy-Corker proposal. American Trucking Associations officials praised the plan because it preserves the user
pays principle. We have long said that the fuel tax is the fairest, most efficient way to fund our nations infrastructure and this practical, bipartisan proposal put forward by Sens. Murphy and
Corker would put the Highway Trust Fund on the path to solvency and provide the revenues we need to maintain a 21st Century transportation network, says ATA President and CEO Bill Graves.
Likewise, the Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates credited Murphy and Corker for proposing a transportation funding solution that does not include tolling existing interstates. And NATSO, the
national association representing truckstops and travel plazas, also applauded the proposal.

Republican opposition to multiyear tax credits --- without them
the aff cant solve
Jackson, 13 (Derrick, 3/2/2013, Politics imperil offshore wind sweet spots,
http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/02/sour-politics-imperil-offshore-wind-
sweet-spots/wZHvvjxVMtZKx2Y42iRpII/story.html, JMP)

With the wind figuratively in his sails, outgoing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told the Offshore Wind Power USA conference in Boston on
Tuesday that not only had wind become the nations top source of new electricity in 2012, but that there are enough sweet spots in
Massachusetts ocean waters to power 1.7 million homes. We control the ocean floor, Salazar said.
We get to decide what it is that happens. But Salazar was also quite clear that control does not necessarily
mean development for wind. His sweet spots remain imperiled by the Republicans
sour opposition to renewable energy production tax credits. The credits were extended
for one more year in the end-of-the-year fiscal cliff negotiations. But thousands of jobs were lost with the uncertainty of an extension. We
have this start-and-stop, start-and-stop kind of mentality, Salazar said in his speech. In an interview afterwards, he said the best
way to stop that mentality was for the United S tates to implement multi-year production
credits and finally adopt a national clean energy standard on the level of Californias. That state has set a goal of getting 33 percent of
its energy from renewable sources by 2020; it has a cap-and-trade program that currently covers electric power plants and large industrial
plants, but will phase in heating and transportation fuels in 2015.

Time and an atmosphere of cooperation are key the plans
controversial nature interrupts both of these things
Sanchez 6-10
[Humberto. Politics for Roll Call. Senate Democrats Have Full Agenda Ahead Roll Call,
6/10/14 ln]
There are just seven legislative weeks left before the August recess. A new highway bill tops the list
of must-pass items wanted by both parties, but it may also be the most vexing because
lawmakers have yet to agree on how to pay for roads, bridges and other transportation items in a time when gas tax
revenues are under pressure from rising vehicle mileage standards. Congress must act before the
end of the summer when the highway trust fund runs out of money. Senate Finance Chairman Ron
Wyden, D-Ore., has said he is pulling out all the stops to find a funding solution to
keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent and wants to find a consensus by the end of the month. A
short-term extension may be needed, a Democratic aide said. The Senate also is expected to start considering
appropriations bills next week more must-pass items. Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md.,
has said she may seek to package a few spending bills together to save time. But appropriations bills will face the usual
tussle with Republicans over amendments as Democrats look to protect vulnerable senators before the elections. They
dont want to have votes that expose their members to tough political issues, said Republican Conference Chairman John
Thune of South Dakota. I think Sen. Reid will continue what hes been doing procedurally, Thune continued. But then,
you know, we are always hopeful. A lot of issues are looking for fast-shrinking floor
time.
Transportation collapse grinds American progress to a halt and
undermines every other sector of the economy
ASCE 11
[The American Society of Civil Engineers a report prepared by the Economic
Development Research Group, which focuses on evaluating economic development
performance and opportunities. The group is comprised of economists and planners who
specialize in transportation engineering. Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of
Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation Infrastructure American Society
of Civil Engineers Report, Summer 2011.
http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Infrastructure/Report_Card/ASCE-
FailureToActFinal.pdf]
The nations surface transportation infrastructure includes the critical highways, bridges, railroads, and transit systems
that enable people and goods to access the markets, services, and inputs of production essential to Americas
economic vitality. For many years, the nations surface transportation infrastructure
has been deteriorating . Yet because this deterioration has been diffused throughout the nation, and has
occurred gradually over time, its true costs and economic impacts are not always immediately apparent. In practice,
the transportation funding that is appropriated is spent on a mixture of system expansion and preservation projects.
Although these allocations have often been sufficient to avoid the imminent failure of key facilities, the
continued deterioration leaves a significant and mounting burden on the
U.S. economy . This burden will be explored further in this report. Deteriorating conditions
and performance impose costs on American households and businesses in a
number of ways. Facilities in poor condition lead to increases in operating costs for trucks, cars, and rail vehicles.
Additional costs include damage to vehicles from deteriorated roadway surfaces, imposition of both additional miles
traveled, time expended to avoid unusable or heavily congested roadways or due to the breakdown of transit vehicles,
and the added cost of repairing facilities after they have deteriorated as opposed to preserving them in good condition.
In addition, increased congestion decreases the reliability of transportation facilities, meaning that travelers are forced to
allot more time for trips to assure on-time arrivals (and for freight vehicles, on-time delivery). Moreover, it increases
environmental and safety costs by exposing more travelers to substandard travel conditions and requiring vehicles to
operate at less efficient levels. As conditions continue to deteriorate over time, they will increasingly detract from the
ability of American households and businesses to be productive and prosperous at work and at home. This report is
about the effect that surface transportation deficiencies have, and will continue to have, on U.S. economic performance.
For the purpose of this report, the term deficiency is defined as the extent to which roads, bridges, and transit services
fall below standards defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation as minimum tolerable conditions (for roads
and bridges) and state of good repair for transit . These standards are substantially lower than ideal conditions, such
as free-flow 1 , t hat are used by some researchers as the basis for highway analysis. This report is about the effect
these deficiencies have, and will continue to have, on U.S. economic performance. In 2010, it was estimated that
deficiencies in Americas surface transportation systems cost households and businesses nearly $130 billion. This
included approximately $97 billion in vehicle operating costs, $32 billion in travel time delays, $1.2 billion in safety
costs and $590 million in environmental costs. In 2040, Americas projected infrastructure
deficiencies in a trends extended scenario are expected to cost the national economy more
than 400,000 jobs . Approximately 1.3 million more jobs could exist in key knowledge-based and
technology-related economic sectors if sufficient transportation infrastructure were maintained. These losses are
balanced against almost 900,000 additional jobs projected in traditionally lower-paying service sectors of the economy
that would benefit by deficient transportation (such as auto repair services) or by declining productivity in domestic
service related sectors (such as truck driving and retail trade). If present trends continue, by 2020
the annual costs imposed on the U.S. economy by deteriorating
infrastructure will increase by 82% to $210 billion, and by 2040 the costs will have
increased by 351% to $520 billion (with cumulative costs mounting to $912 billion and $2.9 trillion by 2020 and 2040,
respectively). Table 1 summarizes the economic and societal costs of todays deficiencies, and how the present values
of these costs are expected to accumulate by 2040. Table 2 provides a summary of impacts these costs
have on economic performance today, and how these impacts are expected to increase over time. Cost of
DefiCienCies Performance area in 2010 by 2020 by 2040 Pavement and Bridge Conditions $10 $58 $651 Highway
Congestion $27 $276 $1,272 Rail Transit Conditions $41 $171 $370 Bus Transit Conditions $49 $398 $659 Inter-City
Rail Conditions $2 $10 $20 totA L Cost to sYsteM UseRs $130 $912 $2,972 *Present value of cost stream in billions of
constant 2010 Dollars SOURCE EDR Group analysis using Transportation Economic Impact System (TREDIS), 2011
NOTE Totals may not add due to rounding. table 1 2 The avoidable transportation costs that hinder the nations
economy are imposed primarily by pavement and bridge conditions, highway congestion, and transit and train
vehicle conditions that are operating well below minimum tolerable levels for the level of traffic they carry.
If the nations infrastructure were free of deficient conditions in pavement, bridges, transit vehicles, and
track and transit facilities, Americans would earn more personal income and industry would be more
productive, as demonstrated by the gross domestic product (value added) that will be lost if surface
transportation infrastructure is not brought up to a standard of minimum tolerable conditions. As of 2010, the loss of
GDP approached $125 billion due to deficient surface transportation infrastructure. The expected losses in GDP and
personal income through 2040 are displayed in Table 2. Across the U.S., regions are affected differently by deficient and
deteriorating infrastructure. The most affected regions are those with the largest concentrations of urban areas, because
urban highways, bridges and transit systems are in worse condition today than rural facilities. Peak commuting patterns
also place larger burdens on urban capacities. However, because the nation is so dependent on the
Interstate Highway System, impacts on interstate performance in some regions or area types
are felt throughout the nation. Nationally, for highways and transit, 630 million vehicle hours
traveled were lost due to congestion in 2010. This total is expected to triple to 1.8 billion hours by 2020 and further
increase to 6.2 billion hours in 2040. These vehicle hours understate person hours and
underscore the severity of the loss in productivity . The specific economic implications of
the further deterioration of the U.S. national surface transportation system are as follows: Deficient surface
transportation infrastructure will cost Americans nearly $3 trillion by 2040, as shown in Table 1, which represents
more than $1.1 trillion in added business expenses and nearly $1.9 trillion from household budgets. This cost to
business will reduce the productivity and competitiveness of American firms relative to global competitors. Increased
cumulative cost to businesses will reach $430 billion by 2020. Businesses will have to divert increasing portions of
earned income to pay for transportation delays and vehicle repairs, draining money that would otherwise be invested
in innovation and expansion. Households will be forced to forgo discretionary purchases such as vacations, cultural
3 events, educational opportunities, and restaurant meals, reduce health related purchases along with other
expenditures that affect quality of life, in order to pay transportation costs that could be avoided if infrastructure were
built to sufficient levels. Increased cumulative costs to households will be $482 billion in 2020. The U.S. will lose
jobs in high value, high-paying services and manufacturing industries. Overall, this will result in employee income in
2040 that is $252 billion less than would be the case in a transportation-sufficient economy. In general three distinct
forces are projected to affect employment: First, a negative impact is due to larger costs of transportation services in
terms of time expended and vehicle costs. These costs absorb money from businesses and households that would
otherwise be directed to investment, innovation and quality of life purchases. Thus, not only will business and
personal income be lower, but more of that income will need to be diverted to transportation related costs. This
dynamic will create lower demand in key economic sectors associated with business investments for expansion and
research and development, and in consumer sectors. Second, the impact of declining business productivity, due to
inefficient surface transportation, tends to push up employment, even if income is declining. Productivity deteriorates
with infrastructure degradation, so more resources are wasted in each sector. In other words,it may take two jobs to
complete the tasks that one job could handle without delays due to worsening surface transportation infrastructure. Third,
related to productivity effects, degrading surface transportation conditions will generate jobs to address problems created
by worsening conditions in sectors such as transportation services and automobile repair services. Overall job
losses are mitigated by more people working for less money and less
productively due to the diminished effectiveness of the U.S. surface
transportation system. Recasting the 2020 and 2040 initial job impacts based on income and
productivity lost reduces worker effectiveness by an additional 27% (another 234,000 jobs). By 2040, this drain on
wages and productivity implies an additional 115% effect if income and productivity were stable (another 470,000 jobs).
By 2040 the cost of infrastructure deficiencies are expected to result in the U.S. losing more than $72 billion
in foreign exports in comparison with the level of exports from a transportation-sufficient U.S. economy. These
exports are lost due to lost productivity and the higher costs of American goods and services, relative to competing
product prices from around the globe.

Military CP

The United States Department of Defense should develop a
portfolio of renewable energies that includes, but is not limited
to offshore wind power. The DOD should also increase direct
military-to-military interaction with China and our allies in the
Asia-Pacific region specifically on the issue of energy
innovation.

DOD has a proven track record on renewables and leads to
broader commercialization
McCain 12, Steve McCain is a retired Air Force Colonel who coordinates the national security and energy public
policy practice at K&L Gates, , http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/powering-our-military-whats-
th.php#2212572 MWimsatt

No entity in government knows better than the Department of Defense (DoD) that the lack of energy security poses a
national security threat to the United States. The geostrategic importance of energy has long been recognized. As the
federal government's largest energy user, DoD also has a huge stake in
reducing our dependence on unreliable supplies of energy and securing low-cost
power. Clean energy can and should be an important element of any such national energy/security policy. Academia
and the mainstream media exhort the populace to act now to develop
alternatives to our current energy practices, and yet solutions seem slow to
emerge. The DoD is well-positioned to be a leader on clean energy
development , and has historically been an early adopter of new
technologies . The Pentagon, for example, should seek to leverage smart microgrids ,
advanced biofuels , energy storage , solar , ocean, wind, geothermal , nuclear
and other innovative technologies to reduce our vulnerability to foreign sources of power
and energy. Although many suggest that Secretary Panetta should not be taking a lead role in alternative energy, DoD,
in cooperation with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, can catalyze market actions and
accelerate the commercialization of viable, sustainable energy solutions (such
as drop-in biofuels) for the warfighter and Americans more broadly . DoD should not withdraw from
recent opposition to its alternative energy initiatives; a kite rises against the wind. Investment by the military in
alternative energy technologies, even in times of constrained budgets, can produce needed return on investment over the
coming years. DoD rightly seeks to improve its public-private financing processes and procedures. As defense
budgets decline, efforts to improve energy efficiency and reduce the
agencys huge energy costs are ever more important. Among federal agencies, DoD
has a proven track record of managing complex systems and supply chains,
and working to apply the work of research laboratories toward real-world
applications. Although it's tempting to play politics with the energy issue in an election year, we should not wait
to overcome a challenge so pivotal to the future success of our nation. Private industry will provide the lions share of clean
energy investment, but DoD can carefully augment these initiatives to resolve military requirements for lighter, more
portable power sources, cleaner and more energy dense fuels, and reliable cost-effective energy solutions for our facilities
at home and our forward operating locations abroad. Americans are starting to connect the dots between energy, security
and our future, while other countries are seeking an edge in alternative energy production. A national energy policy that
leverages U.S. innovation and our vast natural resources is vital to our continued economic prosperity and national
security. If we can reach a unified vision, we are poised to lead the world's clean energy economy.

Structured network of relationships allows global tech diffusion
and modelling --- there will be an immediate perception of
credibility
Velandy 14 --- Major in US Marine Corps Reserve (June 8 2014, Siddhartha M Velandy, Vermont Journal of
Environmental Law, The Energy Pivot: How Military-Led Energy Innovation Can Change the World
http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/publications/energy-pivot-military-led-energy-innovation-can-change-world/)

C. The Green Arms Race and the Globalization of Unconventional Energy The United States military
interacts with foreign militaries in many ways, whether through active
combat operations, training exercises, foreign military sales cases, or
disaster relief and humanitarian assistance missions. Each of these
interactions creates a structured network of global relationships . These
powerful and largely anonymous structures are utilized to transfer
technology and regulation among countries in the absence of a formal
multilateral agreement. These relationships hold the key to globalizing the
demand for clean energy . While states are still the primary actors on the
international plane, their power has been disaggregated to their constituent
parts. Individuals now can negotiate with their foreign counterparts with no
need for interstate-negotiation. Anne-Marie Slaughter argues that network relationships are the "new
world order," stating: Disaggregating the state into its functional components makes it possible to create networks of
institutions engaged in a common enterprise even as they represent distinct national interests. Moreover, they can work
with their subnational and supranational [*691] counterparts, creating a genuinely new world order in which networked
institutions perform the functions of a world government--legislation, administration, and adjudication--without form.
n112 Interaction within the informal network strengthens domestic institutions and international organizations. Direct
interaction between regulators across the globe facilitates the spread of
effective regulatory mechanisms and technology between jurisdictions.
Cooperation within the network is achieved through the convergence of best
practices fostered through repeated interaction and emulation. n113 Networks
provide the venue for this interaction and the transfer of information between subject matter experts. Networks can
establish themselves in many contexts. They can occur formally within international organizations or through informal
agreements between interested bureaucrats themselves. n114 These networks can encourage
cooperation in the absence of a treaty, or pave the way for a new agreement
by creating convergence around successful and effective technologies and
regulatory policies. n115 Most importantly for our inquiry, networks facilitate the
multilateral sharing of knowledge and ideas between nations. Informational
networks are incredibly useful for distilling best practices to solve problems
of mutual interest. n116 This distillation of best practices makes domestic regulation more efficient and
international cooperation more durable. In the defense context, efforts to better meet mission
requirements and create a more efficient and effective fighting force can be
exported to our international partners through networks. Repeated
interaction between defense experts can create "convergence through
technical assistance and training." n117 The United States wields the most
powerful military force on the globe. A cultural change that makes the
United States military more efficient and capable will garner attention and
have immediate credibility among foreign experts . Changes in United States
law, regulation, and military practice can be transferred through formal
alliances like NATO; the Australia, New Zealand, and United States Security Treaty ("ANZUS"); [*692]
Republic of Korea Treaty; or through informal interactions and information
transfers. These interactions will also provide feedback on the United
States' regulatory schemes and technologies, which may uncover new and
more efficient methods to facilitate energy innovation. The Navy-Marine
Corps team's global presence is in a prime position to promote the quest for
clean energy innovation. As Navy and Marine Corps forces operate
throughout the world, whether using ExFOB fielded technology in forward deployed areas or sailing the
Great Green Fleet to participate in disaster relief operations, this effect will be compounded. These
interactions will create global requirements and reshape military forces
around a new energy paradigm. This new model for energy innovation has
already started to spread. As mentioned above, the Rim of the Pacific is the world's
largest maritime exercise. It is designed to "provide a unique training
opportunity that helps participants foster and sustain cooperative
relationships that are critical to ensuring the safety of sea lanes and security
on the world's oceans." n118 Twenty-two nations, including Canada, Australia, India, Japan,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Russia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea
participated in 2012, bringing forty surface ships, six submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000
personnel. n119 During the exercise in 2012, the Royal Australian Navy ("RAN")
signed an agreement to partner with the United States to explore the
increased use of alternative fuels. RAN Fleet Commander, Rear Admiral Tim Barrett, AM, CSC, RAN,
delivered the Statement of Cooperation to Secretary Mabus on board the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. n120 The Fleet
Commander landed on the USS Nimitz and refueled his helicopter with a biofuel blend. n121 His flight back to his ship
HMAS Darwin, after the signing ceremony, marked the first time an RAN aircraft flew with a biofuel blend. n122 In
accordance with the Statement of Cooperation, the RAN will partner with the United States Navy and further develop
alternative fuels for use during a joint deployment in 2016. n123 During this demonstration, the [*693] United States
Navy will sail the Great Green Fleet across the Pacific to Australia to commemorate the arrival of the Great White Fleet in
Sydney harbor in 1907. n124 The Great Green Fleet will then refuel with biofuels made in Australia for the return journey.
n125 Demand by two large naval forces will send a strong signal to the
emerging advanced biofuels industry. Emerging nations, not wanting to fall
behind on the future battlefield, will work towards similar gains. So starts
the Green Arms Race. The demand for clean energy innovation, passed
through networked interactions between defense experts, is spreading
across the globe . The United States Defense and State Departments, in their
constant interactions with their foreign counterparts, facilitate the transfer
of successful efficient energy regulation and technology. Once successful
technologies and regulatory schemes are validated by global defense
interaction, they will spill over into the commercial market. The progeny of the
Green Arms Race will be more efficient fighting forces, increased heterogeneity in the sources of energy, and a change in
direction of the global resource quest. American leadership in clean and efficient energy innovation will create a more
stable world order and align the once disparate approaches to climate change, energy dependence, and national security.
Military energy innovation, shared through existing and newly forming
defense networks, can reveal strong avenues for increased international
military and diplomatic interaction. To be most successful, the Green Arms Race must involve the
two largest consumers of energy on the planet.

The counterplan stabilizes U.S. global leadership, boosts U.S.-
China relations, ensures worldwide spread of military clean tech
developments and solves warming
Velandy 14 --- Major in US Marine Corps Reserve (June 8 2014, Siddhartha M Velandy, Vermont Journal of
Environmental Law, The Energy Pivot: How Military-Led Energy Innovation Can Change the World
http://vjel.vermontlaw.edu/publications/energy-pivot-military-led-energy-innovation-can-change-world/)

The Asia-Pacific is the world's fastest growing region and a key driver of
global politics. n5 With over 4.2 billion people, the Asia-Pacific is home to nearly sixty percent of the world's
population n6 and more than half of the global economy. n7 The seas from the Indian Ocean, through the Strait of
Malacca, and the Pacific contain the world's most vibrant trade and energy routes. n8 In this critically
important region, our allies and partners are looking for American
leadership. In late 2011, the Obama administration announced a strategic rebalancing of U.S. resources toward the
Asia-Pacific region. n9 In his speech to the Australian Parliament, President Obama signaled this broad shift: Here [in the
Asia-Pacific region], we see the future. As the world's fastest-growing region--and home to more than half the global
economy--the Asia-Pacific is critical to achieving my highest priority, and that's creating jobs and opportunity for the
American people. With most of the world's nuclear power and some half of humanity, Asia will largely define whether the
century ahead will be marked by conflict or cooperation, needless suffering or human progress. n10 After heavy
investment over the last thirteen years in the Middle East and Central Asia, the United States is shifting its attention east.
The interrelated issues of energy and the environment will play a key role in
this strategic rebalancing. Energy use is directly correlated to wealth. As nations like China and India
continue to grow they will seek an increasing share of the world's energy resources. These quests that may range to far-
flung places across the globe will cause friction as competition for energy increases. As the world's Default
Power, the United S tates will [*675] have to provide enhanced presence, mediate
disputes, and find lasting solutions to the difficult problems that will satisfy
the countries in the region. Rapid growth in the Asia-Pacific region is affecting global energy markets. The
U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that China and India will account for half the world's total increase in
energy use through 2040. To fuel its growth, China, just as the West did during the Industrial Revolution,
n11 is turning primarily to coal, n12 installing more than fifty gigawatts of coal energy capacity per year. n13
Coal is cheap and, along with other fossil fuels, provides emerging economies the surest path towards sustained growth.
This increase in the use of fossil fuels will also have a big impact on the
environment. How the United States manages the dynamic global energy
landscape in the Pacific region and addresses the threats to our climate will
be important measures of American leadership in the years to come. If
China follows the same path towards development as the West, cutting
emissions only after growth, the results for the planet will be disastrous.
Likewise, if China and other rising Asian powers clash in a competition for
resources, the result of worldwide economic stability and the preservation
of humanity could be equally destructive. Yet these realities, while grave, offer the
United States an opportunity to lead in a way that contributes to global
stability while positively impacting the vexing problem of environmental
damage from the rapid industrial growth in China and the Asia-Pacific
region. I propose that the United States use its strategic pivot in the Asia-Pacific
region to increase direct military-to-military interaction with China and our
regional allies specifically on the issue of energy innovation. These
interactions will forge a new energy future for the region and the world.
Energy and the environment are profound issues to U.S. national security
and foreign policy. Energy shapes interests and relations between countries.
When it is seen through the national security lens, rather than as a fringe environmental pursuit, climate change becomes
a "threat multiplier," and an energy policy that promotes heterogeneity and efficiency
becomes a [*676] "force multiplier." n14 Further, viewing energy policy in the
national security context allows us to examine the opportunity that defense
sector-led energy innovation provides as a vehicle to engage China.
Engagement on these issues of common interest will increase regional
stability. Further, with Chinese, Indian, and other Asian partners, an
unconventional energy arms race will help change the direction of the
world's energy quest. This Article proceeds in four parts. Part I of this Article explores the Pentagon's push to
reduce its use of conventional fuels and increase its energy efficiency. The military's mission is driving energy innovation.
This Part will examine how successful energy technologies and effective regulatory mechanisms that support clean energy
innovation are shared across the globe through informal networks and formal treaty mechanisms. The defense
department's move to reduce reliance on fossil fuel and towards increased
efficiency has started a Green Arms Race n15 that has the power to not only
create a stronger, more capable military, but also to align the efforts of
academics, environmentalists, warriors, and nations to alter the future of
our warming world. To be effective, this vision for a clean energy future
must be shared with the fastest growing economies. Part II of this paper briefly examines
Chinese history and culture. Culture, which consists of shared values, expectations, assumptions, perceptions, myths, and
goals learned from previous generations and passed on to future generations, indeed matters. International relations are
complex and even a basic understanding of the other side's starting point can facilitate increased cooperation and
coordination. Using the Obama administration's strategic rebalance of attention to the region as a vehicle, Part III of
this paper suggests the United States use its military to engage China and
demonstrate the power of clean and efficient energy innovation.
Collaboration between the United States and China on energy and the
environment is unlikely to hit politically sensitive topics like cyberspace operations or currency manipulation and
allows great potential for cooperation and transparent conversation.
Managed effectively, the mutually beneficial dialogue through increased
military-to-military interaction between the United States and [*677] China
can facilitate the sharing of best practices on a range of security issues like humanitarian assistance or disaster relief.
This engagement will also allow military leaders from both nations to develop cultural
understanding and personal relationships. These ties will not only help
avoid miscalculation and misunderstanding during times of crisis , but also
will have the power to bend the global outlook for energy demand. Part IV
concludes by discussing the impact of sustained U.S.-China cooperation on global governance and the language of energy
policy.


The plan is contentious --- only the counterplan alone avoids a
fight
Merchant 10 environmentalist and freelance writer
[10/7, Brian, How the US Military Could Bring Solar Power to Mass
Market, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/us-military-solar-power-mass-market.php, AL]
Furthermore, Congress is infinitely more likely to approve funding for R&D; and
infrastructure if the projects are military-related. Which is depressing, but true -- the
one thing that no politician can get caught opposing is the safety of
American troops. In fact, the whole premise of the article is rather depressing, on point though it may be: The
only way we may end up getting a competitive clean energy industry is
through serious military investment, which is of course, serious government
spending. Which under any other guise would be vehemently opposed by
conservatives
Readiness DA

Offshore energy development can disrupt military training and
readiness
Medina, Smith and Sturgis 14 (January 14, Monica Medina, Joel Smith and Linda Sturgis,
Monica Medina previously served as a Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and a Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Joel Smith is a Research
Associate for the Energy, Environment and Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. Commander
Linda Sturgis is the United States Coast Guard Senior Military Fellow at the Center for a New American Security Center
for a New American Society, National Coastal Ocean Mapping, http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-
pdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf)

Offshore Energy The offshore energy industry is a vital contributor to the nations energy needs. Operations in the Gulf of
Mexico alone account for 23 percent of total U.S. crude oil production and 7 percent of total U.S. dry natural gas
production.15 The migration of sophisticated technology to offshore reserves has accounted for major increases in subsea
production and may enable the extraction of additional untapped reserves. Renewable energy has also emerged as a
growing offshore industry. 2013 was the first year in which the U.S. government auctioned offshore area leases for wind
energy projects.16 Meanwhile, wave energy projects have raised concerns in the maritime community, with offshore
development coming into conflict with coastal fisheries management in the Pacific Northwest.17 Other coastal
ocean users have expressed concern that new energy projects often require
the rerouting of established shipping routes. This type of activity can
interfere with efficient transportation of goods, disrupt commercial and
recreational fishing grounds and disturb defense readiness through the
induction of electromagnetic fields near offshore military training areas .18

Only allowing the Navy to call the shots can sustain freedom of
navigation, ensure U.S. global leadership and prevent conflict
Kraska, 11 Dr. James Kraska is a Senior Fellow in FPRI's Program on National Security. He serves as Mary
Derrickson McCurdy Visiting Research Scholar at Duke University Marine Laboratory, where he focuses on international
law of the sea and marine policy and governance. (James, Maritime Power and the Law of the Sea: Expeditionary
Operations in World Politics, p. 411-412)

Only by setting U.S. oceans policy free from its one-dimensional focus on the
marine environment can the nation craft a policy that properly balances the
competing oceans interests inside the U.S. government. The United States has neglected
a frank and public conversation about the costs and benefits of every other oceans equitynational security, economic
growth, and scientific research, for exampleall taking a back seat to environmental management. Oceans policy
should be brought back into alignment with the strategic national vision for
advancing greater U.S. interests in military security and economic
prosperity.
Attracting international partners to join in the reinvigorated approach is essential and not impossible. Those nations
seeking minimum world public order are natural allies in oceans law and policy because they share the goal of maintaining
the stability of the global system. Freedom of the seas generally, and freedom of navigation and overflight in
the EEZ in particular, have become a litmus test for the support or rejection of
American leadership in world affairs . The global political and economic system of the last few
centuries rests on the naval supremacy of British and now of American maritime power. "As a vital element of that system,
the leading global power . . . " wrote Walter Russell Mead, "maintains the security of world trade over the seas and air,"
while also ensuring that international economic transactions unfold in an orderly way.89
If the world oceans system can continue to remain stable under the
assurance of American power, countries as diverse as Germany, Japan,
China, Korea, and India may forgo acquiring the new military capabilities
required to ensure access to the world's sea lanes, especially into the Middle East.90
American fleets stretching from the Persian Gulf throughout the Pacific and Atlantic are critical to maintaining world
economic and political stability. Ultimately, the U.S. Navy operates to further American national interest, but foreign and
domestic interests can converge in a globalized era, and the exercise of America's maritime power generates enormous
positive externalities to global security and stability. American naval power is one of the principal public goods of the
modern world. On the other hand, however, "The end of America's ability to safeguard the Gulf
and the trade routes around it would be enormously damaging, and not just to the United
States." suggests Mead.91 If other countries are compelled to maintain fleets in order
to protect their supply of energy, defense budgets would dramatically
expand in every major center of economic power on the globe.92 In fact this already
is happening, as access to the oceans becomes more uncertain for everyone.
"The potential for conflict and chaos is real."93 "Every ship that China builds to
protect the increasing numbers of supertankers needed to bring oil from the Middle East
to China in years ahead would also be a threat to Japan's oil security, as well as
to the oil security of India and Taiwan."94 These warships, moreover, could
be misapplied toward adventurism not only across the Taiwan Straits, but also
throughout the South China Sea.
Consequently, the Department of Defense should have a veto on formation
of all U.S. domestic and international oceans policy . Although the Department of State, or
its stand-in, the Coast Guard, may serve as the head of the delegation at the IMO, only the Department of
Defense has the national security knowledge to evaluate the strategic
impact of maritime concepts and proposals . The Judge Advocate General of
the U.S. Navy can fill a dispositive role in the formation of U.S. oceans policy
that was abandoned over the previous decades. During the negotiations for the Law of the Sea during the Gerald R. Ford
administration, for example, the president provided just such guidance to the delegation. Underscoring the importance of
gaining international acceptance to freedom of navigation, unimpeded access through international straits and other high
seas freedoms, the president authorized the Chair of the U.S. delegation to exercise judgment and authority in the
negotiations "subject to the consent of the senior Department of Defense representatives to the Delegation."95 The
Pentagon should recover this veto authority over U.S. oceans policy. In the end, in
the present political climate, the only way to solve the lack of strategic perspective in
U.S. oceans policy is to place responsibility in a senior uniformed Navy
official inside the National Security Council. The three-star admiral serving
as the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, an active duty military
officer who is apolitical and who understands the intersection of U.S.
national security, oceans policy and international law of the sea, is the best
person to fill that role.



Case
Advantage 1: Econ
Wind not key to overall U.S. manufacturing --- parts will just be
imported
IER, 11 (11/14/2011, Institute for Energy Research, Rebutting Ms. Bodes Wind
Comments, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/14/rebutting-bodes-
20-percent-by-2030/)

Current Wind Industry Jobs According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the
number of wind manufacturing jobs has remained relatively flat over the past 3 years at
an estimated 20,000 jobs. (See chart below.) The majority of the 75,000 jobs (60
percent) that Ms. Bode quotes are in finance and consulting services, contracting and
engineering services, and transportation and logistics. Only 3,500 jobs were in
construction and 4,000 in operations and maintenance in 2010.Wind turbine
manufacturing is responsible for a very small share (less than 1 percent) of
the total manufacturing jobs (11.5 million) in the United States in 2010.
According to the DOE report that evaluated the 20 percent wind energy in 2030, turbine
assembly and component plants would supply about 32,000 manufacturing jobs in
2026. But the American Wind Energy Associations assessment is that the number would
be 3 to 4 times that amount under a long-term stable policy environment. As CRS notes,
the real number will be dependent not only on the demand for wind, but also on
corporate decisions of where to produce the needed components. Those decisions
could very well result in manufacturing jobs outside of the United S tates. As
CRS notes, imports of wind generating equipment increased from $482.5 million in
2005 to $2.5 billion in 2008, held at $2.3 billion in 2009 and decreased to $1.2 billion in
2010 due to lower relative demand for new wind energy, declining prices, and new
manufacturing plants in the United States. While European suppliers were the
leaders in wind equipment imports to the United States, South Korea and
China are now becoming players in the U.S. market.

Siphons off jobs from other more productive parts of the
economy
Green, 9 --- Resident Scholar at the AEI (2/23/2009, "Green" Illusions,
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/green-illusions/)

Let's review the reasons why governments cannot create jobs, and why labelling them "green" doesn't change the basic
dynamics.Let's start with the fallacy that governments can create jobs. This fallacy was exploded
all the way back in 1845 by a French politician and political economist named Frdric Bastiat. Bastiat pointed out that
the only way governments can create jobs is by first obliterating other
jobs .Sometimes, they obliterate other jobs by diverting taxpayer money away from the economic uses the taxpayer
would have pursued if they had kept their taxes.Other times, they obliterate jobs by imposing regulations that kill off one
industry in favour of another. In still other situations, they impose mandates, such as using recycled paper to create an
artificial market for recycled paper which reduce jobs in fresh-paper production.In the green energy case,
they are doing all of the above: Taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize the
renewable energy sector; damaging regulations are being implemented on the traditional fossil fuel sector,
and mandates for the use of renewable energy are being issued, creating a false market in wind
power at the expense of fossil fuel and nuclear power. Governments also invariably
siphon off a good part of the money for "administration," creating civil service jobs that pay comparatively higher wages
than the private sector for similar activity.Inevitably, government efforts to create jobs cost the
economy jobs and, adding insult to injury, divert limited resources to
inefficient uses, causing economic underperformance.

Advantage 2: Warming
Wind power actually increases C02 emissions
Lea, 12 --- director and economic adviser at the Arbuthnot Banking Group (January
2012, Ruth, Electricity Costs: The folly of wind power,
http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf, JMP)

Wind-power is not effective in cutting CO 2 emissions At first glance it could be assumed that
wind-power could play a major part in cutting CO 2 emissions. Once the turbines are manufactured (an energy-intensive business in itself)
and installed then emissions associated with the electricity could be expected to be zero - as indeed for nuclear power.But, as pointed out in
chapter 2, wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires conventional
back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) or with uncontrolled
variability (intermittency). Clearly the CO 2 emissions associated with using back-up
capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying wind turbines.
This is all the more relevant given the relatively high CO2 emissions from conventional plants when they are used in a back-up capacity. As
-fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this
supporting role because it is being used to balance a reasonably predictable but fluctuating demand with a variable and largely
unpredictable output from wind turbines. Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this mode
generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally .
seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions
required, but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in
clean, firm generation. 6 In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has
recently shown that deploying wind turbines on normal windy days in the
Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when
compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. 7,8 Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms
therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power.

Growing emissions in developing countries make CO2 reduction
impossible modeling is irrelevant
koetzle, 08 Ph.D. and Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Institute for
Energy Research (William, IER Rebuttal to Boucher White Paper, 4/13/2008,
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/04/13/ier-rebuttal-to-boucher-white-
paper/)
For example, if the United States were to unilaterally reduced emissions by 30% or 40% below 2004 levels[8] by 2030; net global CO2
emissions would still increase by more than 40%. The reason is straightforward: either of these reduction levels is offset by the increases in
CO2 emissions in developing countries. For example, a 30% cut below 2004 levels by 2030 by the United States offsets less than 60% of
Chinas increase in emissions during the same period. In fact, even if the United States were to eliminate all
CO2 emissions by 2030, without any corresponding actions by other countries, world-wide emissions
would still increase by 30%. If the United States were joined by the other OECD countries in a CO2 reduction effort,
net emissions would still significantly increase. In the event of an OCED-wide reduction of 30%, global emissions increase by 33%; a
reduction of 40% still leads to a net increase of just under 30%. Simply put, in order to hold CO2 emissions at 2004 levels, absent any
reductions by developing nations like China and India, all OECD emissions would have to cease.[9] The lack of
participation by all significant sources of GHGs not only means it is unlikely
that net reductions will occur; it also means that the cost of meaningful reductions is increased dramatically.
Nordhous (2007) for example, argues that for the importance of near-universal participation to reduce greenhouse gases.[10] His analysis
shows that GHG emission reduction plans that include, for example, 50% of world-wide emissions impose
additional costs of 250 percent. Thus, he finds GHG abatement plans like Kyoto (which does not include significant
emitters like the United States, China, and India) to be seriously flawed and likely to be ineffective. [11] Even if the United States had
participated, he argues that Kyoto would make but a small contribution to slowing global warming, and it would continue to be highly
inefficient.[12]The data on emissions and economic analysis of reduction programs make it clear that GHG emissions are a global issue.
Actions by localities, sectors, states, regions or even nations are unlikely to effectively reduce net
global emissions unless these reductions are to a large extent mirrored by all significant emitting nations.


Their studies prove the existence of warming, not the
impact doomsday predictions are empirically denied and
ignore scientists
John Stossel, Award-winning ABC News correspondent, 2007
The Global Warming Myth?, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1
Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said: "I remember as a
college student at the first Earth Day being told it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and
out of energy. Such doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines, but have proven to be
completely false." "Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change,"
he continued, "sound all too familiar and all too exaggerated to me as someone who actually produces and analyzes
climate information." The media, of course, like the exaggerated claims. Most are based on computer models that purport
to predict future climates. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because
water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. In
the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling. Scientists tell reporters that
computer models should "be viewed with great skepticism." Well, why aren't they? The
fundamentalist doom mongers also ignore scientists who say the effects of global
warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas said added CO2 in the atmosphere may
actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest
season, and might end the droughts in the Sahara Desert. Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming
argument? "It's the money!" said Dr. Baliunas. "Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since
1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports
that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works,
there wouldn't be as much money to study it."

Solvency
1: No U.S. ships to install offshore turbines
McDonnell, 13 (Tim, 2/28/2013, Why the US still doesn't have a single offshore
wind turbine; Here's a look at the top four reasons why offshore wind remains elusive in
the US, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/windpower-
renewableenergy, JMP)

3. Not a single ship in the Unites S tates is equipped to handle wind turbines:
Forget about whales and yacht routes. How the hell do you go about lodging a 450-ton,
over-400-foot tall turbine into the ocean floor? Answer: With one massive mother of a
boat.
But there's a problem, says Chris van Beek, Deepwater's president: "At this point,
there is not an existing vessel in the US that can do this job."The world's relatively small
fleet of turbine-ready ships500-foot, $200 million behemothsis docked primarily in Europe; an obscure 1920 law called the
Jones Act requires ships sailing between two US ports to be US-flagged, and
once the foundation of an offshore turbine is laid it counts as a "port."
Consequently, turbine installation ships cruising in from, say, Hamburg, wouldn't be able to dock in
the States.On top of that, given the pittance of offshore projects in the works in the United States, bringing the ships in from abroad
can be cost-prohibitive. Offshore turbines could find themselves all dressed up with
nowhere to go.Weeks Marine of New Jersey is working to solve the problem by building the first country's first turbine ship.
They've completed the hull and hope to have the boat seaworthy by 2014, possibly in time to chip in on putting up Cape Wind.

2: Federal-State mismatch blocks solvency
McDonnell, 13 (Tim, 2/28/2013, Why the US still doesn't have a single offshore
wind turbine; Here's a look at the top four reasons why offshore wind remains elusive in
the US, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/windpower-
renewableenergy, JMP)

4. States and feds butting heads: The recipe for every offshore wind farm has two
essential ingredients: a construction site, and a contract with the electric
utility for the developer to sell the farm's power into the grid at a fixed price
for a set period of time. In Europe, these go hand-in-hand: Governments auction off sites with the contract
thrown in. But in the United S tates, the deep water necessary for wind turbines is
managed by the federal Interior Department, while the contracts are
awarded by states. So a project could wind up winning the site lease, but
getting passed over for the contract, or vice versa."It's fucking nuts," Deepwater CEO Jeff
Grybowski says. Even if you sweet-talk a stateRhode Island, in his caseinto signing the purchase contract, "there's a
possibility for some other developer to win the land, and then you don't get the project." Since Deepwater and Cape Wind
have the only two federal permits for offshore wind, both by the Obama administration, this state-federal tension hasn't
been a major issue yet. But as wind lobbyists schmooze their way into statehouses up and down the Atlantic seaboard and
score more contracts, the feds will need to rethink how they decide who gets to develop the ocean floor.


Environmental opposition blocks projects
Burgess, 13 (James, 2/28/2013, Four Reasons why the US has no Offshore Wind
Turbines, http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Four-Reasons-why-
the-US-has-no-Offshore-Wind-Turbines.html, JMP)

Offshore wind farms in Europe are incredibly popular and the offshore wind sector is providing an increasing amount of
electricity to power grids. In comparison, in the US not a single wind turbine has been deployed off shore. Here we look at
the four main reasons why the offshore wind energy sector in the US is struggling to grow, or even begin. 1.
Environmental opposition Europeans are generally behind the development of offshore wind farms, and little
opposition is raised when new ones are proposed, or installed. In the US however, environmentalists
throw up strong opposition to potential offshore wind farms. In 2001 the
Cape Cod wind farm was proposed, yet since then it has had to fight off
dozens of lawsuits, and as a result not one turbine has yet been erected.