AFF

1AC

Advantage 1 Hegemony
U.S. hegemony declining now
Shor, Wayne State University Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Professor, 11*
[Fran, 2011, Stateofnature, Declining U.S. Hegemony + Rising Chinese Power: A Formula for
Conflict?, http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=4541, Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF]

A defining historical feature of the decline of specific empires in the world capitalist system has been the
conflict surrounding the emergence of a successor. The United States and Germany engaged in a
protracted struggle in the first half of the twentieth century to determine which country would replace
Great Britain as the dominant hegemon. After Germanys second defeat in a world war in 1945, the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R. contended for global hegemony even though the U.S. was the pre-eminent power in
economic and military terms throughout the four decades of the Cold War. Since the demise of the
Soviet Union, the U.S. has attempted to use its unrivaled military power as a weapon to retain an
eroding hegemony. However, given extensive internal and external contradictions, the U.S. Empire faces
global competition and realignment, especially, but not exclusively, as a consequence of the rise of
Chinese power. [1] This essay will focus on those sites of U.S./China conflict in the present period and
project, albeit tentatively, where such conflict may lead in the future.
While it may be that global capital has, to a certain extent, delinked itself from the nation-state, in the
case of the United States, in particular, the state and state apparatus, especially in the form of military
neo-imperialism, still perform essential geostrategic functions. [2] A fully realized deterritorialized and
decentered global system, whether envisioned by Hardt and Negri on the left or Thomas Friedman on the
right, does not yet exist. Indeed, the dialectical relation between territorial and capitalist logics of
power, which David Harvey identifies as the defining characteristic of the new imperialism, still
persists. [3] That persistence of territorial logic, described by Chalmers Johnson as an empire of bases,
[4] i.e., military neo-imperialism, more than a predetermined inter-imperialist rivalry or an emergent
transnational capitalist class, underscores the growing geopolitical conflict between the U.S. and China.
Nonetheless, it is necessary to account for both elements in Harveys dialectic in order to demarcate those
sites of US/Chinese competition and conflict.
While the United States no longer dominates the global economy as it did during the first two
decades after WWII, it still is the leading economic power in the world. However, over the last few
decades China, with all its internal contradictions, has made enormous leaps until it now occupies
the number two spot. In fact, the IMF recently projected that the Chinese economy would become
the worlds largest in 2016. In manufacturing China has displaced the US in so many areas ,
including becoming the number one producer of steel and exporter of four-fifths of all of the textile
products in the world and two-thirds of the worlds copy machines, DVD players, and microwaves ovens.
Yet, a significant portion of this manufacturing is still owned by foreign companies, including U.S. firms
like General Motors. [5]
[NOTE: *Last date cited]

Growth maintains U.S. hegemony key to preventing escalatory conflicts and great
power wars
Khalilzad, Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and former
ambassador to the UN, 11
(Zalmay, 3-8-11, National Review Online, The Economy and National Security
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad,
Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF)

Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States
position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic
growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends
could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to
increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers.
The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle.
Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous
amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and
the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst,
huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax
revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path.
Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years.
Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected
to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments
which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or require
substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events
trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be
unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost
certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.
Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and
France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their
empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a
presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to
their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow
the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be
compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments.
We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth.
Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and
economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global
distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S.
policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new
international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could
intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play
major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises
because of the higher risk of escalation.

The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the
era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive
dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar
international systems produced both world wars
American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket,
regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this
scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises
spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker
powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would
be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.

Offshore wind promotes growth more jobs than fossil fuels and other renewables
Todd et al, International Economic Development Council Economic Development
Associate, 13
[Jennifer, Jess Chen a research fellow and PhD candidate at American University, Frankie Clogston is an
IEDC consultant and a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University, 10-1-13, IEDC, Creating the Clean
Energy Economy, http://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/IEDC_Offshore_Wind.pdf,
accessed 6-25-14, AKS]

There is evidence that offshore wind energy will create new jobs and economic investment. Offshore
wind generates more jobs per megawatt than onshore wind and other fossil fuels due to the labor
associated with manufacturing, operating, and servicing the wind farms. As the European Wind
Energy Association (EWEA) states, the offshore wind industry has an additional employment
effect due to the higher cost of installing, operating, and maintaining offshore wind
turbines than land-based ones.1
It is also likely that offshore wind job creation will come at a time and to those places where it is
particularly needed. As the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) indicates, many of the jobs for the new
offshore industry will potentially be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards. These
locations will serve as fabrication and staging areas for manufacture, installation, and maintenance
of offshore wind turbines.2 These areas can particularly stand to gain jobs in a new offshore wind
industry, since they have experienced a double blow from the downturn in manufacturing and the
recent recession.

Jobs key to sustained economic growth

Scarpetta, OECD Directorate for Employment, Labor and Social Affairs Director,
14
(Stefano, 2014, OECD, Jobs are key for inclusive growth, http://www.oecd.org/employment/jobs-arekey-for-inclusive-growth.htm, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

High unemployment cannot be addressed without a return to sustained growth. But growth alone
does not guarantee adequate job creation, as recent spates of jobless growth testify. More and better
jobs with decent prospects are needed to kick-start a virtuous circle of rising confidence in the
future and sustainable growth. A broad range of structural reforms is also needed to increase
competition and enhance productivity, as are labour and social policies that orientate workers towards
more productive jobs, and provide support to jobseekers and vulnerable groups.
Helping youths get off to a good start in their careers is an absolute priority. This is why we have devised
an Action Plan for Youth, launched at our OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in May 2013, which
combines short-term measures to boost job creation for youth with more in-depth reforms to enhance
access to jobs, improve education and strengthen the skills match.
Promoting inclusive growth requires both higher participation in the workforce and more
productive and rewarding jobs that draw people to the labour market. An important aim should be to
increase female participation rates, for instance, and to make sure women do not feel confined to lowpaid/low-productivity employment with dim prospects of improvement, but can access better-paid, fulltime jobs too. Nor should women feel forced to take on unprotected informal jobs, as is frequently the
case in emerging markets. With labour forces set to shrink in many OECD and partner countries over the
next 20 years, and with women increasingly outperforming men on several fronts in education, policies
that boost female labour force participation and tear down long-standing structural obstacles to their
employment would yield widespread benefits, while making economies more resilient and societies more
inclusive. This applies not only to women but to other groups that are underrepresented in the labour
market, such as youths, disabled people, low-skilled workers and older unemployed people.

Sufficient to reverse decline major boon to job market

Ndolo, Camoin Associates, associate principal, 10
[Michael, Fall 2010, Camoin Associates, Offshore Development Can Yield Economic
Benefits, http://www.camoinassociates.com/pdf/CAWindarticle.pdf, p. 1,2, 7-2-14,
AAZ]
Wind power is a job-creation engine. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the wind
industry supported over 85,000 jobs in 2009 alone. Most of these jobs were in manufacturing, an area
of the U.S. labor force that has been declining rapidly for years. The wind energy industry represents a
significant opportunity for turning this decline around. Although wind power industry clusters exist
in North America, there are many specifics to offshore wind that differentiate it from its onshore
cousin. Requirements such as installation vessels, unique turbine components, specialized research
focus, and professional and technical experience are not yet present in the North American workforce
skill set. All of these unique requirements represent an economic opportunity for job creation,
ranging from research, design and manufacturing to operations and maintenance. Vessels. Highly
specialized installation vessels must be built, operated, repaired and docked during the off-season.
The newest generation of such vessels under development in Europe can cost hundreds of millions of
dollars to construct and can require a small army of workers in ports with sufficient ship-building
capacity. In addition, other smaller vessels are necessary for ongoing maintenance and repair operations.

The Jones Act requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports are carried in U.S.-flagged
ships that are constructed in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by permanent residents of the
U.S. Although some developers have been successful in requesting an exception, allowing them to use
foreign vessels, the Jones Act creates a significant barrier for off-shore developers. Investing and
developing a domestic vessel industry to serve the offshore market would significantly increase the
attractiveness of a region to offshore developers and investors, in addition to creating jobs to support the
new industry. Components. Offshore components tend to he larger and bulkier. Certain components are
either unique to (foundations) or modified for (hermetically sealed nacelles, seaworthy substations,
nacelle-mounted or substation-mounted helicopter pads for maintenance, and corrosion-resistant
materials) offshore use. One of the largest portions of the installed cost of a typical offshore wind
farm is directly attributable to the manufacturing and pro-assembly of turbine and foundation
components. In regions where a high level of wind component manufacturing currently exists, there is
significant opportunity tor creating offshore wind component manufacturing clusters. Installation.
Turbines and foundations must be assembled in a staging area, loaded onto a vessel and installed. There
are limitations on the ability of any one state or province to service both coasts, but it is reasonable to
assume, for example, that an installation cluster in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. could provide
installation capacity for a number of projects on the East Coast.

Advantage 2 Warming
Warming is real and human caused
Prothero, California Institute of Technology Geobiology lecturer, 12
(Donald R., Professor of Geology at Occidental College and Lecturer in Geobiology at the California
Institute of Technology, 1-3-12, Skeptic, "How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused",
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/, accessed: 6-29-14, CLF)

How do we know that global warming is real and primarily human caused? There are numerous lines
of evidence that converge toward this conclusion. 1. Carbon Dioxide Increase. Carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere has increased at an unprecedented rate in the past 200 years. Not one data set collected
over a long enough span of time shows otherwise. Mann et 3. (1999) compiled the past 900 years'
worth of temperature data from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and direct measurements in the past
few centuries, and the sudden increase of temperature of the past century stands out like a sore
thumb. This famous graph is now known as the "hockey stick" because it is long and straight through
most of its length, then bends sharply upward at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. Other graphs
show that climate was very stable within a narrow range of variation through the past 1000, 2000, or even
10,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age. There were minor warming events during the Climatic
Optimum about 7000 years ago, the Medieval Warm Period, and the slight cooling of the Little Ice Age in
the 1700s and 1800s. But the magnitude and rapidity of the warming represented by the last 200
years is simply unmatched in all of human history. More revealing, the timing of this warming
coincides with the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began massive deforestation and
released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning an unprecedented amount of coal, gas, and oil.
2. Melting Polar Ice Caps. The polar icecaps are thinning and breaking up at an alarming rate. In
2000, my former graduate advisor Malcolm McKenna was one of the first humans to fly over the North
Pole in summer time and see no ice, just open water. The Arctic ice cap has been frozen solid for at
least the past 3 million years (and maybe longer),'' but now the entire ice sheet is breaking up so
fast that by 2030 (and possibly sooner) less them half of the Arctic will be ice covered in the
summer.^ As one can see from watching the news, this is an ecological disaster for everything that lives
up there, from the polar bears to the seals and walruses to the animals they feed upon, to the 4 million
people whose world is melting beneath their feet. The Antarctic is thawing even faster. In February-March
2002, the Larsen B ice shelfover 3000 square km (the size of Rhode Island) and typical of nearly all the
ice shelves in Antarctica. The Larsen B shelf had survived all the previous ice ages and interglacial
warming episodes over the past 3 million years, and even the warmest periods of the last 10,000 years
yet it and nearly all the other thick ice sheets on the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic are vanishing at a
rate never before seen in geologic history. 3. Melting Glaciers. Glaciers are all retreating at the highest
rates ever documented. Many of those glaciers, along with snow melt, especially in the Himalayas,
Andes, Alps, and Sierras, provide most of the freshwater that the populations below the mountains depend
uponyet this fresh water supply is vanishing. Just think about the percentage of world's population
in southern Asia (especially India) that depend on Himalayan snowmelt for their fresh water. The
implications are staggering. The permafrost that once remained solidly frozen even in the summer
has now thawed, damaging the Inuit villages on the Arctic coast and threatening all our pipelines to the
North Slope of Alaska. This is catastrophic not only for life on the permafrost, but as it thaws, the
permafrost releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases which are one of the major contributors to

global warming. Not only is the ice vanishing, but we have seen record heat waves over and over again,
killing thousands of people, as each year joins the list of the hottest years on record. (2010 just topped that
list as the hottest year, surpassing the previous record in 2009, and we shall know about 2011 soon
enough). Natural animal and plant populations are being devastated all over the globe as their
environments change.^ Many animals respond by moving their ranges to formerly cold climates, so now
places that once did not have to worry about disease-bearing mosquitoes are infested as the climate
warms and allows them to breed further north. 4. Sea Level Rise. All that melted ice eventually ends up
in the ocean, causing sea levels to rise, as it has many times in the geologic past. At present, the sea
level is rising about 3-4 mm per year, more than ten times the rate of 0.10.2 mm/year that has occurred
over the past 3000 years. Geological data show that the sea level was virtually unchanged over the
past 10,000 years since the present interglacial began. A few mm here or there doesn't impress people,
until you consider that the rate is accelerating and that most scientists predict sea levels will rise 80-130
cm in just the next century. A sea level rise of 1.3 m (almost 4 feet) would drown many of the world's
low-elevation cities, such as Venice and New Orleans, and low-lying countries such as the
Netherlands or Bangladesh. A number of tiny island nations such as Vanuatu and the Maldives, which
barely poke out above the ocean now, are already vanishing beneath the waves. Eventually their
entire population will have to move someplace else.' Even a small sea level rise might not drown all
these areas, but they are much more vulnerable to the large waves of a storm surge (as happened with
Hurricane Katrina), which could do much more damage than sea level rise alone. If sea level rose by 6 m
(20 feet), most of the world's coastal plains and low-lying areas (such as the Louisiana bayous, Florida,
and most of the world's river deltas) would be drowned. Most of the world's population lives in lowelevation coastal cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Miami,
and Shanghai. All of those cities would be partially or completely under water with such a sea level
rise. If all the glacial ice caps melted completely (as they have several times before during past
greenhouse episodes in the geologic past), sea level would rise by 65 m (215 feet)! The entire
Mississippi Valley would flood, so you could dock an ocean liner in Cairo, Illinois. Such a sea level rise
would drown nearly every coastal region under hundreds of feet of water, and inundate New York
City, London and Paris. All that would remain would be the tall landmarks such as the Empire State
Building, Big Ben, and the Eiffel Tower. You could tie your boats to these pinnacles, but the rest of these
drowned cities would lie deep underwater.

Warming causes extinction preponderance of evidence proves it's real,

anthropogenic, and outweighs other threats
Deibel, National War College Foreign Affairs Professor, 7
(Terry, "Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft," Page: 387, CX)

Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a
nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global
warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have
been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility
has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate
change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming
is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find
evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast

international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports
shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet
over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions
of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in
Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days
earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global
increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature
measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming

climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses
each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of
corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit
hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just
call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the
industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280
parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach
500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so
there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant
global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper
stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more
violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and
threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a
warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a
sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of
Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect
would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far
warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to
the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming
could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming,
based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and
causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in
average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring everincreasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is
that humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian
roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor
Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to het the
atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then
everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear
winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not
only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War
eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported
scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to
shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to
the continued existence of life on this planet.

Wind power is sufficient to curb emissions zero emissions and fossil fuel cutback
Ziza, New England School of Law JD, 8
[Iva, Spring 2008, New England School of Law, SITING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY
FACILITIES AND ADVERSARIAL LEGALISM: LESSONS FROM CAPE COD,
http://www.nesl.edu/userfiles/file/lawreview/Vol42/2-3/Ziza.%20Final.pdf, p.1, AAZ]
The atmospheric concentration of carbon-dioxide, which is released by fossil fuel consumption, has
been rapidly increasing since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. n38 In the last few years, the
most widely debated consequence of fossil fuel consumption is global warming, an increase of
temperatures worldwide due to the trapping of greenhouse gases in the [*598] Earth's atmosphere. n39
Global warming in turn causes what is commonly referred to as "climate change." n40
Despite some political and media attempts to paint the issue as inconclusive, the notion that the burning
of fossil fuels raises global temperatures has by now been accepted by the overwhelming majority of
climate scientists worldwide. n41 Rising global temperatures have, in turn, been linked to the melting of
permafrost and ice sheets, rapid species extinction, rise in global sea levels, damage to coral reefs and
aquacultures, heat waves and droughts, and increased hurricane intensities. n42 Additionally, the burning
of fossil fuels has been linked to lung cancers and other respiratory problems, both in children and in
adults. n43 Specifically, emissions of particulate matter due to the burning of fossil fuels are linked to a
nationwide increase in asthma and allergy instances. n44
In West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and other states, coal companies use a technique known as
mountaintop removal, which essentially destroys mountain peaks with all their vegetation to collect lowsulfur coal, forever changing the landscape in these areas. n45 The practice inflicts terrific damage on
local communities, wildlife, and local streams and rivers. n46
[*599]
B. Case for Wind Energy
Replacing fossil fuels with sources of cleaner, renewable energy would alleviate most of the
problems addressed above. One of the most convenient and readily available sources of renewable
power is wind, a solar power whose kinetic energy can be converted into mechanical power through the
use of wind turbines. n47 Historical records indicate that men used wind power as early as the third or
second century B.C.E., and by the eleventh or twelfth century windmills were an established part of the
European landscape. n48
In 2005, wind energy generated more than 2,400 megawatts, enough to produce electricity for more
than half a million American homes. n49 According to the wind energy industry, wind has the potential
to satisfy twenty percent of the nation's energy needs. n50
Wind is a clean source of energy that produces zero emissions. n51 It is highly affordable,
domestically produced, and virtually inexhaustible. n52 The encouragement of the wind energy industry
has already resulted in energy security, pollution reduction, and the creation of high-tech jobs. n53
The greatest disadvantage of wind power is the fact that it is intermittent. n54
[*600] Although measures such as raising automobile fuel efficiency standards are also a step in the right
direction, the deployment of alternative, reliable energy sources is the most effective means to actually
solve the current climate crisis. n55 As of January 2008 all the proposed and existing wind projects in
the United States have so far produced 16,818.78 megawatts of energy. n56 Yet the United States, where

wind power served nearly three million households at the end of 2006, is far behind Europe, where the
wind power is projected to satisfy residential needs of 195 million Europeans by the year 2020. n57
If constructed, Cape Wind would displace approximately 802 tons of sulfur-dioxide, 497 tons of
nitrous-oxide, and 733,876 tons of carbon-dioxide, significantly improving air quality of
southeastern Massachusetts and areas upwind from the farm. n58

Wind turbines key to reduce carbon emissions and solve warming

Shahan, Cleantechnia and Planetsave director, 13
[Zach, bachelors degree in environmental studies and sociology and a masters degree in city and
regional planning, 10-31-13, The Energy Collective, Wind Energy Has Dramatically Cut Global
Warming Pollution In The US, http://theenergycollective.com/zachshahan/294891/wind-power-hasdramatically-cut-global-warming-pollution-us, accessed 6-27-14, CLF]

First and foremost, reiterating a recent statement by the International Energy Agency, it seems that energy
efficiency and energy conservation did. However, the other main contributor to the cut in global
warming pollution was clearly renewable energy generation, especially generation from wind
energy. Wind power plants contributed a significant 17.7 million MWh of additional electricity
generation in 2012.
If you are under the odd impression that more wind power doesnt equal less global warming
pollution, please use some common sense and also check out a recent study we reported on that
shows how little backup power is actually needed for wind power, even at relatively high penetration
levels. In other words, accept the fact that wind power is extremely effective at cutting global warming
pollution.
As REVE notes: What lesson can we draw from this data? While some of the emissions reductions noted
by the EPA are fleeting, wind energy is a key contributor to the long-lasting strategy for reducing
U.S. carbon emissions.

Acting to solve climate change now is keyinvisible threshold

Chestney, Reuters Staff Writer, 13
(Nina, January 13, Huffington Post, " Climate Change Study: Emissions Limits Could Avoid Damage By
Two-Thirds", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/climate-change-study-emissionslimits_n_2467995.html accessed: 6-29-14, CLF)

The world could avoid much of the damaging effects of climate change this century if greenhouse
gas emissions are curbed more sharply, research showed on Sunday.
The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first comprehensive assessment of
the benefits of cutting emissions to keep the global temperature rise to within 2 degrees Celsius by
2100, a level which scientists say would avoid the worst effects of climate change.

It found 20 to 65 percent of the adverse impacts by the end of this century could be avoided.
"Our research clearly identifies the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - less severe
impacts on flooding and crops are two areas of particular benefit," said Nigel Arnell, director of the
University of Reading's Walker Institute, which led the study.
In 2010, governments agreed to curb emissions to keep temperatures from rising above 2 degrees C, but
current emissions reduction targets are on track to lead to a temperature rise of 4 degrees or more
by 2100.
The World Bank has warned more extreme weather will become the "new normal" if global
temperature rises by 4 degrees.
Extreme heatwaves could devastate areas from the Middle East to the United States, while sea
levels could rise by up to 91 cm (3 feet), flooding cities in countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh,
the bank has said.
The latest research involved scientists from British institutions including the University of Reading, the
Met Office Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, as well as Germany's Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research.
It examined a range of emissions-cut scenarios and their impact on factors including flooding,
drought, water availability and crop productivity. The strictest scenario kept global temperature rise to
2 degrees C with emissions peaking in 2016 and declining by 5 percent a year to 2050.
FLOODING
Adverse effects such as declining crop productivity and exposure to river flooding could be reduced
by 40 to 65 percent by 2100 if warming is limited to 2 degrees, the study said.
Global average sea level rise could be reduced to 30cm (12 inches) by 2100, compared to 47-55cm
(18-22 inches) if no action to cut emissions is taken, it said.
Some adverse climate impacts could also be delayed by many decades. The global productivity of spring
wheat could drop by 20 percent by the 2050s, but the fall in yield could be delayed until 2100 if strict
emissions curbs were enforced.
"Reducing greenhouse gas emissions won't avoid the impacts of climate change altogether of course,
but our research shows it will buy time to make things like buildings, transport systems and
agriculture more resilient to climate change," Arnell said.

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

Solvency
Offshore wind can power all of America
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 12
[BOEM, last cited NREL Technical report form 2012, BOEM, Offshore Wind Energy,
http://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy-program/renewable-energy-guide/offshore-wind-energy.aspx,
accessed 6-27-14, CLF]
Offshore wind turbines are being used by a number of countries to harness the energy of strong,
consistent winds that are found over the oceans. In the United States, 53% of the nations population
lives in coastal areas, where energy costs and demands are high and land-based renewable energy
resources are often limited. Abundant offshore wind resources have the potential to supply
immense quantities of renewable energy to major U.S. coastal cities, such as New York City and
Boston.
Offshore winds tend to blow harder and more uniformly than on land. The potential energy produced
from wind is directly proportional to the cube of the wind speed. As a result, increased wind speeds of
only a few miles per hour can produce a significantly larger amount of electricity. For instance, a
turbine at a site with an average wind speed of 16 mph would produce 50% more electricity than at a site
with the same turbine and average wind speeds of 14 mph. This is one reason that developers are
interested in pursuing offshore wind energy resources. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) provides a
number of maps showing average wind speed data through its Resource Assessment &
Characterization page and through National Renewable Energy Laboratorys (NREL)MapSearch.
Wind resource potential is typically given in gigawatts (GW), and1 GW of wind power will supply
between 225,000 to 300,000 average U.S. homes with power annually. In a July 2012 Technical
Report, NREL estimates a gross wind power resource of 4,223 GW off the coast of the United States.
That is roughly four times the generating capacity of the current U.S. electric grid. Even if only a
fraction of that potential is developed, clearly there is enough offshore wind resource to power a
substantial portion of our nations energy needs.

Long term incentive program ensures development federal support jumpstarts the
industry
Gallucci, InsideClimate News,clean economy reporter, 11
[Maria, 10-10-11, Truth Out Loud org, Never-Used Tax Credit Could Jumpstart US Offshore Wind
Energyif Renewed, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111108/offshore-wind-energy-deepwaterbluewater-rhode-island-delaware-investment-tax-credit, accessed 6-25-14, AZ]
Congress is considering overhauling a never-used tax credit for offshore wind energy instead of letting it
expire at the end of next year, as was originally scheduled.

The U.S. still doesn't have a single turbine in its waterscompared to the 1,250 turbines spinning at
nearly 50 offshore wind farms in Europe. Several U.S. industry leaders and analysts told InsideClimate
News this is unlikely to change unless the untapped incentive is renewed.
The tax break, available since 2009, gives offshore wind developers a credit worth 30 percent their project
costs if they begin construction by 2012. It was meant to help the dozen or so proposed wind parks get off
the ground after the credit markets seized up.
But no wind developer has been able to take advantage of it because they don't have approvals
required under federal law to start building. An uncertain permitting process in Washington has left
projects in regulatory limbo for as much as a decade.
In part due to the permitting snags, "no bank has stood up and said they'll finance offshore wind" in the
U.S., said Peter Mandelstam, founder and president of NRG Bluewater Wind, a subsidiary of New Jersey
power producer NRG Energy.
NRG Bluewater is now one of a handful offshore wind developers that's literally banking on Congress to
preserve the tax credit as the Obama administration moves faster to approve projects. His firm has been
trying to build a $1 billion-plus, 450-megawatt wind park off the coast of Delaware for five years now.
Strong and steady winds at sea can generate more carbon-free electricity than wind blowing on land, but
offshore turbines are expensiveat least 50 percent more to build than those on land.
Our project is "not financeable" without a government kickstart, Mandelstam said.
Capping Megawatts, Scrapping End Dates
A new bipartisan bill, introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate, would keep the credit without any
penalty for offshore permitting hiccups. And it would do so by scrapping the subsidy's expiration date and
offering the same tax break for building America's first 3,000 megawattshowever long that takes
enough to power more than one million typical U.S. homes. (The U.S. has nearly 43,500 megawatts of
installed wind capacity, second behind China and all from turbines on land.)
Capping megawatts, rather than setting a cutoff date, ensures that developers "are not under the gun in
making it through a regulatory process that we largely do not control," said Jeffrey Grybowski, chief
administrative officer at Providence, R.I.-based Deepwater Wind. The wind developer has proposed
building three 1,000-megawatt wind parks along the Atlantic Coast and a 30-megawatt demonstration
installation, known as Block Island, off Rhode Island.
"No project has made it into construction in the United States, so we are still very much uncertain about
how long the regulatory process will take us all," he said.
Cape Wind might be the most famous example of the industry's regulatory mess. The 130-turbine wind
farm in Nantucket Sound, Mass., still bears its ten-year-old tagline "America's First Wind Farm," though
many doubt if it will live up to its name.
Despite landing a "power purchase" agreement last year with the regional utility National Grid to buy half
of Cape Wind's electricityand becoming the first project to get all of its federal permits in January in
the face of powerful local oppositionit continues to be saddled with regulatory woes. Most recently, a
federal appeals court overturned the Federal Aviation Administration's conclusion that the turbines pose
no threat to planes.

Other projects, like NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park, may fare better on the regulatory front in the
end, experts say.
NRG Bluewater lined up a buyer for half its electricity in 2008, though getting all its permits is still a few
years away. Nor has NRG Bluewater raised enough money from private investors, whose participation is
key in covering the 70 percent financing gap left by the tax credit.
Matt Kaplan, a North American wind analyst at IHS Emerging Energy Research, said removing the
tax credit's end date could help lure investors by guaranteeing the government's support even if
projects gets held up by bureaucracy or politics.
"Having a long-term incentive for offshore wind would help ... investors to feel a bit more
comfortable with knowing what they can expect out of these projects," he said.
But even if the bill passes Congress, attracting financing will remain a challenge for never-before-seen
wind farms in America, said Amy Grace, a North American wind analyst with Bloomberg New Energy
Finance. Most financiers prefer to invest only after the first generation of projects proves successful, she
said. "Most banks want to be the first to invest in your second project."
Still, the subsidy gives the industry at least a shot, she said. "The tax credit won't guarantee investment
in the industry. But not having the tax credit will guarantee no investment in the industry."
Why The Legislation May Have a Chance
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) introduced the Senate bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in July, in part
to support NRG Bluewater's planned Delaware wind park.
Carper, who chairs the Senate finance committee, said last month that he would meet with all six Senate
members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to discuss the bill. The panel is tasked with
creating a plan to curb $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit by Thanksgiving. Clean energy
supporters in Congress have appealed to committee members in recent months to secure or extend
tax credits for cleantech manufacturing and R&D.
In the House, Reps. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) have proposed a companion bill
that they say would help a 25-megawatt project by Fishermen's Energy get built off New Jersey's
coastline.
The 3,000-megawatt incentive would cost the U.S. Treasury roughly $1.5 billion, according to
estimates provided to InsideClimate News by Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind
Development Coalition, a lobbying group. The current tax credit, which the federal stimulus
approved in 2009 for offshore and land-based wind, geothermal, biomass and other clean energy
projects, costs roughly $3 billion.
Grybowski of Rhode Island's Deepwater said he's optimistic the investment tax credit will be approved by
Congress, despite the ideological resistance from some Republicans to continue Obama's green energy
subsidies in the wake of the collapse of solar firm Solyndra, which received a $535 million federal loan.
"We have lots of strong support on both sides of the aisle," he said.
One possible reason is that payments to the large-scale projects won't begin for five years. "We think it
will take 10 years before those first 3,000 [megawatts] are used up," explained Lanard. He and other
advocates of the bills hope this will sway a spending-averse Congress to okay the measure.

Another selling point is jobs. Mandelstam of NRG Bluewater said the first 200 megawatts of its
Delaware project would create 500 construction and supply chain jobs over three yearsa point he
aims to drive home to lawmakers.
According to the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Obama administration's
goal to deploy 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity in the next decade and 54,000 megawatts by
2030, would create more than 43,000 permanent jobs and generate around $200 billion in new economy
activity.
A large chunk of that growth would come from luring global turbine and equipment manufacturers
to set up shop along the Atlantic Coast, developers say. Lanard noted that making one offshore wind
turbine requires some 8,000 parts from hundreds of different companies.
Mandelstam, who also heads the offshore group of the American Wind Energy Association, said he often
plays "matchmaker" between European manufacturers and legislators and governors in coastal states, in
an effort to entice them to open factories in the U.S. But manufacturers aren't likely to follow until
turbines are out at sea, he said. "The supply chain will follow the projects."
Along with creating jobs, a domestic network of suppliers and skilled technicians could significantly
cut the cost of building an offshore wind farm in the U.S., which right now "is higher than it would be
for a comparable project in northern Europe, where there's a developed supply chain," Deepwater's
Grybowski said.
Who Will Build the First Offshore Wind Farm?
Meanwhile, the race to build America's first floating wind farm is on. At this point Deepwater's proposed
30-megawatt Block Island demo installation off Rhode Island appears to be leadingin part because it
doesn't need government financing.
The tax credit is "less critical for the Block Island wind farm because it is a smaller project," Grybowski
said. The project, which includes an underwater network of transmission cables to carry electricity from
wind turbines to the mainland, is expected to cost around $250 million. Permits could be wrapped up by
2013, and the turbines, which would produce enough power for 12,000 homes on the island, could go up
that same year.
"We are confident that we will have a financing package in place to allow the project to proceed,"
Grybowski said. But for larger wind farms, he added, federal support is "critical."
For now it's still anyone's guess which utility-scale wind part will be up and running firstand by when.
If the tax credit is extended, the first payments for big projects would likely be dispensed in five years or
later and divvied up among the leadersCape Wind, NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park and
Deepwater's trio of 1,000-megawatt projects.
Cape Wind and NRG Bluewater are the furthest along. NRG Bluewater says it expects to wrap up all the
necessary permitting by 2014. It could sign a lease even sooner from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), which is expected to start leasing blocks off the coasts of Delaware, New Jersey,
Maryland and Virginia by the end of this year. (The developer is also seeking to build an additional 2,000
megawatts off Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.)

Theoretically, winds blowing off the Atlantic Coast's Outer Continental Shelf could provide more than
1,000 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power 800 million average homes. But it's not just the Atlantic
states that are vying for offshore renewable energy.
Ohio wants to build a 20-megawatt demo on Lake Erie. Off the coast of Galveston, Tex., developer
Coastal Point Energy is proposing a 12-megawatt project. It suffered a setback this summer after utility
Austin Energy turned down the developer's proposal for a power purchase agreement. Eventually, Coastal
Point hopes to build 300 megawatts at the site and 2,100 more megawatts throughout the area.
The key for the entire U.S. offshore wind industry will be consistent government support, say the
developers. "Stability in tax and regulatory policies will go a long way toward helping this industry
develop in the United States," Grybowski said.

Strong federal mandate is key to development an aggressive mandate overcomes

barriers blocking development
Schroeder, University of California-Berkeley, School of Law JD, 10
[Erica, October 2010, University of Cal, Berkeley, School of Law, Turning Offshore
Wind On, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1069&context=californialawreview, p.1, AAZ]
Both state and federal governments share control over offshore wind project siting approval and
permitting. Geography determines the jurisdiction of each: state governments control their respective
Coastal Zones, from the baseline of their shores out three nautical miles, n92 and the federal government
controls the Outer Continental Shelf beyond that. n93 Offshore wind turbines are typically located on the
Outer Continental Shelf; n94 thus, the federal government sites and permits this component of an
offshore wind project. n95 To get the electricity to consumers on land, however, offshore wind projects
must necessarily include transmission lines from the turbines, through state waters and onto land. State
governments control the siting and permitting of these [*1643] transmission lines. n96 Both federal and
state jurisdiction are described in more detail later, along with the CZMA. The CZMA provides the
primary mechanisms for balancing state and federal interests in coastal waters. n97 It leaves states
with substantial discretionary power and no federal mandate regarding offshore wind power
development, despite its undertones of environmental protection.
A. Federal Jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction begins more than three nautical miles from the shore, along the Outer Continental
Shelf, and ends two hundred nautical miles out to sea. n98 Analyses of offshore wind capacity typically
assume that wind farms will be built in federal waters, more than five miles from the coast. n99 Thus,
federal jurisdiction covers the generation component of an offshore wind project, mainly the turbines.
n100 This includes site approval and permitting for project construction. n101
Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 grants the Department of the Interior (DOI) primary
authority over offshore wind farm approval and permitting. n102 Section 388 specifies that the Minerals
Management Service (MMS), a branch of DOI, controls the offshore wind facility permitting process; the
Secretary of the Interior makes the final permitting decision. n103 This grant of authority extends MMS's
existing authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which gives it management

rights over the Outer Continental Shelf primarily for offshore fossil fuel extraction. n104 Because of
MMS's experience with managing offshore oil and gas extraction, Congress deemed it the proper body for
offshore wind permitting as well. n105 Opponents of the decision have been concerned with MMS's lack
of experience with marine habitat regulation and protection. n106 Fortunately, MMS appears receptive to
coordinating with other agencies with relevant experience, like the Army Corps of Engineers, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Coast Guard, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency, as
well [*1644] as appropriate state actors. n107
Section 388 came in response to controversy over which federal agency had permitting authority during
the early stages of the Cape Wind project, which is described in more detail in Part IV. While Section 388
does not resolve all of the issues relating to federal jurisdiction over offshore wind, n108 its designation
of MMS as the primary permitting agency marks Congress's first step toward a unified review process for
offshore alternative energy. n109 Nonetheless, the current federal regulatory environment for offshore
wind remains confusing. In April 2009, President Obama took a first step toward remedying some of that
confusion by announcing a coordinated program, headed by DOI, for federal offshore renewable energy
permitting. The program will cover not only offshore wind power generation, but also other offshore
renewable energy, such as electricity generated from ocean currents. n110 Despite this progress toward an
improved federal regulatory program, barriers to offshore wind power still exist, largely due to the
absence of a strong and effective federal mandate promoting offshore wind power development and
the powers that states retain over project siting. n111
B. State Jurisdiction
Under the Submerged Lands Act, state jurisdiction generally covers ocean territory three miles or less
from the coast, n112 an area known as the Coastal Zone. n113 As noted previously, any electricity
generated in an offshore facility must be transmitted to land through the state controlled Coastal Zone.
Therefore, state - and sometimes local - authorities ultimately have a role to play in any offshore wind
project through the siting and permitting of transmission cables that are necessary to bring electricity from
the turbines to land. Although state and localities may only exert direct control over the permitting of
transmission cables, they will almost certainly consider the impact of the generation turbines on their
aesthetic view environment. They know that denying transmission permits effectively stalls or destroys
the construction of generation facilities. States will also likely consider such [*1645] aesthetic and
environmental considerations in the federal consistency review process, with which they may also block
federal activities and permits. n114 Federal consistency review is a component of the CZMA, and will be
described in more detail below.
Because most of the costs of offshore wind power development are local, there is a strong argument for
state and local control over offshore wind project siting: because localities must deal with the downsides
of offshore wind projects, they should control where those projects are placed. n115 On the other hand,
there are broader, positive effects of offshore wind power development - such as energy security
improvement and environmental benefits like climate change mitigation - that imply a need for
stronger federal intervention to balance appropriately the costs and benefits of offshore wind. n116 The
CZMA attempts to provide a formal structure for such balancing, but it ultimately leaves the states
with too much power, and the federal government and offshore wind farm proponents with no formal
federal encouragement or support.
C. The Coastal Zone Management Act: Attempting to Reconcile Local Interests with National Priorities
The overarching goal of the CZMA is "to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or
enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations." n117 The CZMA

mentions the development of energy facilities in the Coastal Zone, but its language is vague, and
generally requires only that states undertake "adequate consideration of the national interest" in siting
energy facilities, and "give consideration" to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program.
n118 The CZMA also mentions energy with regard to funding for development: "The national objective
of attaining a greater degree of energy self-sufficiency would be advanced by providing Federal financial
assistance to meet state and local needs resulting from new or expanded energy activity in or affecting the
coastal zone." n119 However, the CZMA does not mention offshore wind energy or renewable energy
at all.
Although the CZMA acknowledges the "national interest in the effective management, beneficial use,
protection, and development of the coastal zone," n120 it allows states substantial discretion over their
coastal zone management through CZMPs, which the Secretary of Commerce oversees. n121 As noted
previously, the Submerged Lands Act defines state coastal zones as [*1646] three miles from the
shoreline. n122 The CZMA mechanism of federal consistency review extends state power further, past
their coastal zones, by allowing states to review and sometimes overrule federal actions and permits in
federal waters. n123
Before the CZMA was promulgated, the coastal zone had long been subject to decentralized management.
n124 The CZMA continues this tradition with its own approach to federalism, explicitly encouraging
cooperation between local, state, and federal levels of government in their management of coastal
resources. n125 Specifically, under the CZMA, each state makes its own CZMP. n126 The CZMA
provides a variety of policy considerations for states to incorporate into their management
programs. Prioritizing construction of certain facilities, specifically energy facilities, in states' coastal
zones is one of several listed considerations. n127 Others include protecting natural resources;
minimizing the loss of life and property to flooding and sea level rise; improving coastal water quality;
allowing public recreational access to the coast; restoring urban waterfronts and preserving coastal
features; coordinating and simplifying governmental management procedures for coastal resources;
consulting and coordinating with federal agencies; giving timely and effective notice for public and
local participation in governmental decision making; comprehensive planning for marine resource
preservation; and studying sea level rise and land subsidence. n128 The Secretary of Commerce examines
states' CZMPs, making sure they are in accordance with the CZMA's policy considerations and other
mandates, and any other federal regulations. n129 In particular, the CZMA requires that states adequately
consider the national interest in "siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of greater than local
significance. In the case of energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the State has given consideration
to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program." n130 Once approved by the Secretary of
Commerce, however, state CZMPs are subject to very little federal constraint under the CZMA, leaving
states with nearly complete discretion within their coastal zones.
State control is expanded by federal consistency review, n131 a mechanism unique to the CZMA.
Consistency review allows a state to review a federal agency activity or permit within or outside of the
coastal zone for compatibility [*1647] with the state's CZMP when the activity or permit affects the state's
coastal zone. n132 Under this mechanism, the federal agency must submit a "consistency determination"
(for an activity) or "consistency certification" (for a permit) to the state before moving forward with the
project. n133 For federal permits, which would be more relevant to offshore renewable development than
federal actions, the state then has the opportunity to concur with or object to the agency's certification.
n134 "No license or permit shall be granted by the Federal agency until the state ... has concurred with the
applicant's certification." n135 Thus, a coastal state's control extends beyond its own coastal zone into
federal waters, as it has the ability to review - and potentially block - any project that affects their coastal
zone. In the end, however, the Secretary of Commerce - by her own initiative or in response to an appeal -

can overrule the state's protest by finding that a permit is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or
otherwise in the interest of national security. n136
Since the passage of the CZMA in 1972 until March 2010, states had filed 141 appeals with the Secretary
protesting federal permits affecting their coastal zones. n137 States settled their issues with the federal
government in 64 instances, or 45 percent of these cases. n138 The Secretary dismissed or overrode state
appeals in 32 instances, or 23 percent of these cases. n139 Of the remaining 45 appeals that the Secretary
considered for their substance, the Secretary overrode the state's objection in 14 cases, or 31 percent of
the time, and accepted the state's objection in 30 cases, or 67 percent of the time. n140 Only 19 of the 45
appeals related to energy facilities, but all of these related to oil or natural gas projects; the Secretary
overrode these appeals about half of the time. n141 Although states do not choose to use their federal
consistency review power over federal permits frequently, as these numbers show, it is nonetheless a
powerful tool that extends their power beyond their coastal zones.
Ultimately, the CZMA, with its focus on decentralized, state control over coastal-zone management,
leaves the federal government and offshore wind proponents with minimal recourse in their
struggle to develop offshore wind [*1648] projects. The CZMA allows states near-complete control over
their coastal zones through their CZMPs, with almost no role for the federal government in promoting
offshore wind energy (or any kind of renewable energy). Because electricity transmission lines must
necessarily run through states' coastal zones to reach consumers, states therefore have significant control
over offshore wind projects. Through federal consistency review, their direct control can even extend into
federal waters; though states have not often employed this process, the Secretary of Commerce has
seemed willing to give them some deference when they do. Given a policy of such strong local control,
and the absence of a firm federal mandate for offshore wind power development, local interests
have been able to stall both federal and state permitting processes, often through litigation.
Proponents of offshore wind have little federal support, and no guaranteed source of state support, on
which to rely. Cape Wind presents a compelling and frustrating illustration of this problem.

Federal preemptions solves current regulatory system avoids delay and still
maintains environmental regulations
Eberhardt, Harvard JD, 6
[Robert W., 2006, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl.
L.J. 374, FEDERALISM AND THE SITING OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
FACILITIES, p.1, Lexis, AAZ]
Changes to regulatory regimes that govern the use of submerged lands likely will play a central role in
state policy development on offshore wind energy. Apart from withholding approval of proposed
amendments to a state's coastal management program, the federal government has limited recourse
under current law to prevent states from adopting overly-restrictive siting policies that provide for
inadequate consideration of positive interstate spillovers such as air quality improvements or
greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The coordination problems and international dimensions of climate
change present particularly acute theoretical concerns about the ability of states to implement welfaremaximizing policies. n185 Accordingly, federal legislation may be required to insure full

consideration of the environmental benefits promised by would-be developers of offshore wind energy
facilities.
States generally have demonstrated an ability to consider horizontal spillovers in their policies towards
offshore wind energy that cuts against calls for federal legislative action at this time. New York has taken
the particularly aggressive step of actively participating in the development process of the Long Island
Offshore Wind Farm, and notwithstanding the controversy surrounding Cape Wind, legislative proposals
in Massachusetts leave open the possibility of development of offshore wind energy [*418] facilities in
state waters. n186 New Jersey's approach, which has included a temporary moratorium on development,
raises concerns, but final judgment must be reserved until the state's Blue Ribbon Panel on Development
of Wind Turbine Facilities in Coastal Waters has issued its final recommendations and the political
branches have responded. n187 Furthermore, the general posture of state and federal climate change
policies does not indicate that coordination problems dissuade state action on climate change generally.
n188 On the contrary, if anything the states poised to host offshore wind energy facilities in the near
future have been more aggressive than the federal government in attempts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. n189
In the future, if states definitively show inattention to positive horizontal spillovers, then Congress
should consider legislation on offshore wind energy facilities that preempts state regulation of
submerged lands. Section 311 of the EPAct of 2005, which addresses siting of liquefied natural gas
("LNG") terminals, represents one model for future legislation that has garnered recent congressional
support. Section 311 provides that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") "shall have the
exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation
of an LNG terminal." n190 This language likely preempts more restrictive state health, safety, or
welfare laws that regulate siting or construction of LNG facilities, although Section 311 explicitly
reserves the rights afforded to states under several federal environmental laws (including the
CZMA) and provides states with opportunities to consult with FERC on safety concerns related to
pending applications. n191
Section 311 clearly illustrates the ability for federal legislation to strip states of regulatory authority given
sufficient political support at the national level. The uniform regulatory regimes that result from such
federal action provide for less geographic [*419] variation in environmental preferences, but they
have a theoretical basis if they address failures by states to consider positive horizontal spillovers. If
states fail to adequately consider positive spillovers that potentially result from offshore wind energy
facilities, federal legislation akin to Section 311 would be justified.
Conclusion
The growing general interest in wind energy development and the dispute surrounding Cape Wind has
spurred considerable commentary and legislative activity that stands to shape the extent and direction of
offshore wind energy development in the United States. There will be additional opportunities to evaluate
theoretical assumptions underlying the environmental regulation of this promising clean energy
technology as policies continue to mature through future legislative and administrative activity and as
sponsors seek approval to develop additional projects. In this dynamic context, this Note attempts to
begin a discussion about how issues of federalism will influence and should inform the environmental
regulation of offshore wind energy development. As a descriptive matter, states in the short term will
continue to play a central role in determining which projects ultimately obtain the necessary regulatory
approvals. As a normative matter, a prominent state role is theoretically justified (at least for near-shore
projects), on the basis of a generalized analysis of the environmental impacts expected to result from
offshore wind energy projects. However, important environmental impacts - reductions in air

pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, in particular - that may result from offshore wind energy
projects provide strong justifications for federal oversight, particularly in the event that states fail to
consider out-of-state environmental benefits as they design regulatory regimes and make siting decisions.
In light of these claims, the federal government should adopt policies that encourage siting decisions
that consider interstate spillovers while at the same time reflect individual coastal states' particular
environmental priorities. Federal agencies can implement such policies in the context of the
Department of the Interior's imminent rulemaking pursuant to Section 388 of the EPAct of 2005,
although future federal legislation with preemptive effects ultimately may be necessary in the event
that the state regulatory regimes develop that fail to consider positive interstate spillovers.

On-Case

Inherency

Regulatory Reforms Necessary

Status quo doesnt solve too many regulations prevent plan from being effective
Puliafico, Ullian & Associates Lawyer, 12
[Amy, 2011, Suffolk University Law School, Offshore Wind: What Steps Need to be
Taken to Ensure it has a Future in America,
https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/jhtl_publications/pulicafico.pdf , Accessed 6-30-14, CX, Page
364]
The first issue with the current federal regulatory scheme is the lack of uniformity and clarity of
procedure and policy across the government branches and agencies. According to the Department of
Energy, there are at least six other government organizations with policies on wind siting. The
Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers are the key players involved in the process. The sheer amount of agencies with an opinion and
regulatory authority over offshore wind creates a complicated problem. In addition to the agencies and
departments, other federal opinions have a significant impact on wind energy development. President
Obama, in his 2011 State of the Union address, made green energy a priority. He set an ambitious goal of
producing eighty percent of Americas electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. In order to achieve
that goal, there will need to be a clear government permitting and development plan for this type of
energy. As a first step the Department of the Interior and the Department of Energy signed a
Memorandum of Understanding in June 2010. The agreement focuses on commercialscale offshore wind
energy and provides the outline for a working relationship so the departments can develop it efficiently.
Noticeably absent from the discussion is Congress. There is currently no federal legislation governing
offshore wind energy development. Cape Wind proves that Congress needs to enact a regulatory
scheme including an affirmative statement by Congress of its position on offshore wind energy
development, a defined coordinate permitting procedure... and an expedited regulatory process for
future projects. There are too many agencies with divergent objectives currently; Congress needs to
outline the federal governments role and policies.

Status quo wind policy fails we need streamlined permitting and leasing process
Puliafico, Ullian & Associates Lawyer, 12
[Amy, 2011, Suffolk University Law School, Offshore Wind: What Steps Need to be
Taken to Ensure it has a Future in America,
https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/jhtl_publications/pulicafico.pdf , Accessed 6-30-14, CX, Page
361]
Cape Wind has somehow overcome ten years of litigation and found its way through unchartered state
and federal permitting process to become the nations first permitted offshore wind farm. Hopefully this
tumultuous process will provide the motivation and incentive to fix the system. Currently there is no

real permitting or leasing process, which is slowing down the development of this green energy.
States need to develop ocean plans with designated areas for offshore green energy, along with a
concise system of permitting with clear standards and process for judicial review. The federal
government has attempted many of these suggestions through the Department of the Interiors Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management. If the BOEM continues to become more efficient and begins to speak for the
rest of the government agencies, as well as the President and Congress, then progress will be likely.
Finally states need to work with the federal government and each other in an efficient manner.
Offshore wind farms can become a prominent future in the United States if the government makes
the changes to keep up with this new technology.

AT Enough Wind Now

Offshore wind has yet to take roots in the U.S.

Wald, New York Times Energy Reporter, Cardwell, New York Times Business and
energy reporter, 14
(Matthew & Diane, 5-7-14, NYT, U.S. Awards 3 Wind Power Grants,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/business/energy-environment/us-awards-3-wind-power-grants.html?
_r=0, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)
The long-promised potential of offshore wind development along American coastlines took a step toward
fruition on Wednesday as the Department of Energy pledged up to $47 million each to three projects it
previously supported.
The grants are intended to help the projects, off the coasts of New Jersey, Oregon and Virginia, begin
delivering electricity by 2017.
Offshore wind offers a large, untapped energy resource for the United States that can create
thousands of manufacturing, construction and supply chain jobs across the country and drive
billions of dollars in local economic investment, Ernest J. Moniz, the energy secretary, said in a
statement.
The announcement represents the next phase of an Energy Department push to invigorate the industry by
promoting innovation to help bring the cost of offshore wind power into line with that of conventional
electricity production.
It came on the same day that Siemens said it would move the headquarters of its power-generating
operations to the United States, not only to capitalize on the booming oil and gas industries but also with
an eye on the potential growth of the offshore wind industry.
Far more advanced in Europe, the harnessing of offshore wind has yet to take root in the United
States. It has been stymied by engineering, permitting and financing challenges, as well as political
and community opposition in some corners.

AT Cape Wind Solves

Cap Wind is not enough to solve affonly power 10,000 homes in Massachusetts
BOEM, Ocean Management Governmental Organization, 13*
(BOEM, 2013*, BOEM, Cape Wind, http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Studies/CapeWind.aspx, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)
The project footprint will occupy approximately 25 square miles of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
and consist of 130, 3.6 megawatt (MW) wind turbine generators mounted on monopole foundations, each
with a maximum blade height of 440 feet. The total capacity of the project is 468 MWs, and with an
average anticipated output of 183MW, is projected to generate 1,600 gigawatt-hours/year. At average
expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough energy to power tens of thousands of homes
in Massachusetts. Each of the wind turbine generators will generate electricity independently, and solid
dielectric inner-array cables will funnel the electricity from each wind turbine generator to an electrical
service platform located in the middle of the array. The electrical service platform will collect all of the
power and send it to a landfall location in the Town of Yarmouth, Massachusetts via two 115 kV
submarine transmission cables. The electricity generated from the project will help satisfy demand in
Massachusetts and other New England States. In fact, the average expected production from the wind
facility could provide about 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod and the Islands of
Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket. The renewable energy generated from the project also will assist in
satisfying the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires a certain percentage of total
State electricity generation to come from renewable energy resources.
[NOTE *Last Date Cited]

Solvency

Certainty
Uncertain federal support is the only thing holding offshore wind back-plan solves
investment
Mahan, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy renewable energy manager, et al., 10
[Simon, Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana senior campaign director, Isaac Pearlman, Oceana climate campaign
intern, 9-10, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can Deliver Cleaner, More Affordable Energy and More
Jobs Than Offshore Oil, http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report__Final_1.pdf, p. 5, accessed 6-30-14, AKS]

Renewable energy projects and manufacturers are more likely to proceed if there are consistent,
predictable signals from governments and private markets to stimulate investments. Over the past several
decades, onshore wind energy in the United States has periodically had access to tax benefits.
Unfortunately, these have been short-term commitments, renewed annually, which provide inadequate
assurance to those considering long-term investments. When these renewals end, the industry will likely
constrict. As a result, fewer planned projects have been completed than what might otherwise occur with
a more consistent signal from the government.106 This boom-and-bust, year-to-year uncertainty harms
the onshore wind industry and must not be allowed to extend offshore. In order to create a consistent and
predictable environment for offshore wind energy, the United States must:
Increase and make permanent the tax credit for investment in advanced energy property outlined in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. This legislation extends the 30 percent credit for
investment in qualified property used in a qualified advanced energy manufacturing project, but ends in
2012.107 In addition,, these tax credits should be extended to manufacturers of offshore wind turbine
components and turbine installation vessels.
Increase and make permanent the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program for opening,
expanding or modernizing facilities to manufacture offshore wind turbine components and extend this
program to turbine installation vessel manufacturing.
Use policy mechanisms that increase the long-term demand for and supply of renewable energies, such as
a robust Renewable Electricity Standard or Feed-in Tariffs, Production and Investment Tax Credits, Loan
Guarantee programs for renewable energy projects and technology manufacturers and training programs.
Accelerate the electrification of the transportation fleet through incentives to automobile manufacturers
and purchasers and by building the needed infrastructure such as charging stations to allow maximal use
of this new technology.

Regulatory Reform
Empirically, regulatory processes with offshore wind energy are flawed
Powell, Boston University Law School JD Candidate, 13
(Timothy, 2013, REVISITING FEDERALISM CONCERNS IN THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
INDUSTRY IN LIGHT OF CONTINUED LOCAL OPPOSITION TO THE CAPE WIND PROJECT,
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume92n4/documents/POWELL.pdf Pg.
2053, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

The experience of Cape Wind has demonstrated that the current regulatory scheme for offshore
wind energy is flawed. The policy of the federal government is to promote wind energy, and there is
great potential for offshore wind energy development throughout the United States. Yet the test case
for U.S. offshore wind energy, to which the eyes of all potential developers are fixed, remains stuck in
regulatory limbo. The federal government, perhaps overeager in its approval of the Cape Wind
project at every turn, has found its decisions challenged aggressively by local opposition groups and
even in one instance overruled by the judiciary.
The proposal presented in this Note acknowledges the reality of the predominately local impact of
offshore wind facilities and suggests that the interests of potential developers and local citizens alike
would be better served with permitting power in the hands of the states instead of the federal
government. There is nothing intrinsic to this proposal that would lead to an increase in offshore wind
development. Indeed, the Cape Wind project itself may very well not be approved if Massachusetts
were to fully control the permitting process. But potential developers would face less uncertainty and
fewer wasted resources with permitting power vested in the states. State legislatures could craft their own
policies reflecting their citizens interests in pursuing offshore wind energy, allowing for more efficient
management of local opposition. Offshore wind energy developers, in turn, could choose among the
states that offer the most favorable environment for development. The result would be more
certainty surrounding the expected costs of development, and thus a more efficient allocation of the
nations offshore wind energy resources.

Tax Incentives
Long term incentive program ensures development federal support jumpstarts the
industry
Gallucci, InsideClimate News Clean Economy Reporter , 2011
[Maria, 10-10-11, Truth Out Loud org, Never-Used Tax Credit Could Jumpstart US Offshore Wind
Energyif Renewed, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111108/offshore-wind-energy-deepwaterbluewater-rhode-island-delaware-investment-tax-credit, accessed 6-25-14, AZ]

Congress is considering overhauling a never-used tax credit for offshore wind energy instead of letting it
expire at the end of next year, as was originally scheduled.
The U.S. still doesn't have a single turbine in its waterscompared to the 1,250 turbines spinning at
nearly 50 offshore wind farms in Europe. Several U.S. industry leaders and analysts told InsideClimate
News this is unlikely to change unless the untapped incentive is renewed.
The tax break, available since 2009, gives offshore wind developers a credit worth 30 percent their project
costs if they begin construction by 2012. It was meant to help the dozen or so proposed wind parks get off
the ground after the credit markets seized up.
But no wind developer has been able to take advantage of it because they don't have approvals
required under federal law to start building. An uncertain permitting process in Washington has left
projects in regulatory limbo for as much as a decade.
In part due to the permitting snags, "no bank has stood up and said they'll finance offshore wind" in the
U.S., said Peter Mandelstam, founder and president of NRG Bluewater Wind, a subsidiary of New Jersey
power producer NRG Energy.
NRG Bluewater is now one of a handful offshore wind developers that's literally banking on Congress to
preserve the tax credit as the Obama administration moves faster to approve projects. His firm has been
trying to build a $1 billion-plus, 450-megawatt wind park off the coast of Delaware for five years now.
Strong and steady winds at sea can generate more carbon-free electricity than wind blowing on land, but
offshore turbines are expensiveat least 50 percent more to build than those on land.
Our project is "not financeable" without a government kickstart, Mandelstam said.
Capping Megawatts, Scrapping End Dates
A new bipartisan bill, introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate, would keep the credit without any
penalty for offshore permitting hiccups. And it would do so by scrapping the subsidy's expiration date and
offering the same tax break for building America's first 3,000 megawattshowever long that takes
enough to power more than one million typical U.S. homes. (The U.S. has nearly 43,500 megawatts of
installed wind capacity, second behind China and all from turbines on land.)
Capping megawatts, rather than setting a cutoff date, ensures that developers "are not under the gun in
making it through a regulatory process that we largely do not control," said Jeffrey Grybowski, chief
administrative officer at Providence, R.I.-based Deepwater Wind. The wind developer has proposed

building three 1,000-megawatt wind parks along the Atlantic Coast and a 30-megawatt demonstration
installation, known as Block Island, off Rhode Island.
"No project has made it into construction in the United States, so we are still very much uncertain about
how long the regulatory process will take us all," he said.
Cape Wind might be the most famous example of the industry's regulatory mess. The 130-turbine wind
farm in Nantucket Sound, Mass., still bears its ten-year-old tagline "America's First Wind Farm," though
many doubt if it will live up to its name.
Despite landing a "power purchase" agreement last year with the regional utility National Grid to buy half
of Cape Wind's electricityand becoming the first project to get all of its federal permits in January in
the face of powerful local oppositionit continues to be saddled with regulatory woes. Most recently, a
federal appeals court overturned the Federal Aviation Administration's conclusion that the turbines pose
no threat to planes.
Other projects, like NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park, may fare better on the regulatory front in the
end, experts say.
NRG Bluewater lined up a buyer for half its electricity in 2008, though getting all its permits is still a few
years away. Nor has NRG Bluewater raised enough money from private investors, whose participation is
key in covering the 70 percent financing gap left by the tax credit.
Matt Kaplan, a North American wind analyst at IHS Emerging Energy Research, said removing the
tax credit's end date could help lure investors by guaranteeing the government's support even if
projects gets held up by bureaucracy or politics.
"Having a long-term incentive for offshore wind would help ... investors to feel a bit more
comfortable with knowing what they can expect out of these projects," he said.
But even if the bill passes Congress, attracting financing will remain a challenge for never-before-seen
wind farms in America, said Amy Grace, a North American wind analyst with Bloomberg New Energy
Finance. Most financiers prefer to invest only after the first generation of projects proves successful, she
said. "Most banks want to be the first to invest in your second project."
Still, the subsidy gives the industry at least a shot, she said. "The tax credit won't guarantee investment
in the industry. But not having the tax credit will guarantee no investment in the industry."
Why The Legislation May Have a Chance
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) introduced the Senate bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in July, in part
to support NRG Bluewater's planned Delaware wind park.
Carper, who chairs the Senate finance committee, said last month that he would meet with all six Senate
members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to discuss the bill. The panel is tasked with
creating a plan to curb $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit by Thanksgiving. Clean energy
supporters in Congress have appealed to committee members in recent months to secure or extend
tax credits for cleantech manufacturing and R&D.
In the House, Reps. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) have proposed a companion bill
that they say would help a 25-megawatt project by Fishermen's Energy get built off New Jersey's
coastline.

The 3,000-megawatt incentive would cost the U.S. Treasury roughly $1.5 billion, according to
estimates provided to InsideClimate News by Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind
Development Coalition, a lobbying group. The current tax credit, which the federal stimulus
approved in 2009 for offshore and land-based wind, geothermal, biomass and other clean energy
projects, costs roughly $3 billion.
Grybowski of Rhode Island's Deepwater said he's optimistic the investment tax credit will be approved by
Congress, despite the ideological resistance from some Republicans to continue Obama's green energy
subsidies in the wake of the collapse of solar firm Solyndra, which received a $535 million federal loan.
"We have lots of strong support on both sides of the aisle," he said.
One possible reason is that payments to the large-scale projects won't begin for five years. "We think it
will take 10 years before those first 3,000 [megawatts] are used up," explained Lanard. He and other
advocates of the bills hope this will sway a spending-averse Congress to okay the measure.
Another selling point is jobs. Mandelstam of NRG Bluewater said the first 200 megawatts of its
Delaware project would create 500 construction and supply chain jobs over three yearsa point he
aims to drive home to lawmakers.
According to the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Obama administration's
goal to deploy 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity in the next decade and 54,000 megawatts by
2030, would create more than 43,000 permanent jobs and generate around $200 billion in new economy
activity.
A large chunk of that growth would come from luring global turbine and equipment manufacturers
to set up shop along the Atlantic Coast, developers say. Lanard noted that making one offshore wind
turbine requires some 8,000 parts from hundreds of different companies.
Mandelstam, who also heads the offshore group of the American Wind Energy Association, said he often
plays "matchmaker" between European manufacturers and legislators and governors in coastal states, in
an effort to entice them to open factories in the U.S. But manufacturers aren't likely to follow until
turbines are out at sea, he said. "The supply chain will follow the projects."
Along with creating jobs, a domestic network of suppliers and skilled technicians could significantly
cut the cost of building an offshore wind farm in the U.S., which right now "is higher than it would be
for a comparable project in northern Europe, where there's a developed supply chain," Deepwater's
Grybowski said.
Who Will Build the First Offshore Wind Farm?
Meanwhile, the race to build America's first floating wind farm is on. At this point Deepwater's proposed
30-megawatt Block Island demo installation off Rhode Island appears to be leadingin part because it
doesn't need government financing.
The tax credit is "less critical for the Block Island wind farm because it is a smaller project," Grybowski
said. The project, which includes an underwater network of transmission cables to carry electricity from
wind turbines to the mainland, is expected to cost around $250 million. Permits could be wrapped up by
2013, and the turbines, which would produce enough power for 12,000 homes on the island, could go up
that same year.

"We are confident that we will have a financing package in place to allow the project to proceed,"
Grybowski said. But for larger wind farms, he added, federal support is "critical."
For now it's still anyone's guess which utility-scale wind part will be up and running firstand by when.
If the tax credit is extended, the first payments for big projects would likely be dispensed in five years or
later and divvied up among the leadersCape Wind, NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park and
Deepwater's trio of 1,000-megawatt projects.
Cape Wind and NRG Bluewater are the furthest along. NRG Bluewater says it expects to wrap up all the
necessary permitting by 2014. It could sign a lease even sooner from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), which is expected to start leasing blocks off the coasts of Delaware, New Jersey,
Maryland and Virginia by the end of this year. (The developer is also seeking to build an additional 2,000
megawatts off Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.)
Theoretically, winds blowing off the Atlantic Coast's Outer Continental Shelf could provide more than
1,000 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power 800 million average homes. But it's not just the Atlantic
states that are vying for offshore renewable energy.
Ohio wants to build a 20-megawatt demo on Lake Erie. Off the coast of Galveston, Tex., developer
Coastal Point Energy is proposing a 12-megawatt project. It suffered a setback this summer after utility
Austin Energy turned down the developer's proposal for a power purchase agreement. Eventually, Coastal
Point hopes to build 300 megawatts at the site and 2,100 more megawatts throughout the area.
The key for the entire U.S. offshore wind industry will be consistent government support, say the
developers. "Stability in tax and regulatory policies will go a long way toward helping this industry
develop in the United States," Grybowski said.

Current tax incentive inefficient new bill ensures certainty in development of

offshore industry and reaps economic gains
Marine Log, Americas most respected marine industry monthly, 10
[Marine Log, Senate move to promote offshore wind,
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2010mar00050.html, 6-25-14, AZ]

U.S. Senators Tom Carper (D-Del.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Susan
Collins (R-Maine) have introduced legislation to provide financial incentives for the investment and
production of offshore wind energy.
The Carper-Snowe-Brown-Collins Offshore Wind Bill provides the offshore wind industry with
enhanced stability by extending production and investment tax credits for offshore wind until 2020.
The senators say these provisions are vital because of the long lead times required to permit and
construct wind turbines offshore, compared to onshore wind energy.
Offshore wind includes any wind turbine located in the inland navigable waters of the United States,
including coastal waters and the Great Lakes.
"This legislation is essential to encourage the continued growth of this fledgling industry," said
Senator Carper. "Guaranteeing these tax incentives through 2020 will provide companies with the

certainty they need to plan for the long term and encourage further development even in these
challenging economic times. This support will allow companies like NRG Bluewater Wind to continue
to invest in clean, stable wind energy off our nation's shores in places like Delaware. Harnessing our
nation's offshore wind will give us reliable, clean energy; create good-paying American jobs in
manufacturing and construction; lower energy costs for consumers; and reduce harmful pollution that
damages our lungs and impacts our climate."
"Time after time we hear that our wind energy companies require certainty to invest in America's
renewable resources and the data reflects that consistent incentives expand renewable electricity
production in the United States," said Senator Snowe. "If we are to be serious about reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and developing clean energy jobs we must provide dependability and
consistency to tax policies that have a history of working. I appreciate Senator Carper's leadership in
developing this long-term offshore wind tax incentive and look forward to working with him to pass this
extension into law."
"Ohio's potential for offshore wind in Lake Erie is unparalleled," said Senator Brown. "With the right tax
incentives, Ohioians can power their homes with clean energy produced right here at home. Many Ohio
companies are already supplying components to the wind power industry. By increasing investments in
wind power, we are also promoting American manufacturing."
"I support efforts to find a low-cost way to support the offshore wind industry," said Senator Collins.
"This bill will help diversify America's energy supply, reduce our use of foreign oil and spur much-needed
job creation."
Proposed offshore wind projects moving through the development process include ventures in Delaware,
Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Projects have also been discussed off the shores of Maine and the Great
Lakes states.
In Delaware, NRG Bluewater Wind has estimated it will create 1,200 jobs during construction - and
approximately 300 jobs for operation and maintenance throughout the life of the project.

Current tax incentive programs are insufficient plan key to ensure tax incentives
result in Offshore Wind creation.
Shott, Senior Legislative Representative at National Wildlife Federation, No date
[Corey, no date, National Wildlife Federation, Incentivizing Offshore Wind A Wise Investment for Jobs,
Clean Air, Wildlife Protection and Energy Independence, http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/GlobalWarming/Offshore%20Wind/Incentivizing-Offshore-Wind-Fact-Sheet.pdf, 6-25-14, AZ]

One of the primary obstacles facing American offshore wind development is the inadequate and
inconsistent federal investment in key financial incentive programs for renewable energy. The
unique challenges of offshore wind energy - long investment time, infancy of the industry, and
higher initial project costs require longer term certainty of financial incentives. The 112th
Congress extended the offshore wind Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for projects that begin
construction before January 1, 2014, but action is needed to ensure longer term certainty of this

critical tax incentive in order to leverage the significant private investments that will be made to

launch this new job-creating clean energy industry in America.

Recognizing this challenge, Senators Carper (D-DE) and Collins (R-ME), and Congressmen
Pascrell (D-NJ) and LoBiondo (R-NJ), have introduced the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power
Act (S. 401 & H.R. 924) to provide a investment tax credit to the first movers in the offshore
wind industry. Extending the investment deadline will attract the financial support vital for
harnessing Americas abundant and untapped offshore wind capacity.
Modeled after a production tax credit for the nuclear power industry in the 2005 Energy
Policy Act, the legislation:
Provides a 30% tax credit on investment in offshore wind for the first 3,000 MW developed;

Would be applicable to projects sited in the inland navigable waters of the United States,
including the Great Lakes, or in the coastal waters of the United States, including the territorial
seas of the United States, the exclusive economic zone of United States, and the Outer Continental
Shelf of the United States;

Requires the Secretary of Treasury to consult the Secretaries of Energy and Interior when
establishing this credit; and
Prevents companies from receiving any other production or investment tax credits in addition to
the offshore wind investment tax credit. Once awarded a tax credit, companies have 5 years to
install a wind facility.
This legislation is exactly the kind of policy we need to move forward and make offshore wind
energy a reality in the United States.

Investment Credit Key to Long-term Industry

Investment tax credit ensures creation of industry only mechanism to solve
Coleman, Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Reporter, 14
[Zack, 3-7-14, Washington Examiner, Offshore wind lobbies for credit to keep industry from blowing
away, http://washingtonexaminer.com/offshore-wind-lobbies-for-credit-to-keep-industry-from-blowingaway/article/2545151, accessed 6-28-14, AAZ]

Companies looking to build an offshore wind industry are lobbying lawmakers to extend a key tax
incentive as a larger onshore wind credit faces congressional headwinds.
No wind power is currently generated off U.S. coasts, though the Obama administration is hoping to
change that. It already has proposed three commercial leases in Maryland, Virginia and Rhode Island.
More are likely on the way the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory says
U.S. coasts could yield 429,000 megawatts of offshore wind electricity. Electricity capacity totaled
roughly 1.1 million megawatts in 2011, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Locking up financing is another story. Without the tax credit, one industry source said, projects might
never come to fruition.
That's why the industry is pounding the marbled pavement of Capitol Hill in hopes of including a oneyear extension of an investment tax credit in a possible tax extenders package. The credit, which gives
developers up to 30 percent of the project cost in cash up front, expired last year.
The industry's boosters say they are being realistic. While they want a long-term extension, they know
the GOP is even reluctant to renew an onshore production tax credit.
Companies are trying to convince Republicans that the offshore credit, like the onshore one, is a
jobs issue.
The onshore credit has developed a constituency over two decades that includes Republicans. That's not
the case for the offshore industry, so its supporters say snagging a one-year extension might be the best
outcome.
Offshore industry sources say the upfront cash injection is necessary to meet offshore wind's high
capital costs. Supporters have pressed their case with staffers for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, DNev., and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
One industry source said it doesn't make sense to set up shop until the U.S. boasts an offshore
capacity of between 1,000 and 2,000 megawatts, which would require between 200 and 400 turbines.
That's a difficult milestone to reach without the investment tax credit, the source said.

AT Ocean Not Key

Offshore wind turbines are comparatively better than inland turbines
BirdLife International, the world's largest nature conservation partnership, 9
(Birdlife international, 2009, Birdlife international, Offshore wind farms are impacting seabirds and
migrating passerines, http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/289, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

There is a growing political impetus to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions. Wind power has
emerged as a leading renewable technology and is currently the fastest growing source of energy in
the world. By the end of 2008, wind turbines were satisfying more than 1.5 % of the worlds electricity
demand, generating 260 TWh annually (WWEA 2009).
In Europe, there has been a rapid proliferation of wind farms in the marine environment, which may
portend a global trend. Within European waters, there are currently some 160 offshore farms either
in operation, under construction or being planned. At the forefront of this expanding industry is the
United Kingdom with ten operational wind farms made up of 203 turbines, and plans for a further
7,000 turbines by 2020 (see figure). The United Kingdom, together with Germany, currently accounts for
around 60 percent of the global offshore wind market (WAB 2009). Although more costly than their
terrestrial counterparts, offshore wind farms have a number of advantages . Winds at sea tend to be
stronger and more consistent, and weighty turbine components are more easily transported at sea
permitting larger turbines to be constructed (European Commission 2008). In addition, offshore
wind farms typically encounter less resistance from local communities (Dolman et al. 2003).

Offshore wind specifically key cost effective, boosts jobs, and supercharges US
manufacturing sector.
Mahan, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Fellow, 12
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman AP, Jacqueline Savitz the Vice President for U.S. Oceans, 9-10, Oceana,
Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind can Deliver Cleaner, More Affordable Energy and More Jobs than
Offshore Oil, http://apexcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/OceanaOffshore_Wind_Report_9.1.10.pdf, 6-25-14, AZ]

Offshore wind energy has existed commercially for almost two decades and is uniquely positioned
to overcome obstacles faced by other renewable energy technology. Offshore wind farms can be
placed close to large populations where the need for clean electricity is highest. Bringing in
substantial amounts of clean, renewable energy to major population centers on the East Coast or in
the Great Lakes from landbased energy sources would require thousands of miles of electricity
transmission lines to be upgraded or built a process that could take decades, crisscross dozens of
states, and cost tens of billions of dollars.

Additionally, offshore winds are stronger and steadier than onshore winds; thus, more electricity is
generated and offshore wind energy is more consistent (less variable) than onshore wind farms. All
of these factors could expedite a transition to a clean energy economy, while at the same time reducing
electricity costs.
Offshore wind offers more than just clean electricity. It also can be a major source of jobs.
Manufacturing, installing, operating, and maintaining offshore wind farms can provide thousands
of local jobs in coastal states. These include positions that require unique engineering,
manufacturing and maritime expertise. For example, offshore wind production requires
oceanographic and ecological expertise. Experts in these fields would be needed to collect and analyze
data on areas of interest to offshore wind developers. New or retrofitted heavy manufacturing facilities
would need to be built in the United States to supply offshore turbines. Installing offshore turbines
also would require maritime expertise and ships, similar to those needed by the offshore oil and natural
gas industry. Specialized undersea cables would be needed to transmit electricity from the farm to the
shore. Manufacturing and installation needs in each of these areas these would createadditional
jobs. As a result, a variety of long-term jobs would be created by offshore wind energy development,
including electricians, meteorologists, welders, and operators among other general maintenance laborers.
Due to their size, offshore wind turbines (which currently tend to be much larger than onshore turbines)
must be built in coastal areas so that they can be shipped out to sea. Offshore turbines are too large to
transport by train or tractor trailer. Several European ports have been revitalized due to increased
investments in offshore wind in Europe and similar benefits could be achieved in the United States if the
U.S. begins to invest in this growing industry.

Offshore wind peak times correspond with peak demand

Burger, independent journalist, 12
[Andrew, 9-25-12, Triple Pundit, Atlantic Offshore Wind Turbines Can Power the Entire East Coast,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/09/atlantic-offshore-wind-turbines/ , accessed 6-25-14, AZ]

They found that offshore winds off the U.S. East Coast produce between 965-1,372-terawatt-hours
of electricity per year, enough to meet 1/3 of U.S. electricity demand, or all the power needs of the
entire East Coast, from Maine to Florida. The study, U.S. East Coast Offshore Wind Energy
Resources and Their Relationship to Peak-Time Electricity Demand, is available here.
In addition to adding significantly to the U.S. East Coast offshore wind power potential, the researchers
found that East Coast offshore wind energy peaks in the middle of the day. That coincides exactly
with peak power demands.
We knew there was a lot of wind out there, but this is the first actual quantification of the total
resource and the time of day that the resource peaks, commented Stanford University professor of
civil and environmental engineeering Mark Z. Jacobson, who directed the research project. This
provides practical information to wind farm developers about the best areas to place turbines.
Added research team member and recent Atmosphere/Energy PhD program graduate Mike Dvorak,
People mistakenly think that wind energy is not useful because output from most land-based turbines

peaks in the late evening/early morning, when electricity demand is low. The real value of offshore
wind energy is that it often peaks when we need the most electricity during the middle of the day.
Moreover, installing even this great a number of wind turbines off the U.S. East Coast neednt
compromise ocean vistas or threaten wildlife, according to the research team. In their analysis, the
researchers limited installations to just one-third of available shallow-water sites out to 30 meters
depth, with two-thirds of the remaining sites out to 200 meters depth.
Their analysis highlights the real possibility and multiple benefits that could be realized by developing
very large-scale offshore wind farms in Atlantic waters near major East Coast cities, such as Boston and
New York City. Connecting the power to the grid would be technically as easy as laying a cable in
the sand and hooking it directly into the grid without the need to build often controversial
transmission lines on the land, Dvorak said.

Offshore key US has a long coastline and quality wind

Todd, International Economic Development Council Economic Development
Associate, 13
[Jennifer, Jess Chen a research fellow and PhD candidate at American University, Frankie Clogston is an
IEDC consultant and a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University, 10-1-13, IEDC, Creating the Clean
Energy Economy, http://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/IEDC_Offshore_Wind.pdf,
accessed 6-25-14, AKS]

The good news is that there is significant energy-generating potential from offshore wind in the
United States due to the length of the U.S. coastline and the quality of the wind resource. In general,
offshore winds blow more strongly and uniformly than onshore winds. U.S. offshore winds are
projected to produce a total energy generation of up to 30 percent more than U.S. onshore winds.48,
49 The total gross wind resource from U.S. offshore wind energy is projected at more than 4,000
MW or roughly four times the current generating capacity carried on the U.S. electric grid.
These estimates place the U.S. reserve behind Asia and Europe in capacity. However, research indicates
that if the U.S. unlocks capacity through reforms in the permitting process and improvements in
vessel, transmission, and port infrastructure, then capacity could double to 6,180 MW.50

Offshore Better Than Onshore

Offshore wind is better than onshore, solves climate, health, reduces hurricanes
significantly, would improve the economy, and it net cheaper than traditional forms
of energy
Danko, Freelance Writer, 14
(Pete, Published in: Wired, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, 2-26-14, Earth Techling,
Hurricane taming: one more reason to love offshore wind power,
http://earthtechling.com/2014/02/hurricane-taming-one-more-reason-to-love-offshore-wind-power/,
accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Nobody does more provocative, headline-grabbing renewable energy research than Stanford civil and
environmental engineering professor Mark Jacobson. Last week, it was how your state can get to 100%
renewables. Now its how offshore wind turbines can tame hurricanes.
Jacobson, in a paper published today in Nature Climate Change [PDF], isnt suggesting that offshore
turbines be deployed specifically for this purpose. Rather, his point seems to be that when assessing the
cost of offshore wind power, in addition to the climate and health benefits the technology yields, the
turbines ability to reduce the risk of catastrophic hurricanes ought to be taken into account.
The Anholt offshore wind farm (image via Siemens)
Its just one more thing that, when the whole picture is viewed, makes seemingly expensive offshore wind
power less expensive than seemingly cheap conventional power. From the paper:
Including hurricane damage avoidance, reduced pollution, health, and climate costs, but not
including tax credits or subsidies, gives the net cost of offshore wind as ~4-8.5kWh, which
compares with ~10kWh for new fossil fuel generation. The health and climate benefits significantly
reduce winds net cost, and hurricane protection adds a smaller benefit (~10% for New Orleans), but at no
additional cost. In sum, large arrays of offshore wind turbines seem to diminish hurricane risk costeffectively while reducing air pollution and global warming and providing energy supply at a lower net
cost than conventional fuels.
We are talking about a lot of offshore wine power here 300-plus gigawatts of installed capacity,
five times current U.S. onshore wind capacity (we dont have any offshore wind, though projects
are inching along). But running simulations based on the Katrina and Sandy experiences, Jacobson
concluded that placing turbines immediately upstream of a city or along and expanse of coastline
could reduce peak wind speeds by up to 92 mph and the storm surge by 79 percent.
Based on all this, Jacobson says that turbines could be the cost-effective way to reduce storm risk,
compared to, for instance, sea walls. Turbines pay for themselves from the sale of electricity they
produce and other non-market benefits, but sea walls have no other function than to reduce storm
surge (they do not even reduce damaging hurricane wind speeds), so society bears their full cost,
wrote Jacobson and co-authors Christina Archer and Willett Kempton.

But wouldnt the turbines get torn to shreds we have seen turbines damaged by storms, after all. But
those are relatively isolated turbines, Jacobson et al. argue. The reduction in wind speed due to large
arrays increases the probability of survival of even present turbine designs, they say.

Wind turbines on the ocean have more energy potential stronger winds
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Renewable Energy Program, no date
[no date, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Offshore Wind Energy,
http://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy-program/renewable-energy-guide/offshore-wind-energy.aspx ,

Accessed 6-29-14, CX]

Offshore wind turbines are being used by a number of countries to harness the energy of strong,
consistent winds that are found over the oceans. In the United States, 53% of the nations population lives
in coastal areas, where energy costs and demands are high and land-based renewable energy resources are
often limited. Abundant offshore wind resources have the potential to supply immense quantities of
renewable energy to major U.S. coastal cities, such as New York City and Boston.
Offshore winds tend to blow harder and more uniformly than on land. The potential energy
produced from wind is directly proportional to the cube of the wind speed. As a result, increased
wind speeds of only a few miles per hour can produce a significantly larger amount of electricity.
For instance, a turbine at a site with an average wind speed of 16 mph would produce 50% more
electricity than at a site with the same turbine and average wind speeds of 14 mph. This is one
reason that developers are interested in pursuing offshore wind energy resources. The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) provides a number of maps showing average wind speed data through its
Resource Assessment & Characterization page and through National Renewable Energy Laboratorys
(NREL) MapSearch.

Offshore is better than onshore for three reasons: quietness, less bird deaths, and
stronger winds
RelevanSi, 11
[RelevanSi is an integrated communications agency specializing in sustainable web and brand
development, 8-19-11, RelevanSi Blog, Offshore and Onshore: The Debate in Wind Energy,
http://relevansi.com/blog/offshore-onshore-debate-wind-energy/, Accessed 6-29-14, CX]

Offshore wind turbines are obviously coming into much less human contact than those on land.
Thus, people do not need to deal with the the noise pollution and eye sore that turbine cause for
some. Farmers have complained that the whirring noise of turbines scare their livestock, while
others simply do not like the sight of the turbines. Thus, with a move off land, the sounds and
images of the turbines are nearly unnoticeable.
Advantage #2: Less Harm to Birds

Approximately 40,000 birds each year die by flying into wind turbines on land in the United States.
Though this number is relatively very small in comparison to the number of deaths associated with
pesticides, power lines, and other man-made structures, it is still an unacceptable statistic. Fortunately,
offshore wind turbines mitigate this danger. In an attempt to cut down on bird deaths, offshore wind
farms are located in specific areas of the ocean where birds do not frequently fly.
Advantage #3: More Wind
One of the greatest advantages that offshore wind farms have over those on land is the frequency of
strong winds over the ocean. Studies have shown that winds offshore blow nearly 40 percent more
often than on land. Consequently, offshore wind farms can outpace those on land in terms of
capacity and possibly offset the higher construction costs.

Offshore overcomes problems with onshore and is comparatively better than other
renewables
Svechkarenko, KTH Research Project Database Chemical Engineering and Technology Scientist, 7
[Dmitry, May 2007, KTH Electrical Engineering, On Analytical Modeling and Design of a Novel
Transverse Flux Generator for Offshore Wind Turbines, p.16, accessed 6-28-14, KS]

Nuclear power is rarely referred to as being renewable mainly due to the problem of storage of
radioactive waste.
Despite all the positive aspects of green energy, it has a number of disadvantages. One of them is
that most renewable energy sources are not available all the time. For example, sunlight is only
available during the daytime. Wind energy is available less than half of the time, though this value
is normally larger offshore. Due to stochastic nature of wind, meteorology plays an important role when
selecting the place for a new wind park.
The reliability of generating units is also an increasingly important issue in the modern power
systems. To allow for failures of power plants, the storage of energy required. In the short term, such
as a day time variation, pumped-storage hydro systems can be used. However, it is generally believed
that with further development and more advanced energy management, renewable energy sources
will become more economically viable on the electricity market.

AT Not Enough Energy

Offshore wind can power all of America
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, No Date
[BOEM, no date, BOEM, Offshore Wind Energy, http://www.boem.gov/renewable-energyprogram/renewable-energy-guide/offshore-wind-energy.aspx, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

Offshore wind turbines are being used by a number of countries to harness the energy of strong,
consistent winds that are found over the oceans. In the United States, 53% of the nations population
lives in coastal areas, where energy costs and demands are high and land-based renewable energy
resources are often limited. Abundant offshore wind resources have the potential to supply
immense quantities of renewable energy to major U.S. coastal cities, such as New York City and
Boston.
Offshore winds tend to blow harder and more uniformly than on land . The potential energy
produced from wind is directly proportional to the cube of the wind speed. As a result, increased wind
speeds of only a few miles per hour can produce a significantly larger amount of electricity. For
instance, a turbine at a site with an average wind speed of 16 mph would produce 50% more electricity
than at a site with the same turbine and average wind speeds of 14 mph. This is one reason that
developers are interested in pursuing offshore wind energy resources. The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) provides a number of maps showing average wind speed data through its Resource Assessment &
Characterization page and through National Renewable Energy Laboratorys (NREL)MapSearch.
Wind resource potential is typically given in gigawatts (GW), and1 GW of wind power will supply
between 225,000 to 300,000 average U.S. homes with power annually. In a July 2012 Technical
Report, NREL estimates a gross wind power resource of 4,223 GW off the coast of the United States.
That is roughly four times the generating capacity of the current U.S. electric grid . Even if only a
fraction of that potential is developed, clearly there is enough offshore wind resource to power a
substantial portion of our nations energy needs.

EU prove Offshore wind can power countries

Valentine, Thinkprogress, Climate Progress Reporter, 14
(Katie, 2-27-14, Thinkprogress, The First American Offshore Wind Farm Could Be Up And Running By
2016, Cape Wind Says, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/27/3337871/cape-wind-securesfinancing/, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Still, Cape Wind is moving forward. In 2011, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers approved the
project, followed by the Bureau of Ocean Management. And its not the only offshore wind project thats
gaining steam in the U.S. On the West Coast, a company that wants to build five floating wind turbines
off the coast of Oregon was approved to send its plans to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

earlier this month. That project would be the first to be installed on the West Coast most other offshore
wind projects in the works are off the coast of eastern states. The Interior Department has
announced plans to auction off 80,000 acres off of the coast of Maryland for commercial wind energy
leasing an area that, if fully developed, could house 850 to 1,450 megawatts of wind energy. And
Rhode Island-based wind company Deepwater Wind is planning a five-turbine installation off the coast of
Rhode Island, which could power 17,000 homes. Though the U.S. so far has no installed offshore
wind, Europe has long been a leader in generating energy from offshore wind. The EU countries
combined have the highest overall installed wind power capacity in the world, with 2,080 offshore
turbines installs, yielding6,562 megawatts for 11 countries.

Solves Energy/Fossil Fuel Use

Offshore wind revolutionizes the energy industry solves climate change, the
economy and security threats
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et. al, 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 6, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

In addition, fossil-fuel based energy production has hidden costs, including climate change. The
carbon dioxide emissions from the fuels burned to produce energy are warming the planet, which
results in a long list of associated impacts, ranging from melting sea ice and rising sea level to
changes in patterns of food production and water availability. Carbon dioxide from burning fossil
fuels alters the planets climate systems, and it affects the oceans as well.
Ocean acidification, or the decline in the pH of ocean water due to the absorption of carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere, is a major threat to marine ecosystems and species, as well as about one
billion people who rely on the seas for food. Solving the global climate crisis requires a global
transformation in energy production and consumption methods, including changes in transportation and
electricity generation. The vast majority of our electricity comes from nonrenewable resources that
have major environmental impacts, while they also weaken national security, and have a wide range
of economic and social costs.
Fortunately there is time to modernize these systems and minimize these threats to the planet. Clean
energy, energy efficiency, and hybrid or electric transportation are all part of a new energy economy that
is being built right now. Thousands of people are employed in green collar jobs relating to clean energy,
and billions of dollars are being invested annually in renewable energy. Even a small fraction of the
United States renewable energy resources is enough to power the country several times over6, and

one of the least expensive and easiest ways to produce clean energy that will decrease carbon
emissions and help save the oceans comes from the seas themselvesoffshore wind power.

Offshore wind creates more energy and jobs than all fossil fuels in the region
combined-it has the potential to power the entire country
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et al, 10
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 3, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

For the East Coast, we found that offshore wind would provide much greater potential than offshore
oil and gas combined. This includes potential to power home heating, power generation or
transportation.
Based on conservative assumptions for offshore wind and generous assumptions for offshore oil and
natural gas, this study found that by investing in offshore wind on the East Coast, rather than
offshore oil and gas, Americans would get more energy for less money. We show in this report that
offshore wind can generate at least 127 GW of power conservatively. This would equal current
electricity generation in states where it is located, almost as much as is generated using fossil fuels
in those states. The assumptions and methodology are described in the Oceana Technical Notes
(available at www.oceana.org/cleanenergy).
On the Atlantic Coast, offshore wind could generate about 30 percent more electricity than could be
generated by the technically available offshore oil and gas.
The Atlantic Coasts offshore wind energy potential could generate enough electricity to heat more
homes than exist in that region. In fact, the Atlantic Coasts offshore wind potential is so great, that it
could supply enough electricity to heat every home in the country, and then some.

Offshore wind from the Atlantic could power nearly twice as many vehicles as new offshore oil and
gas from the same area. The Atlantic Coasts offshore wind energy potential is so great that it could
power more cars than exist in the region. More than 112.5 million electric cars could be powered by
wind, which is about half of all the cars and trucks on the road in the entire country. Accelerating
both the wind transition and vehicle electrification now could allow vehicles to begin to use the offshore
wind power as soon as it becomes available on the grid.
On the Atlantic Coast alone, the United States could install at least 127 gigawatts of wind power, an
amount roughly equivalent to European projections for that continent by 2030.
Developing 127 gigawatts offshore wind energy capacity over 20 years would provide energy at a
cost of about $36 billion less than the production of economically recoverable new offshore oil and
natural gas.
Clean energy production creates three times more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuel
production.
Offshore wind development off the Atlantic coast could create between 133,000 and 212,000 jobs
annually in the United States more than three times as many jobs than new offshore oil and
natural gas development is expected to create.

Wind energy costs less than fossil fuels monetarily and environmentally
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et. al, 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 21, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

As shown in the three previous examples, offshore wind energy can create more electricity, heat more
homes or power more cars than the offshore oil and gas that is being considered for production on

the East Coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Offshore wind energy potential is much greater than
that of new offshore oil and gas and the cost is much lower. Developing the 127 gigawatts of offshore
wind energy described above would cost about $36 billion less over 20 years than the estimated cost
of producing the economically recoverable oil and natural gas combined. Better still, unlike the oil
and natural gas resources, offshore wind is not finite and, unlike the oil and gas, will not become depleted.
However, the estimated lifetime of an offshore wind turbine is about 20 years and a new turbine will
eventually need to be installed in order to continue to capture wind energy. Therefore a comparison of
costs and benefits over 20 years is an appropriate one.
According to MMS, 20 years worth of East Coast offshore oil at $110 per barrel would cost
consumers $720 billion, and the natural gas would cost $449 billion. After the East Coasts offshore
oil and gas have been extracted, nearly $1.17 trillion will have been transferred from consumers to
the oil and gas industry, and then no more energy will be available. Developing the 127 gigawatts of
offshore wind energy described above instead of drilling for oil and gas, would cost about $1.13 trillion,
$36 billion less than the oil and gas costs over 20 years. Notwithstanding the cost savings, as described
above the wind investment also produced more energy in every scenario considered. By investing in
offshore wind on the East Coast, instead of offshore oil and gas in the areas that were previously
protected in the Atlantic and eastern Gulf, Americans would get more energy for less money.
There is another downside to high oil and gas prices. As oil and gas prices increase, the industry can
use the proceeds to extract resources that were previously not cost-effective to recover for
instance, deep water oil and gas resources. In turn, the oil and gas companies sell these harder-toextract resources at higher prices to customers. Thus, high oil prices not only increase the cost at
the pump, they also increase the risks and potential harm to marine life from more extreme
production processes.

Electricity & Cars Solvency

Offshore wind will power all of the cars in the US
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et al., 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 20, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

Making a comparison between miles-per-gallon of gasoline (MPG), natural gas miles-per-gallon

equivalent (MPGe) and miles per kilowatt hour (MPkWh), shows the potential for offshore wind to
replace oil and natural gas in the transportation sector. Nearly 99 percent of all US cars and trucks
use oil as an energy source.81 Vehicles that operate from natural gas are commercially available and
currently in use, although in limited numbers. Plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, like Chevrolets Volt 82 ,
and completely electric vehicles, like Nissans Leaf 83 and THINKs City84 , will begin to be sold
commercially in the US within the next year. Tesla is already selling plug in electric cars, and the
electrification of the fleet is a key component of the needed transition to clean energy. Therefore, it
is reasonable to consider the role that offshore resources might play in the transportation sector in
the next decade or two. Estimates of how many miles cold be driven by fully utilizing each of the
offshore energy resource available are provided in MPG, MPGe and MPkWh to compare the
potential for each form of energy in terms of miles driven.
With an electrified car fleet, 127 gigawatts of offshore wind could power nearly twice as many
vehicles as new offshore oil and gas development combined. According to MMS estimates, East Coast
offshore oil resource could fuel approximately 16 million gasoline vehicles annually for 20 years,
while the natural gas resource could fuel an estimated 41.3 million compressed natural gas cars
over the same time. In contrast, this analysis shows that the economically recoverable offshore wind
resource on the East Coast could power approximately 112.5 million electric carsabout twice as
many vehicles than the East Coasts offshore oil and natural gas resources combined. For

comparison, DOE estimates that in 2010, there were about 227 million light-duty vehicles on the
road in the United States.85
Nissan, Chevrolet, Ford, Tesla and a variety of other companies are preparing to sell plug-in hybridelectric vehicles (PHEV), or completely electric vehicles on an increasingly larger scale. According to
a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, if half of all light-duty vehicles are PHEV
by 2050, gasoline consumption would decrease by between 35 billion and 53 billion gallons
annually.86 If this scenario takes place by 2050, by 2055, the United States will have conserved
more gasoline in just those five years than the entire oil resource available off the East Coast. This
figure doesnt even begin to assess the savings that would occur between now and 2050. 87
As homes, heating and cars become more and more electrified, wind will become even better able to
displace oil use. Ultimately, it is this shift to clean energy and away from fossil fuels that will turn
back the clock on climate change.

Warming

Impacts

2AC Ocean Acidification Impact

CO2 emissions are the primary cause of ocean acidification
Cullinane, CNN World Journalist, 13
[Susannah, 11-14-13, CNN World, CO2 causing oceans to acidify at 'unprecedented' rate, scientists
warn, http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/14/world/ocean-acidification-report/, accessed 6-27-14, AKS]
(CNN) -- The world's oceans have become 26% more acidic since the start of the Industrial
Revolution and continue to acidify at an "unprecedented rate," threatening marine ecosystems,
aquaculture and the societies that rely on them, scientists say.
In a report released Thursday, researchers say that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities
such as fossil fuel burning are the primary cause of ocean acidification.
They say the rate of change may be faster than at any time in the last 300 million years, predicting
that by 2100 there will have been a 170% increase in ocean acidity, compared to pre-industrial
times.
The report is based on the findings from a September 2012 Symposium on the Ocean, at which 540
experts from 37 countries discussed research on ocean acidification, and has been updated with more
recent research.
Unless carbon dioxide emissions are reduced, marine ecosystems will be damaged and the impact of
climate change will be worsened, the scientists warn. "The only known realistic mitigation option on
a global scale is to limit future atmospheric CO2 levels."
The report says oceans currently act as a CO2 "sinkhole" absorbing approximately a quarter of emissions.
"As ocean acidity increases, its capacity to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere decreases. This
decreases the ocean's role in moderating climate change," they write.
The increased acidity will also change the ocean environment, with evidence suggesting that some
organisms will be less able to survive, while others, such as seagrass, may thrive.
Acidification is faster in Arctic waters because cold water is richer in CO2, while melting sea ice
worsens the problem, they say.
"Within decades, large parts of the polar oceans will become corrosive to the unprotected shells of
calcareous marine organisms," the report says, while in the tropics the growth of coral reefs may be
hampered.

Ocean acidification will cause extinction

Romm, American Progress Fellow and Climate Progress Editor, 12
(Joe, 3-2-12, Science: Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanitys Ability to Feed Itself,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatenshumanity-ability-to-feed-itself/ accessed 6-28-14, CLF)

The worlds oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did
during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent
global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the
geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period. What were doing today
really stands out, said lead author Brbel Hnisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia Universitys
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. We know that life during past ocean acidification events was not
wiped outnew species evolved to replace those that died off. But if industrial carbon emissions
continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care aboutcoral reefs, oysters, salmon.
Thats the news release from a major 21-author Science paper, The Geological Record of Ocean
Acidification (subs. reqd). We knew from a 2010 Nature Geoscience study that the oceans are now
acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species
occurred. But this study looked back over 300 million and found that the unprecedented rapidity
of CO2 release currently taking place has put marine life at risk in a frighteningly unique way:
the current rate of (mainly fossil fuel) CO2 release stands out as capable of driving a combination
and magnitude of ocean geochemical changes potentially unparalleled in at least the last ~300 My of
Earth history, raising the possibility that we are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem
change. That is to say, its not just that acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown by end of
century as a 2010 Geological Society study put it. We are also warming the ocean and decreasing
dissolved oxygen concentration. That is a recipe for mass extinction. A 2009 Nature Geoscience study
found that ocean dead zones devoid of fish and seafood are poised to expand and remain for thousands
of years.

2AC Storms Add-On

Global warming causes more intense, frequent storms
Cernansky, New York Times Environmental Journalist, 07*
(Rachael, 2007, Howstuffworks, Focus on Focus Earth: Global Warming and Hurricanes: What's the
Connection? http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/global-warminghurricanes.htm, accessed 6-28-14, CLF)
What do the rising sea levels that all the global warming talk is centered on have to do with hurricanes?
Essentially everything, and these tropical storms will continue to become more frequent and more
disastrous unless global warming is slowed.
They are already on their way, as Katrina, Rita, and all too many others have illustrated. The intensity of
storms has been found to have increased significantly since the 1970s, while the frequency has
increased from an annual average of 10 tropical storms (including 5 hurricanes) between 1850 and
1990, up to 15 (with 8 hurricanes) on average between 1998 and 2007. That pattern corresponds to the
increase in North Atlantic sea surface temperature, and unless we act now to curb global warming, it will
just become worse. (As unproductive as complaining about the failure of Copenhagen is, there's a reason
people are so disappointed.) When it comes to tropical storms, it's not the rising sea levels that are to
blame so much as the increasing ocean temperatures, but the root cause is the same. Over the last 50
years, oceans have absorbed about 20 times more heat than the atmosphere, meaning the oceans are
expanding (both because water expands as it warms as well as because of the melting glaciers and other
land ice) and temperatures are rising from the surface down to 1,500 feet below.
[NOTE: *last date cited]

Wind turbines are able to significantly reduce tropical storms

Fischetti, Scientific American Senior editor, 13
(Mark, 2-26-14, Scientific American, Offshore Wind Farms Could Knock Down Hurricanes,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/, accessed
6-27-14, CLF)

Hurricanes are unstoppable, right? Apparently not. An intriguing new computer simulation shows that
78,000 large wind turbines spread across 35,000 square kilometers of ocean outside of New Orleans
would have cut Hurricane Katrinascategory 3 winds at landfall by 129 to 158 kilometers per hour
(80 to 98 miles per hour) and reduced the storm surge by 79 percent . The same collection of
turbines offshore of New York City would have dropped Hurricane Sandys winds by 125 to 140
kph and the surge by up to 34 percent.
That sounds impressive. But wait78,000 turbines? Each one 100 meters high with a blade span 127
meters in diameter spaced about 650 meters apart and spanning a region of ocean 2.5 times the size of
Connecticut? The idea sounds crazy, except for the bottom line: The cost would be zero, says Mark

Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. The turbines pay
for themselves through the revenue from generating electricity. The storm surge and wind
protection are freea bonus.

Warming Worsens Storms

Global warming make hurricane season longermeans more hurricanes
Drye, National Geographic News editor, 13
(Willie, 9-2-13, National Geographic News, Scientists: Climate Change May Offer Hurricane Help,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130902-hurricanes-climate-change-superstorm-sandyglobal-warming-storms-science-weather/, accessed 6-28-14, CLF)

Meteorologist Jeff Masters, director of the private weather forecasting website Weather
Underground, said there are indications that hurricane seasons are lasting longer in recent decades.
Hurricanes are most likely to occur between June 1 and November 30, but warmer sea water could
extend the season, he said.
"A longer season gives the opportunity for more strong hurricanes to penetrate to the Northeast
U.S. in late fall," Masters said. "This would potentially offset any decrease in Sandy-like impacts due
to fewer blocking highs forming in a future climate."
CSU's Barnes, the lead author of the study, acknowledged that the possible lengthening of the hurricane
season is a factor in the tracks of future storms and that the computer programs used in the study are
"imperfect."

Global warming causes more intense, frequent hurricanes

Cernansky, Environmental Journalist, the New York Times, National Geographic
News, 07*
(Rachael, 2007, Howstuffworks, Focus on Focus Earth: Global Warming and Hurricanes: What's the
Connection? http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/global-warminghurricanes.htm, accessed 6-28-14, CLF)

What do the rising sea levels that all the global warming talk is centered on have to do with hurricanes?
Essentially everything, and these tropical storms will continue to become more frequent and more
disastrous unless global warming is slowed.
They are already on their way, as Katrina, Rita, and all too many others have illustrated. The intensity of
storms has been found to have increased significantly since the 1970s, while the frequency has
increased from an annual average of 10 tropical storms (including 5 hurricanes) between 1850 and
1990, up to 15 (with 8 hurricanes) on average between 1998 and 2007. That pattern corresponds to the
increase in North Atlantic sea surface temperature, and unless we act now to curb global warming, it will
just become worse. (As unproductive as complaining about the failure of Copenhagen is, there's a reason
people are so disappointed.) When it comes to tropical storms, it's not the rising sea levels that are to
blame so much as the increasing ocean temperatures, but the root cause is the same. Over the last 50

years, oceans have absorbed about 20 times more heat than the atmosphere, meaning the oceans are
expanding (both because water expands as it warms as well as because of the melting glaciers and other
land ice) and temperatures are rising from the surface down to 1,500 feet below.
[NOTE: *last date cited]

Storms Solvency
Wind turbines are able to significantly reduce tropical storms
Fischetti, Scientific American Senior editor, 13
(Mark, 2-26-14, Scientific American, Offshore Wind Farms Could Knock Down Hurricanes,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/, accessed
6-27-14, CLF)
Hurricanes are unstoppable, right? Apparently not. An intriguing new computer simulation shows that
78,000 large wind turbines spread across 35,000 square kilometers of ocean outside of New Orleans
would have cut Hurricane Katrinascategory 3 winds at landfall by 129 to 158 kilometers per hour
(80 to 98 miles per hour) and reduced the storm surge by 79 percent . The same collection of
turbines offshore of New York City would have dropped Hurricane Sandys winds by 125 to 140
kph and the surge by up to 34 percent.
That sounds impressive. But wait78,000 turbines? Each one 100 meters high with a blade span 127
meters in diameter spaced about 650 meters apart and spanning a region of ocean 2.5 times the size of
Connecticut? The idea sounds crazy, except for the bottom line: The cost would be zero, says Mark
Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. The turbines pay
for themselves through the revenue from generating electricity. The storm surge and wind
protection are freea bonus.

Wind turbines solve hurricanes and coastal storms

Messmore, Environmental Public Education Office communications specialist, 14
(Tessa, 2-26-14, University of Delaware, Tamming hurricanes: Offshore wind turbines could weaken
hurricanes, reduce storm surge, http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2014/feb/hurricanes-wind-turbines022614.html, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

Wind turbines placed in the ocean to generate electricity may have another major benefit:
weakening hurricanes before the storms make landfall.
New research by the University of Delaware and Stanford University shows that an army of offshore
wind turbines could reduce hurricanes wind speeds, wave heights and flood-causing storm surge.
The findings, published online this week in Nature Climate Change, demonstrate for the first time that
wind turbines can buffer damage to coastal cities during hurricanes.
The little turbines can fight back the beast, said study co-author Cristina Archer, associate professor
in the University of Delawares College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment.

Archer and Stanfords Mark Jacobson previously calculated the global potential for wind power, taking
into account that as turbines are generating electricity, they are also siphoning off some energy
from the atmosphere. They found that there is more than enough wind to support worldwide
energy demands with a negligible effect on the overall climate.
In the new study, the researchers took a closer look at how the turbines wind extraction might affect
hurricanes. Unlike normal weather patterns that make up global climate over the long term, hurricanes are
unusual, isolated events that behave very differently. Thus, the authors hypothesized that a hurricane
might be more affected by wind turbines than are normal winds.
Hurricanes are a different animal, Archer said.
Using their sophisticated climate-weather model, the researchers simulated hurricanes Katrina, Isaac and
Sandy to examine what would happen if large wind farms, with tens of thousands of turbines, had been in
the storms paths.
They found that, as the hurricane approached, the wind farm would remove energy from the storms edge
and slow down the fast-moving winds. The lower wind speeds at the hurricanes perimeter would
gradually trickle inwards toward the eye of the storm.
There is a feedback into the hurricane that is really fascinating to examine, said Archer, an expert in
both meteorology and engineering.
The highest reductions in wind speed were by up to 87 miles per hour (mph) for Hurricane Sandy and 92
mph for Hurricane Katrina.
According to the computer model, the reduced winds would in turn lower the height of ocean waves,
reducing the winds that push water toward the coast as storm surge. The wind farm decreased storm surge
a key cause of hurricane flooding by up to 34 percent for Hurricane Sandy and 79 percent for
Hurricane Katrina.
While the wind farms would not completely dissipate a hurricane, the milder winds would also
prevent the turbines from being damaged. Turbines are designed to keep spinning up to a certain
wind speed, above which the blades lock and feather into a protective position. The study showed
that wind farms would slow wind speeds so that they would not reach that threshold.
The study suggests that offshore wind farms would serve two important purposes: prevent
significant damage to cities during hurricanes and produce clean energy year-round in normal
conditions as well as hurricane-like conditions. This makes offshore wind farms an alternative
protective measure to seawalls, which only serve one purpose and do not generate energy.
Jacobson and study co-author Willett Kempton, professor in UDs College of Earth, Ocean, and
Environment, weighed the costs and benefits of offshore wind farms as storm protection.
The net cost of offshore wind farms was found to be less than the net cost of generating electricity
with fossil fuels . The calculations take into account savings from avoiding costs related to health issues,
climate change and hurricane damage, and assume a mature offshore wind industry. In initial costs, it
would be less expensive to build seawalls, but those would not reduce wind damage, would not produce
electricity and would not avoid those other costs thus the net cost of offshore wind would be less.

Storms Impacts
Hurricanes increase rates of emotional trauma
Virginia Tech press release, 10
(Virginia Tech, 1-6-10, ScienceDaily, Serious emotional disturbances found among children after
Katrina, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100105100031.htm, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

A team made up of mental health professionals, emergency response experts, and researchers from
several universities, including Virginia Tech, has published the results of a study that shows serious
emotional disturbances among children who were affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Category 3
storm ravaged the Gulf Coast in August 2005.
The study, published in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, showed the estimated prevalence of serious emotional disturbances (SED) among
residents of the affected areas was 14.9 percent. Of those, 9.3 percent of youths were believed to have
SED that was directly attributable to Hurricane Katrina.
Characteristics of SED include inappropriate behavior, depression, hyperactivity, eating disorders, fears
and phobias, and learning difficulties.
"Stress exposure was associated strongly with serious emotional disturbances," said Russell Jones,
professor of psychology in the College of Science at Virginia Tech and member of the research team.
"More than 20 percent of the youths with high stress exposure had hurricane-related SED."
The study found that youth who experienced death of loved one during the storm had the strongest
association with SED. Exposure to physical adversity was the next strongest.
"The prevalence of SED among youths exposed to Hurricane Katrina remains high 18 to 27 months after
the storm," Jones said. "This suggests a substantial need for mental health treatment resources in the
hurricane-affected areas."
Katrina was the costliest hurricane in United States history as well as one of the five deadliest. Four
years after the storm, nearly thousands of residents of Mississippi and Louisiana are still displaced
from their homes.

Climate Science

Warming Real
Warming is real, and anthropogenic consensus
Svechkarenko, KTH Research Project Database Chemical Engineering and Technology Scientist, 7
[Dmitry, May 2007, KTH Electrical Engineering, On Analytical Modeling and Design of a Novel
Transverse Flux Generator for Offshore Wind Turbines, p. 16, accessed 6-28-14, KS]

The increase in the average temperature of the Earths atmosphere and oceans became quite
noticeable over the past decades. According to the estimate reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change1 (IPCC), the global average temperature rose by approximately 0.6 0.2C (with
95% confidence interval) in the 20th century (Fig. 2.1) [8]. The increased public concern resulted in a
large number of studies conducted to investigate the possible impact of global warming on mankind and
the environment in general and to propose various options for adaptation and mitigation.
Following the scientific consensus on global warming summarized by the IPCC, it was generally
agreed that the observed warming is likely to have been caused by the increased concentration of
so-called greenhouse gases in the Earths atmosphere. These gases are the ones that contribute to
the greenhouse effect. The major gases included in the list of greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide
(72% of total), methane (18% of total), nitrous oxide (9% of total), sulfur hexafluoride, haloalkanes, and
perfluorocarbons. A large amount of gas is discharged in the atmosphere as a result of human
activity by burning of traditional fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas. For example, the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between the pre-industrial (1750) and the
present (1998) years rose by approximately 31 % (from 278 ppm2 to 365 ppm) and methanol by 167%
(from 1 045 ppb to 1 745 ppb). If this trend is to continue, according to the forecast issued by the
IPCC [10], the average global temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8C between 1990
and 2100, causing a broad range of adverse global changes. The sea level is anticipated to rise due
to the thermal expansion of seawater and melting of ice. Concurrently, the number and intensity of
extreme weather events, such as flood, hurricanes, and tornadoes, is quite likely also increase.

Solvency

Wind Solves Emissions

Offshore wind solves ocean acidification & warming
Richardson, Cleantechnia, 12
(Jake, 12-10-12, Cleantechnia, Offshore wind benefits sea life,
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/10/offshore-wind-benefits-sea-life/, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

A research study conducted by the Marine Institute at Plymouth University found that offshore wind
farms can provide benefits to fish, namely because they can function as shelters (since sea bottom
trawling is not allowed inside wind farms). It seems a little ironic that one human-made technology can
protect fish from the very invasive and destructive practice of using technology for sea-bottom trawling.
The studys lead author wrote, It is necessary to rapidly deploy large quantities of marine renewable
energy to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning which are leading to ocean
acidification, global warming and climatic changes. Done well and sensitively its deployment could
be beneficial to marine wildlife compared to the alternative scenario of greater levels of climate
change. (Source: Friends of the Earth)
Another potential benefit for offshore wind farms is they can provide structures for blue mussels
and some crab species.
Objections have been made over the spoiling of coastal views by offshore wind. However, such farms
can be located very far from coastlines and in areas where there are not dense concentrations of
people. Furthermore, it clearly is better to reduce climate change emissions than to preserve
something as subjective as a pleasing view. Additionally, marine life and the oceans are suffering due to
ocean acidification, which is tied directly to human-made carbon emissions.

Wind turbines reduce pollution, stop global warming and save water
Environment America, citizen-funded environmental organization, 13
(Environment America, 11-20-13, Environment America, Wind Power for a Cleaner America,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/wind-power-cleaner-america-0, accessed: 6-27-14, CLF)

Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity pollutes our air, contributes to global warming, and
consumes vast amounts of waterharming our rivers and lakes and leaving less water for other uses. In
contrast, wind energy produces no air pollution, makes no contribution to global warming, and uses
no water.
Americas wind power capacity has quadrupled in the last five years and wind energy now generates as
much electricity as is used every year in Georgia. Thanks to wind energy, America uses less water
for power plants and produces less climate-alteringcarbon pollution.
Wind energy displaced about 84.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2012
more global warming-inducing carbon dioxide pollution than is produced annually in

Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina or Washington state. Wind energy also saves enough water
nationwide to meet the domestic water needs of more than a million people.
America has vast wind energy resources , and there is still plenty of room for growth . But the
pending expiration of the federal renewable energy production tax credit and investment tax credit
threatens the future expansion of wind power.

Wind turbines key to reduce carbon emissions and solve warming

Shahan, Cleantechnica.com and Planetsave.com, director and editor, 13
[Zach, 10-31-12, The Energy Collective, Wind Energy Has Dramatically Cut Global Warming Pollution
In The US, http://theenergycollective.com/zachshahan/294891/wind-power-has-dramatically-cut-globalwarming-pollution-us, accessed 6-27-14, CLF]

First and foremost, reiterating a recent statement by the International Energy Agency, it seems that energy
efficiency and energy conservation did. However, the other main contributor to the cut in global
warming pollution was clearly renewable energy generation, especially generation from wind
energy . Wind power plants contributed a significant 17.7 million MWh of additional electricity
generation in 2012.
If you are under the odd impression that more wind power doesnt equal less global warming
pollution, please use some common sense and also check out a recent study we reported on that shows
how little backup power is actually needed for wind power, even at relatively high penetration levels.
In other words, accept the fact that wind power is extremely effective at cutting global warming
pollution.
As REVE notes: What lesson can we draw from this data? While some of the emissions reductions noted
by the EPA are fleeting, wind energy is a key contributor to the long-lasting strategy for reducing
U.S. carbon emissions.

AT Wind Doesnt Solve Emissions

Skeptics claiming increase in emissions are wrong Offshore wind studies prove
decrease in gas powered emissions
Goodall, Lynas, Climate Change writer, 12
[Chris, Mark, 9-26-12, The Guardian, It's a myth that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myth-wind-turbines-carbon-emissions, 6-2614, AAZ]
The climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently gave evidence to the House of
Commons energy and climate change committee, stating:
"There is a significant risk that annual CO2 emissions could be greater under the wind scenario than
under the gas scenario".
The essence of the wind sceptics' case is that a scaling up in wind power will have to be "backed up"
by massive investment in gas-fired open cycle turbine (OCGT) plants, which are cheap to build but
considerably less efficient than the combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plants which deliver the
vast majority of the UK's gas-fired electricity supply.
Their arguments are not borne out by current statistics, however. If the sceptics were right, the
recent windy conditions would have seen considerable use of less-efficient OCGT as wind input to the
grid ramped up and down. In actual fact, during the entire June-September period, OCGTs and equally
dirty oil-fired stations produced less than one hundredth of one percent of all UK electricity. In total they
operated for a grand total of just nine half hour periods in the first 19 days of the month and these
periods had nothing to do with changing windspeeds.
From analysing National Grid data of more than 4,000 half-hour periods over the last three months,
a strong correlation between windiness and a reduction in gas-fired generation becomes clear. The
exchange rate is about one for one: a megawatt hour of wind typically meant the UK grid used one
less megawatt hour of gas-derived electricity. This means that actual CO2 savings can be calculated
from the data with a high degree of accuracy these are not guesstimates from models, but observations
of real-world data.

Economy

Uniqueness

Economy Declining
US economy is starting to worsen Unemployment root cause
Elliott, The Guardian Economic editor, 14
(Larry, 6-16-14, The Guardian, U.S. Economy still struggling to recover,
http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/jun/16/us-economy-struggling-recover,
accessed: 6-26-14, CLF)

Christine Lagarde, the French managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is downbeat
about the United States and with good reason. The problems of the eurozone have overshadowed
America's difficulties, but the fact is that the world's biggest economy is still struggling to recover
from the downturn of 2008-09.
Explaining the lack of vim is simple. The US entered the recession with a number of structural
weaknesses, and these have been aggravated rather than ameliorated by a long period of sub-par
growth, according to the annual health check by the fund.
There was much comment earlier this month when the employment data showed that the number of
people with jobs was back to pre-recession levels . In truth, this was no great achievement since the
population is steadily rising. The labour participation rate, which was on a declining trend even before the
financial crisis, is more than three percentage points lower than it was a decade ago.
A shortage of jobs creates two further problems. The slack in the labour market means it is hard for
workers to secure pay rises. But the lack of a European-style welfare state means that those without
work fall into poverty.
This article was amended on 17 June 2014. It originally referred to "the downtown of 2007-08". It
should have been "downturn". This has been corrected.

US economy is at a tipping point could recover or go back into recession

Booker, Seeking Alpha Value Walk columnist, 14
[Brian, 6-26-14, SeekingAlpha, American GDP Shrinks 2.9%: U.S. Economy On The
Verge Of Recession?, http://seekingalpha.com/article/2287983-american-gdp-shrinks2_9-percent-u-s-economy-on-the-verge-of-recession, accessed: 6-26-14, CLF]
Many analysts were expecting the U.S. economy to contract in the first quarter, however the severity of
the decline has shocked some. Revised datapoints to a 2.9% contraction, far worse than most analysts
had predicted. So could the United States be teetering towards a recession, yet again?

Economic indicators are often revised as more and more info and data becomes available. In April, the
government released a report stating that the economy had actually expanded by .1 percent. As more data
came in economists began to revise the data downwards, with predictions averaging out to a 1.7%
decline. The revision from tepid growth to an outright retreat is rather worrisome.
Economy appears to have since rebounded
Most analysts aren't too worried over the shockingly poor numbers from the first quarter. Since the
sharp decline, the economy appears to have rebounded quite dramatically. Hiring is up, the
manufacturing sector isreporting its best numbers in four years, and all 12 of the Federal Reserve
banks are reporting that the economy is indeed growing.
At the same time, many economists are pointing to the particularly harsh winter as restraining the
economy. During the winter some economic activities are constrained. Obviously, farms won't be in full
operation, but also consumers will be less likely to head to the store, movies, or restaurants.
As the weather warms, people tend to head outside and out of their homes more often. And when they do,
there's an increased likelihood of them opening up their wallets. With the summer having finally set in, it
does indeed appear that economic activity is picking up. This should bolster growth, though seasons
always change and it's only a matter of months before winter comes around again.
Meanwhile, the economy has added over a million jobs in the last five months. Increased employment
generally leads to increased spending, which bolsters economic growth. Economists point out that such
hiring generally suggests an economy that is growing between 2 to 3 percent, and certainly not one that is
in the midst of a contraction.
All of these factors combined suggest that the economy is growing, at least at the moment . There
are numerous other indicators that suggest, however, that the economy is still on weak ground and
could fall back into negative territory.
Not all of the data is good
While the United States economy is almost certainly not in recession (as a recession is defined as two
quarters of negative growth), not all of the economic indicators look good. While the U.S. economy has
been adding jobs, wages are largely stagnant and participation in the work force has actually been
shrinking.

The economy is on the brink of collapse

Root, Columbia University political science major and former vice presidential
nominee, 13
[Wayne Allyn, 4-18-13, Town Hall, Is the U.S. Economy on the Verge of Epic Collapse,
http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2013/04/18/is-the-us-economy-on-the-verge-of-epiccollapse-n1570834/page/full, accessed 6-27-14, CLF]

Stocks are rising because the Federal Reserve is printing $85 billion per month in fake money and
dropping it onto Wall Street. Housing is rising because the Fed is buying mortgage-backed securities that

no one else wants, to keep interest rates artificially low. Cars are selling because government itself is
buying record numbers of GM cars, and handing out billions in checks (welfare, food stamps, disability,
and unemployment) to prop up consumer spending.
Take the government checks away and the economy collapses overnight. Sounds like government is
our savior- until you realize this is debt that has to be paid back. The only accomplishment is the
destruction of our childrens and grandchildrens future. Theyll be enslaved for life to unimaginable taxes
just to pay just the interest on the debt. Thanks mom and dad!
With record-setting debt we should at least be experiencing a recovery. We are not. The U.S.
economy, despite trillions spent to artificially prop it up, is nearing complete collapse:
Last month we added a miserable 88,000 jobs. But much worse, 660,000 Americans dropped off the job
rolls...in one month. 90 million working age, able-bodied Americans are no longer in the workforce.
90 million. The workforce participation rate is the lowest since 1979. For men its the lowest since
1948 (when record keeping began). Disposable income in January was the lowest since 1959 (since
record-keeping began). Under Obama were truly back to the future.

Solvency

Wind Solves Jobs

Over 43,000 permanent jobs and even more temporary jobs will be created
Todd, International Economic Development Council Economic Development
Associate, 13
[Jennifer, Jess Chen a research fellow and PhD candidate at American University, Frankie Clogston is an
IEDC consultant and a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University, 10-1-13, IEDC, Creating the Clean
Energy Economy, http://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/IEDC_Offshore_Wind.pdf,
accessed 6-25-14, AKS]

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that in addition to the 43,000 permanent O&M jobs, the
target 54 GW of offshore wind production would require more than 1.1 million job-years to
manufacture and install the turbines.24 Reaching the target is also expected to generate an
estimated $200 billion in new economic activity.25 This calculation is based on a factor of more than 20
jobs for each MW of new offshore wind, as extrapolated from a EWEA 2009 report.26 However, it should
be noted that EWEA has revised its projection for MW, total jobs and jobs per MW by 2030 in its more
recent 2011 publication, which could affect U.S. estimates updated in the future.

Offshore wind development opens up thousands of jobs and reaps huge economic
benefits boost manufacturing and job market
Szkotak, Associated Press reporter, 12
[Stephen A., 10-10-12, Business Week, Report sees jobs, revenues in offshore winds,
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-10/report-sees-jobs-revenues-in-offshorewinds, accessed 6-25-14, AZ]
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) The large-scale development of wind power off the Mid-Atlantic coast
would create more than 70,000 jobs from New York to Virginia, an industry-sponsored study
concludes.
The study released Wednesday said those jobs would be created by a new industrial base needed to
manufacture, build, operate and maintain the towering wind turbines, and an additional 40,000 jobs
would be needed to serve the supply chain. The job growth would be realized over a 10-year build
out of the offshore industry.
The study was conducted for the Atlantic Wind Connection and released during the American Wind
Energy Association's annual conference in Virginia Beach. It continues through Thursday.
"These findings highlight the unique opportunity our nation has for stimulating a brand new
industry by developing this limitless, yet untapped, resource," said Bob Mitchell, CEO of Atlantic
Wind Connection.

Backed by the Internet titan Google and other investors, the Atlantic Wind Connection is moving
forward with the construction of a 380-mile power line that would enable up to 7,000 megawatts of
electricity to be produced at offshore wind farms from Virginia to New Jersey.
The study's economic projections are based on the development of 7,000 megawatts of wind power, or
enough to power more than 2 million homes in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Besides the 110,000 jobs created directly by the industry and the supply chain, the study estimates that
50,000 jobs would be created by the effect of added economic activity restaurants and groceries, for
instance.
Large-scale wind development off the Atlantic coast would also have a combined economic impact
for the states of $19 billion and increase local, state and federal government revenues by $4.6
billion, the study by information and analytics company IHS Inc. concluded.
Mitchell said the findings represent the "tip of the iceberg" of an industry that could have the
potential of generating 330 gigawatts of electricity, exceeding the region's current energy use. He cited
a University of Delaware study that examined wind potential from Cape Cod in Massachusetts to North
Carolina's Outer Banks.
The study, of course, examines the potential for an industry that has little presence in the in the U.S.
No commercial wind power is produced in waters off the U.S., although a project off Cape Cod, Mass.,
could begin producing electricity in 2014. In Virginia, the industry is just beginning to stir with eight
energy producers expressing interest in developing ocean bottom 25 miles off Virginia Beach. The state is
seeking to survey the ocean bottom and collect surface data to move the industry forward.
Wind power advocates have said Virginia is uniquely positioned to nurture the industry because of the
relatively shallow waters offshore and strong winds. It also has the coastal infrastructure a shipbuilding
industry and a deepwater port to allow for building and delivering turbines.

Offshore will more jobs than onshore and 3 times as many jobs as fossil fuels
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et al, 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate

Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 22, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

Besides the sheer quantity of offshore wind energy compared to the offshore oil and natural gas resource,
offshore wind power will also create many more jobs than the oil and gas industries.
According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas sectors of the United States
directly employ 2.1 million people. API asserts that by opening up previously protected offshore
areas (including the entire East and West Coasts), the natural gas and oil industry would create 39,079
jobs in 2030.88 The permanence of these jobs is in question, since oil and gas supplies are finite,
unlike renewable sources.
The United Kingdom expects to create between 1 and 1.7 full-time equivalent jobs for each
megawatt of offshore wind power installed.89 If only 127 gigawatts of offshore wind farms are
installed in the United States by 2030, similar to Europes ambitious plan,90 this could create between
133,000 and 212,000 permanent American jobs annually. Offshore wind would create about three
times as many jobs as would the offshore oil and gas industries. This comparison is consistent with
studies conducted by the PERI Institute, which show a 3-to-1 ratio between jobs created by clean
energy versus those created by fossil fuel industries91.
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that currently in the United States, 85,000
people are employed by the wind industry.92 In Europe, 19,000 people are already employed in the
offshore wind industry.93 Installing, operating and maintaining offshore wind farms employ more
people per megawatt of capacity installed than onshore wind power.94

Offshore wind development opens up thousands of jobs and reaps huge economic
benefits boost manufacturing and job market
Szkotak, Associated Press, 12
[Stephen A., 10-10-12, Business Week, Report sees jobs, revenues in offshore winds,
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-10/report-sees-jobs-revenues-in-offshore-winds , accessed 625-14, AZ]
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) The large-scale development of wind power off the Mid-Atlantic coast
would create more than 70,000 jobs from New York to Virginia, an industry-sponsored study
concludes.
The study released Wednesday said those jobs would be created by a new industrial base needed to
manufacture, build, operate and maintain the towering wind turbines, and an additional 40,000 jobs
would be needed to serve the supply chain. The job growth would be realized over a 10-year build
out of the offshore industry.
The study was conducted for the Atlantic Wind Connection and released during the American Wind
Energy Association's annual conference in Virginia Beach. It continues through Thursday.

"These findings highlight the unique opportunity our nation has for stimulating a brand new
industry by developing this limitless, yet untapped, resource," said Bob Mitchell, CEO of Atlantic
Wind Connection.
Backed by the Internet titan Google and other investors, the Atlantic Wind Connection is moving
forward with the construction of a 380-mile power line that would enable up to 7,000 megawatts of
electricity to be produced at offshore wind farms from Virginia to New Jersey.
The study's economic projections are based on the development of 7,000 megawatts of wind power, or
enough to power more than 2 million homes in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Besides the 110,000 jobs created directly by the industry and the supply chain, the study estimates that
50,000 jobs would be created by the effect of added economic activity restaurants and groceries, for
instance.
Large-scale wind development off the Atlantic coast would also have a combined economic impact
for the states of $19 billion and increase local, state and federal government revenues by $4.6
billion, the study by information and analytics company IHS Inc. concluded.
Mitchell said the findings represent the "tip of the iceberg" of an industry that could have the
potential of generating 330 gigawatts of electricity, exceeding the region's current energy use. He cited
a University of Delaware study that examined wind potential from Cape Cod in Massachusetts to North
Carolina's Outer Banks.
The study, of course, examines the potential for an industry that has little presence in the in the U.S.
No commercial wind power is produced in waters off the U.S., although a project off Cape Cod, Mass.,
could begin producing electricity in 2014. In Virginia, the industry is just beginning to stir with eight
energy producers expressing interest in developing ocean bottom 25 miles off Virginia Beach. The state is
seeking to survey the ocean bottom and collect surface data to move the industry forward.
Wind power advocates have said Virginia is uniquely positioned to nurture the industry because of the
relatively shallow waters offshore and strong winds. It also has the coastal infrastructure a shipbuilding
industry and a deepwater port to allow for building and delivering turbines.

Even limited production is sufficient economic activity results over 200 billion in
economic activity
Todd, International Economic Development Council Economic Development
Associate, 13
[Jennifer, Jess Chen a research fellow and PhD candidate at American University, Frankie Clogston is an
IEDC consultant and a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University, 10-1-13, IEDC, Creating the Clean
Energy Economy, http://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/IEDC_Offshore_Wind.pdf,
accessed 6-25-14, AKS]

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that in addition to the 43,000 permanent O&M jobs, the
target 54 GW of offshore wind production would require more than 1.1 million job-years to
manufacture and install the turbines.24 Reaching the target is also expected to generate an

estimated $200 billion in new economic activity.25 This calculation is based on a factor of more than 20
jobs for each MW of new offshore wind, as extrapolated from a EWEA 2009 report.26 However, it should
be noted that EWEA has revised its projection for MW, total jobs and jobs per MW by 2030 in its more
recent 2011 publication, which could affect U.S. estimates updated in the future.

Jobs Key to the Economy

Jobs specifically in the energy sector are key to the economy
Rep. Lucas, R-OK, 11
(Frank, R-OK, 6-26-11, enidnews, Job creation is key to restoring economy,
http://www.enidnews.com/opinion/x927317616/Job-creation-is-key-to-restoringeconomy, Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF)
The first step to economic success and creating jobs is enacting changes to the tax code that will make
the system fairer, simpler and more efficient for all Americans. For example, reducing the overall tax rate
to 25 percent or less for small and large businesses and individuals will generate economic expansion
while in turn creating more jobs and making America more competitive.
In addition to tax reforms, free trade agreements need to be passed with Columbia, Panama and South
Korea. Passing these agreements will increase the number of exports, which will increase the amount of
production. More production of these goods will require more workers, and this will create hundreds
of thousands of jobs.
The plan calls for us to expand our American-made energy options and reduce our dependency on
other countries for these resources. Oklahoma has been a leading energy-producing state since the
establishment of the first oil refinery in the late 1800s. In more recent years, we have made tremendous
advancements in wind energy making us the ninth-largest producer in the nation. This plan would
encourage more energy exploration and production so that we can utilize the energy resources
within our country. Increasing exploration and production will create jobs, encourage economic
growth, help us break our reliance on foreign oil, and enhance our national security.
I am encouraged to see leaders in congress looking for solutions, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to make certain this plan is implemented so we can move forward with creating jobs and
building Americas economy.

Jobs key to sustained economic growth

Scarpetta, OECD Directorate for Employment, Labor and Social Affairs Director,
14
(Stefano, 2014, OECD, Jobs are key for inclusive growth, http://www.oecd.org/employment/jobs-arekey-for-inclusive-growth.htm, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

High unemployment cannot be addressed without a return to sustained growth. But growth alone
does not guarantee adequate job creation, as recent spates of jobless growth testify. More and better
jobs with decent prospects are needed to kick-start a virtuous circle of rising confidence in the
future and sustainable growth. A broad range of structural reforms is also needed to increase

competition and enhance productivity, as are labour and social policies that orientate workers towards
more productive jobs, and provide support to jobseekers and vulnerable groups.
Helping youths get off to a good start in their careers is an absolute priority. This is why we have devised
an Action Plan for Youth, launched at our OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in May 2013, which
combines short-term measures to boost job creation for youth with more in-depth reforms to enhance
access to jobs, improve education and strengthen the skills match.
Promoting inclusive growth requires both higher participation in the workforce and more
productive and rewarding jobs that draw people to the labour market. An important aim should be to
increase female participation rates, for instance, and to make sure women do not feel confined to lowpaid/low-productivity employment with dim prospects of improvement, but can access better-paid, fulltime jobs too. Nor should women feel forced to take on unprotected informal jobs, as is frequently the
case in emerging markets. With labour forces set to shrink in many OECD and partner countries over the
next 20 years, and with women increasingly outperforming men on several fronts in education, policies
that boost female labour force participation and tear down long-standing structural obstacles to their
employment would yield widespread benefits, while making economies more resilient and societies more
inclusive. This applies not only to women but to other groups that are underrepresented in the labour
market, such as youths, disabled people, low-skilled workers and older unemployed people.

Creating jobs must be our first prioritykey to economy

Dewan & Bernhardt, Center for American Progress Globalization and International
Employment Director & Economic Policy research assistant, 12
(Sabina and Jordan, 11-14-12, Center for American Progress, Creating Just Jobs Must
Be Our Top Priority,
http://americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/11/15/45121/creating-just-jobs-mustbe-our-top-priority/, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)
Our top priority has to be jobs and growth. Weve got to build on the progress that weve made
because this nation succeeds when weve got a growing, thriving middle class.
President Barack Obama started his press conference yesterdayhis first since winning a second term
with those words in reference to the United States, but they apply equally to countries around the
world. His choice to rhetorically place jobs before growth should not be overlooked. The world
needs to focus first and foremost on job creation because jobs are necessary to drive shared and
sustainable economic growth.
Although job creation and economic growth are related, too often people falsely assume that if you
create economic growth, the jobs will follow. But for the past several years, too manynations have seen
economic growth without concomitant growth in employment.
Creating just jobsthe sort that come with good pay, good benefits, and good working conditions,
including the right to freedom of association and collective bargainingis the key to growing the
global middle class and creating the aggregate demand that we need to power the world economy.

Without good pay, workers cannot become powerful consumers. And without the rights they deserve,
workers lack the economic stability they need before making big investments in themselves, their
children, and their societies.

Wind Solves Manufacturing

Offshore outcompetes onshore and bolsters the economy specifically
manufacturing
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et al, 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p.7, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

Additionally, offshore winds are stronger and steadier than onshore winds; thus, more electricity is
generated and offshore wind energy is more consistent (less variable) than onshore wind farms.8
All of these factors could expedite a transition to a clean energy economy, while at the same time
reducing electricity costs.
Offshore wind offers more than just clean electricity. It also can be a major source of jobs.
Manufacturing, installing, operating, and maintaining offshore wind farms can provide thousands
of local jobs in coastal states. These include positions that require unique engineering,
manufacturing and maritime expertise. For example, offshore wind production requires
oceanographic and ecological expertise. Experts in these fields would be needed to collect and
analyze data on areas of interest to offshore wind developers. New or retrofitted heavy manufacturing
facilities would need to be built in the United States to supply offshore turbines. Installing offshore
turbines also would require maritime expertise and ships, similar to those needed by the offshore oil
and natural gas industry. Specialized undersea cables would be needed to transmit electricity from
the farm to the shore. Manufacturing and installation needs in each of these areas these would
create additional jobs. As a result, a variety of long-term jobs would be created by offshore wind
energy development, including electricians, meteorologists, welders, and operators among other general
maintenance laborers.

Manufacturing Key to Economy

Manufacturing creates jobs key to the economylaundry list
Rynn, CUNY Institute for Urban Systems fellow, 11
[Jon, PhD in political science, 5/23/11, NextNewDeal, Six Reasons Manufacturing is Central to the
Economy, http://www.nextnewdeal.net/six-reasons-manufacturing-central-economy, Accessed: 6/25/14,
CLF]

Without a robust revival in the manufacturing sector, we can kiss our status as a great economic
power goodbye.
Paul Krugman recently argued that manufacturing is one of the bright spots of a generally disappointing
recovery, and there are signs -- preliminary, but hopeful, nonetheless -- that a sustained comeback may be
under way. He points out that the gap between what we sell and what we buy has been improving. This
must be set against a background of a manufacturing decline in the United States of historic dimensions;
even without adjusting for inflation, the trade deficit in goods for the United States between 2000 and
2010 was 7 trillion dollars. A turnaround in the attention of more perceptive economists and a turnaround
in manufacturing may be in the works. But before that, the crucial question is: Why is manufacturing so
important?
1. Manufacturing has been the path to development
It has been the strategic achievement of rich nations over the last several hundred years to create a
high-quality manufacturing sector in order to develop national wealth and power, as Erik Reinert
shows in his book How Rich Countries Got Richand Why Poor Countries Stay Poor." From the rise of
England in the 19th century, to the rise of the US, Germany, Japan and the USSR in the 20th, to the newly
industrializing countries like Korea, Taiwan, and now China, manufacturing has been the key to
prosperity.
2. Manufacturing is the foundation of global Great Power"
The most powerful nations in the world -- the Great Powers -- are those that control the bulk of
the global production of manufacturing technology. That is, it isnt enough simply to have factories
and produce more goods, you have to know how to make the machinery that makes the goods. The key to
power, then, is tomake the means of production.
As the machinery industries go, so goes Great Power . My own research shows that about 80% of the
worlds production of factory machinery has been controlled by what we would consider the Great
Powers." Until the 1950s, the US had produced about 50%; we now produce less than Chinas 16%.
3. Manufacturing is the most important cause of economic growth
The growth of manufacturing machinery output, and technological improvements in that
machinery, are the main drivers of economic growth. No machinery industries, no sustained, longterm economic growth. Just consider the explosion of the Internet, iPhones, and the like -- all made
possible by a small subset of production machinery called semiconductor-making equipment (SME),

which itself is dependent on other forms of production machinery, such as the machine tools that grind the
lenses they use or the alloys of metal the metal-making industries output. These
technologies reproduce themselves, as when an SME makes the semiconductors that then go to make
more SMEs, or when a machine tool makes the metal components that not only go into other pieces of
machinery, such as cars, but are used to produce yet more machine tools. The technological and
productive potential of machine tools and SMEs affect each other as well, leading to the explosive
economic growth of the last two hundred years.
Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.
4. Global trade is based on goods, not services
A country cant trade services for most of its goods. According to the WTO, 80% of world trade among
regions is merchandise trade -- that is, only 20% of world trade is in services. This closely matches the
trade percentages that even the US, allegedly becoming post-industrial," achieves. If in the extreme case
an economy was composed only of services, then it would be very poor, because it couldnt trade for
goods; its currency would be worth very little. The dollar is also vulnerable in the long-term. A postindustrial economy is really a pre-industrial economy -- that is, poor.
5. Services are dependent on manufactured goods
Services are mostly the act of using manufactured goods. You can't export the experience of using
something. Retail and wholesale, which make up about 11% of the economy, are the act of buying and
selling manufactured goods. The same goes for real estate, another 13%, which is the act of buying and
selling a "real" or physical asset, a building. Even health, which makes up about 8% of the economy, is
the act of using medical equipment and drugs (all figures from 2010, value-added).
Finance involves the redirection of surplus resources that the nonfinancial sector of the economy
produces, which means that indirectly, even finance is dependent on manufacturing. The cycle of rise and
decline usually runs like this: some clever society figures out how to take advantage of the current
technologies of production, thus generating huge surpluses, which either the financial forces, the very
wealthy, or the military then appropriate for their own wealth and power; they kill the goose that is laying
the golden eggs. To sum up: the health of the economy is critically dependent on the health of the
manufacturing sector.
6. Manufacturing creates jobs
Most jobs, directly or indirectly, depend on manufacturing -- and reviving the sector could provide
tens of millions of new jobs, eradicating the Great Recession. In 2005, the Japanese manufacturing
sector was 20.2% of its economy, in Germany it was 23.2%, and in the US manufacturing
accounted for 13.4%, according to the the OECD. Using 2005 figures, if the US had the same
percentage as Japan, we would have 7 million more high-quality, long-term, well paying jobs. If we
were equal with Germany, we would have 10 million more. And according to the Economic Policy
Institute, each manufacturing job supports almost three other jobs in the economy. That makes sense,
considering the other five reasons that manufacturing is central to the economy.
Thus, there are six solid reasons that we need to rebuild the manufacturing sector of the United
States. Its time for the United States to wake up before its too late and rebuild the foundation of a
strong, prosperous, middle class economy.

Offshore wind creates green jobs, boosts commerce and industry, and maintains
market with sustainable prices
Burger, independent journalist, 12
[Andrew, 9-25-12, Triple Pundit, Atlantic Offshore Wind Turbines Can Power the Entire East Coast,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/09/atlantic-offshore-wind-turbines/ , accessed 6-25-14, AZ]

Besides yielding a huge reduction in U.S. carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, developing a battery of
East Coast offshore wind farms would provide a big boost to the U.S. economy, generate a very
substantial number of good green jobs and help U.S. commerce and industry innovate and compete in the
fast-growing global wind and renewable energy markets.
But the real advantage of wind versus natural gas or coal is that, even though theres a higher cost now
for offshore wind, it results in price stability, Jacobson said. There are zero fuel costs once theyre in
the water. Coal and gas are depletable resources, so their cost will inevitably go up over time. The cost of
wind energy will remain stable, and the wind resource is infinite.
Not one offshore wind power project is in the water. Strident political opposition, along with
bureaucratic, grid interconnection and technical hurdles continues to hinder offshore wind project
development in the US even as European nations, facing similar obstacles, continue to forge ahead.
Thats despite the offshore wind energy generation potential of more than 1,300-gigawatts (GW).
Harnessing a realistic fraction of just 52-GW could power 14 million homes with clean electrons while
creating over 300,000 new jobs and $200 billion in economic activity in some of the nations largest
cities.
The first proposal to develop an offshore wind farm in the U.S. the Cape Wind Project in Nantucket
Sound was filed in 2001. More than a decade later, installation has yet to even begin, though Cape
Wind in April announced that it had selected a joint venture team that is to carry out construction.

Renewables Key
Renewables key to economy Creates jobs, and spurs further development
Murphy, SFGate contributor, no date
[Melissa, San Francisco Gate, How Renewable Energy Can Contribute to the Growth of
Our Country, http://homeguides.sfgate.com/renewable-energy-can-contribute-growthcountry-79353.html, Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF]
Energy Access
The affordable access to energy in the form of electricity is important not only for individual
citizens, but also for the industries that drive an economy. As the development of renewable energy
proceeds in increasing system capacity and efficiency, the costs of energy production will drop. (See
Reference 3) These trends will increase the availability of clean electricity over time, eventually
benefiting the country's manufacturing sector through lowered costs, and lowered pollution or energy
taxes. (See References 1 and 4)
Industry Development
Expanding renewable energy production can indirectly broaden the industry base in the U.S. For
renewable energy production to increase, there is first an increased demand for the associated
machinery, parts and expertise that go into creating energy from renewable resources. Large-scale
industries that can locally produce equipment for wind and solar power collection, storage and
distribution, for example, can be expected to grow with the demand for renewable energy. (See
References 1 and 2) Inversely, investments made early in these peripherally related industry sectors
control how quickly renewable energy develops. (See Reference 3)
Job Creation
The growth of any industry demands an increased workforce. Renewable energy production is
typically more labor intensive than current fossil fuel energy, so the number of needed workers is
expected to increase proportionately with the amount of renewable energy created, reports the
OECD. (See Reference 4) Peripheral jobs will also be created in related sectors that develop and maintain
associated systems, technology and equipment. As these sectors increase employment rates, additional
disposable income at the household level will further stimulate the economy by increasing demands in
entertainment, services and other sectors. (See References 1 and 4)

Impact

Economic Decline Causes Extinction

Economic decline leads to extinction
Auslin, American Enterprise Institute Scholar, and Lachman, American Enterprise
Institute Resident Fellow, 9
(Michael, Desmond (Former International Monetary Fund Policy Development and Review Department
Deputy Director, Cambridge University Economics PhD) , 2009, American Enterprise Institute, The
Global Economy Unravels, http://www.aei.org/article/economics/international-economy/the-globaleconomy-unravels/, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social
and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe,
from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that
they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the
adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust
in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the
world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the
flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained
downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in
Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward,
leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has
had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been
predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls
apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward
Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal
or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the
country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of
temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment
rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack
of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in
Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing
tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have
increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since
1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks.
The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global
downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with
possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in
all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are
doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang

War
Global economic crisis causes warstrong statistical support proves
Royal, U.S. Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Director, 10
[Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, edited by: Ben
Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer p. 213-215, CLF]

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 defense behaviour of interdependent slates. Research in this vein has been
considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the
systemic level. Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (19%) work on leadership cycle
theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a preeminent 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 (sec also
Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation
(Fearon, 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 are 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. Blomberg and Hess (2002)
find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods
of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and
prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict,
which in turn returns the favour . Moreover, the presence of a recession lends lo amplify the extent to
which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & I less. 2002. p. 89)
Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg. Hess. &
Wccrapana. 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions.
Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a silting 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 Blomberg. Mess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing
that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and
Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are 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. DcRoucn (2000) has provided
evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak
Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent
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 at
systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed
conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This
observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease
in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those
studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically
consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here
should be considered ancillary to those views.

Hegemony

Uniqueness

Now Key
U.S heg is declining now
Huihou, Chinese Ambassador to Algeria, Tunisia and Palestine,
Lebanon and Egypt, 14
[An, 6-5-14, Peoples Daily, US frustration as its hegemony declines,
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/n/2014/0605/c98649-8737275.html, Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF]

Boogged down by its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the peak of the United States
hegemony is past. The U.S. economy crashed during the 2008 financial crisis, triggeringfurther dom
estic issues. Coupled with the rise of the emerging economies, it is anindisputable fact that the domi
nance of the U.S.A. is in decline. Increasingly powerless tohalt this decline, the United States is at a loss.
Through his implementation of the "Asia-Pacific rebalancing strategy" in 2011, Obama adjusted his Midd
le East policy by reducinginvestment in the Middle East, slowing down the implementation of the "newint
erventionism and seeking shelter in stability.
A war in Syria is now contrary to its global strategy, and it would leave the U.S. facing toomany associa
ted difficulties. In August 2013, the West contrived the Syrian 'chemicalweapons' crisis. The United State
s schemed with the United Kingdom to threaten Syria,declaring its intention to carry out a limited military
strike. But 59% of Americans wereopposed to aiding the Syrian opposition.
The UK Parliament forced their government to abandon its war plans. Obama had toaccept a Russian pro
posal to turn over control of Syria's chemical weapons in exchange forpeace as an "acceptable" conclusio
n to the crisis.
Mr. Qian Wenrong, a reputable Chinese scholar, points out that after World War II and theCold War, the U
nited States has always been ready to make war, and has always been ableto assemble a group of willing h
elpers. As a result, the U.S. suffers from the illusion that itcan do whatever it wants. This time round, Oba
mas compromises on the Syrian "ChemcalWeapons crisis" testify to the declining strength of the United
States. The U.S. is weakerthan before. The prime of U.S. hegemony has passed, and is perhaps fated to di
sappear forever.

Impacts

Great Power Wars

U.S. heg key to stop great power wars
Zhang, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Researcher, 11
(Yuhan, Lin Shi, Columbia University and independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant
for the World Bank in Washington, D.C., 1-22-11, East Asia Forum, Americas decline: A harbinger of
conflict and rivalry, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflictand-rivalry/, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights,
constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal
opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal
trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought
opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations.
However, what will happen to these advances as Americas influence declines? Given that Americas
authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and
Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this
question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way.
Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the
problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral
institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations.
For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washingtons
withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets
would become more politicised and, well, less free and major powers would compete for
supremacy.
Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and
1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies,
with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international
regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973).
A world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal
international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into
restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that
will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.

Heg decline makes conflict escalation more likely

Zhang, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Researcher, 11
(Yuhan, Lin Shi, Columbia University and independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant
for the World Bank in Washington, D.C. , 1-22-11, East Asia Forum, Americas decline: A harbinger of

conflict and rivalry, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflictand-rivalry/, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Paul Kennedy was probably right: the US will go the way of all great powers down. The individual
dramas of the past decade the September 2001 terrorist attacks, prolonged wars in the Middle East and
the financial crisis have delivered the world a message: US primacy is in decline.
This does not necessarily mean that the US is in systemic decline, but it encompasses a trend that appears
to be negative and perhaps alarming. Although the US still possesses incomparable military prowess
and its economy remains the worlds largest, the once seemingly indomitable chasm that separated
America from anyone else is narrowing. Thus, the global distribution of power is shifting, and the
inevitable result will be a world that is less peaceful, liberal and prosperous, burdened by a dearth
of effective conflict regulation.
Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military.
Under these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned
with US hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan,
South Korea, Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that
has tended to mute great power conflicts.
However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the pulling power
behind the US alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse,
American interests and influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be
harder to avoid.
As history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in
the late 19th century Americas emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of
conquest towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and
waning of British power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain rules the
waves. Such a notion would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western
Hemispheres security to become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with
democracy and rule of law.

Free Trade
U.S. heg key to free trade
Zhang, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Researcher, 11
(Yuhan, Lin Shi, Columbia University independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and a consultant for
the World Bank in Washington, D.C. , 1-22-11, East Asia Forum, Americas decline: A harbinger of
conflict and rivalry, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflictand-rivalry/, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights,
constraints on the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal
opportunities for broad segments of society. As a result of such political stability, free markets,
liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms have appeared. And, with this, many countries have
sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating stable and cooperative relations.
However, what will happen to these advances as Americas influence declines? Given that Americas
authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and
Eastern Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this
question could affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way.
Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the
problems of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral
institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations.
For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washingtons
withering leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets
would become more politicised and, well, less free and major powers would compete for
supremacy.
Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and
1970s, US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies,
with the US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international
regimes (such as the Bretton Woods System in 1973).
A world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal
international system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into
restrictive, anti-globalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that
will inevitably be devoid of unrivalled US primacy.

Free trade promotes peacePeace incentives

Adorney, economic historian, 13
(Julian, 10-15-13, FEE: Inspire, Educate, Connect, Want peace? Promote Freetrade,
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/want-peace-promote-free-trade, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

First, trade creates international goodwill. If Chinese and American businessmen trade on a regular
basis, both sides benefit. And mutual benefit disposes people to look for the good in each other.
Exchange of goods also promotes an exchange of cultures. For decades, Americans saw China as a
mysterious country with strange, even hostile values. But in the 21st century, trade between our nations
has increased markedly, and both countries know each other a little better now. iPod-wielding Chinese
teenagers are like American teenagers, for example. Theyre not terribly mysterious. Likewise, the
Chinese understand democracy and American consumerism more than they once did. The countries may
not find overlap in all of each others values, but trade has helped us to at least understand each
other.
Trade helps to humanize the people that you trade with. And its tougher to want to go to war with
your human trading partners than with a country you see only as lines on a map.
Second, trade gives nations an economic incentive to avoid war. If Nation X sells its best steel to
Nation Y, and its businessmen reap plenty of profits in exchange, then businessmen on both sides are
going to oppose war. This was actually the case with Germany and France right before World War I.
Germany sold steel to France, and German businessmen were firmly opposed to war. They only
grudgingly came to support it when German ministers told them that the war would only last a few short
months. German steel had a strong incentive to oppose war, and if the situation had progressed a little
differentlyor if the German government had been a little more realistic about the timeline of the war
that incentive might have kept Germany out of World War I.
Third, protectionism promotes hostility. This is why free trade, not just aggregate trade (which could
be accompanied by high tariffs and quotas), leads to peace. If the United States imposes a tariff on
Japanese automobiles, that tariff hurts Japanese businesses. It creates hostility in Japan toward the
United States. Japan might even retaliate with a tariff on U.S. steel, hurting U.S. steel makers and
angering our government, which would retaliate with another tariff. Both countries now have an excuse
to leverage nationalist feelings to gain support at home; that makes outright war with the other country an
easier sell, should it come to that.

Terrorism
U.S. leadership key to prevent terrorism
Korb, Council on Foreign Relations Council Policy Initiative Project Director, 3
[Lawrence, 2003, A New National Security Strategy in an Age of Terrorists, Tyrants, and Weapons of
Mass Destruction, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/National_Security_CPI.pdf, p. 56, accessed 6-30-14, CLF]

U.S. Dominance and Preventive Action. The most serious threats to American security come from
the combination of terrorism, rogue states, and WMD. The temptation to try using these weapons
against Americans is high for several reasons, including the fact that clearly identifying and punishing an
attacker is inherently difficult. We are not going to be able to talk others out of developing these
weapons, nor are we likely to be able to build an international coalition to help us get rid of these
weapons. Therefore we must have both the capability and the will to use force against those states
and the groups within them that represent the most serious threats to our security and way of life.
And we should be prepared to do this essentially with U.S. military power alone, unbound by the
need for allies or UN approval. In the longer term, we must undercut our potential adversaries by ensuring
the spread of free-market democracy throughout the world.
Larger trends have conspired to make the threat posed by radicalism much greater in recent times.
Given the rapid dissemination of destructive technologies, sensitive information, and capital flows in
todays globalized world, threats from terrorist networks and rogue states can and will materialize more
rapidly than in the past. Moreover, any attacks promise to be much more devastating if and when these
actors get their hands on WMD. As the worlds leading military and economic power, the United States is
the most likely target of these terrorists and tyrants. In the face of, and in response to, these imminent
dangers, it has not only the duty but also the legal and moral right to launch preemptive attacks,
unilaterally if necessary. Common sense dictates that the government not stand idly by and wait to act
until catastrophic attacks are visited upon the American people.
The United States has the unrivaled military and economic capability to repel these challenges to
our security, but it must display the will to do so. To be able to carry out a strategy of preventive action,
taking preemptive military action when necessary, this country must be a hegemonic power. The United
States can protect its security and that of the world in the long run only by maintaining military
dominance. Only America can effectively respond to the perils posed by terrorists, regional thugs,
weapons proliferators, and drug traffickers. It can do the most to resolve problems created by failed
states before they fester into major crises. And it alone can ensure that the worlds sea lanes and skies are
kept safe and open for free trade. But the array of challenges in its path requires military dominance and
cannot be met on the cheap.
The ultimate goal of American foreign policy will be to use this power, alone if necessary, to extend freemarket democracy around the globe. This is the only way in which the United States can deal with the
long-term causes of terrorism. These terrorists come from countries that suffer from political repression,
economic incompetence, and a broad lack of respect for the rule of law. And, contrary to what some
believe, democracy and capitalism do not spread inexorably on their own. The United States

therefore needs to assume a leadership role in spreading and accelerating the growth of free-market
democracies that have been taking hold in the aftermath of the Cold War.

Climate
U.S. leadership and hegemony key to solve climate change
Kim, World Bank Group President, 13
[Jim, 6-27-13, The Washington Post, U.S. takes key climate change steps, but the world must do more,
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-27/opinions/40233089_1_climate-change-greenhouse-gasemissions-jim-yong-kim, accessed 6/27/14, CLF]

The world is starting to get serious about climate change. This is happening for one major reason:
leadership.
President Obamas announcement this week of a broad set of actions to reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions that are changing our climate was very welcome. His plan, largely based on executive
orders, will cut carbon pollution in the United States, prepare the country for the rising number of
extreme weather events such as hurricanes and droughts, invest more in clean-energy sources and
help lead international efforts to combat climate change and manage its effects.
These steps must be seen in the context of growing mobilization on climate change worldwide because
the United States is one part of a larger puzzle. Obama is joining the leaders of some of the largest carbon
emitters China, India and the European Union in committing to reduce harmful emissions. The
world can now see the potential for a global alignment of political leaders with substantial power to
stop the dangerous warming of our planet.
Yet leaders around the world must propose even more far-reaching solutions and deliver results.
Can they?
I think they can. But they dont have much time.
They know theres no substitute for aggressive national targets to reduce emissions.
Today, the burden of emissions reductions lies with a few large economies, including the United
States, China, India and the European Union. In particular, the moves by the United States and other big
emitters to reduce emissions from coal-fired plants are an important step forward.
And yet even if the global communitys pledges on greenhouse gases are fully met, the world
remains on a trajectory to warm more than 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit).
Thats barreling down a reckless path. Last week, the World Bank Group published a scientific report on
the effects of climate change. One part of the assessment looked at a rise in temperatures of 2 degrees
Celsius (3.6degrees Fahrenheit), which we could experience in the next 20 to 30 years. (The world is
already at 0.8degrees Celsius above pre-Industrial Era levels.) Soon, our forecasts showed, a world 2
degrees Celsius warmer would have dire consequences: Forty percent of the land used to grow maize in
Africa could no longer support the crop; parts of major cities in South Asia, including Bangkok, could be
underwater; and the fish stocks in parts of Southeast Asia could decline by 50 percent.

The worlds leaders should be doing all they can now to avoid a 2-degree-Celsius warmer world.
That calls for far more ambitious action.
As President Obama pointed out, one of the quickest steps is to cut short-lived climate pollutants such as
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), methane and black carbon from sources that include air-conditioning
systems, urban landfills, livestock farming, wood burning and diesel engines.
Just a few weeks ago, China and the United States agreed to phase down production and
consumption of HFCs. This could cut two years worth of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,
slowing the arrival of a warmer world.
But leadership on climate has to happen at every level. In the United States, states and cities have
been taking the lead. California, for instance, has started by aggressively reducing diesel emissions. These
emissions have a warming impact 460 to 1,500 times stronger than carbon dioxide.
More broadly, the leaders of the nations that emit the most pollutants need to move ahead in five critical
areas. The first two will require concerted global agreement: setting a price on carbon, which can redirect
finances to low-carbon growth, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful
consumption. Currently, governments hand out more than a trillion dollars annually in fossil fuel
subsidies that could instead be invested in transitioning to sustainable energies.
World leaders need to push for breakthroughs on these difficult issues, but thats no excuse to sit still in
the meantime. The World Bank Group is working with partners right now on three other areas: building
cleaner cities; developing climate-smart agriculture; and investing in energy efficiency and sustainable
energy sources. Moving ahead, we at the bank will be looking at everything we do through a climate lens.
Enormous political and technical challenges remain. But the direction is clear. President Obama
injected a new sense of hope in the fight against climate change globally. The global leaders plans
in front of us reflect a growing commitment to collaborate. Our well-being and that of future
generations, as well as the worlds economic security, are at stake. The opportunity for action on climate
change is still for a short time within our grasp.

Solvency

Economy Key to Hegemony

Economy key to hegemony
Khalilzad, Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and former UN
Ambassador, 11
(Zalmay, 3-8-11, National Review Online, The Economy and National Security
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad,
Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF)
Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States
position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic
growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends
could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to
increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers .
The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business
cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of
enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of
GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the
bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The
decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an
unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three
years.
Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is
projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest
payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or
require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated
events trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United
States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis
that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.
Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and
France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their
empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a
presence east of Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to
their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow
the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be
compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments.
We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth.
Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic,
and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global
distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S.
policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new
international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could
intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play

major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises
because of the higher risk of escalation.
The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has
been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their
competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of
multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.

Economic Growth is key to US Hegemony prevents escalatory conflicts

Khalilzad, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Counselor and US
Ambassador to the UN, 11
(Zalmay, 3-8-11, National Review Online, The Economy and National Security
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad,
Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF)

We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even
though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and
economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global
distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S.
policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new
international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could
intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play
major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises
because of the higher risk of escalation.
The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has
been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their
competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures
of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.
American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket,
regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario,
there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into
all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may
shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be
emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.
As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijings
economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and
ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic
modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China.
Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive territorial claims and
provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have roiled its
relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most
significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.

Renewables Key to Hegemony

Renewables key to hegemony
Murphy, SFGate contributor, no date
[Melissa, 2009, SFGate, How Renewable Energy Can Contribute to the Growth of Our Country,
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/renewable-energy-can-contribute-growth-country-79353.html, Accessed: 626-14, CLF]

By supporting technologies such as renewable energy, the U.S. can remain ahead of the curve in
worldwide industry development; by investing in renewable energy the innovations, skills and
technologies that compete in the international market will be advanced locally. The OECD has
found countries that embrace innovation are more likely to strengthen their economies and
rebound from recessions. (See References 2 and 3) By depending less on energy resources from other
countries and more on local technological development, the growth of the U.S. can be regulated and
encouraged from within.

Add-ons

Energy Security
Plan can decrease dependence on foreign oil
Bowes, National Wildlife Federation Climate and Energy Senior Manager, 12
[Catherine, Justin Allegro, National Wildlife Federation Renewable Energy and Wildlife
Program Manager, 2012, National Wildlife Federation, Environment America, THE
TURNING POINT FORATLANTIC OFFSHORE WINDENERGY: Time for Action to
Create Jobs, Reduce Pollution, Protect Wildlife, and Secure Americas Energy Future,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/FINAL%20%20NWF%20Turning%20Point%20report--%20lower%20res.pdf, Page 11, Accessed 630-14, CX]
Americas dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels is one of the biggest threats to our
national security. As retired Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson notes, Our dependence on petroleum
compromises our national security by making us both strategically and operationally
vulnerable...Becoming energy independent must be a top priority for the U.S. America spends
approximately $1 billion a day overseas for oil. Instead of pouring this money down the drain, wind
gives us the opportunity to invest these funds at home, where our economy sorely needs it.
Combined with advancements in electric vehicles, offshore wind energy has the potential to greatly
reduce our reliance on foreign and domestic oil.

Energy Poverty

2AC Energy Poverty

Access to energy is currently being neglected now
Freling, Solar Electric Light Fund Executive Director, 12
[Bob, 1-17-12, Bob Frelings Solar Blog, Energy is a Human Right,
http://www.bobfreling.com/2012/01/energy-is-a-human-right-the-hi.htm, Accessed 6-26-14, CX]

Without energy, there is no way to light our homes, pump water, store vaccines, run computers,
operate machinery, or communicate with the rest of the world.
Energy is a cornerstone of modern civilization, yet 1.5 billion people still have no access to electricity.
This is unacceptable.
But progress is being made. Earlier this week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, while attending the
World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, announced that 2012 has been designated by the United
Nations General Assembly as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All.
For those of us who have been fighting energy poverty, this is a big deal. In fact, this is a big deal for
anyone and everyone who cares about clean water, food security, womens empowerment,
healthcare, education, poverty alleviation, and the protection of our global ecosystem, for energy
access is a prerequisite for all of the above.
For far too long, the role of energy in meeting basic human needs had been overlooked by the
international development community. Energy access was not included as a Millennium Development
Goal when the MDGs were first announced by the U.N. in the year 2000. Ever since then, however, there
has been a growing consensus that none of the MDGs can be achieved without access to modern energy
services. And now, with the declaration of the Year of Sustainable Energy for All, the United Nations has
elevated the importance of energy access to the highest level of political discourse. The U.N. Secretary
General is calling upon governments of the world, along with the private sector and civil society, to join
forces in a global campaign to end energy poverty by the year 2030.
The UN Sustainable Energy for All Initiative is focused on three mutually reinforcing goals: 1) ensuring
universal access to modern energy services; 2) doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and
3) doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
I am happy to see this campaign get underway. But we can do more. We can assign legal status to the
notion of energy as a human right. We can make it official!
On what grounds, then, can access to energy be considered a human right, and secondly, to what extent
might a human rights platform help to accelerate progress towards the goal of universal energy access?
To find justification for the concept of energy as a human right, one need look no further than to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which has its roots in the
same process that led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In 1945, the newly
established United Nations began drafting a Declaration on the Essential Rights of Man, which was
split early on into a declaration setting forth general principles of human rights and a convention

containing binding commitments. The former evolved into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and was adopted on December 10,1948.
Drafting on the convention continued, but due to ongoing differences among member states on the
relative importance of negative civil and political rights versus positive economic, social, and cultural
rights, the convention was eventually split into two separate documents: 1) the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and 2) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Both drafts were presented to the UN General Assembly for discussion in 1954, and adopted on
December 16, 1966. As of July 2011, the Covenant had 160 parties.
A quick review of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reveals just
how essential energy access is to a wide range of socio-economic goals upheld by the ICESCR. Article
11 of the Covenant, for example, lists a number of rights that are essential to achieve a decent
standard of living, including access to adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous
improvement in living conditions. Article 12 confers the right to the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health. Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant establish the right to work, while Article 13
establishes the right to education.
While not identified as such, it may be argued that the right of access to modern energy is implicitly
conferred by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as it is essential to the
fulfillment of many if not most of the articles contained therein. This is precisely the case with the
Millennium Development Goals: access to energy, though not included itself, is an absolute prerequisite
for achieving each and every one of the MDGs.

Energy poverty independently causes more deaths than malaria and HIV and is the
fundamental struggle against poverty
Lavelle, National Geographic energy editor, 13
[Marianne, 5-29-13, National Geographic, Five Surprising Facts About Energy Poverty,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130529-surprising-facts-about-energypoverty/, Accessed 6-25-14, CX]

"Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty," said World Bank Vice
President Rachel Kyte. "It is energy that lights the lamp that lets you do your homework, that keeps
the heat on in a hospital, that lights the small businesses where most people work. Without energy,
there is no economic growth, there is no dynamism, and there is no opportunity."
The report provides the hard numbers detailing the extent of the problem that UN Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon is seeking to tackle in the UN's two-year-old Sustainable Energy for All initiative. World Bank
President Jim Yong Kim serves as cochair of the advisory board in that effort. Its goal is to provide
universal access to electricity, while doubling both the world's share of renewable energy and its pace in
improving energy efficiency.
Richenda van Leeuwan, executive director of the nonprofit United Nations Foundation's energy access
initiative, one of 15 international groups that partnered in developing the report and accompanying
framework for measuring progress, says the data is "a critical step forward" in the effort to address the
problem. "It is impossible to determine how we are doing in the absence of a measurement mechanism,"

she said. "Having credible data is key to being able to determine and report back on where we areas a
worldin achieving these common goals, and where efforts need to be redoubled."
Here are a few of the significant findings of the report
Huge Progress Undercut by Population Growth
The effort to tackle energy poverty may look as if it has been at a standstill because estimates of the
number of people without electricity have barely changed for years. In fact, electricity has been extended
to 1.7 billion more people between 1990 and 2010, and 1.6 billion people gained access to cleaner
cooking fuels. But world population grew 1.6 billion over that same period, with high growth in regions
with poor energy accessa problem concentrated in about 20 countries in Asia and Africa. The World
Bank report said the pace of expansion would have to double to meet the 100 percent energy access target
by 2030.
Fastest-Moving Countries Still Have Largest Problem
No country has moved as quickly as India to deliver electricity to more people, extending the reach of its
grid to an average 24 million more people each year since 1990. And China by far has achieved more than
any other nation in energy efficiency, yielding savings that add up over the past 20 years to an amount
equal to the energy China used over that same time frame. Yet both nations still face the world's greatest
energy poverty challenges. India has 306.2 million people without electricity, and 705 million people who
rely on wood and biomass for cooking. In China, 612.8 million peoplenearly twice the population of
the United Stateslack clean fuel for cooking and heating. (See related story: "India Power Outage
Spotlights Energy Planning Failure.")
Cooking Smoke Kills
About 3.5 million people, mainly women and children, die each year from respiratory illness due to
harmful indoor air pollution from wood and biomass cookstoves. That's more than double the
annual deaths attributed either to malaria (1.2 million) or to HIV/AIDS (1.5 million). (See related
blog: "Cookstove Smoke is 'Largest Environmental Threat.'") In the past, international health and energy
authorities looked to kerosene as a cleaner alternative, but the World Bank report pointed out that recent
scientific study confirms that kerosene can emit troubling amounts of health-damaging pollutants, while
posing a major burn and poisoning risk. For tracking progress in the Sustainable Energy for All initiative,
the report recommended that kerosene cookstoves be considered a low level of basic access; more
preferable are alternatives such as biogas, liquid petroleum gas (propane), electricity, and natural gas. (See
also: "Protecting Health and the Planet With Clean Cookstoves.")

Lowering the cost of energy is empirically key to alleviating poverty energy prices
are the biggest burden for impoverished households
Holt, President of the Consumer Energy Alliance, 14
[David, 1-28-14, fuel fix, Energy is key to solving income inequality,
http://fuelfix.com/midland/2014/01/29/energy-is-the-key-to-solving-income-inequality/, Accessed 7-1-14,
CX]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 the average U.S. family spent over $4,600 or about 9
percent of their budget to heat and power their homes and fuel their vehicles. Families in the bottom fifth
of income earners spent nearly 33 percent more of their budget on energy costs than average $2,500 a
year or 12% of their annual budget. Reference the chart to the left and you will find that low-income
families spend two and half times more on energy than on health services. Unlike food and housing,
consumers cannot shop around for the lowest cost energy. Bargains can be found in the supermarket,
but, prices at the pump do not vary from one station to the next. Conservation similarly is not an option
when its a choice between driving to work or saving a gallon of gasoline.
A solution to remedying income inequality is tackling rising energy costs. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration projects the price of electricity will rise 13.6 percent and the price of
gasoline by 15.7 percent from now until 2040. Rising global demand, aging and insufficient energy
infrastructure and restrictive government policies all play a role in increasing costs.President Obama has
the ability to reverse this trend and lessen the blow to all consumers.
Take the shale gas boom for example. Increasing access to private and state lands and sound state
regulatory programs have boosted production of natural gas and led to a significant lowering of prices.
IHS CERA predicted that the shale revolution lifted household income by more than $1,200 in 2012
through lower energy costs, more job opportunities and greater federal and state tax revenues.
Policy makers should promote responsible energy development with the knowledge that it will have
a positive affect on even the most vulnerable. The president has the power to act. Permitting energy
infrastructure including the Keystone XL Pipeline, opening new offshore areas to oil and natural gas
development, and finalizing the nuclear waste confidence rulemaking, could transform the energy
economy.
If policy makers want to take meaningful action to help our nations low income families, they must
pursue actions that help lower not raise the cost of energy.

Offshore wind will be the cheapest fuel source available

Mahan, Renewable Energy Manager at Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, 2010

[Simon, Isaac Pearlman, Program Manager/Project Researcher at UC Santa Barbara,

Jacqueline Savitz, Vice President for U.S. Oceans and Executive Director of Coast
Alliance, September 10th, Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver
Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs than Offshore Oil,
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf , Accessed 625-14, CX]
As shown in the three previous examples, offshore wind energy can create more electricity, heat more
homes or power more cars than the offshore oil and gas that is being considered for production on the
East Coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Offshore wind energy potential is much greater than
that of new offshore oil and gas and the cost is much lower. Developing the 127 gigawatts of offshore
wind energy described above would cost about $36 billion less over 20 years than the estimated cost
of producing the economically recoverable oil and natural gas combined. Better still, unlike the oil and
natural gas resources, offshore wind is not finite and, unlike the oil and gas, will not become depleted.

However, the estimated lifetime of an offshore wind turbine is about 20 years and a new turbine will
eventually need to be installed in order to continue to capture wind energy. Therefore a comparison of
costs and benefits over 20 years is an appropriate one.
According to MMS, 20 years worth of East Coast offshore oil at $110 per barrel would cost consumers
$720 billion, and the natural gas would cost $449 billion. After the East Coasts offshore oil and gas have
been extracted, nearly $1.17 trillion will have been transferred from consumers to the oil and gas industry,
and then no more energy will be available. Developing the 127 gigawatts of offshore wind energy
described above instead of drilling for oil and gas, would cost about $1.13 trillion, $36 billion less
than the oil and gas costs over 20 years. Notwithstanding the cost savings, as described above the wind
investment also produced more energy in every scenario considered. By investing in offshore wind
on the East Coast, instead of offshore oil and gas in the areas that were previously protected in the
Atlantic and eastern Gulf, Americans would get more energy for less money.
There is another downside to high oil and gas prices. As oil and gas prices increase, the industry can
use the proceeds to extract resources that were previously not cost-effective to recover for instance,
deep water oil and gas resources. In turn, the oil and gas companies sell these harder-to-extract
resources at higher prices to customers. Thus, high oil prices not only increase the cost at the pump,
they also increase the risks and potential harm to marine life from more extreme production
processes.

AT Status Quo Solves

Access to energy is a human right but is currently being overlooked by the
international community
Freling, Solar Electric Light Fund executive director, 12
[Bob, 1-17-12, Bob Frelings Solar Blog, Energy is a Human Right,
http://www.bobfreling.com/2012/01/energy-is-a-human-right-the-hi.htm, Accessed 6-26-14, CX]

Without energy, there is no way to light our homes, pump water, store vaccines, run computers,
operate machinery, or communicate with the rest of the world.
Energy is a cornerstone of modern civilization, yet 1.5 billion people still have no access to electricity.
This is unacceptable.
But progress is being made. Earlier this week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, while attending the
World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, announced that 2012 has been designated by the United
Nations General Assembly as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All.
For those of us who have been fighting energy poverty, this is a big deal. In fact, this is a big deal for
anyone and everyone who cares about clean water, food security, womens empowerment,
healthcare, education, poverty alleviation, and the protection of our global ecosystem, for energy
access is a prerequisite for all of the above.
For far too long, the role of energy in meeting basic human needs had been overlooked by the
international development community. Energy access was not included as a Millennium Development
Goal when the MDGs were first announced by the U.N. in the year 2000. Ever since then, however, there
has been a growing consensus that none of the MDGs can be achieved without access to modern energy
services. And now, with the declaration of the Year of Sustainable Energy for All, the United Nations has
elevated the importance of energy access to the highest level of political discourse. The U.N. Secretary
General is calling upon governments of the world, along with the private sector and civil society, to join
forces in a global campaign to end energy poverty by the year 2030.
The UN Sustainable Energy for All Initiative is focused on three mutually reinforcing goals: 1) ensuring
universal access to modern energy services; 2) doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and
3) doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
I am happy to see this campaign get underway. But we can do more. We can assign legal status to the
notion of energy as a human right. We can make it official!
On what grounds, then, can access to energy be considered a human right, and secondly, to what extent
might a human rights platform help to accelerate progress towards the goal of universal energy access?
To find justification for the concept of energy as a human right, one need look no further than to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which has its roots in the
same process that led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In 1945, the newly
established United Nations began drafting a Declaration on the Essential Rights of Man, which was
split early on into a declaration setting forth general principles of human rights and a convention

containing binding commitments. The former evolved into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and was adopted on December 10,1948.
Drafting on the convention continued, but due to ongoing differences among member states on the
relative importance of negative civil and political rights versus positive economic, social, and cultural
rights, the convention was eventually split into two separate documents: 1) the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, and 2) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Both drafts were presented to the UN General Assembly for discussion in 1954, and adopted on
December 16, 1966. As of July 2011, the Covenant had 160 parties.
A quick review of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reveals just
how essential energy access is to a wide range of socio-economic goals upheld by the ICESCR. Article
11 of the Covenant, for example, lists a number of rights that are essential to achieve a decent
standard of living, including access to adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous
improvement in living conditions. Article 12 confers the right to the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health. Articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant establish the right to work, while Article 13
establishes the right to education.
While not identified as such, it may be argued that the right of access to modern energy is implicitly
conferred by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as it is essential to the
fulfillment of many if not most of the articles contained therein. This is precisely the case with the
Millennium Development Goals: access to energy, though not included itself, is an absolute prerequisite
for achieving each and every one of the MDGs.

Status quo doesnt solve absent plan nothing will change in the next 16 years
Anderson, Reuters Foundation North America correspondent, 14
[Lisa, 6-5-14, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Energy poverty falls hardest on
women, http://www.trust.org/item/20140605084148-w39kg/, Accessed 6-27-14, CX]

NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) More than 2 billion people in the world have limited or
no access to electricity. Nearly 3 billion still cook over fires, and more than 4 million die each year
due to indoor pollution generated by lack of clean energy.
Unless more progress is made, these numbers will be the same in 2030, experts told the first United
Nations forum on sustainable energy on Wednesday.
Globally were running in place, said Susan McDade, country team leader for Sustainable Energy for
All (SE4ALL), noting that the number of people cooking with firewood is the same as it was 25 years
ago primarily due to unaffordable technology.

AT Not a US Problem
Energy poverty is a persisting problem in the US
Canfield, Carnegie Mellon Energy and Behavior group member, 13
[Casey, 9-25-13, PhD in public policy and engineering, The Energy Collective, Creating
an Equitable Grid: Should We Be Worried?
http://theenergycollective.com/caseycan/279186/creating-equitable-grid-should-we-beworried, Accessed 6-26-14, CX]
Today, despite the existence of more efficient technology, energy poverty persists in America. In 2012,
15% of households in the U.S. were below the poverty line and paid a disproportionate amount of
their income to adequately heat or cool their home. In some cases, families are making decisions
about whether to heat their home or buy food. In many cases, these families are in poverty because
of health problems, which may be exacerbated by both heat waves and below-freezing
temperatures. In addition to health risks, families are more likely to use unsafe heating sources such
as lanterns, which can lead to fire hazards.

AT - Costly
Consumers are willing to pay initial high costs for offshore energy, but itll be cheap
in the long term anyways
DiPasquale, FitzGibbon Media Vice President, 13
[Christina, 2-28-13, Center for American Progress, RELEASE: Making the Economic
Case for Offshore Wind, New Report Results Confirm Viability,
http://americanprogress.org/press/release/2013/02/28/54693/release-making-theeconomic-case-for-offshore-wind-new-report-results-confirm-viability/, Accessed 6-2714, CX]
Washington, D.C. Today Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the
Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power Act and the Center for American Progress, the Clean Energy States
Alliance, the Sierra Club, and the U.S. Offshore Wind Collaboration released a jointly commissioned
Brattle Group report, which shows that even without federal subsidies, offshore wind can be cost
competitive with electricity from natural gas by 2024. Further, this report finds that building an
American offshore wind industry would have minimal effect on consumersa large majority of
whom are willing to pay this slight increase for homegrown clean energy that creates jobs, protects
public health, and leads to greater energy independence.
In the issue brief that accompanies this report titled Making the Economic Case for Offshore Wind, the
author Michael Conathan, CAP Director of Ocean Policy, describes the current policy landscape and the
positive results presented in the Brattle Group report while recommending that the Obama administration
and Congress take steps to accelerate the Smart from the Start Program, roll back subsidies for mature
and polluting energy industries, put a price on carbon, and swiftly enact the Incentivizing Offshore Wind
Power Act.
America has been standing on the sidelines watching the rest of the world develop more than 4,000
megawatts of installed offshore wind capacity, while we have yet to begin construction on our first
offshore turbine, said Conathan. The offshore wind bill introduced today in the House and Senate
would ensure that we can take advantage of the promise and opportunity of offshore wind to diversify our
energy mix, while ensuring development will not burden ratepayers.
To provide a conservative estimate of the economic effects, the Brattle Group analysis does not include
any subsidies such as the production tax credit or investment tax credit, both of which apply to offshore
wind energy. America has a successful public-private formula for launching new energy sectors: share
early stage risk and invest in innovation, said Fara Courtney, president of the U.S. Offshore Wind
Collaborative. Offshore wind is the next big opportunity to diversify the U.S. energy portfolio and take
on the climate change challenge.
The first of its kind in analyzing the broader economic impact of developing an entire offshore wind
industry, the Brattle Group report finds that the national average monthly rate increase for consumers
would be between $0.25 to $2.08. The public is ahead of the policymakers when it comes to making
smart investments now to build a more secure, affordable, and clean energy supply, said Vanessa
Pierce, regional director for the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign. Even during these tough economic

times, multiple polls show that majorities of Americans are willing to pay more for their electricity
bills to ensure their power comes from clean energy. In particular, polling in New York and
Maryland finds that solid majorities of voters would pay a couple dollars more every month to
support local offshore wind projects.
Offshore wind can provide the East Coast with a virtually limitless source of clean energy right in its
own backyard, with zero fuel costs and without the need to build expensive land-based transmission lines
through the regions urban and rural landscapes, said Mark Sinclair, executive director of Clean Energy
States Alliance. And the good news, as this analysis shows, is that offshore wind powerwith scale-up
can become price competitive with other dirtier electricity resources very soon and without
hardship to ratepayers wallets.

Air Pollution

Wind Energy Reduces Air Pollution

Plan solves pollution, which affects over 154 million people
Bowes, National Wildlife Federation Climate and Energy Senior Manager, 12
[Catherine, Justin Allegro, National Wildlife Federation Renewable Energy and Wildlife
Program Manager, 2012, National Wildlife Federation, Environment America, THE
TURNING POINT FORATLANTIC OFFSHORE WINDENERGY: Time for Action to
Create Jobs, Reduce Pollution, Protect Wildlife, and Secure Americas Energy Future,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/FINAL%20-%20NWF%20Turning
%20Point%20report--%20lower%20res.pdf, Page 7, Accessed 6-30-14, CX]

Wind is an air pollution-free resource, which means huge benefits for our health and the economy.
Burning fossil fuels causes a range of harmful public health impacts, including 20,000 premature
deaths each year resulting from ground level ozone, or smog. More than 154 million people are
exposed to dangerous air pollution levels here in America, including particulate pollution which has
been shown to increase heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks, and other mortality risks.
Additionally, scientists are now warning that the higher temperatures associated with climate
change exacerbate air pollution impacts by increasing the risk of unhealthful ozone levels in the air
we breathe. Reducing these public health threats also benefits our economy - according to the
Environmental Protection Agency, current efforts to reduce air pollution from coal-fired power plants
and vehicles will result in $2 trillion of economic benefits by 2020.

Water Pollution

Wind Energy Reduces Water Pollution

Plan reduces water pollution
Bowes, National Wildlife Federation Climate and Energy Senior Manager, 12
[Catherine, Justin Allegro, National Wildlife Federation Renewable Energy and Wildlife
Program Manager, 2012, National Wildlife Federation, Environment America, THE
TURNING POINT FORATLANTIC OFFSHORE WINDENERGY: Time for Action to
Create Jobs, Reduce Pollution, Protect Wildlife, and Secure Americas Energy Future,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/FINAL%20%20NWF%20Turning%20Point%20report--%20lower%20res.pdf, Page 8, Accessed 630-14, CX]
Producing electricity from clean, renewable sources such as offshore wind helps avoid the
significant impacts on water quality and quantity that can result from mining, drilling, and burning
fossil fuels. For example, mining tar sands (an increasingly exploited form of crude oil) requires 2 to 4
barrels of water just to produce one barrel of oil, creating enormous toxic waste ponds. Coal mining
can also have devastating impacts on local waterways, particularly from the destructive practice of
mountaintop removal. Natural gas presents a severe water contamination threat when extracted via
hydraulic fracturing (fracking), where large volumes of chemicals, water, and sand are injected
underground at high pressure to crack open layers of rock and release the gas.

Ocean Biodiversity

2AC Biodiversity
Wind farms are good for the oceansArtificial reefs, new habitats, and increase of
bio diversity
Orbicon, Danish technical advisory services company, 12
(Orbicon, 7-18-12, State of Green, Offshore wind farms can benefit the ecosystem,
http://www.stateofgreen.com/en/Newsroom/Offshore-Wind-Farms-%E2%80%93-in-harmony-with-fish,
accessed 6-30-14, CLF)
The construction of offshore wind farms is rapidly expanding across Europe as a consequence of the
increasing demand for renewable energy, but how does it affect life in the sea?
Denmark has constructed several offshore wind farms to address and meet this demand. In order to
investigate what effects wind farms have on fish life, a study program was established in 2009 by
means of a collaboration between Orbicon and DTU Aqua.
Read more about Orbicon and DTU on www.stateofgreen.com
The study program concluded that offshore wind farms have a positive effect on local ecosystems,
and that they are beneficial for fish communities because they create new ecological niches and
exclude commercial fishing from the area by them becoming marine protected areas (MPAs).
Read about offshore wind farms in the future on the Danish Energy Agency webpage
One of the worlds biggest offshore wind farms
In Denmark there are 12 completed offshore wind farms, including one of the worlds largest offshore
wind farms - Horns Rev 1. Horns Rev 1 is located in the North Sea, 14-20 km off the western cost of
Denmark at Blaavands Huk, and comprises 80 windmills built to a depth of 20 meters. The Horns Rev 1
project was completed in 2002, and the study program was carried out in 2009 by Orbicon and DTU.
The study showed that offshore wind farms have a positive effect on the fish community structure
and many species of fish. The analysis also shows that offshore wind farms may increase the
number and diversity of fish in the North Sea by creating new habitats.
Stone constructions - Artificial reefs
The study program undertook an analysis of changes in the fish community structure, spatial
distribution and changes in sand eel assemblages, resulting from the establishment of the wind
farm. The stone constructions function as artificial reefs, which provide good opportunities for the
fish to thrive. Additionally, the reef attracts fish which would normally live near the sea bed.
The positive effects of the stone foundations at Horns Rev 1 show that the fish population has increased.
The effects of projecting more wind farms in the area of Horns Rev 1 may increase the recruitment of reef
habitat fish.

Loss of biodiversity causes extinction

Diner, U.S. Army Major Ph.D., 93

(David, April 1993, Planetary Science and Geology, "The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's
Endangering Whom?,", http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456541.pdf, accessed: 6-28-14, CLF)
To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save
[hu]mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to[hu]man[s] in a direct
utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could
affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species
affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of
each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 4. Biological Diversity. -- The
main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current
mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend
occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the
number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse
ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological
niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex
the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected
to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of
threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions,
humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the
risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the
1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined
affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the
risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80
[hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Solve Loss Biodiversity

Offshore wind key to solve loss of biodiversity
Childs, Friends of Earth Environmental Organization Research and Policy Head, 13
(Mike, 12-1-13, Wind Power Monthly, On Reflection: How Offshore Wind Can Help Marine Wildlife,
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1222618/reflection-offshore-wind-help-marine-wildlife,
accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

But what about our marine environment? Much of this is now devoid of wildlife too, due to the
activities of the fishing industry over the past 100 years. We should be aiming to rewild the seas
around the UK as well. This is not a call to hold back the development of marine renewable energy. Quite
the reverse, it is a call to embrace offshore wind, wave and tidal power. To develop it in a way that
facilitates the return of biodiversity.
Let's be absolutely clear, we must develop marine renewable energy. The latest report by leading
climate-change scientists says that without significant and rapid cuts in carbon pollution our oceans
will become more acidic, posing "potentially serious threats to the health of the world's oceans
ecosystems". Without deep cuts in carbon pollution we will see much more extreme weather across the
globe, with the dreadful scenes we recently witnessed in the Philippines repeated more frequently. Yes,
we need energy efficiency, solar power and onshore wind. But we cannot make the necessary emissions
reductions in the UK without the large-scale deployment of offshore renewable energy.
But is it really possible to develop marine renewables and help nature? I chaired a session at
RenewablesUK's recent annual conference that addressed this question. Emma Sheehan from the
Plymouth University Marine Institute presented findings from the Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and
Fisheries report produced for Friends of the Earth. The report summarises research into marine
renewables and marine biodiversity. It concluded that, when done well, marine renewables could
indeed help wildlife. It also found that offshore wind farms can significantly help populations of
commercial fish species.
Angela de Burgh, a consultant at Marine Ecological Surveys, told us of soon-to-be-published research on
the 300MW Thanet offshore wind farm off the Kent coast. Prior to its construction, the company's
survey found that much of the sea floor was degraded due to trawling. But some colonies of ross
worm that had escaped the damage. Through its burrowing activities this worm creates a reef
structure that other sea creatures colonise. By using this survey information the firm could locate the
turbines in such a way that no further damage to this important reef-forming species was caused.
Because of the wind farm there has been a reduction in damaging trawling activities. The ross
worm is now flourishing and marine wildlife such as the pink shrimp, hermit crab and anemone are
returning. This is rewilding in action.

2AC Answers

AT Onshore/Land CP

Offshore Comparatively Better Laundry List

Offshore wind is better than onshore, solves climate, health, reduces hurricanes
significantly, would improve the economy, and it net cheaper than traditional forms
of energy
Danko, Freelance Writer, 14
(Pete, Published in: Wired, The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, 2-26-14, Earth Techling,
Hurricane taming: one more reason to love offshore wind power,
http://earthtechling.com/2014/02/hurricane-taming-one-more-reason-to-love-offshore-wind-power/,
accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Nobody does more provocative, headline-grabbing renewable energy research than Stanford civil and
environmental engineering professor Mark Jacobson. Last week, it was how your state can get to 100%
renewables. Now its how offshore wind turbines can tame hurricanes.
Jacobson, in a paper published today in Nature Climate Change [PDF], isnt suggesting that offshore
turbines be deployed specifically for this purpose. Rather, his point seems to be that when assessing the
cost of offshore wind power, in addition to the climate and health benefits the technology yields, the
turbines ability to reduce the risk of catastrophic hurricanes ought to be taken into account.
The Anholt offshore wind farm (image via Siemens)
Its just one more thing that, when the whole picture is viewed, makes seemingly expensive offshore wind
power less expensive than seemingly cheap conventional power. From the paper:
Including hurricane damage avoidance, reduced pollution, health, and climate costs, but not
including tax credits or subsidies, gives the net cost of offshore wind as ~4-8.5kWh, which
compares with ~10kWh for new fossil fuel generation. The health and climate benefits significantly
reduce winds net cost, and hurricane protection adds a smaller benefit (~10% for New Orleans), but at no
additional cost. In sum, large arrays of offshore wind turbines seem to diminish hurricane risk costeffectively while reducing air pollution and global warming and providing energy supply at a lower net
cost than conventional fuels.
We are talking about a lot of offshore wine power here 300-plus gigawatts of installed capacity,
five times current U.S. onshore wind capacity (we dont have any offshore wind, though projects
are inching along). But running simulations based on the Katrina and Sandy experiences, Jacobson
concluded that placing turbines immediately upstream of a city or along and expanse of coastline
could reduce peak wind speeds by up to 92 mph and the storm surge by 79 percent.
Based on all this, Jacobson says that turbines could be the cost-effective way to reduce storm risk,
compared to, for instance, sea walls. Turbines pay for themselves from the sale of electricity they
produce and other non-market benefits, but sea walls have no other function than to reduce storm
surge (they do not even reduce damaging hurricane wind speeds), so society bears their full cost,
wrote Jacobson and co-authors Christina Archer and Willett Kempton.

But wouldnt the turbines get torn to shreds we have seen turbines damaged by storms, after all. But
those are relatively isolated turbines, Jacobson et al. argue. The reduction in wind speed due to large
arrays increases the probability of survival of even present turbine designs, they say.

Offshore wind key cost effective, boosts jobs, and supercharges US manufacturing
sector.
Mahan, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Fellow, 12
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman AP, Jacqueline Savitz the Vice President for U.S. Oceans, 9-10, Oceana,
Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind can Deliver Cleaner, More Affordable Energy and More Jobs than
Offshore Oil, http://apexcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/OceanaOffshore_Wind_Report_9.1.10.pdf, 6-25-14, AZ]

Offshore wind energy has existed commercially for almost two decades and is uniquely positioned
to overcome obstacles faced by other renewable energy technology. Offshore wind farms can be
placed close to large populations where the need for clean electricity is highest. Bringing in
substantial amounts of clean, renewable energy to major population centers on the East Coast or in
the Great Lakes from landbased energy sources would require thousands of miles of electricity
transmission lines to be upgraded or built a process that could take decades, crisscross dozens of
states, and cost tens of billions of dollars.
Additionally, offshore winds are stronger and steadier than onshore winds; thus, more electricity is
generated and offshore wind energy is more consistent (less variable) than onshore wind farms. All
of these factors could expedite a transition to a clean energy economy, while at the same time reducing
electricity costs.
Offshore wind offers more than just clean electricity. It also can be a major source of jobs.
Manufacturing, installing, operating, and maintaining offshore wind farms can provide thousands
of local jobs in coastal states. These include positions that require unique engineering,
manufacturing and maritime expertise. For example, offshore wind production requires
oceanographic and ecological expertise. Experts in these fields would be needed to collect and analyze
data on areas of interest to offshore wind developers. New or retrofitted heavy manufacturing facilities
would need to be built in the United States to supply offshore turbines. Installing offshore turbines
also would require maritime expertise and ships, similar to those needed by the offshore oil and natural
gas industry. Specialized undersea cables would be needed to transmit electricity from the farm to the
shore. Manufacturing and installation needs in each of these areas these would createadditional
jobs. As a result, a variety of long-term jobs would be created by offshore wind energy development,
including electricians, meteorologists, welders, and operators among other general maintenance laborers.
Due to their size, offshore wind turbines (which currently tend to be much larger than onshore turbines)
must be built in coastal areas so that they can be shipped out to sea. Offshore turbines are too large to
transport by train or tractor trailer. Several European ports have been revitalized due to increased
investments in offshore wind in Europe and similar benefits could be achieved in the United States if the
U.S. begins to invest in this growing industry.

Offshore wind turbines are comparatively better than inland turbines size,
efficiency, support
BirdLife International, the world's largest nature conservation partnership, 9
(Birdlife international, 2009, Birdlife international, Offshore wind farms are impacting seabirds and
migrating passerines, http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/289, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

There is a growing political impetus to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions. Wind power has
emerged as a leading renewable technology and is currently the fastest growing source of energy in
the world. By the end of 2008, wind turbines were satisfying more than 1.5 % of the worlds electricity
demand, generating 260 TWh annually (WWEA 2009).
In Europe, there has been a rapid proliferation of wind farms in the marine environment, which may
portend a global trend. Within European waters, there are currently some 160 offshore farms either
in operation, under construction or being planned. At the forefront of this expanding industry is the
United Kingdom with ten operational wind farms made up of 203 turbines, and plans for a further
7,000 turbines by 2020 (see figure). The United Kingdom, together with Germany, currently accounts for
around 60 percent of the global offshore wind market (WAB 2009). Although more costly than their
terrestrial counterparts, offshore wind farms have a number of advantages . Winds at sea tend to be
stronger and more consistent, and weighty turbine components are more easily transported at sea
permitting larger turbines to be constructed (European Commission 2008). In addition, offshore
wind farms typically encounter less resistance from local communities (Dolman et al. 2003).

Offshore is better than onshore for three reasons: quietness, less bird deaths, and
stronger winds
RelevanSi, 11
[RelevanSi is an integrated communications agency specializing in sustainable web and brand
development, 8-19-11, RelevanSi Blog, Offshore and Onshore: The Debate in Wind Energy,
http://relevansi.com/blog/offshore-onshore-debate-wind-energy/, Accessed 6-29-14, CX]

Offshore wind turbines are obviously coming into much less human contact than those on land.
Thus, people do not need to deal with the the noise pollution and eye sore that turbine cause for
some. Farmers have complained that the whirring noise of turbines scare their livestock, while
others simply do not like the sight of the turbines. Thus, with a move off land, the sounds and
images of the turbines are nearly unnoticeable.
Advantage #2: Less Harm to Birds
Approximately 40,000 birds each year die by flying into wind turbines on land in the United States.
Though this number is relatively very small in comparison to the number of deaths associated with
pesticides, power lines, and other man-made structures, it is still an unacceptable statistic. Fortunately,

offshore wind turbines mitigate this danger. In an attempt to cut down on bird deaths, offshore wind
farms are located in specific areas of the ocean where birds do not frequently fly.
Advantage #3: More Wind
One of the greatest advantages that offshore wind farms have over those on land is the frequency of
strong winds over the ocean. Studies have shown that winds offshore blow nearly 40 percent more
often than on land. Consequently, offshore wind farms can outpace those on land in terms of
capacity and possibly offset the higher construction costs.

Offshore Solves Jobs Better

Offshore wind creates more jobs than onshore wind
Todd et al, International Economic Development Council Economic Development
Associate, 13
[Jennifer, Jess Chen a research fellow and PhD candidate at American University, Frankie Clogston is an
IEDC consultant and a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University, 10-1-13, IEDC, Creating the Clean
Energy Economy, http://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/IEDC_Offshore_Wind.pdf,
accessed 6-25-14, AKS]

There is evidence that offshore wind energy will create new jobs and economic investment. Offshore
wind generates more jobs per megawatt than onshore wind and other fossil fuels due to the labor
associated with manufacturing, operating, and servicing the wind farms. As the European Wind
Energy Association (EWEA) states, the offshore wind industry has an additional employment effect due
to the higher cost of installing, operating, and maintaining offshore wind turbines than land-based ones.1
It is also likely that offshore wind job creation will come at a time and to those places where it is
particularly needed. As the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) indicates, many of the jobs for the new
offshore industry will potentially be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards. These
locations will serve as fabrication and staging areas for manufacture, installation, and maintenance
of offshore wind turbines.2 These areas can particularly stand to gain jobs in a new offshore wind
industry, since they have experienced a double blow from the downturn in manufacturing and the
recent recession.

Offshore Solves Energy Demand Better

Offshore wind peak times correspond with peak demand
Burger, independent journalist, 12
[Andrew, 9-25-12, Triple Pundit, Atlantic Offshore Wind Turbines Can Power the Entire East Coast,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/09/atlantic-offshore-wind-turbines/ , accessed 6-25-14, AZ]

They found that offshore winds off the U.S. East Coast produce between 965-1,372-terawatt-hours
of electricity per year, enough to meet 1/3 of U.S. electricity demand, or all the power needs of the
entire East Coast, from Maine to Florida. The study, U.S. East Coast Offshore Wind Energy
Resources and Their Relationship to Peak-Time Electricity Demand, is available here.
In addition to adding significantly to the U.S. East Coast offshore wind power potential, the researchers
found that East Coast offshore wind energy peaks in the middle of the day. That coincides exactly
with peak power demands.
We knew there was a lot of wind out there, but this is the first actual quantification of the total
resource and the time of day that the resource peaks, commented Stanford University professor of
civil and environmental engineeering Mark Z. Jacobson, who directed the research project. This
provides practical information to wind farm developers about the best areas to place turbines.
Added research team member and recent Atmosphere/Energy PhD program graduate Mike Dvorak,
People mistakenly think that wind energy is not useful because output from most land-based turbines
peaks in the late evening/early morning, when electricity demand is low. The real value of offshore
wind energy is that it often peaks when we need the most electricity during the middle of the day.
Moreover, installing even this great a number of wind turbines off the U.S. East Coast neednt
compromise ocean vistas or threaten wildlife, according to the research team. In their analysis, the
researchers limited installations to just one-third of available shallow-water sites out to 30 meters
depth, with two-thirds of the remaining sites out to 200 meters depth.
Their analysis highlights the real possibility and multiple benefits that could be realized by developing
very large-scale offshore wind farms in Atlantic waters near major East Coast cities, such as Boston and
New York City. Connecting the power to the grid would be technically as easy as laying a cable in
the sand and hooking it directly into the grid without the need to build often controversial
transmission lines on the land, Dvorak said.

Wind turbines on the ocean have more energy potential stronger winds
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Renewable Energy Program, no date
[no date, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Offshore Wind Energy,
http://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy-program/renewable-energy-guide/offshore-wind-energy.aspx ,

Accessed 6-29-14, CX]

Offshore wind turbines are being used by a number of countries to harness the energy of strong,
consistent winds that are found over the oceans. In the United States, 53% of the nations population lives
in coastal areas, where energy costs and demands are high and land-based renewable energy resources are
often limited. Abundant offshore wind resources have the potential to supply immense quantities of
renewable energy to major U.S. coastal cities, such as New York City and Boston.
Offshore winds tend to blow harder and more uniformly than on land. The potential energy
produced from wind is directly proportional to the cube of the wind speed. As a result, increased
wind speeds of only a few miles per hour can produce a significantly larger amount of electricity.
For instance, a turbine at a site with an average wind speed of 16 mph would produce 50% more
electricity than at a site with the same turbine and average wind speeds of 14 mph. This is one
reason that developers are interested in pursuing offshore wind energy resources. The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) provides a number of maps showing average wind speed data through its
Resource Assessment & Characterization page and through National Renewable Energy Laboratorys
(NREL) MapSearch.

AT Other Counterplans

AT Mechanism CP
Long term incentive program ensures development federal support jumpstarts the
industry
Gallucci, InsideClimate News Clean Economy Reporter , 11
[Maria, 10-10-11, Truth Out Loud org, Never-Used Tax Credit Could Jumpstart US Offshore Wind
Energyif Renewed, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111108/offshore-wind-energy-deepwaterbluewater-rhode-island-delaware-investment-tax-credit, accessed 6-25-14, AZ]

Congress is considering overhauling a never-used tax credit for offshore wind energy instead of letting it
expire at the end of next year, as was originally scheduled.
The U.S. still doesn't have a single turbine in its waterscompared to the 1,250 turbines spinning at
nearly 50 offshore wind farms in Europe. Several U.S. industry leaders and analysts told InsideClimate
News this is unlikely to change unless the untapped incentive is renewed.
The tax break, available since 2009, gives offshore wind developers a credit worth 30 percent their project
costs if they begin construction by 2012. It was meant to help the dozen or so proposed wind parks get off
the ground after the credit markets seized up.
But no wind developer has been able to take advantage of it because they don't have approvals
required under federal law to start building. An uncertain permitting process in Washington has left
projects in regulatory limbo for as much as a decade.
In part due to the permitting snags, "no bank has stood up and said they'll finance offshore wind" in the
U.S., said Peter Mandelstam, founder and president of NRG Bluewater Wind, a subsidiary of New Jersey
power producer NRG Energy.
NRG Bluewater is now one of a handful offshore wind developers that's literally banking on Congress to
preserve the tax credit as the Obama administration moves faster to approve projects. His firm has been
trying to build a $1 billion-plus, 450-megawatt wind park off the coast of Delaware for five years now.
Strong and steady winds at sea can generate more carbon-free electricity than wind blowing on land, but
offshore turbines are expensiveat least 50 percent more to build than those on land.
Our project is "not financeable" without a government kickstart, Mandelstam said.
Capping Megawatts, Scrapping End Dates
A new bipartisan bill, introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate, would keep the credit without any
penalty for offshore permitting hiccups. And it would do so by scrapping the subsidy's expiration date and
offering the same tax break for building America's first 3,000 megawattshowever long that takes
enough to power more than one million typical U.S. homes. (The U.S. has nearly 43,500 megawatts of
installed wind capacity, second behind China and all from turbines on land.)
Capping megawatts, rather than setting a cutoff date, ensures that developers "are not under the gun in
making it through a regulatory process that we largely do not control," said Jeffrey Grybowski, chief
administrative officer at Providence, R.I.-based Deepwater Wind. The wind developer has proposed

building three 1,000-megawatt wind parks along the Atlantic Coast and a 30-megawatt demonstration
installation, known as Block Island, off Rhode Island.
"No project has made it into construction in the United States, so we are still very much uncertain about
how long the regulatory process will take us all," he said.
Cape Wind might be the most famous example of the industry's regulatory mess. The 130-turbine wind
farm in Nantucket Sound, Mass., still bears its ten-year-old tagline "America's First Wind Farm," though
many doubt if it will live up to its name.
Despite landing a "power purchase" agreement last year with the regional utility National Grid to buy half
of Cape Wind's electricityand becoming the first project to get all of its federal permits in January in
the face of powerful local oppositionit continues to be saddled with regulatory woes. Most recently, a
federal appeals court overturned the Federal Aviation Administration's conclusion that the turbines pose
no threat to planes.
Other projects, like NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park, may fare better on the regulatory front in the
end, experts say.
NRG Bluewater lined up a buyer for half its electricity in 2008, though getting all its permits is still a few
years away. Nor has NRG Bluewater raised enough money from private investors, whose participation is
key in covering the 70 percent financing gap left by the tax credit.
Matt Kaplan, a North American wind analyst at IHS Emerging Energy Research, said removing the
tax credit's end date could help lure investors by guaranteeing the government's support even if
projects gets held up by bureaucracy or politics.
"Having a long-term incentive for offshore wind would help ... investors to feel a bit more
comfortable with knowing what they can expect out of these projects," he said.
But even if the bill passes Congress, attracting financing will remain a challenge for never-before-seen
wind farms in America, said Amy Grace, a North American wind analyst with Bloomberg New Energy
Finance. Most financiers prefer to invest only after the first generation of projects proves successful, she
said. "Most banks want to be the first to invest in your second project."
Still, the subsidy gives the industry at least a shot, she said. "The tax credit won't guarantee investment
in the industry. But not having the tax credit will guarantee no investment in the industry."
Why The Legislation May Have a Chance
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) introduced the Senate bill with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in July, in part
to support NRG Bluewater's planned Delaware wind park.
Carper, who chairs the Senate finance committee, said last month that he would meet with all six Senate
members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to discuss the bill. The panel is tasked with
creating a plan to curb $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit by Thanksgiving. Clean energy
supporters in Congress have appealed to committee members in recent months to secure or extend
tax credits for cleantech manufacturing and R&D.
In the House, Reps. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) have proposed a companion bill
that they say would help a 25-megawatt project by Fishermen's Energy get built off New Jersey's
coastline.

The 3,000-megawatt incentive would cost the U.S. Treasury roughly $1.5 billion, according to
estimates provided to InsideClimate News by Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind
Development Coalition, a lobbying group. The current tax credit, which the federal stimulus
approved in 2009 for offshore and land-based wind, geothermal, biomass and other clean energy
projects, costs roughly $3 billion.
Grybowski of Rhode Island's Deepwater said he's optimistic the investment tax credit will be approved by
Congress, despite the ideological resistance from some Republicans to continue Obama's green energy
subsidies in the wake of the collapse of solar firm Solyndra, which received a $535 million federal loan.
"We have lots of strong support on both sides of the aisle," he said.
One possible reason is that payments to the large-scale projects won't begin for five years. "We think it
will take 10 years before those first 3,000 [megawatts] are used up," explained Lanard. He and other
advocates of the bills hope this will sway a spending-averse Congress to okay the measure.
Another selling point is jobs. Mandelstam of NRG Bluewater said the first 200 megawatts of its
Delaware project would create 500 construction and supply chain jobs over three yearsa point he
aims to drive home to lawmakers.
According to the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Obama administration's
goal to deploy 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity in the next decade and 54,000 megawatts by
2030, would create more than 43,000 permanent jobs and generate around $200 billion in new economy
activity.
A large chunk of that growth would come from luring global turbine and equipment manufacturers
to set up shop along the Atlantic Coast, developers say. Lanard noted that making one offshore wind
turbine requires some 8,000 parts from hundreds of different companies.
Mandelstam, who also heads the offshore group of the American Wind Energy Association, said he often
plays "matchmaker" between European manufacturers and legislators and governors in coastal states, in
an effort to entice them to open factories in the U.S. But manufacturers aren't likely to follow until
turbines are out at sea, he said. "The supply chain will follow the projects."
Along with creating jobs, a domestic network of suppliers and skilled technicians could significantly
cut the cost of building an offshore wind farm in the U.S., which right now "is higher than it would be
for a comparable project in northern Europe, where there's a developed supply chain," Deepwater's
Grybowski said.
Who Will Build the First Offshore Wind Farm?
Meanwhile, the race to build America's first floating wind farm is on. At this point Deepwater's proposed
30-megawatt Block Island demo installation off Rhode Island appears to be leadingin part because it
doesn't need government financing.
The tax credit is "less critical for the Block Island wind farm because it is a smaller project," Grybowski
said. The project, which includes an underwater network of transmission cables to carry electricity from
wind turbines to the mainland, is expected to cost around $250 million. Permits could be wrapped up by
2013, and the turbines, which would produce enough power for 12,000 homes on the island, could go up
that same year.

"We are confident that we will have a financing package in place to allow the project to proceed,"
Grybowski said. But for larger wind farms, he added, federal support is "critical."
For now it's still anyone's guess which utility-scale wind part will be up and running firstand by when.
If the tax credit is extended, the first payments for big projects would likely be dispensed in five years or
later and divvied up among the leadersCape Wind, NRG Bluewater's Delaware wind park and
Deepwater's trio of 1,000-megawatt projects.
Cape Wind and NRG Bluewater are the furthest along. NRG Bluewater says it expects to wrap up all the
necessary permitting by 2014. It could sign a lease even sooner from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), which is expected to start leasing blocks off the coasts of Delaware, New Jersey,
Maryland and Virginia by the end of this year. (The developer is also seeking to build an additional 2,000
megawatts off Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.)
Theoretically, winds blowing off the Atlantic Coast's Outer Continental Shelf could provide more than
1,000 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power 800 million average homes. But it's not just the Atlantic
states that are vying for offshore renewable energy.
Ohio wants to build a 20-megawatt demo on Lake Erie. Off the coast of Galveston, Tex., developer
Coastal Point Energy is proposing a 12-megawatt project. It suffered a setback this summer after utility
Austin Energy turned down the developer's proposal for a power purchase agreement. Eventually, Coastal
Point hopes to build 300 megawatts at the site and 2,100 more megawatts throughout the area.
The key for the entire U.S. offshore wind industry will be consistent government support, say the
developers. "Stability in tax and regulatory policies will go a long way toward helping this industry
develop in the United States," Grybowski said.

Plan solves best ensures certainty in development of offshore industry and reaps
economic gains
Marine Log, Americas most respected marine industry monthly, 10
[Marine Log, Senate move to promote offshore wind,
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2010mar00050.html, 6-25-14, AZ]

U.S. Senators Tom Carper (D-Del.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Susan
Collins (R-Maine) have introduced legislation to provide financial incentives for the investment and
production of offshore wind energy.
The Carper-Snowe-Brown-Collins Offshore Wind Bill provides the offshore wind industry with
enhanced stability by extending production and investment tax credits for offshore wind until 2020.
The senators say these provisions are vital because of the long lead times required to permit and
construct wind turbines offshore, compared to onshore wind energy.
Offshore wind includes any wind turbine located in the inland navigable waters of the United States,
including coastal waters and the Great Lakes.
"This legislation is essential to encourage the continued growth of this fledgling industry," said
Senator Carper. "Guaranteeing these tax incentives through 2020 will provide companies with the

certainty they need to plan for the long term and encourage further development even in these
challenging economic times. This support will allow companies like NRG Bluewater Wind to continue
to invest in clean, stable wind energy off our nation's shores in places like Delaware. Harnessing our
nation's offshore wind will give us reliable, clean energy; create good-paying American jobs in
manufacturing and construction; lower energy costs for consumers; and reduce harmful pollution that
damages our lungs and impacts our climate."
"Time after time we hear that our wind energy companies require certainty to invest in America's
renewable resources and the data reflects that consistent incentives expand renewable electricity
production in the United States," said Senator Snowe. "If we are to be serious about reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and developing clean energy jobs we must provide dependability and
consistency to tax policies that have a history of working. I appreciate Senator Carper's leadership in
developing this long-term offshore wind tax incentive and look forward to working with him to pass this
extension into law."
"Ohio's potential for offshore wind in Lake Erie is unparalleled," said Senator Brown. "With the right tax
incentives, Ohioians can power their homes with clean energy produced right here at home. Many Ohio
companies are already supplying components to the wind power industry. By increasing investments in
wind power, we are also promoting American manufacturing."
"I support efforts to find a low-cost way to support the offshore wind industry," said Senator Collins.
"This bill will help diversify America's energy supply, reduce our use of foreign oil and spur much-needed
job creation."
Proposed offshore wind projects moving through the development process include ventures in Delaware,
Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Projects have also been discussed off the shores of Maine and the Great
Lakes states.
In Delaware, NRG Bluewater Wind has estimated it will create 1,200 jobs during construction - and
approximately 300 jobs for operation and maintenance throughout the life of the project.

Federal investment key to certainty and long-term viability

Shott, Senior Legislative Representative at National Wildlife Federation, No date
[Corey, no date, National Wildlife Federation, Incentivizing Offshore Wind A Wise Investment for Jobs,
Clean Air, Wildlife Protection and Energy Independence, http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/GlobalWarming/Offshore%20Wind/Incentivizing-Offshore-Wind-Fact-Sheet.pdf, 6-25-14, AZ]

One of the primary obstacles facing American offshore wind development is the inadequate and
inconsistent federal investment in key financial incentive programs for renewable energy. The
unique challenges of offshore wind energy - long investment time, infancy of the industry, and
higher initial project costs require longer term certainty of financial incentives. The 112th
Congress extended the offshore wind Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for projects that begin
construction before January 1, 2014, but action is needed to ensure longer term certainty of this
critical tax incentive in order to leverage the significant private investments that will be made to
launch this new job-creating clean energy industry in America.

Recognizing this challenge, Senators Carper (D-DE) and Collins (R-ME), and Congressmen
Pascrell (D-NJ) and LoBiondo (R-NJ), have introduced the Incentivizing Offshore Wind Power
Act (S. 401 & H.R. 924) to provide a investment tax credit to the first movers in the offshore
wind industry. Extending the investment deadline will attract the financial support vital for
harnessing Americas abundant and untapped offshore wind capacity.
Modeled after a production tax credit for the nuclear power industry in the 2005 Energy
Policy Act, the legislation:
Provides a 30% tax credit on investment in offshore wind for the first 3,000 MW developed;

Would be applicable to projects sited in the inland navigable waters of the United States,
including the Great Lakes, or in the coastal waters of the United States, including the territorial
seas of the United States, the exclusive economic zone of United States, and the Outer Continental
Shelf of the United States;

Requires the Secretary of Treasury to consult the Secretaries of Energy and Interior when
establishing this credit; and
Prevents companies from receiving any other production or investment tax credits in addition to
the offshore wind investment tax credit. Once awarded a tax credit, companies have 5 years to
install a wind facility.
This legislation is exactly the kind of policy we need to move forward and make offshore wind
energy a reality in the United States.

Investment tax credit ensures creation of industry only mechanism to solve

Coleman, Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Reporter, 14
[Zack, 3-7-14, Washington Examiner, Offshore wind lobbies for credit to keep industry from blowing
away, http://washingtonexaminer.com/offshore-wind-lobbies-for-credit-to-keep-industry-from-blowingaway/article/2545151, accessed 6-28-14, AAZ]

Companies looking to build an offshore wind industry are lobbying lawmakers to extend a key tax
incentive as a larger onshore wind credit faces congressional headwinds.
No wind power is currently generated off U.S. coasts, though the Obama administration is hoping to
change that. It already has proposed three commercial leases in Maryland, Virginia and Rhode Island.
More are likely on the way the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory says
U.S. coasts could yield 429,000 megawatts of offshore wind electricity. Electricity capacity totaled
roughly 1.1 million megawatts in 2011, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Locking up financing is another story. Without the tax credit, one industry source said, projects might
never come to fruition.

That's why the industry is pounding the marbled pavement of Capitol Hill in hopes of including a oneyear extension of an investment tax credit in a possible tax extenders package. The credit, which gives
developers up to 30 percent of the project cost in cash up front, expired last year.
The industry's boosters say they are being realistic. While they want a long-term extension, they know
the GOP is even reluctant to renew an onshore production tax credit.
Companies are trying to convince Republicans that the offshore credit, like the onshore one, is a
jobs issue.
The onshore credit has developed a constituency over two decades that includes Republicans. That's not
the case for the offshore industry, so its supporters say snagging a one-year extension might be the best
outcome.
Offshore industry sources say the upfront cash injection is necessary to meet offshore wind's high
capital costs. Supporters have pressed their case with staffers for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, DNev., and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
One industry source said it doesn't make sense to set up shop until the U.S. boasts an offshore
capacity of between 1,000 and 2,000 megawatts, which would require between 200 and 400 turbines.
That's a difficult milestone to reach without the investment tax credit, the source said.

AT Agent CP
U.S is key it has a long coastline and quality wind
Todd, International Economic Development Council Economic Development
Associate, 13
[Jennifer, Jess Chen a research fellow and PhD candidate at American University, Frankie Clogston is an
IEDC consultant and a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University, 10-1-13, IEDC, Creating the Clean
Energy Economy, http://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/IEDC_Offshore_Wind.pdf,
accessed 6-25-14, AKS]

The good news is that there is significant energy-generating potential from offshore wind in the
United States due to the length of the U.S. coastline and the quality of the wind resource. In general,
offshore winds blow more strongly and uniformly than onshore winds. U.S. offshore winds are
projected to produce a total energy generation of up to 30 percent more than U.S. onshore winds.48,
49 The total gross wind resource from U.S. offshore wind energy is projected at more than 4,000
MW or roughly four times the current generating capacity carried on the U.S. electric grid.
These estimates place the U.S. reserve behind Asia and Europe in capacity. However, research indicates
that if the U.S. unlocks capacity through reforms in the permitting process and improvements in
vessel, transmission, and port infrastructure, then capacity could double to 6,180 MW.50

Continued fed funding is the only thing holding back offshore wind plan solves
investment
Mahan, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy renewable energy manager, et al., 10
[Simon, Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana senior campaign director, Isaac Pearlman, Oceana climate campaign
intern, 9-10, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can Deliver Cleaner, More Affordable Energy and More
Jobs Than Offshore Oil, http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report__Final_1.pdf, p. 5, accessed 6-30-14, AKS]

Renewable energy projects and manufacturers are more likely to proceed if there are consistent,
predictable signals from governments and private markets to stimulate investments. Over the past several
decades, onshore wind energy in the United States has periodically had access to tax benefits.
Unfortunately, these have been short-term commitments, renewed annually, which provide inadequate
assurance to those considering long-term investments. When these renewals end, the industry will likely
constrict. As a result, fewer planned projects have been completed than what might otherwise occur with
a more consistent signal from the government.106 This boom-and-bust, year-to-year uncertainty harms
the onshore wind industry and must not be allowed to extend offshore. In order to create a consistent and
predictable environment for offshore wind energy, the United States must:
Increase and make permanent the tax credit for investment in advanced energy property outlined in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. This legislation extends the 30 percent credit for

investment in qualified property used in a qualified advanced energy manufacturing project, but ends in
2012.107 In addition,, these tax credits should be extended to manufacturers of offshore wind turbine
components and turbine installation vessels.
Increase and make permanent the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program for opening,
expanding or modernizing facilities to manufacture offshore wind turbine components and extend this
program to turbine installation vessel manufacturing.
Use policy mechanisms that increase the long-term demand for and supply of renewable energies, such as
a robust Renewable Electricity Standard or Feed-in Tariffs, Production and Investment Tax Credits, Loan
Guarantee programs for renewable energy projects and technology manufacturers and training programs.
Accelerate the electrification of the transportation fleet through incentives to automobile manufacturers
and purchasers and by building the needed infrastructure such as charging stations to allow maximal use
of this new technology.

AT Private CP
Public sector commitment key to energy research and development and makes
renewable energy more affordable
Relich, OHorizons Foundation Executive Director, 11
[Natalie, 2-28-11, Americans for Energy Leadership, Solving the Energy Poverty
Problem, http://leadenergy.org/2011/02/solving-the-energy-poverty-problem/,
Accessed 6-25-14, CX]
But our country is neglecting a field central to our national prospect and security: energy. Although the
information technology and pharmaceutical industries spend 5 to 15 percent of their revenue on research
and development each year, U.S. companies spending on energy R&D has averaged only about onequarter of 1 percent of revenue over the past 15 years
We need a vigorous strategy to invent our future and ensure its safety and prosperity. In the
realm of energy, as with medicine and national defense, that requires a public commitment. Why
cant the private sector do this? What makes energy different from, say, electronics? Three things.
First, there are profound public interests in having more energy options. Our national security,
economic health and environment are at issue. These are not primary motivations for private-sector
investments, but they merit a public commitment.
Second, the nature of the energy business requires a public commitment. A new generation of
television technology might cost $10 million to develop. Because those TVs can be built on existing
assembly lines, that risk-reward calculus makes business sense. But a new electric power source can
cost several billion dollars to develop and still carry the risk of failure. That investment does not
compute for most companies.
Third, the turnover in our power system is very slow. Power plants last 50 years or more, and they
are very cheap to run once built, meaning there is little market for new models.
It is understandable, then, why private-sector investments in clean energy technology are so small.
Yet, while it may make sense for individual companies to make these choices, accepting the status
quo would condemn our country to very bad options. There is vast opportunity in energy. Prices are
declining in solar energy and wind, and they could fall further with new technology. There is a
critical need for better electricity storage technologies to enable electric vehicles and very-large-scale
renewable energy.
Investment into energy R&D would not only help secure Americas future, but could also do much
for the billions living in energy poverty. As noted earlier, small scale renewable projects provide the
best opportunity for alleviating poverty while not adding to greenhouse gas emissions. By driving down
the cost of solar cells, wind turbines, and energy storage electrifying rural areas could become not
only become a cost effective proposition for governments, but profitable endeavor for private investors.
While renewables remain a tough business pitch in much of the developed world, these margins become
even smaller in the developing world, with lower electricity prices and increased technical hurdles.

Lowering prices and creating more logistically feasible renewable power could also stem off the
growing trend of developing nations looking to coal as the basis for electrification.

AT Renewables CP
Solvency deficit Offshore wind outcompetes other renewables brings energy to
large populations more quickly
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et. al, 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p.8, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

The most opportune areas for offshore wind generation lie along the East Coast and the Great Lakes.
While the West Coast also has strong winds, the deeper waters make it more difficult to place wind
turbines with current technology. Nonetheless, more than 75 percent of the countrys electricity
consumption occurs in 28 coastal states, much of that is on the East Coast.11 About 81 percent of
the population, an estimated 245 million people12, live in these coastal areas. While most of our
potential renewable resources, like solar, biomass and onshore wind, are located in remote regions,
far from major population centers, offshore wind potential is best where population is largely focused
along the East Coast.
Many coastal states consume large amounts of electricity (Table 1.) In fact, eight out of the top ten
states with the greatest electricity consumption are located along the Great Lakes and East Coast.13
In these regions, offshore wind power represents a valuable local renewable resource. Besides
offshore wind, other renewable resources in the US are far from these major population centers,
situated instead in the Great Plains (particularly wind power), the Rocky Mountains (geothermal),
the Pacific Northwest (hydroelectric) and the Southwest (solar). Thousands of miles of new
transmission lines must be built in order to harness these great renewable resources. In some areas,
construction and placement of those lines may be delayed by public resistance despite the necessity
to modernize the electrical transmission system.

AT Solvency Arguments

AT Turbines Break
Turbines take energy out of hurricane winds prevents breaking
Fischetti, Scientific American Senior Editor, 13
(Mark, 2-26-14, Scientific American, Offshore Wind Farms Could Knock Down Hurricanes,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offshore-wind-farms-could-knock-down-hurricanes1/, accessed
6-27-14, CLF)

But wouldnt turbines snap or topple over in hurricane winds? No, because of how the farms would
reduce the wind energy. Heres how it would work: As the outer bands of a hurricane approach the
massive set of wind farms, the turbines spin, taking energy out of the winds. Those winds usually
whip up waves and pull air up alongside the hurricane eye wall, increasing the storms strength. If
the outer-band winds are diminished, the storms power decreases; wind speeds slow and the surge
lessens. As the hurricane continues to cross the wind farms, the turbines continue cutting down the
energy, so the hurricane loses strength as it advances. Very high winds never build to strike the
turbines.

AT No Spillover
US wind development is critical to US energy leadership and future offshore wind
energy
Giordano, University of Richmond School of Law JD, 10
[Michael P., 3-1-10, University of Richmond Law Review, "OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT
APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY", http://lawreview.richmond.edu/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2010/03/Giordano-AC.pdf, accessed 6-27-14, CX]

Another important aspect of Cape Wind is its role in demonstrating to the world that the United
States is committed to the development of renewable energy and, in particular, offshore wind energy.
[157] The international community has criticized the United States for failing to show leadership on
the issue of global climate change.[158] As the United Nations continues to seek an international
agreement that addresses climate change on a world-wide level,[159] the United States can point to Cape
Wind as a sign of things to come. Cape Winds construction would provide a positive example of the
United States commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing global climate
change.
As the first proposed offshore wind project in United States waters, Cape Wind endured an arduous
process filled with delays caused by skepticism and the lack of a defined regulatory scheme. The projects
developers never flinched, despite the fact that their personal fortunes were on the line. Their persistence
has paid off, as Cape Wind is one last hurdle away from beginning construction. New Englanders stand to
receive an average output of approximately 186 MW of clean, renewable energy from Cape Winds
turbines;[160] however, Cape Winds greatest gifts will be the trail it blazes as Americas first offshore
wind farm, the confidence it will give to investors and policymakers, and the blueprint it will
provide for future offshore wind energy projects.

AT Not Feasible
Offshore wind can power all of America
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, No Date
[BOEM, no date, BOEM, Offshore Wind Energy, http://www.boem.gov/renewable-energyprogram/renewable-energy-guide/offshore-wind-energy.aspx, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

Offshore wind turbines are being used by a number of countries to harness the energy of strong,
consistent winds that are found over the oceans. In the United States, 53% of the nations population
lives in coastal areas, where energy costs and demands are high and land-based renewable energy
resources are often limited. Abundant offshore wind resources have the potential to supply
immense quantities of renewable energy to major U.S. coastal cities, such as New York City and
Boston.
Offshore winds tend to blow harder and more uniformly than on land . The potential energy
produced from wind is directly proportional to the cube of the wind speed. As a result, increased wind
speeds of only a few miles per hour can produce a significantly larger amount of electricity. For
instance, a turbine at a site with an average wind speed of 16 mph would produce 50% more electricity
than at a site with the same turbine and average wind speeds of 14 mph. This is one reason that
developers are interested in pursuing offshore wind energy resources. The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) provides a number of maps showing average wind speed data through its Resource Assessment &
Characterization page and through National Renewable Energy Laboratorys (NREL)MapSearch.
Wind resource potential is typically given in gigawatts (GW), and1 GW of wind power will supply
between 225,000 to 300,000 average U.S. homes with power annually. In a July 2012 Technical
Report, NREL estimates a gross wind power resource of 4,223 GW off the coast of the United States.
That is roughly four times the generating capacity of the current U.S. electric grid . Even if only a
fraction of that potential is developed, clearly there is enough offshore wind resource to power a
substantial portion of our nations energy needs.

EU prove Offshore wind can power countries

Valentine, Thinkprogress, Climate Progress Reporter, 14
(Katie, 2-27-14, Thinkprogress, The First American Offshore Wind Farm Could Be Up And Running By
2016, Cape Wind Says, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/27/3337871/cape-wind-securesfinancing/, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Still, Cape Wind is moving forward. In 2011, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers approved the
project, followed by the Bureau of Ocean Management. And its not the only offshore wind project thats
gaining steam in the U.S. On the West Coast, a company that wants to build five floating wind turbines
off the coast of Oregon was approved to send its plans to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

earlier this month. That project would be the first to be installed on the West Coast most other offshore
wind projects in the works are off the coast of eastern states. The Interior Department has
announced plans to auction off 80,000 acres off of the coast of Maryland for commercial wind energy
leasing an area that, if fully developed, could house 850 to 1,450 megawatts of wind energy. And
Rhode Island-based wind company Deepwater Wind is planning a five-turbine installation off the coast of
Rhode Island, which could power 17,000 homes. Though the U.S. so far has no installed offshore
wind, Europe has long been a leader in generating energy from offshore wind. The EU countries
combined have the highest overall installed wind power capacity in the world, with 2,080 offshore
turbines installs, yielding6,562 megawatts for 11 countries.

Offshore wind will power all of the cars in the US

Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et. al, 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 20, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

Making a comparison between miles-per-gallon of gasoline (MPG), natural gas miles-per-gallon

equivalent (MPGe) and miles per kilowatt hour (MPkWh), shows the potential for offshore wind to
replace oil and natural gas in the transportation sector. Nearly 99 percent of all US cars and trucks use
oil as an energy source.81 Vehicles that operate from natural gas are commercially available and currently
in use, although in limited numbers. Plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, like Chevrolets Volt 82 , and
completely electric vehicles, like Nissans Leaf 83 and THINKs City84 , will begin to be sold commercially
in the US within the next year. Tesla is already selling plug in electric cars, and the electrification of the
fleet is a key component of the needed transtition to clean energy. Therefore, it is reasonable to
consider the role that offshore resources might play in the transportation sector in the next decade
or two. Estimates of how many miles cold be driven by fully utilizing each of the offshore energe

resource available are provided in MPG, MPGe and MPkWh to compare the potential for each form of
energy in terms of miles driven.
With an electrified car fleet, 127 gigawatts of offshore wind could power nearly twice as many
vehicles as new offshore oil and gas development combined. According to MMS estimates, East Coast
offshore oil resource could fuel approximately 16 million gasoline vehicles annually for 20 years,
while the natural gas resource could fuel an estimated 41.3 million compressed natural gas cars
over the same time. In contrast, this analysis shows that the economically recoverable offshore wind
resource on the East Coast could power approximately 112.5 million electric carsabout twice as
many vehicles than the East Coasts offshore oil and natural gas resources combined. For
comparison, DOE estimates that in 2010, there were about 227 million light-duty vehicles on the
road in the United States.85
Nissan, Chevrolet, Ford, Tesla and a variety of other companies are preparing to sell plug-in hybridelectric vehicles (PHEV), or completely electric vehicles on an increasingly larger scale. According to
a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, if half of all light-duty vehicles are PHEV
by 2050, gasoline consumption would decrease by between 35 billion and 53 billion gallons
annually.86 If this scenario takes place by 2050, by 2055, the United States will have conserved
more gasoline in just those five years than the entire oil resource available off the East Coast. This
figure doesnt even begin to assess the savings that would occur between now and 2050. 87
As homes, heating and cars become more and more electrified, wind will become even better able to
displace oil use. Ultimately, it is this shift to clean energy and away from fossil fuels that will turn
back the clock on climate change.

Offshore wind creates more energy and jobs than all fossil fuels in the region
combined it has the potential to power the entire country
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et al, 10
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),

http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 3, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

For the East Coast, we found that offshore wind would provide much greater potential than offshore
oil and gas combined. This includes potential to power home heating, power generation or
transportation.
Based on conservative assumptions for offshore wind and generous assumptions for offshore oil and
natural gas, this study found that by investing in offshore wind on the East Coast, rather than
offshore oil and gas, Americans would get more energy for less money. We show in this report that
offshore wind can generate at least 127 GW of power conservatively. This would equal current
electricity generation in states where it is located, almost as much as is generated using fossil fuels
in those states. The assumptions and methodology are described in the Oceana Technical Notes
(available at www.oceana.org/cleanenergy).
On the Atlantic Coast, offshore wind could generate about 30 percent more electricity than could be
generated by the technically available offshore oil and gas.
The Atlantic Coasts offshore wind energy potential could generate enough electricity to heat more
homes than exist in that region. In fact, the Atlantic Coasts offshore wind potential is so great, that it
could supply enough electricity to heat every home in the country, and then some.
Offshore wind from the Atlantic could power nearly twice as many vehicles as new offshore oil and
gas from the same area. The Atlantic Coasts offshore wind energy potential is so great that it could
power more cars than exist in the region. More than 112.5 million electric cars could be powered by
wind, which is about half of all the cars and trucks on the road in the entire country. Accelerating
both the wind transition and vehicle electrification now could allow vehicles to begin to use the offshore
wind power as soon as it becomes available on the grid.
On the Atlantic Coast alone, the United States could install at least 127 gigawatts of wind power, an
amount roughly equivalent to European projections for that continent by 2030.
Developing 127 gigawatts offshore wind energy capacity over 20 years would provide energy at a
cost of about $36 billion less than the production of economically recoverable new offshore oil and
natural gas.
Clean energy production creates three times more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuel
production.
Offshore wind development off the Atlantic coast could create between 133,000 and 212,000 jobs
annually in the United States more than three times as many jobs than new offshore oil and
natural gas development is expected to create.

Wind energy costs less than fossil fuels monetarily and environmentally
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et. al, 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,

Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 21, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

As shown in the three previous examples, offshore wind energy can create more electricity, heat more
homes or power more cars than the offshore oil and gas that is being considered for production on
the East Coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Offshore wind energy potential is much greater than
that of new offshore oil and gas and the cost is much lower. Developing the 127 gigawatts of offshore
wind energy described above would cost about $36 billion less over 20 years than the estimated cost
of producing the economically recoverable oil and natural gas combined. Better still, unlike the oil
and natural gas resources, offshore wind is not finite and, unlike the oil and gas, will not become depleted.
However, the estimated lifetime of an offshore wind turbine is about 20 years and a new turbine will
eventually need to be installed in order to continue to capture wind energy. Therefore a comparison of
costs and benefits over 20 years is an appropriate one.
According to MMS, 20 years worth of East Coast offshore oil at $110 per barrel would cost
consumers $720 billion, and the natural gas would cost $449 billion. After the East Coasts offshore
oil and gas have been extracted, nearly $1.17 trillion will have been transferred from consumers to
the oil and gas industry, and then no more energy will be available. Developing the 127 gigawatts of
offshore wind energy described above instead of drilling for oil and gas, would cost about $1.13 trillion,
$36 billion less than the oil and gas costs over 20 years. Notwithstanding the cost savings, as described
above the wind investment also produced more energy in every scenario considered. By investing in
offshore wind on the East Coast, instead of offshore oil and gas in the areas that were previously
protected in the Atlantic and eastern Gulf, Americans would get more energy for less money.
There is another downside to high oil and gas prices. As oil and gas prices increase, the industry can
use the proceeds to extract resources that were previously not cost-effective to recover for
instance, deep water oil and gas resources. In turn, the oil and gas companies sell these harder-toextract resources at higher prices to customers. Thus, high oil prices not only increase the cost at
the pump, they also increase the risks and potential harm to marine life from more extreme
production processes.

AT Wind Turbines Make People Sick

There is literally no evidence that wind turbines make people sick
Chapman, Sydney Public Health Professor, 14
(Simon, 2-24-14, The Conversation, Study find no more evidence wind turbines make you sick
Again, http://theconversation.com/study-finds-no-evidence-wind-turbines-make-you-sick-again-23621,
Accessed 6-30-14, CLF)
There is no reliable or consistent evidence that proximity to wind farms or wind farm noise directly
causes health effects. Thats the finding of the National Health and Medical Research Councils
(NHMRC) much-anticipated draft systematic review of the evidence on wind farms and human health,
released yesterday.
This report takes the number of reviews published on the issue since 2003 to 20. And all have reached the
same broad conclusions.
The NHMRC investigators also found consistent but poor-quality evidence that proximity to wind
farms was associated with annoyance and, less consistently, with sleep disturbance and poorer
quality of life.
But finding an association between wind farms and these health-related effects does not mean that
wind farms cause these problems. These associations could be due to selection or information bias or to
confounding factors.
Some poor-quality studies, for example, include only people with complaints, failing to consider the
many who are not upset by turbines. And anti-wind farm activists' efforts to spread fear among
communities may cause people who anticipate they will be adversely affected to worry themselves
sick.
It is unlikely that substantial wind farm noise would be heard at distances of more than 500 metres to
1500m away, the report concludes, though noise levels vary with terrain, type of turbines and weather
conditions.
But when it can be heard, noise from wind turbines, including its content of low-frequency noise
and infrasound, is similar to noise from many other natural and human made sources. There is no
evidence that health or health-related effects from wind turbine noise would be any different to
those from other noise sources at similar levels.
Finding an association between poor sleep and wind farms doesnt mean one causes the other.
People exposed to infrasound and low frequency noise in a laboratory (at much higher levels than
those to which people living near wind farms are exposed) experience few, if any, effects on body
functioning.
On the possibility that the shadow flicker produced by wind turbines might trigger epilepsy, the
investigators found insufficient direct evidence to draw any conclusions.
Flashing lights can trigger seizures among people with a rare form of epilepsy called photosensitive
epilepsy. But the risk of shadow flicker from wind turbines triggering a seizure among people with
this condition is estimated to be very low.

Finally, on the question of whether turbines might emit harm levels of electromagnetic radiation,
the report concludes there is no direct evidence to suggest such a link.
Wind turbines emit extremely low frequency electromagnetic radiation, which are estimated to be less
than average levels measured inside and outside Australian suburban homes. There is no consistent
evidence that such exposure has a harmful effect on human health.
Wind farm opponents
As occurred with the other 19 reviews, the anti-wind farm lobby will predictably reject these findings. Ms
Sarah Laurie, the most prominent of these voices in Australia, said as much in evidence before last years
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunals hearing into the proposed Cherry Tree wind farm:
Tim Power (lawyer for Infigen Energy): Can I take it that if the NHMRC reference group confirmed the
findings that it made in July 2010 that you would accept that as being robust evidence that wind farms
dont have the health impacts being complained of?
Sarah Laurie: No.
Tim Power: So in a sense what youre saying is youre not going to accept the NHMRC findings unless
they agree with you?
Sarah Laurie: No. What Im saying is that we need to do the research first, so that we actually have
something to review.
In an interview on ABC radio last year, Laurie hinted that even new, original research would still be
unacceptable if it produced yet more evidence showing no harmful effects.
Sarah Dingle (reporter): If federal and state governments agree to fund the research youre calling for
around the country, and it clears wind farms of any adverse impact on human health, would you accept
that?
Sarah Laurie: Sarah, the adverse impacts have been shown by a number of studies, both overseas and in
Australia.
Next steps
The NHMRC has now called for public submissions on the draft report. Noting there is very little
evidence of any acceptable quality available to review, the NHMRC is particularly interested in receiving
high-quality evidence published since the date at which they stopped reviewing.
Three recently published peer-reviewed papers will certainly be jetting to the NHMRC. Two are
ingenious experimental demonstrating the nocebo effects caused by exposure to frightening information
about wind turbines. Nocebo effects are the inverse of placebo effects: when people are warned they may
become ill, and then do, even when exposed to a sham dose of an allegedly noxious agent.
The third is my study of the way that complaints are concentrated around farms targeted by anti-wind
farm activists and absent from places where the lobbyists are inactive, such as Western Australia and
Tasmania. A small number of wind farms saw an increase in complaints following attention from activists
spreading concern.
Like the cultural curiosity of Korean fan death, "wind turbine syndrome is an unrecognised
disease. It is promoted in mainly English-speaking environments, often confounded by envy from
rent-seeking neighbours living on land unsuitable for turbines, by wealthy landowners grimacing at

the aesthetic outrage to their bucolic landscapes, and by climate change sceptics and fossil fuel
mining investors keen to discredit renewable energy.
At a time when health and medical research into known, serious problems including the health
effects of climate change faces serious funding challenges, the NHMRC has more important
problems at which to direct its limited budget.

AT Environment Args

AT Environment Turn
There are ZERO environmental costs to offshore wind
Mahan, Clean Energy Southern Alliance energy promotion overseer, et. al, 2010
[Simon, Isaac Pearlman (UC Santa Barbara Sustainable Fisheries Group Project Researcher, Former
California State Parks and Recreation Department NOAA Sea Grant Fellow), Jacqueline Savitz (Oceana
US Oceans Vice President, Former Chesapeake Bay Foundation Environmental Scientist), Sep. 2010,
Oceana, Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can deliver Cleaner, More affordable energy and More Jobs
than Offshore Oil, edited by: Michael Hirshfield, PhD (Oceana Chief Scientist and Strategy Officer),
Ellycia Harrould-Kolieb (University of Melbourne School of Land and Environment PhD Candidate,
Former Oceana Marine Scientist), Nick Hurwit (Corvallis Environmental Center Manager, Former
Oceana Federal Policy Intern), Carmen Calzadilla (VESTAS Wind & Site Engineer, Former Oceana
Energy and Climate Change Analyst, University of Cdiz Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine
Ecosystems MSc), Matt Niemerski (American Rivers Western Water Policy Director, Former Oceana
Ocean Advocate, Vermont Law School Energy, Public Lands, and Water Resources Law, JD), Kiersten
Weissenger (Former Oceana Climate Change Campaign Intern), Margot Stiles (Oceana Science and
Strategy Director), Jessica Wiseman (Oceana International Marketing & Communications Manager,
Former Oceana Marine Pollution Fellow), Matt Dundas (Former Oceana Climate and Energy Campaign
Manager), Remy Luerssen (James Madison University Virginia Center for Wind Energy Associate
Director, University of Maine Oceanography MS, Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium), Scott
Baker (University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean and Environment), Jennifer Banks (American
Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist),
http://oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Offshore_Wind_Report_-_Final_1.pdf, p. 11, accessed: 6-302014), KS]

Theres never been a wind blowout. No wind meltdowns. Not a single wind-mining disaster. No
ground water contamination from wind fracking. No clean up needed from a wind spill. The point is
simplethe environmental impacts of wind power are, quite simply, minuscule when compared to
the impacts and risks of other forms of energy production, particularly oil, coal, natural gas, and
nuclear. And wind, unlike fossil fuels, does not cause climate change or acidification of the oceans.
This report is focused primarily on the direct economic comparison of wind versus oil and natural gas as
an energy source. But direct costs paid by consumers are not the only costs associated with different
forms of energy generation. Some of those costs are obviousthe Deepwater Drilling Disaster in the
Gulf of Mexico is expected to have costs in the tens of billionswhile some are much less obvious. In
addition to the increasingly obvious consequences of climate change, fossil fuels contribute to air
pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Electricity generation
from these fuels is responsible for the consumption of over a trillion gallons a year of increasingly
scarce and valuable water.
Offshore wind has none of these impacts. In fact, the fuel has no impacts whatsoever. Overall, most
of the negative effects of constructing wind turbines in a marine environment are temporary and
localized. Construction and installation appear to be the most disruptive activities associated with
offshore wind farm development.44 Driving monopiles into the seabed (similar to planting a stake in

the ground) is noisy and disruptive to sediments.45 Fortunately, practices to minimize disturbance
during construction are available (see Doing Offshore Wind Right section below).
In short, the wind is a fuel that, unlike fossil fuels and nuclear power, is cost free in every sense.
There are no costs to drill, dig, mine, transport or dispose of wind. There are no costs to using windno
smog, no acid rain, no climate change, no ocean acidification. In comparison to the environmental
costs of these traditional forms of energy, offshore wind energy is indeed free as the wind.

AT Biodiversity Turn
Offshore wind has no negative harms to biodiversity studies prove it is key to
biodiversity
BusinessGreen, Green Environmental Network member, 11
[BusinessGreen, 8-11-11, The guardian, Offshore wind farms are good for biodiversity, say researchers,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/11/offshore-wind-farms-good-wildlife, accessed 628-14, AAZ]

It is the evidence proponents of offshore wind farms have been waiting for: a Dutch study has found
that offshore wind turbines have "hardly any negative effects" on wildlife, and may even benefit
animals living beneath the waves.
The researchers reached their conclusions after studying a wind farm near Windpark Egmond aan
Zee, the first large-scale offshore wind farm built off the Dutch North Sea coast.
Anti-wind farm campaigners have often argued that wind farms can have a negative impact on bird
populations, while some critics have voiced concerns that offshore wind farms could prove disruptive to
marine life.
However, Professor Han Lindeboom from the Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies at
Wageningen University and Research centre, said that the new study revealed little evidence of
negative effects on local wildlife.
"At most, a few bird species will avoid such a wind farm. It turns out that a wind farm also provides a
new natural habitat for organisms living on the sea bed such as mussels, anemones and crabs,
thereby contributing to increased biodiversity," he said.
"For fish and marine mammals, it provides an oasis of calm in a relatively busy coastal area."
The research, sponsored by NoordzeeWind, a joint venture of Nuon and Shell Wind Energy, claimed that
offshore wind farms actually have a beneficial long-term effect on wildlife.
The wind farm functions as a new type of habitat, the report said, detailing how new species are
attracted to the turbine foundations and surrounding rocks.
The researchers also noted that the turbines help to protect schools of cod, and that porpoises are heard
more often inside than outside the wind farm.
Meanwhile, the survey concluded that sea bird species such as gannets tend to avoid the turbines, while
seagulls appear unflustered and local cormorant numbers even increase.
"The number of birds that collided with the turbines was not determined but was estimated to be quite low
on the basis of observations and model calculations," the researchers added in the article, published in
online journal Environmental Research Letters.
The study noted that the effects of wind farms will inevitably vary depending on their position, but that
offshore wind farms can contribute to a more diverse habitat and even help nature to recover from
the effects of intensive fishing, pollution, oil and gas extraction, and shipping.

However, the report did recognise that the rotating blades can have a "disruptive impact" on some bird
species, and recommends that wind farms are located in specific areas to minimise the possible impact

Skeptics claiming destruction of biodiversity are wrong Denmark offshore wind

studies prove
Gill, Liverpool School biological sciences, 1
[Andrew B., Helen Taylor, School of Biological Sciences, September 2001, OffshoreWindEnergy.org,
The potential effects of electromagnetic fields generated by cabling between offshore wind turbines
upon Elasmobranch Fishes, http://www.offshorewindenergy.org/reports/report_004.pdf, accessed 6-2814, AAZ]

Once construction is completed, there is the potential for the foundations to become artificial reefs
and support large communities. Evidence for the production of artificial reefs has been documented
at the Vindeby offshore wind farm in Denmark. Test fishing was conducted before and after the
construction of the wind turbines and the results indicated an increase in fish yields postconstruction.
The turbine foundations at Vindeby act as artificial stone reefs where bivalves and other fauna growing
on them attract fish1,2. Therefore, it is considered that the flora and fauna at the Vindeby site has
increased in diversity since the construction of the wind farm. Despite this evidence, it is still a
possibility that the benthic communities that colonise the foundations may not be native to the area of the
wind farm, and so, may have an impact on the ecosystem16. However, due to the ban on commercial
fishing around the site of the wind farm, there will be no impact on the benthos from trawling, so
fish stocks may increase
Noise and vibrations generated by the operation of the wind turbines may disturb fish and sea mammals
in the area. Research on the effects of noise transmitted through water on fish is currently absent in the
UK, although at Vindeby fish appeared undisturbed by the noise and accumulated in the area 1,52.
Marine mammals rely on sound to communicate, find prey, and determine the environment around
them52.
Therefore, there is the potential for marine mammals, such as cetaceans, to be affected by noise from
wind turbines, but studies at the Vindeby site do not conclude that there is any noticeable change in
behaviour or numbers of animals present.

Offshore wind is best for wildlife habitats

Bowes, National Wildlife Federation Climate and Energy Senior Manager, 12
[Catherine, Justin Allegro, National Wildlife Federation Renewable Energy and Wildlife
Program Manager, 2012, National Wildlife Federation, Environment America, THE
TURNING POINT FORATLANTIC OFFSHORE WINDENERGY: Time for Action to
Create Jobs, Reduce Pollution, Protect Wildlife, and Secure Americas Energy Future,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/FINAL%20-

%20NWF%20Turning%20Point%20report--%20lower%20res.pdf, Page 7, Accessed 630-14, CX]

All energy sources have some impact on wildlife habitat, but research suggests that offshore wind is a
far safer bet than fossil fuels for many kinds of wildlife (see p. 18). In addition to air emissions,
current energy extraction processes are resource intensive and can have devastating effects on the
environment and public health. Mining can destroy vast amounts of land, pollute rivers and
streams, and have other significant environmental impacts on local communities and wildlife. Oil
drilling and transport can also damage our natural resources and communities, whether through
drilling disasters such as the 2010 BP disaster or through pipeline spills such as the Kalamazoo
River tar sands oil spill in 2010. Perhaps the most devastating impacts from oil extraction can be
found in Canada, where tar sands mining is responsible for the destruction of huge amounts of
boreal forest, toxic contamination of massive amounts of fresh water, and significant increases in
climate change pollutants into the atmosphere.

AT Noise Hurts Marine Life

Careful placement of turbines and trying to be quiet and respectful reduces risk on
animal injury
University of Maryland, Environmental Science Center, 2013*
(University of Maryland, 2013, University of Maryland, Off shore wind energy,
http://www.umces.edu/cbl/wind, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Careful siting of wind turbines, mitigation strategies, such as the presence of marine mammal
observers and a soft-start to pile-driving, where hammering starts more softly so the sound
slowly increases, and alternative types of foundation that do not require pile-driving can help to
reduce these impacts.
There are also potentially some environmental benefits of offshore wind farms. The turbines may
act as artificial reefs and increase biological productivity in the vicinity. The presence of hard
structures can provide habitat for barnacles, sponges, and other invertebrates. Fishing will be
prohibited around the turbines for safety, which may locally increase fish abundance. These
processes can consequently result in attracting predators higher up the food chain.
Understanding and mitigating against environmental impacts requires a baseline knowledge about
the distribution and abundance of marine species and their habitats. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources are working with the Maryland Energy Administration and BOEM to support baseline
ecological studies off the Maryland coast and in the proposed wind energy areas.

Wind Solves Fish

Offshore wind prevents trawling
Richardson, Cleantechnia AP, 12
(Jake, 12-10-12, Cleantechnia, Offshore Wind Benefits Sea Life,
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/10/offshore-wind-benefits-sea-life/, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

A research study conducted by the Marine Institute at Plymouth University found that offshore wind
farms can provide benefits to fish, namely because they can function as shelters (since sea bottom
trawling is not allowed inside wind farms). It seems a little ironic that one human-made technology
can protect fish from the very invasive and destructive practice of using technology for sea-bottom
trawling.
The studys lead author wrote, It is necessary to rapidly deploy large quantities of marine renewable
energy to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning which are leading to ocean acidification,
global warming and climatic changes. Done well and sensitively its deployment could be beneficial to
marine wildlife compared to the alternative scenario of greater levels of climate change.

Offshore wind protects fish from being trawled and creates artificial reefs
Casey, EWEA* Staff Writer, 10
(Zoe, 7-2-10, EWEA, Offshore wind farms protect fish from trawlers, study finds,
http://www.ewea.org/blog/2010/07/offshore-wind-farms-protect-fish-from-trawlers-study-finds/, accessed
6-30-14, CLF)
*European Wind Energy Association

Offshore wind, key in fighting climate change, does have an impact on marine environments
something which researchers and offshore wind developers are aware of and are developing their
knowledge.
A new study, Greening Blue Energy, published by the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) and written in collaboration with E.ON and the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency, discusses offshore wind farms and their effects on marine biodiversity.
In the long term, offshore wind farms can be beneficial to the local ecosystems, the study finds. One
of the biggest ways wind farms achieve this is in protecting marine species from trawling among
the most severe threat to the marine environment.
Environmentalists criticise trawling for its lack of selectivity sweeping up both desired and non-desired
fish of legal and illegal size. Tons of unwanted fish are discarded each year, dying needlessly.
Long term trawling exclusion enhances abundance of several species of fish within the whole wind farm
area and the effects can be considered large, states the study.

Boulders that are used to protect the foundations of wind turbines can also offer shelter to marine
species by acting as a kind of artificial reef. It is certain that the wind turbines and scour
protections will function as artificial reefs for several species of fish, the study says.

Wind Bolsters Fishing Industry

Offshore wind turbines alter ocean currentsBring nutrients up from sea bed,
foster new growth and aid the fishing industry
Reilly, Reed Business Information New Scientist Senior Technology, 8
(Michael, 11-12-08, NBC Science News, Offshore wind powers could alter ocean currents,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27681666/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/offshore-wind-power-couldalter-ocean-currents/#.U7IR0fldVqV, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Generating wind power at sea may disturb ocean currents and marine ecosystems, according to a
new study.
Offshore wind farms are common in Europe; Denmark, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom all
have several active installations. Wind power in the United States is currently confined to dry land,
but three installations are planned off the coast of New Jersey, Rhode Island and Delaware, totaling about
1,500 megawatts of generating capacity.
Extracting energy from wind changes regional air currents, which can in turn affect how the
nearby ocean circulates, according to Goran Brostrom of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute in
Oslo.
In a paper published this month in Journal of Marine Systems, Brostrom shows in a model that
winds swirling at 11 to 22 miles per hour downwind of large farms are uneven. As they blow over
the ocean they can roil the waters, causing upwelling.
The change in currents seems small a nudge of just 3.3 feet per day and the wind farms have
to be around 1.9 square miles. But Brostrom said the effect is enough to bring nutrient-rich waters
up from the depths, which marine life can thrive on.
"I think you will see a large effect over time," he said. "You will get more plankton blooming, and
you will see more vibrant life overall at that place."
Plankton blooms are infamous for causing toxic red tides and for sucking oxygen out of the water. But
they can also be food sources for larger animals.
Advertise
"Whether or not this is a good thing is a matter of debate," Brostrom said. Though he stressed that the
goal for any man-made object should be to minimize environmental impact, he added: "I'm an optimist; I
think this could be beneficial to local fisheries."

AT Birds
Careful placement of turbines prevents bird death
McClain, William & Mary AP, 14
(Joseph, 4-9-14, Mary & William, Careful siting can make offshore wind farms safe for
the birds, http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2014/careful-siting-can-make-offshore-windfarms-safe-for-the-birds221.php, accessed 6-27-14, CLF
The CCB is part of a team with the Richmond-based Timmons Group, an engineering and technology
firm that is one of four Virginia businesses participating in the endeavor to accelerate the development of
offshore wind power. The research awards, having a total value of $3 million, are funded by the Virginia
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME). The awards were announced March 26 in a release
by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
Royal terns are common offshore birds, one of a number of species whose populations may be put at
risk by careless siting of wind farms. Photo by Bart Paxton.Bryan Watts, CCB director, said the centers
role on the team is to assist with the development of a sensor-based approach to environmental
monitoring for the siting of wind farms that will minimize the impacts to migratory birds.
One of the biggest concerns of wind farms is their effects on wildlife, particularly birds, Watts
explained. The careful placement of offshore wind turbines can save a whole lot of birds.
In September 2013, Dominion Virginia Power won the commercial auction conducted by the U.S.
Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to develop wind power on just
over 112,000 acres on the Outer Continental Shelf, approximately 24 miles off Virginias coast. The
governors press release notes that wind power development in this area has the potential to produce
enough electricity to power about 700,000 homes.

Alt causes to bird deaths

Doom, Bloomberg and BusinessWeek reporter, 13
[Justin, 12-6-13, Bloomberg News, U.S. Eases Turbine Bird-Death Rule as Cats Kill Millions,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-06/u-s-eases-turbine-bird-death-rule-as-cats-kill-millions.html,
accessed 6-25-14, AKS]
The U.S. Interior Department loosened restrictions designed to reduce the threat from wind farms
that annually kill dozens of federally protected eagles. Thats a small figure compared to the
hundreds of millions of birds killed every year by cats, cars and mobile-phone towers. Wind farms
killed about 573,000 birds in the U.S. last year, according to the Wildlife Society. In 2002, the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service estimated that communication towers kill 4 million to 5 million per year,
cars kill roughly 60 million, cats kill hundreds of millions, Amy Grace, a wind industry analyst for
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said today in by e-mail. Almost 1 billion are killed annually

from flying into windows, and no one is protesting about bird deaths outside your new home, she
said.

AT Consumption Criticisms
Visibility of wind turbines key prevents apathy and uninformed energy usage,
fostering mindset shift
Shere, Freelance science writer, 11
(Jeremey, 3-15-11, renewablebook, Why people hate wind turbines,
http://renewablebook.com/2011/03/15/why-people-hate-wind-turbines/, accessed 6-29-14, CLF)

But does visibility necessarily translate to ugliness? Whether you believe that wind turbines are
elegant, sculptural additions to the landscape or ugly industrial blemishes is of course largely a
matter of opinion. But heres the rub: however you may perceive them, wind turbines should be
visible. For too long weve been accustomed to energy being invisible. Or, more specifically, weve
come to expect that the plants and machines that produce electricity be out-of-the-way. And with
good reason. Coal-fired power plants, from which we derive most of our electricity, are dirty, loud,
and ugly. (It will come as a surprise to those not in the know that something as odorless, silent, and
seemingly ephemeral as electricity requires so much dark, dirty coal and loud, clanging machinery to
produce it and results in such a huge volume of toxic waste.)
But invisibility also leads to ignorance of how energy is made . And it leads to apathy . And thats a
problem for a few reasons. First because it results in careless, uninformed energy use. And second
because its never good for the vast majority of people to be so completely removed from and ignorant of
the technologies and machines and places that make the stuff without which our globalized, massively
networked civilization would not exist.
So even putting aside my entirely personal, subjective opinion that wind turbines look cool and
majestic, I say bring em on. The more visible they are, the better. Beyond the fact that they channel
a free, renewable fuel and convert it to electricity at reasonable prices, wind turbines serve the
valuable purpose of bringing power generation out of the shadows and into the light.

Onshore wind turbines are ugly Offshore wind is supported by Republicans and
Democrats
Dominiczak, The Telegraph Assistant Political Editor/Correspondent, 14
(Peter, 4-8-14, The Telegraph, Wind turbines are no longer 'environmentally friendly', says Tory
chairman, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10752424/Wind-turbines-are-no-longerenvironmentally-friendly-says-Tory-chairman.html, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

It is no longer "environmentally friendly" to have "giant" turbines in the countryside, a

Conservative minister has said, as he indicated that the Tories will pledge to curb onshore wind power in
their manifesto.

Grant Shapps, the Conservative Party Chairman, said that the Conservatives want to focus on
offshore wind and that they are completely opposed to Liberal Democrat plans to have onshore
turbines "all over the place".
The Daily Telegraph earlier this month disclosed that the Conservatives will use their manifesto to set
out plans to "rid" the English countryside of onshore wind farms.
The Tories could pledge to impose a cap on the total number of turbines or reduce subsidies in order to
make them financially unviable, it is understood.
Asked whether the Tories will make a manifesto commitment to curb wind farms, Mr Shapps said: "The
wind is moving in a clear direction here."
When will we change our driving habits? Go Ultra Low
Mr Shapps said: "The Conservatives feel wind farms have a place - and it is offshore, by and large.
Lib Dems love them, everywhere, and in as many locations as possible.
"Presumably all over the South West if they can pull it off. They'll somehow think it's environmentally
friendly to have the giant pylons all over the place. So that's an area of real differentiation."
He added: "I think wind power's great. But we have the best coastline for wind because of the
geography of the country of any country in the world for the prospect of wind.
"And, actually, they work better off in the sea as well because it's windier, so they don't have to blight
the landscape and upset everybody at the same time. The direction of wind travel is clear, without wanting
to pre-empt our manifesto."
A senior source close to the Prime Minister earlier this month said that Mr Cameron is now "of one
mind" with the Government's most vociferous opponents of "unsightly" onshore wind turbines.

Wind power received overwhelming support on the national level

Smith, California University Political Science Professor, 8
(Eric, Holly Klick (California political science professor), 10-25-08, University of California, Not in My
Backyard: Local Opposition to and National Acceptance of Wind Power,
http://boingboing.net/filesroot/Klick+Smith_Explaining_Nimby_10-25-08_final.pdf, accessed 6-30-14,
CLF)

Wind power receives overwhelming support public support in national surveys.

For example, in a recent CBS/New York Times Poll (2007), 75 percent of the respondents
said they would be willing to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable
sources such as wind or solar. In addition, over 60 percent of respondents supported
requiring government office buildings to use renewable sources of energy such as solar and

wind power, even if this kind of regulation resulted in higher taxes (Carroll 2007).

Politics Incentives Popular

Popular Democrats

Democrats pushing for wind tax incentives

Foran, National Journal energy reporter, 13
[Clare, 12-16-13, National Journal, Dems Push to Extend Clean-Energy Tax Credits,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/dems-push-to-extend-clean-energy-tax-credits-20131216,
accessed 6-29-14, AKS]
With a number of tax incentives for renewable-energy production set to expire at the end of the year,
some mostly Democratic lawmakers are urging Congress to pass an extenders package in the
absence of comprehensive tax reform.
Members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition wrote to House Ways and
Means Committee leadership on Monday calling for an extension of a slate of clean-energy tax
credits currently on the chopping block. The move was timed to coincide with the release of a nearly
identical letter sent by a coalition of Democratic and independent senators to Senate Finance
Committee leadership.
Both letters express support for an overhaul of the tax code, which would fall under the jurisdiction
of the two committees, but stress the importance of extending a number of tax incentives intended
to spur renewable-energy production.
"As we approach the end of the calendar year, many tax programs that are critical for creating
jobs, deploying clean energy, and cutting pollution are facing expiration. If a broader tax code
overhaul cannot be achieved by year's end, it is imperative that these key clean energy tax
incentives are renewed as soon as possible," both of the letters state.

Bipartisan
There is rallying across the spectrum for the wind tax incentive
Sherry, Denver Posts D.C. correspondent, 12
[Allison, 4-2-12, Denver Post, Popular wind-energy tax credit stumbles in Congress,
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20305377/popular-wind-energy-tax-credit-stumbles-congress, accessed 629-14, AKS]

WASHINGTON Though the wind- energy tax credit is widely supported among Republicans and
Democrats here, the push to get it extended has become an almost full-time job on the part of a
handful of senators, including Colorado's two Democrats.
Colorado's entire delegation save GOP Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs supports an
extension. So does Iowa's congressional delegation. Lots of senators and House members, both
liberals and conservatives, have signed up to support it.
But the production-tax-credit extension which costs $4.1 billion over 10 years and includes some other
renewables such as geothermal has thrice failed in the U.S. Senate.
"If anything, the drumbeat gets louder that we need to do something," said U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
"It may take longer than we all want."
Wind has a good business story that Democrats and Republicans love: Manufacturing sites have
grown from 30 in 2004 to more than 400, sprawling across congressional districts in 43 states and
employing 30,000 people in a sector otherwise left wanting in the latest economic downturn.

Federal tax break for the wind industry backed by Democrats and Republicans
Jones, Staffer for TheCabin, 12
[Walter C., 6-4-12, TheCabin, Beebe: Opposition to wind tax break is unAmerican,
http://thecabin.net/social-media/2012-06-04/beebe-opposition-wind-taxbreak-unamerican#.U7AzERaH_1o, accessed 6-29-14, AKS]
ATLANTA Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe on Monday called opponents to the extension of a federal
tax break for the wind industry unAmerican.
He made his remarks at the WindPower convention, which has a projected 12,000 attendees.
Anyone standing in the way of this industry, frankly, theyre unAmerican, he said.
The industry is seeking a five-year extension. It is set to expire at the end of this year.
Although Beebe is a Democrat and President Barack Obama also supports the extension, it has
backing from Republicans as well. Kansas GOP Gov. Sam Brownback also addressed the
convention and called for renewal of the production tax credit as well but with a four-year phase
out that other supporters oppose.

Bipartisan support in Congress for wind incentives

Zichal, former Deputy Energy and Climate Change Assistant to the President, 12
[Heather, 5-23-12, The White House Blog, In Case You Missed It: Broad Bipartisan Support to Extend
the Production Tax Credit, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/23/case-you-missed-it-broadbipartisan-support-extend-production-tax-credit, accessed 6-29-14, AKS]
Tomorrow the President will travel to TPI Composites in Newton, Iowa where he will highlight steps
Congress can take right now to create American jobs, and support American companies and
manufacturers all while continuing to increase clean energy production here at home.
As part of his Congressional To-Do List, the President will call on Congress to pass legislation that
will extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) which provides an important tax credit to utility-scale
wind producers in the United States alongside an expansion of the 48C Advanced Energy
Manufacturing Tax Credit that supports American-made clean energy manufacturing in towns and cities
across the country. According to industry estimates, the wind industry supports nearly 20,000 direct
jobs along with over 30,000 manufacturing jobs in its supply chain, and some in industry have
estimated that without extending the PTC, as the President is calling for, up to 37,000 jobs could be
lost.
That means real impacts for companies, communities, and families in states across the country.
Given that, its no surprise that the actions that President is calling for have strong bipartisan
support from governors, members of Congress, as well as industry.

AT Oil Lobby Clout

Wind lobbies overpowering spending of oil groups
LaRussa, George Washington University Political Science BA, 10
[Cassandra, 3-30-10, Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics, Solar, Wind Power Groups
Becoming Prominent Washington Lobbying Forces After Years of Relative Obscurity,
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/03/solar-wind-power-becoming-prominent/, accessed: 6-29-2014,
KS]

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

Last year was a record year for wind power in the U.S., Real de Azua said. The industry installed
10,000 megawatts last year, enough to generate as much new electricity as three new nuclear plants.
The recent involvement of AWEA in federal affairs, she said, reflects the urgency of the industrys
number one priority passing a national renewable electricity standard with aggressive, binding
near- and long-term targets, as part of comprehensive energy and climate legislation.
Azua de Real cites market certainty as a concern of AWEAs members, who need legislative support of
their industry in order to expand their operations and invest in new manufacturing as well as new wind
farm facilities. She added that it is imperative to the members of AWEA that the U.S. government steps
up and clearly commits to developing renewable energy.
AWEA cites the sheer potential of wind energy and the opportunity for job creation as two key
points that their lobbyists emphasize in the fight for favorable legislation.

Oil lobbies losing influence Bipartisan and public beliefs

Froomkin, Huffington Post senior Washington correspondent, 11
[Dan, 6-6-2011, How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html?page=2, accessed
6-29-2014, KS]

In January, Obama previewed his 2012 budget proposal during his State of the Union address. "I'm
asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies," he
said. "I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own."
The line got a laugh, and then Obama pointed out the trade-offs of giving public support to a powerful
private interest: "Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's." he said.
With the actual budget proposal came more details: a list of tax breaks that, if eliminated, would generate
$43.6 billion of additional revenue over the next 10 years. Two of the biggest breaks date back nearly a
century, to a time when a young, untested industry needed incentives to drill.
The API, after adding in the cost of some other proposed measures (including reinstating Superfund taxes
and repealing two accounting gimmicks that would affect other industries as well), concluded that
Obama's FY 2012 proposed budget could cost the oil and gas industry $90 billion over the next decade.
The loss of subsidies would affect the industry's bottom lines, but would hardly, as Rep. Joe Barton (RTex), recently suggested, start driving companies out of business.
That's because Obama was right; the oil companies are doing just fine. The big five -- BP, Chevron,
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell -- made a combined total profit of nearly $1 trillion over the
past decade, with ExxonMobil clearing $31 billion in profits this past year alone.
And it's hardly the case that the oil industry needs added incentives to drill. Former oilman George
W. Bush made that point as clearly as anyone when he leveled with members of the American
Society of Newspaper Editors in a 2005 address: "I will tell you with $55 [a barrel] oil we don't need
incentives to oil and gas companies to explore," he said. "There are plenty of incentives."

Slocum, of Public Citizen, concurs: "With prices around $100 a barrel, it is asinine to suggest that
$4 to $6 billion a year collectively is driving decisions about whether or not to pursue extraction
opportunities in the U.S.," he said. "It is market prices that are driving investment decisions."
While the oil industry warns that repealing the subsidies -- in addition to costing jobs -- would lead to
higher gas prices, that too is hardly evident. Fuel costs largely reflect the price of oil, and that price has
little to do with how much it costs to produce it. According to a U.S. Energy Information Administration
survey, between 2007 and 2009, major U.S.-based oil companies spent an average of $29.31 to produce a
barrel of oil. About one third of that amount went for extraction and taxes, and two thirds for exploration
and development -- precisely why those companies are making such a killing when prices are $100 a
barrel or more.
Rather than production costs, the price of oil is set by the global market, and is affected by multiple
factors. Those can include financial speculation and geopolitical fears that lately have been causing wild
price swings. The repeal of a few billion dollars in subsidies isn't enough to make more than a small
ripple in an approximately $3 trillion-a-year global market.
Blumenauer argues that subsidies aren't appropriate for any well-established industry. Instead, he
says, they should be used to support developing ones. "What's happened over the years, as the oil
industry matured, as the giants consolidated into global players, and as the price of oil has been on
a pretty steady upward trajectory -- with some hiccups along the way -- is that there ceased to be any
rationale for providing these tax subsidies other than they were in the code and they benefited some
of these companies."
By contrast, he points out: "The rationale for providing tax subsidies for emerging technologies and
energy sources now makes perfect sense for solar, wind, and geothermal -- where helping them
come to scale would help provide a better balance to our energy choices."
Oil and gas subsidies don't appear to wash with the general public, either. In a February NBC/Wall
Street Journal poll that proffered suggestions for things that might be cut or eliminated as a way to
reduce the current federal budget deficit, "eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries"
was considered acceptable by a whopping 74 percent of Americans. Nearly 50 percent called it
"totally acceptable." The only policy proposals that were more popular were raising taxes on the
rich, eliminating earmarks, and canceling unnecessary weapons systems.

AT Plan Unpopular Fish Industry

Fish and wind industries cooperate
Office of Renewable Energy Programs, 13
[Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Nov. 2013, Department of the Interior, Development of
Mitigation Measures to Address Potential Use Conflicts between Commercial Wind Energy
Lessees/Grantees and Commercial Fishers on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Report on Best
Management Practices and Mitigation Measures, http://www.boem.gov/Draft-Report-on-Fishing-BestManagement-Practices-and-Mitigation-Measures/, accessed 6-29-2014, KS]

The United States Department of the Interior (USDOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM), in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is developing best
management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures that may be applied to Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) leases and plans as they relate to commercial and recreational fishing practices. The
goal of this project is the development, in close consultation with representatives from the fishing
industry and wind energy developers, of reasonable BMPs and mitigation measures to offset
impacts for analysis and decision making under NEPA and other applicable statutes. These BMPs will
be used to foster compatible use areas of the OCS and reduce use conflicts within portions of the
U.S. Atlantic OCS that may be used simultaneously by the wind energy industry and fishermen. The
outcome of this effort is a list of BMPs and mitigation measures that ultimately will be considered during
analysis and decision-making phases during the NEPA review process for wind energy siting,
construction, operational and maintenance activities, and decommissioning which can be documented
through the NEPA process for reducing conflict between fishermen and developers.
To reduce future conflicts between fishing and wind-related operations on the OCS, BOEM sought
input from the commercial and recreational fishing industries, as well as managing agencies and
scientists, relative to proposed offshore wind development areas. This project focused on engaging
stakeholders with an interest in this process, including federal and state natural resource
management agencies, federal fishery management councils (FMCs), commercial and recreational
fishermen or interest groups, and wind energy developers and experts.
To effectively engage relevant stakeholders, the heart of this program consisted of eight stakeholder
workshops that took place from Maine to North Carolina where representatives from relevant
government, industry, and recreational/commercial fisheries worked together to discuss OCS wind
leasing and possible BMPs. These meetings allowed for an open dialogue among the fishing
community, regulatory agencies, and wind energy developers, and aided in establishing a working
relationship among parties with the goal of developing a set of acceptable BMPs.

Neg

Politics Incentives Unpopular

Unpopular Fiscal Conservatives

Tax credit unpopular fiscal conservative opposition
Colman, The Hill, 13
[Zach, 1-31-13, The Hill, Sen. Carper plans renewed push for offshore wind credit legislation,
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280347-carper-plans-to-push-for-offshore-wind-credit,
accessed: 6-25-2014, KS]
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said Thursday that he plans to reintroduce a bill that offers tax credits
for a limited amount of offshore wind projects.
Carper told reporters he did not have a timeline for resubmitting the bill, but said its content would
likely mirror the one he co-sponsored last Congress with former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).
Weve been trying to get that done. As it turns out when [the Congressional Budget Office] prices
that they score that its not cheap. And so pretty high score, hard to get it done, Carper said
during an event hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington, D.C.
That means the bill could run into some Republican opposition; many in the House and the Senate
want to close not expand incentives to a suite of clean-energy technologies.
Many fiscal conservatives contend the federal government should not be in the business of jumpstarting nascent industries through subsidies, especially in light of the growing federal deficit.

Unpopular House
No support for revival of the tax incentive
Nussbaum, Bloomberg News Reporter, 14
[Alex, 3-11-14, Bloomberg News, Wind Power Tax Credit Dead in Congress This Year,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-11/wind-power-tax-credit-dead-in-congress-this-year.html,
accessed 6-29-14, AKS]

A federal tax credit that benefits wind power projects is dead in Congress this year as Republicans
seek a broader tax overhaul, Representative Charles Boustany said.
Maybe there will be some in the Senate who will try to revive it but I really do think its dead in the
House, Boustany, a Louisiana Republican and member of the House Ways and Means Committee,
said in an interview today in New York. While the credit might be revived as part of lame-duck legislation
after the November elections, that seems unlikely, he said.

Unpopular Oil Lobby

Oil industries lobby against the renewal of wind tax incentive
Lacey, Climate Progress reporter, 12
[Stephen, 9-7-12, ThinkProgress , Americans For Prosperity Calls Wind Tax Credit Deplorable, But
Defends Government Support Of Oil Companies,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/07/809091/americans-for-prosperity-calls-wind-tax-creditdeplorable-but-defends-government-support-of-oil-companies/, accessed 6-29-14, AKS]

Americans for Prosperity, a national political organization that claims to uphold libertarian values, is
showing its true intentions: Protect government support of fossil fuel interests.
Founded and partly funded by the oil billionaire Koch Brothers, AFP has become a leading organizer of
the Tea Party. The organization has thrown millions of dollars behind national ads attacking clean
energy that fact checkers have called ultimately ridiculous. (Even more ridiculous, AFP recently bussed
in protesters to picket a small event where kids were flying kites on the beach in support of wind power).
Given AFPs ties to the oil industry and its blatant disdain for renewable energy, its latest campaign
to end a key tax credit for wind shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone who follows the group. But
whats truly remarkable about AFPs latest effort to kill wind tax credits is the mind-bending
contradiction between its stance on renewable energy tax policy and fossil fuel tax policy.

Oil groups hate wind tax credit climate denial

Casey, Advanced technology specialized freelance writer, 13
[Tina, 11-6-2013, Clean Technica, There They Go Again: Big Oil Whines About Big Wind,
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/06/koch-brothers-lobby-against-ptc-for-wind-power/, accessed 6-282014, KS]

If youve been following the climate change denial lobby, you probably know until a few years ago
one of the most notorious climate change deniers in the oil industry was Exxon Mobil. The company
was a major funder of the lobbying organization Heartland Institute, a leading force in anti-climate
management efforts.
By 2007, Exxon Mobil was publicly disavowing its denialist position and the company cut ties to
Heartland, but since then the Koch brothers have more than made up the difference (for those of
you new to the topic, Koch Industries has been challenging climate management on a wide array of
fronts).
As far as the relationship between AEA and the Koch brothers goes, while the organization is not required
to disclose its sources, our friends over at SourceWatch have connected the dots for us.

According to SourceWatch, AEA was founded in 2008 by Thomas Pyle, who also serves as its current
president. Pyles roots are in the petrochemical industries lobby, which includes work for Koch
Industries.
Pyle is also the President of AEAs sister organization, the Institute for Energy Research (IER),
which according to a report by Greenpeace continues to receive both direct and indirect support
from the Koch brothers.
They Write Letters
AEAs anti-wind tax credit letter is brief and to the point, positioning itself as a grass roots effort
with 100 signing organizations representing millions of Americans.
That positioning is reinforced by AEAs website, which features the following warning on its home
page
Thanks to Big Wind the hidden cost of wind energy may get even MORE expensive.
along with an exhortation to retweet the following message:
Big Winds tax credit already cost tax payers $12B and now they want more? Time to
#EndtheWindGiveaway via @AEA
However, among the many grass roots style names on the list is a generous helping of Big
organizations openly supported by the Koch brothers, including the 60 Plus Association, Americans
for Prosperity, and Freedomworks.
As for those groups with grass roots-sounding names, its worth noting that several are Tea Party
affiliates. Though positioning itself as a grass roots movement, the Tea Party is a corporate creature
as revealed by a recent peer-reviewed study that examines the decades-long linkage between the use
of astroturfing by the tobacco lobby, anti-climate management efforts, and Koch brothers funding,
which resulted in the founding of the Tea Party in 2002.

Oil groups view wind tax credits as unnecessary

Geman, National Journal Energy and Environment Correspondent, 12
[Ben, 11-1-12, The Hill, Study by oil-backed group says wind industry doesn't need tax credit,
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/265449-wind-credit-foes-ramp-up-attacks-ahead-of-lameduck, accessed 6-29-1014, KS]

Critics of tax credits for wind energy projects are intensifying their push to kill the incentive with a
study that calls it rent seeking by an established industry that doesnt need the subsidy.
The conservative American Energy Alliance (AEA) unveiled the study Thursday as wind power
companies joined by allies including President Obama are pushing Congress to renew credits that
are scheduled to lapse at years end.
AEA, which receives some of its funding from fossil fuel companies, is circulating the study on Capitol
Hill ahead of a lame-duck battle over the fate of the multibillion-dollar incentive.

The group is also promoting the study to editorial boards, governors and others.
AEA commissioned a study by Louisiana State University economist David Dismukes that argues
the 20-year-old production tax credit (PTC) provides training wheels to an industry that doesnt
need them especially at taxpayers expense.
[T]he federal PTC should expire since it has morphed from an ill-designed temporary subsidy for
a purportedly infant industry, into an inequitable tax hand-out for what is clearly a wellestablished industry that distorts markets and allows wind to compete unfairly with both
conventional generation resources and even other types of renewables, the study states.
Dismukes argues that green electricity requirements in place in 30 states, not the tax credit, have
been the primary driver of the growth in wind power generation over the past five to eight years,
creating a guaranteed market.
As a result, the credit allows wind power companies to double dip, the study states.
The report also lays out a series of other arguments against the PTC, alleging for instance that it creates
hidden costs for power consumers to cover the expense of connecting intermittent, remotely located
resources to the grid.
AEA is sponsoring an event with The Hill about the PTC on Nov. 14.
The wind industry calls the incentive vital to financing wind power projects. New installations have
dropped sharply when the credit has been allowed to lapse, which last occurred in 2004.
Industry advocates note that job losses have already begun along the wind power supply chain amid
uncertainty over the credits fate, such as layoffs in Colorado by Vestas Wind Energy Systems.
The industry will shed 37,000 jobs if the credit expires, according to a study by the consulting firm
Navigant that was commissioned by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
AWEA, the wind industrys main trade group, also pointed Thursday to upbeat analysis of the credit
prepared by NextEra Energy Resources, a power company thats heavily invested in wind.
[T]he PTC doesnt cost taxpayers anything in actuality because the local, state, and federal taxes paid
by the expanded industry more than add up to the tax relief provided up-front to incentivize all that
private investment. Without the PTC, the industry wouldn't be nearly as big and thus wouldn't pay those
taxes, so there is no opportunity cost, AWEA said, citing the NextEra analysis.
But the AEA report argues that the PTC isnt needed to ensure long-term growth in wind energy
generation. It also pushes back against arguments about layoffs if the PTC lapses, noting that the
industry is already overbuilt with considerable excess capacity in several regions.
The fact that the wind industry may experience a market-driven downward correction in output
and employment does not signify some type of policy failure justifying an expense of this nature,
the report states.

Oil & Gas Lobby Clout

Oil & gas lobby has massive clout
Froomkin, Huffington Post senior Washington correspondent, 11
[Dan, 6-6-2011, How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html, accessed 6-292014, KS]

Clout in Washington isn't about winning legislative battles -- it's about making sure that they never
happen at all. The oil and gas industry has that kind of clout.
Despite astronomical profits during what have been lean years for most everyone else, the oil and gas
industry continues to benefit from massive, multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies. Opinion polling shows
the American public overwhelmingly wants those subsidies eliminated. Meanwhile, both parties are
hunting feverishly for ways to reduce the deficit.
But when President Obama called on Congress to eliminate about $4 billion a year in tax breaks for
Big Oil earlier this year, the response on the Hill was little more than a knowing chuckle. Even
Obama's closest congressional allies don't think the presidents proposal has a shot.
"I would be surprised if it got a great deal of traction," Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman
of the Senate energy committee, told reporters at the National Press Club a few days after Obama first
announced his plan.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), co-author of a House bill that closely resembles Obama's proposal,
nevertheless acknowledges that it has slim chances of passing. "It will be a challenge to get anything
through the House that includes any tax increase for anyone under any circumstance," he told The
Huffington Post.
The list goes on: "It's not on my radar," said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell Giuliani,
a lobbying firm with several oil and gas industry clients. "It's old news and it's never going to
happen in this Congress. It couldn't even happen in the last Congress."
Indeed, the oil and gas industry's stranglehold on Congres is so firm that even when the Democrats
controlled both houses, repeal of the subsidies didn't stand a chance. Obama proposed cutting them
in his previous two budgets as well, but the Senate -- where Republicans and consistently pro-oil
Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu had more than enough votes to block any legislation -- never even
took a stab at it.
Now that the House is controlled by the GOP, Obama's proposal is deader than an oil-soaked
pelican. Over the last decade in particular, the Republican Party's anti-tax policies and pro-drilling
campaign rhetoric have become nearly indistinguishable from those of Big Oil.
"Obama's been proposing to get rid of these subsidies since his first budget in February 2009," said
Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. "The
obstacle has been the petroleum industry. The American Petroleum Institute has dug in their heels and
is fighting tooth and nail to retain these subsidies."

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the industry's enormously powerful lobbying and trade
association.
"API is very focused on making sure that we have a voice in policy debates," said Martin Durbin, the
organization's executive vice president for government affairs. "Certainly I hope we're having some
role in the debate here."
Is he pleased at the industry's success in heading off this particular debate? "I feel that we are
successfully getting the point across, successfully educating policy-makers about the importance of
our industry throughout the economy," he said.

Oil interests employ more lobbyists overcomes opposition

Froomkin, Huffington Post senior Washington correspondent, 11
[Dan, 6-6-2011, How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html?page=3, accessed
6-29-2014, KS]

With so much public opposition, why do subsidies remain? You might as well ask why there is no
carbon tax, or why there was no significant reform legislation passed after the BP oil spill.
The answer is that one of the many things the industry can do with its fat pocketbook is hire a
veritable army of sharp lobbyists and back them up with big wads of cash in the form of campaign
donations and spending. The end result is that the industry has a remarkable ability to get its way
on Capitol Hill.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics' website, the oil and gas industry has spent more
than $1 billion on lobbying since 1998, including a jaw-dropping $147 million just last year.
For comparison's sake, $147 million is about equivalent to the total budget of 100 congressional offices.
That's more than the $103 million spent in 2010 by the financial service industry, another potent lobbying
force -- but considerably less than the $240 million spent by the pharmaceutical industry. Among major
industries, Opensecrets.org ranked Big Oil fifth in terms of lobbying dollars spent, behind only Big
Pharma, electric utilities, business associations and insurance.
The oil and gas industry used its $147 million to employ 788 individual lobbyists in 2010 -- some 500
(or almost two thirds) of whom, according to Opensecrets.org, are former federal employees who
came through the revolving door particularly well versed in the ways of government.
All told, that's well more than one oil and gas lobbyist per member of Congress out there on the Hill
arming allies with talking points and briefing books, spinning the undecided and pressuring the
opposition.
And there's more of them every year. Consider the trendlines. As recently as 2004, the oil and gas
industry spent about $52 million a year in lobbying; by 2009, that figure was up to $175 million -or a 300 percent increase in just five years.

Oil lobby key massive Super PAC spending

Froomkin, Huffington Post senior Washington correspondent, 11
[Dan, 6-6-2011, How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html?page=3, accessed
6-29-2014, KS]

The industry backs up its extraordinary lobbying effort with lavish spending on political
campaigns. Candidates associated with oil and gas companies made about $15 million in direct
campaign donations during the 2010 mid-term election cycle ($26 million during the 2008
presidential cycle).
The industry was also responsible for more than $10 million in donations through its political action
committees, or PACs, in the 2010 cycle.
The trendlines are notable here, as well. In the early 90s, oil and gas campaign spending favored
Republicans over Democrats by about a 2 to 1 margin: For every $1 the industry gave to Democrats, it
gave Republicans $1.78. But starting in the 1996 election cycle (think Al Gore), that changed
dramatically. Now, for every $1 the industry gives Democrats, it gives Republicans about $3.35.
Among the top oil and gas industry donors in the 2010 cycle, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil head the
list. And Opensecrets.org's top 20 list of oil and gas money recipients is 4 to 1 Republican.
In addition to contributions to individuals and PACs, there's the whole new world of spending
opportunities opened up by recent Supreme Court rulings that essentially blew a hole through the postWatergate campaign finance laws.
Super PACs are groups that can now accept unlimited contributions, though they must disclose their
contributors. Opensecrets.org calculates that companies with interests in the energy sector combined to
give more than $5.6 million to Super PACs in the 2010 cycle.
Former Bush political guru Karl Rove's American Crossroads group, for one such Super PAC. It
spent $21 million on political advertising in the 2010 cycle; oil and gas interests contributed just
over $3 million of that amount.
The recent court rulings also opened the way for nonprofit groups to spend unlimited amounts of money
on political campaigns -- and unlike the Super PACs, they don't have to disclose their donors. All they
have to do is report how much they spent.
These groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, reported $140 million in campaign spending
in the 2010 cycle, the vast majority of which went to support conservative causes. There's no way to
know how much of that money came from Big Oil.
Adding yet more firepower to its lobbyists arsenal, API announced last month that it will start
funding political campaigns directly through a new PAC of its own -- in addition to what its
member organizations give already.
"API is very focused on making sure that we have a voice in policy debates," said its spokesman,
Durbin. "We're always looking at ways to improve the way we do our jobs here. This just adds one
more tool to leverage our ability to get the point across about the critical nature of this industry."

Regardless of spending Oil has the most effective lobbyists

Froomkin, Huffington Post senior Washington correspondent, 11
[Dan, 6-6-2011, How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobby-greases_n_845720.html?page=3, accessed
6-29-2014, KS]

"Without question, among all the different industries that lobby the federal government, that make
campaign contributions, oil and gas is right at the top of the top," said CRP's Dave Levinthal. "They
can invest incredible resources into the political process that make so much of a difference in
Washington, at the cost of a fraction of a faction of their haul."
And it's not just the breadth of their efforts -- it's the ferocity and the effectiveness.
Last month, one of the House's nine freshmen Democrats, Rep. William Keating of Massachusetts,
tried to tack a subsidy repeal onto a continuing budget resolution. He failed, by a 73 vote margin,
with not a single Republican voting in favor and 13 Democrats voting against the measure.
Keating said he considers that vote a testament to the power of the oil and gas lobby. "It's
incredible to me. It would be my Exhibit A," he said. "Because we're sitting here in the midst of a budget
deadlock, we're sitting here cutting Head Start programs, police, fire, border security, reading
teachers -- we're sitting here cutting the basics, and there's just this refusal to even consider
subsidies for the oil companies."
There's no business or economic argument for them, Keating said. "These are profitable businesses right
now. This isn't a situation where you're trying to provide capital for businesses that need it, or trying to
provide assistance to get a small business off the ground. It's not for economic development. It's not for
job creation. It's not to enhance the middle class. So why is it there?"
The answer, Keating said, has to be the industry's political clout. "I used to be a district attorney.
Many times you begin an investigation by eliminating everything else. So I've been trying to
eliminate every other possible reason, and I'm left with that."
The money the industry spends influencing legislation and elections looks enormous -- until you
compare it with what it buys. "If you look at $4 billion [in subsidies] annually, compared to say
$200 million for lobbying and campaign spending," said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy for
the Center for American Progress Action Fund, "that is a 20-to-1 payoff."
And maintaining subsidies is only a small part of what the oil industry lobby has accomplished.
Last session, the industry also blocked cap-and-trade legislation and staved off any action in
response to the BP oil spill. Right now, it's fully occupied trying to defund the Environmental
Protection Agency and roll back regulations across the board.

Unpopular Public/Local Opposition

Support for offshore wind is limited in local communities
Smith, California University Political Science Professor, 8
(Eric, Holly Klick (California political science professor), 10-25-08, University of California, Not in My
Backyard: Local Opposition to and National Acceptance of Wind Power,
http://boingboing.net/filesroot/Klick+Smith_Explaining_Nimby_10-25-08_final.pdf, accessed 6-30-14,
CLF)

We examine public toward wind power in depth using an internet survey. Instead of only asking about
support for wind power, we investigate how people respond to advantages and disadvantages of
wind power. Our data show that questions asked in national surveys about proposals such as wind
farms exaggerate the support for wind farms because the answers are typically superficial, top-ofthe-head responses. When people think about the advantages and disadvantages of wind farms, as
they would if a wind farm were proposed for their community, their support diminishes. Therefore,
to explain NIMBY effects, researchers must look at both local and national opinion.
Introduction 2
According to national opinion surveys, Americans overwhelmingly support government investment
in renewable energy resources in general, and in wind power in particular. Despite this general
popularity, proposals for specific wind power farms often face resistance from individual citizens,
political leaders, grassroots organizations, national interest groups, and in some cases, even
environmental groups . When local resistance occurs, observers typically compare the strong
national support for a proposed project to the weak local support, and describe the opposition as
being motivated by the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome. Yet the label only describes local
resistance it does not explain it. Moreover, describing the opposition to a project such as nimbyism
implies that the focus of attention should be on the local resistance, rather than on the general publics
support.
National public opinion about wind power has been studied, but not in much depth. The survey
questions used to gauge public opinion about wind power are broad, often single-item questions
which oversimplify issues. In addition, the analysis of these surveys is limited. Few researchers have
gone beyond reporting simple frequency distributions such as the percentage of the public in favor of
wind power (e.g., Farhar 1994; Saad 2001).
We propose a new, broader conception of nimbyism, one that gives equal attention to both supporters and
opponents of projects such as wind farms. We argue that part of the gap between national and local
levels of support stems from the fact that national surveys reflect superficial, top-of-the-head
responses. Once people begin to think carefully about ideas such as wind power, their support
often diminishes .

To test our hypothesis, we conducted a national internet survey. We began by asking about support for
a variety of conventional and alternative forms of energy. We 3then asked a series of questions about the
pros and cons of wind power. We concluded byasking about support for wind power again. We found
that support for wind power fell substantially when people considered the issue in more depth.
In this paper, we present our argument for a broader conception of nimbyism, the results of our
experiment, and an examination of why people changed their minds about wind power after more careful
consideration. We believe that our paper helps to explain both the political obstacles that wind power
must overcome in order to expand and, more broadly, the nature of nimbyism itself and power is
nationally supported.

Locally, there is extreme opposition to wind power

Smith, California University Political Science Professor, 08
(Eric, Holly Klick (California political science professor), 10-25-08, University of California, Not in My
Backyard: Local Opposition to and National Acceptance of Wind Power,
http://boingboing.net/filesroot/Klick+Smith_Explaining_Nimby_10-25-08_final.pdf, accessed 6-30-14,
CLF)

However, these are curious findings, indeed, because they are contrary to the strong opposition that
wind proposals sometimes face at the local level.
These local protests are characterized as Nimby responses. Nimbyism is an intense, sometimes
emotional and often adamant local opposition to site proposals that residents believe will result in
adverse impacts (Kraft and Clary 1991; 300). This local oppositionstemming most notably from
conflict between developers and activistsis 4 cited as one of the fundamental challenges facing the
wind industry (Bosley and Bosley 1990, 1992).
The criticisms presented by opponents are many. Most notably, critics identify noise, visual
intrusion, electromagnetic interference, harm to birds and other wildlife, distrust of developer
objectives, and lack of local ownership as the foremost reasons why they oppose wind farms (Erp
1997; Krohn and Damborg 1998; Simon 1996; Wolsink 1996)

Coastal communities hate offshore windvisual pollution

Valentine, Thinkprogress Climate Progress Reporter, 14
(Katie, 2-27-14, Thinkprogress, The First American Offshore Wind Farm Could Be Up And Running By
2016, Cape Wind Says, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/27/3337871/cape-wind-securesfinancing/, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Cape Cod is one step closer to getting its first offshore wind farm, a project thats been trying to get
off the ground for more than a decade.

The Danish export credit agency EKF has approved a $600 million loan for the Cape Wind project, a
large chunk of the financing needed to build the $2.5 billion wind farm. With the EKF loan, Cape Wind
now has $900 million in financing, and has also already agreed to purchase turbines for the project from a
Siemens subsidiary. With this new financing secured, Cape Wind estimates it can secure all necessary
funds by this fall and begin producing energy by 2016.
If built, Cape Wind would include 130 wind turbines installed in Nantucket Sound, a farm that
under average winds could provide Cape Cod, Marthas Vineyard and Nantucket with 75 percent
of the regions power needs.
The project is in the race with several other proposed wind developments to become the first
offshore wind farm in the U.S., but its encountered major opposition and setbacks since it was first
proposed in 2001. Fossil fuel magnate Bill Koch has fought against the project since its inception,
saying installing the turbines in Nantucket Sound would create visual pollution and increase the
cost of electricity in the sound, where he owns a vast amount of waterfront property. Koch has donated
at least $1.5 million to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, an organization that formed in 2001 in
opposition to Cape Wind. The project has faced significant legal opposition, including a suit launched by
the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound as recently as last month.

Local residents dont like wind turbines cause headaches, insomnia, dizziness and
ringing ears
Huff, NaturalNews Staff writer, 13
(Ethan, 11-1-13, NaturalNews, Wind turbines making people sick with mysterious illnesses,
http://www.naturalnews.com/042735_wind_turbines_mysterious_illnesses_low_frequency_sound.html,
accessed 6-29-14, CLF)
When Edward and Sue Hobart first built their dream home on six beautiful acres of land in Falmouth,
a small town on Massachusetts' southern coast, they had no idea that one day they would be forced to
abandon it due to local "green" energy initiatives. But the constant migraine headaches, ringing in
the ears, dizziness and insomnia brought about by the incessant spinning of several local wind
turbines proved to be intolerable, producing ghastly symptoms that many others in the area have
also since reported.
A recent investigation by ABC News into so-called "wind turbine syndrome," or the collection of
illness symptoms commonly reported by people who live near wind turbines, has uncovered a string
of related ailments associated with the use of this technology, especially near residential areas. For the
Hobarts and many others, the recent erection of two large wind turbines and one smaller one in their
otherwise quiet community has brought about these and other health problems, with no end in sight.
"Sometimes at night, especially in the winter, I wake up with a fluttering in the chest and think, 'What the
hell is that,' and the only place it happens is at my house," explained Sue to ABC News, noting that
initially she had no idea that her mysterious illness symptoms could be the result of the wind
turbines. "That's how you know. When you go away, it doesn't happen."
Wind turbines create low frequencies that can cause health problems, admit experts

Like many others, the Hobarts experience no health problems when they are away from the
turbines. But every time they return home, the symptoms come back, the likely result of certain
low-frequency rattles and shakes emitted by the turbines, say experts. Dr. Nina Pierpont, for instance,
a Johns Hopkins University-trained pediatrician, says wind turbine syndrome is very real, and that it is the
green energy industry's "dirty little secret."
For years, Dr. Pierpont and her husband have been advocating against the continued use of wind turbines,
especially near residential areas, because of continued reports of widespread illness symptoms. Dr.
Pierpont even published her own case study back in 2009 entitled "Wind Turbine Syndrome" that
documents how people living up to 1.25 miles away from wind turbines experience major health
problems, which makes it impossible for many of them to live normal and productive lives.
'Green' energy industry falsely accuses wind turbine sufferers of imagining their conditions
Wind energy advocates have repeatedly denied such claims, even going so far as to accuse wind
turbine syndrome sufferers of fabricating or imagining their symptoms. But this has not stopped the
Hobarts and others from fighting to have these metal monstrosities removed. According to ABC News,
the Hobarts filed a nuisance claim this past February against Notus Clean Energy, owner of the smaller
turbine. And several other local residents have also filed lawsuits against the town, which owns the two
larger turbines.

People hate wind turbinesugly and deface the landscape

Shere, Freelance science writer, 11
(Jeremey, 3-15-11, renewablebook, Why people hate wind turbines,
http://renewablebook.com/2011/03/15/why-people-hate-wind-turbines/, accessed 6-29-14, CLF)

Why do wind turbines attract such vehement opposition? By way of suggesting an answer, its worth
noting that passionate, often irrational hatred of wind turbines is nothing new. In an ill-tempered essay in
the Los Angeles Times in 1984, urban planner Sylvia White painted the wind industry as an
unstoppable force laying waste to fragile California ecosystems. Plus, she argued, wind turbines are
ugly. Seen from several miles away, the motion of the turbines may seem graceful as the blades
sparkle in the sun, she allowed. But, in truth, the wind machines, with their awkward stalky
appearance strangely reminiscent of oil rigs, deface the landscape. Ouch.
In 1985, prefiguring the Cape Wind brouhaha, the mayor of Palm Springs led a campaign against a
developer proposing to build a wind farm along the highway leading to the resort town. Every time
I go out I see more windmills and get maddern hell, said the Mayor, Frank M. Bogert, to a reporter from
The New York Times.
The common denominator, past and present, is visual. Rarely, if ever, do wind critics challenge the
underlying technology of wind turbines. After all, its difficult to find much fault with highly efficient,
electricity-producing machines powered by a free, clean, renewable fuel. Rather, its the optics of wind
turbines that drive a small but vocal cohort of anti-wind activists into a tizzy. And to a certain extent
this is understandable. Because industrial wind turbines are undeniably huge. Unlike groundhugging, relatively unobtrusive solar panels, turbines are utterly conspicuous. If youve ever driven
by a wind farm or glimpsed one from a distance, you cant deny that they do indeed alter the
landscape. And offshore wind farms, when visible from the shore, alter the seascape. (Although many

offshore wind plants, including the proposed design for Cape Wind, are far enough away from the shore
that theyre visible only on the clearest of days, and then only barely visible.)

Counterplans

States CP
State authority overcomes regulatory and local hurdles solves certainty
Powell, Boston University Law School JD Candidate, 13
(Timothy, 2013, REVISITING FEDERALISM CONCERNS IN THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
INDUSTRY IN LIGHT OF CONTINUED LOCAL OPPOSITION TO THE CAPE WIND PROJECT,
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume92n4/documents/POWELL.pdf Pg.
2053, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

The experience of Cape Wind has demonstrated that the current regulatory scheme for offshore
wind energy is flawed. The policy of the federal government is to promote wind energy, and there is
great potential for offshore wind energy development throughout the United States. Yet the test case
for U.S. offshore wind energy, to which the eyes of all potential developers are fixed, remains stuck in
regulatory limbo. The federal government, perhaps overeager in its approval of the Cape Wind
project at every turn, has found its decisions challenged aggressively by local opposition groups and
even in one instance overruled by the judiciary.
The proposal presented in this Note acknowledges the reality of the predominately local impact of
offshore wind facilities and suggests that the interests of potential developers and local citizens alike
would be better served with permitting power in the hands of the states instead of the federal
government. There is nothing intrinsic to this proposal that would lead to an increase in offshore wind
development. Indeed, the Cape Wind project itself may very well not be approved if Massachusetts
were to fully control the permitting process. But potential developers would face less uncertainty and
fewer wasted resources with permitting power vested in the states. State legislatures could craft their own
policies reflecting their citizens interests in pursuing offshore wind energy, allowing for more efficient
management of local opposition. Offshore wind energy developers, in turn, could choose among the
states that offer the most favorable environment for development. The result would be more
certainty surrounding the expected costs of development, and thus a more efficient allocation of the
nations offshore wind energy resources.

States doing the plan would solve it better and faster, spurring innovation
Powell, Colgate BA in Environmental Economics, 13
[Timothy H., 12-12, Boston Law Review, Revisiting Federalism Concerns In The Offshore Wind Energy
Industry In Light Of Continued Local Opposition To The Cape Wind Project,
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume92n4/documents/POWELL.pdf,p.
2027 accessed 6-30-14, AKS]

While in general the federal government has significant interests in retaining regulatory control
over federal waters, within the context of offshore wind energy there may be significant benefits to
allowing greater state control over the permitting process. First, opposition form citizen groups, like
that faced by the Cape Wind project, may be more efficiently addressed by allowing more localized

control of regulations and permitting. Second, granting states complete control over permitting may
increase competition among states to attract offshore wind energy developers and lead to a more
efficient and desirable allocation of offshore wind energy facilities throughout the United States.
Thus, using Cape Wind as a case study, this Note analyzes the current regulatory scheme for offshore
wind projects and the balance of federal and state control in the context of these recent developments in
opposition to the Cape Wind project. The Note proposes a regulatory solution that would invert the
current CZMA power scheme by placing the primary permitting authority in the hands of the
coastal states. This, in turn, would lower the costs and barriers to entry for the future offshore wind
energy projects in the United States and lead to a more efficient allocation of our offshore wind
energy resources. Part I provides an explanation of the current regulatory scheme under the CZMA and
the Outer Continental Shelf Renewable Energy Program (OCSREP). Part II provides a brief history of the
Cape Wind project up to the final approval of the project by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI).
Part III describes the two recent impediments faced by the Cape Wind project: the lawsuit filed by the
Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe and the D.C. Circuits rejection of the FAAs approval of the project. Finally,
Part IV evaluates the balance of the federal and state interests envisioned by the CZMA and the OCSREP,
ultimately arguing for a revision to the CZMA, that would increase local control over project siting
and lead up to a more efficient allocation of offshore wind facilities by allowing states to compete
for projects.

States play the key role in the regulatory frameworks for offshore wind
Vann, Congressional Research Service legislative attorney, 12
[Adam, 10-17-12, Congressional Research Service, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40175.pdf, p.1-2, accessed 6-30-14, AKS]

States play an important regulatory role when a wind energy project is proposed for construction in
federal or state waters. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act14 (CZMA) states are encouraged to
enact coastal zone management plans to coordinate protection of habitats and resources in coastal
waters.15 The CZMA establishes a policy of preservation alongside sustainable use and development
compatible with resource protection.16 State coastal zone management programs that are approved by the
Secretary of Commerce receive federal monetary and technical assistance. State programs must
designate conservation measures and permissible uses for land and water resources17 and must
address various sources of water pollution.18 The CZMA also requires that the federal government
and federally permitted activities comply with state programs.19 Responding to a Supreme Court
decision that excluded oil and gas leasing in the federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) from
state review under the CZMA, Congress amended the consistency review provision to include the
impacts on a state coastal zone from actions in federal waters.20 Thus, states have some authority to
seek consistency between federal efforts to permit projects in federal waters and state coastal zone
management regulation.
In addition to consistency review, projects to be constructed in state waters, including any cables
that would be necessary to transmit power back to shore, are subject to all state regulation or
permitting requirements. Coastal zone regulation varies significantly among the states. The CZMA
itself establishes three generally acceptable regulatory frameworks: (1) State establishment of criteria
and standards for local implementation, subject to administrative review and enforcement; (2) [d]irect

State land and water use planning and regulation; and (3) regulation development and implementation by
local agencies, with state-level review of program decisions.21
Within these frameworks several states, including New Jersey, California, and Rhode Island, consolidate
authority for their programs in one agency.22 In New Jersey, for instance, the state Department of
Environmental Protection (through the Coastal Management Office within the Commissioners Office of
Policy, Planning, and Science) is the lead agency for coastal zone management under several state laws.23
The majority of states, however, operate coastal zone management programs under networks of parallel
agencies, with various roles defined by policy guidance and memoranda of understanding (MOUs).24
Based on a series of MOUs, each agency is obligated to issue and apply state regulations and permits
consistently with the states coastal zone management program.25 Thus, offshore wind energy projects
could be subject to comprehensive regulation with permitting authority spread among multiple
state and local agencies.

Japan CP
Japan solves best they have the technology and geographic feasibility
Tabuchi, Pulitzer Prize winner and New York Times business reporter, 13
[Hiroko, 10-24-13, The New York Times, To Expand Offshore Power, Japan Builds Floating Windmills,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/business/international/to-expand-offshore-power-japan-buildsfloating-windmills.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, Accessed 6-30-14, CX]

The projects backers say that offshore windmills could be a breakthrough for this energy-poor nation.
They would enable Japan to use a resource it possesses in abundance: its coastline, which is longer
than that of the United States. With an exclusive economic zone an area up to 200 miles from its
shores where Japan has first dibs on any resources that ranks it among the worlds top 10 largest
maritime countries, Japan has millions of square miles to position windmills.
The project is also a bid to seize the initiative in an industry expected to double over the next five years to
a global capacity of 536 gigawatts, according to the industry trade group Global Wind Energy Council.
The Japanese have lagged at wind turbine manufacturing, which is dominated by European and Chinese
makers.
The Japanese government is paying the 22 billion yen, or $226 million, cost of building the first three
wind turbines off Fukushima, part of Prime Minister Shinzo Abes push to make renewable energy a pillar
of his economic growth program. After that, a consortium of 11 companies, including Hitachi, Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Shimizu and Marubeni, plan to commercialize the project.
Its Japans biggest hope, said Hideo Imamura, a spokesman for Shimizu, during a recent trip to the
turbine ahead of its test run. Its an all-Japan effort, almost 100 percent Japan-made.
What sets the project apart from other offshore wind farms around the world, consortium officials
say, is that its turbines, and even the substation and electrical transformer equipment, float on giant
platforms anchored to the seabed. That technology greatly expands potential locations for offshore
wind farms, which have been fixed into the seabed, limiting their location to shallow waters.
For this reason, there have been few great sites for offshore wind farming in Japan, which lies on a
continental shelf that quickly gives way to depths that make it unfeasible to build structures into the
seabed. But floating wind farms could change the picture in a big way.
Harnessing wind in deeper waters off Japan could generate as much as 1,570 gigawatts of electricity,
roughly eight times the current capacity of all of Japans power companies combined, according to
computer simulations based on historical weather data by researchers at Tokyo University, one of the
projects main participants.

Norway CP
Norway has the best offshore wind resources and industry potential
SINTEF, largest independent research organization in Scandinavia, 13
[SINTEF, 11-28-13, SINTEF, Wind - on land and offshore, http://www.sintef.com/home/SINTEFEnergy-Research/Project-work/Wind/, accessed 6-27-14, CX]

- Norway has big wind resources that can be utilized for production of electricity. The official target
for Norway is a production of 3 TWh annually by 2010. Thanks to good wind conditions this can be
achieved by installation of about 1000 MW of wind power capacity. The potential for wind power in
Norway is much bigger; an annual production of 20 TWh by 2020 is a viable goal assuming
development both on land and offshore. The potential for development of Norwegian industry is
also significant, both as sub-suppliers and as wind turbine manufacturers.
SINTEF cooperate with Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) and Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU) on wind power R&D, constituting a strong alliance for meeting the
challenges of large scale integration of wind power at tough Nordic conditions on land and offshore.
The R&D on Wind Energy is presented in a this folder.
The EU 2020 target implies a massive installation of offshore wind. A ballpark estimate is investments of
125 billions for installation of 50 GW offshore wind in European seas. The development is ongoing, but
in an early stage. Only about 1 GW of offshore wind has so far (2007) been installed in Europe, and all
relatively close to shore using what can be called on-shore wind technology.
The potential for wind farms at deeper water is huge provided that costs can be reduced to a
competitive level. This requires development of offshore technology, and within this field Norwegian
industry and research units are in the forefront. Examples are jacket design by Owec Tower for the
Beatrice wind farm, manufacturing of tripods by Aker Solutions, and the floating concepts HyWind,
SWAY and WindSea. Considerable research efforts are needed to support this development, and in this the
research partners SINTEF, NTNU and IFE are in the international forefront on critical issues, e.g.
offshore technology and grid integration.

Only Norway can solve global energy poverty it draws investments towards small
scale increments
Shah, SunEdison Founder and Carbon War Room CEO, 14
[Jigar, 3-24-14, Clean Technica, Norway Can End Energy Poverty,
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/24/norway-can-end-energy-poverty/, Accessed 6-27-14, CX]

Norway can take the lead to end energy poverty with its new mandates for renewable energy
investment and sustainable development. These mandates can and should call for transitioning
energy access investment away from large-scale centralized energy investments to small scale,
distributed clean energy investments. Norway and others have already committed over $1B in funding
announced during the Rio +20 meeting in 2012, now it is time to figure out how to put that money to
work. In doing so, Norway can lead the world in ending our failing approach to energy poverty.

Addressing energy poverty has been a 40-year wait. During that time span, the World Bank, India, and
others have promised the poor a connection to the electricity grid. In Indias case every 5-year plan is
littered with broken promises and the poor wait in the dark. As a result the worlds population is growing
at about the same rate as the population gaining access to electricity meaning 1.3 billion people are
permanently left behind if something doesnt change. Whats worse, nearly 2.5 billion people today
considered electrified receive only a few hours of electricity per day.
The reasons for this failure are many. Beyond corruption alone, grid extension is expensive, cumbersome,
and slow. But we have an opportunity to change all that. With a twenty-year track record and recent cost
reductions, it is well acknowledged today that distributed renewable energy is the fastest, cheapest and
most effective means of delivering on the worlds energy access goals.
But its not just us that believe distributed renewables are the solution to energy poverty. The International
Energy Agency (IEA) has made clear in a series of reports the only way to reverse energy inequality is
to rely heavily on small scale distributed energy infrastructure in rural areas. However, current
investments by governments, public institutions, and multi-lateral banks involved in the United
Nations Sustainable Energy for All (SEFA) are heavily skewed towards investments in large scale
centralized power plants and grid extension. But a new way forward, catalyzed by the convergence of
distributed renewable energy and mobile phone technology is emerging.

Environment DAs

Wind Harms Ocean Life

Noise from wind farm construction can displace, harm and kill marine life
Foley, Nature World News, 13
(James A., 11-4-13, Nature World News, Noise from Offshore wind farm construction could harm
marine mammal life, http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4751/20131104/noise-offshore-windfarm-construction-harm-marine-mammal-life.htm, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Offshore wind farms are being championed as a major player in future carbon-reduction targets,
but their construction could have consequences to marine life, according to an international team of
researchers, who have developed a method for assessing how the construction of the wind farms,
especially the noise involved, will impact marine mammal populations.
"Pile-driving during the construction of offshore wind farms produces an incredible amount of
noise," said Helen Bailey, one of a group of scientists at the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science who are studying the impacts of wind turbines on the environment. "This is
potentially harmful to marine species and has been of greatest concern to marine mammal species,
such as protected populations of seals, dolphins and whales."
Bailey and her colleagues recorded the noise from pile-driving underwater at a distance of 500 meters
(about 9 football fields) and 35 kilometers (18 miles) to assess how the noise could impact marine
mammals.
To the human ear, the pile-driving at the closer range sounds similar to an off-balance clothes dryer
tumbling out of control. At a distance, the noise is fainter but still pronounced. Audio files of the piledriving noise are available here.
The researchers paid particular attention to harbor seals, which can be impacted by the noise in
several ways.
"Loud construction activities can cause traumatic hearing injury or death at close range," the
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science said in a news release about the new research.
"The disturbances may lead seals to avoid the area and lose favorite feeding grounds, potentially
causing greater competition in other areas. It could also have an impact on reproduction or survival
rates. Changes in hearing sensitivity could make seals more vulnerable to predation, and make it
more difficult to find food or to find mates."

Offshore wind has really negative impacts of marine life, seabed and bat and bird
populations
University of Maryland, Environmental Science Center, 13*
(University of Maryland, 2013, University of Maryland, Off shore wind energy,
http://www.umces.edu/cbl/wind, accessed 6-30-14, CLF)

Although offshore wind power is an important source of renewable energy, there are some concerns
about the environmental impacts of offshore wind turbines. These include:
The major concern is the impact of the increased noise on marine life.
Noise is produced during the construction and installation of offshore wind farms from increased
boat activity in the area and procedures such as pile-driving. The sound levels from pile-driving,
when the turbine is hammered to the seabed, are particularly high. This is potentially harmful to
marine species and have been of greatest concern to marine mammal species, such as endangered
whales.
The noise and vibration of construction and operation of the wind turbines can be damaging to fish
and other marine species.
The effects of noise may be immediately fatal, cause injuries, or result in short or longer term
avoidance of the area depending on the frequency and loudness of the sounds.
The impact of the offshore wind turbines on birds and bats.
Risk of death from direct collisions with the rotors and the pressure effects of vortices.
There is also a risk of displacement from the area causing changes in migration routes and loss of
quality habitat.
Disturbance to the seabed.
Construction activities at the wind power site and the installation of undersea cables to transmit the
energy to shore can have direct effects on the seabed and sediments, which can affect the abundance
and diversity of benthic organisms.
Disturbance of the seafloor may also increase turbidity, which could affect plankton in the water
column.
[NOTE: *last date cited]

Offshore wind turbine implementation is bad for the environment

Hallowell, Washington D.C. environmental, fisheries, and natural resource law
associate, 13
(Michele, 2013, Wind farms: Ecosystem effects differ depending on species, seafloor features
Commercial Fishery News,
http://www.kelleydrye.com/publications/articles/1732/_res/id=Files/index=0/CFN%20June
%202013%20Hallowell%20Wind%20farm%20effects.pdf, pg. 29, CLF)

Drilling into the seafloor and removing cores of sediment help developers determine the type of
bottom and depth of material in a given area. Surveys of the area are conducted by towing instruments
from vessels across the proposed area and by using remotely operated vehicles to roam the ocean floor
and take pictures. Weather buoys and other meteorological towers also are installed. Once a site is
characterized and chosen for construction, installation will begin. Cables will be laid on top of or
buried under the seafloor. Burial often requires jet plowing horizontally below the seafloor. If

necessary, rocks or other heavy structures may be piled on top of the cables, known as
mattressing, to ensure they dont move. Wind turbines either will be drilled into the seafloor at
great depths or they will sit on top of the seafloor. To reduce scour, the piles will be jacketed or have
rocks piled at their base. The spinning blade will be affixed to the turbine after the base is installed.
During site characterization and construction, fishermen can expect an increase in underwater
noise, vibration, and disturbance of the ocean floor. They also can expect an increase in vessel
traffic and possible closure of certain areas. Testing can occur over the course of years or in spurts of
condensed activity. We expect mariners notices will be issued alerting fishermen to any activity that
would affect their safety or operations.

Wind Harms Marine Mammals

Offshore wind installation and production destroys habitats and alters
environmental patterns
Wilson, University of Hull Marine and Freshwater Biology, 7
[Jennifer Claire, September 2011, University of Hull, Offshore wind farms: their
impacts, and potential habitat gains as artificial reefs, in particular for fish,
http://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Their_Impacts_and_Potential_Habitat_Gains_as_Art
ificial_Reefs.pdf, Pg. 22, accessed 6-29-14, AAZ]

Potential impacts on marine mammals (seals and cetaceans) can be divided into direct and indirect
issues (Norfolk Offshore Wind, 2002):
Direct impacts:
Collision with increased boat traffic;
Leaving area due to disturbance;
Starvation, especially of young due to being abandoned by a mother scared away from the area.
Indirect impacts:
When disturbed, organism may spend more time alert, altering normal behaviour, potentially
reducing reproductive/foraging success;
Stress may reduce immune response, increasing the organisms vulnerability to pollutants and
disease.
Since the earliest discussions into the planning of offshore wind farms, the potentially damaging noise
generation during construction and operation has been a major issue (Thomson et al, 2006), and
many studies have been completed into this. In terms of noise, pile driving during construction has
the greatest capacity to cause damage, with very high sound pressure pulses taking place up to sixty
beats per minute for up to two hours, the length of time it takes to drive in a pile. For mammals, including
the most common European species, the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), this noise can be heard
over 80km away from the wind turbine, and although there is some level of uncertainty, it is estimated
that in some cases the noise may be heard several hundreds of kilometres away (Thomson et al, 2006).
However, impacts of noise are very site and species-specific, a fact highlighted by two studies on
bowhead and humpback whales, which found that although bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) would
alter their traditional migratory path by up to 20km to avoid drilling ships, a study with similar noise
levels observed no clear avoidance behaviour from humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)
(Myrberg, 1990).

Offshore wind turbines hurt the environment they destroy habitats and harm
animals
Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society, 13
[10-7-13, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, "Introduction to Marine Renewable Energy and
whales, dolphins and porpoises,"
http://www.wdcs.co.uk/media/submissions_bin/marine_renewable_energy.pdf, Pg. 2, accessed 6-26-14,
CX]

The most significant impact is likely to be noise. Noise is produced throughout the life of the
development, including during construction, operational and decommissioning phases, and from
associated vessel traffic. Noise pollution has the potential to displace animals and populations,
interfere with normal behaviour and, at very high intensities, may be physically damaging. In
particular during the construction of wind farms, pile-driving is a particularly intense noise source
and may disrupt the behaviour of marine mammals at distances of many kilometers, with hearing
potentially impaired at closer range.
Available evidence also suggests that marine renewables could harm cetaceans in other ways
including, habitat loss, displacement of prey species, entanglement, collisions and pollution from
leaks or spills of hydraulic fluid.

Offshore wind farms cause extinction of the North Atlantic Right Whale
Bowes, National Wildlife Federation Climate and Energy Senior Manager, 12
[Catherine, Justin Allegro, National Wildlife Federation Renewable Energy and Wildlife
Program Manager, 2012, National Wildlife Federation, Environment America, THE
TURNING POINT FORATLANTIC OFFSHORE WINDENERGY: Time for Action to
Create Jobs, Reduce Pollution, Protect Wildlife, and Secure Americas Energy Future,
http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/FINAL%20-%20NWF%20Turning
%20Point%20report--%20lower%20res.pdf, Page 20, Accessed 6-30-14, CX]

The North Atlantic Right Whale is one of the most critically endangered animals in the world, with
an estimated population of only 350-450 individuals. Right Whales are producing a very low
number of calves, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has warned that the loss of
even a single mature female could affect the Right Whales long-term viability. The areas under
consideration for offshore wind development in the Atlantic overlap with the migratory corridor for
Right Whales, between summer foraging grounds near Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
and their winter calving grounds off Georgia and Florida. Most migration is done by reproductively
mature females, pregnant females, and mothers and calve pairs whose conservation is most vital to
the Right Whale conservation. Efforts to survey and research the whales during migration have not been
significant to date, though it is thought that mothers and calves may have a greater presence at the
surface, making them more vulnerable to vessel collisions - the leading cause of mortality for the
Right Whale. Pregnant mothers and calves, if displaced by acoustic disruption, might also be more

vulnerable to predation. Key measures needed to protect Right Whales include seasonal restrictions on
surveying and pile-driving activities, ship speed restrictions, sound reduction technologies, exclusion
zones, and increased monitoring efforts.

Wind Kills Birds

Offshore wind turbines disturb flight patterns and are damaging to bird populations
BirdLife International, the world's largest nature conservation partnership, 9
(Birdlife international, 2009, Birdlife international, Offshore wind farms are impacting seabirds and
migrating passerines, http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/289, accessed 6-27-14, CLF)

However, there are growing concerns that offshore wind farms can have detrimental impacts on
wildlife. Birds are particularly vulnerable for three reasons. Firstly, seabirds are negatively
impacted through the loss and modification of resting and foraging grounds. Secondly and most
importantly, they are killed as a result of collisions with turbine blades: for example, significant
fatalities have been reported at marine wind farms situated close to breeding colonies (Everaert and
Stienen 2007). Also, during their seasonal migrations, huge numbers of passerines cross Europes
seas mostly at night and at a low altitude. It is inevitable that birds will collide with turbines,
particularly under adverse weather conditions with poor visibility (Hppop et al. 2006). Thirdly,
several studies have found that offshore wind farms act as barriers to travelling seabirds.
Displacement from their favoured routes is likely to increase travel distances, causing greater
energy expenditure and potentially impacting the survival of nestlings by lowering provisioning
rates (Petersen et al. 2003, Fox et al. 2006). For example, at the Nysted offshore wind farm in Denmark,
travelling birds (particularly seaduck) displayed profound avoidance behaviour, with the number of
birds entering the area declining dramatically following the construction of the wind farm (Desholm
and Kahlert 2005).

Offshore wind is bad for the environment it kills birds

Ekra, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Higher Executive Officer, 14
[Siv Ingrid, 4-10-14, Gemini, Wind power could cover Norways energy needs 20 times,
http://gemini.no/en/2014/04/wind-power-could-cover-norways-energy-needs-20-times/, Accessed 6-2714, CX]

Large and heavier species like eagles, seabirds, swans and woodland birds will collide with wind
turbines and power lines. The big birds are most susceptible to wind farms because they cant
manoeuvre quickly enough when they get too close to turbines and high-voltage cables.
We can say this with certainty because we have studied the eagle population on the island of Smla
in Norway, where there are wind farms.
The eagles are affected by the wind farms. Also the nesting sites are vulnerable. By building wind farms
in breeding areas or where a species is rare, there is a danger that it affects populations.
Offshore wind power has the same effect on the birds as onshore wind farms. Out at sea the
populations of seabirds are particularly vulnerable. Seabirds are relatively heavy for their size, and

for that reason have less chance to manoeuvre when flying into wind turbines. Other species that
may be affected by wind farms are flying species such as bats and possibly larger insects like
butterflies.

Wind turbines kills so many birds

Bryce, Journalist and Public Speaker, 13
(Robert, 10-10-13, RobertBryce, Fighting Climate Change by killing eagles,
http://www.robertbryce.com/articles/514-fighting-climate-change-by-killing-eagles, Accessed 6-30-14,
CLF)

For some environmentalists, the threat of climate change is so great that we must allow wind
turbines to kill bald and golden eagles. The argument I've heard is that renewables, including wind
energy, will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Less carbon dioxide reduces
the threat posed by climate change, which benefits eagles and other wildlife.
If this sounds far-fetched, consider the notice that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published in the
Federal Register on Sept. 27. It seeks public comment on a proposed permit that will allow a wind project
to kill up to five golden eagles over a five-year period, despite their protected status under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act.
The permit is sought for the Shiloh IV Wind Project in Solano County, Calif. If it is granted, it would
formally recognize a legal double standard that is already in existence with regard to wildlife protection in
America.
Wind projects routinely violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, but no wind farm has ever faced a single prosecution. Meanwhile, companies in the oil
and gas industry and other sectors are routinely indicted for violating those same statutes.
The illegal bird kills are not insubstantial. On Sept. 11, some of Fish and Wildlife's top raptor
biologists published a study in the Journal of Raptor Research that found the number of eagles killed by
wind turbines increased to 24 in 2011 from two in 2007. In all, some 85 eagles have been killed since
1997. Joel Pagel, the study's lead author, recently told me that the figure is "an absolute minimum."
Among the carcasses: six bald eagles.
Mr. Pagel's study was published just five months after Fish and Wildlife issued a report that stated "there
are no conservation measures that have been scientifically shown to reduce eagle disturbance and
blade-strike mortality at wind projects." So if more turbines are built, more eagles will be killed.
Wind turbines overall kill some 573,000 birds per year including 83,000 birds of prey, according to a
study this March in the Wildlife Society Bulletin. Yet the effect that wind power has on reducing
global carbon-dioxide emissions is so small as to be insignificant. Elementary math proves that
point.
The American Wind Energy Association claims that in 2012 wind energy production reduced domestic
CO2 emissions by 80 million tons. Last year, global emissions of that gas totaled 34.5 billion tons.
Thus, the 60,000 megawatts of U.S. wind-generation capacity reduced global carbon-dioxide
emissions by about two-tenths of 1%. To achieve a 1% reduction in global carbon-dioxide emissions,

the U.S. would have to install at least 120,000 more turbines (assuming each machine has a capacity of
two megawatts).
Last year, all of the wind turbines on the planet provided the energy equivalent of about 2.4 million
barrels of oil per day. But over the past decade, the annual increase in coal use averaged some 2.6 million
barrels of oil equivalent per day. Merely to keep pace with the soaring growth in coal usage, the
world's electricity producers would have to nearly replicate the entire global fleet of wind turbines
some 285,000 megawatts of capacity, or roughly 142,000 turbinesevery year.
There are two scandals here. First, wind turbines are killing legally protected eagles in the name of
slowing climate change, but whatever reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions that may be occurring is
equivalent to a baby's burp in a hurricane.

Habitat Impact
Habitat destruction causes loss of biodiversity and extinctions
Hogan, environmental systems laboratory director, 12
(C. Michael, 6-10-12, The Encyclopedia of Earth, habitat destruction,
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153224/ accessed 6-28-14, CLF)

Habitat destruction is the alteration of a natural habitat to the point that it is rendered unfit to
support the species dependent upon it as their home territory. Many organisms previously using the
area are displaced or destroyed, reducing biodiversity. Modifying habitats for agriculture is the chief
cause of such habitat loss. Other causes of habitat destruction include surface mining, deforestation, slashand-burn practices and urban development. Habitat destruction is presently ranked as the most
significant cause of species extinction worldwide.[1] Additional causes of habitat destruction include
acid rain, water pollution, introduction of alien species, overgrazing and overfishing.

Biodiversity Impact
Loss of biodiversity causes extinction
Diner, U.S. Army Major Ph.D., 93
(David, April 1993, Planetary Science and Geology, "The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's
Endangering Whom?,", http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456541.pdf, Pg. 19, accessed: 6-28-14,
CLF)

To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 74 could save
[hu]mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to[hu]man[s] in a direct
utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could
affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species
affects other species dependent on it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of
each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. 4. Biological Diversity. -- The
main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current
mass extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend
occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the
number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 [*173] Biologically diverse
ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological
niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex
the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected
to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of
threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions,
humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the
risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the
1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues.
Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined
affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the
risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80
[hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Ecosystem Impact
Ecosystem destruction risks human survival
Coyne, professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of
Chicago, Hoekstra, Associate Professor in the Department of Organismic and
Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, 7
[Jerry, Hopi, 9-24-07,TruthOut, The Greatest Dying,
http://www.truthout.org/article/jerry-coyne-and-hopi-e-hoekstra-the-greatest-dying,
accessed 6-29-14, AAZ]
But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the
world over provide hidden services like waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil formation,
water purification, and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by ecosystems that
are diverse. Yet, through both intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic species that
turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have outcompeted
more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged
harbors and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species
(often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments, soils will erode
and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural
yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and runoff, as well as reduced forest cover,
ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water; and a shortage of clean water spells
disaster.
In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates major
predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food
web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will be a fond
memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and
produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming
from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperiling coral reefs a major problem since these
reefs have far more than recreational value: They provide tremendous amounts of food for
human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion.
In fact, the global value of "hidden" services provided by ecosystems those services, like
waste disposal, that aren't bought and sold in the marketplace has been estimated to be as much
as $50 trillion per year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined.
And that doesn't include tangible goods like fish and timber. Life as we know it would be
impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction
continues at its current pace.
Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote
swamps of French Guiana goes extinct? Well, those who suffer from cardiovascular disease. The
recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme

that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves
existing clots. And it's not just this one species of worm: Its wriggly relatives have evolved other
biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anticancer agent), decorsin and
ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors), and hirudin (another anticoagulant).
Plants, too, are pharmaceutical gold mines. The bark of trees, for example, has given us quinine
(the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug highly effective against ovarian and breast cancer), and
aspirin. More than a quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally derived
from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids,
including vincristine, a powerful anticancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends.
Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 percent have been screened for
pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to be discovered? Given
current extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug every two years.
Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in proportion to
their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained,
especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic
calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally compelling
reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, simple morality and intellectual values
that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other
creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are
surrounded by our evolutionary cousins, and realizing that we all got here by the same simple
process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the
genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience not necessarily
religious, but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul.
But, whether or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we
do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases
flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates
while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops, and impure water. In
the end, we must accept the possibility that we ourselves are not immune to extinction. Or, if
we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a grubby existence on a
devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem when humanity
finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature: not just another Great
Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

AT - Solvency

AT Signal/Certainty
No unique advantage to the aff if internal links are true, Cape Wind should solve
in the status quo
Giordano, University of Richmond School of Law JD, 10
[Michael P., 3-1-10, University of Richmond Law Review, "OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT
APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY", http://lawreview.richmond.edu/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2010/03/Giordano-AC.pdf, accessed 6-27-14, CX]

Another important aspect of Cape Wind is its role in demonstrating to the world that the United
States is committed to the development of renewable energy and, in particular, offshore wind energy.
[157] The international community has criticized the United States for failing to show leadership on
the issue of global climate change.[158] As the United Nations continues to seek an international
agreement that addresses climate change on a world-wide level,[159] the United States can point to Cape
Wind as a sign of things to come. Cape Winds construction would provide a positive example of the
United States commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing global climate
change.
As the first proposed offshore wind project in United States waters, Cape Wind endured an arduous
process filled with delays caused by skepticism and the lack of a defined regulatory scheme. The projects
developers never flinched, despite the fact that their personal fortunes were on the line. Their persistence
has paid off, as Cape Wind is one last hurdle away from beginning construction. New Englanders stand to
receive an average output of approximately 186 MW of clean, renewable energy from Cape Winds
turbines;[160] however, Cape Winds greatest gifts will be the trail it blazes as Americas first offshore
wind farm, the confidence it will give to investors and policymakers, and the blueprint it will
provide for future offshore wind energy projects.

AT Cost Effective
Offshore wind simply isnt cost effective
Platts, University of Cambridge Manufacturing Engineering Lecturer, 13
[Jim, 12-7-13, The Ecologist, Offshore wind is too expensive!,
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2188848/offshore_wind_is_too_expensi
ve.html, Accessed 6-29-14, CX]

Prices paid in the UK to solar and wind generators will change to favour offshore wind at the expense of
the others. Jim Platt warns that the policy is doomed to failure - offshore wind is just too expensive, and
likely to remain so.
Building things in the middle of the sea is very, very expensive, and that isn't going to change.
In 2012 the global wind industry manufactured and installed more than 20,000 turbines generating 45GW
of energy. The leading firm alone, Danish company Vestas, installed more than 6GW of this via 2,500
turbines.
The company's offerings centre on a 'workhorse' platform that supports turbines from 1.8MW to 3MW
and rotor sizes from 80-112m in diameter, to meet the needs of different sites with different wind
conditions and remain cost effective.
This cost effectiveness is made possible by a supply chain of factories and component makers that have
through many very substantial investments been able to develop the rhythm and flow of work. A new
family of turbines, of different size or specification, would require that investment and experience to be
made all over again.
After more than a decade, the total number of offshore wind turbines worldwide is only now
approaching 2,000 and growing erratically as different developers, using different machinery from
different countries, embark on wholly unrelated and sometimes even interfering projects. This is
not a route to any kind of cost effectiveness at all.
A joint venture between Vestas and Mitsubishi is developing a large, 8MW wind turbine. But production
won't go ahead until there are sufficient orders to make it worthwhile.
A leader in this month's Windpower Monthly, the industry journal, explains that "collaboration is vital for
offshore future" and that "the European wind industry continues to suffer from political indecision and
backtracking on subsidies."
The UK is a particular offender for this, as shown by last week's changing figures. Likewise Germany,
which had intended to build more than 30GW of offshore capacity, and is now aiming for just 6.5GW and only if the price is right, which it currently isn't. Building things in the middle of the sea is very, very
expensive, and that isn't going to change.
Foundations all at sea
Pictures of offshore wind turbines look very much like those on land. But what lies beneath the
water, and getting it there, is the problem. A standard Siemens 3.6MW turbine, rotor, gearbox,

electronics and all, weighs around 250 tonnes. The steel tower that supports it when used on land
weighs about 260 tonnes.
At the Dong Energy windfarm at Walney off the Cumbrian coast the water is 30m deep. A huge steel
cylinder is driven 30m into the seabed - it weighs 600 tonnes, and comes from China. A connector sleeve
that links the cylinder to the tower that is inserted into it weighs 300 tonnes, and also comes from China.
These are very expensive and cost a great deal to put in place. Then there is the matter of bringing the
electricity ashore. All in all, it's expensive and energy intensive.
Challenging connections
Germany has four offshore wind farms connected to the grid, with each connected by cables of different
voltages and substations of different designs - essentially what happened to be available at the time each
system was ordered.
More standardisation is needed to cut costs, but in truth the complexities of moving material out to sea,
setting it up, and connecting high voltage equipment underwater, over 100 miles, will require many leaps
in technology before offshore wind farms are robust and economic.
When asked what the wind power sector might look like ten years hence, Jonathan Cole, offshore
managing director of Spanish firm Iberdrola said: "unless offshore wind is 40% cheaper in a decade it
won't matter what the sector looks like, because offshore won't be part of it."

Not Feasible
Offshore wind isnt feasible there arent ships available in US for turbine
installation
McDonnell, Mother Jones Environmental Journalist, 13
[Tim, 2-28-13, The Guardian, Why the US still doesn't have a single offshore wind turbine,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/28/windpower-renewableenergy, Accessed 6-30-14,
CX]

Not a single ship in the Unites States 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.

Time Frame
Plan cant solve multiple regulatory processes create massive delay ensuring, at
minimum, 36 months before approval.
US Department of Energy, 10
[US Department of Energy, November 2010, Department of Energy, Offshore Wind Energy Permitting:
A Survey of U.S. Project Developers,
http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-20024.pdf, Pg. 14, accessed 6-2914, AAZ]

Developers reported that experience with offshore wind project permitting was fairly painful,
extremely challenging, overly arduous, relative easy because its in state waters, uncertain
and unnecessarily slow, and poorly defined resulting in unnecessarily large investment risk
because sites cant be secured. Developers reported a disconnect between support at the top of
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE; formerly
Minerals Management Service) and slowing of progress to a standstill at the permit processing level
within agencies, shifting requirements (we saw goalposts move constantly), and that state
permitting is relatively straight forward and easy [compared to the federal process].
Developers noted that clear instructions from agencies were often lacking as many state or federal
agencies are developing a permitting process at the same time they are trying to permit the first
wave of projects. Developers also noted a lack of deadlines and review timelines for response from
federal agencies and expressed frustration with this additional uncertainty.1 Generally, developers
working at the state level, in various states, expressed less discontent with the permitting process.
Frustration with the federal permitting process was common to all respondents working at the
federal level.
Permitting requirements that appear to be inconsistent are also frustrating developers. One example is that
an air quality permit under the Clean Air Act is required to erect a meteorological (met) tower, but not to
install a buoy also used to collect meteorological data. There is concern that lenders will not accept data
collected with a meteorological buoy, which has stopped some developers from choosing this more
streamlined data collection option.
Developers working in federal waters expressed strong concern about the requirement (for
commercial leases issued competitively) that both the Site Assessment Plan and Construction and
Operations Plan undergo NEPA review (i.e. each requires an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) under NEPA).1 Each EIS takes 18 months to complete. Developers are finding the Site
Assessment Plan (the first of the two EIS) problematic because it requires site assessment data, which
would not yet have been collected at this stage in the project development process.

Litigation delays solvency Strong political opposition causes litigation aff cant
overcome delays Cape Wind proves
Conger, Loyola University Chicago, School of Law, 11

[Hanna, Summer 2011, Loyola University Chicago, A Lesson from Cape Wind:
Implementation of Offshore Wind Energy in the Great Lakes Should Occur Through
Multi-State Cooperation, http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1034&context=luclj, accessed 6-30-14, AAZ]
Despite the benefits associated with energy produced from wind, 7 wind farms, especially those
located offshore, often face strong opposition. 68 Opposition to offshore wind farms comes from
individuals and groups across the political spectrum, and has divided the environmental community.69
The litigation initiated in opposition to offshore wind projects is often intended to prevent or
discourage the construction of the wind farm at issue, so the claims are usually asserted at the
permitting stage as opposed to the construction or operation phases, and typically cite inappropriate
permitting authority as the primary shortcoming in development plans.70 Litigation based on this theory
has substantially delayed the installation of Cape Wind-the first offshore wind farm proposed in the
United States 71 -and may have served as a disincentive for other potential offshore wind developers. The
litigation in opposition to Cape Wind is ongoing, and has been initiated by groups of landowners,
including the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound ("Alliance") and Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group ("Ten
Taxpayer"), which may be classified generally as NIMBY.72 NIMBY is an acronym for "Not In My Back
Yard," and refers to those who fight against the siting of any development that may have a negative effect
on property values or aesthetics in its immediate vicinity, even if the development provides significant
benefits to the community at large.7
As a matter of policy, these opponents of offshore wind farms generally emphasize the uncertainty
regarding the effect of turbines on bird and bat populations and habitats, the negative aesthetic impacts
experienced by nearby communities, and the concern that, while wind power may avoid many existing
negative environmental effects, it will create a range of unprecedented problems that may not have not
been fully examined or considered. 74
As a legal strategy, however, these groups have chosen to attack the jurisdiction of the state and
federal permitting agencies and the procedural processes used to issue permits for construction of
offshore wind farms in a string of cases including Ten Taxpayer Citizens Group v. Cape Wind
Associates,7 5 Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound v. United States Army Corps of Engineers,76 and
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound v. Energy Facilities Siting Board.77
Cape Wind Associates proposed to construct an offshore wind farm in federal waters of Nantucket Sound
off the coast of Massachusetts.78 They envisioned a two-step development process for the wind farm, in
which they would first install a data tower designed to collect information about the environmental and
geological conditions in Nantucket Sound, and later, if the information collected suggested that Nantucket
Sound was a satisfactory location for an offshore wind farm, Cape Wind would install wind turbines.79
The United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") issued Cape Wind a permit for the installation of
the data tower. 80
However, Ten Taxpayer and Alliance each contested the validity of the permit authorizing construction of
Cape Wind's data tower on the basis of statutory ambiguities that were the result of a misfit betweenthe
statutes in existence at the time and the novel experiment being conducted by Cape Wind.81 At the time
these claims were filed, permitting authority for renewable energy development was not expressly
vested in any state or federal regulatory agency. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"),
the federal law governing disposition of the land beneath federal waters, specifically provided

permitting processes for the extraction of oil, gas, and other mineral resources.82 However, OCSLA
was ambiguous in relation to offshore wind energy production because it did not expressly provide
procedures for issuing permits for activities unrelated to mineral extraction in federal waters on the outer
continental shelf.83 Under the version of OCSLA in effect at the time, the jurisdiction of the USACE was
similarly limited to permitting of installations for the purpose of extracting mineral resources.84 Ten
Taxpayer and Alliance exploited this ambiguity by claiming that the USACE did not have the authority to
issue the permits which would allow Cape Wind to move forward in the development process.85
In each case related to the ambiguous nature of offshore wind permitting authority, however, the First
Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of Cape Wind.86 In Alliance, the First Circuit held that the USACE
had authority to issue permits for construction of all types of structures on the outer continental shelf, not
just those structures related to the extraction of mineral resources.87 Additionally, in Ten Taxpayer, the
First Circuit held that Cape Wind was not required to obtain regulatory approval from the state of
Massachusetts, in addition to (or in lieu of) the permit from the USACE. The court reasoned that because
OCSLA provided for the USACE permitting authority on the outer continental shelf, it preempted any
state requirement as fundamentally inconsistent.88 The decisions issued by the First Circuit in Alliance
and Ten Taxpayer were "the judicial equivalent to a green light" to Cape Wind because they resolved
ambiguities in OCSLA to solidify jurisdictional authority in the USACE for permitting the data tower,
and thereby allowed Cape Wind to move forward in the development process using only the permits it
had already acquired. 89 Despite its victories in Alliance and Ten Taxpayer, Cape Wind's wrangling with
the complex statutory issues presented by its unprecedented wind farm was far from over. Although the
wind farm was to be located in federally-controlled waters in Nantucket Sound, the electricity produced
by the turbines needed to be transmitted back to the mainland, where it could be sold to consumers. 90 In
2005, the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board ("Siting Board") granted Cape Wind a permit to
construct and operate transmission cables that would run underwater and underground on the floor of
Nantucket Sound.91 After multiple rounds of state and local approval proceedings and a final approval by
the Siting Board, several NIMBY groups, including Alliance, filed appeals that were consolidated to form
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound v. Energy Facilities Siting Board ("EFSB").
The plaintiffs in Alliance v. EFSB filed a claim based on the Public Trust Doctrine,93 a common law
principle by which the state holds its navigable waters and the lands under them in trust for the public,
and may not alienate these lands or waters except when the public use of them is enhanced or when the
public use of the remaining lands or waters is not harmed.94 The plaintiffs in Alliance v. EFSB claimed
that the Siting Board had violated the Public Trust Doctrine because it was not expressly granted authority
to consider issues relating to the public trust.95 However, the Court rebuffed this complaint, interpreting
the relevant statute to grant the Siting Board authority to administer public trust rights.96 The fact that the
specifics of the Court's decision are based on interpretation of obscure Massachusetts public utility
statutes should not diminish the importance of this claim.97 Every futureoffshore wind farm must contend
with the relevant state's Public Trust Doctrine, since each state is obligated to abide by the Doctrine,98
and each wind farm must transmit its electricity to customers on the mainland via transmission cables like
those at issue in this case. Notwithstanding the economic and environmental benefits of wind power99
and the strong political willpower to implement offshore wind technology existing throughout the United
States,100 NIMBY litigation delayed Cape Wind implementation for nearly a decade. 101 The
roadblocks presented by statutory ambiguity are significant and must be resolved, either in the courts or
by legislators, in order to accomplish the goal of offshore wind development.

AT Regulatory Streamlining Environmental Assessments Good

Speeding up regulatory process turns the aff Environmental Impact Assessments

are key to preventing environmental harms
Nogrady, ABC News freelance science journalist, 13
[Bianca, 3-6-13, ABC News, Do environmental assessments protect the environment?,
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/03/06/3703819.htm, accessed 6-29-14, AAZ]

However one thing all these groups agree on is that we need EIAs.
At its broadest level, an EIA is a process for assessing environmental impacts likely to result from
development proposals. It is primarily a scientific technique existing within a legal framework that
focuses on ecological, biodiversity, social and economic impacts. For developers, miners and other
project instigators, EIA represents a decision-making framework for modifying activity to reduce or
eliminate the environmental impacts identified.
Angus Morrison-Saunders, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Assessment at Murdoch University,
believes that in Australia, as a general rule, the EIA process gets it mostly right.
"Conservationists will say the process doesn't work because [environmental regulators] never reject
anything, but in fact, the process does work, because it's the assessment process that actually leads to
changes to the project that make it acceptable," he says.
The perception is that EIAs are a one-off exercise, but Morrison-Saunders says they are part of the
ongoing process of adaptive environmental management. He and co-author John Bailey published a
study the journal Environmental Management in 1999 that reviewed the influence of EIAs on the course
of six projects in WA - two water supply dams, an offshore oil and gas production facility, a mineral sands
processing plant and a chemical manufacturing plant. The authors concluded that "a strong relationship
exists between EIA and ongoing environmental management performance in WA".
"What normally happens is there's a consultation process with stakeholders, government regulators,
experts - that's the assessment part - and they say, 'if you did it this way it would be better, and if you
reduce that bit of footprint that would be good, and if you change the mitigation here that would be fine',"
commented Morrison-Saunders.
"You modify the development proposal until it becomes something that is acceptable to the majority of
the players, and then you go ahead."

Specifically, EIS are key to offshore wind development are responsible for
preventing ecosystem destruction our evidence assumes your turns
Lapena, Wijnberg, Hulscher, University of Twente Water Engineering and
Management, Stein, International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth
Observation, 10

[Blanca Perez, Kathelijne, Suzanne, Alfred, 8-10-10, Journal of Applied Energy,

Environmental impact assessment of offshore wind farms: a simulation-based
approach, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01850.x/pdf, Pg.
8, accessed 6-29-14, AAZ]
Conversely, there is also the possibility that one fails to reject H0 when H0 is in fact false (type II error).
The consequences of committing type II errors in environmental decision making are even more
serious than for type I errors, as a potential impact may continue without being detected (Underwood
& Chapman 2003). So far, we have not explicitly addressed how our method may be applied to reduce
type II errors. Reducing type II errors would imply maximizing the probability that the method (correctly)
rejects H0 when it is indeed false, that is, maximizing statistical power. In this regard, statistical power
calculations may be achieved with a slight modication to the method. Instead of testing H 0 using the
(single) observed dierence [wf - c]ref - [xwf - xc] post, power calculations require the specication of
a pre-dened decline in the expected bird abundance within the wind farm area for the postconstruction period (Maclean, Skov & Rehsch 2007). Subsequently, multiple values for the dierence
[l decline are obtained from simulated realizations and the power to detect change in bird abundance,
when a decline has occurred, is then calculated as the number of times that H 0 is, correctly, rejected.
Under the proposed method, statistical power can be considered a function of survey eort and
design, spatial distribution of environmental factors, spatial autocorrelation in species abundance
and the ratio of the wind farm area to survey area. Today, oshore wind is widely recognized in Europe
as an important method of meeting renewable energy targets. Within Europe, the oshore wind energy is
expected to increase from 2 GW now to 40 GW in 2020 and 150 GW in 2030 (EWEA 2009). Europe is
currently leading in oshore wind development, but North America and Asia are close behind.
Apart from the technical challenges of oshore wind technology, the tension between development of
oshore wind farms and nature conservation interests is also important. Installation locations that
are good from a technical point of view (shallow andor nearshore) often tend to be of high ecological
interest for diverse marine fauna, and seabirds in particular. The development of many oshore
wind farms, which will be needed to realize the ambitions for oshore wind energy, carries the risk of
unforeseen cumulative impacts. Therefore, it is important to apply sound impact assessment
methods and to design suitable monitoring programmes in order to protect and manage the marine
environment. Our method allows better interpretation of the available marine data, providing a
good basis for well-informed environmental decisions.
In addition, the Precautionary Principle has been recognized as a guiding tool upon which the
development of the European Unions environmental policy should be based (Sanderson & Petersen
2002). Under this guidance, an environmental impact assessment study that shows there is no evidence
that an impact has occurred does not provide sucient information, since we also run the risk that an
impact did occur but remained undetected. In that case, the necessary mitigating actions will not be taken.
Similarly, any positive eects of o- shore wind farms on marine fauna might be missed (Inger et
al.2009), which could also aect policy decisions. At present it is not clear how to implement the
Precautionary Principle in practice (Underwood & Chapman 2003).
Applying the method described here in a power analysis framework (as described above) would be a rst
step, as it would provide probabilities of impacts of a predened size to have remained undetected in the
available survey data. With this information, environmental managers can be explicit about which risk

they are willing to take to let a certain size impact continue without protective measures. Since our
method accounts for the eects of survey eort and design, it can also be used to provide environmental
managers with information about the design of optimal monitoring procedures at a given site. This will
lead to transparent decision-making both for developers in the oshore wind industry and for
policymakers who have to balance the need to reach targets for renewable energy at sea against the
need to protect the environment.

AT EU Proves Solvency
EU success doesnt guarantee US successDevelopment of high tourist, high
vacation areas will face opposition
Firestone et al., University of Delaware Marine Studies, 5
[Jason, Willet Kempton, Andrew Kreuger, Christian E. Loper, 2-24-05, University of Delaware,
REGULATING OFFSHORE WIND POWER AND AQUACULTURE: MESSAGES FROM LAND
AND SEA, https://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/WindAquaRegCJP.pdf, accessed 6-30-14,
AAZ]

Even in the event that the U.S. does adopt an aggressive and comprehensive offshore wind power
program and dedicates significant financial and personnel resources to making offshore wind a reality,
offshore wind may have to face additional burdens that have not yet presented themselves to the
E.U. Indeed, areas of high wind energy potential in the U.S. and the E.U. experience different user
conflicts, and it is possible that the user conflicts present in the E.U. have proven easier to resolve than
they would be in the U.S. The locations of existing and planned offshore wind projects in the E.U.
tend to be geographically separate from areas of high coastal tourist use. Resort areasin particular
the Mediterranean Seahave generally not been targeted for offshore wind development. Furthermore,
those areas that have been targeted in the North Sea and Baltic Sea do not share the same characteristics
as proposed offshore wind projects in the United States such as Cape Cod, with high recreational use,
expensive vacation homes, and high levels of tourism. Areas in which wind farms have been proposed
in the E.U. tend to experience high commercial shipping volumes.11

AT Energy Solvency - Costs

Even with aggressive development, offshore wind could only replace 5% of the
energy consumption in the next 20 years.
Musial & Butterfield, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 06
[Walt, Sandy, 6-28-06, Palm Beach Energy, Future for Offshore Wind
Energy in the United States, http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/39450.pdf, Pg. 4-5, accessed
6-30-14, AAZ]
The economic potential resulting from this union requires some speculation, but for the purpose of
illustrating the potential, a moderately aggressive development scenario based on preliminary analysis
performed internally by the U.S. Department of Energy, indicates a concerted research and
development effort to develop offshore wind energy would result in 50 GW of installed offshore wind
energy capacity in the United States in the next 20 years. This represents approximately 5% of the
nations current electric generating capacity. At current pricing, this represents approximately $100
billion of capital investment with at least half of this revenue going to offshore design and
construction contracts. Further expansion of the offshore wind industry is expected to double this
capacity to 100 GW over the subsequent 10-year period. This revenue will flow directly to companies that
have experience with offshore construction and that will benefit from the growth of offshore wind.

Plan empirically fails and drives poor consumers into energy poverty Germany
proves
Assis, Energy Reporter, 13
[Claudia, 9-5-13, Market Watch, Germanys energy revolution ends in energy poverty: Der Spiegel,
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2013/09/05/germanys-energy-revolution-ends-in-energypoverty-der-spiegel/, Accessed 6-27-14, CX]

Consumers are paying higher energy prices in Germany thanks to an aggressive and reckless
wind and solar power expansion, a story in German magazine Der Spiegel says.
The higher costs affect poorer consumers the most, and Germans already pay the highest electricity
prices in Europe.
Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, the magazine says. In the near future, an average
three-person household will spend about 90 euros a month for electricity, or $119, it says.
After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, Germans decided to phase out nuclear power and
invest in solar and wind power. The shift has been hard to pull off and enmeshed in politics, with
parties blaming each other for setbacks.

German authorities are looking at Sweden for a successful model. If implemented, it would eliminate
more than 4,000 subsidies, and green-energy prices would be set by separate market.
Meanwhile, a hoped-for expansion in offshore wind farms is in a state of chaos, Der Spiegel writes.
Off a North Sea island, wind turbines are rotating without being connected to the grid, waiting for a
connection cable to be finished.

No solvency even if massive development is successful, utilities wont buy too

expensive
Schmittz, Partner, Reed Smith LLP, 13
[Stefan, April 2013, Lawtext Publishing, The use of the sea for wind energy
Projects, http://www.reedsmith.com/files/Publication/2c440f18-c0ed-48c5-bb421434be99f8de/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/da1dc0f3-2f2c-4827-b1525df9479b0bca/Shipping%20Law%20and%20the%20Marine%20Environment%20in
%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf, Pg. 7, accessed 6-30-14, AAZ]
In the United States, there is no feed-in tariff. And while there are renewable portfolio standards that
require utilities to have a certain share of their electricity come from renewable sources, there is as yet no
provision which forces utilities to buy electricity from offshore wind projects. This means that US
offshore projects will need to negotiate power purchase agreements (PPAs) with the utilities. And
the utilities will not pay premium or excessive prices without reason not in the current financial
climate and not when they have to justify higher electricity bills to their customers. The Cape Wind
project had a PPA with National Grid which had agreed to buy half of the electricity, and at a price of
originally US20.7/kWh. Following pressure by consumer groups and politicians, this was reduced to US
18.7/kWh.
From a cost perspective, offshore wind projects appear to offer a great opportunity in countries
where a high tariff has been set by law or where a certificate system offers additional incentives. In
countries where offshore wind has to compete with traditional energy sources or even other
renewable energy, the prospect is much more difficult. However, even there it must not be overlooked
that today's electricity prices will stay static or that offshore wind energy will stay uncompetitive. Prices
for fossil fuels are expected to rise, and probably rise significantly, in the future, and with no end in sight.
Electricity generated by new nuclear power plants will also be more expensive, especially when the costs
for decommissioning are factored in. Costs for offshore wind generation, on the other hand, will remain
fairly stable. Prices for turbines may increase slightly, alongside costs for O&M and insurance, but the
costs for the underlying feedstock, so to speak, will remain the same, that is, zero.

AT Economy

Uniqueness Economy High

U.S. is recovering nowplan not key
Putnam, CME Group Chief Economist, 14
[Blue, 1-15-14, U.S. News, 5 Reasons 2014 Is Looking Good for the U.S. Economy,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/01/15/5-reasons-2014-is-looking-good-for-the-useconomy, accessed: 6-26-14, CLF]

The U.S. economy appears poised for its best performance since the depths of the recession in 2008
and 2009. After four years of modest recovery, the economy has largely mended from the injuries
received during the financial panic. Here are the top five reasons why the U.S. in 2014 may post 3.5
percent real GDP growth or better.
1. Deleveraging is in the past: Recoveries from financial disasters generally are more difficult and
take longer than a recovery from a cyclical economic correction. This is because financial disasters
expose fundamental weaknesses in the over-extended balance sheets and spending habits of nearly every
sector, from corporations to consumers to regional and local governments. During the multi-year period
of financial rebalancing otherwise known as deleveraging monetary policy is relatively ineffective to
encourage more rapid growth. Each sector of the economy is, in its own way, myopically focused on
getting its debt reduced and its spending in line with future income. For the U.S. economy, this process
has taken nearly four years from the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and bailout of AIG in September
2008. Now that the rebalancing and deleveraging process is largely complete, the U.S. economy is ready
to grow at a healthy pace.
2. Fiscal and regulatory drag is diminishing: The U.S. federal budget deficit was vastly expanded at
the end of President George W. Bushs second term with Treasury Secretary Paulsons $1 trillion
emergency spending request to combat the financial crisis. After a short debate, prior to the November
2008 presidential election, Congress approved this spending. The federal budget deficit peaked in fiscal
year 2009 at $1.4 trillion (approaching 10 percent of GDP). Since then, substantial progress in deficit
reduction has been made. For fiscal year 2013, the federal deficit was $680 billion (4 percent of
GDP). And for fiscal year 2014, we are projecting a federal deficit of "only" $500 billion (3 percent of
GDP).
[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]
By fiscal year 2015, we expect the U.S. government to have achieved a fully balanced operating
budget, which excludes interest expense (about 2 percent of GDP). Even more importantly, U.S. federal
budget deficit reduction is being accomplished with much higher tax revenues (up 8 percent in fiscal year
2013 over fiscal year 2012) and expense stability (essentially flat in fiscal year 2013 over fiscal year
2012). The higher tax revenues are a surprise to many analysts, but they reflect the healthy recovery of
the private sector that has been obscured in the employment data by job losses in the state and local
government sector.
3. The worst is over for Europe: Our last point concerning the diminishing headwinds from past
problems revolves around the global context in which the U.S. economy operates. Global factors

have weighed heavily on economic growth in the U.S. over the past few years, and even more heavily on
emerging market countries. The prime culprit has been Europe. The economies of the eurozone are a
critical leg of global growth. Europe is Chinas largest trading partner and represents important sources of
demand for goods from every other region.

Economy recovering now - Hiring, Retail, and housing market have all rebounded
Carmichael, Globe & Mail Report on Business Washington correspondent, 14
[Kevin, 6-25-14, The Globe and Mail, U.S. economy back on track, but first quarter was nasty,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/us-economy-has-biggest-setback-since2009/article19325638/, accessed 6-26-14, CLF]

The United States survived the setback, which most economists agree was the result of an abnormally
severe winter that reached into southern states ill-equipped to deal with onslaughts of ice and snow.
More recent evidence shows the economy is back on track: Hiring, retail sales, new-home
construction and consumer confidence all rebounded smartly this spring. A separate government
report Wednesday showed inventories for non-defense durable goods jumped 1 per cent in May after a
0.4-per-cent increase the previous month.
In my industry, its the busiest Ive seen in 20 years, said Steve Mai, chief executive of Cambridge,
Ont.-based Eclipse Automation Inc., a custom maker of manufacturing equipment that also has operations
in North Carolina and California.
The first-quarter reading still stings. The Commerce Department initially reported the GDP growth simply
stalled. A second estimate said GDP shrunk at an annual rate of 1 per cent, the first contraction since firstquarter of 2011. The final reading shows the U.S. endured its biggest economic collapse since the Great
Recession in 2009.
Americas economy expanded at annual rates of 4.1 per cent in the third quarter of 2013 and 2.6
per cent in the fourth. Wall Street analysts had predicted the first-quarter estimate would be revised
lower, but only to a contraction of 1.8 per cent. Equity markets rose, evidence that traders are more
focused on signs of future growth.

Status Quo Solves Wind Jobs

SQ solves for economyJobs in wind sector increasing now
Trabish, Energy Collective Reporter, 13
[Herman, 4-13-13, The energy Collective, Wind Energy Industry's $25 Billion Impact on US Economy,
http://theenergycollective.com/hermantrabish/209746/25-billion-impact-wind-industry, Accessed:
6/25/14, CLF]

In a record-setting year, the U.S. wind industrys 28 percent growth boosted its job count back to
80,000 and had a discernible impact on the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by putting $25
billion in private investment to work, according to the industrys newly released Annual Market Report.
When the U.S. Department of Commerce revised its estimate of Q4 2012 GDP growth up from 0.1
percent to 0.4 percent, it noted as significant the increase in its estimate for nonresidential structures
growth to 16.7 percent, up from 5.8 percent, according to IHS Global Insight (NYSE:IHS) economists
and verified by the Commerce Departments Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
Electricity power sector spending alone, according to BEA statistics, accounted for almost 37 percent of
Q4s increase in nonresidential structure spending. And that sectors numbers included the 8,385
megawatts of wind added in Q4, which was almost 64 percent of the years total of 13,131 megawatts of
new installed capacity and which IHS economists called massive.
It was, therefore, reasonable for IHS economists to identify the wind industrys fourth quarter as a major
boost to U.S. GDP.
The U.S. wind industrys 45,125 operational utility-scale turbines represent an installed nameplate
capacity of 60,007 megawatts, according to the new American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)
industry report. That is about equivalent to 60 nuclear power plants.

AT Green Jobs Solve

Green jobs will not save our economy
Kotkin, Chapman University Urban Studies professor, 9
[Joel, 8-4-09, Forbes, Green Jobs Can't Save The Economy http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/03/greenjobs-economic-growth-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html, Accessed: 6-26-14, CLF]

Nothing is perhaps more pathetic than the exertions of economic developers and politicians grasping at
straws, particularly during hard times. Over the past decade, we have turned from one panacea to another,
from the onset of the information age to the creative class to the boom in biotech, nanotech and now the
green economy.
This latest economic fad is supported by an enormous industry comprising nonprofits, investment
banks, venture capitalists and their cheerleaders in the media. Their song: that green jobs will
rescue our still weak economy while saving the planet. Ironically, what they all fail to recognize is
that the thing that would spur green jobs most is economic growth.
All told, green jobs constitute barely 700,000 positions across the countryless than 0.5% of total
employment. Thats about how many jobs the economy lost in January this year. Indeed a recent study by
Sam Sherraden at the center-left New America Foundation finds that, for the most part, green jobs
constitute a negligible factor in employmentand will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Policymakers, he warns, should avoid overpromising about the jobs and investment we can expect
from government spending to support the green economy.
This is true even in California, where green-job hype has become something of a fetish among self-styled
progressives. One recent study found that the state was creating some 10,000 green jobs annually
before recession. To put this into context, the total state economy has lost over 700,000 jobs over the past
year (more than 200,000 in Los Angeles County alone). Any net growth in green jobs has barely made
a dent in any economic category; only education and health services have shown job gains over this
period.
More worrisome, in terms of national competitiveness, the green sector seems to be going in the wrong
direction. The U.S.s overall green trade balance has moved from a $14.4 billion surplus in 1997 to a
nearly $9 billion deficit last year. As the country has pushed green energy, ostensibly to free itself from
foreign energy, it has become ever more dependent on countries such as China, Japan and Germany for
critical technology. Some of this is directly attributable to the often massive subsidies these countries
offer to green-tech companies. But as New Americas Sherraden puts it, this does not augur well for the
future of the green trade balance.
Nor are we making it any easier for American workers to gain from green-related manufacturing.
Some of Americas greenest regions are inhospitable for placing environmentally oriented
manufacturing facilities . For example, high taxes and regulatory climate have succeeded in
intimidating solar cell makers from coming to green-friendly California; a manufacturer from China told
the Milken Institutes Ross DeVol that the states green laws precluded making green products there.

Attempts to put windmills in Nantucket, Mass., the Catskills and Jones Beach in New York and other
scenic areas have also been blocked by environmentalist groups. Transmission lines, necessary to
take renewable energy from distant locales to energy-hungry cities, often face similar hurdles.
Solar farms in the Mojave desert might help meet renewable energy quotas but, as wildlife groups have
noted, may not be so good for local fauna.
And then there is the impact of green policies on the overall economy. Green power is expensive and
depends on massive subsidization, with government support levels at roughly 20 times or more per
megawatt hour than relatively clean and abundant natural gas. Lavishing breaks for Wall Street
investors and favored green companies also may be harmful to the rest of the economy. A recent study on
renewable energy subsidies on the Spanish economy found that for every green job created more than
two were lost in the non-subsidized economy.
So how do we build a green economy that is sustainable without massive subsidies? First, governments
need to learn how to say no to some environmentalists. Green jobs and renewable energy can not be fully
developed without affecting somebodys backyard. Windmills will have to be built in some scenic places;
transmission lines may mar somebodys view-shed.
Arguably, the thing that would spur green jobs and domestic industries most would be economic growth.
Environmentalists long have been cool to growth, since they link it to carbon production and other
noxious human infestations. As an official at the Natural Resources Defense Council put it, the recession
has a moment of breathing room. Disaster may be still looming, but bad times add a few more moments
to our carbon clock.
Long term, though, I would argue hard times may prove harmful for the environmental cause. Even with
subsidies, many renewable energy projects are now on hold or being canceled across the country.
Slackening energy demand, brought on by a weak economy, has undermined the case for new sources of
energy generation; what looked attractive with oil prices at $140 a barrel and headed higher looks at $70
or less.
Similarly, hard-pressed homeowners and businesses dont constitute the best market for new, often
expensive green products. A growing economy, which would drive up energy prices, could spur a
more sustainable interest in alternative energy from firms that now only do so for public relations
concerns. At the same time, cash-rich consumers could more afford to install energy-saving home
insulation or rooftop solar panels. A strong economy would also spur sales of new energy-efficient
appliances and cars.
This process would go more quickly if government relied less on mandates, which tend to scare serious
investors, and turned toward incentives. With the right tax advantages, energy efficiency could become a
positive imperative for companies.
Theres also an unappreciated political calculus at work. A persistently weak economy undermines
support for the green agenda. For the first time in 25 years, according to a Gallup poll, more people place
higher priority on economic growth than on the environment.

AT Manufacturing Solves Economy

Manufacturing jobs dont solve our economic issues but instead send people into
poverty
Gershon, Freelance Writer, 13
[Livia, 6-29-13, Salon, No, manufacturing jobs wont revive the economy,
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/29/no_manufacturing_jobs_wont_revive_the_economy/, Accessed: 6-2414, CLF]

In the American imagination, the phrases the decline of the middle class and the loss of factory jobs
are almost inextricably linked. But the promise of a U.S. manufacturing revival has gained strength and
currency in policy circles, with many arguing its a way to turn the economy around. President Obama has
trumpeted the growth of factory jobs in speech after speech. Think about the America within our reach,
he told his audience at last years State of the Union address. An America that attracts a new generation
of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs!
But, for all the optimism and nostalgia for an America that once was, its worth asking whether factory
jobs are more likely to help workers rise to the middle class today or leave them stranded among
the working poor.
Elena Suarez was on her lunch break, taking a walk on the side of the road in the industrial park where
she works, and eating a sandwich as she walked, when I stopped her to ask about her job. Shes a
machine operator at Resonetics, a manufacturing company in Nashua, New Hampshire that
specializes in precision laser micromachining for the medical device industry.
I asked Suarez how her job pays.
Poor, she said. I pay for working.
Suarez commutes from Manchester, about half an hour away, and gas and car maintenance eat up quite a
bit of her pay. She said she got the job through a staffing agency three years ago at a pay rate of $11
an hour. After two years, she was hired as a direct employee of the company, which meant she got a
handful of paid sick days and access to medical and dental plans that cost a significant chunk of workers
paychecks. Her hourly pay also dropped to $10.50.
Her husband also works at a factory, but even with two incomes, the family has to budget carefully to get
by. Suarez said she sees other families with more kids, or with only one working parent, and wonders how
they manage.
Sometimes I ask people, how do you do it? she said. Its not easy sometimes.
Overall, even as the sophistication of manufacturing jobs has grown over the past 40 years, their
pay has come nowhere near keeping pace with the growth in the economy as a whole. Adjusted for
inflation, the average job in the industry now pays less than it did in the mid-1970s. If there are some
high-skill factory jobs, there are also plenty of low-skill ones, filled, in many cases, by a rotating cast of
temps or by people whose wages never rise above the temp level.

There are arguments for paying workers better. One was made by a 2012 Brookings Institute paper that
argues the future of U.S. manufacturing depends on companies willingness to take a high road
approach to production. That means investing in technology, using innovative methods and
ensuring that workers have the skills to contribute to process improvements.
A second argument is a more fundamental one that applies to the economy as a whole: Workers are
contributing to increasingly productive companies and ought to get a fair share of what theyre
making.
The $1.2 billion international plastics molder Nypro is one company that embraces the notion of highroad manufacturing. Inside the old brick walls of a former carpet mill in Massachusetts, sophisticated
plastic extruding machines turn out machinery for fixing human bodies. The plant makes components for
medical devices, and it requires significant sophistication from its workers. Even many floor-level
production workers need to understand computers and robots and industry quality standards.
Its very unusual to find somebody whos been out here for two years with less than a two-year college
education level, said company spokesman Al Cotton.
Workers come in with less education, he said, but theyre put into classes at Nypro University before or
after their work shifts, mostly at the companys expense, and some go as far as a masters degree from
local colleges that have affiliation agreements with the training program. Some workers handling
advanced, computer-driven machines can make more than $100,000 a year, Cotton said, although thats
partly because theres such a shortage of people who can fill these positions that they end up working 60
hours a week.
Nypro is growing. When I talked to Cotton in late May, the company was looking to fill 100 positions at
the Massachusetts location.
Atrium Medical in Hudson, New Hampshire is another growing plastics company in the medical device
industry, but, at least according to some of its workers, it puts less focus on investing in its employees.
(Officials at the company didnt return my calls, which was also the case with Resonetics.)
Atrium was acquired by Maquet Getinge Group of Sweden in 2011 for $680 million, and it has plans to
move to a larger building soon. When I stopped by the plant on a sunny afternoon, workers were
outside, eating lunch at picnic tables. I approached two women speaking with each other quietly in
Spanish and asked about their jobs. Theyre assemblers, they said. When I asked if the jobs are
good ones, they hesitated.
They pay the minimum, one said. Like $8 an hour.
Thats the starting pay, she added. She and her friend have been working here for 10 years. How much do
they make now? $9 an hour.
Another woman, eating lunch in her car, told me the assemblers move between standing and sitting. We
do everything by hand, she said, except the guys, who run welding machines. If you cant keep
up, watch it, she said.
We dont get paid much, let me put it that way, she added. For the work we do, we dont get paid
much.
When I approached another worker, a machine operator named Julio Abreu, he immediately told me I
love this place.

The benefits arent the best, he said, but, after two years on the job, he recently got a $1 raise to $11 an
hour. Since his girlfriend makes a similar wage theyre able to support their son. And he likes the
schedule, working 10-hour days Monday through Thursday and getting Fridays off. When I asked him if
hed like to stay at the job, though, he laughed and said its good enough until he can go back to college.
With a slight edge of sarcasm, he added Its not my dream job.
The differences between Nypro and Atrium arent black and white. Ten to 15 percent of the production
workers at Nypros Massachusetts plant are temps making as little as $10 an hour, and there are certainly
some highly technical, well-paid jobs at Atrium, but the two companies begin to give a sense of how
varied production jobs are.
If you want to really see how all-over-the-map manufacturing jobs can be, look no further than Craigslist.
In Michigan, one of the states where the industrys employment has been growing quickly, jobs promising
$35 an hour plus benefits for running computer-operated lathes sit alongside ones like this: We are
looking for candidates with at least one year of manufacturing experience. Candidates must be able to lift
50lbs and bend, twist, and stand all day long. All candidates must be flexible in shifts and available to
work overtime and weekends when required. Compensation: $8.00/hr.
The current moment is an interesting one for manufacturing. The industry did a spectacular nosedive between 2006 and 2010, losing more than 2.5 million jobs and hitting a historic low of less than
11.5 million. After that, it began a slight upswing, rising to nearly 12 million. There is much debate
among economists about whether that growth will continue, but advocates, including President Obama,
have begun a push to help make it happen. Obama has created several pilot programs to help
companies adopt high-tech manufacturing processes and to get workers trained to participate in
them.
And yet, for all the talk of good jobs in an increasingly high-tech industry, as manufacturing
employment has begun to grow, pay in the industry hasnt gone up. In real terms, the median hourly
wage for production workers in manufacturingwhich includes front-line supervisors and programmers
of computer-controlled machinery as well as hand assemblers and meatpackersfell from $15.87 in 2010
to $15.51 in 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those numbers are probably a bit high,
since they dont include temps.
On average, factory workers with little education still make a bit more than they might in retail or
fast food, but thats by no means always true. And, unlike service-sector employers, manufacturing
plants are almost worshipped by American politicians. Its hard to find a plant that expands or opens a
new location without getting some sort of tax subsidy. Resonetics got a government-supported financing
package when it opened its plant in Nashua, and when Atrium moves to its new location, it will be
eligible for a New Hampshire state tax incentive.

AT Hegemony

AT US Leadership
US fails 65% of patents for offshore wind are from Germany
Westbrook, ReNews chief editor, 14
[Todd, 5-3-14, reNews, Germany No1 for offshore patents, http://renews.biz/62068/germany-no1-foroffshore-patents/, Accessed 6-30-14, CX]

Some 65 % of all patents for the offshore wind industry are from Germany, making it a clear
leader in the field of innovation, according to a new report.
Germanys Wind Energy Agency (WAB) said it had examined more than 3000 patents from 1992 to
2013 registered by Denmark, Great Britain and Germany in the offshore wind sector.
They cover the areas of blades or rotors, components or gear, regulation of turbines, generator or
equipment, gondola, offshore towers and network connectivity-related applications and energy
management.
The German offshore wind industry had the highest number of patent applications in all classifications,
WAB claimed.
WAB chief executive Ronny Meyer said: Some 65% of all identified offshore wind patents come from
Germany. This is a very good result and demonstrates an innovative, high-technology industry.
He added that the object of the industry and policymakers should be to ensure that Germany builds
on this leadership and plays a key role in the international offshore market.

No Risk of Hegemonic Decline

No chance of heg decline only US has legitimacy
White, NYU Shanghai Global Academic fellow, 13
[Thomas, 11-12-13, Huffington Post. Why the U.S. Hegemony is here to stay ,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-white/why-us-hegemony-is-here-t_b_4258264.html,
Accessed: 6-26-14, CF]

Prevailing wisdom goes like this--China will overtake the U.S. economy in the next few decades,
ushering in a new era of Chinese international political dominance. Various reports agree--15 out of 22
countries in a Pew Research study and a plurality of U.S. Americans believe China has overtaken the U.S.
or will soon. And the U.S. National Intelligence Council forecasts China usurping U.S. authority by 2030.
U.S. hegemonic decline has been debated for decades, and the newest foil to its authority is China.
The U.S. currently exists as the world's one and only superpower . But it is folly to believe that the
U.S. will be deposed by China anytime soon, even with its double-digit growth and increasing regional
influence.
Reports foretelling the end of U.S. hegemony rely on raw data, when it is international relationships that
truly undergird world superpowers. No economic, military, and public opinion formula will decide the
world's next global hegemon. These components matter--but not without international legitimacy, as
derived from, and defined by, a global coalition of the willing.
It is here that the U.S. reigns supreme. The U.S. has won over, however begrudgingly, the
international community as a whole. And until this allegiance to the U.S. breaks down, she will
remain the absolute world superpower. The U.S. wields a power of influence, persuasion, and
leadership on the international stage that no other state comes close to. She sets international law, ignores
international law, and is accountable to no one. China, while clearly jockeying for authority and
power, does not yet have legitimacy.

China lacks legitimacy and will not overtake U.S.U.S reigns supreme
White, NYU Shanghai Global Academic fellow, 13
[Thomas, 11-12-13, Huffington Post. Why the U.S. Hegemony is here to stay ,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-white/why-us-hegemony-is-here-t_b_4258264.html,
Accessed: 6-26-14, CF]

Take France's invasion of Mali last year. It was the U.S. who provided the necessary support, in
effect running the operation to combat Islamic militants. A scenario where France, a country with a
permanent seat on the UN Security Council, calls first on China for tactical support is tough to imagine.

China has seen its regional influence increase substantially in recent years, but a situation where
China and not the U.S. leads a successful international coalition of allies is fantasy.
In fact, the opposite is true. China is far from being considered a trustworthy ally to the international
community, sitting on the periphery of many international decision-making processes, for a number
of reasons. China commits deeply troubling human rights violations at home. China has yet to disavow
the brutal oppression of President Bashar al-Assad, and, along with Russia, has held up UN
resolutions condemning the regime. China is also North Korea's last ally, a thoroughly unfortunate
distinction.
China's relationship to human rights is anything but progressive. Censorship of the press and the
Internet, restrictions on freedoms of religion, expression, association, prohibition of many
independent labor unions and organizations, and the repressive policies against many people in
Western China and Tibet spell trouble for the leaders in Beijing on the international stage. Even though
the U.S. is no human rights saint, she currently holds legitimacy with a team of allies who prize
consistency and stability, making a global shift in power highly unlikely.
If China continues on this path of questionable governance and cavorting with questionable allies,
no serious block of internationally influential states will support a Chinese hegemony over the
current U.S. one. And so, China will remain a strong regional and international player, but one that plays
second fiddle to the U.S.
Still, the dogged sentiment of declining U.S. authority remains. China predicts its economy will overtake
that of the U.S. by 2019. But the likes of the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, etc. will not simply turn
around and support China the moment its GDP crosses some arbitrary threshold. Rich, industrialized
nations are not about to live in an international system dictated by Chinese rule.
The U.S. and China will engage in plenty of power struggles in the coming decades--but it is
unlikely that China will challenge U.S. authority and garner support from the world's
industrialized nations. The U.S., regardless of its failings, rightfully holds firmly its influence over
world values, and will do so indefinitely, regardless of its economic and military strength in relation
to China.
Amidst economic crises and an embarrassing era of political dysfunction (See: government shutdown),
the U.S. remains the world's only superpower. An upheaval of the international power dynamic, in this
century, requires more than economic or military might. It requires democratic values, respectable allies,
and an appreciation of human rights. And until China can pass these tests, the U.S. is in no danger of
losing its allies or influence.

AT Warming

AT Wind Solves Warming

Cant solve warming even massive investment would at best result in 2%
reduction in carbon emissions
Bryce, Manhattan Institute senior fellow, 11
[Robert, October 2011, Manhattan Institute, The High Cost of Wind Energy as a
Carbon-Dioxide Reduction Method, http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_11.htm,
accessed 6-30-14, AAZ]
For years, politicians, environmental groups, and the renewable energy lobby have been claiming that
widespread use of wind energy would result in substantial reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions.
This reportwhich relies on data published by the Energy Information Administration and the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory finds that if wind energy were to reduce carbon dioxide, the savings
would be so small as to be insignificant and so expensive as to be impractical.
Achieving the oft-stated goal of getting 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs from wind by 2030 would
require a total expenditure of more than $850 billion. Yet the likely carbon-dioxide savings from that
expenditure would be just 2 percent of global emissions in 2030.
If the 20 by 30 target were achieved, it would impose a tax on U.S. electricity consumers of $45 to
$54 for each ton of carbon dioxide that was removed. The tax would take the form of an increase of as
much as 48 percent over the current price of residential electricity in coal-dependent regions of the
country.
A carbon tax at that level would be 23 to 28 times higher than the carbon-taxation regime now being used
in the eastern United States. It would greatly exceed the carbon tax recently imposed in Australia and be
more than three times as costly, on a per-ton basis, as the European Unions Emission Trading Scheme.

Without removal of regulations itll takes 3-5 years to begin development lowers
threshold for warming
Snyder, Kaiser, LSU Center for Energy Studies, 09
[Brian, Mark, Louisiana State University, November 2009, Offshore wind power in the
US: Regulatory issues and models for regulation, p.4449, accessed 6-30-14, AAZ]
Low lease fees could also retard development. If lease fees or rental rates are low enough that a
company could cheaply secure rights to an area and thereby exclude competitors, then companies may
attempt to rent large portions of land without the intent of ever developing them. Winergy has been
accused of this (Kaplan, 2004). As a result, most leases have inserted timelines for development with
developers having a specified amount of time (usually 35 years) to begin construction and
operation. Strict timelines could force a developer to begin construction when market conditions are

not favorable. The cost of construction and turbines are the largest costs facing offshore wind
development. These costs are dependent on commodity prices that can be volatile. Thus, strict timelines
might force a developer to begin construction at a time when the costs of construction are
temporarily high, endangering the financial viability of the project.

Turbines Increase Warming

Wind turbines cause warming
Chestney, Reuters Senior Energy and Environment Correspondent, 12
(Nina, 3-29-12, Reuters, Wind farms may have warming effect research,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/29/wind-farms-climate-idUSL6E8FR3H520120429, accessed 627-14, CLF)

LONDON, April 29 (Reuters) - Large wind farms might have a warming effect on the local climate,
research in the United States showed on Sunday, casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability
of wind power.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels contribute to global warming, which
could lead to the melting of glaciers, sea level rise, ocean acidification, crop failure and other devastating
effects, scientists say.
In a move to cut such emissions, many nations are moving towards cleaner energy sources such as wind
power.
The world's wind farms last year had the capacity to produce 238 gigawatt of electricity at any one time.
That was a 21 percent rise on 2010 and capacity is expected to reach nearly 500 gigawatt by the end of
2016 as more, and bigger, farms spring up, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.
Researchers at the State University of New York at Albany analysed the satellite data of areas around
large wind farms in Texas, where four of the world's largest farms are located, over the period 2003 to
2011.
The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72
degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the
farms.
"We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms," the study said. The temperature change could
be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated
by turbine rotors, it said.

AT Storms

Turbines Fail
Turbines snap and break easily
Vogt, Apollon journalist, an independent science magazine, 13
(Yngve, Apollon: Independent Science Magazine for the University Oslo, 2-26-13, Science Daily,
Windmills at sea can break like matches,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130226081005.htm, accessed: 6-28-14, CLF)

Medium-sized waves can break wind turbines at sea like matches. These waves occur even in small
storms, which are quite common in the Norwegian Sea.
"The problem is, we still do not know exactly when the wind turbines may break," says Professor John
Grue from the Department of Mathematics at the University of Oslo, Norway. Grue is one of the world's
foremost experts on wave research. In 1989 he discovered an inexplicable wave phenomenon called
ringing, which is a special type of vibration that occurs when choppy waves hit marine installations. The
discovery was made in a 25-metre long wave laboratory located in the basement of the mathematics
building at Blindern Campus.
So far scientists have studied ringing in small and large waves, but as it turns out, ringing is more
common in medium-size waves.
For wind turbines at sea with a cylinder diameter of eight metres, the worst waves are those that are more
than 13 metres high and have an 11-second interval between them.
Financial ruin
The ringing problem may increase significantly in the years ahead. There are plans to build tens of
thousands of wind turbines at sea.
"If we do not take ringing into consideration, offshore wind turbine parks can lead to financial
ruin," warns John Grue to the research magazine Apollon at University of Oslo.
Today, the largest windmill parks at sea are outside the coasts of Denmark and Great Britain. They are
nevertheless like small miniatures compared to Statkraft and Statoil's enormous plans on the Dogger Bank
outside Scotland. This windmill park is to produce as much electricity as 60 to 90 Alta power plants. A
windmill park with the capacity of two Alta power plants will be built outside Mre og Romsdal in WestNorway.
"Thus far it has not been possible to measure the force exerted by ringing. Laboratory
measurements show that the biggest vibrations in the wind turbines occur just after the wave has
passed and not when the wave hits the turbine. Right after the crest of the wave has passed, a
second force hits the structure. If the second force resonates with the structural frequency of the wind
turbine, the vibration is strong. This means that the wind turbine is first exposed to one force, and is then
shaken by another force. When specific types of waves are repeated this causes the wear to be especially
pronounced. This increases the danger of fatigue."

Storms Good
Reducing storms is badstorms prevent droughts, maintain global heat and boost
ocean productivity
Whitty, Mother Jones Environmental Correspondent, 11
(Julia, 8-27-11, Mother Jones, Five Good Things About a Hurricane, http://www.motherjones.com/bluemarble/2011/08/five-good-things-about-hurricane, accessed 6-28-14, CLF)
1. Tropical cyclones are important rainmakers, providing 25 percent or more of available rainfall to
places like Japan, India, and Southeast Asianot to mention Texas, which desperately needs a
dousing ASAP.
2. Tropical cyclones help maintain the global heat balance by moving warm tropical air away from
the equator and towards the poles. Without them, the tropics would get a lot hotter and the poles a
lot colder... A typical tropical cyclone releases heat energy of about 50 to 200 exajoules a day. That's
equivalent to 70 times our worldwide energy consumption.
3. Paradoxically, fragile barrier islands need hurricanes for their survivalespecially now, when sea
levels are rising. Although hurricanes erode beaches on the ocean side of barrier islands, they build
up the back sides of the same islands by depositing new sediments via winds and waves. This
dynamical process keeps barrier islands alive.
4. Tropical cyclones stir up the ocean and drive the process of upwelling, thus playing a part in the
thermohaline circulationanother important transport mechanism distributing heat between the
equator and the poles and keeping the earth's temperature in better balance.
5. By stirring the ocean, tropical cyclones also cycle nutrients from the seafloor to the surface,
boosting ocean productivity and setting the stage for blooms of marine life.

Warming Good Solve Hurricanes

Global warming solves hurricanes
Drye, National Geographic News Editor specializing in hurricane reports, 13
(Willie, 9-2-13, National Geographic News, Scientists: Climate Change May Offer Hurricane Help,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130902-hurricanes-climate-change-superstorm-sandyglobal-warming-storms-science-weather/, accessed 6-28-14, CLF)

Many scientists have blamed global warming for more intense recent hurricane seasons and for the more
destructive storms that are predicted in years to come, but a new study says climate change could
eventually help safeguard the U.S. Atlantic Coast from hurricanes.
Climate change might alter atmospheric conditions so that future hurricanes may be pushed away
from the East Coast, according to a study published Monday by the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science.
The warming caused by greenhouse gasesthought to be the result of human activities such as
burning fossil fuelscould redirect atmospheric winds that steer hurricanes.
By the next century, the study's authors report, atmospheric winds over the Atlantic could blow more
directly from west to east during hurricane season, pushing storms away from the United States.
The study was conducted by meteorologists Elizabeth Barnes at Colorado State University; Lorenzo M.
Polvani of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York; and Adam H. Sobelband at
Columbia University.
The authors used computer simulations to arrive at their theory about climate change and influences on
hurricanes' tracks.
Deterring Another Sandy?
The changes they predict could make it less likely that a future hurricane would follow a path
similar to the one that Hurricane Sandy took last fall, when it devastated much of the northeastern
U.S. coast, particularly New Jersey and New York.
Sandy's unusual track was caused by a rare interaction between atmospheric winds known as the jet
stream and a high-pressure weather system known as a "blocking system" to the north of the hurricane.
The interaction steered Sandy on a track that took it almost due west as it made landfall in New Jersey
last October 29.
The study's authors noted that Sandy's track was the most perpendicular to the Atlantic Coast of any storm
on record. But the east-blowing winds that the study's authors say could result from climate change could
push future such storms toward the Atlantic Ocean.

The authors also suggested that the change in atmospheric winds would reduce the likelihood that a
high-pressure blocking system similar to the one that affected Sandy's path would form. That would
further increase the likelihood that future Atlantic hurricanes would be steered away from the U.S.

AT Energy Poverty

AT Wind Solves Energy Poverty

Cant solve for warming and povertytrade off due to incentive structures
Cecelski, Energia advisory consultant and economist, 2K
(Elizabeth, 1-27-00, South African Regional Poverty Network, ENABLING EQUITABLE ACCESS TO
RURAL ELECTRIFICATION: CURRENT THINKING AND MAJOR ACTIVITIES IN ENERGY,
POVERTY AND GENDER,
http://www.sarpn.org/genderenergy/resources/cecelski/energypovertygender.pdf, Pg. 5, accessed: 6-28-14,
CLF)

Sustainable energy development (SED) has been defined as sustainability in economic, social and
environmental terms (deLucia, 1992; Munasinghe, 1995). Renewable energy and energy efficiency
are usually characterized as "win-win" options in SED, meeting the objectives both of
environmental improvement and poverty alleviation (with economics being the principal challenge).
It is increasingly clear however that this is unlikely to be true in every case. The situation is
considerably more complicated. Any technology when applied in a field situation represents gains
and losses for different groups. More likely, there are "win-win" situations, "win-lose" situations, and
"trade-offs" between environmental objectives and poverty reduction, to use a framework proposed
by Munasinghe (1995).
A recent review of renewable energy activities in ESMAP (1999) points out that The 'mainstreaming' of
'renewable energy' is not an end in itself, but is a means to satisfying two objectives namely the
objective to reduce poverty and the objective to reduce global environmental damage that results
from energy use. Under current incentive structures there will frequently be a trade off between
these two objectives.

Wind energy pushes people into poverty and exacerbates the wealth gap empirics
and statistics prove
Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School Director, 14
[Bjorn, 3-28-14, Stop These Things, Bjrn Lomborg: Wind power is the path to poverty,
http://stopthesethings.com/2014/03/28/bjorn-lomborg-wind-power-is-the-path-to-poverty/, Accessed 626-14, CX]

Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the
economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates that the
total cost of the EUs climate policy will be 209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020 until the end
of the century.
The burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the worlds poor, because the rich can easily
pay more for their energy. I am often taken aback by well-meaning and economically comfortable
environmentalists who cavalierly suggest that gasoline prices should be doubled or electricity exclusively

sourced from high-cost green sources. That may go over well in affluent Hunterdon County, New Jersey,
where residents reportedly spend just 2% of their income on gasoline. But the poorest 30% of the US
population spend almost 17% of their after-tax income on gasoline.
Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the United Kingdom have reduced their
electricity consumption by almost 10% since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a
50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from
1.8% to 4.6%.
The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10%, whereas the rich
have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63% more
expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17% of households are now energy poor that is,
they have to spend more than 10% of their income on energy; and, because elderly people are
typically poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old
books to keep warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a
third leave part of their homes cold.
In Germany, where green subsidies will cost 23.6 billion this year, household electricity prices have
increased by 80% since 2000, causing 6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. Wealthy
homeowners in Bavaria can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish subsidies
essentially paid by poor tenants in the Ruhr, who cannot afford their own solar panels but still have to pay
higher electricity costs.
The list goes on. In Greece, where tax hikes on oil have driven up heating costs by 48%, more and more
Athenians are cutting down park trees, causing air pollution from wood burning to triple.
But climate policies carry an even larger cost in the developing world, where three billion people lack
access to cheap and plentiful energy, perpetuating their poverty. They cook and keep warm by burning
twigs and dung, producing indoor air pollution that causes 3.5 million deaths per year by far the worlds
biggest environmental problem.
Access to electricity could solve that problem, while allowing families to read at night, own a refrigerator
to keep food from spoiling, or use a computer to connect with the world. It would also allow businesses to
produce more competitively, creating jobs and economic growth.
Consider Pakistan and South Africa, where a dearth of generating capacity means recurrent blackouts that
wreak havoc on businesses and cost jobs. Yet the funding of new coal-fired power plants in both countries
has been widely opposed by well-meaning Westerners and governments. Instead, they suggest renewables
as the solution.
But this is hypocritical. The rich world gets just 1.2% of its energy from hugely expensive solar and
wind technologies, and we would never accept having power only when the wind was blowing. Over
the next two years, Germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants to keep the lights on.
In 1971, 40% of Chinas energy came from renewables. Since then, it has powered its explosive
economic growth almost exclusively with highly polluting coal, lifting 680 million people out of
poverty. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23% of its energy from wind and solar. By contrast, Africa
gets 50% of its energy today from renewables and remains poor.
A new analysis from the Center for Global Development quantifies our disregard of the worlds poor.
Investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $500. But, using gas
electrification, we could pull more than four people out of poverty for the same amount. By

focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three out of four people
in darkness and poverty.
Addressing global warming effectively requires long-term innovation that makes green energy
affordable to all. Until then, wasting enormous sums of money at the expense of the worlds poor is
no solution at all.

Reliance on wind turbines empirically fails and their energy capability is drastically
hyped up
Innis, Congress of Racial Equality National Spokesperson, 11
[Niger, Samuel Rodriguez, Leader of Hispanic Evangelical Movement, Amy Frederick, Operations Senior
Associate in Strategic Learning Department at Grant Thornton LLP, 1-7-11, CFACT, Driving US
Families into fuel poverty, http://www.cfact.org/2011/01/07/driving-us-families-into-fuel-poverty/,
Accessed 6-26-14, CX]

The lame duck session and 111th Congress finally ended, without the White House getting key items on
its wish list. So now, the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department intend to
impose costly, job-killing, economy-strangling new rules for power plants and refineries, and
implement more land-grabs that will lock up additional millions of acres and more billions of dollars of
American energy.
Their goal is to end the hydrocarbon and nuclear era in America, and force us to convert to renewable
energy. Beginning January 2, they plan to ignore clear voter mandates and consumer needs and use
regulations and executive edicts to slash carbon dioxide emissions, impose clean energy standards, halt
onshore and offshore drilling, and hobble the vehicles, electrical generating plants and factories that are
the backbone of our nations economy, jobs and living standards.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claims these actions are needed to ensure environmental justice
for poor and minority families threatened by manmade global warming. Meanwhile, the United
States and entire Northern Hemisphere are enduring yet another nasty winter, marked by early
snow storms and record cold temperatures. Some scientists say Earth could be entering another
prolonged period of cooler temperatures.
Businesses, workers and families face unemployment, injustice, bankruptcy and worse at the hands
of their government, if this regulatory power grab continues.
The Congressional Research Service says average US households will pay almost $1,000 this winter
just for heat. Thats average: Alaska to Florida, Hawaii to New York. Northern states residents will pay
double or triple that. Businesses, schools and hospitals will also be hammered.
In Cobb County, Georgia, hundreds shivered outside to apply for heating assistance from a welfare
agency that may not have enough money for every family that needs help. Along the Canadian
border, in St. Lawrence County, New York, over 8,000 households were approved for heating aid by
cash-strapped local, county and state governments that wonder where the money will come from
while Albany has blocked drilling for shale gas that could fuel homes and power plants, and generate
billions in revenue.

All this is before the Feds actually implement more of the job-killing, family-freezing CO2 limits and
other plans they are contemplating. To see whats in store for millions of American businesses and
families, one need only look at the planets sole country that still obstinately clings to its draconian
climate change and renewable energy goals, regardless of the costs.
Across Great Britain, household energy bills could double by 2020, to $3,900 (2,500) a year, market
expert Mark Todd of EnergyHelpLine.com has warned. Gasoline prices are likewise climbing to
unaffordable levels, and the majority of United Kingdom companies will see their natural gas and
electricity prices skyrocket by 100% between 2012 and 2016 on top of a carbon tax bill of at least
$65,660 (42,000) annually according to the analytical firm Carbon Masters.
Moreover, most of Britains older coal-fired and nuclear power plants are scheduled to be shut down, with
almost nothing to replace them, even as electricity demand rises. That could bring widespread blackouts,
said the Daily Mail, and cause hundreds of thousands of UK jobs to be outsourced to countries where
energy costs are much lower, and air pollution and carbon dioxide emission standards far less stringent.
That will hardly improve Englands economy or global environmental quality.
Far worse, more than 5.5 million households will be plunged into fuel poverty by early 2011
forced to spend more than 10% of their family incomes on energy National Energy Action and other
charities said. Thats over one-fifth of all UK households and a major increase from 4.5 million families
in 2008. Most in these households are over age 60, but working families are also struggling to keep the
heat on, as prices soar.
Nearly 28,000 people died in Britain last winter, most of them pensioners who could not afford adequate
heat. Charities say this is the highest winter death rate in northern Europe, worse even than much colder
nations like Finland and Sweden. And this winter has already seen the coldest December night for Wales
in 169 years of record keeping. It was Britains coldest December in 120 years.
To stay warm, thousands of elderly are using travel passes to ride buses all day, while others seek refuge
in libraries and shopping centers, the Sunday Express noted. Others are putting their health at risk, in an
attempt to keep costs down, by bundling up and turning the heat down or off entirely, said Age UK
Charity Director Michelle Mitchell.
Now, amid the Christmas and New Year holiday, two million homes, schools and hospitals face fuel
rationing. Some families could wait weeks before they can get their fuel oil tanks refilled, as more snow
falls across Great Britain.
Meanwhile, the British government has cut funding for its Warm Front heating assistance program from
$470 million this year to $172 million in 2011, Consumer Focus campaigner Jonathan Stearn angrily
noted. And because the winds barely blow during the coldest weather, Britains shiny new green
turbines were able to supply only one-500th of the exceptionally large demand for electricity
during the frigid weather of early December, Sunday Times columnist Dominic Lawson ruefully
observed.
Thats a tiny fraction of the wind turbines rated capacity. But it is a situation commonly faced
with turbines on freezing Minnesota winter nights and sweltering Texas summer afternoons, when
they average a measly 10% of the electricity output their subsidy-hungry backers say they are
capable of.
Is this what Lisa Jackson would call environmental justice? How do her actions, perverse notions of
justice, and government-driven energy price spikes square with a 2009 poll by Wilson Research

Strategies? It found that 56% of blacks think politicians and bureaucrats setting climate change policy in
Washington fail to consider economic and quality of life concerns in the black community. Fully 76% are
unwilling to pay more than $50 a year more for electricity, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Wind is insufficient to conquer energy poverty only coal can solve

Pearson, Minerals Council of Australia chief executive, 14
[Brendan, 4-8-14, The Drum, Coal the answer to energy poverty, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-0408/pearson-coal-the-answer-to-energy-poverty/5371462, Accessed 6-26-14, CX]

Nearly half the world's population has limited or no access to electricity. According to the
International Energy Agency (IEA), 18 per cent of the world's population have no access to electricity at
all and 38 per cent are dependent on wood, crop residues and animal waste as their main cooking and
heating fuels.
One billion Africans now use roughly the same amount of electricity (619 terawatt hours) as 40 million
Canadians and New Zealanders (607 terawatt hours). Ninety million children in sub-Saharan Africa go to
schools without electricity.
In Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as many as nine out of 10 people lack access to
regular electricity. The IEA found India alone has 306 million people without access to electricity and 818
million people without access to clean cooking.
The consequences are not difficult to contemplate. Without energy there is no path out of poverty. In poor
nations around the world, the calculation is even simpler than that.
As numerous analyses have highlighted, energy poverty affects health. Household air pollution from solid
fuels used for lighting, heating and cooking contribute to:
- 3.5 million premature deaths per year;
- education - most African schoolchildren attend schools with no electricity and cannot study in the dark;
and
- jobs - lack of reliable and affordable electricity is a major constraint to growth.
The task to close this gap is great and by definition it must be done at least cost. While all energy
sources will be needed, the world's cheapest, most versatile and abundant fuel - coal - must be a
major part of the solution to global energy poverty.
Without it, the task is insurmountable and the human cost incalculable. Two problems help
illustrate the point - cost and capacity.
First, a recent working group report to the International Energy Agency concluded that world
energy consumption trends showed that "inexpensive coal serves to decrease the price of electricity,
when the price-setting plant is a coal-fired one."
It is why China will increase its coal use by 14 per cent by 2020, why India has doubled its coal use
over the last decade and will do so again by 2035, and why coal use in ASEAN nations will triple
between now and 2035. Closing the energy access gap without coal will be slower and more costly.

Second, the bottom line is that other energy sources simply cannot meet the projected demand. The
IEA reports that over the period 1990 to 2011, world electricity demand has grown by a compound
annual growth rate of 2.9 per cent per annum, which is an average of 405 terawatt hours per year.
Over the period to 2035, the IEA expects electricity demand to grow by an average of 548 terawatt
hours per year.
Can renewables meet this demand? Not likely. The IEA expects power output from renewable
energies - including wind, hydro, bioenergy, geothermal and solar photovoltaic (PV) will grow by
an average of only 297 terawatts per year.

AT Energy Poverty Impact

The affirmative doesnt address the main problem most energy poverty is in
Africa and Asia
Walsh, Time Magazine senior staff writer, 11
[Bryan, 10-11-11, Time, The Worst Kind of Poverty: Energy Poverty,
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096602,00.html, Accessed 6-26-14, CX]

That's life for the 1.3 billion people around the planet who lack access to the grid. It's overwhelmingly
a problem of the developing world and the countryside more than 95% of those without electricity
are either in sub-Saharan Africa or developing Asia, and 84% live in rural areas. Though it hasn't
gotten the attention that global problems like HIV/AIDS and malaria have received in recent years, lack
of power remains a major obstacle to any progress in global development.