Tournament: WSU | Round: 1 | Opponent: KCKCC | Judge: Petit
Go To 1AC
The 2005 Energy Policy Act failed to create uniform permitting jurisdiction federally- multiple federal agencies are still responsible

Vann 12
Adam, Legislative Attorney, CRS Reports, “Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting”, 10.17, p. onlinewyo-tjc
Prior to enactment of EPAct in 2005, the Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) took the lead role in the federal offshore wind energy permitting process, claiming jurisdiction pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA),28 as amended by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).29 The Corps has jurisdiction under these laws to permit obstructions to navigation within the “navigable waters of the United States” and on the OCS.30 The Corps’ jurisdiction over potential offshore wind projects had never been made explicit, however. Section 388 of EPAct sought to address some of the uncertainty related to federal jurisdiction over offshore wind energy development by amending the OCSLA to specifically establish legal authority for federal review and approval of various offshore energy-related projects. The provision amended the OCSLA by adding a new subsection that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with other federal agencies, to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the OCS for certain activities—wind energy development among them—not authorized by other OCSLA provisions, the Deepwater Port Act, the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act, or “other applicable law.”31 A memorandum of understanding between the Department of the Interior and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signed in April of 2009 confirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, exercised through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEM),32 an agency within DOI, over “the production, transportation, or transmission of energy from non-hydrokinetic renewable energy projects on the OCS.” EPAct also makes clear that federal agencies with permitting authority under other federal laws retain their jurisdiction, despite enactment of this subsection.33 Thus, the Corps continues to permit offshore development pursuant to the RHA, and other federal agencies with jurisdiction over issues related to energy development, such as species impacts, are similarly unaffected. The legislative language does not clearly dictate which agency should take the lead role in coordinating federal permitting and responsibility for preparing analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).34 However, several provisions within Section 388 suggest that DOI is charged with primary responsibility. The law directs the Secretary of the Interior to consult with other agencies as a part of its leasing, easement, and right-of way granting process.35 DOI is also responsible for ensuring that activities carried out pursuant to its new authority provide for “coordination with relevant federal agencies.”36 The law also directs the Secretary to establish a system of “royalties, fees, rentals, bonuses, or other payments” that will ensure a fair return to the United States for any property interest granted under this provision.37
Lack of clarity and multiple authorities denies OSW the momentum it needs to scale up and commercialize in both state and federal waters

Fleischauer 11
Patricia, Vice President of TRC Companies, a national environmental engineering and consulting firm based in Lowell, Massachusetts, “Regulatory uncertainty hindering offshore wind development”, 2.23, p. http://ebookbrowse.com/offshore-wind-pat-fleischauer-pdf-d73772552 wyo-tjc
Energy infrastructure development inherently has elements of uncertainty. The challenge is to reduce the level of ambiguity and manage the residual risk in order to expedite the siting and permitting process. Offshore wind development in the United States, not quite in its infancy but certainly not as mature as onshore projects, faces a host of uncertainties that continue to hinder its full potential as a useful renewable resource for power generation.
The changes and evolution in the U.S. environmental review process for offshore projects have helped, but more progress is needed for offshore wind projects to develop needed momentum. Just as a clearly defined regulatory path is imperative for onshore wind development -- i.e., a clear statement of requirements that, if achieved, will result in project approval -- offshore development needs the same certainty if it is to help meet near-term Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements and long-term goals for energy independence. The promulgation of rules specifying the role and responsibility of the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) has helped clarify development in federal waters. However, development in state waters is not exempt from federal environmental permitting requirements, which could stall state efforts to advance offshore development.

Plan: The United States federal government should reduce restrictions on the production of offshore wind power in the United States imposed by entities other than the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Solvency
Federal permitting consolidation is critical to circumvent opposition to OSW and create the certainty necessary- state action is insufficient 

Kimmell and Stalenhoef 11
Kenneth, general counsel to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, was responsible for overseeing the state permitting of the Cape Wind project, and now serves as the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Dawn, environmental law attorney and Counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, “The Cape Wind Offshore Wind Energy Project: A Case Study of the Difficult Transition to Renewable Energy”, p. aspwyo-tjc
The Cape Wind saga reveals that the current permitting process for offshore wind energy projects is broken. If the nation is serious about developing offshore wind energy projects along its coasts, Congress must advance reform. One place to look for inspiration, ironically, is Massachusetts. Despite its reputation for long and protracted siting battles, Massachusetts has instituted two major reforms that could serve as models for federal reform of offshore wind-project permitting. The first model reform is a “one-stop permitting” law that enables the State Energy Facilities Siting Board to issue a single permit and eliminates the need for any additional state or local permits.85 Enacted during the energy crisis of the early 1970’s, this law ensures that state and local agencies do not block power plants and infrastructure needed for a reliable energy supply. The law allows the Siting Board to step in when an energy project proponent is denied a necessary permit or experiences significant delays, including those caused by litigation.86 The Siting Board has broad representation: it is composed of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Energy Resources, the Department of Public Utilities, and three citizen members representing labor, environmental, and consumer interests.87 It has wide jurisdiction and can review all of the various impacts of energy facilities that would be examined by state or local permitting agencies. It may also receive the input of all state and local agencies that would otherwise be called upon to grant permits.88 This authority ensures that all issues and all possible objections are heard once, rather than multiple times by multiple agencies. And unlike with most permits issued by state agencies, the appeals process is streamlined. Indeed, there is but one appeal of a Siting Board approval, which goes directly to the state Supreme Judicial Court.89 As noted above, this law was crucial to the success of Cape Wind’s permitting on the state level, because it ensured that the permitting of the electric cables would not get bogged down in other state and local level permitting, or be delayed by judicial appeals of such permit decisions. Had this law not been in place, it is likely that Cape Wind would still be in litigation with the Cape Cod Commission over its denial of the electric cables and would be defending the license issued by the Department of Environmental Protection allowing the cables to be placed in Massachusetts’ tidelands. There is no comparable “one-stop permitting” option for offshore wind projects available at the federal level. While the EPACT established that the MMS (now referred to as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, or BOEMRE) plays the leading-agency role for issuance of an offshore lease, numerous other federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Coast Guard will still need to issue separate approvals for the project. Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, will also play significant “consultative” roles. Rather than having the appeals of the permits lodged in one court, federal law provides for multiple appeals in various federal courts that will have to be resolved before the project can finally proceed. This multiplicity of permitting and consultative agencies, and numerous potential judicial appeals, is a formula for delay, confusion, redundancy, and inconsistency. In short, it is a boon for the forces of inertia.

OSW has minimal downside and the cost-factors will be quickly resolved on a short learning curve- empirical studies all vote aff

Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p. lnwyo-tjc
Whereas many of the benefits of offshore wind power are national or even global, the costs are almost entirely local. The downsides to offshore wind that drive most of the opposition to offshore wind power are visual and environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects complain about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local property values.79 They also make related complaints about negative impacts on coastal recreational activities and tourism.80 However, studies have failed to show statistically significant negative aesthetic or property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts. In addition, opponents frequently cite offshore wind power’s environmental costs. These costs are site specific and can involve harm to plants and animals, and their habitats.82 This harm includes impacts on birds, which can involve disruption of migratory patterns, destruction of habitat, and bird deaths from collision with the turbine blades.83 However, these adverse impacts are generally less dramatic than those associated with fossil fuel extraction and generation, and in a well-chosen site they can be negligible.84 A recent, exhaustive study of the environmental impact of major offshore wind farms in Denmark concluded that ―offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.‖85A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult to install and maintain, than onshore wind farms.86 The cost of an offshore wind project is estimated to be at least 50 percent greater than the onshore equivalent.87 Short- and long-term technical improvements could help to lower offshore wind costs, however, and government assistance may help them occur more quickly.88 

Federal permitting consolidation is critical to circumvent opposition to OSW and create the certainty necessary- state action is insufficient 

Kimmell and Stalenhoef 11
Kenneth, general counsel to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, was responsible for overseeing the state permitting of the Cape Wind project, and now serves as the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Dawn, environmental law attorney and Counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, “The Cape Wind Offshore Wind Energy Project: A Case Study of the Difficult Transition to Renewable Energy”, p. aspwyo-tjc
The Cape Wind saga reveals that the current permitting process for offshore wind energy projects is broken. If the nation is serious about developing offshore wind energy projects along its coasts, Congress must advance reform. One place to look for inspiration, ironically, is Massachusetts. Despite its reputation for long and protracted siting battles, Massachusetts has instituted two major reforms that could serve as models for federal reform of offshore wind-project permitting. The first model reform is a “one-stop permitting” law that enables the State Energy Facilities Siting Board to issue a single permit and eliminates the need for any additional state or local permits.85 Enacted during the energy crisis of the early 1970’s, this law ensures that state and local agencies do not block power plants and infrastructure needed for a reliable energy supply. The law allows the Siting Board to step in when an energy project proponent is denied a necessary permit or experiences significant delays, including those caused by litigation.86 The Siting Board has broad representation: it is composed of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Energy Resources, the Department of Public Utilities, and three citizen members representing labor, environmental, and consumer interests.87 It has wide jurisdiction and can review all of the various impacts of energy facilities that would be examined by state or local permitting agencies. It may also receive the input of all state and local agencies that would otherwise be called upon to grant permits.88 This authority ensures that all issues and all possible objections are heard once, rather than multiple times by multiple agencies. And unlike with most permits issued by state agencies, the appeals process is streamlined. Indeed, there is but one appeal of a Siting Board approval, which goes directly to the state Supreme Judicial Court.89 As noted above, this law was crucial to the success of Cape Wind’s permitting on the state level, because it ensured that the permitting of the electric cables would not get bogged down in other state and local level permitting, or be delayed by judicial appeals of such permit decisions. Had this law not been in place, it is likely that Cape Wind would still be in litigation with the Cape Cod Commission over its denial of the electric cables and would be defending the license issued by the Department of Environmental Protection allowing the cables to be placed in Massachusetts’ tidelands. There is no comparable “one-stop permitting” option for offshore wind projects available at the federal level. While the EPACT established that the MMS (now referred to as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, or BOEMRE) plays the leading-agency role for issuance of an offshore lease, numerous other federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Coast Guard will still need to issue separate approvals for the project. Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, will also play significant “consultative” roles. Rather than having the appeals of the permits lodged in one court, federal law provides for multiple appeals in various federal courts that will have to be resolved before the project can finally proceed. This multiplicity of permitting and consultative agencies, and numerous potential judicial appeals, is a formula for delay, confusion, redundancy, and inconsistency. In short, it is a boon for the forces of inertia.
Lack of one-stop permitting destroys the certainty and timeframe necessary for investment decisions- plan’s consolidation is key

Weber 7
Lucas, no qualifications available, published on WindPower.net- the North American Offshore Wind Power Information Project, “Offshore Wind Energy Permitting”, May 10, p. onlinewyo-tjc
As the above description of the various permitting authorities illustrates, the regulatory process for offshore wind energy development can be overwhelming. In order to combat this problem, there must be some form of centralized management. In Europe, the common practice is to use a “one-stop shop office” approach.136 Under this approach, the developers communicate with one official contact office to handle everything from administrative to legal matters. A recent study by the International Energy Agency concluded that the use of “one stop shop offices” has been a success from the point of view of both agencies and developers.137The MMS, as the lead agency, would be perfect for this “one-stop shop” position. As the one-stop shop agency for wind energy permitting on the OCS, the MMS could streamline the approval process by coordinating with all of the other relevant agencies. In fact, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates such coordination.138 Therefore, the MMS should coordinate efforts with the other relevant agencies to form a one-stop shop permitting office for wind energy development on the OCS.IV. CONCLUSIONIn sum, developing the United States’ potential for using offshore wind energy will contribute to security of energy supply, reduce dependency on fuel imports, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and improve environmental protection. Despite a vast potential for offshore wind energy along the OCS, the MMS is holding potential development hostage through regulatory delay and time-consuming replications of environmental reviews. It is vital that the MMS reduce the regulatory confusion and establish a unified coordinated approach to ensure the expeditious, yet responsible, development of offshore wind energy.

OSW cost drops are inevitable, but the US market is frozen because it lacks clarity- the plan breaks the impasse by lowering risk and creating certainty

Navigant Group 12
private market consulting group awarded DOE grant for preparing an analysis on OSW manufacturing and supply chains in the US, Dec 12, 2012, accessed from:
http://www.thebioenergysite.com/articles/1349/us-offshore-wind-manufacturing-and-supply-chain-development wyo-tjc
The supply chain is evolving in a number of areas. Larger rotors allow for increased energy capture and production. Next-generation drivetrains will result in increasing turbine efficiency and reliability. Offshore wind towers in the future may employ concrete, composites, or other alternative materials to help combat corrosion and reduce steel content while simultaneously enabling taller hub heights.Shifting to High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) interconnection lines will reduce electrical losses, and higher voltage array cabling and larger turbines will allow for project layouts that minimize array cabling needs. Such advancements will help to reverse the recent trend of increasing offshore wind power prices, which are driven largely by a movement toward deeper-water sites located farther offshore; increased siting complexity; and higher contingency reserves that result from greater uncertainty when working in the offshore environment. As the industry matures and uncertainties are reduced, both capital costs and the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from offshore wind facilities are expected to plateau and trend downward. The potential exists for significant domestic supply of a future US offshore wind market. A lack of current US offshore demand means no domestic manufacturing facilities are currently serving the offshore wind market. However, strong domestic supply capacity for the US land-based wind market suggests that potential also exists to supply significant portions of the future offshore market domestically. The magnitude of US-based offshore wind manufacturing capacity will depend on turbine suppliers perceiving stable, long-term policy support and subsequent demand for offshore wind in the US market. Three major barriers combine to have a dampening effect on the development of the US offshore wind supply chain: the high cost of offshore wind energy; infrastructure challenges such as transmission and purpose-built ports and vessels; and regulatory challenges such as new and uncertain leasing and permitting processes. The result is that European and Asian suppliers who are currently supplying offshore wind turbines and components have a competitive advantage over their US counterparts. The US offshore wind industry faces a “chicken-and-egg” problem where plants will not be built unless the cost is reduced, and local factories (which will help bring down the cost) will not be built until there is a proven domestic market.In deciding whether to enter the US offshore wind market, potential suppliers will assess the supply and demand dynamics. Suppliers will assess whether the market will be large enough to warrant dedicating manufacturing capacity to offshore wind-related products. European-based suppliers will use demand forecasts to determine whether it is financially attractive to build manufacturing plants in the US On the supply side, potential suppliers will assess the competitive rivalry, the barriers to entry, and the risk for each component. Market entry will be more attractive with higher fragmentation, lower barriers to entry, and lower overall risk.

Advantage one is the Grid:
Grid failures inevitable- heat, storms, winds, hacking, solar flares and mistakes all make an economically crippling blackout inevitable
Montgomery 12
“Special Report: Vermont's vulnerable power grid”, Jeff Montgomery, Dan D’Ambrosio and Greg Clary Project team reporters. 8-26- 2012, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120826/NEWS/308260016/Special-Report-Vermont-s-vulnerable-power-grid//uwyokb
Extreme weather is putting America’s power grid to the test, with a year-long run of violent storms and record heat battering a system built for fairer skies. As Vermont prepares to note the one-year anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene on Tuesday, energy officials are acknowledging climate change as a force that finally has to be reckoned with — even as concern grows over other threats that can set off catastrophic blackouts. Winter storms, chains of heat waves and late June’s “super derecho” — a thunderstorm with straight-line winds that snapped electrical transmission towers and shredded power poles in the Mid-Atlantic States — have forced the climate change issue and electric supply vulnerability to the top of an already-daunting list of blackout triggers. Those threats range from computer-hacking cyberterrorists to solar flares, utility mistakes and plain bad luck. Regulators in the U.S. hope to avoid the kind of cascading grid failure that hit India in late July, leaving some 600 million — 10 percent of the world’s population — without power. Miners were trapped underground. Trains shut down. Unimaginable traffic snarls popped up across the country. And India’s image as a rising economic power was cast in darkness. A major blackout in hyper-wired America would also have crippling consequences, with some experts predicting economic losses up to $180 billion. “This is really the fundamental linchpin for everything in our society, our economy, our quality of life,” said Massoud Amin, a University of Minnesota professor and longtime electric industry analyst and consultant. “By deferring infrastructure upgrades, we are basically increasing the risk for the whole system.”

Meltdowns are likely after a black-out: an outage will take days to recover- the best plants in the US can last 16 hours without external power
Cappiello, 11
Dina, staff writer, “NRC casts doubt on US reactors’ blackout plans” http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/04/29/nrc_casts_doubt_on_us_reactors_blackout_plans/?camp=pm, accessed 10/24/12,WYO/JF
The nation’s top nuclear regulator cast doubt yesterday on whether reactors in the United States are prepared for the type of days-long power outage that struck a nuclear power plant in Japan. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has required reactors to cope without power from either the electrical grid or emergency diesel generators for four to eight hours. After that time, it assumes some electrical power will be restored. Chairman Gregory Jaczko of the NRC questioned whether four hours is enough time, even though it is unlikely a nuclear power plant would lose power from both the grid and generators as the Japan plant did. Requirements put in place after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are expected to lengthen plants’ ability to withstand a blackout. “Four hours doesn’t seem to be a reasonable time to restore offsite power if you lost the diesels immediately,’’ Jaczko said at a commission meeting at the NRC’s Rockville, Md., headquarters. “In the event there is a station blackout that is externally driven, I’m not convinced that in that situation four hours’’ is enough time to restore power. An Associated Press investigation last month examined the risk to the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors to a complete loss of electrical power. In the United States, such a “station blackout’’ has happened only once, at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia in 1990. There, power was restored in 55 minutes. The Japan disaster showed that it could be days before the electricity needed to pump water and keep the radioactive core from melting can be turned back on. The Fukushima Daiichi plant had capacity for eight hours of emergency battery power. When that elapsed, the plant operator struggled to find other ways to cool the cores without onsite or offsite power. “It wasn’t the earthquake or the tsunami that caused the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe — it was an electricity outage. A blackout shouldn’t cause a meltdown,’’ Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Malden, said in a statement. He has filed legislation that includes expanding the time reactors are required to cope without power. Of the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States, 87 can cope for four hours without power or emergency generators. Another 14, including the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., can cope for eight hours, and three can last for 16 hours. Most reactors rely on batteries for this power source. Markey’s bill calls for a comprehensive approach to improving the safety of the nation’s nuclear plants. It would include requiring reactors to have at least 72 hours of capacity for battery generators. The bill also calls for 14 days of power from backup diesel generators to be available. Currently, plants are required to have seven days of such power available. As part of a review initiated after the Japan disaster, the nuclear commission is looking at whether the blackout rule needs to be updated. At the time the rule was written in the 1980s, the commission assumed electrical power could be restored in 50 minutes to two hours. The NRC added an additional two hours to that time as a safety buffer. Since then, plants have lost offsite power for longer periods of time. In every case, diesel generators kicked on and supplied electrical power, sometimes for days. There also are agreements with power grid operators that nuclear power plants get first priority as power is restored. “We have a high expectation you will restore offsite power, restore emergency diesels or use alternate sources,’’ said Pat Hiland, director of the NRC’s reactor regulation engineering division. But Jaczko, the NRC chairman, pointed out that the blackout regulation is designed to deal with a situation where even diesel generators do not work, as in the case of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan. A top staffer told NRC commissioners yesterday that the Japan situation “has definitely improved’’ in recent weeks. Bill Borchardt, NRC’s executive director for operations, said that while there are still many unanswered questions about equipment failures and other problems at the facility, the situation is “certainly not as highly dynamic’’ as it was. Overall, Japan is “making progress,’’ he said
A meltdown in the Northeast United States would quickly escalate and spread clouds of intense radiation around the globe- survivors will envy the dead
Wasserman 01(Harvey Wasserman, senior editor of NIRS, October 2001, “America’s Terrorist Nuclear Threat to Itself”  http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/security/wassermannukesecurity.htm WYO/JF)
Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds from the north and west might initially drive these clouds of mass death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds ultimately shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery torrent. At Indian Point, thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. In nearby communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Virtually all pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions. A terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by the fliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and by victims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description. Indeed, those who survived the initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and highways would become killing fields for those attempting to escape to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian Point, such missions would be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be doubtful as the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing ever more devastation into the eco- sphere. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up. They are dying in droves. Who would now volunteer for such an American task force? The radioactive cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast Ukraine and Belarus landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, surging through the west coast of the United States within ten days, carrying across our northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back again. The radioactive clouds from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. The World Trade Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet crash at Indian Point than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital would be forever lost. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural eco-systems on which human and all other life depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed,  Spiritually, psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New York City on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse now operating in the United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity, just 8% of our total energy. As with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact on life in New York. Already an extremely expensive source of electricity, the cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put nuclear energy even further off the competitive scale. Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually with increased efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect. Yet, as the bombs fall and the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass destruction, and then shielding from liability the companies that insist on continuing to operate them? Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation?  If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.

Wind uniquely solves blackouts in the Northeast because it creates inherent resiliency against disruptions, their design does not create cascades and it allows instantaneous power-up after a crisis, cutting the length of the blackout down dramatically
Wood, 11/1
“Hurricane Sandy Uncovers Strength and Simplicity of Renewable Energy Systems” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/11/hurricane-sandy-uncovers-strength-and-simplicity-of-renewable-energy-systems?cmpid=WNL-Friday-November2-2012, accessed 11/5/12,WYO/JF
Wind and solar are relatively safe forms of energy, a feature that we tend to overlook until a disaster hits like the "superstorm" that disabled New York City's power grid this week. Unlike fossil fuel plants, they require no combustible fuels to generate electricity. And there is no danger that they will leak radiation as did the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant following last year’s tsunami in Japan. Hence, the Northeast’s wind and solar farms evoked little public anxiety this week when Hurricane Sandy hit – unlike the nuclear and fossil fuel infrastructure. Safety officials kept a careful eye on the nuclear power plants and three were shut down in New Jersey and New York. And the smell of natural gas in any flooded areas drew quick attention from those who understood the danger. These anxieties speak to a larger difference between renewables and conventional generation. Specifically, wind and solar operate under simpler systems that are prone to fewer problems, say renewable energy advocates. Simple Design, Simple Operations First of all, wind and solar do not need additional energy inputs to produce electricity or cool a reactor, said John Kourtoff, president and CEO of Toronto-based Trillium Power Wind. There is no need for natural gas, oil or coal to be excavated, transported and applied to the system. Instead, they produce electricity by taking advantage of a form of energy that is already available – wind and sun. Second, they mimic nature in design, so they tend to be more resilient and withstand natural disasters better, he said. “Renewables at their core are simple bio-mimicry based on nature. This simple and closed aspect makes them successful when storms and natural disasters happen, whether hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis,” Kourtoff said. He pointed out that last year’s tsunami in Japan devastated a nuclear plant, but wind turbines near the shore suffered no harm. Wind and solar farms mimic a natural cell-like structure, so they are less likely than conventional power plants to succumb to a cascading failure, according to Kourtoff. You lose a blade on a wind tower and you don’t lose the whole wind farm — just like you don’t kill a flower if a petal comes off. But for more complex energy systems, like fossil fuel and nuclear plants, failure in one part can bring down the entire production facility in a cascade, he said. “You can put a spike through a solar panel yet the rest of the solar farm runs because it runs on a cellular-like model. If one cell is not operational, the others continue to operate,” he said. He calls nuclear and fossil fuel plants industrial age technologies, and recent wind and solar, “Renewables 2.0,” designs that have grown simpler, with fewer moving parts and more efficient functioning. Kourtoff also likened wind and solar design – at least in philosophy – to the products created by Steve Jobs, which emphasized simplicity, elegance and human appeal. “Why do people like Apple products? They like them because of the simplicity of design. People see beauty in simplicity, in nature. You never hear anyone say, ‘Look at that beautiful nuclear plant.’ But if you see wind turbines moving gracefully in the water, they look beautiful,” Kourtoff said. The simplicity also offers practical benefits. “In terms of renewable energy, it can certainly help the grid come back quickly from weather situations like Hurricane Sandy,” said Carol Murphy, executive director, Alliance for Clean Energy New York. “It can take nuclear plants a week or more to come back online. Wind and solar, like other generators, do shut down during extreme weather conditions, but they can be back up and produce power quickly.” How Did Renewables Weather the Storm? Based on early assessments, renewable energy facilities seemed to fare well during Hurricane Sandy. ISO New England said it received no reports of any damage to wind or solar facilities from the storm. Iberdrola Renewables, which owns wind farms in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania, reported few problems. “We monitored the situation through the night and shut down sites as a precaution to protect equipment from extreme winds. Inspections today have revealed minimal damage so far. We are very satisfied with the response of our people and the performance of the sites through an exceptional event,” said Jan Johnson, Iberdrola Renewables’ communications director. Long Island suffered some of the most severe destruction, wiping out service to most of the Long Island Power Authority’s 1.1 million customers. But the island’s 32-MW Long Island Solar Farm appears to have come through fairly well. Nothing “catastrophic” happened at the facility, according to Matt Hartwig, spokesman for BP Alternative Energy, which operates the solar farm. “They are beginning their assessment, which initially shows damage to the fence around the facility as well as some module damage, the extent of which is not yet known.” New York, Connecticut and other hard hit areas happen to be in various stages of devising long-term energy plans. We’ll soon see if Hurricane Sandy – and lessons learned about renewable energy performance in storms – will add a new dimension to policy decisions about the future role of wind and solar.
And OSW solves East Coast electricity demand- drops prices and solves grid congestion that creates cascades

Marcacci 12
Silvio, Principal at Marcacci Communications, a full-service clean energy public relations company based in Washington, D.C., Clean Technica, “Offshore Wind On The Atlantic Cost Could Create 300,000 Jobs And $200 Billion In Economic Activity”, p. onlinewyo-tjc
Beyond creating new jobs and economic activity building and operating all these new turbines, plugging offshore wind into our nation’s grid can increase reliability and lower utility prices. Offshore winds blow strongest during the day and in heat waves – precisely the points when demand for electricity is highest and the risk of power shortages most acute. In addition, the greatest potential wind power lies along some of the East Coast’s biggest cities. Grid congestion has constrained the ability of cheaper power to reach these demand pools and created some of the highest power prices in the country.But if these population centers could tap into steady electricity being generated just offshore, growing demand could be met cheaply. In fact, New York State’s grid operator recently found consumers save $300 million in wholesale electricity costs for every 1 GW of wind on the grid.
OSW is uniquely key to solve electricity demand in the United States- it overcomes issues with transmission costs, intermittency, and load capacity factors all because it is on the water

Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p. lnwyo-tjc
Many of the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are similar to those of onshore wind, though offshore wind has its own unique set of benefits. To start, wind power generation can help meet the growing energy demand in the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that the demand for electricity in the United States will grow to 5.8 billion MWh in 2030, a 39 percent increase from 2005.58 The more that wind power can help to meet this demand, the more diversified the United States’ energy portfolio will be, and the less susceptible the nation will be to dependency on foreign fuel sources and to price fluctuations in traditional fuels.59 In addition, wind power benefits the United States by creating a substantial number of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind energy facilities.60 In an April 2009 speech at the Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant in Iowa, President Obama predicted that if the United States ―fully pursues our potential for wind energy on land and offshore,‖ wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030.61 Once a wind project is built, it involves only minimal environmental impacts compared to traditional electricity generation. Wind power emits negligible amounts of traditional air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.62 Lower emissions of traditional air pollutants means fewer air quality-related illnesses locally and regionally.63 Lower greenhouse gas emissions will help to combat climate change, effects of which will be felt locally and around the world.64 According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of climate change will include melting snow, ice, and permafrost; significant effects on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater plant and animal species; forced changes to agricultural and forestry management; and adverse human health impacts, including increased heat-related mortality and infectious diseases.65 The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States emits 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, and it expects emissions to increase to 7.9 billion metric tons by 2030, with 40 percent of emissions coming from the electric power sector.66 Thus, if the United States can get more of its electricity from wind power, it will contribute less to climate change, and help to mitigate its negative impacts. Furthermore, wind power does not involve any of the additional environmental costs associated with nuclear power or fuel extraction for traditional electricity generation, such as coal mining and natural gas extraction.67 Wind power generation also does not require the water necessary to cool traditional coal, gas, and nuclear generation units.68Moreover, offshore wind power has certain attributes that give it added benefits compared to onshore wind. Wind tends to be stronger and more consistent offshore—both benefits when it comes to wind power generation.69 This is largely due to reduced wind shear and roughness on the open ocean.70 Wind shear and roughness refer to effects of the landscape surrounding turbines on the quality of wind and thus the amount of electricity produced.71 While long grass, trees, and buildings will slow wind down significantly, water is generally very smooth and has much less of an effect on wind speeds.72 In addition, because offshore wind projects face fewer barriers—both natural and manmade—to their expansion, offshore developers can take advantage of economies of scale and build larger wind farms that generate more electricity.73Importantly, offshore wind also could overcome the problems that onshore wind faces regarding the distance between wind power generation and electricity demand. That is, although the United States has considerable onshore wind resources in certain areas, mostly in the middle of the country, they are frequently distant from areas with high electricity demand, mostly on the coasts, resulting in transmission problems.74 By contrast, offshore resources are near coastal electricity demand centers.75 In fact, twenty-eight of the contiguous forty-eight states have coastal boundaries, and these same states use 78 percent of the United States’ electricity.76 Thus, offshore wind power generation can effectively serve major U.S. demand centers and avoid many of the transmission costs faced by remote onshore generation.77 If shallow water offshore potential (less than about 100 feet in depth) is met on the nation’s coasts, twenty-six of the twenty-eight coastal states would have sufficient wind resources to meet at least 20 percent of their electricity needs, and many states would have enough to meet their total electricity demand.78

Advantage 2 is ports
Changes to port infrastructure aren’t coming now
Paul Davidson,12
“USA's creaking infrastructure holds back economy” http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-20/creaking-infrastructure/55096396/1, accessed 10/28/12,WY/JF
The shortcomings were partly masked during the recession as fewer Americans worked and less freight was shipped, easing traffic on transportation corridors. But interviews with shippers and logistics companies show delays are starting to lengthen along with the moderately growing economy. "I call this a stealth attack on our economy," says Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It's not like an immediate crisis. It's something that's sneaking up on us." Freight bottlenecks and other congestion cost about $200 billion a year, or 1.6% of U.S. economic output, according to a report last year by Building America's Future Educational Fund, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials. The chamber of commerce estimates such costs are as high as $1 trillion annually, or 7% of the economy. Yet, there's little prospect for more infrastructure investment as a divided Congress battles about how to cut the $1.3 trillion federal deficit, and state and local governments face their own budget shortfalls. Government investment in highways, bridges, water systems, schools and other projects has fallen each year since 2008. IHS Global Insightexpects such outlays to drop 4.4% this year and 3% in 2013. 

Offshore wind key to port revitalization, manufacturing and the steel industry 

LEED ‘12
Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation, “Ports and Maritime” 8.8.2012. http://www.leedco.org/why-offshore/ports//wyo-hdm
The scale and magnitude of offshore wind energy requires a significant amount of maritime capabilities, capacity, and onshore land availability. As the industry launch pad and staging area for all installation and assembly activity, port revitalization is an essential backbone to a thriving offshore industry. This includes a number of vessels and shipbuilding activity required to service the industry. To this end, Ohio's ports could sustain its own industry in addition to projects in other states and Canada. Here's a look at the landscape of Ohio's existing ports. In 1999, Germany’s ports became involved in offshore wind for the same reasons Ohio is seeking out today. Offshore wind is a plays a role in reversing the rapid decline of its ports' productivity. Similarly, with decline of the manufacturing and steel presence in Northeast Ohio, the region can benefit from an industry with a variety of maritime activities, raw material needs, and port facilities; all to the benefit of the local economy. According to TeamNEO, Ohio has six deepwater ports. Offshore wind is one of the few industries of current relevance which offers the scale of development to bring about significant revitalization while employing thousands. Multiple German ports are involved at various levels (see report, page 2). A similar model for Ohio is realistic as no single port can support an entire industry simply based on space constraints. This, in effect, guarantees (what is already a multi-county regional economic development project) a more efficient build out, across Ohio's North shore. Commercial scale farms will require a network of supporting facilities. While location drives logistics, outfitting one port for a particular use may not be economically feasible for the same purpose at an adjacent county. Therefore it is likely one port may specialize in foundation construction and another in turbine assembly. Beyond Ohio, the entire Great Lakes is outfitted with suitable ports for offshore wind. Check out an inventory of all the ports in a report called The Role of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Ports in the Advancement of the Wind Energy Industry by the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative. A similar infrastructural inventory was completed in Massachusetts.
The U.S. can’t compete without ports, increasing domestic energy production is also key
Peter Marber, 11/9
is an adjunct associate professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University “How the United States Can Maintain Its Global Edge” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/how-the-united-states-can-maintain-its-global-edge/265011/, accessed 11/15/12,WYO/JF
New infrastructure and energy production: We can't compete using crumbling bridges, roads, and ports. American infrastructure is ranked 25th globally, according to the Global Competitiveness Report. Equally important is expanding our domestic energy production capabilities -- from fracking to renewables -- which would reduce imports, lower electricity costs, reshore lost manufacturing, and boost employment. Combined, these could be game-changers and reverse America's 30-year decline in trade. Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have called for a federal Works Progress Administration-style infrastructure bank to help finance more than $2 trillion over five years. With interest rates low, and returns on infrastructure high, there may never be a better time.

Bad port efficiency increases food prices.
Doms, 12
“Food prices rise while transportation funding declines”, US ECONOMY 2012 OCTOBER 14, 2012. DOMINIQUE DOMS. http://www.examiner.com/article/food-prices-rise-while-transportation-funding-declines//uwyokb

The study further states that such increased transportation cost and the lack of updated infrastructures will result in higher food prices and other durable and non-durable goods prices before 2020. The projected cost for maintenance and upgrades to our current port facilities, inland waterways, railroads and airports is estimated at $30 billion between 2013 and 2020 but only about half of the estimated cost has been budgeted for, leaving a large gap and multiple projects unfinished or unplanned. The increased transportation cost will exacerbate the 2013 projected rise in food prices which many analysts and economists estimate to be 15% across all agricultural commodities. What is also at stake is the global competitiveness of the U.S. if our ports do not have access to a state of the art logistical and distribution network which will cause unnecessary delays in port-to-customer delivery times; hence an expected increase in storage costs and the subsequent price rises in delivered goods and services.
High U.S. food prices disrupts China’s food supply, and economic recovery

Benjamin Carlson, 12
“US agricultural exports to China become costly in times of drought” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/120724/us-agricultural-exports-drought-food-crisis, accessed 10/24/12,WYO/JF
As the world’s largest importer of American agricultural products, China stands to get walloped by the drought that is ravaging US croplands. With the worst dry spell in 50 years threatening to kill corn and soybean crops across a wide swath of the Midwest, driving food prices to record highs, Chinese officials are bracing for a shock that could complicate plans to revive the economy this year. More from GlobalPost: Corn harvest in Midwest threatened by drought, sweltering heat In 2011, China imported $20 billion worth of soybeans, corn, cotton and hides from US farmers, surpassing Canada for the first time. China is particularly dependent on soybeans, which have become a crucial feed crop for the country’s massive pig farms. As more Chinese can afford to eat meat more regularly, pork consumption has skyrocketed. More than half of the world’s pork is now produced and consumed within China. Corn imports are also important, with China purchasing more from the US than any country but Japan. Next year, it is expected to buy 5 million tons of American corn. But analysts don’t expect the prices to come down anytime soon. A bullish run on soybean futures drove up the cost to $16.92 per bushel for November delivery, beating the previous all-time high of $16.37 set during the global food crisis of 2008. All this constrains Beijing's ability to fix its economy. If rising food prices boost inflation, the government would have less room to increase the money supply and fuel growth — a key concern given that the economy has been slowing all year. Already, analysts are predicting that ordinary Chinese could feel some sticker shock when they go to the butcher. Zhang Zhiwei at Nomura says that the “sharp rise of global agricultural prices will likely push up pork prices in China,” according to the Financial Times. More from GlobalPost: Drip by drip, China dominates its oceanic backyard Food processors, including one of the largest instant-noodle manufacturers, are bracing for lower margins due to increased costs. 

CHINA WILL GO TO WAR WITHOUT OUTSIDE STATES, MODERNIZE ITS MILITARY, AND CHALLENGE U.S. HEGEMONY IF IT’S RESOURCES DIP TOO LOW – OR IF STARVATION BECOMES A SERIOUS THREAT

KANE AND Serewicz IN’01
(Thomas, teaches security studies at the University of Hull, UK. In addition to publishing other articles on the People's Republic of China, he has written a book on the role of maritime power in modern China's grand strategy, and Lawrence, Ph.D. in politics from the University of Hull, UK. He also has an M.A. in politics from the Claremont Graduate School, “China's Hunger: The Consequences of a Rising Demand for Food and Energy,” US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 2001, pg. Online @ http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01autumn/Kane.htm   wyo-ef)
To summarize, China's resource needs have global consequences. The most immediate effect of the PRC's requirements is that Beijing's attempts to buy what it needs will raise the price of food and oil on global markets. Higher prices hurt poorer countries even more than prosperous ones, and this will exacerbate both poverty and political unrest throughout the underdeveloped world. Western countries may feel obliged to offset crises with financial aid and military assistance. This will, among other things, reduce the resources that they have available for responding to other world events. A second consequence is that China's needs may also trigger outright wars over resources. The disputes over territorial boundaries within the South China Sea reflect not only political issues of sovereignty, but the concern for the natural resources within those boundaries. In this manner, the PRC's search for oil in the South China Sea brings Beijing into conflict with its neighbors. If China attempts to seize these waters by force, it will unsettle world markets yet further. A war in the South China Sea could also compel outside powers to intervene, if only to uphold the principles of international conduct outlined in the United Nations Charter. If, for whatever reason, the intervening powers failed to win a clear-cut victory, both they and their principles would lose a dangerous amount of influence throughout the world. Although food and energy demands are not the only reasons why China finds itself in conflict with the established world order, they do contribute to the belief that the international system does not serve China's interests. Ideology, memories of national humiliation, claims on unrecovered territory, and the timeless human urge for power all play their roles. Thus, a third consequence of China's food and energy requirements is that China's material needs drive its government to take assertive positions on many international issues, including the ones noted at the beginning of this article. If Beijing is to control dissent at home and claim access to resources abroad, it must build up its fleet, secure strategic positions around the world, resist the West's tendency to intervene against countries that violate liberal standards of human rights, demonstrate its readiness to defy the United States, and forge links with like-minded countries.

The Gravest Risk to the CCP is Prolonged Economic Decline 

Pei 11
Minxin Pei, Senior Associate in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Will the Chinese Communist Party Survive the Crisis? : How Beijing's Shrinking Economy May Threaten One-Party Rule”, 3/11 http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:q_g56rUqwuIJ:scholar.google.com/+Economic+Growth+China++CCP+andhl=enandas_sdt=0,51andas_ylo=2008,
wyo-bb
Because of the global economic crisis, however, Beijing is in trouble. The problems are numerous: China's exports are plummeting, tens of millions of migrant laborers have lost their jobs, millions of college graduates cannot find employment, industrial overcapacity is threatening deflation, and the once red-hot real estate sector has nose-dived. The country's faltering growth is posing the hardest test yet to the CCP's resilience. To be sure, the Chinese economy has fared less badly than many others. The country's insulated banking sector remains largely unscathed. Indeed, the government's fiscal balance sheet is strong enough to fund a $580 billion stimulus package (although only about a quarter represents genuinely new fiscal spending). China's colossal $1.9 trillion in foreign exchange reserves provide a comfortable insurance policy against global financial turmoil, and the country should be able to avoid an outright recession. But a reduced annual growth rate -- now down to about seven percent from over 11 percent a couple of years ago -- will bring enough trouble. Every year, the Chinese labor market grows by more than ten million workers, the bulk of whom are leaving the countryside for urban areas in search of employment. Each percentage point of GDP growth translates into roughly one million new jobs a year, which means that China needs GDP to rise at least ten percent every year in order to absorb the influx of laborers. With no end to the global crisis in sight, many are wondering how long China's economic doldrums will last and what the political impact of stagnation will be. The conventional wisdom is that low growth will erode the party's political legitimacy and fuel social unrest as jobless migrants and college graduates vent their frustrations through riots and protests. Although this forecast is not necessarily wrong, it is incomplete. Strong economic performance has been the single most important source of legitimacy for the CCP, so prolonged economic stagnation carries the danger of disenchanting a growing middle class that was lulled into political apathy by the prosperity of the post-Tiananmen years. And economic policies that favor the rich have already alienated industrial workers and rural peasants, formerly the social base of the party. Even in recent boom years, grass-roots unrest has been high, with close to 90,000 riots, strikes, demonstrations, and collective protests reported annually. Such frustrations will only intensify in hard times.

CCP Collapse goes nuclear

Renxing, 5
 (San, The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths proposed", 8/5, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html), accessed 6-07-2011, WYO/JF)
Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. 

Port expansion is vital to economic and agricultural export competitiveness
Gibbs 11 – Legislative Hearing on RAMP Act with the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bob Gibbs is the chairman of the subcommittee (Bob, “Legislative Hearing on the RAMP Act”, Legislative Hearing, 7/8/11, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg67286/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg67286.pdf)//MM
Mr. GIBBS. Welcome. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will come to order. Today, we will have a legislative hearing on H.R. 104, Realize America’s Maritime Promise Act of 2011. This hearing will give Members a chance to hear and review the challenges and opportunities facing America’s navigation system, the current and future roles played by our ports and waterways, and Mr. Boustany’s legislation. Ninety-five percent of the Nation’s imports and exports go through the Nation’s ports. Our integrated system of highways, railroads, airways, and waterways has efficiently moved freight in this Nation. But as we enter a new era of increased trade, our navigation systems have to keep pace. If not, this will ultimately lead to further delays in getting the Nation’s economy back on its feet. In May 2010, the President proposed an export initiative that aims to double the Nation’s exports over the next 5 years. However, with the Corps of Engineers navigation budget slashed by 22 percent over the previous 5 years, and the President only requesting $691 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the export initiative will not be a success. Only if our ports and waterways are at their authorized depths and widths will products be able to move to their overseas destinations in an efficient and economical manner. Since only 10 of the Nation’s largest ports are at their authorized depths and widths, the President’s budget does nothing to ensure our competitiveness in world markets. Modern ports and waterways are critical in keeping the U.S. manufacturers and producers competitive in the world markets. For instance, America’s farmers, like the rest of the economy, depend on the modern and efficient waterways and ports to get the products to market. Improved transportation systems in South America have allowed South American farmers to keep their costs low enough to underbid U.S. green farmers for customers located in this country. With an outdated navigation system, transportation costs will increase and goods transported by water may switch to other congested modes of transportation. With today’s overcrowded highways, like the I–95 corridor, we should be looking to water transportation to shoulder more of the load. Unless the issue of channel maintenance is addressed, the reliability and responsiveness of the entire intermodal system will slow economic growth and threaten national security. 

Tournament: districts | Round: 2 | Opponent: Weber | Judge: Pointer
Go To 1AC
The Consistency requirements of the CZMA restrict energy production on the outer continental shelf by requiring that leasing and licensing conforms to state policy even if it is in federal waters, giving the states veto power over energy development

Kimmell and Stalenhoef 11
Kenneth, general counsel to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, was responsible for overseeing the state permitting of the Cape Wind project, and now serves as the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Dawn, environmental law attorney and Counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, “The Cape Wind Offshore Wind Energy Project: A Case Study of the Difficult Transition to Renewable Energy”, p. aspwyo-tjc
A key element of the CZMA and its implementation is the establishment of “enforceable program policies” by participating states. States’ coastal program policies are “enforceable” because they derive authority from existing state statutes and regulations. With a CZMapproved Coastal Management Plan (CMP), states may consider in-state impacts of federal activities in federal waters and determine whether these activities are consistent with the states’ CMPs through CZM’s consistency review provisions.130 The CZMA requires that federal agency activities be consistent with state CMPs. However, the degree to which individual proponents of a project must comply with state coastal policies varies. For example, while the federal government must comply “to the maximum extent practicable,”131 a private party bears a heavier burden. A federal government agency must prepare a “consistency determination” to demonstrate to a state that it complies with the coastal policy.132 However, private applicants for federal license or permit activities,133 applicants for OCSLA Plans,134 and applicants for federal financial assistance activities135 must certify to the affected states that the proposed activities are consistent with the enforceable policies of the CMP.136 At least as to private parties, the CZMA has teeth.137 If CZM does not concur with a party’s “consistency certification,” the project cannot obtain permits or licenses from any federal agency.138 There are timelines after which applications are presumptively approved,139 and the statute contains provisions for appealing to the Secretary of Commerce to override disapproval by a state on the basis that the proposed activity “is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.”140 Nevertheless, the CZMA consistency review offers significant potential for states wanting to exert greater control over activities in federal waters that may have impacts on in-state coastal resources.

Thus the Plan: The United States federal government should eliminate coastal zone management act consistency reviews for the production of off shore wind power in the United States. 

Advantage one is the Grid:
Grid failures inevitable- heat, storms, winds, hacking, solar flares and mistakes all make an economically crippling blackout inevitable
Montgomery 12
“Special Report: Vermont's vulnerable power grid”, Jeff Montgomery, Dan D’Ambrosio and Greg Clary Project team reporters. 8-26- 2012, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120826/NEWS/308260016/Special-Report-Vermont-s-vulnerable-power-grid//uwyokb
Extreme weather is putting America’s power grid to the test, with a year-long run of violent storms and record heat battering a system built for fairer skies. As Vermont prepares to note the one-year anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene on Tuesday, energy officials are acknowledging climate change as a force that finally has to be reckoned with — even as concern grows over other threats that can set off catastrophic blackouts. Winter storms, chains of heat waves and late June’s “super derecho” — a thunderstorm with straight-line winds that snapped electrical transmission towers and shredded power poles in the Mid-Atlantic States — have forced the climate change issue and electric supply vulnerability to the top of an already-daunting list of blackout triggers. Those threats range from computer-hacking cyberterrorists to solar flares, utility mistakes and plain bad luck. Regulators in the U.S. hope to avoid the kind of cascading grid failure that hit India in late July, leaving some 600 million — 10 percent of the world’s population — without power. Miners were trapped underground. Trains shut down. Unimaginable traffic snarls popped up across the country. And India’s image as a rising economic power was cast in darkness. A major blackout in hyper-wired America would also have crippling consequences, with some experts predicting economic losses up to $180 billion. “This is really the fundamental linchpin for everything in our society, our economy, our quality of life,” said Massoud Amin, a University of Minnesota professor and longtime electric industry analyst and consultant. “By deferring infrastructure upgrades, we are basically increasing the risk for the whole system.”

Meltdowns are likely after a black-out: an outage will take days to recover- the best plants in the US can last 16 hours without external power
Cappiello, 11
Dina, staff writer, “NRC casts doubt on US reactors’ blackout plans” http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/04/29/nrc_casts_doubt_on_us_reactors_blackout_plans/?camp=pm, accessed 10/24/12,WYO/JF
The nation’s top nuclear regulator cast doubt yesterday on whether reactors in the United States are prepared for the type of days-long power outage that struck a nuclear power plant in Japan. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has required reactors to cope without power from either the electrical grid or emergency diesel generators for four to eight hours. After that time, it assumes some electrical power will be restored. Chairman Gregory Jaczko of the NRC questioned whether four hours is enough time, even though it is unlikely a nuclear power plant would lose power from both the grid and generators as the Japan plant did. Requirements put in place after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are expected to lengthen plants’ ability to withstand a blackout. “Four hours doesn’t seem to be a reasonable time to restore offsite power if you lost the diesels immediately,’’ Jaczko said at a commission meeting at the NRC’s Rockville, Md., headquarters. “In the event there is a station blackout that is externally driven, I’m not convinced that in that situation four hours’’ is enough time to restore power. An Associated Press investigation last month examined the risk to the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors to a complete loss of electrical power. In the United States, such a “station blackout’’ has happened only once, at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia in 1990. There, power was restored in 55 minutes. The Japan disaster showed that it could be days before the electricity needed to pump water and keep the radioactive core from melting can be turned back on. The Fukushima Daiichi plant had capacity for eight hours of emergency battery power. When that elapsed, the plant operator struggled to find other ways to cool the cores without onsite or offsite power. “It wasn’t the earthquake or the tsunami that caused the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe — it was an electricity outage. A blackout shouldn’t cause a meltdown,’’ Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Malden, said in a statement. He has filed legislation that includes expanding the time reactors are required to cope without power. Of the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States, 87 can cope for four hours without power or emergency generators. Another 14, including the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., can cope for eight hours, and three can last for 16 hours. Most reactors rely on batteries for this power source. Markey’s bill calls for a comprehensive approach to improving the safety of the nation’s nuclear plants. It would include requiring reactors to have at least 72 hours of capacity for battery generators. The bill also calls for 14 days of power from backup diesel generators to be available. Currently, plants are required to have seven days of such power available. As part of a review initiated after the Japan disaster, the nuclear commission is looking at whether the blackout rule needs to be updated. At the time the rule was written in the 1980s, the commission assumed electrical power could be restored in 50 minutes to two hours. The NRC added an additional two hours to that time as a safety buffer. Since then, plants have lost offsite power for longer periods of time. In every case, diesel generators kicked on and supplied electrical power, sometimes for days. There also are agreements with power grid operators that nuclear power plants get first priority as power is restored. “We have a high expectation you will restore offsite power, restore emergency diesels or use alternate sources,’’ said Pat Hiland, director of the NRC’s reactor regulation engineering division. But Jaczko, the NRC chairman, pointed out that the blackout regulation is designed to deal with a situation where even diesel generators do not work, as in the case of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan. A top staffer told NRC commissioners yesterday that the Japan situation “has definitely improved’’ in recent weeks. Bill Borchardt, NRC’s executive director for operations, said that while there are still many unanswered questions about equipment failures and other problems at the facility, the situation is “certainly not as highly dynamic’’ as it was. Overall, Japan is “making progress,’’ he said
A meltdown in the Northeast United States would quickly escalate and spread clouds of intense radiation around the globe- survivors will envy the dead
Wasserman 01(Harvey Wasserman, senior editor of NIRS, October 2001, “America’s Terrorist Nuclear Threat to Itself”  http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/security/wassermannukesecurity.htm WYO/JF)
Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds from the north and west might initially drive these clouds of mass death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds ultimately shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery torrent. At Indian Point, thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. In nearby communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Virtually all pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions. A terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by the fliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and by victims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description. Indeed, those who survived the initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and highways would become killing fields for those attempting to escape to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian Point, such missions would be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be doubtful as the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing ever more devastation into the eco- sphere. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up. They are dying in droves. Who would now volunteer for such an American task force? The radioactive cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast Ukraine and Belarus landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, surging through the west coast of the United States within ten days, carrying across our northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back again. The radioactive clouds from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. The World Trade Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet crash at Indian Point than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital would be forever lost. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural eco-systems on which human and all other life depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed,  Spiritually, psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New York City on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse now operating in the United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity, just 8% of our total energy. As with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact on life in New York. Already an extremely expensive source of electricity, the cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put nuclear energy even further off the competitive scale. Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually with increased efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect. Yet, as the bombs fall and the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass destruction, and then shielding from liability the companies that insist on continuing to operate them? Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation?  If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.

Wind uniquely solves blackouts in the Northeast because it creates inherent resiliency against disruptions, their design does not create cascades and it allows instantaneous power-up after a crisis, cutting the length of the blackout down dramatically
Wood, 11/1
“Hurricane Sandy Uncovers Strength and Simplicity of Renewable Energy Systems” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/11/hurricane-sandy-uncovers-strength-and-simplicity-of-renewable-energy-systems?cmpid=WNL-Friday-November2-2012, accessed 11/5/12,WYO/JF
Wind and solar are relatively safe forms of energy, a feature that we tend to overlook until a disaster hits like the "superstorm" that disabled New York City's power grid this week. Unlike fossil fuel plants, they require no combustible fuels to generate electricity. And there is no danger that they will leak radiation as did the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant following last year’s tsunami in Japan. Hence, the Northeast’s wind and solar farms evoked little public anxiety this week when Hurricane Sandy hit – unlike the nuclear and fossil fuel infrastructure. Safety officials kept a careful eye on the nuclear power plants and three were shut down in New Jersey and New York. And the smell of natural gas in any flooded areas drew quick attention from those who understood the danger. These anxieties speak to a larger difference between renewables and conventional generation. Specifically, wind and solar operate under simpler systems that are prone to fewer problems, say renewable energy advocates. Simple Design, Simple Operations First of all, wind and solar do not need additional energy inputs to produce electricity or cool a reactor, said John Kourtoff, president and CEO of Toronto-based Trillium Power Wind. There is no need for natural gas, oil or coal to be excavated, transported and applied to the system. Instead, they produce electricity by taking advantage of a form of energy that is already available – wind and sun. Second, they mimic nature in design, so they tend to be more resilient and withstand natural disasters better, he said. “Renewables at their core are simple bio-mimicry based on nature. This simple and closed aspect makes them successful when storms and natural disasters happen, whether hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis,” Kourtoff said. He pointed out that last year’s tsunami in Japan devastated a nuclear plant, but wind turbines near the shore suffered no harm. Wind and solar farms mimic a natural cell-like structure, so they are less likely than conventional power plants to succumb to a cascading failure, according to Kourtoff. You lose a blade on a wind tower and you don’t lose the whole wind farm — just like you don’t kill a flower if a petal comes off. But for more complex energy systems, like fossil fuel and nuclear plants, failure in one part can bring down the entire production facility in a cascade, he said. “You can put a spike through a solar panel yet the rest of the solar farm runs because it runs on a cellular-like model. If one cell is not operational, the others continue to operate,” he said. He calls nuclear and fossil fuel plants industrial age technologies, and recent wind and solar, “Renewables 2.0,” designs that have grown simpler, with fewer moving parts and more efficient functioning. Kourtoff also likened wind and solar design – at least in philosophy – to the products created by Steve Jobs, which emphasized simplicity, elegance and human appeal. “Why do people like Apple products? They like them because of the simplicity of design. People see beauty in simplicity, in nature. You never hear anyone say, ‘Look at that beautiful nuclear plant.’ But if you see wind turbines moving gracefully in the water, they look beautiful,” Kourtoff said. The simplicity also offers practical benefits. “In terms of renewable energy, it can certainly help the grid come back quickly from weather situations like Hurricane Sandy,” said Carol Murphy, executive director, Alliance for Clean Energy New York. “It can take nuclear plants a week or more to come back online. Wind and solar, like other generators, do shut down during extreme weather conditions, but they can be back up and produce power quickly.” How Did Renewables Weather the Storm? Based on early assessments, renewable energy facilities seemed to fare well during Hurricane Sandy. ISO New England said it received no reports of any damage to wind or solar facilities from the storm. Iberdrola Renewables, which owns wind farms in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania, reported few problems. “We monitored the situation through the night and shut down sites as a precaution to protect equipment from extreme winds. Inspections today have revealed minimal damage so far. We are very satisfied with the response of our people and the performance of the sites through an exceptional event,” said Jan Johnson, Iberdrola Renewables’ communications director. Long Island suffered some of the most severe destruction, wiping out service to most of the Long Island Power Authority’s 1.1 million customers. But the island’s 32-MW Long Island Solar Farm appears to have come through fairly well. Nothing “catastrophic” happened at the facility, according to Matt Hartwig, spokesman for BP Alternative Energy, which operates the solar farm. “They are beginning their assessment, which initially shows damage to the fence around the facility as well as some module damage, the extent of which is not yet known.” New York, Connecticut and other hard hit areas happen to be in various stages of devising long-term energy plans. We’ll soon see if Hurricane Sandy – and lessons learned about renewable energy performance in storms – will add a new dimension to policy decisions about the future role of wind and solar.

And OSW solves East Coast electricity demand- drops prices and solves grid congestion that creates cascades

Marcacci 12
Silvio, Principal at Marcacci Communications, a full-service clean energy public relations company based in Washington, D.C., Clean Technica, “Offshore Wind On The Atlantic Cost Could Create 300,000 Jobs And $200 Billion In Economic Activity”, p. onlinewyo-tjc
Beyond creating new jobs and economic activity building and operating all these new turbines, plugging offshore wind into our nation’s grid can increase reliability and lower utility prices. Offshore winds blow strongest during the day and in heat waves – precisely the points when demand for electricity is highest and the risk of power shortages most acute. In addition, the greatest potential wind power lies along some of the East Coast’s biggest cities. Grid congestion has constrained the ability of cheaper power to reach these demand pools and created some of the highest power prices in the country.But if these population centers could tap into steady electricity being generated just offshore, growing demand could be met cheaply. In fact, New York State’s grid operator recently found consumers save $300 million in wholesale electricity costs for every 1 GW of wind on the grid.
OSW is uniquely key to solve electricity demand in the United States- it overcomes issues with transmission costs, intermittency, and load capacity factors all because it is on the water

Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p. lnwyo-tjc
Many of the most compelling benefits of offshore wind are similar to those of onshore wind, though offshore wind has its own unique set of benefits. To start, wind power generation can help meet the growing energy demand in the United States. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that the demand for electricity in the United States will grow to 5.8 billion MWh in 2030, a 39 percent increase from 2005.58 The more that wind power can help to meet this demand, the more diversified the United States’ energy portfolio will be, and the less susceptible the nation will be to dependency on foreign fuel sources and to price fluctuations in traditional fuels.59 In addition, wind power benefits the United States by creating a substantial number of jobs for building and operating the domestic wind energy facilities.60 In an April 2009 speech at the Trinity Structural Towers Manufacturing Plant in Iowa, President Obama predicted that if the United States ―fully pursues our potential for wind energy on land and offshore,‖ wind power could create 250,000 jobs by 2030.61 Once a wind project is built, it involves only minimal environmental impacts compared to traditional electricity generation. Wind power emits negligible amounts of traditional air pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.62 Lower emissions of traditional air pollutants means fewer air quality-related illnesses locally and regionally.63 Lower greenhouse gas emissions will help to combat climate change, effects of which will be felt locally and around the world.64 According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of climate change will include melting snow, ice, and permafrost; significant effects on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater plant and animal species; forced changes to agricultural and forestry management; and adverse human health impacts, including increased heat-related mortality and infectious diseases.65 The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States emits 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases annually, and it expects emissions to increase to 7.9 billion metric tons by 2030, with 40 percent of emissions coming from the electric power sector.66 Thus, if the United States can get more of its electricity from wind power, it will contribute less to climate change, and help to mitigate its negative impacts. Furthermore, wind power does not involve any of the additional environmental costs associated with nuclear power or fuel extraction for traditional electricity generation, such as coal mining and natural gas extraction.67 Wind power generation also does not require the water necessary to cool traditional coal, gas, and nuclear generation units.68Moreover, offshore wind power has certain attributes that give it added benefits compared to onshore wind. Wind tends to be stronger and more consistent offshore—both benefits when it comes to wind power generation.69 This is largely due to reduced wind shear and roughness on the open ocean.70 Wind shear and roughness refer to effects of the landscape surrounding turbines on the quality of wind and thus the amount of electricity produced.71 While long grass, trees, and buildings will slow wind down significantly, water is generally very smooth and has much less of an effect on wind speeds.72 In addition, because offshore wind projects face fewer barriers—both natural and manmade—to their expansion, offshore developers can take advantage of economies of scale and build larger wind farms that generate more electricity.73Importantly, offshore wind also could overcome the problems that onshore wind faces regarding the distance between wind power generation and electricity demand. That is, although the United States has considerable onshore wind resources in certain areas, mostly in the middle of the country, they are frequently distant from areas with high electricity demand, mostly on the coasts, resulting in transmission problems.74 By contrast, offshore resources are near coastal electricity demand centers.75 In fact, twenty-eight of the contiguous forty-eight states have coastal boundaries, and these same states use 78 percent of the United States’ electricity.76 Thus, offshore wind power generation can effectively serve major U.S. demand centers and avoid many of the transmission costs faced by remote onshore generation.77 If shallow water offshore potential (less than about 100 feet in depth) is met on the nation’s coasts, twenty-six of the twenty-eight coastal states would have sufficient wind resources to meet at least 20 percent of their electricity needs, and many states would have enough to meet their total electricity demand.
Advantage 2 is ports
Changes to port infrastructure aren’t coming now
Paul Davidson,12
“USA's creaking infrastructure holds back economy” http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-20/creaking-infrastructure/55096396/1, accessed 10/28/12,WY/JF
The shortcomings were partly masked during the recession as fewer Americans worked and less freight was shipped, easing traffic on transportation corridors. But interviews with shippers and logistics companies show delays are starting to lengthen along with the moderately growing economy. "I call this a stealth attack on our economy," says Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It's not like an immediate crisis. It's something that's sneaking up on us." Freight bottlenecks and other congestion cost about $200 billion a year, or 1.6% of U.S. economic output, according to a report last year by Building America's Future Educational Fund, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials. The chamber of commerce estimates such costs are as high as $1 trillion annually, or 7% of the economy. Yet, there's little prospect for more infrastructure investment as a divided Congress battles about how to cut the $1.3 trillion federal deficit, and state and local governments face their own budget shortfalls. Government investment in highways, bridges, water systems, schools and other projects has fallen each year since 2008. IHS Global Insightexpects such outlays to drop 4.4% this year and 3% in 2013. 

Offshore wind key to port revitalization, manufacturing and the steel industry 

LEED ‘12
Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation, “Ports and Maritime” 8.8.2012. http://www.leedco.org/why-offshore/ports//wyo-hdm
The scale and magnitude of offshore wind energy requires a significant amount of maritime capabilities, capacity, and onshore land availability. As the industry launch pad and staging area for all installation and assembly activity, port revitalization is an essential backbone to a thriving offshore industry. This includes a number of vessels and shipbuilding activity required to service the industry. To this end, Ohio's ports could sustain its own industry in addition to projects in other states and Canada. Here's a look at the landscape of Ohio's existing ports. In 1999, Germany’s ports became involved in offshore wind for the same reasons Ohio is seeking out today. Offshore wind is a plays a role in reversing the rapid decline of its ports' productivity. Similarly, with decline of the manufacturing and steel presence in Northeast Ohio, the region can benefit from an industry with a variety of maritime activities, raw material needs, and port facilities; all to the benefit of the local economy. According to TeamNEO, Ohio has six deepwater ports. Offshore wind is one of the few industries of current relevance which offers the scale of development to bring about significant revitalization while employing thousands. Multiple German ports are involved at various levels (see report, page 2). A similar model for Ohio is realistic as no single port can support an entire industry simply based on space constraints. This, in effect, guarantees (what is already a multi-county regional economic development project) a more efficient build out, across Ohio's North shore. Commercial scale farms will require a network of supporting facilities. While location drives logistics, outfitting one port for a particular use may not be economically feasible for the same purpose at an adjacent county. Therefore it is likely one port may specialize in foundation construction and another in turbine assembly. Beyond Ohio, the entire Great Lakes is outfitted with suitable ports for offshore wind. Check out an inventory of all the ports in a report called The Role of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Ports in the Advancement of the Wind Energy Industry by the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative. A similar infrastructural inventory was completed in Massachusetts.

The U.S. can’t compete without ports, increasing domestic energy production is also key
Peter Marber, 11/9
is an adjunct associate professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University “How the United States Can Maintain Its Global Edge” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/how-the-united-states-can-maintain-its-global-edge/265011/, accessed 11/15/12,WYO/JF
New infrastructure and energy production: We can't compete using crumbling bridges, roads, and ports. American infrastructure is ranked 25th globally, according to the Global Competitiveness Report. Equally important is expanding our domestic energy production capabilities -- from fracking to renewables -- which would reduce imports, lower electricity costs, reshore lost manufacturing, and boost employment. Combined, these could be game-changers and reverse America's 30-year decline in trade. Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have called for a federal Works Progress Administration-style infrastructure bank to help finance more than $2 trillion over five years. With interest rates low, and returns on infrastructure high, there may never be a better time.

Scenario 1 is China
Bad port efficiency increases food prices.
Doms, 12
“Food prices rise while transportation funding declines”, US ECONOMY 2012 OCTOBER 14, 2012. DOMINIQUE DOMS. http://www.examiner.com/article/food-prices-rise-while-transportation-funding-declines//uwyokb

The study further states that such increased transportation cost and the lack of updated infrastructures will result in higher food prices and other durable and non-durable goods prices before 2020. The projected cost for maintenance and upgrades to our current port facilities, inland waterways, railroads and airports is estimated at $30 billion between 2013 and 2020 but only about half of the estimated cost has been budgeted for, leaving a large gap and multiple projects unfinished or unplanned. The increased transportation cost will exacerbate the 2013 projected rise in food prices which many analysts and economists estimate to be 15% across all agricultural commodities. What is also at stake is the global competitiveness of the U.S. if our ports do not have access to a state of the art logistical and distribution network which will cause unnecessary delays in port-to-customer delivery times; hence an expected increase in storage costs and the subsequent price rises in delivered goods and services.
High U.S. food prices disrupts China’s food supply, and economic recovery

Benjamin Carlson, 12
“US agricultural exports to China become costly in times of drought” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/120724/us-agricultural-exports-drought-food-crisis, accessed 10/24/12,WYO/JF
As the world’s largest importer of American agricultural products, China stands to get walloped by the drought that is ravaging US croplands. With the worst dry spell in 50 years threatening to kill corn and soybean crops across a wide swath of the Midwest, driving food prices to record highs, Chinese officials are bracing for a shock that could complicate plans to revive the economy this year. More from GlobalPost: Corn harvest in Midwest threatened by drought, sweltering heat In 2011, China imported $20 billion worth of soybeans, corn, cotton and hides from US farmers, surpassing Canada for the first time. China is particularly dependent on soybeans, which have become a crucial feed crop for the country’s massive pig farms. As more Chinese can afford to eat meat more regularly, pork consumption has skyrocketed. More than half of the world’s pork is now produced and consumed within China. Corn imports are also important, with China purchasing more from the US than any country but Japan. Next year, it is expected to buy 5 million tons of American corn. But analysts don’t expect the prices to come down anytime soon. A bullish run on soybean futures drove up the cost to $16.92 per bushel for November delivery, beating the previous all-time high of $16.37 set during the global food crisis of 2008. All this constrains Beijing's ability to fix its economy. If rising food prices boost inflation, the government would have less room to increase the money supply and fuel growth — a key concern given that the economy has been slowing all year. Already, analysts are predicting that ordinary Chinese could feel some sticker shock when they go to the butcher. Zhang Zhiwei at Nomura says that the “sharp rise of global agricultural prices will likely push up pork prices in China,” according to the Financial Times. More from GlobalPost: Drip by drip, China dominates its oceanic backyard Food processors, including one of the largest instant-noodle manufacturers, are bracing for lower margins due to increased costs. 

CHINA WILL GO TO WAR WITHOUT OUTSIDE STATES, MODERNIZE ITS MILITARY, AND CHALLENGE U.S. HEGEMONY IF IT’S RESOURCES DIP TOO LOW – OR IF STARVATION BECOMES A SERIOUS THREAT

KANE AND Serewicz IN’01
(Thomas, teaches security studies at the University of Hull, UK. In addition to publishing other articles on the People's Republic of China, he has written a book on the role of maritime power in modern China's grand strategy, and Lawrence, Ph.D. in politics from the University of Hull, UK. He also has an M.A. in politics from the Claremont Graduate School, “China's Hunger: The Consequences of a Rising Demand for Food and Energy,” US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 2001, pg. Online @ http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01autumn/Kane.htm   wyo-ef)
To summarize, China's resource needs have global consequences. The most immediate effect of the PRC's requirements is that Beijing's attempts to buy what it needs will raise the price of food and oil on global markets. Higher prices hurt poorer countries even more than prosperous ones, and this will exacerbate both poverty and political unrest throughout the underdeveloped world. Western countries may feel obliged to offset crises with financial aid and military assistance. This will, among other things, reduce the resources that they have available for responding to other world events. A second consequence is that China's needs may also trigger outright wars over resources. The disputes over territorial boundaries within the South China Sea reflect not only political issues of sovereignty, but the concern for the natural resources within those boundaries. In this manner, the PRC's search for oil in the South China Sea brings Beijing into conflict with its neighbors. If China attempts to seize these waters by force, it will unsettle world markets yet further. A war in the South China Sea could also compel outside powers to intervene, if only to uphold the principles of international conduct outlined in the United Nations Charter. If, for whatever reason, the intervening powers failed to win a clear-cut victory, both they and their principles would lose a dangerous amount of influence throughout the world. Although food and energy demands are not the only reasons why China finds itself in conflict with the established world order, they do contribute to the belief that the international system does not serve China's interests. Ideology, memories of national humiliation, claims on unrecovered territory, and the timeless human urge for power all play their roles. Thus, a third consequence of China's food and energy requirements is that China's material needs drive its government to take assertive positions on many international issues, including the ones noted at the beginning of this article. If Beijing is to control dissent at home and claim access to resources abroad, it must build up its fleet, secure strategic positions around the world, resist the West's tendency to intervene against countries that violate liberal standards of human rights, demonstrate its readiness to defy the United States, and forge links with like-minded countries.

The Gravest Risk to the CCP is Prolonged Economic Decline 

Pei 11
Minxin Pei, Senior Associate in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Will the Chinese Communist Party Survive the Crisis? : How Beijing's Shrinking Economy May Threaten One-Party Rule”, 3/11 http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:q_g56rUqwuIJ:scholar.google.com/+Economic+Growth+China++CCP+andhl=enandas_sdt=0,51andas_ylo=2008,
wyo-bb
Because of the global economic crisis, however, Beijing is in trouble. The problems are numerous: China's exports are plummeting, tens of millions of migrant laborers have lost their jobs, millions of college graduates cannot find employment, industrial overcapacity is threatening deflation, and the once red-hot real estate sector has nose-dived. The country's faltering growth is posing the hardest test yet to the CCP's resilience. To be sure, the Chinese economy has fared less badly than many others. The country's insulated banking sector remains largely unscathed. Indeed, the government's fiscal balance sheet is strong enough to fund a $580 billion stimulus package (although only about a quarter represents genuinely new fiscal spending). China's colossal $1.9 trillion in foreign exchange reserves provide a comfortable insurance policy against global financial turmoil, and the country should be able to avoid an outright recession. But a reduced annual growth rate -- now down to about seven percent from over 11 percent a couple of years ago -- will bring enough trouble. Every year, the Chinese labor market grows by more than ten million workers, the bulk of whom are leaving the countryside for urban areas in search of employment. Each percentage point of GDP growth translates into roughly one million new jobs a year, which means that China needs GDP to rise at least ten percent every year in order to absorb the influx of laborers. With no end to the global crisis in sight, many are wondering how long China's economic doldrums will last and what the political impact of stagnation will be. The conventional wisdom is that low growth will erode the party's political legitimacy and fuel social unrest as jobless migrants and college graduates vent their frustrations through riots and protests. Although this forecast is not necessarily wrong, it is incomplete. Strong economic performance has been the single most important source of legitimacy for the CCP, so prolonged economic stagnation carries the danger of disenchanting a growing middle class that was lulled into political apathy by the prosperity of the post-Tiananmen years. And economic policies that favor the rich have already alienated industrial workers and rural peasants, formerly the social base of the party. Even in recent boom years, grass-roots unrest has been high, with close to 90,000 riots, strikes, demonstrations, and collective protests reported annually. Such frustrations will only intensify in hard times.

CCP Collapse goes nuclear

Renxing, 5
 (San, The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths proposed", 8/5, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html), accessed 6-07-2011, WYO/JF)
Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. 

Scenario 2 is terrorism
Terrorist attacks on ports are coming and we are lagging behind in security now
Nadler et all, 6-26-12
JERROLD L. NADLER, EDWARD J. MARKEY and BENNIE G. THOMPSON, NYT contributors, “Cargo, the Terrorists’ Trojan Horse. Online, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/opinion/the-dangerous-delay-on-port-security.html MB
MILLIONS of cargo containers are unloaded from ships each year at American seaports, providing countless opportunities for terrorists to smuggle and unleash a nuclear bomb or weapon of mass destruction on our shores. To counter this threat, Congress passed a law five years ago mandating that by July 2012, all maritime cargo bound for the United States must be scanned before it is loaded on ships. But the Obama administration will miss this deadline, and it is not clear to us, as the authors of the law, whether it ever plans to comply with the law.¶ Over the years, terrorists have shown themselves to be frighteningly inventive. They have hidden explosives in printer cartridges transported by air and embedded explosives in the shoes and underwear of airline passengers. The cargo containers arriving on ships from foreign ports offer terrorists a Trojan horse for a devastating attack on the United States. As the Harvard political scientist Graham T. Allison has put it, a nuclear attack is “far more likely to arrive in a cargo container than on the tip of a missile.”¶ But for the past five years, the Department of Homeland Security has done little to counter this threat and instead has wasted precious time arguing that it would be too expensive and too difficult, logistically and diplomatically, to comply with the law. This is unacceptable.

And independently dirty bomb attacks on Ports are extremely likely—they are coming now by 2015
Parfomak and Frittelli, 2007
Paul and John, Resources, Sciences and Industry division of the Congressional Research Service, “Maritime Security:¶ Potential Terrorist Attacks¶ and Protection Priorities.” Prepared for members of congress, 3-14-2007, online, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33787.pdf
Terrorist attacks on U.S. ports with radiological dispersion devices (“dirty” bombs)is also considered among the gravest maritime terrorism scenarios.77 A2003 simulation of a series of such attacks concluded that they “could cripple global trade and have a devastating impact on the nation’s economy.”78 Many terrorism analysts view such a dirty bomb attack as relatively likely. In a 2005 survey, for example, nuclear non-proliferation experts expressed their beliefs (on average) that there was a 25% chance of a dirty bomb attack in the United States by 2010 and a 40% chance of such an attack by 2015.79 Studies suggest that the materials required to make a dirty bomb may be widely available and poorly controlled internationally.80 According to some press reports, U.S. and British intelligence agencies have reportedly concluded that Al Qaeda has succeeded in making such a bomb.81 Port operators have testified before Congress that they believe “it is just a question of time” before terrorists with dirty bombs successfully attack a U.S. port.82
And, dirty bomb attacks are just as bad as nuclear attacks
BERES IN ‘94
(Prof., Political Science, Purdue University) ‘94
Louis Rene, “On International Law and Nuclear Terrorism,” 24Georgia Jounral of International and Comparative Law 1, Spring, LN
Radiological weapons are not as widely understood as nuclear explosives, but they may be equally ominous in their effects. Placed in the hands of 8955*27 terrorists, such weapons could pose a lethal hazard for human beings anywhere in the world. Even a world already dominated by every variety of numbing could not fail to recoil from such a prospect. Radiological weapons are devices designed to disperse radioactive materials that have been produced a substantial time before their dispersal. The targets against which terrorists might choose to use radiological weapons include concentrations of people inside buildings, concentrations of people on urban streets or at sporting events, urban areas with a high population density as a whole, and agricultural areas. The form such weapons might take include plutonium dispersal devices (only 3.5 ounces of plutonium could prove lethal to everyone within a large office building or factory) or devices designed to disperse other radioactive materials. In principle, the dispersal of spent nuclear reactor fuel and the fission products separated from reactor fuels would create grave hazards in a populated area, but the handling of such materials would be very dangerous to terrorists themselves. It is more likely, therefore, that would-be users of radiological weapons would favor plutonium over radioactive fission products. The threat of nuclear terrorism involving radiological weapons is potentially more serious than the threat involving nuclear explosives. This is because it would be easier for terrorists to achieve nuclear capability with radiological weapons. Such weapons, therefore, could also be the subject of a more plausible hoax than nuclear explosives.
And, nuclear terrorism risks extinction
ALEXANDER (Dir. Inter-University Center for Terrorism) 2000
Yonah, “Terrorism in the 21st Century”, Depaul Business Law Journal, p. ln
More specifically, present-day terrorists have introduced into contemporary life a new scale of terror violence in terms of both threats and responses that has made clear that we have entered into an Age of Terrorism with all of its serious implications to national, regional, and global security concerns. n25 Perhaps the most significant dangers that evolve from modern day terrorism are those relating to the safety, welfare, and rights of ordinary people; the stability of the state system; the health of economic  *67  development; the expansion of democracy; and possibly the survival of civilization itself.

Offshore wind would revitalize weak US ports and shipyards and create millions of sustainable jobs 

DOE ‘11
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind and Water Power Program U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, “A National Offshore Wind Strategy Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States” 2.7.2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf//wyo-hdm
Deployment of wind energy along U.S. coasts would also trigger direct and indirect economic benefits. According to NREL analysis and extrapolation of European studies, offshore wind would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters (W. Musial 2010). Installing 54 GW of offshore wind capacity in U.S. waters would create more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance (OandM) jobs and would require more than 1.1 million job‐years to manufacture and install the turbines (W. Musial 2010). Many of these jobs would be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards, which could be revitalized as fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind provides an opportunity for revitalization of U.S. ports and heavy industry facilities. Due to the large scale of offshore wind turbine components, towers and foundation structures, it is generally advantageous to limit or eliminate overland transport from assembly and installation scenarios in order to maximize process efficiency and minimize logistics time and costs. In addition, European experience has clearly indicated that it will be necessary to create a purpose‐built installation, operations, and maintenance (IOandM) infrastructure for offshore wind, including specialized vessels and port facilities. To assist industry and regional port facilities in making informed decisions regarding design requirements for IOandM infrastructure, DOE will participate in collaborative studies of infrastructure needs and capabilities for the benefit of all national regions. A significant portion of the cost differential between land‐based and offshore wind energy systems lies in transport and installation requirements. European experience indicates that specialized wind system installation vessels, rather than adapted oil and gas vessels, will be required for cost‐effective, high‐ volume installation. 

Solvency

The CZMA provisions give state and local opposition a platform to directly veto federal permitting of OSW in federal waters because it gives them standing to review and reject federal projects.  This creates excessive uncertainty that destroys OSW.  Removing this restriction would jumpstart the OSW industry

Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p. lnwyo-tjc
The Cape Wind example poignantly illustrates the disconnect between local costs and national benefits with regard to offshore wind power development, and the potential for local interests to hijack state and federal processes and stall a project. The federal government needs a stronger role in the process to counteract narrow-minded state and local opposition. With a well-integrated federal perspective, agencies and developers could properly weigh regional, national, and global benefits of offshore wind against its limited local costs. The CZMA presents an obvious starting point for a revised regulatory framework. It already covers the states’ coastal zones—that is, the area three miles or less from the shore—and leaves states with substantial power.227 However, it currently does not give sufficient weight to the national interest in the benefits of offshore wind power. Some academics have come to a similar conclusion, but their revisions are tentative and minor.228 Now is a time for more decisive and bold action. With the change in the United States’ administration, the deteriorating climate situation, and the nation’s ongoing energy and economic crises, the country has both the opportunity and the need to make effective changes. However, setting up an entirely new regulatory scheme, as some have suggested,229 goes too far: it fails to acknowledge what Congress can realistically accomplish and ignores the tools we already have in our hands in the CZMA. With some strengthening revisions, the CZMA might become the simple solution that helps the United States turn offshore wind on. A. An Ineffective Tool to Promote Offshore Wind The CZMA has had some measure of success—almost every coastal state participates and it has led states to view their Coastal Zones as ―unified ecological areas.‖230 Still, despite clear undertones of environmental protection, the Act has failed to serve as an effective tool to promote offshore wind power development, even at well-suited sites such as the location of the Cape Wind project. The CZMA’s failure with respect to offshore wind can be attributed to lack of specificity in the terms of the Act. That is, without more explicit guiding principles and requirements, states can fulfill the process required by the CZMA—the development of CZMPs—while not meeting any particular standards.231 This leaves states with substantial discretion, but without a coherent, overarching goal driven by a federal plan. In particular, with its decentralized structure and only brief explicit mention of the national benefits of offshore energy development, the CZMA gives insufficient encouragement to states to recognize the benefits of offshore wind power in their CZMPs.232 For example, the CZMA explicitly mandates that coastal states ―anticipate and plan‖ for climate change and resulting sea level rise and other adverse effects.233 However, it fails to specify the role for offshore wind energy or offshore renewable energy, even in a general manner, in such climate-change planning and in state CZMPs.Once the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a state has given ―adequate consideration‖ to the ―national interest‖ in its CZMP, the federal government no longer has control over energy facility development in state waters.234 Thus coastal states can block proposed turbines in state waters and proposed transmission lines from offshore turbines proposed for federal waters. Or, as in the Cape Wind saga, most of which occurred before the Oceans Act was passed, states can simply not encourage, or even address, renewable energy production, giving proponents no mandate to rely on in litigation and administrative processes. In a more extreme situation, through federal consistency review, a coastal state retains a ―reverse-preemption power‖ for federal projects and permits in state and federal waters, as long as these projects affect the state’s coastal zone.235 Therefore, as projects outside of a state’s CZMP will frequently impact a state’s coastal zone, states can also potentially block permitting and/or construction of turbines not only in their coastal zones, but also in federal waters outside of their CZMP’s jurisdiction. Through these two mechanisms—state CZMPs and federal consistency review—local interests focused on local costs in coastal states can stall or block offshore wind power development, despite compelling national and global reasons to promote it. The CZMA offers no support to counteract this local opposition, such as a pro-offshore wind federal mandate. In addition, the federal government has offered only low levels of funding for renewable energy activity offshore.236 When this factor is combined with the regulatory uncertainty resulting from so much discretion given to each individual state, it is not surprising that the CZMA has been an ineffective tool for promoting offshore wind power development.

OSW cost drops are inevitable, but the US market is frozen because it lacks clarity- the plan breaks the impasse by lowering risk and creating certainty

Navigant Group 12
private market consulting group awarded DOE grant for preparing an analysis on OSW manufacturing and supply chains in the US, Dec 12, 2012, accessed from:
http://www.thebioenergysite.com/articles/1349/us-offshore-wind-manufacturing-and-supply-chain-development wyo-tjc
The supply chain is evolving in a number of areas. Larger rotors allow for increased energy capture and production. Next-generation drivetrains will result in increasing turbine efficiency and reliability. Offshore wind towers in the future may employ concrete, composites, or other alternative materials to help combat corrosion and reduce steel content while simultaneously enabling taller hub heights. Shifting to High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) interconnection lines will reduce electrical losses, and higher voltage array cabling and larger turbines will allow for project layouts that minimize array cabling needs.  Such advancements will help to reverse the recent trend of increasing offshore wind power prices, which are driven largely by a movement toward deeper-water sites located farther offshore; increased siting complexity; and higher contingency reserves that result from greater uncertainty when working in the offshore environment. As the industry matures and uncertainties are reduced, both capital costs and the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from offshore wind facilities are expected to plateau and trend downward.  The potential exists for significant domestic supply of a future US offshore wind market. A lack of current US offshore demand means no domestic manufacturing facilities are currently serving the offshore wind market. However, strong domestic supply capacity for the US land-based wind market suggests that potential also exists to supply significant portions of the future offshore market domestically.  The magnitude of US-based offshore wind manufacturing capacity will depend on turbine suppliers perceiving stable, long-term policy support and subsequent demand for offshore wind in the US market. Three major barriers combine to have a dampening effect on the development of the US offshore wind supply chain: the high cost of offshore wind energy; infrastructure challenges such as transmission and purpose-built ports and vessels; and regulatory challenges such as new and uncertain leasing and permitting processes.  The result is that European and Asian suppliers who are currently supplying offshore wind turbines and components have a competitive advantage over their US counterparts. The US offshore wind industry faces a “chicken-and-egg” problem where plants will not be built unless the cost is reduced, and local factories (which will help bring down the cost) will not be built until there is a proven domestic market. In deciding whether to enter the US offshore wind market, potential suppliers will assess the supply and demand dynamics. Suppliers will assess whether the market will be large enough to warrant dedicating manufacturing capacity to offshore wind-related products.  European-based suppliers will use demand forecasts to determine whether it is financially attractive to build manufacturing plants in the US On the supply side, potential suppliers will assess the competitive rivalry, the barriers to entry, and the risk for each component. Market entry will be more attractive with higher fragmentation, lower barriers to entry, and lower overall risk.

OSW has minimal downside and the cost-factors will be quickly resolved on a short learning curve- empirical studies all vote aff

Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p. lnwyo-tjc
Whereas many of the benefits of offshore wind power are national or even global, the costs are almost entirely local. The downsides to offshore wind that drive most of the opposition to offshore wind power are visual and environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects complain about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local property values.79 They also make related complaints about negative impacts on coastal recreational activities and tourism.80 However, studies have failed to show statistically significant negative aesthetic or property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts. In addition, opponents frequently cite offshore wind power’s environmental costs. These costs are site specific and can involve harm to plants and animals, and their habitats.82 This harm includes impacts on birds, which can involve disruption of migratory patterns, destruction of habitat, and bird deaths from collision with the turbine blades.83 However, these adverse impacts are generally less dramatic than those associated with fossil fuel extraction and generation, and in a well-chosen site they can be negligible.84 A recent, exhaustive study of the environmental impact of major offshore wind farms in Denmark concluded that ―offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.‖85A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult to install and maintain, than onshore wind farms.86 The cost of an offshore wind project is estimated to be at least 50 percent greater than the onshore equivalent.87 Short- and long-term technical improvements could help to lower offshore wind costs, however, and government assistance may help them occur more quickly.88 

Realism is inevitable—states will always seek to maximize power
John Mearsheimer, Professor, University of Chicago, THE TRAGEDY OF GREAT POWER POLITICS, 2001, p. 2.
The sad fact is that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business, and it is likely to remain that way.  Although the intensity of their competition waxes and wanes, great powers fear each other and always compete with each other for power.  The overriding goal of each state is to maximize its share of world power, which means gaining power at the expense of other states.  But great powers do not merely strive to be the strongest of all the great powers, although that is a welcome outcome.  Their ultimate aim is to be the hegemon-that is, the only great power in the system.

Predictions aren’t perfect but need to be made 

Joseph K. Clifton 11,
Claremont McKenna College “DISPUTED THEORY AND SECURITY POLICY: RESPONDING TO “THE RISE OF CHINA”,” 2011, http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164andcontext=cmc_theses, accessed 12/12/12,WYO?JF
Will Mearsheimer’s prediction come true? His confidence is clear in the bluntness of his claim: “Can China rise peacefully? My answer is no.”63 Predictions of this certainty are not commonly found in international relations, especially not in contexts of such complexity and importance as the next few decades of East Asian security. Of course only time will tell, and Mearsheimer himself admits that the nature of social science does not allow for perfect predictive power.64 Yet one can still assess the strength of the claim in terms of both the substance of the prediction and the ability of theories to make such predictions more generally. This chapter makes that assessment, evaluating several other theoretical positions and the strengths and weaknesses they have relative to offensive realism.

We need a framework to avoid ris.
Cohen, 90
Professor Emeritus Bernard L. Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh. Published by Plenum Press, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option”, http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html//uwyokb
That doesn’t mean that we should not try to minimize our risks, but it is important to recognize that minimizing anything must be a quantitative procedure. We cannot minimize our risks by simply avoiding those we happen to think about. For example, if one thinks about the risk of driving to a destination, one might decide to walk, which in most cases would be much more dangerous. The problem with such an approach is that the risks we think about are those most publicized by the media, whose coverage is a very poor guide to actual dangers. The logical procedure for minimizing risks is to quantify all risks and then choose those that are smaller in preference to those that are larger. The main object here is to provide a framework for that process and to apply it to the risks in generating electric power. … The failure of the American public to understand and quantify risk must rate as one of the most serious and tragic problems for our nation. This chapter represents my attempt to contribute to its resolution.

Extinction of the species is the most horrible impact imaginable, putting rights first is putting a part of society before the whole
Schell 1982
(Jonathan, Professor at Wesleyan University, The Fate of the Earth, pages 136-137 uwwej)
Implicit in everything that I have said so far about the nuclear predicament there has been a perplexity that I would now like to take up explicitly, for it leads, I believe, into the very heart of our response-or, rather, our lack of response-to the predicament. I have pointed out that our species is the most important of all the things that, as inhabitants of a common world, we inherit from the past generations, but it does not go far enough to point out this superior importance, as though in making our decision about extinction we were being asked to choose between, say, liberty, on the one hand, and the survival of the species, on the other. For the species not only overarches but contains all the benefits of life in the common world, and to speak of sacrificing the species for the sake of one of these benefits involves one in the absurdity of wanting to destroy something in order to preserve one of its parts, as if one were to burn down a house in an attempt to redecorate the living room, or to kill someone to improve his character. ,but even to point out this absurdity fails to take the full measure of the peril of extinction, for mankind is not some invaluable object that lies outside us and that we must protect so that we can go on benefiting from it; rather, it is we ourselves, without whom everything there is loses its value. To say this is another way of saying that extinction is unique not because it destroys mankind as an object but because it destroys mankind as the source of all possible human subjects, and this, in turn, is another way of saying that extinction is a second death, for one's own individual death is the end not of any object in life but of the subject that experiences all objects. Death, however, places the mind in a quandary. One of-the confounding characteristics of death-"tomorrow's zero," in Dostoevski's phrase-is that, precisely because it removes the person himself rather than something in his life, it seems to offer the mind nothing to take hold of. One even feels it inappropriate, in a way, to try to speak "about" death at all, as. though death were a thing situated somewhere outside us and available for objective inspection, when the  fact is that it is within us-is, indeed, an essential part of what we  are. It would be more appropriate, perhaps, to say that death, as  a fundamental element of our being, "thinks" in us and through  us about whatever we think about, coloring our thoughts and moods with its presence throughout our lives.

Tournament: Districts  | Round: 4 | Opponent: Puget Sound  | Judge: Lundeen
Offshore wind leads to shipbuilding

Stas Margaronis, 12
“U.S.OFFSHORE WIND NEEDS POLITICAL SUPPORT” http://www.rbtus.com/new/2012/03/u-s-offshore-wind-needs-political-support/, accessed 11/30/12,WYO/JF
As offshore power cable is in short supply, new cable manufacturing in the United States will be necessary and next generation superconducting cable could be a possibility for use as transmission cable. Several new types of ships will need to be built, including installation vessels that each cost $200 million. Ports will need to be modernized and reconfigured to assemble and transport turbines and foundations. New tripod foundations weigh 1,100 tons, the size of a small ship – and hundreds of tripods will be necessary. Carl Wegner, vice president for strategic planning for Signal International, a Mobile, Alabama-based shipbuilder believes the wind industry needs to do more to attract shipbuilders and suppliers, so as to broaden the supply chain base that would build offshore wind farms and lobby for support. These vessels and support structures will fall under U.S. law requiring construction in the United States by American workers (the Jones Act). Support for the Jones Act from offshore wind companies will broaden their support base and fend off attacks in Congress by special interest who want to outsource U.S. shipbuilding jobs.
Commercial shipbuilding’s key to naval power
NLUS 12
Navy League of the United States, “America’s Maritime Industry The foundation of American seapower”, 2012,  http://www.navyleague.org/files/americas-maritime-industry.pdf, Date Verification – http://gsship.org/industry-links/
Defense Industrial Base: Shipbuilding The American Maritime Industry also contributes to our national defense by sustaining the shipbuilding and repair sector of our national defense industrial base upon which our standing as a seapower is based. History has proven that without a strong maritime infrastructure—shipyards, suppliers, and seafarers—no country can hope to build and support a Navy of sufficient size and capability to protect its interests on a global basis. Both our commercial and naval fleets rely on U.S. shipyards and their numerous industrial vendors for building and repairs. The U.S. commercial shipbuilding and repair industry also impacts our national economy by adding billions of dollars to U.S. economic output annually. In 2004, there were 89 shipyards in the major shipbuilding and repair base of the United States, defined by the Maritime Administration as including those shipyards capable of building, repairing, or providing topside repairs for ships 122 meters (400 feet) in length and over. This includes six large shipyards that build large ships for the U.S. Navy. Based on U.S. Coast Guard vessel registration data for 2008, in that year U.S. shipyards delivered 13 large deep-draft vessels including naval ships, merchant ships, and drilling rigs; 58 offshore service vessels; 142 tugs and towboats, 51 passenger vessels greater than 50 feet in length; 9 commercial fishing vessels; 240 other self- propelled vessels; 23 mega-yachts; 10 oceangoing barges; and 224 tank barges under 5,000 GT. 11 Since the mid 1990’s, the industry has been experiencing a period of modernization and renewal that is largely market-driven, backed by long-term customer commitments. Over the six-year period from 2000-05, a total of $2.336 billion was invested in the industry, while in 2006, capital investments in the U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry amounted to $270 million.12 The state of the industrial base that services this nation’s Sea Services is of great concern to the U.S. Navy. Even a modest increase in oceangoing commercial shipbuilding would give a substantial boost to our shipyards and marine vendors. Shipyard facilities at the larger shipyards in the United States are capable of constructing merchant ships as well as warships, but often cannot match the output of shipyards in Europe and Asia. On the other hand, U.S. yards construct and equip the best warships, aircraft carriers and submarines in the world. They are unmatched in capability, but must maintain that lead. 13

Sea Power is key to keep Indo-Pak cooperation intact

Cropsey, 12
Dr. Seth Cropsey Hudson Institute “The U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Plan: Assumptions and Associated Risks to National Security” http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SethCropsey~-~-USNavyShipbuildingPlan~-~-Testimony041812.pdf, accessed 12/20/12,WYO/JF
Finally there are the consequences if U.S. seapower continues to decrease and proves unable to meet even the reduced goals it has set for itself. History is a good guide. Nations in the middle like to side with the winner. During our Civil War British political leadership considered recognizing the Confederacy but was eventually dissuaded by Union military success. In World War II Sweden declared neutrality but grew increasingly amenable to Allied requests as Germany’s military position worsened. Romania initially sided with Germany in the same war but changed sides following U.S. attacks on their oil fields and a coup that deposed the pro German dictator, Antonescu. Bulgarians followed a similar path from siding with the Nazis to switching their allegiance to the Allies in 1944. Saudi Prince Bandar, acknowledging China’s increasing international prominence and power visited Beijing last year and met with President Hu. American weakness at sea, especially in the Indo-Pacific will change the current military, diplomatic, and commercial character of the region. Whether the U.S. fleet shrinks because of too little funding or because unreformed procurement practices have raised the price of ships or because ships have been called home to save on operational expense, the result is the same. While we were once present in strength, we would be no more. 

Indo-Pak war causes extinction
Washington Times 1
July 8, LN.
The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary.  This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The director of central intelligence, the Defense Department, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.

Tournament: CEDA | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harvard | Judge: Beier
CEDA- 1AC
The Consistency requirements of the CZMA restrict energy production on the outer continental shelf by requiring that leasing and licensing conforms to state policy even if it is in federal waters, giving the states veto power over energy development

Kimmell and Stalenhoef 11
Kenneth, general counsel to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, was responsible for overseeing the state permitting of the Cape Wind project, and now serves as the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and Dawn, environmental law attorney and Counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, “The Cape Wind Offshore Wind Energy Project: A Case Study of the Difficult Transition to Renewable Energy”, p. aspwyo-tjc
A key element of the CZMA and its implementation is the establishment of “enforceable program policies” by participating states. States’ coastal program policies are “enforceable” because they derive authority from existing state statutes and regulations. With a CZMapproved Coastal Management Plan (CMP), states may consider in-state impacts of federal activities in federal waters and determine whether these activities are consistent with the states’ CMPs through CZM’s consistency review provisions.130 The CZMA requires that federal agency activities be consistent with state CMPs. However, the degree to which individual proponents of a project must comply with state coastal policies varies. For example, while the federal government must comply “to the maximum extent practicable,”131 a private party bears a heavier burden. A federal government agency must prepare a “consistency determination” to demonstrate to a state that it complies with the coastal policy.132 However, private applicants for federal license or permit activities,133 applicants for OCSLA Plans,134 and applicants for federal financial assistance activities135 must certify to the affected states that the proposed activities are consistent with the enforceable policies of the CMP.136 At least as to private parties, the CZMA has teeth.137 If CZM does not concur with a party’s “consistency certification,” the project cannot obtain permits or licenses from any federal agency.138 There are timelines after which applications are presumptively approved,139 and the statute contains provisions for appealing to the Secretary of Commerce to override disapproval by a state on the basis that the proposed activity “is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or is otherwise necessary in the interest of national security.”140 Nevertheless, the CZMA consistency review offers significant potential for states wanting to exert greater control over activities in federal waters that may have impacts on in-state coastal resources.

Thus the Plan: The United States federal government should eliminate coastal zone management act consistency reviews for the production of marine wind power in the United States.
Solvency
The CZMA provisions give state and local opposition a platform to directly veto federal permitting of OSW in federal waters because it gives them standing to review and reject federal projects.  This creates excessive uncertainty that destroys OSW.  Removing this restriction would jumpstart the OSW industry

Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p. lnwyo-tjc
The Cape Wind example poignantly illustrates the disconnect between local costs and national benefits with regard to offshore wind power development, and the potential for local interests to hijack state and federal processes and stall a project. The federal government needs a stronger role in the process to counteract narrow-minded state and local opposition. With a well-integrated federal perspective, agencies and developers could properly weigh regional, national, and global benefits of offshore wind against its limited local costs. The CZMA presents an obvious starting point for a revised regulatory framework. It already covers the states’ coastal zones—that is, the area three miles or less from the shore—and leaves states with substantial power.227 However, it currently does not give sufficient weight to the national interest in the benefits of offshore wind power. Some academics have come to a similar conclusion, but their revisions are tentative and minor.228 Now is a time for more decisive and bold action. With the change in the United States’ administration, the deteriorating climate situation, and the nation’s ongoing energy and economic crises, the country has both the opportunity and the need to make effective changes. However, setting up an entirely new regulatory scheme, as some have suggested,229 goes too far: it fails to acknowledge what Congress can realistically accomplish and ignores the tools we already have in our hands in the CZMA. With some strengthening revisions, the CZMA might become the simple solution that helps the United States turn offshore wind on. A. An Ineffective Tool to Promote Offshore Wind The CZMA has had some measure of success—almost every coastal state participates and it has led states to view their Coastal Zones as ―unified ecological areas.‖230 Still, despite clear undertones of environmental protection, the Act has failed to serve as an effective tool to promote offshore wind power development, even at well-suited sites such as the location of the Cape Wind project. The CZMA’s failure with respect to offshore wind can be attributed to lack of specificity in the terms of the Act. That is, without more explicit guiding principles and requirements, states can fulfill the process required by the CZMA—the development of CZMPs—while not meeting any particular standards.231 This leaves states with substantial discretion, but without a coherent, overarching goal driven by a federal plan. In particular, with its decentralized structure and only brief explicit mention of the national benefits of offshore energy development, the CZMA gives insufficient encouragement to states to recognize the benefits of offshore wind power in their CZMPs.232 For example, the CZMA explicitly mandates that coastal states ―anticipate and plan‖ for climate change and resulting sea level rise and other adverse effects.233 However, it fails to specify the role for offshore wind energy or offshore renewable energy, even in a general manner, in such climate-change planning and in state CZMPs.Once the Secretary of Commerce has determined that a state has given ―adequate consideration‖ to the ―national interest‖ in its CZMP, the federal government no longer has control over energy facility development in state waters.234 Thus coastal states can block proposed turbines in state waters and proposed transmission lines from offshore turbines proposed for federal waters. Or, as in the Cape Wind saga, most of which occurred before the Oceans Act was passed, states can simply not encourage, or even address, renewable energy production, giving proponents no mandate to rely on in litigation and administrative processes. In a more extreme situation, through federal consistency review, a coastal state retains a ―reverse-preemption power‖ for federal projects and permits in state and federal waters, as long as these projects affect the state’s coastal zone.235 Therefore, as projects outside of a state’s CZMP will frequently impact a state’s coastal zone, states can also potentially block permitting and/or construction of turbines not only in their coastal zones, but also in federal waters outside of their CZMP’s jurisdiction. Through these two mechanisms—state CZMPs and federal consistency review—local interests focused on local costs in coastal states can stall or block offshore wind power development, despite compelling national and global reasons to promote it. The CZMA offers no support to counteract this local opposition, such as a pro-offshore wind federal mandate. In addition, the federal government has offered only low levels of funding for renewable energy activity offshore.236 When this factor is combined with the regulatory uncertainty resulting from so much discretion given to each individual state, it is not surprising that the CZMA has been an ineffective tool for promoting offshore wind power development.

OSW cost drops are inevitable, but the US market is frozen because it lacks clarity- the plan breaks the impasse by lowering risk and creating certainty

Navigant Group 12
private market consulting group awarded DOE grant for preparing an analysis on OSW manufacturing and supply chains in the US, Dec 12, 2012, accessed from:
http://www.thebioenergysite.com/articles/1349/us-offshore-wind-manufacturing-and-supply-chain-development wyo-tjc
The supply chain is evolving in a number of areas. Larger rotors allow for increased energy capture and production. Next-generation drivetrains will result in increasing turbine efficiency and reliability. Offshore wind towers in the future may employ concrete, composites, or other alternative materials to help combat corrosion and reduce steel content while simultaneously enabling taller hub heights. Shifting to High-Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) interconnection lines will reduce electrical losses, and higher voltage array cabling and larger turbines will allow for project layouts that minimize array cabling needs.  Such advancements will help to reverse the recent trend of increasing offshore wind power prices, which are driven largely by a movement toward deeper-water sites located farther offshore; increased siting complexity; and higher contingency reserves that result from greater uncertainty when working in the offshore environment. As the industry matures and uncertainties are reduced, both capital costs and the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from offshore wind facilities are expected to plateau and trend downward.  The potential exists for significant domestic supply of a future US offshore wind market. A lack of current US offshore demand means no domestic manufacturing facilities are currently serving the offshore wind market. However, strong domestic supply capacity for the US land-based wind market suggests that potential also exists to supply significant portions of the future offshore market domestically.  The magnitude of US-based offshore wind manufacturing capacity will depend on turbine suppliers perceiving stable, long-term policy support and subsequent demand for offshore wind in the US market. Three major barriers combine to have a dampening effect on the development of the US offshore wind supply chain: the high cost of offshore wind energy; infrastructure challenges such as transmission and purpose-built ports and vessels; and regulatory challenges such as new and uncertain leasing and permitting processes.  The result is that European and Asian suppliers who are currently supplying offshore wind turbines and components have a competitive advantage over their US counterparts. The US offshore wind industry faces a “chicken-and-egg” problem where plants will not be built unless the cost is reduced, and local factories (which will help bring down the cost) will not be built until there is a proven domestic market. In deciding whether to enter the US offshore wind market, potential suppliers will assess the supply and demand dynamics. Suppliers will assess whether the market will be large enough to warrant dedicating manufacturing capacity to offshore wind-related products.  European-based suppliers will use demand forecasts to determine whether it is financially attractive to build manufacturing plants in the US On the supply side, potential suppliers will assess the competitive rivalry, the barriers to entry, and the risk for each component. Market entry will be more attractive with higher fragmentation, lower barriers to entry, and lower overall risk.

OSW has minimal downside and the cost-factors will be quickly resolved on a short learning curve- empirical studies all vote aff

Schroeder 10
Erica, J.D. from University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2010. And Masters in Environmental Management from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Turning Offshore Wind On”, California Law Review, p. lnwyo-tjc
Whereas many of the benefits of offshore wind power are national or even global, the costs are almost entirely local. The downsides to offshore wind that drive most of the opposition to offshore wind power are visual and environmental. Opponents to offshore wind projects complain about their negative aesthetic impacts on the landscape and on local property values.79 They also make related complaints about negative impacts on coastal recreational activities and tourism.80 However, studies have failed to show statistically significant negative aesthetic or property-value impacts, despite showing continued expectations of such impacts. In addition, opponents frequently cite offshore wind power’s environmental costs. These costs are site specific and can involve harm to plants and animals, and their habitats.82 This harm includes impacts on birds, which can involve disruption of migratory patterns, destruction of habitat, and bird deaths from collision with the turbine blades.83 However, these adverse impacts are generally less dramatic than those associated with fossil fuel extraction and generation, and in a well-chosen site they can be negligible.84 A recent, exhaustive study of the environmental impact of major offshore wind farms in Denmark concluded that ―offshore wind farms, if placed right, can be engineered and operated without significant damage to the marine environment and vulnerable species.‖85A final concern is that offshore wind farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult to install and maintain, than onshore wind farms.86 The cost of an offshore wind project is estimated to be at least 50 percent greater than the onshore equivalent.87 Short- and long-term technical improvements could help to lower offshore wind costs, however, and government assistance may help them occur more quickly.88 

Advantage 1: Offshore Grid
Grid failures inevitable- heat, storms, winds, hacking, solar flares and mistakes all make an economically crippling blackout inevitable
Montgomery 12
“Special Report: Vermont's vulnerable power grid”, Jeff Montgomery, Dan D’Ambrosio and Greg Clary Project team reporters. 8-26- 2012, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120826/NEWS/308260016/Special-Report-Vermont-s-vulnerable-power-grid//uwyokb
Extreme weather is putting America’s power grid to the test, with a year-long run of violent storms and record heat battering a system built for fairer skies. As Vermont prepares to note the one-year anniversary of Tropical Storm Irene on Tuesday, energy officials are acknowledging climate change as a force that finally has to be reckoned with — even as concern grows over other threats that can set off catastrophic blackouts. Winter storms, chains of heat waves and late June’s “super derecho” — a thunderstorm with straight-line winds that snapped electrical transmission towers and shredded power poles in the Mid-Atlantic States — have forced the climate change issue and electric supply vulnerability to the top of an already-daunting list of blackout triggers. Those threats range from computer-hacking cyberterrorists to solar flares, utility mistakes and plain bad luck. Regulators in the U.S. hope to avoid the kind of cascading grid failure that hit India in late July, leaving some 600 million — 10 percent of the world’s population — without power. Miners were trapped underground. Trains shut down. Unimaginable traffic snarls popped up across the country. And India’s image as a rising economic power was cast in darkness. A major blackout in hyper-wired America would also have crippling consequences, with some experts predicting economic losses up to $180 billion. “This is really the fundamental linchpin for everything in our society, our economy, our quality of life,” said Massoud Amin, a University of Minnesota professor and longtime electric industry analyst and consultant. “By deferring infrastructure upgrades, we are basically increasing the risk for the whole system.”
OSW is key to an offshore grid
Tom Johnson, 12
“Google-Backed Offshore Wind-Powered Grid Gains Traction” http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0514/2117/, accessed 3/1/13,WYO/JF
The Atlantic Wind Connection, the Google-backed plan to build an offshore wind transmission system off the Eastern seaboard, continues to move forward even as efforts to develop wind farms off the Jersey coast lag. The U.S. Department of Interior yesterday announced there was no competitive interest in using certain areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to build a backbone transmission system 12 to 15 miles off the coasts of New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The declaration means the Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) project, a system spanning about 300 miles, will avoid delays associated with an auction if there had been competitors seeking to secure the same right-of-way on the shelf. AWC officials say it could shave one year off the time it takes to develop the project. With approval by the federal agency, the project can move forward with its permitting process, in contrast to what is happening in New Jersey where up to 11 separate developers have expressed interest in building offshore wind farms off the coast. “This decision is an important step to advancing what could be the world’s first integrated electric transmission superhighway for offshore wind,” said Bob Mitchell, chief executive officer of AWC. Backers of the project say it is necessary to build a robust offshore wind industry off the coast. Environmentalists have a different view. “We may end up with a power line going forward even before we have any wind farms,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. Noting the project has a price tag exceeding $5 billion, he argued the money would be better spent on developing wind farms off the coast. Mitchell said that is not accurate. “The line will never be built if there is no offshore wind farms,” he said. Mitchell also said the cost of building the transmission line amounts to pennies for consumers. “It’s a smart public policy decision,” he said. The AWC project also won special incentive rates from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which include being able to collect rates from electric customers before the project is operational, provided it wins approval from the PJM Interconnection, the regional operator of the power grid. AWC executives argued if their transmission system is built, it could reduce the cost of offshore wind by 25 percent by easing congestion on the existing power grid, a problem that spikes electric bills, particularly for New Jersey consumers.
Offshore grid solves transmission issues, takes out all their defense that assumes onshore grid
Michael J. Dvorak,12
1 Eric D. Stoutenburg,1 Cristina L. Archer,2 Willett Kempton,2,3 and Mark Z. Jacobson1 “Where is the ideal location for a US East Coast offshore grid?” http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Offshore/DvorakGRL12.pdf, accessed 3/1/13,WYO/JF
4. Benefits of an Offshore Grid 21 To determine if a constructive synthesis was obtained from the 4-farm ideal-grid, we analyzed several key statistics for improvement. We show that the offshore grid has fewer no-power events, smoother power output, and fewer hourly ramp rate extremes by connecting the four farms in a grid versus individual interconnection. Additionally, the capacity factor in the 4-wind farm subset was higher than for the 12-candidate farms. 4.1. Smoothed Generation Duration Curve 22 The generation duration curve (GDC) in Figure 4 shows the percentage of a year that a wind farm operates at a given power output state, which is also the utilization of the offshore transmission line to transmit that power to shore. An interconnected transmission line with 4 farms transmits zero power about 4% of the hours in a year, whereas individually connected farms transmit zero power about 9% of the year. Interconnection yields a 5% reduction in the hours in a year that the transmission line operated at zero capacity. The 4-farm layout has a strong 48.4% (gross) 5-year capacity factor. The gross peak-time summer (Jul, Aug, Sep) and wintertime (Jan, Feb, Mar) capacity factor is 36.5% and 56.7% over the 5 years. 23 The smoothed GDC of the four combined farms (Figure 4) indicates more consistent power output that is more conducive to matching load. An important second use of the transmission line would be to transfer power generated onshore along the subsea transmission line to the other onshore interconnections. Electricity on this transmission line could bypass the congested land based transmission system between the load centers of Boston and New York/ New Jersey for reliability and price arbitrage. 24 Long distance offshore transmission connecting wind farms in the prescribed manner might add about 5% to the cost of the entire assembly. Leveling power from current wind farms adds also approximately 3–5% to the cost of power, but that percentage may go up as a larger fraction of power comes from wind Kempton et al., 2010. Therefore, transmission connecting wind farms would almost pay for itself in the value of leveling, with other transmission benefits, such as reliability, moving power to where it is more valuable, etc, justifying the cost of such a project. 4.2. Reduced Variability Through Aggregation 25 As we plan for higher levels of penetration of renewables, a central challenge is managing the variability (i.e., the hourly ramp rate MW hr1 ) and uncertainty in their power output. One strategy to mitigate variability is to connect geographically diverse wind farms. This reduces the variability on several time scales, particularly the one-hour time scale relevant for power system operation and markets. Figure 5 compares the one-hour ramp rate as a percentage of capacity of the four individual wind farms and the four wind farms combined. The figure quantifies the one-hour change in power output between consecutive hours since these changes must be balanced by other generators in the system. The 99th percentile has been found to be an accurate predictor of ramp events that a utility should plan for Holttinen et al., 2008. Figure 5 shows that four independent wind farms injecting highly variable wind power separately at four locations have more and larger ramps than do four combined farms. 26 Specific grid injection points were not determined in this study. The layout proposed here connects the regional transmission grids of PJM (Mid-Atlantic), NYISO (New York state), and ISONE (New England) (Obj. 4 from Section 2). A survey of the onshore transmission systems along the East Coast shows that there are only a few places along the coast where high voltage lines required to move this level of power exist. Securing transmission easements to build new lines in a densely populated area would be challenging and expensive. Ideally, the onshore interconnection points would be near large load and generation centers more capable of managing the variability than single radial connections of four individual wind farms to various parts of the New England and Mid-Atlantic coastline.

OSW and the grid backbone that is created access every major impact
Robert L. Mitchell, 3/5
CEO Atlantic Grid Development, LLC “America's Offshore Energy Resources: Creating Jobs, Securing America, and Lowering Prices" http://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20130305/100376/HHRG-113-II06-Wstate-MitchellB-20130305.pdf, accessed 3/13/13,WYO/JF
Reducing Congestion and Improving Reliability In addition to impacting market-clearing prices, offshore wind carried by the Atlantic Wind Connection will also relieve costly grid congestion. Like heavy road traffic that slows the progress of people and goods, congestion on the electricity grid prevents lower cost and cleaner generating plants from serving customers. That is, when there is congestion on our grid, we cannot utilize the most efficient sources because they cannot get through. Think of the Atlantic Wind Connection as a north-south highway that allows the least-cost energy to flow freely, lowering prices and eliminating congestion costs. Improving the north-south transmission pathways in the Mid-Atlantic region with an offshore backbone also supports grid reliability and security. This region includes our nation’s financial hub, major east coast transportation and chemical infrastructure, our largest naval base and other critical military and national security facilities, and the nation’s capital. Energy flows into this region largely from west to east along major transmission trunk lines and from south to north. During times of grid stress, due to severe storms, cyber-attack, physical attack, geomagnetic storm, or other significant event, the AWC north-south backbone can provide that extra margin of controllable transmission capacity that can keep the lights on. It does this by providing an alternate north-south path for moving power away from damaged or overloaded west-to-east or north-south terrestrial transmission lines.

Meltdowns are likely after a black-out: an outage will take days to recover- the best plants in the US can last 16 hours without external power
Cappiello, 11
Dina, staff writer, “NRC casts doubt on US reactors’ blackout plans” http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/04/29/nrc_casts_doubt_on_us_reactors_blackout_plans/?camp=pm, accessed 10/24/12,WYO/JF
The nation’s top nuclear regulator cast doubt yesterday on whether reactors in the United States are prepared for the type of days-long power outage that struck a nuclear power plant in Japan. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has required reactors to cope without power from either the electrical grid or emergency diesel generators for four to eight hours. After that time, it assumes some electrical power will be restored. Chairman Gregory Jaczko of the NRC questioned whether four hours is enough time, even though it is unlikely a nuclear power plant would lose power from both the grid and generators as the Japan plant did. Requirements put in place after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are expected to lengthen plants’ ability to withstand a blackout. “Four hours doesn’t seem to be a reasonable time to restore offsite power if you lost the diesels immediately,’’ Jaczko said at a commission meeting at the NRC’s Rockville, Md., headquarters. “In the event there is a station blackout that is externally driven, I’m not convinced that in that situation four hours’’ is enough time to restore power. An Associated Press investigation last month examined the risk to the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors to a complete loss of electrical power. In the United States, such a “station blackout’’ has happened only once, at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in eastern Georgia in 1990. There, power was restored in 55 minutes. The Japan disaster showed that it could be days before the electricity needed to pump water and keep the radioactive core from melting can be turned back on. The Fukushima Daiichi plant had capacity for eight hours of emergency battery power. When that elapsed, the plant operator struggled to find other ways to cool the cores without onsite or offsite power. “It wasn’t the earthquake or the tsunami that caused the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe — it was an electricity outage. A blackout shouldn’t cause a meltdown,’’ Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Malden, said in a statement. He has filed legislation that includes expanding the time reactors are required to cope without power. Of the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States, 87 can cope for four hours without power or emergency generators. Another 14, including the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., can cope for eight hours, and three can last for 16 hours. Most reactors rely on batteries for this power source. Markey’s bill calls for a comprehensive approach to improving the safety of the nation’s nuclear plants. It would include requiring reactors to have at least 72 hours of capacity for battery generators. The bill also calls for 14 days of power from backup diesel generators to be available. Currently, plants are required to have seven days of such power available. As part of a review initiated after the Japan disaster, the nuclear commission is looking at whether the blackout rule needs to be updated. At the time the rule was written in the 1980s, the commission assumed electrical power could be restored in 50 minutes to two hours. The NRC added an additional two hours to that time as a safety buffer. Since then, plants have lost offsite power for longer periods of time. In every case, diesel generators kicked on and supplied electrical power, sometimes for days. There also are agreements with power grid operators that nuclear power plants get first priority as power is restored. “We have a high expectation you will restore offsite power, restore emergency diesels or use alternate sources,’’ said Pat Hiland, director of the NRC’s reactor regulation engineering division. But Jaczko, the NRC chairman, pointed out that the blackout regulation is designed to deal with a situation where even diesel generators do not work, as in the case of the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan. A top staffer told NRC commissioners yesterday that the Japan situation “has definitely improved’’ in recent weeks. Bill Borchardt, NRC’s executive director for operations, said that while there are still many unanswered questions about equipment failures and other problems at the facility, the situation is “certainly not as highly dynamic’’ as it was. Overall, Japan is “making progress,’’ he said
A meltdown in the Northeast United States would quickly escalate and spread clouds of intense radiation around the globe- survivors will envy the dead
Wasserman 01(Harvey Wasserman, senior editor of NIRS, October 2001, “America’s Terrorist Nuclear Threat to Itself”  http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/security/wassermannukesecurity.htm WYO/JF)
Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds from the north and west might initially drive these clouds of mass death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds ultimately shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery torrent. At Indian Point, thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. In nearby communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Virtually all pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions. A terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by the fliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and by victims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description. Indeed, those who survived the initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and highways would become killing fields for those attempting to escape to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian Point, such missions would be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be doubtful as the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing ever more devastation into the eco- sphere. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up. They are dying in droves. Who would now volunteer for such an American task force? The radioactive cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast Ukraine and Belarus landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, surging through the west coast of the United States within ten days, carrying across our northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back again. The radioactive clouds from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. The World Trade Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet crash at Indian Point than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital would be forever lost. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural eco-systems on which human and all other life depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed,  Spiritually, psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New York City on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse now operating in the United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity, just 8% of our total energy. As with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact on life in New York. Already an extremely expensive source of electricity, the cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put nuclear energy even further off the competitive scale. Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually with increased efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect. Yet, as the bombs fall and the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass destruction, and then shielding from liability the companies that insist on continuing to operate them? Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation?  If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.
Advantage 2 is ports
Changes to port infrastructure aren’t coming now
Paul Davidson,12
“USA's creaking infrastructure holds back economy” http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-20/creaking-infrastructure/55096396/1, accessed 10/28/12,WY/JF
The shortcomings were partly masked during the recession as fewer Americans worked and less freight was shipped, easing traffic on transportation corridors. But interviews with shippers and logistics companies show delays are starting to lengthen along with the moderately growing economy. "I call this a stealth attack on our economy," says Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It's not like an immediate crisis. It's something that's sneaking up on us." Freight bottlenecks and other congestion cost about $200 billion a year, or 1.6% of U.S. economic output, according to a report last year by Building America's Future Educational Fund, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials. The chamber of commerce estimates such costs are as high as $1 trillion annually, or 7% of the economy. Yet, there's little prospect for more infrastructure investment as a divided Congress battles about how to cut the $1.3 trillion federal deficit, and state and local governments face their own budget shortfalls. Government investment in highways, bridges, water systems, schools and other projects has fallen each year since 2008. IHS Global Insightexpects such outlays to drop 4.4% this year and 3% in 2013. 

Offshore wind key to port revitalization, manufacturing and the steel industry 

LEED ‘12
Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation, “Ports and Maritime” 8.8.2012. http://www.leedco.org/why-offshore/ports//wyo-hdm
The scale and magnitude of offshore wind energy requires a significant amount of maritime capabilities, capacity, and onshore land availability. As the industry launch pad and staging area for all installation and assembly activity, port revitalization is an essential backbone to a thriving offshore industry. This includes a number of vessels and shipbuilding activity required to service the industry. To this end, Ohio's ports could sustain its own industry in addition to projects in other states and Canada. Here's a look at the landscape of Ohio's existing ports. In 1999, Germany’s ports became involved in offshore wind for the same reasons Ohio is seeking out today. Offshore wind is a plays a role in reversing the rapid decline of its ports' productivity. Similarly, with decline of the manufacturing and steel presence in Northeast Ohio, the region can benefit from an industry with a variety of maritime activities, raw material needs, and port facilities; all to the benefit of the local economy. According to TeamNEO, Ohio has six deepwater ports. Offshore wind is one of the few industries of current relevance which offers the scale of development to bring about significant revitalization while employing thousands. Multiple German ports are involved at various levels (see report, page 2). A similar model for Ohio is realistic as no single port can support an entire industry simply based on space constraints. This, in effect, guarantees (what is already a multi-county regional economic development project) a more efficient build out, across Ohio's North shore. Commercial scale farms will require a network of supporting facilities. While location drives logistics, outfitting one port for a particular use may not be economically feasible for the same purpose at an adjacent county. Therefore it is likely one port may specialize in foundation construction and another in turbine assembly. Beyond Ohio, the entire Great Lakes is outfitted with suitable ports for offshore wind. Check out an inventory of all the ports in a report called The Role of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Ports in the Advancement of the Wind Energy Industry by the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative. A similar infrastructural inventory was completed in Massachusetts.

The U.S. can’t compete without ports, increasing domestic energy production is also key
Peter Marber, 11/9
is an adjunct associate professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University “How the United States Can Maintain Its Global Edge” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/11/how-the-united-states-can-maintain-its-global-edge/265011/, accessed 11/15/12,WYO/JF
New infrastructure and energy production: We can't compete using crumbling bridges, roads, and ports. American infrastructure is ranked 25th globally, according to the Global Competitiveness Report. Equally important is expanding our domestic energy production capabilities -- from fracking to renewables -- which would reduce imports, lower electricity costs, reshore lost manufacturing, and boost employment. Combined, these could be game-changers and reverse America's 30-year decline in trade. Michael Lind and Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation have called for a federal Works Progress Administration-style infrastructure bank to help finance more than $2 trillion over five years. With interest rates low, and returns on infrastructure high, there may never be a better time.

Bad port efficiency increases food prices.
Doms, 12
“Food prices rise while transportation funding declines”, US ECONOMY 2012 OCTOBER 14, 2012. DOMINIQUE DOMS. http://www.examiner.com/article/food-prices-rise-while-transportation-funding-declines//uwyokb

The study further states that such increased transportation cost and the lack of updated infrastructures will result in higher food prices and other durable and non-durable goods prices before 2020. The projected cost for maintenance and upgrades to our current port facilities, inland waterways, railroads and airports is estimated at $30 billion between 2013 and 2020 but only about half of the estimated cost has been budgeted for, leaving a large gap and multiple projects unfinished or unplanned. The increased transportation cost will exacerbate the 2013 projected rise in food prices which many analysts and economists estimate to be 15% across all agricultural commodities. What is also at stake is the global competitiveness of the U.S. if our ports do not have access to a state of the art logistical and distribution network which will cause unnecessary delays in port-to-customer delivery times; hence an expected increase in storage costs and the subsequent price rises in delivered goods and services.
High U.S. food prices disrupts China’s food supply, and economic recovery

Benjamin Carlson, 12
“US agricultural exports to China become costly in times of drought” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/120724/us-agricultural-exports-drought-food-crisis, accessed 10/24/12,WYO/JF
As the world’s largest importer of American agricultural products, China stands to get walloped by the drought that is ravaging US croplands. With the worst dry spell in 50 years threatening to kill corn and soybean crops across a wide swath of the Midwest, driving food prices to record highs, Chinese officials are bracing for a shock that could complicate plans to revive the economy this year. More from GlobalPost: Corn harvest in Midwest threatened by drought, sweltering heat In 2011, China imported $20 billion worth of soybeans, corn, cotton and hides from US farmers, surpassing Canada for the first time. China is particularly dependent on soybeans, which have become a crucial feed crop for the country’s massive pig farms. As more Chinese can afford to eat meat more regularly, pork consumption has skyrocketed. More than half of the world’s pork is now produced and consumed within China. Corn imports are also important, with China purchasing more from the US than any country but Japan. Next year, it is expected to buy 5 million tons of American corn. But analysts don’t expect the prices to come down anytime soon. A bullish run on soybean futures drove up the cost to $16.92 per bushel for November delivery, beating the previous all-time high of $16.37 set during the global food crisis of 2008. All this constrains Beijing's ability to fix its economy. If rising food prices boost inflation, the government would have less room to increase the money supply and fuel growth — a key concern given that the economy has been slowing all year. Already, analysts are predicting that ordinary Chinese could feel some sticker shock when they go to the butcher. Zhang Zhiwei at Nomura says that the “sharp rise of global agricultural prices will likely push up pork prices in China,” according to the Financial Times. More from GlobalPost: Drip by drip, China dominates its oceanic backyard Food processors, including one of the largest instant-noodle manufacturers, are bracing for lower margins due to increased costs. 

CHINA WILL GO TO WAR WITHOUT OUTSIDE STATES, MODERNIZE ITS MILITARY, AND CHALLENGE U.S. HEGEMONY IF IT’S RESOURCES DIP TOO LOW – OR IF STARVATION BECOMES A SERIOUS THREAT

KANE AND Serewicz IN’01
(Thomas, teaches security studies at the University of Hull, UK. In addition to publishing other articles on the People's Republic of China, he has written a book on the role of maritime power in modern China's grand strategy, and Lawrence, Ph.D. in politics from the University of Hull, UK. He also has an M.A. in politics from the Claremont Graduate School, “China's Hunger: The Consequences of a Rising Demand for Food and Energy,” US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 2001, pg. Online @ http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01autumn/Kane.htm   wyo-ef)
To summarize, China's resource needs have global consequences. The most immediate effect of the PRC's requirements is that Beijing's attempts to buy what it needs will raise the price of food and oil on global markets. Higher prices hurt poorer countries even more than prosperous ones, and this will exacerbate both poverty and political unrest throughout the underdeveloped world. Western countries may feel obliged to offset crises with financial aid and military assistance. This will, among other things, reduce the resources that they have available for responding to other world events. A second consequence is that China's needs may also trigger outright wars over resources. The disputes over territorial boundaries within the South China Sea reflect not only political issues of sovereignty, but the concern for the natural resources within those boundaries. In this manner, the PRC's search for oil in the South China Sea brings Beijing into conflict with its neighbors. If China attempts to seize these waters by force, it will unsettle world markets yet further. A war in the South China Sea could also compel outside powers to intervene, if only to uphold the principles of international conduct outlined in the United Nations Charter. If, for whatever reason, the intervening powers failed to win a clear-cut victory, both they and their principles would lose a dangerous amount of influence throughout the world. Although food and energy demands are not the only reasons why China finds itself in conflict with the established world order, they do contribute to the belief that the international system does not serve China's interests. Ideology, memories of national humiliation, claims on unrecovered territory, and the timeless human urge for power all play their roles. Thus, a third consequence of China's food and energy requirements is that China's material needs drive its government to take assertive positions on many international issues, including the ones noted at the beginning of this article. If Beijing is to control dissent at home and claim access to resources abroad, it must build up its fleet, secure strategic positions around the world, resist the West's tendency to intervene against countries that violate liberal standards of human rights, demonstrate its readiness to defy the United States, and forge links with like-minded countries.

The Gravest Risk to the CCP is Prolonged Economic Decline 

Pei 11
Minxin Pei, Senior Associate in the China Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Will the Chinese Communist Party Survive the Crisis? : How Beijing's Shrinking Economy May Threaten One-Party Rule”, 3/11 http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:q_g56rUqwuIJ:scholar.google.com/+Economic+Growth+China++CCP+andhl=enandas_sdt=0,51andas_ylo=2008,
wyo-bb
Because of the global economic crisis, however, Beijing is in trouble. The problems are numerous: China's exports are plummeting, tens of millions of migrant laborers have lost their jobs, millions of college graduates cannot find employment, industrial overcapacity is threatening deflation, and the once red-hot real estate sector has nose-dived. The country's faltering growth is posing the hardest test yet to the CCP's resilience. To be sure, the Chinese economy has fared less badly than many others. The country's insulated banking sector remains largely unscathed. Indeed, the government's fiscal balance sheet is strong enough to fund a $580 billion stimulus package (although only about a quarter represents genuinely new fiscal spending). China's colossal $1.9 trillion in foreign exchange reserves provide a comfortable insurance policy against global financial turmoil, and the country should be able to avoid an outright recession. But a reduced annual growth rate -- now down to about seven percent from over 11 percent a couple of years ago -- will bring enough trouble. Every year, the Chinese labor market grows by more than ten million workers, the bulk of whom are leaving the countryside for urban areas in search of employment. Each percentage point of GDP growth translates into roughly one million new jobs a year, which means that China needs GDP to rise at least ten percent every year in order to absorb the influx of laborers. With no end to the global crisis in sight, many are wondering how long China's economic doldrums will last and what the political impact of stagnation will be. The conventional wisdom is that low growth will erode the party's political legitimacy and fuel social unrest as jobless migrants and college graduates vent their frustrations through riots and protests. Although this forecast is not necessarily wrong, it is incomplete. Strong economic performance has been the single most important source of legitimacy for the CCP, so prolonged economic stagnation carries the danger of disenchanting a growing middle class that was lulled into political apathy by the prosperity of the post-Tiananmen years. And economic policies that favor the rich have already alienated industrial workers and rural peasants, formerly the social base of the party. Even in recent boom years, grass-roots unrest has been high, with close to 90,000 riots, strikes, demonstrations, and collective protests reported annually. Such frustrations will only intensify in hard times.

CCP Collapse goes nuclear

Renxing, 5
 (San, The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths proposed", 8/5, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html), accessed 6-07-2011, WYO/JF)
Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. 

Terrorist attacks on ports are coming and we are lagging behind in security now
Nadler et all, 6-26-12
JERROLD L. NADLER, EDWARD J. MARKEY and BENNIE G. THOMPSON, NYT contributors, “Cargo, the Terrorists’ Trojan Horse. Online, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/opinion/the-dangerous-delay-on-port-security.html MB
MILLIONS of cargo containers are unloaded from ships each year at American seaports, providing countless opportunities for terrorists to smuggle and unleash a nuclear bomb or weapon of mass destruction on our shores. To counter this threat, Congress passed a law five years ago mandating that by July 2012, all maritime cargo bound for the United States must be scanned before it is loaded on ships. But the Obama administration will miss this deadline, and it is not clear to us, as the authors of the law, whether it ever plans to comply with the law.¶ Over the years, terrorists have shown themselves to be frighteningly inventive. They have hidden explosives in printer cartridges transported by air and embedded explosives in the shoes and underwear of airline passengers. The cargo containers arriving on ships from foreign ports offer terrorists a Trojan horse for a devastating attack on the United States. As the Harvard political scientist Graham T. Allison has put it, a nuclear attack is “far more likely to arrive in a cargo container than on the tip of a missile.”¶ But for the past five years, the Department of Homeland Security has done little to counter this threat and instead has wasted precious time arguing that it would be too expensive and too difficult, logistically and diplomatically, to comply with the law. This is unacceptable.

And independently dirty bomb attacks on Ports are extremely likely—they are coming now by 2015
Parfomak and Frittelli, 2007
Paul and John, Resources, Sciences and Industry division of the Congressional Research Service, “Maritime Security:¶ Potential Terrorist Attacks¶ and Protection Priorities.” Prepared for members of congress, 3-14-2007, online, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33787.pdf
Terrorist attacks on U.S. ports with radiological dispersion devices (“dirty” bombs)is also considered among the gravest maritime terrorism scenarios.77 A2003 simulation of a series of such attacks concluded that they “could cripple global trade and have a devastating impact on the nation’s economy.”78 Many terrorism analysts view such a dirty bomb attack as relatively likely. In a 2005 survey, for example, nuclear non-proliferation experts expressed their beliefs (on average) that there was a 25% chance of a dirty bomb attack in the United States by 2010 and a 40% chance of such an attack by 2015.79 Studies suggest that the materials required to make a dirty bomb may be widely available and poorly controlled internationally.80 According to some press reports, U.S. and British intelligence agencies have reportedly concluded that Al Qaeda has succeeded in making such a bomb.81 Port operators have testified before Congress that they believe “it is just a question of time” before terrorists with dirty bombs successfully attack a U.S. port.82
And, dirty bomb attacks are just as bad as nuclear attacks
BERES IN ‘94
(Prof., Political Science, Purdue University) ‘94
Louis Rene, “On International Law and Nuclear Terrorism,” 24Georgia Jounral of International and Comparative Law 1, Spring, LN
Radiological weapons are not as widely understood as nuclear explosives, but they may be equally ominous in their effects. Placed in the hands of 8955*27 terrorists, such weapons could pose a lethal hazard for human beings anywhere in the world. Even a world already dominated by every variety of numbing could not fail to recoil from such a prospect. Radiological weapons are devices designed to disperse radioactive materials that have been produced a substantial time before their dispersal. The targets against which terrorists might choose to use radiological weapons include concentrations of people inside buildings, concentrations of people on urban streets or at sporting events, urban areas with a high population density as a whole, and agricultural areas. The form such weapons might take include plutonium dispersal devices (only 3.5 ounces of plutonium could prove lethal to everyone within a large office building or factory) or devices designed to disperse other radioactive materials. In principle, the dispersal of spent nuclear reactor fuel and the fission products separated from reactor fuels would create grave hazards in a populated area, but the handling of such materials would be very dangerous to terrorists themselves. It is more likely, therefore, that would-be users of radiological weapons would favor plutonium over radioactive fission products. The threat of nuclear terrorism involving radiological weapons is potentially more serious than the threat involving nuclear explosives. This is because it would be easier for terrorists to achieve nuclear capability with radiological weapons. Such weapons, therefore, could also be the subject of a more plausible hoax than nuclear explosives.
And, nuclear terrorism risks extinction
ALEXANDER (Dir. Inter-University Center for Terrorism) 2000
Yonah, “Terrorism in the 21st Century”, Depaul Business Law Journal, p. ln
More specifically, present-day terrorists have introduced into contemporary life a new scale of terror violence in terms of both threats and responses that has made clear that we have entered into an Age of Terrorism with all of its serious implications to national, regional, and global security concerns. n25 Perhaps the most significant dangers that evolve from modern day terrorism are those relating to the safety, welfare, and rights of ordinary people; the stability of the state system; the health of economic  *67  development; the expansion of democracy; and possibly the survival of civilization itself.

Port expansion is vital to economic and agricultural export competitiveness
Gibbs 11 – Legislative Hearing on RAMP Act with the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bob Gibbs is the chairman of the subcommittee (Bob, “Legislative Hearing on the RAMP Act”, Legislative Hearing, 7/8/11, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg67286/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg67286.pdf)//MM
Mr. GIBBS. Welcome. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment will come to order. Today, we will have a legislative hearing on H.R. 104, Realize America’s Maritime Promise Act of 2011. This hearing will give Members a chance to hear and review the challenges and opportunities facing America’s navigation system, the current and future roles played by our ports and waterways, and Mr. Boustany’s legislation. Ninety-five percent of the Nation’s imports and exports go through the Nation’s ports. Our integrated system of highways, railroads, airways, and waterways has efficiently moved freight in this Nation. But as we enter a new era of increased trade, our navigation systems have to keep pace. If not, this will ultimately lead to further delays in getting the Nation’s economy back on its feet. In May 2010, the President proposed an export initiative that aims to double the Nation’s exports over the next 5 years. However, with the Corps of Engineers navigation budget slashed by 22 percent over the previous 5 years, and the President only requesting $691 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the export initiative will not be a success. Only if our ports and waterways are at their authorized depths and widths will products be able to move to their overseas destinations in an efficient and economical manner. Since only 10 of the Nation’s largest ports are at their authorized depths and widths, the President’s budget does nothing to ensure our competitiveness in world markets. Modern ports and waterways are critical in keeping the U.S. manufacturers and producers competitive in the world markets. For instance, America’s farmers, like the rest of the economy, depend on the modern and efficient waterways and ports to get the products to market. Improved transportation systems in South America have allowed South American farmers to keep their costs low enough to underbid U.S. green farmers for customers located in this country. With an outdated navigation system, transportation costs will increase and goods transported by water may switch to other congested modes of transportation. With today’s overcrowded highways, like the I–95 corridor, we should be looking to water transportation to shoulder more of the load. Unless the issue of channel maintenance is addressed, the reliability and responsiveness of the entire intermodal system will slow economic growth and threaten national security.
Offshore wind would revitalize weak US ports and shipyards and create millions of sustainable jobs 

DOE ‘11
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind and Water Power Program U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, “A National Offshore Wind Strategy Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States” 2.7.2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/national_offshore_wind_strategy.pdf//wyo-hdm
Deployment of wind energy along U.S. coasts would also trigger direct and indirect economic benefits. According to NREL analysis and extrapolation of European studies, offshore wind would create approximately 20.7 direct jobs per annual megawatt installed in U.S. waters (W. Musial 2010). Installing 54 GW of offshore wind capacity in U.S. waters would create more than 43,000 permanent operations and maintenance (OandM) jobs and would require more than 1.1 million job‐years to manufacture and install the turbines (W. Musial 2010). Many of these jobs would be located in economically depressed ports and shipyards, which could be revitalized as fabrication and staging areas for the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind provides an opportunity for revitalization of U.S. ports and heavy industry facilities. Due to the large scale of offshore wind turbine components, towers and foundation structures, it is generally advantageous to limit or eliminate overland transport from assembly and installation scenarios in order to maximize process efficiency and minimize logistics time and costs. In addition, European experience has clearly indicated that it will be necessary to create a purpose‐built installation, operations, and maintenance (IOandM) infrastructure for offshore wind, including specialized vessels and port facilities. To assist industry and regional port facilities in making informed decisions regarding design requirements for IOandM infrastructure, DOE will participate in collaborative studies of infrastructure needs and capabilities for the benefit of all national regions. A significant portion of the cost differential between land‐based and offshore wind energy systems lies in transport and installation requirements. European experience indicates that specialized wind system installation vessels, rather than adapted oil and gas vessels, will be required for cost‐effective, high‐ volume installation.