T

First, we meet- plan in a vacuum is topical.

Second, counter-interpretation- a restriction is a regulatory constraint

Farlex, ’12 (Farlex collection, Princeton University, 2012, WordNet 3.0, Print)//CC

restriction - an act of limiting or restricting (as by regulation)

Third, we meet- restrictions on leasing range from out-right bans to stipulations- CZMA review is right in the middle

USDI, USDA, DOE 2008

[“Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development”, http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/0.Par.68195.File.dat/EPCA2008lo_1.pdf //wyo-tjc]

2.3.1 Categorization of Oil and Gas Access Constraints The main factors that affect access to oil and gas resources on Federal lands are land availability (Section 2.1.1) and leasing and drilling restrictions (Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3). To simplify the analysis and present meaningful results, these factors were categorized into a hierarchy that represents varying levels of access as shown in Table 2-9. This categorization was necessary to enable a reasonable quantitative analysis, given the fact that approximately 3,125 individual stipulations from 128 Federal land use plans (LUPs) exist for the study areas within the Inventory. The hierarchy of categories was formulated to ensure that the constraints on oil and gas development could be appropriately assessed (especially for areas of multiple, overlapping stipulations), and to ensure that the cumulative impacts on access would be examined. In addition, the hierarchy was formulated based upon the accessibility of the lands for leasing, and for areas where leasing is permitted, the impacts relative to the difficulty for conducting drilling operations. The Federal lands categorization hierarchy is ordered from “No Leasing” (most constrained) to “Leasing with Standard Lease Terms” (least constrained) as follows: 1. No Leasing (Statutory/Executive Order) (NLS) are lands that cannot be leased due to Congressional or Presidential action. Examples include national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas. 2. No Leasing (Administrative) (NLA) are lands that are withheld from leasing based on discretionary decisions made by the Federal land management agency. The NLA areas can include endangered species habitat and historical sites. 3. No Leasing (Administrative), Pending Land Use Planning or NEPA Compliance (NLA/LUP) are lands that have not yet undergone or are currently undergoing land use planning or NEPA analysis, and that are generally not available for leasing. In the cases where there is no land use plan in effect, non-Federal mineral estate underlying Federal land is categorized as NLA/LUP to reflect the fact that access to mineral estate can be allowed through the NEPA process. 4. Leasing, No Surface Occupancy (NSO) (Net NSO for Oil & Gas Resources) are lands that can be leased but ground-disturbing oil and natural gas exploration and development activities are prohibited. These stipulations protect identified resources such as special status plant species habitat. Their surface areas are mapped as described by the LUPs. However, at least some of the resources can be accessed by directional drilling from nearby lands where surface occupancy is allowed. This is accounted for by creating an extended drilling zone (EDZ, as described in Appendix 9) that reduces the size of the NSO area. The area removed is then placed in the next most restrictive resource access category (5 through 9, below) that would otherwise apply in the absence of the NSO stipulation. Within the EDZ area the underlying resource is considered accessible even though the surface above it cannot be occupied by drilling equipment. After the EDZ is removed, the NSO area that remains is referred to as “Net NSO” (NNSO) and the resources under it are therefore considered inaccessible. 5. Leasing, Cumulative Timing Limitations (TLs) on drilling of >9 Months are lands that can be leased, but stipulations and/or COAs limit the time of the year when oil and gas exploration and drilling can take place to less than 3 months. Timing limitations prohibit surface use during specified time intervals to protect identified resources such as sage grouse habitat or elk calving areas. 6. Leasing, Cumulative Timing Limitations (TLs) on drilling of >6 to ≤9 Months are lands that can be leased, but stipulations and/or COAs limit the time of the year when oil and gas exploration and drilling can take place from 3 to 6 months. 7. Leasing, Cumulative Timing Limitations (TLs) on drilling of >3 to ≤6 Months are lands that can be leased, but stipulations and/or COAs limit the time of the year when oil and gas exploration and drilling can take place from 6 to 9 months. 8. Leasing, Controlled Surface Use (CSU) are lands where stipulations and/or COAs control the surface location of natural gas and oil exploration and development activities by excluding them from portions of the lease. For example, a CSU stipulation could require an operator to develop a specialized mitigation plan based on the presence of moderately steep slopes. This category also includes the minimal areas that have timing limitations of less than three months. 9. Leasing, Standard Lease Terms (SLTs) areas are lands that can be leased and where no additional stipulations are added to the standard lease form. Standard lease terms, however, still dictate that the lessee must comply with many environmental standards and other requirements (see Section 2.1.2, above). Categorizations were made on the basis of LUPs and discussions with Federal land management agencies. In most cases categorization is relatively straightforward; in other cases judgments were made based upon experience with stipulation datasets. For the FS, FPs standards and guidelines are both included in the definition of “Management Direction” at 36 CFR 219.3 (Forest Planning), and were used synonymously without distinction in evaluating FS stipulations. All categorizations were made available to field offices for review and comment.

GRID

Catastrophic melt-downs are likely if the blackout both cascades and is sustained- that is the Capiello evidence.

And prefer our impact- it’s specific to sustained melt-downs throughout the Northeast US- it will spread globally

And impact defense doesn’t apply to US reactors- extended licensing periods and unique risk of US designs to meltdowns

Natural Resource Defense Council 11
What if the Fukushima nuclear fallout crisis had happened here? http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fallout/

A future severe nuclear accident at a U.S. nuclear power plant is a real possibility. In 2011 five nuclear power plants in the United States lost primary power due to earthquake or extreme weather events, including tornados, hurricanes, and flooding. Fortunately backup power systems kicked in at these plants and a disaster was averted. But weather is not the only risk factor. Other risk factors include: Type of reactor – There are two types of reactors operating it the United States: Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) and Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs). Some experts judge that the design and structure of BWRs do not protect against the release of radiation during a severe accident as effectively as PWRs. The four reactors involved in the Fukushima nuclear crisis were BWRs. On the map, NRDC experts assigned a red flag to a reactor if it is a BWR. Age of reactor – Reactors were designed to operate for 40 years, yet the regulatory body that oversees nuclear safety in the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has re-licensed some nuclear power plants to operate for 60 years, well beyond their originally engineered design lifetime. On the map, NRDC experts assigned a red flag to a reactor if the NRC has approved the reactor to operate for 60 years. Power level of reactor – The NRC has approved many utility operators to increase the operating power of their nuclear reactors, including for Fukushima-type reactors, and in some cases multiple times and to significantly higher power levels. These so-called "power uprates" push reactors beyond what they were originally engineered to do, and could increase the radiation hazard if a nuclear accident occurred. On the map, NRDC experts assigned a red flag if the NRC has granted a reactor a power uprate. If a person received one rad of radiation from a nuclear accident, it would increase one's chance of getting cancer by 1 in 1,000 (averaged over all ages and both sexes). And although the NRC believes that the chances of a severe accident with fallout in a core meltdown for any one of the 104 U.S. nuclear reactors is small (probability of less than 1 in 10,000 per year), can we afford the risk? Millions of Japanese people were exposed to radiation from Fukushima, increasing their risk of developing cancer, and the cost of the Fukushima accident is projected to exceed US$100 billion, and the environmental effects will last for generations. What if a meltdown occurred at one of the 65 nuclear power plants in the United States? Why we need urgent federal action to reduce the risks of U.S. nuclear accident fallout With 6 million Americans living within 10 miles of a U.S. nuclear power plant – the evacuation zone defined by the federal government – and more than 120 million Americans living within 50 miles of a U.S. nuclear power plant – the distance the U.S. government told Americans to evacuate from the area around the Fukushima plant – we cannot afford to stand by and hope the worst won't happen here, especially with extreme weather intensifying around the globe. Red flags for heightened risk factors of a severe nuclear accident abound in the United States. Currently 23 U.S. nuclear reactors are the same type of reactor, a boiling water reactor (BWRs), which was involved in the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Some BWRs are operating near major American cities like Philadlephia. Nearly all of the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States were designed and built three to four decades ago. Despite being originally engineered for a 40-year lifespan, the NRC has approved 71 reactors at 32 nuclear power plants to operate for 60 years. And 90 percent of U.S. nuclear reactors have had their operating power increased beyond the original design engineered for them. Yet the NRC hasn't yet made a single U.S. nuclear power plant any safer than it was since the Fukushima accident about one year ago. After the Fukushima disaster, a task force assembled by the commission's chairman identified a list of safety improvements including top tier items to be "started without unnecessary delay." But these important safety upgrades are still years away from being implemented, if ever. In fact, some of these safety improvements have been on the commission's to-do list since the 1990s. What happens in a severe nuclear accident like at Fukushima Even after the nuclear chain reaction at a power plant is stopped by its operators, the reactor core still needs to be continually cooled, or the fuel rods will rupture and melt from the remaining radioactive decay heat. And if the level of cooling water falls below the core, the metal sheaths containing the uranium in the fuel rods will react with steam, producing explosive hydrogen gas. Therefore if power to run reactor core cooling is lost just for a matter of hours, it can lead to a meltdown – potentially releasing plumes of radioactive material into the air. In Fukushima an earthquake caused the regional electric grid to go down, cutting off the nuclear plant's primary power. Then a tsunami flooded the low-lying diesel generators that were in place to provide backup power. Without power to cool the cores of its three fueled reactors, the severe accident at Fukushima began. Operators had to vent radioactive gases into the air in an attempt to reduce mounting pressure inside the reactor vessels. Hydrogen gas ignited and exploded in the reactor buildings, spewing plumes of radiation. Some of this fallout was blown out to sea by prevailing winds, but a plume of intense radiation spread northwest from the stricken plant for more than 50 miles. Because of the radioactive materials deposited by the plume, including cesium-137 and strontium-90, large areas in Fukushima Prefecture will be uninhabitable for generations. Lower levels of radiation drifted across other Japanese states and as far as Tokyo. NRDC's methodology for building the U.S. nuclear fallout map NRDC's nuclear fallout calculations were made using the weather reports from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the specific days of March 11, 2011 and March 12, 2011. Using this historical weather data from the first days of the Fukushima accident, NRDC modeled where the radiation plumes released at Fukushima would have spread if it were a U.S. nuclear reactor that had melted down. For this work NRDC used the Department of Defense computer model "HPAC" – Hazard Prediction Assessment Capability. Some of the fallout patterns extend far from the nuclear plant, carried by strong winds blowing on those days. At other plants where the air was still in mid-March 2011, the fallout hovered over and settled on the vicinity of the plant. In our computer model of these severe nuclear accidents, the accident takes place over the course of two days with multiple releases of radiation, similar to what happened at Fukushima. As the wind changed direction over that period of time the fallout may be carried in different directions from the plant. Also shown in NRDC's map are the U.S.-government defined 10-mile evacuation zone, and 50-mile zones where the potential for land contamination would still be high in a severe nuclear accident.

PORTS

Current lacking port infrastructure will cause increase in food prices in 2013. Per Doms 12. China imports billions of dollars of food from the US and increasing food prices will destroy economic recovery because inflation. That’s Carlson. This causes Chinese resource wars with neighbors and a challenge to US heg per Kane and Serewicz.

High food prices cause disease- malnutrition.

Stuckler 11

[Marc Suhrcke Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, David Stuckler- Harvard School of Public Health, Jonathan E. Suk- Future Threats and Determinants Section, Scientific Advice Unit, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Monica Desai- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Michaela Senek- Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Martin McKee- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Svetla Tsolova- (ECDC), Sanjay Basu- Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, Ibrahim Abubakar- Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Paul Hunter- Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Boika Rechel- Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Jan C. Semenza- (ECDC), (2011) The Impact of Economic Crises on Communicable Disease Transmission and Control: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. PLoS ONE data base, \\wyo-bb]

Other factors may also reduce immunity during an economic downturn, but the links are indirect. There is some evidence linking stress to impaired immunological status, by virtue of the cortisol response, increasing susceptibility to certain infectious diseases, [49] [48] although responses to stress vary greatly between individuals [58]. Meanwhile, governments which do not provide food subsidies to indigent populations when faced with rising food prices risk impairing nutrition, a risk factor for several infectious diseases that appears to reflect weakening immunological defences against latent infections, for example, reactivation of tuberculosis [38].

Disease causes extinction.

Yu 9

(Victoria, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, 5-22, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate)

A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).

Cp

Grid will collapse inevitable. Smart grid infected with Trojan viruses.

Slavo 12

[Mac Slavo is the editor of ShtfPlan.com | April 20, 2012 Expert Warns: 100% Certainty of Total Catastrophic Failure of the Entire Power Infrastructure Within 3 Years (Video) http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/expert-warns-100-certainty-of-total-catastrophic-failure-of-the-entire-power-infrastructure-within-3-years-video-john-malcolm///uwyokb]

As smart grid metering systems expand across the developed world, many are starting to ask whether the threats posed by the new devices, which officials promise will save energy and reduce end user utility costs, outweigh their benefits. In addition to documented health concerns resulting from radiation emissions and no cost savings being apparent, opponents of the technology argue that smart meters are violative of basic privacy rights and give the government yet another digital node of unfettered access to monitor and control personal electricity consumption. Now, an alarming new documentary suggests that security problems with the inter-connected and seemingly convenient smart grid may be so serious that they could lead to a catastrophic failure of our nation’s entire power infrastructure. In an interview for the upcoming documentary titled Take Back Your Power, Cyber defense expert David Chalk warns that our nation is in crisis. Not only are our smart power grids susceptible to hacking, but they may very well already be infected with Trojan viruses and back doors that will ultimately lead to disastrous consequences: The front door is open, and there is no lock to be had. There is not a power meter or device on the grid that is protected from hacking, if not already infected with some sort of Trojan horse than can cause it to be shut down, damaged or completely annihilatesssd. We can’t take a massive outage all at once. When we say ‘it goes down,’ we’re talking about generators burning out. We’re talking about coal plants being damaged. We’re talking about destruction of equipment. This isn’t just a matter of electrons going around and shutting off the moving data. Physical equipment can be damaged… watch some of the videos of cyber attacks on generators and other devices. You’ll see they’re actually damaged. Multi million dollar machines are hacked into. We look at corporations. We look at the very companies like Symantec that are there to protect us having been hacked, and their code is in the public domain. Bring forward a technology and I will show you that it’s penetrable. I’ll do it on national TV, I’ll do it anywhere… I can guarantee you 100% that there is nothing out there today – nothing – that can’t be penetrated. We need safety and security, and today that does not exist in the smart grid. “Unless we wake up and realize what we’re doing, there is 100% certainty of total catastrophic failure of the entire power infrastructure within 3 years,” said Chalk. “This could actually be worse than a nuclear war, because it would happen everywhere. How governments and utilities are blindly merging the power grid with the Internet, and effectively without any protection, is insanity at its finest.”

Smart grid creates more areas to attack- field equipment and networks.

Magnuson,12.

(Colonel Brian L. Magnuson, Commander of Marine Corps Air Facility Quantico, United States Army War College Class of 2012. “DoD Installation Energy Security: Evolving to a Smart Grid” U.S. Army War College, Strategy Research Project, Department of Military Strategy, Planning, and Operations. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA561398//uwyokb)

The threats to the underlying smart grid communication network are diverse with various points of potential access. One area of major concern is field equipment. 56 Field equipment is comprised of the smart meters themselves, and other smart devices within the distribution chain. If someone were able to gain physical access to a smart meter, it could serve as the injection point for a software virus into the whole advanced metering infrastructure (AMI). 57 A second concern is wireless smart meter networks. sssMany smart meters communicate amongst themselves through wireless networks and there is a very real concern these wireless networks could become access points for software viruses. 58 A third area of concern is the technology in use to communicate between elements of the smart grid and the lack of a security standard. The evolution from “the grid” to “the smart grid” means updates to grid control systems – transmission upgrades, distribution automation and substation automation, and smart meters. 59 The whole of the smart grid, and its individual parts, are lacking from a federally mandated and enforced smart grid security standard.

CP

REM’s

New mines are coming online and will stabilize the market

Justin Keupper, 2/8

Understanding China's Rare Earth Metals Market: What Changing Regulations Could Mean Read more: http://www.minyanville.com/trading-and-investing/commodities/articles/Understanding-China2527s-Rare-Earth-Metals-Market/2/8/2013/id/48000#ixzz2KzcyzDEz, accessed 2/15/13,WYO/JF

Many countries opted to develop their own rare earth metal reserves, following China’s market moving decisions to cut exports. Countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, South Africa, Tanzania, Greenland and the United States are all undergoing efforts to restart rare earth metal production after China undercut prices in the 1990s. Some public companies operating in the space include: General Moly Inc. (NYSEAMEX:GMO) – A development stage company focused on molybdenum properties located in Eureka County, Nevada, USA. Lynas Corporation Limited (ASX:LYC) – A rare earth metal company focused on developing its properties in Australia and Malaysia. Molycorp Inc. (NYSE:MCP) – A rare earth metal and molybdenum development company with a presence in 11 different countries around the world. Of these companies, the only two established projects outside of China include Molycorp’s efforts in the U.S. and Lynas’ efforts in Australia. Many other junior miners looking to develop resources to commercial viability may also face troubles, with only a handful of them projected to reach such a commercial stage, according to some analysts. The Bottom Line Rare earth metals are a vital component of many critical technologies, ranging from renewable energy to defense applications. While China has been a quintessential provider since the 1990s, REE reserves are starting to pop up in many other major world markets, after the communist country imposed export restrictions that wreaked havoc on the market in 2010. Moving forward, China appears ready to continue its crackdown on the rare earth metals industry, putting pressure on global supply and helping boost prices. But, the opposing supply coming online from other markets around the world could help offset these trends and ultimately stabilize the market with a more robust supply to meet growing demand.

Rare earth prices are plummeting now – not enough demand. (Also 2011 should have caused close down)

Global Times (China), 9-21-12
(“Rare-earth prices slump due to poor demand”, Accessed 9-22-12,http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/734460.shtml) accessed 12/12/12,WYO/JF

Prices of some rare-earth materials witnessed dramatic decline this week following months of sluggish performance caused by poor demand, according to data released by a raw material information portal Thursday. Analysts said the prices have declined to a reasonable level after a roller-coaster ride last year. The price of lanthanum cerium carbonate declined by 38.71 percent this week compared with last week, and the price of cerium carbonate saw a 25.58 percent drop, according to the Beijing-based portal baiinfo.com. "The slowdown in the economy at home and abroad has dragged down demand for rare-earth products, and consequently impacted their prices," Chen Zhanheng, deputy secretary-general of the China Rare-Earth Industry Association, told the Global Times..

Multiple alt causes and supply is sufficient

Marc Humphries,12

specialist in Energy Policies for Congressional Research Service, 6-8-2012, "Rare Earth Elements: The Global Supply Chain," CRS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41347.pdf, accessed 12/17/12,WYO/JF
Some of the major end uses for rare earth elements include use in automotive catalytic converters, fluid cracking catalysts in petroleum refining, phosphors in color television and flat panel displays (cell phones, portable DVDs, and laptops), permanent magnets and rechargeable batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, and generators for wind turbines, and numerous medical devices. There are important defense applications, such as jet fighter engines, missile guidance systems, antimissile defense, and space-based satellites and communication systems. World demand for rare earth elements is estimated at 136,000 tons per year, with global production around 133,600 tons in 2010. The difference is covered by previously mined aboveground stocks. World demand is projected to rise to at least 185,000 tons annually by 2015. Additional mine capacity at Mt. Weld Australia is expected to come onstream in 2012, to help close the raw materials gap in the short term. Other new mining projects could easily take 10 years to reach production. In the long run, however, the USGS expects that global reserves and undiscovered resources are large enough to meet demand.

No shortage – there’s seven times the neodymium needed to solve

Jacobson,12

Stanford Atmosphere/Energy Program and Salerno, AWEA Industry Data and Analysis Director, 9-14-12 Mark, Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor, and Elizabeth, “Wind Power Plentiful, Study Says,” NPR, www.npr.org/2012/09/14/161156783/wind-power-plentiful-study-says, accessed 12/12/12,WYO/JF
A lot of interesting tweets coming in wondering about do we have the resources to build all those wind turbines, Mark? I mean... JACOBSON: In fact we looked at the materials needed, and so for example for wind turbines, you need a rare earth element called neodymium, and there's actually about seven times more neodymium resources available that we know of worldwide than you would need to produce four million large wind turbines. And there's plenty of steel and concrete, as well. So the resources are not limits. SALERNO: Let me add that there was actually a study that was done. I mean, this is a great question, something we've asked, as well. There was a study done back in 2008, actually under the Bush administration, looking at what would it take for us to do 20 percent of our generation from wind in the United States. And it looked at the technical needs, the steel, concrete, all of the different component parts, the transmission, the human resources, all the skilled labor. And it looked at all of those elements and said yes, it is not only technically possible, but it economically makes sense for this country. And it was a technical study, not necessarily a goal, but it was something that we looked at, and we've decided that we can get there. We can get to 20 percent, and if you look at where we're at today in the U.S., we're actually on track to get to 20 percent by 2030.

New wind turbine designs don’t require REM’s

Jonathan Benson September 22, 2011

staff writer “Advanced wind turbine design eliminates need for environmentally-harmful rare earth metals, generates electricity at $0.04 per kWh”
http://www.naturalnews.com/033647_wind_turbines_rare_earth_metals.html#ixzz2Bp0AH8aH
According to a recent report by Green Tech Media, the budding technology does not require the use of expensive, environmentally-damaging rare earth metals typically imported from China, and it also generates electricity at a lower cost than traditional coal-burning plants are able to do. Most wind turbines in use today rely on complicated gearboxes that run at high temperatures, that wear out easily, and that are difficult and expensive to maintain. They also require the use of dysprosium, an expensive, rare-earth metal obtained from China, a country whose track record of environmental friendliness leaves much to be desired In other words, the lofty price of dysprosium, which can run as high as $2,000 per kilo (2.2 pounds), combined with the frequent need to maintain and replace a slew of intricate turbine parts, has made current wind energy production technologies inadequate and unable to compete in the energy market apart from government subsidization. The PMG design, however, eliminates the gear-driven system, which BWP describes as "a bunch of very high precision, high quality steel parts in a gear box," with a direct drive system that is "basically one big moving part." And since this single part relies on neodymium, which is one-twentieth the price of dysprosium, and mined in California using an environmentally-friendly extraction process, its potential to replace current wind energy technologies is essentially a given.

Turn- A shortage of rare earth metals spurs innovation and creativity

Shemin 10- Kara Shemin, Northeastern University representative (12/6/10, “Rare Earth Elements and Global Energy Strategy,” http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2010/12/laura_lewis.html)

How has the global market and demand for REEs changed over time, and what does it mean for the industry with China in control of the majority of global REE exports? One expert estimates that the overall permanent market will average growth of at least 4 to 6 percent per year, with the total market for permanent magnets to grow to more than $20 billion by 2020. While there is much activity to revitalize domestic sources of REEs, it will take years before the United States has a reliable supply. Those facts have prompted the United States (in particular, the Departments of Defense and Energy) and European Union to fund basic research on reduced-REE content magnets, in attempts to come up with alternatives that are competitive with the supermagnets. How would a shortage of rare earth metals affect the future of engineering? How will it affect global efforts to address climate change? It would most certainly spur new creativity and new strategies to engineer and optimize rare earth-free compounds and alloys that can provide the same functionality as those that contain REEs.

This isn’t a repeat of the 30’s

Zakaria 9 (Faree, PhD in Political Science from Harvard, “The Secrets of Stability,” Newsweek, December 12, http://www.newsweek.com/id/226425)

Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political instability and violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest in several emerging markets. Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again. Not the financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization. One year later, how much has the world really changed? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses to the crisis—soaring debt and fears of inflation. But overall, things look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The predictions of economic and political collapse have not materialized at all.

A2 OSW hurts the ocean (In case you need it)

OSW creates havens for aquatic organisms.

Clean Air Council, no date.

[Offshore Wind Farms Act as Safe Haven for Aquatic Organisms, Study Finds”, Clean ir Council. http://www.cleanair.org/program/energy/wind_energy/offshore_wind_farms_act_safe_haven_aquatic_organisms_study_finds//uwyokb]

A recent study out of the Netherlands has found that, contrary to popular belief, offshore wind farms act as seafe havens for aquatic organisms. The study, entitled "Short-term Ecological Effects of an Offshore Wind Farm in the Dutch Coastal Zone," states that offshore wind farms "act as a new type of habitat with a higher biodiversity of benthic organisms, a possibly increased use of the area by fish, marine mammals and some bird species." The full study is available online here.

OSW helps reconstruct reefs and fish populations.

Jones, 12-31

[“North Myrtle Beach at headwind of offshore power efforts”, Steve Jones, Dec. 31, 2012

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/12/29/3244881/north-myrtle-beach-at-headwind.html#storylink=cpy//uwyokb]

He said the chamber not only agrees with others in the way offshore wind farms could generate onshore business and job creation, but perhaps has looked at it with a finer magnifying glass than others. He said that recreational and commercial fishing interests would benefit because the underwater supports for the towers would become anchors for reef creation, which in turn would attract fish. Additionally, he said that there are opportunities for paid sightseeing trips to the wind farms.

Politics

Wont Pass. No compromise- leaked legislation poisoned the well

Tengri News, 2/21

“Obama courts key Republicans on immigration reform For more information” see:http://en.tengrinews.kz/politics_sub/Obama-courts-key-Republicans-on-immigration-reform--17141/, accessed 2/21/13,WYO/JF

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday called key Senate Republicans, with whom he is at odds on other many top issues, to discuss the prospects for bipartisan immigration reform, AFP reports. Obama placed the calls following complaints he had not done enough to reach across the political aisle on the key issue, and after the leak of partial White House immigration plans angered Republican players in the debate. The White House said that Obama had spoken to Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Marco Rubio, to discuss a "shared commitment to bipartisan, commonsense immigration reform." "The President reiterated that he remains supportive of the effort underway in Congress, and that he hopes that they can produce a bill as soon as possible that reflects shared core principles on reform." White House will ‘be prepared’ on immigration if bipartisan talks stall, McDonough says.

OSW being discussed now

Andrew Burger, 2/7

“U.S. Senate Revisits Offshore Wind Energy Tax Credits” http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/02/delaware-senator-aims-enact-offshore-wind-energy-investment-tax-credit/, accessed 2/7/13,WYO/JF

Concerted efforts to jump-start development of an offshore wind energy industry on the part of the Obama Administration, state governments and private-sector players are beginning to bear fruit. Now, a U.S. Senator is looking to revive an wind tax credit for investors that will generate significant forward momentum toward realizing that objective. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) intends to reintroduce legislation that would offer a 30 percent investment tax credit (ITC) for a limited number of offshore wind power projects, according to a report from The Hill. Carper and co-sponsor Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) originally submitted a bill during the previous session of Congress that called for the enactment of an ITC that would have reimbursed developers for up to 30 percent of offshore wind power project costs, according to The Hill’s report. The bill would have capped the ITC at 3,000 megawatts (MW) of combined offshore wind power generating capacity.

Plan is a win

Conathan,1/31

Center for American Progress Director of Ocean Policy, 1/31

(Michael, January 31, 2013, “Filling the Sails of Offshore Wind Energy”, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/31/1521031/filling-the-sails-of-offshore-wind-energy/?mobile=nc

The U.S. offshore wind industry is beginning to emerge from the political doldrums that clouded its early days, and it is finding champions in Congress, as well as in the Obama administration. Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) led legislation to ensure that offshore wind is covered by key tax provisions that had previously only applied to onshore wind. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) championed funding for offshore wind development, including a deepwater pilot project in her home state of Maine. Governors such as Martin O’Malley (D-MD) and Deval Patrick (D-MA) have prioritized offshore wind development as well. They view it as a political victory on multiple fronts—creating sorely needed jobs in construction, operation, and maintenance, and contributing to a diverse energy portfolio while moving us closer to renewable energy targets and away from polluting fossil fuels. As political opposition falls away from offshore wind projects, opponents are turning more toward economic arguments against further development of this technology, suggesting it will increase electricity rates and ultimately cost jobs.

Winners win

Green 10

(David, professor of political science at Hofstra University, June 11, “The Do-Nothing 44th President”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-David-Michael-Gree-100611-648.html, accessed 10-31-2011,WYO/JF

Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around. This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.

Sequestration kills agenda

Bayou Buzz, Cuts threaten Obama's entire agenda, 2/20/2013. http://www.bayoubuzz.com/top-stories/item/324767-cuts-threaten-obama-s-entire-agenda

President Obama has been highlighting, with increasing urgency, all the ways in which the sequester – the across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense discretionary spending scheduled to hit at the end of next week – would be bad for average Americans and could do serious damage to the economy.¶ What he hasn't said, but what's abundantly clear from looking at where the cuts would hit, is that the sequester also would make virtually all of Mr. Obama 's second-term legislative agenda, including a few items that have Republican support, essentially dead on arrival.¶ At an event Tuesday with first responders whose jobs could be eliminated by the sequester, Obama spelled out the consequences of allowing the cuts to take effect: "This is not an abstraction," he said. "People will lose their jobs."

DOI takes the blame

NREL, 10

“Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States ASSESSMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS” http://www.osti.gov/bridge, accessed 2/5/13,WYO/JF

Untested regulatory and permitting requirements in federal waters (outside the three-nautical-mile state boundary) have posed major hurdles to development, but recent progress is clarifying these processes. Most notably, after 9 years in the permitting process, the Cape Wind project off of Massachusetts was offered the first commercial lease by the Department of Interior in April 2010.The U.S. Department of the Interior bears responsibility for reducing the uncertainties and potential risks to the marine environment and making the federal permitting process more predictable under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (In June 2010, the Minerals and Management Service [MMS] was reorganized and renamed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement [BOEM]). Some states have been proactive in promoting offshore wind demonstration projects in their own waters close to shore, which may provide a more efficient regulatory path to meet their renewable energy obligations, while jump-starting a new locally grown industry.

Economic collapse does not cause war—their historical arguments are wrong

Ferguson 6

(Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

shields politics

Dobkin 8—past Chairperson of the Immigration Law Section of the Oakland County (Michigan) Bar Association and has lectured and presented seminars on immigration in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. (Donald, THE RISE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: APRESCRIPTION FOR LAWLESSNESS, www.law.ku.edu/publications/journal/pdf/v17n3/dobkin.pdf)

Because an agency’s actions often receive far less media attention than the actions of the President, the general public is often unaware of political decisions being made at the agency level. This lack of accountability in general makes it easier to pursue a political agenda at the agency level. 25 President George W. Bush has also used the inattention to agency action to pursue some of the more unpopular aspects of his political agenda to avoid direct accountability. For example, rather than openly challenging environmental protections, President Bush has used agencies to help him pursue his anti-environmental agenda to ensure the “systematic dismantling of various environmental regulations.” 26 ¶ The White House’s tightening of control via executive orders had its origins in the alteration of the context of presidential leadership during the 1960’s and 1970’s: [table omitted]¶ In an era of growing budget deficits, divided government, a more open political process, and a general loss of public faith in “big government,” presidents beginning with Richard Nixon no longer saw unalloyed benefits in relying on “neutral” staff agencies. Instead, they sought greater political responsiveness. This meant relying more heavily on aides within the White House Office, and appointing political loyalists to exercise topdown control of the other Executive Office of the President (EOP) agencies. 27 ¶ The attached Table 1 illustrates the magnitude of the EOP, which by 2004 had reached 1,731 staffers ranging from everything to Homeland Security Staff, OMB, CEA, and other agencies:¶ During this same time period, “presidents have increased the number of political appointees at the upper levels of the non-White House EOP agencies, and brought the agencies more tightly under White House staff control.” 29 The appointment process has allowed presidents to use agencies as a means for major—and often unpopular—policy changes. For instance, President Reagan made “a series of fox-in-the-chicken-coop appointments to undermine public interest regulation,” notably of his infamous anti-environment interior secretary, James Watt. 30 Many commentators have noted that the current Bush Administration has made similar appointments. 31 These types of appointments make it difficult for agencies to exhibit expertise and to execute the law in an impartial manner. As a result, we are left with “a more thoroughly politicized, White House-dominated EOP, but one that is short on institutional memory, administrative expertise, and organizational continuity.” 32 ¶ The rise in the presidentially-led Administrative States merely reflects the growing use—and creation—of unilateral powers by the President:¶ To pursue a unilateral strategy, of course, presidents must be able to justify their actions on some blend of statutory, treaty or constitutional powers; and when they cannot, their only recourse is legislation. But given the ambiguity of Article II powers and the massive corpus of law that presidents can draw upon . . . the appeal of unilateral powers is readily apparent. 33 ¶ Although some would argue that a unilateral executive branch is justified based on the majoritarian “mandate” produced by a presidential election, it is difficult to take this notion very seriously when “a President can be elected without obtaining a majority of the popular vote—as in the cases of President Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and President George W. Bush in 2000.” 34 Indeed, in the 2000 election, the winning candidate did not even garner a plurality of the popular vote. 35 Furthermore, presidential elections often center on issues like national security, which are far removed from the everyday decisions of administrative agencies. 36 ¶ The situation is only likely to worsen. In the early days of President George W. Bush’s administration, Professor Kagan predicted that President Bush would continue Clinton’s “expansion of presidential administration.” 37 Professor Sargentich has noted that this prediction has undoubtedly “come to pass,” as exemplified by recent executive branch acts such as the OMB’s farreaching and controversial Peer Review Bulletin, which guides agency decisions. 38