KModern wind power is a method for humanity to control nature leaving it as a standing reserveBeckman 00 (Tad, Ph.D. HMC professor, Heidegger and Environmental Ethics, page 1 5, http://www2.hmc.edu/~tbeckman/personal/HEIDART.HTML)Heidegger clearly saw the development of "energy resources" as symbolic of this evolutionary path; while the transformation into modern technology undoubtedly began early, the first definitive signs of its new character began with the harnessing of energy resources, as we would say. (7) As a representative of the old technology, the windmill took energy from the wind but converted it immediately into other manifestations such as the grinding of grain; the windmill did not unlock energy from the wind in order to store it for later arbitrary distribution. Modern wind-generators, on the other hand, convert the energy of wind into electrical power which can be stored in batteries or otherwise. The significance of storage is that it places the energy at our disposal; and because of this storage the powers of nature can be turned back upon itself. The storing of energy is, in this sense, the symbol of our over-coming of nature as a potent object. "...a tract of land is challenged into the putting out of coal and ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit." {[7], p. 14} This and other examples that Heidegger used throughout this essay illustrate the difference between a technology that diverts the natural course cooperatively and modern technology that achieves the unnatural by force. Not only is this achieved by force but it is achieved by placing nature in our subjective context, setting aside natural processes entirely, and conceiving of all revealing as being relevant only to human subjective needs. The essence of technology originally was a revealing of life and nature in which human intervention deflected the natural course while still regarding nature as the teacher and, for that matter, the keeper. The essence of modern technology is a revealing of phenomena, often far removed from anything that resembles "life and nature," in which human intrusion not only diverts nature but fundamentally changes it. As a mode of revealing, technology today is a challenging-forth of nature so that the technologically altered nature of things is always a situation in which nature and objects wait, standing in reserve for our use. We pump crude oil from the ground and we ship it to refineries where it is fractionally distilled into volatile substances and we ship these to gas stations around the world where they reside in huge underground tanks, standing ready to power our automobiles or airplanes. Technology has intruded upon nature in a far more active mode that represents a consistent direction of domination. Everything is viewed as "standing-reserve" and, in that, loses its natural objective identity. The river, for instance, is not seen as a river; it is seen as a source of hydro-electric power, as a water supply, or as an avenue of navigation through which to contact inland markets. In the era of techne humans were relationally involved with other objects in the coming to presence; in the era of modern technology, humans challenge-forth the subjectively valued elements of the universe so that, within this new form of revealing, objects lose their significance to anything but their subjective status of standing-ready for human design. (8) At this point, we have almost completed the analysis of modern technology in its essence.This causes planetary extinctionit divorces our relationship with the natural world and makes ecocide inevitableGottlieb 94 (Roger S. Gottlieb Professor of Humanities at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Brandeis University, Ethics and Trauma: Levinas, Feminism, and Deep Ecology, Crosscurrents: A Journal of Religion and Intellectual Life, 1994, Summer, http://www.crosscurrents.org/feministecology.htm)Here I will at least begin in agreement with Levinas. As he rejects an ethics proceeding on the basis of self-interest, so I believe the anthropocentric perspectives of conservation or liberal environmentalism cannot take us far enough. Our relations with nonhuman nature are poisoned and not just because we have set up feedback loops that already lead to mass starvations, skyrocketing environmental disease rates, and devastation of natural resources. The problem with ecocide is not just that it hurts human beings. Our uncaring violence also violates the very ground of our being, our natural body, our home. Such violence is done not simply to the other as if the rainforest, the river, the atmosphere, the species made extinct are totally different from ourselves. Rather, we have crucified ourselves-in-relation-to-the-other, fracturing a mode of being in which self and other can no more be conceived as fully in isolation from each other than can a mother and a nursing child. We are that child, and nonhuman nature is that mother. If this image seems too maudlin, let us remember that other lactating women can feed an infant, but we have only one earth mother. What moral stance will be shaped by our personal sense that we are poisoning ourselves, our environment, and so many kindred spirits of the air, water, and forests? To begin, we may see this tragic situation as setting the limits to Levinas's perspective. The other which is nonhuman nature is not simply known by a "trace," nor is it something of which all knowledge is necessarily instrumental. This other is inside us as well as outside us. We prove it with every breath we take, every bit of food we eat, every glass of water we drink. We do not have to find shadowy traces on or in the faces of trees or lakes, topsoil or air: we are made from them. Levinas denies this sense of connection with nature. Our "natural" side represents for him a threat of simple consumption or use of the other, a spontaneous response which must be obliterated by the power of ethics in general (and, for him in particular, Jewish religious law(23) ). A "natural" response lacks discipline; without the capacity to heed the call of the other, unable to sublate the self's egoism. Worship of nature would ultimately result in an "everything-is-permitted" mentality, a close relative of Nazism itself. For Levinas, to think of people as "natural" beings is to assimilate them to a totality, a category or species which makes no room for the kind of individuality required by ethics.(24) He refers to the "elemental" or the "there is" as unmanaged, unaltered, "natural" conditions or forces that are essentially alien to the categories and conditions of moral life.(25) One can only lament that Levinas has read nature -- as to some extent (despite his intentions) he has read selfhood -- through the lens of masculine culture. It is precisely our sense of belonging to nature as system, as interaction, as interdependence, which can provide the basis for an ethics appropriate to the trauma of ecocide. As cultural feminism sought to expand our sense of personal identity to a sense of inter-identification with the human other, so this ecological ethics would expand our personal and species sense of identity into an inter-identification with the natural world. Such a realization can lead us to an ethics appropriate to our time, a dimension of which has come to be known as "deep ecology."(26) For this ethics, we do not begin from the uniqueness of our human selfhood, existing against a taken-for-granted background of earth and sky. Nor is our body somehow irrelevant to ethical relations, with knowledge of it reduced always to tactics of domination. Our knowledge does not assimilate the other to the same, but reveals and furthers the continuing dance of interdependence. And our ethical motivation is neither rationalist system nor individualistic self-interest, but a sense of connection to all of life. The deep ecology sense of self-realization goes beyond the modern Western sense of "self" as an isolated ego striving for hedonistic gratification. . . . . Self, in this sense, is experienced as integrated with the whole of nature.(27) Having gained distance and sophistication of perception [from the development of science and political freedoms] we can turn and recognize who we have been all along. . . . we are our world knowing itself. We can relinquish our separateness. We can come home again -- and participate in our world in a richer, more responsible and poignantly beautiful way.(28) Ecological ways of knowing nature are necessarily participatory. [This] knowledge is ecological and plural, reflecting both the diversity of natural ecosystems and the diversity in cultures that nature-based living gives rise to. The recovery of the feminine principle is based on inclusiveness. It is a recovery in nature, woman and man of creative forms of being and perceiving. In nature it implies seeing nature as a live organism. In woman it implies seeing women as productive and active. Finally, in men the recovery of the feminine principle implies a relocation of action and activity to create life-enhancing, not life-reducing and life-threatening societies.(29) In this context, the knowing ego is not set against a world it seeks to control, but one of which it is a part. To continue the feminist perspective, the mother knows or seeks to know the child's needs. Does it make sense to think of her answering the call of the child in abstraction from such knowledge? Is such knowledge necessarily domination? Or is it essential to a project of care, respect and love, precisely because the knower has an intimate, emotional connection with the known?(30) Our ecological vision locates us in such close relation with our natural home that knowledge of it is knowledge of ourselves. And this is not, contrary to Levinas's fear, reducing the other to the same, but a celebration of a larger, more inclusive, and still complex and articulated self.(31) The noble and terrible burden of Levinas's individuated responsibility for sheer existence gives way to a different dream, a different prayer: Being rock, being gas, being mist, being Mind, Being the mesons traveling among the galaxies with the speed of light, You have come here, my beloved one. . . . You have manifested yourself as trees, as grass, as butterflies, as single-celled beings, and as chrysanthemums; but the eyes with which you looked at me this morning tell me you have never died.(32) In this prayer, we are, quite simply, all in it together. And, although this new ecological Holocaust -- this creation of planet Auschwitz is under way, it is not yet final. We have time to step back from the brink, to repair our world. But only if we see that world not as an other across an irreducible gap of loneliness and unchosen obligation, but as a part of ourselves as we are part of it, to be redeemed not out of duty, but out of love; neither for our selves nor for the other, but for us all. Vote Neg to recognize humanitys solidarity with nature this can repair our relationship with both nature and our own being Best and Nocella 6 (Associate professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso, Igniting a Revolution: Voices in Defense of the Earth, p. 82-84) Yet, for both Heidegger and revolutionary environmentalists, there exist possibilities for transformation despite the destructiveness of Enframing. In the midst of technological peril indeed, precisely because the peril strikes at and thus awakens us to the bond between human and nonhuman life there emerges a sense of solidarity of human with nonhuman beings. Looking at the well-heeled, bureaucratic discourse of human resource management and personnel resources, the challenging forth of human beings into standing reserve is fairly evident. Factory-farmed cows, pigs, and chickens obviously have it far worse than people, but in both cases the purpose is to harness resources for maximum efficiency and profit. Ultimately human and nonhuman beings are similarly enframed within one giant gasoline station. It is precisely the experience of this solidarity which must be constantly rearticulated in arts, poetry, ceremony, music, and especially in socioeconomic and political action in order to provide a historically and ontologically authentic break with the metaphysics of technical control and capitalist exploitation. Action will only be truly revolutionary if it revolves around engagement in solidarity with nature, where liberation is always seen both as human liberation from the confines of Enframing and simultaneously as liberation of animal nations and eco-regions from human technics. Anything less will always lapse back into the false and oppressive hierarchy of man over nature and man over animals with attendant effects of technological, disciplinary control over humans, nonhumans, and the Earth. Using a familiar title from the anarchist Crimethinc collective, revolutionary environmentalism is truly an instance of fighting for our lives where the pronoun refers to all life not just human life. Heidegger describes the possibility of transformation through a return of Being as a re-figured humanism. It is the possibility of suspending the will and attaining a lucid sense of the free play of Being within which all of life emerges and is sustained. A human being, like any entity, is s/he stands forth as present. But his distinctive feature lies in [the fact] that he, as the being who thinks, is open to Being.Man is essentially this relationship of responding to Being. Such experience is the clearing of a space (symbolically represented, for example, in the building of an arbor for a ceremony or in the awesome silence created by the space within a cathedral or a grove of old-growth Redwoods), and the patient readiness for Being to be brought to language. Given the appropriate bearing and evocation through language, human beings can become aware of dwelling, along with all other existent beings, within Being the open realm within which entities are released into presence (Gelassenhait or releasement). What comes to the fore in suspension of willed manipulation is an embrace of other beings and the enduring process of evolution within which all beings emerge and develop. By reflecting on or experiencing oneself within the dimension of freedom that is the domain through which all beings pass, human beings can repair the willed manipulation inherent in calculative thinking and realize a patient equanimity toward Life. It is only in the context of this reawakened sense of the unity of life that revolutionary action gains an authentic basis. It is the engagement with the Other that shows the ELF actions are truly about defense of plant and animal life, and they demonstrate genuine liberation concerns that typically are trapped within Enframing. That is to say, ELF (and similar) actions, show themselves as part of a dynamic and necessary historical evolution and transformation process, not merely a gesture of opposition and negation, because of their profound solidarity with animals and the Earth. Such guidance solidarity thus serves as a general basis for a post-Enframing, post-capitalist order, an ecological, not a capitalist society. What will change is, first, the preeminence of Enframing as that which animates the epoch and, correspondingly, our relationship to technology. No longer will technical solutions be sought after in realms of activity where technique is not applicable. No longer will everyday activities be pervaded by the standardization and frenzied pace of technology. No longer will nature be looked upon as a homogenous field of resources to be extracted and exploited. No longer will resource-intensive and polluting technologies be utilized simply because they serve the blind interests of corporations over the needs of the Earth. No longer will human beings take from the Earth without thought of the far-reaching consequences of such actions on all present and future forms of life. Critics would wrongly denounce this position as atavistic, primitivist, or anti-science/technology. But as the turning toward the re-emergence of Being unfolds, both through revolutionary action rooted in solidarity with nature and through new, non-exploitative modes of acting in the world, technics will not disappear; instead, the limits of technology as a mode of revealing will begin to be discerned so that new forms and uses of technology can emerge. Questions about technology will center on whether a given technology can be developed and used so that plant and animal life can appear as it is and not be reduced to standing reserve. The question, for Heidegger, is not whether technology, in the sense of a set of tools, is done away with, but whether Enframing is surmounted. It is in this sense of releasement Heidegger writes, Mortals dwell in that they save the earth.Saving does not only snatch something from a danger. To save really means to set something free intro its own presencing. I take this as the literal equivalent of the masked ALF activist reclaiming a puppy from a research lab so that it can become a dog rather than a unit of research, or an ELF activist who stops the destruction of an aquifer or forest so that it can remain an aquifer or forest rather than become a water or wood resource. It is just this new ethos which must guide a revolutionary reconstruction of society on grounds that preserve the openness to Being and the ability of each kind of being to become what it is in its essence. For those who charge Heidegger with merely recycling, and not transcending, Western anthropocentrism, it is important to note that there are possibilities here for an emerging post-humanism a new orientation to nature beyond egocentric forms of human agency and towards interrelation with other beings and Being itself. Heideggers philosophy allows for multiple modes of engagement with others and nature as equals, all of them rooted in a relationship of solidarity, respect, and concern. I call this kind of pluralistic, egalitarian, and ecological outlook ontological anarchism. It begins with the rejection of illegitimate rule of metaphysical constructs that have served to justify unlimited technological appropriation of the world. In place of Enframing with its subjectivist metaphysical underpinnings, ontological anarchism proclaims a multiplicity of forms of experience in which a sense of revealing comes to the fore such as in art, music, religion, and philosophy. One such experience, a pre-dominant theme of spiritual re-awakening in the ELF communiques, is found in Native American philosophy and practice.

T- IncentivesA. Interpretation: Its is a possessive pronoun showing ownershipGlossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005 (http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)B. Violation the aff provides an incentive for the plan-it doesnt actually develop the planC. Voting issue 1. Limits incentives introduce multiple new mechanisms its hugeMoran, 86 (Theodore, Investing in Development: New Roles for Private Capital?, p. 28)

Guisinger finds that if incentivesare broadly defined to include tariffs and trade controls along with tax holidays, subsidized loans, cash grants, and other fiscal measures, they comprise more than forty separate kinds of measures. Moreover, the author emphasizes, the value of an incentive package is just one of several means that governments use to lure foreign investors. Other methodsfor example, promotional activities (advertising, representative offices) and subsidized government servicesalso influence investors location decisions. The author points out that empirical research so far has been unable to distinguish the relative importance of fundamental economic factors and of government policies in decisions concerning the location of foreign investmentlet alone to determine the effectiveness of individual government instruments.2. Negative ground they kill core negative strategies like privates counterplans and legal barrier solvency deficits

3. FX T the aff incentivizes private development. They dont mandate it happens. They could spike links based on time and politics is core negative ground4. Extra T the aff is a permitting change, not a mandate for action. Impossible to garner competition and even if we get a link there is an aff side structural bias in the literature you have to reject themPrefer competing interpretations-reasonability is a slippery slope and causes judge intervention

CP

Text: The 29 states, Washington D.C. and other territories should collaborate to provide a long-term investment tax credit for oceanic offshore wind energy and mandate oceanic offshore wind is included as a substantial component of all state Renewable Portfolio Standards

It solvesLevitan 13 - writes about energy, the environment, and health. His articles have been published by Scientific American, Discover, IEEE Spectrum, Grist, and others. In previous articles for Yale Environment 360, he has written about vehicle-to-grid technology for electric cars and cities' efforts to recycle food scraps and organic waste (Dave, Will Offshore Wind Finally Take Off on U.S. East Coast?, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/will_offshore_wind_finally_take_off_on_us_east_coast/2693/)//BBThe U.S. has no national renewable energy target, but 29 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted their own. Northeastern states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been aggressively pursuing renewables, and there is now legislation in New Jersey and Maryland specifically targeting offshore wind development. Kevin Jones, deputy director of the Institute for Energy and the Environment at the Vermont Law School, says he is optimistic about the development of offshore wind, especially in the Northeast, in part because there are so few other options for renewables in the region and the opposition to onshore wind continues to grow. If natural gas prices remain low I think the offshore industry is going to need public policy support rather than federal subsidy, but it can happen if the Northeastern states work together to achieve economies of scale, says Jones. That collaboration could include states collectively mandating that utility companies purchase a set amount of electricity from offshore wind farms.

DANo support for Ocean reformMigliaccio 14 JD @ Vermont Law School (Emily, NOTE: THE NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY: CAN IT REDUCE MARINE POLLUTION AND STREAMLINE OUR OCEAN BUREAUCRACY?, 15 Vt. J. Envtl. L. 629)The Obama Administration issued Executive Order 13,547, intending for Congress to "show support for effective implementation of the NOP, including the establishment of an ocean investment fund"--the hope being that Congress would codify the Order in subsequent legislation. 130 At present, Congress is wrestling with some bills relating to the NOP; however, not all proposals support the policy. For example, the House has adopted an amendment to the Water Resources and Development Act ("WRDA") 131 that would bar the Obama Administration from implementing marine spatial planning under the WRDA, specifically "preventing the Army Corps of Engineers and other entities that receive money from the bill from implementing such planning as part of the National Ocean Policy." 132 Then again, also before Congress is a bill that seeks to establish a National Endowment for the Oceans, which would fund programs and activities to "restore, protect, maintain, or understand living marine resources and their habitats and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. . . ." 133 For this bill to pass, House and Senate members must agree to prioritize ocean conservation and research, and allocate funds to [647] the initiative. Although the NOP [National Ocean Policy] is appearing on the Congressional docket, it is hard to find hope for successful ocean reform in the current congressional atmosphere.

TPA will pass soon but every vote counts and will be needed for passageNeedham 4-30, (Vicki, Reporter for the Hill). "Ryan 'reasonably Optimistic' on Trade Bill."TheHill. TheHill, 30 Apr. 2015. Web. 05 May 2015. .Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) expressed optimism on Thursday that the House will pass a bill that would expedite trade agreements through Congress amid speculation that GOP opposition to it is growing. I feel reasonably optimistic, Ryan told reporters at a breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor in Washington. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee wouldn't provide any estimates as to how many Republicans might defect while pushing back against the notion that Republican dissent on the bill had climbed as high as 75 lawmakers. "I don't think it captures where we are, I dont think its an accurate reflection of where we are, he said in response to a figure in a Politico article. He said that, once Republicans see that trade promotion authority, or fast-track, constricts the Obama administration from making decisions without congressional input, those arguments against the bill pretty much fade away. He said most of the concern is rooted in an outdated, 13-year-old version of fast-track combined with a reflexive reaction to giving the president any more perceived power. When they understand it, they support it, he said of his party's lawmakers. With the Senate expected to go first on its bill, the House is likely to pass fast-track sometime next month, although Ryan argued it will require Democratic help. Its going to require both parties to work together to get it done, he said. He called on President Obama to deliver votes and argued, I dont think Democrats want to see him fail on such a major issue. Ryan called the updated version of fast-track a belt and suspenders approach to giving Congress the power it needs to steer trade negotiations while ensuring accountability on the objectives by the Obama administration and giving U.S. trading partners the assurances they need to put their best offers on the table. Estimates of Democratic support among House lawmakers are hovering around 15 to 20 lawmakers. Democrats are simultaneously ramping up their lobbying efforts of their own members. A majority of the New Democrat Coalition is heading to the White House later Thursday for a meeting with the president to craft a strategy to attract more Democratic votes. On other issues, Ryan said he is still working on a fix for the Highway Trust Fund with Ways and Means Committee ranking member Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the panels ranking member. He said the leaders are looking for about $10 billion to extend the fund, which expires at the end of the month, for the remainder of the year, mostly to deal with road construction. He said estimates are still being run on how to pay for that extension. The Wisconsin Republican also said his eventual goal is to flatten individual tax rates into the mid-20 percent range. Ryan stuck to his previous statements in saying that he wants to complete at least a phase one on tax reform sometime this summer and leave the fall open for any extender bills. Ocean policy has empirically been polarizedEilperin, The Washington Post, 12 [Juliet, October 28, 2012, The Washington Post, National ocean policy sparks partisan fight, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html, accessed 7/7/14, GNL]Partisan battles are engulfing the nations ocean policy, showing that polarization over environmental issues doesnt stop at the waters edge. For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights. Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue the countrys patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obamas July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact. The council, for example, is trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishermen want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them removed. Still, activists invoking the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels traveling through national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panels top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said that opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess or lead to dire consequences. Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the policy was like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms. An environmental group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him. The sharp rhetoric puzzles academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L. Patrick. The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. Whats not to love? Kaufman said, adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination. Nearly a decade ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore. When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in Massachusetts, he warned that without it there could be a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a first come, first served basis. In Washington, however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of the country the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific to set up regional bodies to offer input. White House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or change congressional mandates. It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our oceans. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that the administrations broad definition of what affects the ocean including runoff from land could open the door to regulating all inland activities, because all water going downhill goes into the ocean. ... That potential could be there. The House voted in May to block the federal government from spending money on implementing the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate. Two influential groups anglers and energy firms have joined Republicans in questioning the administrations approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nations oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters. The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to be racheted down, said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700 members include the nations major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its final implementation plan is released, after the election. The National Ocean Policy Coalition a group based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms as well as mining, farming and chemical interests has galvanized industry opposition to the policy. Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent Greenfield, the groups executive director, said that the public has not had enough input into the development of the policy and that his group worries about the potential economic impacts of the policy on commercial or recreational activity. Sarah Cooksey, who is Delawares coastal-programs administrator and is slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantics regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the books. No government wants another layer of bureaucracy, she said. In Southerlands reelection race, Ocean Champions has labeled the congressman Ocean Enemy #1 and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against Southerland on the grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are regional, this is the first issue Ive seen thats become partisan. I do not think it will be the last.

PC is key to TPA and trade dealsthat solves structural impediments that otherwise tank the economy (get a more recent card bruh) (This card is so good. Look at the initials at the end of it) (get a more recent card. And someone take me to the RR) (This card is awesome, and Joseph will take you to the RR if you admit how great this card is)Wall Street Journal 12-28 (Charles Boustany and Robert B. Zoellick, Mr. Boustany (R., La.) is a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he serves on the Subcommittee on Trade. Mr. Zoellick served as U.S. trade representative, deputy secretary of state, and president of the World Bank., 12-28-2014, "A Trade Opportunity for Obama and the New Congress", WSJ, http://www.wsj.com/articles/charles-boustany-and-robert-b-zoellick-a-trade-opportunity-for-obama-and-the-new-congress-1419811308, Accessed: 12-29-2014) JOProf. Richard Neustadt explained to President John F. Kennedy that the presidency relied on the power to persuade. Its time for Mr. Obama to persuade on trade. He must make use of the convening power of the executive to bolster his advocacy. His administration must work closely with Congressto listen, explain, address problems and cut deals. So why does trade matter? First, Americans are feeling squeezed. On the eve of the election, Pew Research reported that 79% of Americans considered the economy to be poor or at best fair. A boost in U.S. trade can increase wages and lower living expenses for familiesoffering higher earnings and cutting taxes on trade. Manufacturing workers who produce exports earn, on average, about 18% more, according to the Commerce Department. Their pay raise can be traced to the higher productivity of competitive exporting businesses. Since World War II, U.S. trade policy has focused on lowering barriers to manufacturing and agricultural products. But U.S. trade negotiators also use free-trade agreements (FTAs) to pry open service sectors and expand e-commerce. In recent years, such business services as software, finance, architecture and engineering employed 25% of American workers, more than twice as many as worked in manufacturing. Business service employees earned over 20% more than the average manufacturing job, and the U.S. consistently runs a trade surplus in business services. Over the past five years, the World Bank reports, about 75% of the worlds growth has been in emerging markets, which generally have higher barriers to trade. As Americas highly productive farmers and ranchers have seen, growing world markets are the drivers of higher sales. With the boom in U.S. energy innovation and production, fuel exports could spur more investment and jobs in that sector, too. American families, and businesses, benefit from higher incomes and lower-priced imports. The World Trade Organization reports that the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round, the last big global trade agreement, have increased the purchasing power of an average American family of four by $1,300 to $2,000 every year. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the new trade deals in the works could offer that family another $3,000 or more a year. Second, the U.S. and world economies desperately need a shift from extraordinary governmental spending and zero-interest-rate monetary policies to growth led by the private sector. Sustained growth can only be generated by private investment, innovation and purchases. American companies need greater confidence in free-enterprise policies before investing their big cash reserves. Trade policy offers an international partnership to overcome structural impediments to growth. The negotiations for the TPP, for example, aim to create an open trade and investment network among the U.S., six current FTA partners, and five new ones. The biggest additional market is Japan, a pivotal Pacific ally. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to use the TPP to press his own economy toward more competition, without which his goal of reviving Japan will falter. Vietnam and Malaysia would also take part; they believe they can use the rules and disciplines of the TPP to boost growth, improve industries and services, expand global linkages, and avoid the so-called middle income trap, where countries lack of productivity growth slows the rise to higher incomes.Nuclear war Harris, member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit, and Burrows, counselor in the NIC, 09 [Mathew J. Burrows is a counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, Jennifer Harris is a member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit, Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, The Washington Quarterly, April, http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, accessed: 7/13/13] Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attack and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world. What Kind of World will 2025 Be? Perhaps more than lessons, history loves patterns. Despite widespread changes in the world today, there is little to suggest that the future will not resemble the past in several respects. The report asserts that, under most scenarios, the trend toward greater diffusion of authority and power that has been ongoing for a couple of decades is likely to accelerate because of the emergence of new global players, the worsening institutional deficit, potential growth in regional blocs, and enhanced strength of non-state actors and networks. The multiplicity of actors on the international scene could either strengthen the international system, by filling gaps left by aging post-World War II institutions, or could further fragment it and incapacitate international cooperation. The diversity in both type and kind of actor raises the likelihood of fragmentation occurring over the next two decades, particularly given the wide array of transnational challenges facing the international community. Because of their growing geopolitical and economic clout, the rising powers will enjoy a high degree of freedom to customize their political and economic policies rather than fully adopting Western norms. They are also likely to cherish their policy freedom to maneuver, allowing others to carry the primary burden for dealing with terrorism, climate change, proliferation, energy security, and other system maintenance issues. Existing multilateral institutions, designed for a different geopolitical order, appear too rigid and cumbersome to undertake new missions, accommodate changing memberships, and augment their resources. Nongovernmental organizations and philanthropic foundations, concentrating on specific issues, increasingly will populate the landscape but are unlikely to affect change in the absence of concerted efforts by multilateral institutions or governments. Efforts at greater inclusiveness, to reflect the emergence of the newer powers, may make it harder for international organizations to tackle transnational challenges. Respect for the dissenting views of member nations will continue to shape the agenda of organizations and limit the kinds of solutions that can be attempted. An ongoing financial crisis and prolonged recession would tilt the scales even further in the direction of a fragmented and dysfunctional international system with a heightened risk of conflict. The report concluded that the rising BRIC powers (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) seem averse to challenging the international system, as Germany and Japan did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but this of course could change if their widespread hopes for greater prosperity become frustrated and the current benefits they derive from a globalizing world turn negative.WarmingNo impactIBD, 14 (5/13/2014, Investors Business Daily, Obama Climate Report: Apocalypse Not, Factiva, JMP)Climate: Not since Jimmy Carter falsely spooked Americans about overpopulation, the world running out of food, water and energy, and worsening pollution, has a president been so filled with doom and gloom as this one. Last week's White House report on climate change was a primal scream to alarm Americans into action to save the earth from a literal meltdown. Maybe we should call President Obama the Fearmonger in Chief. While scientists can argue until the cows come home about what will happen in the future with the planet's climate, we do have scientific records on what's already happened. Obama moans that the devastation from climate change is already here as more severe weather events threaten to imperil our very survival. But, according to the government's own records which presumably the White House can get severe weather events are no more likely now than they were 50 or 100 years ago and the losses of lives and property are much less devastating. Here is what government data reports and top scientists tell us about extreme climate conditions: Hurricanes: The century-long trend in Hurricanes is slightly down, not up. According to the National Hurricane Center, in 2013, "There were no major hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin for the first time since 1994. And the number of hurricanes this year was the lowest since 1982." According to Dr. Ryan Maue at Weather Bell Analytics, "We are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the U.S. (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5)" Tornadoes: Don't worry, Kansas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says there has been no change in severe tornado activity. "There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years." Extreme heat and cold temperatures: NOAA's U.S. Climate Extremes Index of unusually hot or cold temperatures finds that over the last 10 years, five years have been below the historical mean and five above the mean. Severe drought/extreme moisture: While higher than average portions of the country were subjected to extreme drought/moisture in the last few years, the 1930's, 40's and 50's were more extreme in this regard. In fact, over the last 10 years, four years have been below the average and six above the average. Cyclones: Maue reports: "the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low." Floods: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., past chairman of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, reports, "floods have not increased in the U.S. in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940." Warming: Even NOAA admits a "lack of significant warming at the Earth's surface in the past decade" and a pause "in global warming observed since 2000." Specifically, NOAA last year stated, "since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth's global mean surface temperature has been close to zero." Pielke sums up: "There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change. ... It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the U.S. or globally." One big change between today and 100 years ago is that humans are much more capable of dealing with hurricanes and earthquakes and other acts of God. Homes and buildings are better built to withstand severe storms and alert systems are much more accurate to warn people of the coming storms. As a result, globally, weather-related losses have actually decreased by about 25% as a proportion of GDP since 1990. The liberal hubris is that government can do anything to change the earth's climate or prevent the next big hurricane, earthquake or monsoon. These are the people in Washington who can't run a website, can't deliver the mail and can't balance a budget. But they are going to prevent droughts and forest fires. The President's doomsday claims last week served mostly to undermine the alarmists' case for radical action on climate change. Truth always seems to be the first casualty in this debate. This is the tactic of tyrants. Americans are wise to be wary about giving up our basic freedoms and lowering our standard of living to combat an exaggerated crisis.

Wind increases emissions and is unreliableLea, 12 --- director and economic adviser at the Arbuthnot Banking Group (January 2012, Ruth, Electricity Costs: The folly of wind power, http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf,)Wind-power is not effective in cutting CO 2 emissions At first glance it could be assumed that wind-power could play a major part in cutting CO 2 emissions. Once the turbines are manufactured (an energy-intensive business in itself) and installed then emissions associated with the electricity could be expected to be zero - as indeed for nuclear power. But, as pointed out in chapter 2, wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) or with uncontrolled variability (intermittency). Clearly the CO 2 emissions associated with using back-up capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying wind turbines. This is all the more relevant given the relatively high CO2 emissions from conventional plants when they are used in a back-up capacity. As energy consultant David White has written:5 ... (fossil -fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this supporting role because it is being used to balance a reasonably predictable but fluctuating demand with a variable and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines. Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally. ... it seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation. 6 In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on normal windy days in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. 7,8 Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. Conclusions Britain has committed itself to draconian cuts in CO2 emissions. On the basis of the costings discussed in chapter 2, nuclear power and gas-fired CCGT were the preferred technologies for generating reliable and affordable electricity. On the basis of the evidence presented above, these two technologies are also the preferred technologies for reducing CO2 emissions. Wind-power fails the test on both counts. It is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO2 emissions. If it were not for the renewables targets set by the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting emissions. The renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU.

Squo solves VOLCANOS---their evidence overestimates because it ignores external cooling factorsSanter 14 PhD in Climatology, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and former researcher at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit(Benjamin, Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2098)//BBDespite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability3, 4, 6, 7, external cooling influences1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and observational errors12, 13. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions1, 2, 4, 8 to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.

They cant solvelimited capacity Giordano 10 JD, served four years of active duty in the United States Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer where he gained unique training, experiences, and insights for working with people and solving complex problems(Michael, ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, AND THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149)//BBOne of the things keeping the offshore wind energy industry from growing is a lack of sufficient technology. Expanded growth of the offshore wind industry will depend on research, development, and innovation. 46 Areas of technological need include improved reliability, greater environmental compatibility, and cost reduction. 47 Technological advances must address these areas of need with regard not just to the design of turbines but also to the installation process and maintenance.At present, offshore wind turbines are basically larger versions of onshore wind turbines that have been adapted to the marine environment. 48 The current foundation system for offshore wind [1156] turbines consists of large steel tubes called monopiles, which are typically embedded twenty-five to thirty meters below the mud line. 49 Monopile designs are considered appropriate for waters up to thirty meters deep. 50 Offshore wind farms use large turbines "ranging from the Vestas V-80 2 MW turbine to GE Wind's 3.6 MW turbine to Repower's 126 m diameter, 5 MW turbine." 51Present foundation technology limits the offshore wind energy industry's ability to harness the full potential of offshore wind energy. The strongest and most consistent winds blow above waters deeper than thirty meters. 52 A marginal "10% increase in wind speed creates a 33% increase in available energy." 53 Thus, meaningful growth of offshore wind energy is dependent upon the research and development of new technologies that enable developers to place turbines in deep water. Some anticipate the creation of "stiffer, multi-pile configurations with broader bases suitable for water depths up to 60 m or greater." 54 From there, many expect that foundations will transition even further, toward floating turbine structures that would be fastened and secured to the ocean floor by wires. 55 Such a transition would have to make use of existing technologies from the oil and natural gas industries, which already use floating platforms. 56 Unlike oil and gas projects on the OCS, wind projects require fast, modular installations that can be replicated easily due to the anticipated frequency of maintenance. 57 Researchers believe that "the biggest challenge [1157] for deepwater wind turbines will be to merge the mature but expensive technologies borne of the oil and gas industry with the experience of low-cost economic drivers fueling the shallow water offshore wind energy industry." 58

Wind doesnt solve global warmingBurnett 4 - Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)(Sterling, Wind power: Not green, but red, http://www.dailyrecordnews.com/news/wind-power-not-green-but-red/article_dd3a5dc3-058a-5f5b-9bac-84c34897151e.html?mode=jqm)//BBWind powers environmental benefits are usually overstated, while its significant environmental harms are often ignored. Promised air pollution improvements have failed to materialize. Wind farms generate power only when the wind is blowing within a certain range of speed. When there is too little wind, wind towers dont generate power; but when the wind is too strong, they must be shut down for fear of being blown down. Even when they function properly, wind farms average output is less than 30 percent of their theoretical capacity compared to 85 to 95 percent for combined-cycle gas fired plants. Because of intermittency problems, wind farms need conventional power plants to supplement the power they do supply. Bringing a conventional power plant on line to supply power is not as simple as turning on a switch; therefore most redundant fossil fuel power stations must run, even if at reduced levels, continuously. Accordingly, very little fossil-fired electricity will be displaced and few emissions will be avoided because fossil-fueled units (operating at less than their peak capacity and efficiency or operating in spinning reserve mode which means they are emitting more pollution per energy produced than if operating at peak efficiency, imagine a car idling near train tracks in case the power goes out) must be kept immediately available to supply electricity when the output from wind turbines drop because wind speed slows or falls below minimums required to power the turbines. Kilowatt-hours produced by wind turbines cannot be assumed displace the emissions associated with an equal number of kWh from fossil-fueled generating units. Combined with the pollutants emitted and CO2 released in the manufacture and maintenance of wind towers and their associated infrastructure, substituting wind power for fossil fuels does not improve air quality very much. The economy is empirically resilient to shocksits survived much worseMorningstar 13 1/19/13(Morningstar provides data on more than 385,000 investment offerings, including stocks, mutual funds, and similar vehicles, along with real-time global market data on more than 8 million equities, indexes, futures, options, commodities, and precious metals, in addition to foreign exchange and Treasury markets. Morningstar also offers investment management services through its registered investment advisor subsidiaries and has more than $186 billion in assets under advisement and management as of June 30, 2012. The company has operations in 27 countries. U.S. Economy Not So Fragile After All, http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=581616)No, the U.S. Economy Has Not Been Fragile After All. Although most economists got at least some things right about the U.S. economy over the past two years, the one nearly universal error was the expectation that the economy was fragile.The U.S. economy has proven to be anything but fragile. I believe this to be the single biggest error that economists have made over the last two years. During that time, the U.S. has survived the fallout from a major debt crisis in Europe, a divisive election, temporarily going over the fiscal cliff, gasoline prices that have been on a yo-yo, a tsunami in Japan, and Hurricane Sandy, which shut down New York and even the stock exchanges for a couple of days. These are not signs of a fragile economy.Not key to global econ

Decoupling solves the impactKeane 4/13/14 (Tom Keane, Globe Columnist, citing IMF data, World economy no longer hangs on the US, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/12/world-economy-longer-hangs/GRC0rfo0QP2YT5q4qpFw8L/story.html, Keerthi, Acc 4/21/14)The US economy is big, but relatively speaking, not as big as it once was. Thirty years ago, America accounted for one-quarter of world output. Today its down to one-fifth. Thats a meaningful change. Back then we were rich, and everyone else was much less so. Now those countries especially China have gotten better off. (In fact, China, with a 15 percent share of global output, is now the second biggest economy in the world.) Some might see this as a sign of failure, of other nations getting the best of America, of the United States in decline. In truth, its a tale of success, a story of nations and people coming out of poverty, being able to live better, longer, and more productive lives. And much of that can be credited to US efforts to encourage free trade and local economic development through institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization. Still, that success has downsides. As other nations get richer and the world gets more interconnected, the United States no longer goes it alone. Indeed, thats already happening and sometimes in a negative way. The IMFs otherwise sunny outlook, for instance, worries about a host of issues that could upend growth, including Russias incursion into Ukraine, global climate change, North Korean war-mongering, and political troubles in Turkey and the Middle East. For the United States, once seemingly in control of its own and the worlds destiny, thats a novel proposition. The future is no longer solely in our hands.

No impact (Miller)

Econ decline does not breed war 93 data points proveMiller, 2k (Morris, economist, adjunct professor in the University of Ottawas Faculty of Administration, consultant on international development issues, former Executive Director and Senior Economist at the World Bank, Winter, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 25, Iss. 4, Poverty as a cause of wars? p. Proquest)The question may be reformulated. Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence.No Impact (Drezner)

No econ impactMost recent evidence flows negDaniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflictwhether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

SolvencyOffshore wind fails:Limited foundation technologyGiordano 10 JD, served four years of active duty in the United States Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer where he gained unique training, experiences, and insights for working with people and solving complex problems(Michael, ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, AND THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149)//BBOne of the things keeping the offshore wind energy industry from growing is a lack of sufficient technology. Expanded growth of the offshore wind industry will depend on research, development, and innovation. 46 Areas of technological need include improved reliability, greater environmental compatibility, and cost reduction. 47 Technological advances must address these areas of need with regard not just to the design of turbines but also to the installation process and maintenance.At present, offshore wind turbines are basically larger versions of onshore wind turbines that have been adapted to the marine environment. 48 The current foundation system for offshore wind [1156] turbines consists of large steel tubes called monopiles, which are typically embedded twenty-five to thirty meters below the mud line. 49 Monopile designs are considered appropriate for waters up to thirty meters deep. 50 Offshore wind farms use large turbines "ranging from the Vestas V-80 2 MW turbine to GE Wind's 3.6 MW turbine to Repower's 126 m diameter, 5 MW turbine." 51Present foundation technology limits the offshore wind energy industry's ability to harness the full potential of offshore wind energy. The strongest and most consistent winds blow above waters deeper than thirty meters. 52 A marginal "10% increase in wind speed creates a 33% increase in available energy." 53 Thus, meaningful growth of offshore wind energy is dependent upon the research and development of new technologies that enable developers to place turbines in deep water. Some anticipate the creation of "stiffer, multi-pile configurations with broader bases suitable for water depths up to 60 m or greater." 54 From there, many expect that foundations will transition even further, toward floating turbine structures that would be fastened and secured to the ocean floor by wires. 55 Such a transition would have to make use of existing technologies from the oil and natural gas industries, which already use floating platforms. 56 Unlike oil and gas projects on the OCS, wind projects require fast, modular installations that can be replicated easily due to the anticipated frequency of maintenance. 57 Researchers believe that "the biggest challenge [1157] for deepwater wind turbines will be to merge the mature but expensive technologies borne of the oil and gas industry with the experience of low-cost economic drivers fueling the shallow water offshore wind energy industry." 58Limited turbine capacityGiordano 10 JD, served four years of active duty in the United States Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer where he gained unique training, experiences, and insights for working with people and solving complex problems(Michael, ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, AND THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149)//BBPresent constraints on turbine capacity also limit the amount of wind energy that can be harnessed for electricity. The power and productivity of wind turbines increases as turbine tower height and the area swept by the turbine blades increase. 59 For example, an increase in rotor diameter from ten meters to fifty meters "yields a 55-fold increase in yearly electricity output" because of the increase of the tower height and the size of the swept area. 60 Added costs due to the construction and operation of offshore wind farms can be absorbed more easily if the wind farm is able to generate more electricity. Most believe that offshore wind projects will need 5 MW or larger turbines to capture wind power and reach the economies of scale needed to make long-distance offshore sites financially viable. 61No installation vesselsGiordano 10 JD, served four years of active duty in the United States Navy as a Surface Warfare Officer where he gained unique training, experiences, and insights for working with people and solving complex problems(Michael, ALLEN CHAIR ISSUE 2010: ENVISIONING ENERGY: ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, AND THE ENERGY FUTURE: COMMENT: OFFSHORE WINDFALL: WHAT APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES' FIRST OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT MEANS FOR THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY, 44 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1149)//BBThe installation process also brings technological challenges to the offshore wind energy industry. In order to install offshore wind turbines, developers will need to hire a fleet of vessels including "barges with compensated cranes, leg stabilized feeder fleets, oil and gas dynamic positioning vessels, and floating heavy lift cranes." 62 "This imposes a limitation on American offshore wind development, since all vessels used for construction and operations and maintenance (O&M) have been European," 63 and United States law mandates that only United States-based vessels may work in United States waters, with little exception. 64 Thus, growth of domestic offshore wind energy also depends on the construction of new, customized vessels in the United States. Technology must also find ways to address uncertainties associated with connecting to the electrical grid and finding ways to [1158] assemble turbines at nearby land locations just prior to installation in the seabed.Stakeholder oppositionMcDonnell, 13 (Tim, 2/28/2013, Why the US still doesn't have a single offshore wind turbine; Here's a look at the top four reasons why offshore wind remains elusive in the US, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/28/windpower-renewableenergy, JMP) 2. Blowback from "stakeholders": Whale and bird lovers. Defenders of tribal lands. Fishermen. The Koch brothers. Since it was proposed in 2001, Cape Wind, a wind farm whose backers say could provide 75 percent of Cape Cod's energy needs, has been run through a bewildering gauntlet of opponents and fought off more than a dozen lawsuits on everything from boat traffic interference to desecration of sacred sites to harming avian and marine life. Just down the seaboard another major project, Deepwater Wind, had to negotiate concerns that its turbines would throw a roadblock in the migratory pathways of endangered right whales. Alliance for Nantucket Sound, Cape Wind's main opposition group, claims the project "threatens the marine environment and would harm the productive, traditional fisheries of Nantucket Sound." Last summer's "Cape Spin" is an excellent "tragicomic" rundown of the controversy: Of course, there's another powerful factor at play here: NIMBYism. No one could put it better than fossil fuel magnate Bill Koch, owner of a $20 million Cape Cod beachfront estate and donor of $1.5 million to ANS: "I don't want this in my backyard. Why would you want to sail in a forest of windmills?" Why indeed. But Catherine Bowes, a senior analyst with the National Wildlife Federation, says while there are legitimate concerns for wildlife, Cape Wind and Deepwater have both bent over backwards to accommodate them. "I think there's an attempt at hijacking" the wildlife message by the NIMBYers, she says. "Wildlife issues are often used as a reason to oppose a project even by those who have never cared about animals before." Many of the nation's leading environmental organizationsincluding the NWF, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Clubhave come out in favor of the project. It's easy to see why, Bowes says: "We know that the biggest threat to wildlife is global warming."

Offshore wind is not competitive --- will kill investmentTaylor, 12 (8/10/2012, Phil, E&E reporter, OFFSHORE WIND: With advance of tax credit and OCS leases, optimism builds in nascent U.S. industry, http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/08/10/1)Still, skeptics of Interior's offshore wind energy program, known as "smart from the start," include the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank led by a former oil industry lobbyist, which last month criticized the cost of new projects. "It is 'dead in the water' because offshore wind energy is 3.4 times more expensive than onshore wind energy," the group said in a July 26 blog post, "making it not a prudent investment compared to other renewable alternatives for electricity generation."