OMEGA Aff Supplement

Case

AT Invasive Species Turn AT Endocrine

Disruption
There are numerous alt causes to endocrine disruption
W.H.O., 2/19/2013, (World Health Organization), effects of human

exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals examined in landmark UN report,

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/hormone_disrupting_201
30219/en/
Some substances can alter the hormonal system Human health depends on a well-functioning endocrine
system to regulate the release of certain hormones that are essential for functions such as metabolism,
growth and development, sleep and mood. Some substances known as endocrine disruptors can alter the

Some EDCs
occur naturally, while synthetic varieties can be found in pesticides,
electronics, personal care products and cosmetics. They can also be
found as additives or contaminants in food. The UN study, which is the most
function(s) of this hormonal system increasing the risk of adverse health effects.

comprehensive report on EDCs to date, highlights some associations between exposure to EDCs and health
problems including the potential for such chemicals to contribute to the development of non-descended
testes in young males, breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men, developmental effects on the
nervous system in children, attention deficit /hyperactivity in children and thyroid cancer. Human

EDCs can enter the environment mainly

through industrial and urban discharges, agricultural run-off and the
burning and release of waste. Human exposure can occur via the
ingestion of food, dust and water, inhalation of gases and particles
in the air, and skin contact. Chemical products are increasingly part
of modern life and support many national economies, but the unsound management of chemicals
exposure can occur in a number of ways

challenges the achievement of key development goals, and sustainable development for all, said UN
Under Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. Investing in new testing methods
and research can enhance understanding of the costs of exposure to EDCs, and assist in reducing risks,
maximizing benefits and spotlighting more intelligent options and alternatives that reflect a transition to a
green economy, added Mr Steiner.

No impact insufficient evidence about the impacts of

endocrine disruption
The Lancet, March 2013, endocrine-disrupting chemicals: how much of
a health threat? http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736(13)60564-4/fulltext

Several headlines that appeared in the mainstream media last week might have left some people cowering
behind their kitchen tables in fear of their Teflon-coated saucepans. Everyday objects trying to kill you,

The media were reporting

the findings of a new report by WHO and the UN Environment ProgrammeState of the Science of
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. The report warns that synthetic chemicals could have
said one newspaper, Poisoned by everyday life, said another.

substantial health implications and it calls for more research to understand fully the associations between

Around 800
chemicals are thought to be capable of interfering with hormone
receptors, hormone synthesis, or hormone conversion. Some EDCs occur naturally,
endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and many household and industrial products.

whereas synthetic varieties can be found in pesticides, electronics, and cosmetics. They can enter the
environment through industrial, urban, or agricultural processes, and human exposure can occur via

ingestion of food, dust, and water, inhalation of gases, or direct skin contact. The report makes
several fair pointseg, many endocrine-related diseases and disorders are on the rise, the disease risk due
to EDCs might be underestimated because human beings are exposed to a combination of EDCs, and the

goes too far in singling out

associations with particular disorders when the evidence is largely or
completely speculative . For example, the report discusses potential links between thyroid
disruptors and increased thyroid cancer risk, but as it notes there is very limited evidence
at present for associations between EDCs and thyroid cancer (the major
health risk of such mixtures is poorly studied. However, it

evidence being a single fairly poor-quality study looking at pesticide exposure). A link with thyroid
disruptors and autism is also mentioned but such a link is purely speculative. Perhaps the most important

there is currently no widely agreed system for

assessing the strength of evidence of associations between
exposures to chemicals (including EDCs) and adverse health
outcomes. Clearly, such a system is badly needed.
point the report makes is that

AT Picking Winners Bad (SQ Cant Solve the

Aff)
Must pick a winner the status quo is insufficient to solve
the aff
Mary Rosenthal, 1/12/2011, (Rosenthal is the Executive Director of the
Algal Biomass Organization), Biofuels Digest, View from the top: federal
investments in energy infrastructure: whats worked before can work again,
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/01/12/view-from-the-top-federalinvestments-in-energy-infrastructure-what%E2%80%99s-worked-before-canwork-again/
Theres no doubt that the long-term trend of rising gas prices will
lead to increased calls for domestic alternatives to petroleum . Lets hope
that Congress realizes the true potential for domestic alternatives is above ground in the form of algaeto-biofuels technology being developed in commercial projects, universities, national labs and

But rising gas prices in and of themselves

wont be enough to create sufficient demand for algae biofuels. The
federal government must follow its long history of investing in
national energy initiatives. While the extension of the biofuels tax credits were a strong show
entrepreneurs business plans across the country.

of support for biofuels, more needs to be done. Recently, any call for increased government funding or

I
would be remiss if I didnt point out that our fossil-based brethren
(coal and oil) have benefitted from collectively hundreds of billions in
incentives, tax breaks and other forms of federal support since the
beginnings of their industries decades ago. And thats OK. Why?
Because not a single new, national, commercial-scale energy
technology and infrastructure has ever scaled up successfully
without significant financial support from the federal government.
involvement in this nascent industry has been met with criticism or concerns about subsidies.

Over the last hundred years, the federal government has consistently promoted the development of new
energy technologies and infrastructure deemed critical to the national interest.

AT States CP

Federal Action Key

Federal investment is key to algae biofuels
commercialization is impossible without it
Mary Rosenthal, 1/12/2011, (Rosenthal is the Executive Director of the

Algal Biomass Organization), Biofuels Digest, View from the top: federal
investments in energy infrastructure: whats worked before can work again,
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/01/12/view-from-the-top-federalinvestments-in-energy-infrastructure-what%E2%80%99s-worked-before-canwork-again/
With the 112th Congress now sworn in and turning its attention to the business of governing, energy is a
topic that has emerged as one area where bipartisan cooperation might be possible. And lets hope it is.
Who among us wouldnt be thrilled to hear this new Congress having a serious debate about how American
energy innovation creates jobs, grows our economy, and reduces our dependence on imported petroleum?
Discussion about how we can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy would also be
welcome news for Americas drivers, rail and trucking companies, and airlines. Just last month, the former
President of Shell projected that gas prices could hit $5 per gallon by next year. And the U.S. Energy
Information Administration is now projecting that prices for a barrel of imported crude will climb above
$115 by 2025 and even higher by 2035. Theres no doubt that the long-term trend of rising gas prices
will lead to increased calls for domestic alternatives to petroleum .

Lets hope that Congress

realizes the true potential for domestic alternatives is above ground in the form of
algae-to-biofuels technology being developed in commercial projects, universities, national labs

and entrepreneurs business plans across the country. But rising gas prices in and of themselves wont be

The federal government must

follow its long history of investing in national energy initiatives. While
enough to create sufficient demand for algae biofuels.

the extension of the biofuels tax credits were a strong show of support for biofuels, more needs to be
done. Recently, any call for increased government funding or involvement in this nascent industry has
been met with criticism or concerns about subsidies. I would be remiss if I didnt point out that our fossilbased brethren (coal and oil) have benefitted from collectively hundreds of billions in incentives, tax breaks
and other forms of federal support since the beginnings of their industries decades ago. And thats OK.
Why? Because

not a single new, national, commercial-scale energy

technology and infrastructure has ever scaled up successfully

without significant financial support from the federal government .
Over the last hundred years, the federal government has consistently promoted the development of new
energy technologies and infrastructure deemed critical to the national interest. Take hydroelectric power,
now the largest source of renewable power in the United States. In 1920, policy makers looking to diversify
the nations energy supply created the Federal Power Commission to increase the development of
hydroelectric power plants. The result is a nationwide network of hydroelectric dams that quite literally
powered us to global prosperity and that now provide our country with clean, domestically-produced
energy. Support by the federal government also played an invaluable role in the development of nuclear
energy. While more than $100 billion of government-funded research went into the development of nuclear
power for defense technologies during World War II, in the postwar era the federal government provided a
combination of loan guarantees, R&D support, and tax incentives to help commercialize the technology for
civilian use to further diversify the nations energy supply. Its important to keep in mind that the
governments unprecedented investment in fossil fuel production and infrastructure a total of $700 billion
in tax breaks, royalty relief and access to public lands has been a key factor in why gas has been so

The crucial
point here is that none of these industries not oil, not hydro, not
nuclear would have reached scale, and the country never would
have reaped the benefits of domestic energy, without significant
government support. Yet at the time, federal support for these industries was not characterized
cheap and why renewable fuels are so comparatively expensive, at least right now.

as handout or subsidies but rather as an investment to help meet the national security and domestic
economic development imperatives facing the country. We face similar challenges today. Experts like the
National Intelligence Council warn that new energy alternatives are necessary to manage long term costs
for defense, enhance energy security, and improve the capabilities of our military. The Department of

Defense recognizes the danger posed by our dependence on foreign sources of energy and is taking
impressively aggressive steps to promote the development of alternatives to fossil fuels. The Navy is
pursuing an ambitious plan to have operational its Great Green Fleet of ships, submarines and planes

The new Congress is in a position to do

make short-term investments that help make us more
energy independent, safer in the long-term and lay the foundation for continued economic
growth. Make no mistake: Federal investment in advanced biofuels
technologies will be central to fostering private sector innovation,
creating jobs and accelerating the industrys development . Its worked
powered entirely by advanced biofuels.
something:

before with the creation of nation-wide energy infrastructure, and it can work again.

Federal action is necessary only it can send the signal to

spur private investment
Jonathan Williams and Dr. Richard Sayre (Sayre is the Director of the
ERAC Institute for Renewable Fuels), 10/7/2010, Danforth Plant Science
Center, Dr. Richard Sayre of the Danforth center on the importance of
federal grants for algae research, http://www.danforthcenter.org/newsmedia/news-releases/news-item/Dr.-Richard-Sayre-of-the-Danforth-Center-onthe-Importance-of-Federal-Grants-for-Algae-Research
[Q] Where do you feel the algae industry would be right now if there had not been any federal grants?

[A]

The federal investments in algal biofuel production systems, particularly

the matching investments with industry, have sent a strong signal to the industry
that government policy makers and research scientists recognize
that algae can be a major part of our sustainable, energy
independence policy. The federal support provides confidence to the
industry and to entrepreneurs to make the kinds of investments in pilot plants
and research facilities that will move the industry more rapidly towards
commercialization

and profitability.

It is my opinion that without the

federal investment that industrial investment would have come at a

much slower pace.

Federal incentives are key to commercializing algae

biofuels only that draws private investment
Triple Helix Online, 11/17/2011, algae biodiesel: a shift to green oil?
http://triplehelixblog.com/2011/11/algae-biodiesel-a-shift-to-green-oil/

So why is the U.S., the second-leading consumer of energy in the

world, not a leading manufacturer of algae biofuel? Due to its
competitiveness as an alternative to oil, federal algae research
funding was stopped for an extended period of time . Mr. Curwin, writer for
CNBC notes, The industryneeds to get Washington on its side . Currently,
algael biofuels arent eligible for tax breaks and subsidies going to
other biofuels 8. Therefore, businesses perceive that investing in
algae biodiesel is risky because there are no incentives to
supplement research and development. Without incentives, algae
biodiesel has not been proven on a mass production scale and

suffers from high production costs. However, as recently as February of this year, there
have been impressive strides to overcome the obstacles that face the implementation of algae biodiesel.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2
per gallon and is now on track to begin large-scale refining of the fuel for a cost of less than $3 a gallon9.
Currently, the top eight firms in the U.S. that are working with algae have attracted over $350 million in
capital over the past three years, and all of them have aggressive commercialization dates for their
technologies within the next three years8. The strides in finalizing algae biofuel so far have been

maximization of algae fuels potential

depends on incentives from the federal government and ultimately on
support from its constituents.
promising, but relatively gradual. Thus,

Federal action is key a lack of certainty over tax

incentives and the RFS is curtailing biodiesel production
Timothy Cama, 5/14/2014, The Hill, Biodiesel producers cut back due to
US policies, report says, http://thehill.com/policy/energyenvironment/206152-biodiesel-producers-cut-back-due-to-us-policies-reportsays
biodiesel producers in the United States have cut back
production this year due to uncertainty over federal policies that encourage
Almost eight in 10

making the fuels, the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) said. The report released Wednesday was based on a
survey the NBB conducted. In addition to the finding that 78 percent of producers reduced output, 57
percent of companies have idle or shut down plants and 66 percent have reduced their workforces or are

companies attribute the industrys

decline to two recent policy developments: the expiration at the end of last year
of the tax credit to produce biodiesel and a proposal last year by the
Environmental Protection Agency not to increase the biodiesel mandate in the
Renewable Fuel Standard. Inconsistency in Washington is wreaking
considering it. Almost all of the surveyed

havoc on the U.S. biodiesel industry , Anne Steckel, NBBs vice president of federal
affairs, said in a statement. At a Wednesday press conference announcing the results on Capitol Hill, six

If
you look at what this industry depends on from the United States
Congress, its certainty. Its some measure of consistency in public policy, said Sen. Heidi
Democratic senators called for renewal of the tax credit and an increase in the biodiesel mandate.

Heitkamp (D-N.D.). And I have to tell you, on that score, weve failed miserably.

Federal action is key to solvency

N.B.B., 6/17/2014, (The National Biodiesel Board), Biodiesel Magazine,
Biodiesel producers, advocates from 27 states hit capitol hill,
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/105954/biodiesel-producersadvocates-from-27-states-hit-capitol-hill
Nearly 100 biodiesel producers, feedstock suppliers and other advocates are traveling to Washington, D.C.,
this week to voice concerns about the Obama administrations proposed renewable fuel standard (RFS) for

The biodiesel supporters, who will be visiting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill June 17,
industry, which has seen widespread cutbacks this
year as a result of policy setbacks in Washington . A recent national survey of
biodiesel.

arrive at a critical time for the

producers conducted by the National Biodiesel Board found that more than half have idled a plant this year
and 78 percent have reduced production from last year. Nearly two-thirds66 percenthave already laid
off employees or anticipate doing so. People are losing their jobs in this industry as we speak, and its
largely because Washington has delivered sporadic, inconsistent policy, said Anne Steckel, vice president

America
should be the world leader in biodiesel and in advanced biofuels . And
of federal affairs at NBB, the industry trade association. As President Obama has said,

we can be. But we need this administration and this Congress to stand behind
strong energy policy that encourages investment and growth.
Biodieselwhich had a record U.S. market last year of nearly 1.8 billion gallonsis made from an
increasingly diverse mix of feedstocks including recycled cooking oil, soybean oil and animal fats. It is the
only domestic, EPA-designated advanced biofuel produced on a commercial scale across the country. The
EPA has determined that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 57 percent to 86 percent. With plants in
nearly every state in the country, the industry supported more than 62,000 jobs in 2013. The biodiesel
advocates traveling to Washington represent companies in at least 27 states. Their visit will focus on
concerns about the Obama administrations RFS proposal for biodiesel, which would set biodiesel volumes
at 1.28 billion gallons, a sharp cut from last years actual production. They also will call on lawmakers to
reinstate the $1 per gallon biodiesel tax incentive, which expired on Dec. 31. The recent spike in oil
prices stemming from the situation in Iraq should remind us all why these policies are so important,

Doing that
requires massive investments and infrastructure improvements that simply wont happen
without strong energy policy. We cant keep taking one step forward and two
steps back.
Steckel added. We constantly talk about the need to reduce our dependence on oil.

AT Military CP

Solvency NDAA Prohibits

The military is prohibited from buying biofuels unless they
are cost-competitive only the aff can solve
Andy Medici, 1/3/2014, Federal Times, NDAA could hamper DoD biofuel
efforts,
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20140103/ACQ02/301030008/NDAAcould-hamper-DoD-biofuel-efforts

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 signed by President Obama on Dec.
26 would hamper the ability of the Defense Department to purchase
biofuels. The legislation bars the Defense Department from
purchasing any bulk purchases of drop-in fuel -- defined as a replacement for
traditional fuel -- until the price per gallon is equal to or less than the
price of conventional fuels. An earlier version of the legislation
specifically defined the drop-in fuel as anything plant-based .

Warming Scenario

Impact Conflict/Nuclear War

Global warming accesses every scenario for nuclear war
Peter Schwartz CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal
Dutch/Shell Group and Doug Randall, California-based Global Business
Network, October 2003 An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security, pg. 16-18,
www.stopesso.com/campaign/Pentagon.doc) found June 24, 2008, JQ)

All of that progressive behavior could collapse if carrying capacities

everywhere were suddenly lowered drastically by abrupt climate
change. Humanity would revert to its norm of constant battles for diminishing resources, which the
battles themselves would further reduce even beyond the climatic effects. Once again warfare
would define human life. The two most likely reactions to a sudden drop in carrying
capacity due to climate change are defensive and offensive. The United States and Australia are likely to
build defensive fortresses around their countries because they have the resources and reserves to achieve
self-sufficiency. With diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources, the United
States could likely survive shortened growing cycles and harsh weather conditions without catastrophic
losses. Borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from
the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America. Energy supply will be
shored up through expensive (economically, politically, and morally) alternatives such as nuclear,
renewables, hydrogen, and Middle Eastern contracts. Pesky skirmishes over fishing rights, agricultural
support, and disaster relief will be commonplace. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rise as the U.S.
reneges on the 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River. Relief workers will be
commissioned to respond to flooding along the southern part of the east coast and much drier conditions
inland. Yet, even in this continuous state of emergency the U.S. will be positioned well compared to others.

The intractable problem facing the nation will be calming the mounting
military tension around the world. As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters
strike due to the abrupt climate change, many countries needs will exceed their
carrying capacity. This will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to
offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine eastern European countries,
struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose
population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply. Or, picture Japan,
suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water supply, eying Russias
Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants and energy-intensive

Pakistan, India, and China all armed with

nuclear weapons skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access
to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and Portuguese fishermen might fight over
agricultural processes. Envision

fishing rights leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States would be likely to

With over 200 river basins touching multiple

nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking,
irrigation, and transportation. The Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though
better secure their borders.

nine, and the Amazon runs through seven. In this scenario, we can expect alliances of convenience. The
United States and Canada may become one, simplifying border controls. Or, Canada might keep its
hydropowercausing energy problems in the US. North and South Korea may align to create one
technically savvy and nuclear-armed entity. Europe may act as a unified block curbing immigration
problems between European nations and allowing for protection against aggressors. Russia, with its

In this world of warring states,

nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. As cooling drives up demand, existing
hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin. With a scarcity of energy supply and a growing
need for access -- nuclear energy will become a critical source of power,
and this will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop
enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national
security. China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain,
abundant minerals, oil, and natural gas may join Europe.

France, and Germany will all have nuclear weapons capability, as will
Israel, Iran, Egypt, and North Korea.