Iron Fertilization Neg

Notes
Inherency Frontline
International bans only apply to commercial iron fertilization, research
projects still allowed and the ban is described as a policy role model by
the same author in the same article Stallmann 13 (Martin, Umwelt Bundesamt Press Staff, Geo-Engineering:
Commercial fertilization of oceans finally banned, 30.12.2013,
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/geo-engineeringcommercial-fertilization-of-oceans)
The lengthy international negotiations were triggered by a Planktos corporation

proposal submitted in 2007 to carry out commercial fertilization activities off the
Galapagos Islands to curb climate change, even though the effectiveness of such
interventions has not been proven. The Contracting Parties to the London Protocol
had agreed until 2010 upon non-binding control mechanisms. Then, in 2012,
another highly controversial fertilization project was carried out off the west coast of
Canada. However, previous agreements were completely ignored, thus
constituting a major reason for the Contracting Parties to agree on
binding regulations. UBA's Vice-President Thomas Holzmann remarked, "The
international ban on commercial climate and geoengineering activities and the
effective monitoring of research projects are exactly what is needed. We simply
know too little about their effects on man and the environment. For the sake of
precaution we should only allow experiments with our planet to be carried out under
strict control, for research purposes and in small steps. The new regulations of the
London Protocol take account of this and thus serve as a role model for international
environmental law in general." One significant amendment to the regulations is that
ocean fertilization as well as other marine geoengineering measures will become
easier to monitor in future. The regulations also establish criteria which must be
applied when reviewing the environmental impact of activities. Lastly, the first-ever
binding criteria were defined by which to distinguish research from commercial
activities. "These criteria can also help to reduce the negative effects of dubious
scientific activity on the environment in other areas of resource protection for
example, whale catching by Japan for supposedly scientific purposes," said Thomas
Holzmann.
Warming Frontline
CFCS responsible for global warming, not CO2-disregard iron
fertilization because they focus on CO2
Bastasch 13 (Michael Bastach, quoting studies REPORT: CO2 IS NOT
RESPOSNIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING May 30, 2013
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/30/report-co2-not-responsible-for-global-warming/2/,
HG)
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) not carbon emissions are the real culprit behind
global warming, claims a new study out of the University of Waterloo.
Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such
as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed
data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that
conventional understanding is wrong, said Qing-Bin Lu, a science professor at the
University of Waterloo and author of the study. In fact, the data shows that CFCs
conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming,
Lu said. Ads by Google Ads by CouponDropDown Lus findings were published in
the International Journal of Modern Physics B and analyzed data from 1850 to the
present. Lus study runs counter to the long-standing argument that carbon
dioxide emissions were the driving force behind global warming. Recently scientists
warned that carbon concentrations were nearing the 400 parts per million level.
Scientists say that carbon dioxide levels must be lowered to 350 ppm to avoid the
severe impacts of global warming. The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone
and should serve as a wake-up call for all of us to support clean-energy technology
and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases before its too late for our children and
grandchildren, said Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher
who is a member of the Scripps CO2 Group. Lu notes that data from 1850 to 1970
show carbon emissions increasing due to the Industrial Revolution. However, global
temperatures stayed constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests
the temperatures should have risen by 0.6C over the same period, similar to the
period of 1970-2002, reads the studys press release. Ads by Google CFCs are
nontoxic, nonflammable chemicals containing atoms of carbon, chlorine, and
fluorine that are used to make aerosol sprays, blowing agents for foams and
packing materials, as solvents, and as refrigerants according to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Montreal Protocol phased out the
production of CFCs as they were believed to be linked to ozone depletion. According
to the National Institutes of Health, CFCs are considered a greenhouse gas, like
carbon dioxide, because they absorb heat in the atmosphere and send some of it
back to the earths surface, which contributes to global warming. From the
University of Waterloo, an extraordinary claim, writes global warming blogger
Anthony Watt. While plausible, due to the fact that CFCs have very high [Global
Warming Potential] numbers, their atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2
are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by comparison to CO2.
This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation, Watt added. But, I have
to admit, the graph is visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmicray-driven electron-reaction mechanism is valid, Id say it is a case of further study
is needed, and worth funding. When Barack Obama promised to slow the earths
rising sea levels and heal the planet during the 2008 campaign, he probably had no
idea that curbing carbon dioxide emissions might not lower the sea levels. A study
published in the Journal of Geodesy found that the sea level has only risen by 1.7
millimeters per year over the last 110 years about 6.7 inches per century all
while carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have risen by a third, suggesting that
rising carbon concentrations have not impacted the rate at which sea levels are
rising. The study used data from the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment
satellite mission and analyzed continental mass variations on a global scale,
including both land-ice and land-water contributions, for 19 continental areas that
exhibited significant signals over a nine-year period from 2002 to 2011. The
results echoed a study conducted last year, which also found that sea level has
been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years. This was also
suggested by two other studies conducted in the last decade. The latest results
show once again that sea levels are not accelerating after all, and are merely
continuing their modest rise at an unchanged rate, said Pierre Gosselin, who runs
the climate skeptic blog NoTricksZone. The more alarmist sea level rise rates
some have claimed recently stem from the use of statistical tricks and the very
selective use of data. Fortunately, these fudged alarmist rates do not agree with
real-life observations. Overall the latest computed rates show that there is
absolutely nothing to be alarmed about. Other experts agree, citing data
regarding the Earths rate of rotation. For the last 40-50 years strong
observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions, writes Nils-Axel
Mrner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at
Stockholm University , in the Journal Energy and Environment. The Earths rate of
rotation records a mean acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of
a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea
levels. But in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, U.S. coastal states have been more
concerned about the possible effects of global warming on rising sea levels. A
report by 21 U.S. scientists, commissioned by Maryland Democratic Gov. Martin
OMalley, found that the sea levels are rising faster than they predicted five years
ago. Florida Keys residents are also concerned about sea levels by the island that
have risen 9 inches in the past decade, according to a tidal gauge that has operated
since pre-Civil War days. It doesnt need a lot of rocket science, said Donald
Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
Weve got tide gauges that show us sea level is increasing. This is a real
phenomenon. We should take it seriously and have to plan for it. The Maryland
report found that ocean waters and the Chesapeake Bay might only rise about one
foot by 2050, but the studys authors said that it would be prudent to plan for a twofoot rise in sea levels to account for the risks of flooding caused by storms. The
state has already seen sea levels rise by about a foot in the past century half
coming from the natural sinking of the land and the other half coming from rising
seas from a warming ocean. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has also
announced a $20 billion plan to adapt to global warming to prepare the city for
rising sea levels and hotter summers. A report commissioned by New York City
found that the number of sweltering summer days could double, maybe even triple,
and that waters surrounding the city could rise by 2 feet or more New York City can
do nothing and expose ourselves to an increasing frequency of Sandy-like storms
that do more and more damage, Bloomberg remarked. Or we can make the
investments necessary to build a stronger, more resilient New York investments
that will pay for themselves many times over in the years go to come.
CFCs are the root cause- science proves- the Montreal accords
are the key not the af
Lu 13 (QB, Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry,
COSMIC-RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRITS
FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, 5/30/13,
https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxidestudy-says, HG)
Furthermore, the substantial combined data of total solar irradiance, the sunspot number and cosmic
rays from multiple measurements have unambiguously demonstrated that the natural factors have
played a negligible efect on Earths climate since 1970. Moreover, in-depth analyses of time-series
data of CO2, halogen-containing molecules and global surface temperature have shown solid evidence
that the GH efect of increasing concentrations of non-halogen gases has been saturated (zero) in the
statistical analysis gives a nearly zero

correlation coefficient (R=-0.05) between CO2 concentration and the observed global
surface temperature corrected by the removal of the solar effect during 1850-1970.
In contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients of 0.96-0.97 is obtained
between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total level of
stratospheric halogenated molecules from the start of considerable atmospheric
CFCs in 1970 up to the present. These results strongly show that the recent global warming
observed data recorded since 1850. In particular, a
observed in the late 20th century was mainly due to the GH efect of human-made halogen-containing
molecules (mainly CFCs). Moreover, a refined calculation of the GH efect of halogenated molecules
has convincingly demonstrated that they (mainly CFCs) alone accounted for the global temperature
rise of about 0.6 C in 1970-2002. Owing to the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol ,
the globally
mean level of halogen-containing molecules in the stratosphere has entered a very
slow decreasing trend since 2002. Correspondingly, a very slow declining trend in
the global surface temperature has been observed . It is predicted that the success of the
Montreal Protocol will lead to a long-term slow return of the global surface temperature to its value in
1950-1970 for coming 50-70 years if there is no significant emission of new GH species into the
In summary, the observed data have convincingly shown that CFCs are
the major culprit not only for O3 depletion via conspiring with cosmic rays but also
for global warming by ~0.6 C during 1970~2002. The successful execution of the
Montreal Protocol has shown its fast effectiveness in controlling the O3 hole in the
polar region and a slow cooling down of the global surface temperature. The O3 loss
in the polar region is estimated to recover to its 1980 value by 2058, faster than
recently expected from photochemical model simulations,68,69 while the return
(lowering) of global surface temperature will be much slower due to the slow decline
of the stratospheric halogenated molecules in low and mid latitudes. This leads to
an interesting prediction that global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1~2
decades until the global temperature recovery dominates over the O3 hole recovery.
After that, both global surface temperature and sea level will drop concurrently. It
should also be noted that the mean global surface temperature in the next decade
atmosphere.
will keep nearly the same value as in the past decade, i.e., the hottest decade
over the past 150 years. This, however, does not agree with the warming theory of
CO2. If the latter were correct, the current global temperature would be at least
0.2~0.3 C higher than the observed value. Actually a slow cooling trend has
begun. This study also shows that correct understandings of the basic physics of
cosmic ray radiation and the Earth blackbody radiation as well as their interactions
with human-made molecules are required for revealing the fundamental
mechanisms underlying the ozone hole and global climate change. When these
understandings are presented with observations objectively, it is feasible to reach
consensuses on these scientific issues of global concern. Finally, this study points
out that humans are mainly responsible for the ozone hole and global climate
change, but international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto
Protocol must be placed on firmer scientific ground s. This information is of particular
importance not only to the research community, but to the general public and the
policy makers.
Solvency Frontline
Scientific understanding too low to issue carbon credits
doesnt efectively solve for impacts
Vaughan et Lenton 11
Naomi E. Vaughan,Ph.D. in Climate Change Mitigation and Geoengineering from
UEA, Timothy M. Lenton Ph.D. UEA. A Review of Climate Geoengineering
Proposals March 22, 2011 Online: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/609/art
%253A10.1007%252Fs10584-011-0027-7.pdf?
auth66=1406420597_973b3a1df4f85b77d214aca1fb1f9ed8&ext=.pdf
Iron fertilisation has for many years now attracted a strong commercial interest
grounded on emerging carbon markets and carbon offsetting (Chisholm et al. 2001;
Cullen and Boyd 2008). The first commercial fertilisation experiments were due to
begin in 2008, but Californian based Planktos Inc. halted operations (Courtland
2008). Currently active commercial ventures include Climos (www.climos.com) and
Planktos Science (www.planktos-science.com). There are a plethora of challenges,
contentions and potential synergies between scientific and commercially funded
ocean iron fertilisation (Leinen 2008). However, the current level of scientific
understanding regarding the efficacy of iron fertilization to sequester carbon, as well
as concerns regarding ecological and biogeochemical impacts, provides no basis to
issue carbon credits (Buesseler et al. 2008).
Nelson 13
Gabriel Nelson, Climate and Agriculture Policy Specialist, Masters from John Hopkins
SAIS, Ocean Carbon Sequestration: Solution to Climate Change or Policy
Distraction? Online: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1465556420 Summer/Fall
2013
The main body of literature focuses on fertilization, particularly iron fertilization. Iron
fertilization is controversial not only for its potentially detrimental effects on marine
ecology, but also for its perceived lack of overall benefit. A 2013 Georgia Tech
study demonstrated that individual phyto- plankton will frequently "eat" far more of
the iron fertilizer than they each need, which would significantly limit the reduction
of atmospheric carbon.18 For these reasons, it is unlikely that ocean carbon
sequestration will become widely used in the near future. If scientists can hone
their techniques and overcome the significant engineering challenges of
implementing a global enhanced weath- ering program, it seems conceivable that
ocean carbon sequestration could eventually become a useful tool for climate
change abatement. But as Profes- sor David Keith, a Harvard climate scientist,
notes, "I don't think it makes any sense to put significant effort into ocean
sequestration absent a big effort to cut emissions... [For sequestration to be
viable] it would take a significantly higher price on carbon, new governance, and
new technology."19 Ultimately, there will come a point where even large-scale
carbon sequestration will not be enough to avert climate change. Even if ocean
sequestration of any kind proves viable in the future, large-scale emissions
reduction should remain the top priority.
Oskin 14
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/iron-fertilization-global-warmingfossils_n_5006300.html
The dust level in the drill core suggests that about four to fives times more
sediment fell across the Southern Ocean between South America and Africa during
the ice age than the amount that falls there today, Martnez-Garca said. "The
magnitude of the area we are talking about is equivalent to three times the areas of
the entire United States, and is maintained for several thousand years," he told Live
Science. "This helps put into perspective what we can do in terms of the modern
ocean." The new study supported the argument that the amount of iron needed for
geoengineering is untenable in the long term, said Gabriel Filippelli, a
biogeochemist at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis. "It is difficult
to imagine even a decade-long international effort of iron fertilization, sustained by
continual ship runs dumping iron in a weather-hostile and isolated region of the
world, let alone an effort that lasts a millennium," Filippelli said. But Filippelli also
said he thinks the ice-age iron story is more complicated than just dust blowing in
the wind. "The authors note only one source of iron from above," he said. There is
also evidence that the oceans were richer in iron because of more river input during
the ice ages, he said. Thus, the ice-age ocean had extra iron from above and from
below.
Geoengineering an add on, but not alternative to emissions

mitigation
Vaughan et Lenton 11
Naomi E. Vaughan,Ph.D. in Climate Change Mitigation and Geoengineering from
UEA, Timothy M. Lenton Ph.D. UEA. A Review of Climate Geoengineering
Proposals March 22, 2011 Online: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/609/art
%253A10.1007%252Fs10584-011-0027-7.pdf?
auth66=1406420597_973b3a1df4f85b77d214aca1fb1f9ed8&ext=.pdf
Geoengineering is best considered as a potential addition to strong mitigation of
CO2 emissions, rather than as an alternative to it. Shortwave geoengineering can
rectify a global radiative imbalance, and can do so on a decadal timescale.

However, ocean acidification and residual regional climate changes would still occur
and the intervention could bring about unforeseen Earth system responses that may
in turn increase the radiative imbalance. Solar radiation management is not an
alternative to mitigation, and would have to be deployed in conjunction with carbon
dioxide removal geoengineering or maintained on timescales >10,000 years in
order to avoid extremely abrupt warming if they failed, or when the intervention
stopped. Carbon dioxide removal involves less risk than solar radiation
management geoengineering, as it acts upon the primary cause of the radiative
imbalance (atmospheric CO2) and has limited capacity for failure. However, these
measures are only really effective in the longer term. It will not be possible to return
to a pre-industrial climate on a millennial timescale without the creation of
engineered carbon sinks, e.g. carbon storage with CO2 captured from the
atmosphere, either by bio-energy or chemical processes. However, air capture and
storage is potentially limited by the capacity of geological reservoirs.
Geoengineering could be conducted by one nation or individual and would incur
global (and regionally variable) impacts. The geopolitical implications of this are
poorly understood. It is foreseeable that global consensus would have to be attained
before any large scale geoengineering were undertaken. The majority of
geoengineering options require significant amounts of research, particularly into
effectiveness and side effects. However, much of this research is hampered by the
global scale nature of the geoengineering proposals. The difficulties of verifying
effects, coupled with inevitable acceptance issues amongst the global population,
could impose a significant (if not terminal) constraint on the possible role of
geoengineering in avoiding dangerous climate change.
Their solvency evidence repeatedly stresses that international regulation

is key
Victor et al. 9 (David Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke, March/April
2009, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64829/david-g-victor-m-granger-morgan-jay-apt-john-steinbruner-andkat/the-geoengineering-option, The Geoengineering Option A Last Resort Against Global Warming?, SRB)
Serious research on geoengineering is still in its infancy, and it has not received the
attention it deserves from politicians. The time has come to take it seriously.
Geoengineering could provide a useful defense for the planet -- an emergency
shield that could be deployed if surprisingly nasty climatic shifts put vital
ecosystems and billions of people at risk. Actually raising the shield, however, would
be a political choice. One nation's emergency can be another's opportunity, and it is
unlikely that all countries will have similar assessments of how to balance the ills of
unchecked climate change with the risk that geoengineering could do more harm
than good. Governments should immediately begin to undertake serious research
on geoengineering and help create international norms governing its use.
And again
Victor et al. 9
(David Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke, March/April
The highly uncertain but possibly disastrous side effects of geoengineering

interventions are difficult to compare to the dangers of unchecked global climate
change. Chances are that if countries begin deploying geoengineering systems, it
will be because calamitous climate change is near at hand. Yet the assignment of
blame after a geoengineering disaster would be very different from the current
debates over who is responsible for climate change, which is the result of centuries
of accumulated emissions from activities across the world. By contrast, the side
effects of geoengineering projects could be readily pinned on the geoengineers
themselves. That is one reason why nations must begin building useful international
norms to govern geoengineering in order to assess its dangers and decide when to
act in the event of an impending climatic disaster.
And again
Victor et al. 9
Although governments are the most likely actors, some geoengineering options are
cheap enough to be deployed by wealthy and capable individuals or corporations.
Although it may sound like the stuff of a future James Bond movie, private-sector
geoengineers might very well attempt to deploy affordable geoengineering schemes
on their own. And even if governments manage to keep freelance geoengineers in
check, the private sector could emerge as a potent force by becoming an interest
group that pushes for deployment or drives the direction of geoengineering
research and assessment. Already, private companies are running experiments on
ocean fertilization in the hope of sequestering carbon dioxide and earning credits
that they could trade in carbon markets. Private developers of technology for albedo
modification could obstruct an open and transparent research environment as they
jockey for position in the potentially lucrative market for testing and deploying
geoengineering systems. To prevent such scenarios and to establish the rules that
should govern the use of geoengineering technology for the good of the entire
planet, a cooperative, international research agenda is vital.
And again
Victor et al. 9
The scientific academies in the leading industrialized and emerging countries -which often control the purse strings for major research grants -- must orchestrate a
serious and transparent international research effort funded by their governments.
Although some work is already under way, a more comprehensive understanding of
geoengineering options and of risk-assessment procedures would make countries
less trigger-happy and more inclined to consider deploying geoengineering systems
in concert rather than on their own. (The International Council for Science, which
has a long and successful history of coordinating scientific assessments of technical
topics, could also lend a helping hand.) Eventually, a dedicated international entity
overseen by the leading academies, provided with a large budget, and suffused with
the norms of transparency and peer review will be necessary.
And again
Victor et al. 9
Although the international scientific community should take the lead in developing a
research agenda, social scientists, international lawyers, and foreign policy experts
will also have to play a role. Eventually, there will have to be international laws to
ensure that globally credible and legitimate rules govern the deployment of
geoengineering systems. But effective legal norms cannot be imperiously declared.
They must be carefully developed by informed consensus in order to avoid
encouraging the rogue forms of geoengineering they are intended to prevent
Analysis:
Their plan brings regulatory uncertainty into questions and could encourage other
countries to begin their own geoengineering projects which could come with
unintentional consequences.
Counterplans
DoD CP
***1NC***
Counterplan Text: The Department of Defense should
significantly increase its iron fertilization of the earths
oceans.
DOD development leads to better investment and tech
Sarewitz et al. 12 (DanielCo-Director, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes
Associate Director, Center for Nanotechnology in Society Professor of Science and Society @ ASU, Samuel
Thernstrom--As codirector of the AEI Geoengineering Project, Mr. Thernstrom studied the policy implications of
geoengineering, or climate engineering, John Alic--Alic is the author or co-author of several books and over 100
papers, articles, case studies and book chapters. A graduate of Cornell, Stanford, and the University of Maryland, he
has taught at several universities, Travis Doomprogram coordinator for the Consortium for Science, Policy
&Outcomes.
ENERGY INNOVATION at the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE: ASSESSING the OPPORTUNITIES--CONSORTIUM FOR
SCIENCE, POLICY AND OUTCOMES at Arizona State University) AP
DoD integrates into the pursuit of its mission the full panoply of R&D functions found in the
private sector (box 1.1). Other agencies such as the Department of Energy aim to
catalyze private sector innovation, but since the accomplishment of their mission does not
usually require them to purchase the products of the research they support, they
often must make decisions without benefit of the guidance that DoD managers take
from planning and foresight exercises that go on constantly within the services . DoD
is also unique among agencies in the degree to which its technology spending flows to private firms
rather than to its own laboratories or to universities and other nonprofits. The sums are
largesome $235 billion for R&D and procurement in fiscal 2011 and by other measures,
too, DoD commands greater innovative capacity than the rest of
government. The Army, Navy, and Air Force, for example, employ nearly 100,000
engineers and scientists between them. Most of the people, and most of the money,
support acquisition of systems and equipment from firms in the extended defense
industry (which is perhaps best thought of as a virtual industry). Eugene Gholzs white paper, The Dynamics of
Military Innovation and the Prospects for Defense- Led Energy Innovation, discusses the relationships between DoD
and its contractors.
The political process discourages program efficiency,

innovation
Adler 11 Jonathan H. Adler Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation,
Case Western Reserve University School of Law, EYES ON A CLIMATE PRIZE: REWARDING ENERGY INNOVATION
TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE STABILIZATION 2011
While innovation requires risk taking,
politically controlled agencies have a difficult time

accepting failure and terminating programs. n221 Once grants have been allocated,
the recipient has an interest in keeping the money flowing, even if it will not
produce positive returns. As Linda Cohen and Roger Noll found, substantial political pressure to continue
R&D programs remains long after it is clear they have failed. n222 At the same time, the political process
has a preference for large, visible projects to the detriment of those that are less
conspicuous, but more likely to produce results . n223 Encouraging needed innovation
is not simply a matter of dedicating resources to those endeavors favored by
scientists and technologists. Even the most educated and well-intentioned experts
may focus their energies in the wrong direction . Indeed, as noted above, it is the
unexpected nature of many innovations that makes them so valuable . n224
DoD > DoE Solvnecy

DOD development leads to better investment and tech
Sarewitz et al. 12 (DanielCo-Director, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes
Associate Director, Center for Nanotechnology in Society Professor of Science and Society @ ASU, Samuel
Thernstrom--As codirector of the AEI Geoengineering Project, Mr. Thernstrom studied the policy implications of
geoengineering, or climate engineering, John Alic--Alic is the author or co-author of several books and over 100
papers, articles, case studies and book chapters. A graduate of Cornell, Stanford, and the University of Maryland, he
has taught at several universities, Travis Doomprogram coordinator for the Consortium for Science, Policy
&Outcomes.
ENERGY INNOVATION at the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE: ASSESSING the OPPORTUNITIES--CONSORTIUM FOR
SCIENCE, POLICY AND OUTCOMES at Arizona State University) AP
DoD integrates into the pursuit of its mission the full panoply of R&D functions found in the
private sector (box 1.1). Other agencies such as the Department of Energy aim to
catalyze private sector innovation, but since the accomplishment of their mission does not
usually require them to purchase the products of the research they support, they
often must make decisions without benefit of the guidance that DoD managers take
from planning and foresight exercises that go on constantly within the services. DoD
is also unique among agencies in the degree to which its technology spending flows to private firms
rather than to its own laboratories or to universities and other nonprofits. The sums are
largesome $235 billion for R&D and procurement in fiscal 2011 and by other measures,
too, DoD commands greater innovative capacity than the rest of
government. The Army, Navy, and Air Force, for example, employ nearly 100,000
engineers and scientists between them. Most of the people, and most of the money,
support acquisition of systems and equipment from firms in the extended defense
industry (which is perhaps best thought of as a virtual industry). Eugene Gholzs white paper, The Dynamics of
Military Innovation and the Prospects for Defense- Led Energy Innovation, discusses the relationships between DoD
and its contractors.
DOD better with R and D than DOE due to process

Adler 11 Jonathan H. Adler Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation,
Case Western Reserve University School of Law, EYES ON A CLIMATE PRIZE: REWARDING ENERGY INNOVATION
TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE STABILIZATION 2011
Federal funding of science is worthwhile, particularly for basic scientific research. n209 Yet federal R&D money
rarely produces commercially viable technologies or dramatic technological innovation. n210 This is particularly
The
Department of Defense's procurement process may stimulate a significant degree of
innovation because those defense contractors that develop technological
breakthroughs may be rewarded with sizable contracts. There is competition for the
contracts and innovation is rewarded. The Department of Energy, on the other
hand, is not a significant consumer of the technology it funds. n211 Indeed, the
Department of Defense [*31] may be better positioned to encourage energy
innovation through its procurement process than is the DOE with traditional R&D
grants. n212 Insofar as this is so, it is because a competitive procurement process can
induce innovation by offering a substantial financial reward for significant
breakthroughs.
true for agencies that are not themselves consumers of the innovations they are trying to stimulate.
DOD key to implementing tech empirics prove

Hayward et al 10 (Steven F. Hayward, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Mark Muro,
Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger,
Cofounders, Breakthrough Institute, October 2010, Post-Partisan Power, How a Limited and Direct Approach to
Energy Innovation can Deliver Clean, Cheap Energy, Economic Productivity and National Prosperity,
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Post-Partisan%20Power.pdf, LM)
The government has a long history of successfully driving innovation and price
declines in emerging technologies by acting directly as a demanding customer to
spur the early commercialization and largescale deployment of cutting-edge
technologies. From radios and microchips to lasers and camera lenses, the federal government, in
particular the DOD, has helped catalyze the improvement of countless innovative
technologies and supported the emergence of vibrant American industries in the
process.67 Yet todays mess of open-ended energy subsidies reward production of
more of the same product, not innovation. The federal government showers subsidies across many
energy options, from oil and coal to ethanol and wind power. None of these efforts, however, are
designed or optimized to drive and reward innovation and ensure the prices of these
technologies fall over time, making the subsidies effectively permanent. This must
change.
DOD solves better than DOE tech production proves

Hayward et al 10 (Steven F. Hayward, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Mark Muro,
Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger,
Cofounders, Breakthrough Institute, October 2010, Post-Partisan Power, How a Limited and Direct Approach to
Energy Innovation can Deliver Clean, Cheap Energy, Economic Productivity and National Prosperity,
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Post-Partisan%20Power.pdf, LM)
In addition to reforming energy deployment subsidies and launching a new

competitive deployment strategy, the nation should once again leverage the power
of federal procurement to establish demanding requirements to drive innovation
and improvement in new energy technologies. The DOD has a long track record of
using the power of procurement to successfully drive the commercialization and
improvement of new technologies, many of which later spun off into broader
commercial adoption. In contrast, the DOE has no way to either procure or use
energy technologies at commercial scale. The DOD should help fill this void, once again
using procurement to advance a range of potential dual-use energy innovations. The Pentagons 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review prioritizes expanded DOD involvement in energy
innovationand with good reason.69 The U.S. military today uses more oil than Sweden and more electricity
than Denmark. Every $10 increase in the price of oil costs the DOD more than $1 billion dollars, sapping money that should be used
With fuel convoys costing both lives and

money every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, questions of energy are understandably
high on the list of Pentagon priorities, and a growing community of national security
experts, including both active and retired generals and flag officers, has identified the development of
new energy alternatives that can both reduce Americas exposure to volatile oil
markets and enhance military operational capabilities as key to securing the
nations defense.71 Congress should provide new funds necessary to secure
Americas energy future and national defense, providing up to $5 billion annually (as
needed) to support DOD efforts to procure , demonstrate, test, validate, and improve a
to equip our troops for critical missions at home and abroad.70
suite of cutting-edge energy technologies with potential to enhance American

energy security or improve the strategic and tactical capabilities of the American
armed forces. Energy technologies with clear dual-use commercial and military potential well suited to DOD procurement
could include: advanced biofuels, including aviation fuels; advanced solar thermal and photovoltaic power technologies; improved
batteries; electric vehicles; and new, modular nuclear reactors (discussed in greater detail below).
DoD grants spur innovation for renewable energy

Serbu 11 (Jared Serbu covers the Defense Department, including contracting and legislative issues affecting
the Pentagon, DoD almost ready to hand out $30M in clean energy grants, November 19, 2011,
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/430/2598642/DoD-almost-ready-to-hand-out-30M-in-clean-energy-grants)//MW
The Pentagon is a couple weeks away from announcing the winners of tens of
millions of dollars in grants that aim to use military bases as a test bed for new
energy technologies. The Defense Department first released the presolicitation notice for the installation
energy test bed effort in February. DoD leaders at the time planned to make grants to
companies and other federal agencies of $20 million to test new energy concepts on
military bases, including smart microgrids and energy storage technology, renewable energy generation and
advanced technologies to improve building energy efficiency. But Dorothy Robyn, the department's deputy
DoD is ready to make awards worth

$30 million within the coming weeks. She said the department was "overwhelmed"
by 600 high-quality proposals. "This test bed program is my highest priority," she
said. "I think it's so fundamental to what we should be doing and what DoD uniquely
can do. We've done this on the environmental technology side by changing the face
of environmental cleanup in just this way. I think we'll do the same in the energy
area." DoD already is testing several technologies at U.S. bases, including everything from new implementations
undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, said
of wind and solar power generation to generating electricity from landfill gas. Robyn spoke Tuesday at a Pentagon
forum set up to mark National Energy Awareness Month, as did Gen. Martin Dempsey, the new chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. He threw his considerable clout behind the department's renewable energy and efficiency efforts.
Not just on bases, but on battlefields. "Without
improving our energy security, we are not

merely standing still on energy security, we're falling behind," he said. "The department's
energy culture has changed dramatically since I was a young Army armor officer, and that's a very good thing. But
we can and must do better, particularly in pushing progress out to the field, to the flight line and into the fleet."
DoD has the current capabilities and funding to do renewable

energy
Serbu 11 (Jared Serbu covers the Defense Department, including contracting and legislative issues affecting
the Pentagon, DoD almost ready to hand out $30M in clean energy grants, November 19, 2011,
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/430/2598642/DoD-almost-ready-to-hand-out-30M-in-clean-energy-grants)//MW
the military is making progress. The Army has begun

linking up the generators on its forward-operating bases into smart microgrid
systems. This approach automatically turns on or off generators as they're needed,
and the electrical load is balanced between them . And, Newell said, they're also coming up with
But with generators and fuel, too,
ways to keep leaders from bringing along more fuel and generators than they actually need. "We have even gone
to the point of developing smartphone apps that allow a commander to look at what he's got to power say, four
computers, two flat screens and a coffee pot and it'll spit out a solution that says you need 1.2 kilowatts," he
said. "He can then look at his logistics guys and tell them not to bring along that five kilowatt generator. I just need
this little one, and a small can of gas. I think culturally, it's been a huge change for us." The Pentagon has taken on
several new efforts to tackle its energy use lately, driven in part by the $15 billion fuel bill it paid last year. DoD's
fuel bill was even higher in 2008 $20 billion when global energy prices spiked.
DoD published its first
operational energy plan this year. It also signed a memorandum of understanding

last year with the Energy Department to share resources and research toward
energy security. And the individual military services are taking on their own efforts. The Navy, for
example, released a request for information to industry this summer that
contemplates spending $500 million on research and development for a new
generation of biofuels to replace jet fuel and diesel.
AT: Perm
Perm links to the Navy DA - Its a question of priority
sequencing the navy must take the lead on marine energy
development to ensure access to proper training.
Quinn 11 (John P. Quinn leads three diverse programs essential to Navy sustainability initiatives, a B.A. in
political science and economic, from Duke University; a J.D. from Georgetown Law Center; and a LL.M
(environmental), with highest honors, from The George Washington University, The U.S. Navys Sustainability
Imperative, November 26, 2011, http://livebettermagazine.com/article/the-u-s-navys-sustainabilityimperative/)//MW
the nations need to develop new energy sources as a means of improving its
energy and economic security, in some instances these priorities have created tension between
renewable energy development and robust military testing and training. Offshore oil and
gas development, and future wind energy projects, could potentially obstruct existing
military training areas and/or create interference with radar systems used for
testing and training as well as homeland defense. Ashore, solar towers constructed in proximity
While supporting
to air corridors could create obstructions and/or reflection issues, which could degrade air navigation. Additionally,
new wind turbines some reaching 600 or more feet into the air could create obstruction and interference
The challenge is to find

solutions that will enable the nations development of needed energy and other
infrastructure while enabling the Navy to carry out its national defense mission
through continuous training and testing at sea, ashore and in the air. Towards these
challenges for military training and testing at existing bases and range areas.
objectives, as discussed below, a number of initiatives are underway at the national level within the Department of
The Navys active participation in

these initiatives, and forward-leaning approach to its own energy requirements, will
help ensure a sustainable future for the Navy and the nation .
Defense (DoD) and within the Department of the Navy (DON).
** this is the same card but with different highlighting as one of the DA Offshore Energy links and that is in the
AT:Perm in generic renewables as well
AT: DoD Hurts Environment

The Department of defense ensures environmentally
responsible action
NOAA05 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Protected Areas Center,
Federal Agency Progress Report Under Executive Order 13158 September 2005,
(http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/fed-agency-prog-rpt.pdf) LP)
Executive Order 13158 enhances the level of protection of significant natural and cultural resources within the
marine environment and coordinates the development of an effective national system of marine protected areas in
The Department of Defense is committed to marine resources

protection through various programs and policies. All of the military services have active
programs to comply with environmental and natural resources protection laws.
the United States.
Although most environmental legislation was not passed specifically for the protection of marine protected areas,
the Department of Defenses compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 12114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, Clean Water Act, Ocean Dumping Act, Oil Pollution Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act, Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Sikes Act, Executive
Order. 13112, Coral Reef Protection, Endangered Species Act, and other statutes directly benefits marine
resources. As with all Department of Defense natural resources stewardship, it is and will continue to be our policy
to ensure safe and environmentally responsible action in and around marine protected areas. Department of
Defense is not an implementing agency of Executive Order 13158, but conducts at sea training and testing
operations with an awareness of and sensitivity to the resources within MPAs and other sensitive marine resource
management areas. In planning for needed harbor and anchorage maintenance and improvements, the Navy
surveys the marine resources around its Atlantic and Pacific installations in Florida, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam,
Department of Defense has documented

repeated instances where marine resources near military facilities are in
significantly better condition (health, size, diversity, etc.) than those outside the
area of military influence. Data from the Department of Defense marine surveys is
captured for future use. In addition, the planning process for Department of Defense actions that could
Saipan, and Japan. As a result of these surveys, the
affect sensitive marine resources includes informing agencies concerned with natural resources management
related to Essential Fish Habitat and other land and water management issues.
Training occurs only when necessary majority of

environmental impacts minimal and temporary
McAvoy 13 , Audrey McAvoy newsperson, covers the military and general news at the Honolulu bureau of
The Associated Press, Navy studies: Training, testing may kill whales, dolphins, Navy Times, Aug 30 2013 Online:
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130830/NEWS04/308300011/Navy-studies-Training-testing-may-kill-whalesdolphins
Most of the deaths would come from explosives, though some might come from testing sonar or animals being hit
by ships.
Rear Adm. Kevin Slates, the Navys energy and environmental readiness
division director, told reporters this week the Navy uses simulators where possible,
but sailors must test and train in real-life conditions . According to the reports,
computer models show training and testing may kill 186 whales and dolphins off the
East Coast and 155 off Hawaii and Southern California. Off the East Coast, there
could be 11,267 serious injuries and 1.89 million minor injuries such as temporary
hearing loss. The reports also said the testing and training might cause marine mammals to change their
behavior such as swimming in a different direction in 20 million instances. Off Hawaii and Southern California,
the reports said the naval activities may cause 2,039 serious injuries, 1.86 million temporary injuries and 7.7 million
instances of behavioral change.
Disadvantages
Midterm
Links
Section: Ocean policy unpopular
Changes in ocean policy are slow and controversial b/c
polarized congress
Helvarg, 14, (David, The oceans demand our attention, The Hill, February 14,
2014, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-theoceans-demand-our-attention)//erg
The latest battle over the future of Americas ocean frontier is being fought out in a
seemingly unrelated bill in Congress. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his
National Endowment for the Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA),
which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on dams, dredging and flood control. The Endowment would
establish a permanent fund based on offshore energy revenue for scientific research and coastal restoration.
On the House side Tea Party Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel
out any funding that might allow the Army Corps to participate in the Obama
administrations National Ocean Policy, which he claims would empower the EPA to
control the property of his drought-plagued constituents should any rain (generated
by the ocean) land on their rooftops. One rider represents a constructive addition
and the other a paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean policy aimed at
coordinating federal agencies in ways that could reduce conflict, redundancy and
government waste, putting urban planning in the water column, in the words of former Commandant of
the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina and the
BP oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding to a disaster. And like it or not,
overfishing, pollution, coastal sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas.
Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean
continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail). In 2004 ocean
conservationists held their first Blue Vision Summit in Washington D.C .
It was there Rep. Sam Farr (DCalif.) called for a Big Ocean Bill, to incorporate many of the recommendations of
the 2003 Pew Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon
panels to examine the state of Americas blue frontier in over three decades . During his
presidency, George W. Bush established major marine reserves in the Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal
commissions recommendations along with those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now
Americas seas continue to be poorly managed by 24

different federal agencies taking a piecemeal approach to their oversight under 144
separate laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco met with then Presidentretired), Leon Panetta. As a result
elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions
Congress
had become too polarized to pass major ocean reform legislation at the level of
recommendations that he agreed to do. By the time of the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear
the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered there were thrilled to hear the new
White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy
initiative by the Obama administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held
in different parts of the country. Ocean conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent
of public comments favored moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses. In
July 2010, in the wake of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama finally signed the National
Ocean Policy as an administrative directive. NOAA then held a series of additional hearings to engage stakeholders
during which the oil and gas industry tried to apply the brakes (why support a level playing field when you already
own the field). In 2012, CEQ finally announced that nine regional planning bodies would be established to get the
ocean policy implemented. In 2013, during the 4th Blue Vision Summit activists held the largest Ocean Hill Day in
history, a citizens lobby from 21 states that included over 100 meetings with Senators, House members and their
staffs to advocate for getting the National Ocean Policy underway. Still, today in early 2014,
nine regional bodies have held meetings.
only four of the
In New England, participation by the states, tribal
its been
more a case of different federal agencies talking to each other without much
transparency or citizen participation. Initial meetings have also been held in the Caribbean and the
governments, fishermen, environmentalists and others have seen a strong launch. In the mid-Atlantic,
Western Pacific, including Hawaii.
Ocean policy changes disrupt the fragile partisan alliance

Allen, 13, (Tom, Challenges of a Changing Ocean: Can Congress Act in Time?
Roll Call, Dec. 4, 2013,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/challenges_of_a_changing_ocean_can_congress_act_in
_time_commentary-229390-1.html)//erg
In a Congress marred by gridlock and partisan brinkmanship, a surprising
opportunity has emerged to strengthen our nations ocean and coastal
communities, businesses and environment . Congress should seize the moment and
establish the long-recommended National Endowment for the Oceans , Coasts and Great
Lakes. Unless Congress acts now, the opportunity will slip away. The House and
Senate Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) bills currently in conference contain competing
provisions with competing visions for the future of ocean and coastal management in
America. This legislative conflict is part of our countrys broader ideological
struggle, but with this difference: On the ocean, no state government, chamber of commerce or environmental
group can exercise coordinated and effective leadership alone. The Senate-passed WRDA bill includes an
amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that provides for a National Endowment for the Oceans that
passed with strong bipartisan support. The endowment would authorize grants to universities, states and local
organizations for ocean research, mapping, monitoring, conservation and restoration projects work that is critical
to coastal economies that rely on a healthy ocean with well-managed resources. It reflects the belief that the
federal government has an important role to play in strengthening coastal communities, helping ocean-dependent
businesses and improving the health of our ocean environment.
Section: Ocean policy popular

Ocean policy changes are popular and key
Allen, 13, (Tom, Challenges of a Changing Ocean: Can Congress Act in Time?
Roll Call, Dec. 4, 2013,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/challenges_of_a_changing_ocean_can_congress_act_in
_time_commentary-229390-1.html)//erg
By contrast, the WRDA bill passed by the House of Representatives includes an amendment from Rep. Bill Flores, RTexas, that would undermine our National Ocean Policy, smart ocean planning and ecosystem approaches to ocean
we need government to work better, smarter, and more

effectively, the National Ocean Policy and smart ocean planning are just common sense. They allow the local,
resource management. In an era when
state, tribal and federal entities responsible for ocean management to work across jurisdictional boundaries and
proactively tackle challenges in a forward-looking way. To take those tools away would be bad for ocean health, bad
for the ocean economy and bad for coastal communities. This legislative head-to-head dispute reflects the broader
ideological struggle that haunts the halls of Congress today. Its between those who believe that the government
can be a vehicle to serve the common good and those who believe that nearly all government action restricts
personal freedom. We have for too long taken the ocean for granted. Its immense size and
apparent resilience fooled us into thinking that humans could draw on it for limitless protein and use it as a garbage
now the ocean and our coastal communities face serious challenges. Coral
reefs are in steep decline. Many fisheries continue to struggle. Water quality
problems and toxic algae blooms threaten beaches and clam diggers. Ocean
dump. But
acidification is worsening each year, threatening multigeneration family-owned

shellfish farms. Trash litters the open ocean, occasionally exacerbated by tragic events such as the Japanese
tsunami. And sea level rise is just over the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should
choose thoughtful long-term engagement to protect and enhance ocean quality over
the all-too-common knee-jerk hostility toward any new government initiative.
Ocean environmental policies empirically appease democrats

Rast 12
Rebekah Rast, 31 October 2012, Obamas environmental policies extend to
Americas oceansand into the upcoming elections,
http://waily.com/2012/10/obamas-environmental-policies-extend-to-americasoceans-and-into-the-upcoming-elections/
You can definitely see a partisan line when it comes to environmental policies in this
country. One side thinks many related laws and regulations go too far; the
other side thinks many of these laws dont go far enough. However, it seems this
partisan line also stretches past the land of the U.S. and deep into its oceans. In
2010, when President Obama passed his executive order Stewardship of the
Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, he claimed it strengthens ocean governance and
coordination, establishes guiding principles for ocean management, and adopts a flexible framework for effective
coastal and marine spatial planning to address conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of
this oceans and

lakes power play has sparked quite a partisan fight going into this election year. Many
Republicans see this Executive Order as nothing more than an absurd power grab
by the Obama administration. To control the countrys lakes, oceans and coastlands by issuing strict
usage regulations and restrictions will only hurt such livelihoods as farming, fishing and logging. Many
Democrats and environmental allies see this as a positive step forward that will
protect the nations oceans and also limit the number of conflicts over how the
waters are used.
the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes. Not everyone agrees with his claim and now
Ocean regulation is empirically popular with the democratic

base
Hotakainen 11
ROB HOTAKAINEN, 4 October 2011, Congress spars over 'ocean zoning',
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/04/126154/congress-spars-over-oceanzoning.html
WASHINGTON House members clashed Tuesday over a White House plan that
essentially calls for zoning the oceans, with Republicans charging that it already has
created more job-killing bureaucracy and Democrats saying it could give Americans
more certainty on how they can use busy public waters . "It has the potential to stunt economic
growth and the jobs associated with that growth," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural
Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the top-ranked Democrat on the

panel, likened the idea formally known as marine spatial planning to making
plans for air space. "Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air-traffic control ," he
Resources Committee.
said.
Section: Environment unpopular

Congress hates environmental movements
Valentine, 7/15, (Katie, reporter for Climate Progress, Congressional
Candidate: Most Energy Problems Are Caused By Environmentalists, Climate
Progress, JULY 15, 2014,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/15/3460398/congressional-candidateenvironment/)//erg
In the eyes of one candidate running for office in Washington, environmentalists arent the
ones looking to solve the countrys energy problems theyre the ones at fault
for them. George Cicotte, a Republican candidate for Washingtons fourth congressional district, said at a
candidate forum Saturday that if environmentalists hadnt stopped nuclear in its tracks in
the 1970s, there would be a lot less greenhouse gas pollution today . Really, when we talk
about energy problems, most of the energy problems are caused by
environmentalists, he said. Cicottes comments came as part of a longer statement on
his views on environment and energy issues, during which he spoke of his all of the
above energy preferences but made comments that were dismissive of wind
energy a resource he claims to support on his campaign website. Wind energy? Ill be honest give me a
break, he said. There would not be a single windmill in this entire state were it not for tons
of irrational federal government spending. Theyre trying to light a brush fire for wind and it aint
working.
Republicans hate pro-environmental policies

COCKERHAM, 2014
SEAN; MCCLATCHY WASHINGTON BUREAU; July 17, 2014; Opponents say Alaska
mine would devastate salmon, Washington state fishing industry;
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/07/17/3755000/opponents-say-alaska-minewould.html
WASHINGTON Supporters of the embattled Pebble Mine project in Alaska are

making a desperate effort in Congress and the courts to keep it alive in the face of
warnings from the Environmental Protection Agency that it could devastate the
finest run of wild salmon left on the globe. Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives are pushing a bill to keep the EPA from blocking the mine, despite
opposition from Washington state lawmakers who say the project could be
devastating to the fishing industry in their state . The mine developer, Northern
Dynasty Minerals, is suing the EPA, seeking an injunction to prevent the agency
from moving to stop the project. The developer is in trouble. Mining giants Anglo
American and Rio Tinto pulled out of the project in the midst of the controversy,
leaving Northern Dynasty scrambling for another partner to provide financial
support for the mine. Getting the EPA to back off would help. After a long series of
setbacks, the mine won a small victory Wednesday when the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee approved the bill for a vote in the full House. EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy said the Pebble Mine would "likely have significant and
irreversible negative impacts on the salmon of Bristol Bay." Washington state
lawmakers are leading the fight in Congress against the mine. Sen. Maria Cantwell,
D-Wash., asked the White House to stop the mine and participated in a rally earlier
this year on the Seattle waterfront that included 250 chefs and other food workers
protesting the project. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, attempted to stop the bill
Wednesday in the committee. He said thousands of fishermen and processors from
Washington state depended on the Bristol Bay fishery in Alaska. The EPA's decision
to consider vetoing the mine followed three years of study of the damage that North
America's largest open-pit mine could do to the salmon, he said. "If this bill goes
forward it could lead to the construction of a mine that would have devastating
economic impacts for many people in Washington state," Larsen said. Sue
Aspelund, the executive director of the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development
Association, complained that fishermen weren't given a chance to testify. "It's
incredibly unfortunate that Congress is debating legislation that would directly
impact Bristol Bay's commercial fishermen while thousands of them are currently
contributing to yet another historic sockeye salmon season in southwest Alaska,"
Aspelund said. The measure would have scant chance of making it through the
Democratic-controlled Senate and surviving a likely presidential veto. But mine
opponents fear it might become a platform to revive the project's fortunes,
particularly if Republicans take control of the Senate after the November midterm
elections. The fishing and conservation group Trout Unlimited said it planned to
launch a social media campaign to rally fishermen to campaign against the bill. The
mine developer "has lost most of its financial backing because of the inherent risks
of the proposed mine, and its many failures to produce a viable mining plan. But
now the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is rushing to take up
the beleaguered cause," Trout Unlimited said in an email. McCarthy said the EPA
would take action to protect the salmon under the Clean Water Act. That could lead
to a veto of the project prior to its permit applications. Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio,
sponsor of the bill, said the mine should be allowed a chance. His measure would
forbid the EPA from halting a project before the permit process. "It's un-American to
tell a private company or anybody that you can't even apply for a permit, cannot
even consider doing any operations on this land because the government has
blocked it out," he said. The National Mining Association also criticized the EPA, with
its president, Hal Quinn, saying investors need confidence that the agency won't
pre-emptively block a project. "EPA's actions trampled the authority of the state of
Alaska, pre-empted the role of other federal and state agencies and potentially
stranded the mining company's $700 million in capital investment," Quinn said. The
EPA said it began studying the mine at the request of Alaska tribes and others
concerned about the salmon. Mine advocates assert the agency was biased and
that agency staffers themselves initiated the effort to block the project. The EPA's
inspector general is investigating those allegations. While the Pebble Mine project
may appear near death, tensions still run high. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, lashed
out at a hearing Wednesday when a Maryland congresswoman charged that the bill
is nothing but a giveaway to the mine developer. Young said his state should get to
decide whether to build the massive open-pit copper mine, not the EPA or members
of Congress from outside Alaska. "Now we have somebody from Maryland telling
me how we should represent that state. Disgusting," said Young, who started
shouting and pointing his finger. "I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and watch
somebody from Maryland or any other state start telling me or anybody in Alaska
how we should be running our state."
Section: Environment unpopular unions

Ecological regulations for oceans greatly upset unions
Phuong Le, 16 June 2014, Unions join fight over Washington fish consumption,
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-06-16/unions-join-fight-over-washingtonfish-consumption
SEATTLE (AP) Unions representing Boeing machinists and mill workers are siding with businesses in a
bitter fight over how much fish people eat, and thus how clean Washington state
waters should be. The Machinists union and others are worried a new water quality
standard being developed by the state would hurt jobs and economic development
concerns that Boeing Co. and other industry groups have also raised. The unlikely
allies have found common ground, uniting over the topic of environmental regulations. " We have some
common interests because we want to save jobs. I think we have the same goal," said Tanya
Hutchins, a spokeswoman for the Machinists union, which represents more than 32,000 workers in the Puget Sound
region. She added, "We just want to make sure it's a proposal that works for everyone." Officials from the Machinists
union, the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, and others held a news conference Monday in Olympia to
The state Department of Ecology appears ready

to sharply increase Washington's fish consumption rate, an obscure number that
has huge implications because it helps set water quality standards. A higher
number means fewer toxic pollutants would be permitted in waters.
urge Gov. Jay Inslee to take a balanced approach.
Unions will afect the fate of the democrats

Enten 7/1
Harry Enten, 1 July 2014, How Much Do Democrats Depend on the Union Vote,
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/supreme-court-ruling-wounds-both-democratsand-unions-neither-fatally/ [Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for
FiveThirtyEight]
Toward the middle of the list is the effect of union membership and living with a union member. The effect is not as
being a member of a union or living with

a union member did make a person more likely to vote Democratic . At least according to
large as most demographic variables. But its not nothing;
the 2012 ANES, the effects of the two different union variables were pretty much identical. And the impact was
about the same as the 1.7 percentage points it was in 2008. In the ANES data set, 58 percent of union members or
those living with a union member voted for Obama. If every union member or member of a union household voted
as if they were not one and every other characteristic was kept constant, 51.1 percent of them still would have
Obama would have lost 1.4 percentage points off his vote share in
2012 without unions. Instead of his margin of victory over Romney being 3.9
percentage points, it would have been 1.1 points. Obviously, this sort of analysis doesnt take
voted Democratic.
into account what would really happen without the union vote. The two parties would go about courting voters
the 2.8
percentage-point difference in the presidential vote margin is nothing to sneeze at
either. Its larger than the margin in two of the past four elections , and its about the same as
differently. And unions also play a big role in fundraising and organizing for Democratic candidates. But
it was in 2008. Even if unions make up a lower percentage of voters than at any point in the past 60 years, they are
if a future Supreme Court decision suppresses union power

further, it would not be good news for Democrats.
a player in presidential elections. And
Union support key for democrats Obamas actions swing vote

Jordan M. Grossman, 30 April 2014, Trends and Surprises in Union Political
Spending on the 2014 Elections, http://onlabor.org/2014/04/30/trends-and-surprisesin-union-political-spending-on-the-2014-elections/
The 2014 congressional elections do not take place until November, but unions have already provided
millions of dollars in campaign contributions to candidates, political parties, and
outside groups including to some surprising recipients. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive
Politics, which counts all donations from political action committees (PACs), individual contributions of more than
$200 to federal candidates and parties, and donations from individuals, PACs and other organizations . . . to
five of the top ten overall

donors in the 2014 election cycle have been labor groups, edging out even some of
Americas largest corporations like AT&T, Lockheed Martin, and Comcast. Which unions
outside interest groups that report to the Federal Election Commission,
are the biggest donors? The National Education Association (NEA), the fourth biggest overall contributor, leads the
way for labor with $6,877,977 in contributions. They are followed by the Carpenters and Joiners Union at
$4,981,217, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) at $3,130,875, the AFLCIO at $2,543,200, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) at $2,004,185. Two other unions
are also in the top twenty: the Operating Engineers Union comes in at number 13, with $1,617,983 in donations,
and the Laborers Unions is ranked 20th, with $1,431,600. Even in the post-Citizens United environment in which
presidential and congressional campaigns, political parties, and PACs spent $7 billion in the 2012 election cycle -
over $22 million from top labor organizations is significant, particularly in a midterm
election that does not feature a presidential race. For context, according to data compiled by
experts at the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, the average winning congressional
candidate in 2012 spent approximately $1.6 million - a 344% increase since 1986 with incumbents typically
Put simply, despite the conventional

wisdom that the political power of unions is dwindling due to declining membership,
this level of political giving ensures that they still remain a major force in electoral
politics. In fact, the data on labor donations challenges another piece of
conventional wisdom: that unions solely support Democrats, especially at the
outspending their challengers $1.7 million to $587,000.
national level. The numbers from the Center for Responsive Politics illustrate that unions direct a notable amount of
donations to congressional Republicans. For example, the largest union giver, the NEA, donated $15,000 to the
National Republican Senatorial Committee and another $15,000 to the National Republican Campaign Committee the official Republican Party entities charged with winning seats in Congress. The NEA has also donated $1,000
each to Senators Lindsey Graham and Jerry Moran, both Republicans, and between $500 and $4,000 to 19 House
Republicans. This support may seem surprising considering the hostility toward unions, particularly public sector
unions, expressed by leading Republicans in recent years. As one article put it, House Republicans are ready for
war against public sector unions, and Senator Graham himself has called the NLRB, typically seen as an ally of
labor, the Grim Reaper of job creation. The NRCC itself has criticized the NEA as a well-funded liberal special
interest[] that is part of a Democratic establishment that has spent millions to save their pawn[s] in
congressional races, and the NEA has given Senator Graham grades of D, F, and F in the past three congresses,
respectively. Interestingly, it is difficult to find any public materials from the NEA explaining their support of the
Republican campaign committees or officeholders like Graham ( while
both the NEA and some

Republicans have recently criticized the Obama Administrations approach
to Common Core education standards, the NEA has been donating to
Republicans for the past several election cycles, before Common Core emerged as such a polarizing issue).
Section: Environment popular single women

Single women have the power to swing the vote pushing
environmental policies means a win for the democrats
Shepeard 6/11
Crystal Shepeard, 11 June 2014, Single Women Will Make the Difference in the
Midterm Elections, http://www.care2.com/causes/single-women-will-make-the-
difference-in-the-midterm-elections.html
Statistics show that an increase in women representatives shows a greater focus on
policies that affect everyone. Inevitably, women issues such as reproductive rights and child care are
put to the forefront when more women are elected. However, mo re legislation is introduced regarding
economic policy, education, civil rights and the environment when women have a larger
presence. There is also a substantial improvement in economic performance in countries where women hold key
national leadership positions. The number of women in local, state and national government in the U.S. is at an all
time high. While impressive, we are still far behind other countries that have a much higher representation of
women. Even though more organizations are focused on increasing the number of women in office, the barriers to
get there are daunting. The financial costs for campaigning deter many women due to fewer avenues for funding.
There are also the structural issue of electoral politics that limit how and which candidates get elected, or even get
the greatest power the majority of women have is their vote. The
Democratic contingent of congresswomen and one congressman werent spreading the
on the ballot. However,
message that women should vote for women (though they did highlight how it would make a difference). They
wanted them to understand the importance of voting, especially in the upcoming

midterm elections. Women, particularly unmarried women and working moms,
arent just a statistic they are a viable and powerful demographic. The Voter
Participation Center (VPC) is a nonpartisan research organization dedicated to amplifying the voices of unmarried
There are 55 million voting eligible

unmarried women in the United States, representing more than 25 percent of the
voting population. However, they have consistently been underrepresented in elections. Married women are
women (this includes divorced, widowed, separated, and single).
virtually equal in eligible voting population at nearly 57 million, but vote at a higher rate than unmarried women. In
the 2012 election, nearly 6 percent more married women voted in the election than unmarried, even though they
Obama won by 3
percent. The reasons that nearly a third of unmarried women are not registered to vote, and those that are dont
only outnumber them by a little over one percent of the electorate. President Barack
vote, have a lot to do with the policies that affect them. The wage gap in the industries that many women work,
especially younger women, makes it difficult to find affordable housing, which can result in frequent changes in
address. This is made more difficult for women with children both married and not. The high cost of day care
makes it difficult to find work that can cover all costs, not to mention the lack of paid time off for family and sick
leave further strains the needed stability. It is no surprise that these women are most vulnerable to voter ID and
registration requirements which require large windows for registration. Strict guidelines for name changes also
make it more cumbersome for recently divorced or recently married women to have their IDs accepted at the
The voting patterns for single and married women have less to do with
party affiliation and more to do with the issues they have to face. This is why
women with children, many of them married, were also the target for the
Democrats message of the importance of voting in the midterm elections. They
share many of the needs that single women carry. The Democratic party has put forth a
polling booth.
great deal of legislation that has focused on equal pay, paid family and medical leave, expanding affordable
childcare, expanding funding for Head Start programs, and raising the minimum wage. These are all policies that
have been repeatedly blocked by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Section: Climate action unpopular

Climate change action is controversiallack on consensus
splits the party
Sheppard, 6/18, (Kate, Republican Former EPA Chiefs Try To Convince Senate
GOP That Climate Change Is Real, Huffington Post, 06/18/2014,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/epa-republicansclimate_n_5509048.html)//erg
WASHINGTON - Four Republican former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency had a message for
the Senate on Wednesday on climate change: It's real, it's bad and the United
States should do something about it. But their fellow Republicans at the hearing
largely ignored that position, instead repeating a variety of arguments about
why the U.S. should not address the greenhouse gas emissions causing
the planet to warm up. The hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on
Clean Air and Nuclear Safety focused on new EPA standards for reducing emissions from power plants. The
standards, released on June 2, have been a major point of contention for
congressional Republicans. "We believe there is legitimate scientific debate over the pace and
effects of climate change, but no legitimate debate over the facts of the earth's warming or
over man's contribution," said William Ruckelshaus, who served as the EPA administrator under both
Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Christine Todd Whitman, who served as the agency's administrator during the
first years of George W. Bush's presidency, expressed frustration at critics who argue the
EPA doesn't have
authority to act on greenhouse gas emissions.
No global consensus on how to act on climate change makes it

controversial
Phillips, 7/13, (Ari, Reporter for climate progress, Rupert Murdoch Says Climate
Change Should Be Approached With Great Skepticism, Climate Progress, JULY 13,
2014, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/13/3459584/rupert-murdochclimate-change-rubbish/)//erg
Rupert Murdoch is chairman and CEO of News Corporation, one of the worlds
largest media conglomerates, which includes Fox News and The Wall Street Journal .
Since launching The Australian newspaper 50 years ago he has also become one of the richest people in the world.
reflected
candidly on climate change, saying he thought it should be approached with great
skepticism. At the moment the north pole is melting but the south pole is getting bigger , he said.
In a wide-ranging interview aired Sunday in Australia to mark this 50-year anniversary, Murdoch
Things are happening. How much of it are we doing, with emissions and so on? As far as Australia goes? Nothing in
the geopolitical
implications are less salient, studies show that parts of the massive continents ice
sheet have entered irreversible decline and that melting is likely to accelerate.
the overall picture. While Antarctica has been losing ice more slowly than the Arctic, and
Australia is one of the most greenhouse gas intense economies in the world, relying heavily on coal exports. The
country passed a carbon price in 2011 but since last year the conservative government led by Murdoch-supported
The latest attempt ended in disarray last

week after several senators rebelled at the last minute . Murdoch said that if temperatures rose
prime minister Tony Abbott has been trying to repeal it.
under the worst case scenario 3C (5.4F) over the next 100 years at the very most one of those [degrees] would be
manmade.
Climate Change issues are controversial in Congress

Atkin, 7/9, (Emily, Kentucky Senator: Climate Change Is Fake Because We All
Agree Mars Is Warming Too, Climate Progress, JULY 9, 2014,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/09/3458131/smith-mars-climatechange/)//erg
A prominent Kentucky state Senator on Thursday gave a glimpse of detail on why he
doesnt accept that global warming exists and is caused by humans, and his argument is
a bit out of this world. At a hearing to discuss how the state could deal with the
Environmental Protection Agencys new proposed greenhouse gas regulations for
coal plants, Majority Whip Brandon Smith (R-Hazard) argued that carbon emissions from coal
plants cant be causing climate change because Mars is also experiencing a global
temperature rise and there are no coal plants emitting carbon on Mars. I think that in academia, we all
agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that, Smith said. Yet there are no
coal mines on Mars, theres no factories on Mars that Im aware of. So I think what
were looking at is
something much greater than what were going to do.
Watch it here: At first glance, it seems

as though Smith was saying that the temperature on Mars is exactly the same as it is on Earth, an argument that is
both incorrect and makes no sense, as many other news outlets have already pointed out. Smith clarified his
comments on Twitter on Thursday, however, saying he meant not to imply that temperatures were the same, but
that climate change is

a solar system-wide phenomena, and cant be caused by humans on Earth .
that climate shifts on Earth and Mars have been the same. His implication, really, is
Section: Climate policy popular

Plan popular-Washington wants to stop climate change
(especially because of ocean acidification)
Valentine, 7/15, (Katie, reporter for Climate Progress, Congressional
Candidate: Most Energy Problems Are Caused By Environmentalists, Climate
Progress, JULY 15, 2014,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/15/3460398/congressional-candidateenvironment/)//erg
not all
Christians think the planet was created for humans to use however they wish . The
But though Cicotte drew on what he thinks of as Biblical principles to back up his environmental views,
Evangelical Environmental Network has pushed climate change as an issue conservatives should care about,
scientists sent a letter that

urged Congress to reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment, using
Biblical references to back up their argument . Our changing climate threatens the
health, security, and well-being of millions of people who are made in Gods image ,
the letter read. The threat to future generations and global prosperity means we can no
longer afford complacency and endless debate . We as a society risk being counted among those
who destroy the earth (Revelation 11:18). Cicottes statements on Earths purpose also ignore the threat
climate change poses to Washington, a state thats battled numerous wildfires in the
past few weeks. Ocean acidification has taken its toll on Washingtons oyster
industry, with one oyster company in the state sending their oyster larvae growing operations to Hawaii due to
water in Willapa Bay, WA becoming too acidic. Sea level rise, beetle infestations, and water
shortages due to decreased snowpack also pose a threat to the state in
especially conservative Christians. And in 2013, 200 self-identified evangelical
coming years, according to the National Climate Assessment
Section: Climate policy key

Obamas stance on climate change influences voter turnout
DOVERE 6/26 [EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE, senior White House reporter, Barack
Obama becomes mocker-in-chief on climate change skeptics,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/barack-obama-climate-change-108338.html,
6/26/14]
For the White House its about getting the liberal base excited for the midterms. Its
a confidence that climate change has shifted in voters minds. Its a broader play
against congressional Republicans as obstructionists. And for Obama, its a good

time. Wednesday night, Obama ripped into his opponents in front of a League of
Conservation Voters crowd so friendly that some were pumping their arms in the air
as he spoke. Its pretty rare that you encounter people who say that the problem of
carbon pollution is not a problem, Obama said. In most communities and
workplaces, they may not know how big a problem it is, they may not know exactly
how it works, they may doubt they can do something about it. Generally they dont
just say, No I dont believe anything scientists say. Except, where? he said,
waiting for the more than accommodating crowd to call back, Congress! Obama
smiled not his big toothy self-satisfied grin, but his stick-it-in-the-ribs smirk. In
Congress, he said. Folks will tell you climate change is hoax or a fad or a plot. A
liberal plot. Then, Obama said, there are the people who duck the question. They
say, hey, Im not a scientist, which really translates into, I accept that man-made
climate change is real, but if I say so out loud, I will be run out of town by a bunch of
fringe elements that thinks climate science is a liberal plot so Im going to just
pretend like, I dont know, I cant read, Obama said. I mean, Im not a scientist
either, but Ive got this guy, John Holdren, hes a scientist, Obama added to
laughter. Ive got a bunch of scientists at NASA and Ive got a bunch of scientists at
EPA. Im not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can
cause lung cancer, then Ill say, okay. Right? I mean, its not that hard, Obama said,
managing not to mention that he kept smoking himself at least through his first
term. If Obamas talking about regulations, hes losing. If hes talking about carbon
caps for power plants or energy emissions for air conditioners, no one cares. But if
hes talking about crazy Republicans who dont make any sense and by the way,
are putting children at risk, he charges well, thats an argument he can wrap his
arms around.
Supporting climate change will help midterms

WASHINGTON 14; May 22; Billionaire U.S. environmentalist to target seven
midterm races;
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/22/us-usa-elections-steyeridUSKBN0E21KA20140522
(Reuters) - Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer will give a

boost to 2014 political candidates from seven U.S. states who work to
combat climate change, countering political support from fossil fuel
interests.
NextGen said it would use climate change as a "wedge issue" to drum
up voter turnout and to show that taking an anti-science position can
hurt rather than help political candidates.
Export / Import
Links
The Tea Party is fundamentally at odds with environmental
sustainability in every instance
Merchant 11 (Brian, environmental blogger, You Can't be Both a Tea Partier
and an Environmentalist. Sorry., Published August 1, 2011, Treehugger,
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/you-cant-be-both-a-tea-partierand-an-environmentalist-sorry.html)
The line gets drawn somewhere, folks. Lately, I've been receiving a bunch of comments asking me to lay off the Tea
One quipped that "it's not like every person who believes in personal
accountability and smaller government wants to strangle penguins and club
pandas." He's right -- it's not like that. If you support the Tea Party, then what you're
doing to the environment is much, much worse. And it's not because the Tea Party is made up of a
bunch of terrible, malevolent people -- far from it. It's just that the ideology espoused by the
group is fundamentally at odds with conservationism and environmental
responsibility in the modern world. The Tea Party's Assault on the Environment The Tea
Party-led Congress has so far this term led an assault on just about every corner of
the environment imaginable: They've worked to gut the Clean Air Act. Tried to slash
the EPA's budget. Sought to prevent the government from ever tackling climate
change. And these are just the more outwardly controversial ones -- the laws that
Tea Partiers can bogusly claim they can support while still caring about the
environment. They do so by arguing things like: Climate change is a hoax, so we don't need to regulate the
Party.
things that are causing it. The EPA is a bureaucratic monstrosity, and must be cut like all other branches of
government. Making companies upgrade their pollution-reducing equipment would slow the economy during a
recovery, and nobody wants that! Okay, fine -- let's say we leave those "controversial" items alone (though they are
in reality anything but). But we also have these: The Tea Party-lead GOP is also working to allow mountaintop
removal mining to become more widespread and less regulated. They're fighting to help open a giant uranium mine
next to the Grand Canyon. They want to block or overturn rules that allow companies to spew ginormous amounts
of toxic pollution into the air. They want less regulation on oil drilling and pipeline-building, despite the onslaught of
recent accidents (Gulf Spill much?) that prove just how badly regulation is needed. In states across the country,
they're working to overturn conservation measures that protect land and wildlife preserves. They've gone so far
that the nation's traditionally Republican-leaning hunters and fishers are supremely fed up. In the budget
appropriation bill heading to Congress this week, there are no less than 39 different measures that would in one
way or another dissolve or weaken environmental protections. One lawmaker called it the most "anti-environmental
Individual Tea Party members may

not harbor the instinct to murder wildlife or dump oil into pristine lakes -- the vast,
vast majority certainly does not! But the policies they are advocating for -relentlessly and vociferously -- will have the same effect. And again, it's not out of
malice. It arises from the very ideology they prescribe to. The Tea Party, in its purest
form, is fighting for a world with very little government -- where only the barest of
civil services (law enforcement) and national defense are provided by the state, and
the free market takes care of the rest. But consider, Tea Partiers -- in that world,
what happens to the environment? Who protects it? Businesses? Concerned citizens? Please. In the
piece of legislation" ever to be considered by Congress. So yes.
modern world, with our advanced capacity to extract and harvest resources, to pollute on an industrial scale, and
the vast monetary incentives to do so, no private entity would stand in the way. And concerned citizens would be
In a market
economy, natural resources and pristine wildlife are victims in the tragedy of the
commons. I have not yet heard a libertarian or a Tea Partier come forward with a plausible way that the
squashed over like a steamroller, given the resources modern corporations can muster with ease.
environment would be protected in such a world -- there would simply be insignificant motivation to do so. And it's
nice that most individual Tea Partiers say they care at least a little bit about the environment. I wouldn't kill a baby
seal or release toxic sludge into pristine forest, they tell me. That's great! I'm glad to hear it. But honestly, I'm not
so worried about you, personally. It would be nice if every American pledged to be good conservationists in their
It's the corporations that do the

industrial-scale damage, and they're not guided by a moral compass but the need
to turn a profit (again, this isn't monstrous, it's simply a structural reality). We need laws to protect
stuff like this. That's what doesn't register amongst the Tea Party, and where much
of its magical thinking about the environment falls apart -- you can't protect the
nation's air, water, and wildlife just by being a determined, individual citizen and
guiding your personal choice towards the morally correct end. It's not enough. Part of
private lives -- but these days, that really doesn't get us anywhere.
protecting the environment in the modern era means recognizing the scope of the challenges that currently face it.
Which is why we need the government to set and enforce environmental rules.
Government agencies like the EPA may be bulky, slow-moving, even a bit bloated -- but those agencies, along with
the advocacy groups that push them to act, are the only true guards we've got against industrial polluters. Against
a dirtier, unhealthier, less beautiful nation. So, needless to say, until the Tea Party stops calling for the abolishment
regulations that preserve the quality of our air and

water, and quits working to roll back every imaginable environmental protection on
the books, I will continue to be critical of the group's aims. And one last word to
anyone who still thinks that they can be both a "small government" Tea Partier and
an environmentalist. Just consider again: How will you protect the nation for
industrial pollution? From mountaintop removal mining? From deforestation, from
the exploitation of endangered species? From toxic air pollution? How?
of the EPA, ceases trying to halt all-important
Fossil fuel money powers the Tea Party (Note: the af

represents an admission of emissions being bad)
Schenkel 10 (Andrew, environmental blogger, How the Tea Party is bad for the
environment, Published in Mother Nature Network August 25, 2010,
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/how-the-tea-party-is-bad-for-theenvironment)
Nothing goes with a little tea like some Big Oil. In the most recent issue of the New Yorker, Jane
Mayer connects one of Americas wealthiest oil families, the Koch family, to the Tea
Party movement. Is anyone surprised? The super wealthy and their entanglement in
politics is as American as saying whatever you need to say to get elected. In terms of
wealthy political families, the Rockefellers and Kennedys come to mind. But lets not overlook the behind-the-
The Tea Party

movement and Koch make perfect sense as a team. Forget that Koch has been both
a vice presidential nominee and then presidential candidate for the Libertarian
Party, and focus on how he got to be worth an estimated $17 billion by Forbes
magazine dirty businesses. Government regulation is bad for the Koch family
business, which is a conglomeration of pipeline, fertilizer, oil refining and chemical
businesses. So, when an anti-government group like the Tea Party movement comes
along, Koch takes out the checkbook. This should concern those who vote proenvironment each November, assuming these people actually exist. Executive branch power, like an EPA
scenes pawn-pushers like George Soros on the left, and now perhaps, David Koch on the right.
ruling, looks to be one of the few avenues left remaining for a legitimate climate policy. If anything can be learned
from the Lisa Murkowski resolution, its that the Senate is just a few votes shy of being able to veto anything the
EPA does. This sounds like exactly what David Koch wants. It sounds exactly like what the Tea Party wants. Is
anyone surprised?
Tea party people hate global warming, but not for the reason
you think
Eilperin and Clement 14 (Juliet and Scott, Washington Post reporters, Tea
party Republicans are biggest climate change deniers, new Pew poll finds,
Published November 1, 2013, the Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/01/only-tea-partymembers-believe-climate-change-is-not-happening-new-pew-poll-finds/ )
Tea party Republicans are now the only group of Americans who think the Earth is
not warming, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, with just 25
percent of tea party Republicans saying global warming is happening. By contrast,
67 percent of all Americans say there is evidence climate change is underway,
including 61 percent of non-tea party Republicans . Democrats and independents are more
confident about global warming: 88 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents say there is solid
evidence climate change has taken place over the past few decades. Despite broad belief in warming overall, fewer
than half the public believes human activity is to blame (44 percent), a number hardly changed from last year (42
percent). That's despite a significant rise in the share of Americans who believe scientists generally agree the Earth
is getting warmer because of human activity, from 45 percent last year to 54 percent now. Partisans have sharply
differing perceptions of the level of scientific consensus that mirror splits in their own beliefs -- seven in 10
Democrats, but just over four in 10 Republicans say scientists generally agree humans are causing a rise in the
Earths temperature. In 2009, more than nine in 10 scientists said the Earth has gotten warmer, according to a
separate Pew Research survey conducted among members of the American Association for the Advancement of
The survey is the latest evidence that the tea party has split Republican
loyalists, not just over the recent government shutdown and the budget but on
lower-profile issues such as immigration and the environment. Fully 70 percent of
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the tea party
movement said theres no solid evidence the Earth has gotten warmer in the past
few decades. That compares to 61 percent of non-tea party Republicans who
believe warming is happening, along with majorities in over 60 demographic and
political groups that believe global warming is happening, according to the poll .
Science.
Several environmental and liberal groups, including the League of Conservation Voters and Organizing for Action,
have sought to make climate change denial a liability in recent elections. In the Virginia governor's race, LCV, the
biggest outside spender, has targeted GOP nominee Ken Cuccinelli for suggesting that global warming is not linked
to human activity, and Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe has run ads on the issue.
Tea Party hates the environment

Blodget 13 (Henry, co-founder and editor in chief of Business Insider, I've
Finally Figured Out Why Some Crazy Republicans Want To Shut The Government
Down!, Published September 30, 2013, in Business Insider,
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-republicans-want-to-shut-government-2013-9)
For the past few weeks, I've been scratching my head about why a minority faction of one of our two political
This group of extremists, known as "Tea

Party Republicans," doesn't seem to care about the damage a shutdown will do to
our fragile economy or confidence in our government. They also don't seem to care that the
parties seems so determined to shut the government down.
larger party they are members of, the once-admired Republican Party, will be tarnished by their selfish,
Instead, the Tea Party extremists just say that, because they don't
like a particular piece of legislation, they are justified in shutting the whole
government down. Grandstanding and brinksmanship are one thing, but the extremists who now control the
Republican Party don't seem to be engaging in grandstanding and brinksmanship. Rather, they appear to be
arguing that, any time a minority faction of our government is not given everything
irresponsible behavior.
it wants by the rest of the government, it is acceptable to shut the government

down. If this view of our government becomes accepted as non-crazy behavior, life in this country is going to get
interesting in the next few years. Anyway, this position and attitude has been mystifying to me: Why engage in
selfish, irresponsible behavior, hurt America and Americans, and destroy your political party's brand when you don't
have to? Especially when even the Tea Party admits that the shutdown threat no longer has anything to do with the
national debt! My colleagues have explained two of the reasons, namely that 1) Voting districts have been so
successfully gerrymandered that Tea Party extremists are assured of being reelected even if they behave like
selfish, irresponsible lunatics, and 2) the country has become more conservative in recent years. That helped me
understand. But now, on the eve of the shutdown, the "giddy" behavior the Tea Party extremists are displaying is
becoming even more comprehensible. Why? Because the first parts of the government that will be shut down are
the parts of the government that the Tea Party extremists say they hate! Specifically: The Environmental Protection
The Tea Party extremists don't care about the environment and hate the
organization dedicated to protecting it.
Agency.
Tea party wants gridlock

Kesselman 13 (Mark, professor emeritus of political science, Columbia
University and editor of the international political science review, Why gridlock in
Washington?, Published January 17, 2013, Al Jazeera,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013114143133822657.html )
The Republican Party (GOP) is much further to the right
than the Democratic Party is to the left; and it is far less willing to compromise.
Therefore, explaining gridlock requires understanding what has produced the
Republican Party's rightward ideological shift and intransigence. The answer can be
provided in one - or rather, three - words: The Tea Party! Gridlock, partisan
polarisation, and the rightward thrust in contemporary American politics derive from
the Tea Party's takeover of the Republican Party, which in turn has enabled the Tea
Party to paralyse Congress and the entire American government. The Tea Party movement
In fact, polarisation is not symmetrical:
erupted in 2009, soon after the election of the first African American president in American history, a Democrat who
The Tea Party is an ideological outlier

within American politics, given its fierce opposition to tax increases; strong support for a minimal federal
was markedly more liberal than his Republican predecessor.
government achieved by substantial cuts in federal spending on social programmes (or, preferably, their
The Tea Party's refusal to bargain and compromise

also contrasts with what has often been described as typical American pragmatism .
Their influence is disproportionate to the number of its supporters or elected
officials. Its major source of power is the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
privatisation); and harsh immigration policies.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has observed that because the Republican Party controls the House of
Representatives, it "has much more power in Washington than it has support in the nation as a whole". While only
the Tea Party's

ideological influence in the House Republican caucus, coupled with Republican
control of the House of Representatives, have gridlocked the American political
system since 2010. The Tea Party's direct influence can be measured by the number of Republican officials in
about one quarter of House Republicans belong to the Tea Party Congressional Caucus,
Congress and at state and local levels who owe their election to its support. However, the movement's indirect
The Tea Party has reshaped

the orientation of the entire Republican Party toward the hard-edged right; it has
been remarkably successful in intimidating Republican officeholders, including those
who may not share its extreme positions .
influence within the Republican Party reaches far beyond its officeholders.
Tea party unwilling to compromise

Gage 14 (Patrick, heir to Carlson hotel empire, Georgetown University undergrad,
editor of the republican publication The Right Way, Lose the Tea Party, Published
March 21, 2014, the Right Way,

http://therightwaygu.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/lose-the-tea-party/ )
The Right Way recently published several articles discussing the future of the Republican Party. A number of them,
like Alex Robledos The GOP Must Be More Libertarian, suggest success lies further to the right, that becoming
more conservative or libertarian is the key to a Republican resurgence. I could not disagree more. In my
the Tea Party and its far-right companions are the bane of the
conservative movement, no-nonsense, uncompromising organizations that care
more about ideology than governing. To ensure long-term winnability, the GOP
must cut the Tea Party loose. The Tea Party, which emerged in the wake of President
Obamas disastrous first year, has consistently dogged Republicans and done
everything it can to ruin our chances of electoral victory. In 2010, the GOP was poised to seize
humble opinion,
both the Senate and the House. Well-known establishment figures, such as Mike Castle (Delaware) and Sue Lowden
(Nevada), were polling exceptionally well against their Democratic counterparts; Harry Reid was all but gone. Enter
the Tea Party. Polarizing fringe candidates like Sharron Angle (Nevada), Ken Buck (Colorado), and Christine
ODonnell (Delaware), who admitted to having dabbled in witchcraft, destroyed any possibility of taking the
Senate. Galvanized by a wave of grassroots support, all three lost races that were winnable just months before. This
unfortunate situation produced a gain of 6 Republican seats when 10 were needed for a majority. The three seats I
mentioned, plus one toss-up, could have given us the Senate. By nominating some of the worst political candidates
in recent history, the Tea Party made sure that didnt happen. I share these examples because they prove the point
for the past 4 years, the Tea Party has used its influence to force
Republicans to the far-right. If a candidate refuses to change, activists simply
endorse the most conservative, least electable alternative they can find. In doing
so, the Tea Party has made the GOP an incredibly toxic brand in the political arena.
Voters looking for candidates who want to work with the other side and get things
done wont find them in the Tea Party; there is little, if any, compromise to be had.
Unfortunately, because Tea Party candidates track right and are often elected as
Republicans, their views are conflated with those of the establishment . In fact, the two
Im trying to make:
parties Republican and Tea could not be more different. The Tea Party, broadly speaking, cares most about
taxes and spending. In general, I agree with its politics taxes are too high and Congress spends like a drunken
sailor (or worse). At that point, our similarities disappear. I am willing to compromise on these issues in order to
achieve a greater good: perhaps we raise taxes a bit to decrease spending, or maybe increase spending when a
sound investment opportunity comes our way. Unlike the fringe, I understand that Congress is no place for
Government requires compromise, a fact the Tea Party seems loath to

accept. This headline from the Tea Party Tribune says it all: Our Moment: No
Compromise. No Surrender. Total Victory. The Tea Party and its rigid, ideological
obsession with cutting taxes and reducing spending, though laudable goals in and of
themselves, flies in the face of common sense. The term RINO (Republican in Name Only), used
frequently during the 2010 midterms, ridiculed Republicans who had the gall to reach across the aisle. It
clearly has not occurred to the far-right fringe that RINOs make government run.
While the Tea Party pledges total victory and no surrender, real leaders sit down
and try to find viable solutions. Screaming may feel good, but it doesnt get us
anywhere. The Tea Partys attitude can be summed up in a warning activists sent to
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN): our great nation can no longer afford compromise
and bipartisanship. Theyre wrong. Our nation can afford compromise; in fact, we
need it. Its high-time the establishment told the Tea Party to go away; it doesnt
belong in a movement that wishes to govern . Fellow Republicans, heed my words: the Tea Party will
ideologues.
be the end of us if we do not act. I urge the establishment to disown this movement, as I have here. Ideology is
fruitless if it cannot be implemented; the Tea Partys polarizing, unpopular message will ensure we never win
another general election. Its time to tell the Tea Party enough is enough. My way or the highway, they ask? I
choose the highway, and so should you.
Tensions are high every new policy will be scrutinized for

conservative purity
Wall Street Journal, 6-18-14, (Kristina Peterson and Michael R. Crittenden,
House GOP Leadership Vote Could Be a Dress Rehearsal Published 6-18-14,
http://online.wsj.com/articles/house-gop-members-want-bigger-role-in-legislationdecisions-1403116336)
The tension is likely to escalate if Republicans vote to replace Mr. McCarthy with his current top deputy, Rep. Peter
Roskam of Illinois, locked in the tight whip race with Republican Study Committee Chairman Steve Scalise of
Louisiana. A third candidate, Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, is trailing. " If
we preserve the status quo
there will be a push internally and externally like you saw in

we refuse to listen to that
message, we do so at our own peril." Conservative lawmakers, bristling from what they
see as a domineering approach from the current leadership, said they would be
scrutinizing the winners of Thursday's contest closely in the brief months before the next
round of elections. Between now and November, Congress will have to address a
looming shortfall in the highway trust fund, the expiration of the Export-Import Bankwhich many
by just moving everybody up a seat, I think
Virginia," said Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.), referring to Mr. Cantor's defeat. " If
conservatives want to eliminateand funding of the government beyond the end of the fiscal year in September.
"If we see them not govern the way we hope they will, I guarantee there will be
about making changes," said Rep. Jeff Duncan (R., S.C.).
conversations
The Tea Party hates policy per se any new agenda item will
infuriate them
Dr. Wumi Akintide, 7-15-14, http://saharareporters.com/2014/07/15/obstruct-orimpeach-obama-rallying-point-republicans-2014-their-waterloo-2016-dr-wumi
Even though they are currently in the minority in the US Senate they have
effectively used the Senate rule that requires a majority of 60 out of 100 members
to pass any motion just to frustrate Obama to a point that that Obama became so
unpopular with his Democratic base for trying to appease the Republicans too much
because he wanted to be seen as a consensus builder. The Republicans wanted him
to lose support from his base in addition to their refusal to support him. That was
their formula for frustrating or distracting him every step of the way. Once that
became clear to Obama, he decided to reverse course. Once he managed to win a
second term on his own merit, and since he was no longer going to run for a third
term, he knew it was time to call off the bluff of the Republicans if they were not
ready to meet him half way. He therefore resorted to using executive orders to
carry out some of the policies he knew were going to be in the best interest of the
silent majority of Americans and that are likely to remain part of his legacies as
President. The Republicans knew any attempt to impeach the President as advised
by Sarah Palin and her cohorts would fail because the President was constitutionally
empowered to do all of what he has done and he was quick to point out to them he
had used executive orders far less frequently than all of his predecessors. He
further argued that he was forced to do it because the non-performing Congress has
refused to do their own job. The Republicans dont want his presidency remembered
for anything good. They have hoped he was only going to be a one term President
but Obama completely surprised them when he won a landslide victory against their
best candidate, Mitt Romney. Obama has managed to push the Republicans to the
extreme right which put the Republicans at logger head with the Independent voters
who constitute the swing vote in American Politics. The advent of the Tea Party has
further boxed the Republicans into a corner from which they cannot escape.
Individuals like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin with their extreme views have further dug
the Republicans into a deeper hole. They now talk of taking Obama to Court and
threatening him with a Law suit forgetting that the President and his first lady are
top notch Harvard lawyers who could not be intimidated at all by any frivolous law
suit. They are just hoping to distract him and to delay the implementation of some
of his sound policies.
NSA Reform
Link
Need specific link, just use other da. May not have had time to cut this. Iron
fertilization kills Obamas pc needs to be put here.
Naval Readiness
Links
Ocean space is narrowing and conflicts are inevitable it is
required for readiness
Colleen M. Sullivan, http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/y-12-014, 14
ocean waters are a potential source of wind, wave, and tidal energy; of interest to
renewable energy entrepreneurs and to the U.S. government as it seeks to bolster energy
security. In order to install technology to capture this energy, however, it may be necessary
to mitigate conflict with existing ocean space users. The objective of this research was to construct a
Oregons
conflict analysis model in a GIS to answer the following research questions: (1) Within the study area off the coast of
Oregon, where are stakeholders currently using ocean space and how many uses overlap? (2)
To what extent might existing ocean space use present potential for conflict with renewable
energy development? (3) How do various types of uncertainty affect analysis results? (4) What are the
implications of these findings for ecosystem based management of the ocean? All available spatial
information on ocean space usage by commercial fishing, commercial non-fishing,
recreational, Native American, and scientific communities was gathered. Stakeholder
outreach with these communities was used to vet the collected data and allow each to
contribute knowledge not previously available through GIS data clearinghouses maintained
by government or interest groups. The resulting data were used as inputs to a conflict
visualization model written in Python and imported to an ArcGIS tool. Results showed
extensive coverage and overlap of existing ocean space uses; specifically that 99.7% of the
1-nm2 grid cells of the study area are occupied by at least 6 different categories of ocean
space use. The six uses with the greatest coverage were: Fishing Trolling, Habitat, Military,
Fishing - Closure Areas, Protected, and Marine Transportation - Low Intensity. An uncertainty
analysis was also completed to illustrate the margin for error and therefore the necessity of appropriate stakeholder
outreach during the renewable energy siting process, as opposed to relying only on a GIS. Ranking of each category
by its potential for conflict with renewable energy development demonstrated which areas of the ocean may be
particularly contentious. Because rankings are subjective, a tool was created to allow users to input their own
rankings. For the purpose of this report, default rankings were assigned to each as justified by the literature. Results
under these assumptions showed that space use and potential for conflict were highest between the coast and
approximately 30 nm at sea. This is likely because certain space use is limited by depth (e.g.,
recreational use); there is increased shipping density as vessels approach and depart major
ports; and increased fuel costs associated with traveling further from shore. Two potential
applications of model results were demonstrated. First, comparison with existing wave energy permit sites
highlighted relative potential for conflict among the sites and the input data detailed the specific uses present.
Second, comparison with areas determined most suitable for development by the wave energy industry illustrated
that areas of high suitability often also had high rankings for potential for conflict. It appeared that the factors that
determined development suitability were often the same factors that drew current ocean space users to those
locations. Current support at the state, regional and federal level under the National Ocean Policy for the use of
marine spatial planning as a tool to implement ecosystem based management of the oceans requires that tools
such as the one developed in this research are used, to ensure that all components of the marine ecosystem are
considered prior to implementation of a management plan. The addition of renewable energy to the current social
landscape of the ocean will reduce the resource base for many categories of ocean space use. Model results
demonstrated that mitigation of conflict between development and existing space use is not
merely a best practice supported by current policy, but a necessity. Results presented a
visualization of the social landscape of the ocean that could help managers determine which
stakeholders to engage during the initial stage of choosing a site for development.
The ocean is key to military readiness

Medina et. al. 14 (Medina, Monica, Joel Smith, and Linda Sturgis. "National Coastal Mapping
Advancing National Defense and Ocean Conservation." National Coastal Ocean Mapping (2014): n. pag. Center for a
New American Security. Jan. 2014. Web. 15 July 2014. <http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publicationspdf/OceanMapping_MedinaSmithSturgis.pdf>. XM)
The ocean functions as a geographic barrier for the United States, as well as a
highway for U.S. military forces to deploy around the world. In order to be
prepared for national defense, the Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps require
large areas of the coastal ocean for training and long-range weapons testing. To
maximize situational awareness and ensure safety and operational effectiveness,
the military places significant value on the collection and analysis of data.8 To
operate in the coastal ocean, federal agencies including the military must undergo an expansive
permitting process to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act. The law requires federal agencies
to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
Military users
must also comply with a host of other marine-based environmental protection
laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Clean Water Act, as well as state
environmental protection laws.
disproportionately high and adverse human health of its programs, policies, and activities. 9
The Navys use of ocean training is key to naval readiness

Guerrero 13 (Jesse Leon Guerrero, Joint regions marianas public affairs, Tsunami Exercise strengthens
navys readiness on Guam 12 December 2013.
(http://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/NewsArticleView/tabid/7464/Article/7786/tsunami-exercise-strengthens-navysreadiness-on-guam.aspx) LP)
The benefit of an exercise like this is that we're not caught off guard and that
we know what to do when the time to do it occurs, rather than trying to figure it out on
the day of," he said. "It's improving us with material and force readiness." U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Guam (USCG) Chief Operations Specialist Brian Koji said in a real-life situation the
command might only have two hours to respond and go through all of their
emergency checklists and notification procedures. Koji and other Coast Guardsmen set up
a portable high-frequency communications system at the Joint Region Marianas headquarters, which allowed USCG
to maintain their communications with the emergency management office in Saipan and vessels around Guam. "It
is important for us to practice our skills because it has to be automatic when we're going through everything," he
said. "If we don't practice, we're not as proficient with setting up our gear."
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Distribution Guam Marianas Director Joe Pirman said it only took between three to
five minutes for about 60 DLA employees to evacuate from their offices near Tango Wharf to Ebbett Field.
"Take
it seriously because you never know when it's really going to happen," he said.
"This is something that we can do for a typhoon, earthquake or tsunami.
When a real world thing happens, if it happens, we will know what to do.
Training imperative to military readiness [adjacent

development OR ocean observation systems OR economic
expansion] can compromise
Cullom 13 STATEMENT OF VADM PHILIP HART CULLOM, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR
FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS (N4), U.S. NAVY THE READINESS POSTURE OF THE U.S. NAVY AND THE U.S.
MARINE CORPS APRIL 26, 2013 Online http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg80770/html/CHRG113hhrg80770.htm
To support a ready Navy, it is imperative we provide our warfighters with robust

quality training before they serve at the tip of the spear . The budget includes sustained
investments in key training capabilities, including fleet synthetic training. To further improve undersea warfare
readiness, it also increases funding for the diesel electric submarine initiative and continues development of the
shallow water training range. Continued procurement of high-speed maneuverable surface targets provides realistic
live fire training at sea for operator proficiency .
We must ensure our training investments are not

compromised to the detriment of our warfighters. Encroachment to key training
sites, both physical and electromagnetic, can occur both ashore and at sea. If not
controlled, it threatens our ability to train and operate and can adversely impact our
national security. Over the course of the past year, we have learned that
encroachment can include adjacent development, ocean observing systems, or
economic expansion. Increased awareness and continued interagency cooperation
are central to maintaining our national security .
Ocean drills key to Naval Maritime Readiness

U.S Fleet Forces Command N.D. (U.S. Fleet Forces CommandUnder the control of the
Secretary of the Navy. Why the Navy Trains and Tests No Date.
http://aftteis.com/NavyTrainingandTesting/WhytheNavyTrainsandTests.aspx//AP)
Naval forces must be ready for a variety of military operations from large-scale
conflict to maritime security and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief to deal
with the dynamic, social, political, economic, and environmental issues that occur in
todays world. The Navy supports these military operations through its
continuous presence on the worlds oceans. The Navy can respond to a wide
range of issues because, on any given day , over one-third of its ships,
submarines, and aircraft are deployed overseas. Naval forces must be
prepared for a broad range of capabilities from full-scale armed conflict in a variety of different
geographic areas to disaster relief effortsprior to deployment on the world's oceans . To learn
these capabilities, personnel must train with the equipment and systems
that will achieve military objectives. The training process provides
personnel with an in-depth understanding of their individual limits and
capabilities; the training process also helps the testing community improve new weapon
systems.
Modern weapons training requires space key to readiness

Modern weapons bring both unprecedented opportunity and innumerable challenges to the
Navy. For example, modern (or smart) weapons are very accurate and help the Navy accomplish
its mission with greater precision and far less collateral damage than in past conflicts;
however, modern weapons are very complex to use . Military personnel must
train regularly with these weapons to understand the capabilities,
limitations, and operations of the platform or system. Modern military
actions require teamworkteamwork that includes the use of various
equipment, vehicles, ships, and aircraftbetween hundreds or thousands

of people to achieve success. Military readiness training and preparation for deployment include
everything from teaching basic and specialized individual military skills to intermediate skills or small unit training.
personnel increase in skill level and complete the basic training, they advance to intermediate and
larger exercise training events, which culminate in advanced, integrated training events composed
of large groups of personnel and, in some instances, joint service exercises.
As
Realistic Environment key to Naval Readiness

Military readiness training must be as realistic as possible to provide the

experiences so important to success and survival. While simulators and
synthetic training are critical elements of training to provide early skill repetition and enhance
teamworkthere is no substitute for live training in a realistic environment.
The range complexes and operating areas have these realistic environments, with sufficient sea and airspace vital
Just as a pilot would not be ready to fly solo after

simulator training, a Navy commander cannot allow military personnel to
engage in real combat activities based merely on simulator training.
for safety and mission success.
Military Exercises key to development of new naval technology

The Navy uses a number of different testing methods, including computer simulation and analysis, throughout the
Although simulation is a key component in the

development of platforms and systems, it cannot provide information on how a
platform or system will perform or whether it will be able to meet performance and
other specification requirements in the environment in which it is intended to
operate without comparison to actual performance data. For this reason, platforms and
systems must undergo at-sea testing at some point in the development process. Thus, like the fleet,
the research and acquisition community requires access to large, relatively unrestricted
ocean operating areas, multiple strike targets, and unique range attributes to
support its testing requirements. Navy platforms and systems must be tested and
evaluated within the broadest range of operating conditions available (e.g., bathymetry,
topography, geography) because Navy personnel must be capable of performing missions
within the wide range of conditions that exist worldwide. Furthermore, Navy
personnel must be assured that platforms and systems will meet performance
specifications in the real-world environment in which they will be operated.
development of platforms and systems.
Kritiks
Environmental Security
Links
Geoengineering puts the jumper cables on the motor of
biopolitics that makes bare life, genocide and nuclear war
inevitablewere not kidding
Bruyre 13 (Vincent, assistant prof of French @ Emory Univ., Paroles En Lair:
Climate Change and the Science of Fables, diacritics Vol 41.3, 2013, pgs 60-79)//mm
The controversial human engineering proposal signed by Matthew Liao, Anders

Sand berg, and Rebecca Roache is equally demanding in that respect. In their paper
Human Engineering and Climate Change they explore biotechnological
alternatives to programs that seek market-regulated behavioral change to address
global warming, and to equally controversial geoengineering programs that
seek to cool the planet through Solar Radiation Management. The suggestions
range from the distribution of pharmaceutical patches to induce a meat intolerance
that enables individuals to become vegetarians and thus participate actively in the
reduction of livestock farming, and oxytocin treatment to enhance altruism and
empathyprecious qualities in times of scarcityto more radical genetic
modifications. These measures, insist the authors, would not be forced upon a
population but would be encouraged through tax breaks or sponsored healthcare
incentives.49 I am not quite sure what to say about this text, or how to respond to
it, other than with a yes, no, or perhaps, based on a review of its assessment of
risks and benefits. But this reaction would only concern the suggested measures,
not the form of the proposal itself in its inventiveness. Any answer to the
question of what biotechnology can or cannot do based on the rationale of risk
assessments is already part, if not the product, of the bioethicist machine.
These measures belong to the corpus of modern panoplies accomplishing the
transformability, reformability, and reasoning of bodies through a scriptural
machine. Conspicuously remodeling the bios involved in bioethics, biopolitics,
and biotechnology, the transformations Liaos measures promote are taking
place in a time when, much like in Lyotards fable of biotechnological escalation,
there would be no fundamental difference between a Bildung project and a slow
too slow according to Liaoself-formation process cultivating human potential
through the arts and humanities, along with the bio- chemical facilitation that
accelerates behavioral change.50 This reformative effort, writes de Certeau,
preceded the historical form that writing has taken in modern times. It will outlive
this particular form. It is interwoven into this form and determines it like a
continuing archaeology whose name and status we are unable to determine. What
is at stake is the relation between the law and the bodya body is itself defined,
delimited, and articulated by what writes it.51 In that sense, when it comes to the
bioengineering proposal, the only thing I can talk about concerns the relation
between the delimitation of a field . . . or a system . . . and what it constitutes as its
outside or its remainder or, in other words, the relation between human
engineering as a field of operations and the desire or the need to make our bodies
the emblems of an identifying law.52 I cannot stop the machine but I can say that
Liao and his coauthors renew a kind of belief in the history of fables translating
discursive surplus into manageable values. They renew the form of an
expertise in fiction. By doing so, they create a system of constraints along with a
domain of possibilities. They come up with a new range of answers to Foucaults
question: How can one reduce the great peril, the great danger with which fiction
threatens our world?53 Almost apologetic, Liao, Sandberg, and Roache write: We
are well aware that our proposal to encourage having smaller, but environmentallyfriendlier human beings is prima facie outlandish, and we have made no attempt to
avoid provoking this response. There is a good reason for this, namely, we wish to
highlight that examining intuitively absurd or apparently drastic ideas can be an
important learning experience, and that failing to do so could result in our missing
out on opportunities to address important, often urgent, issues.54 Liaos
bioengineering proposal is contained in a box made of competing proposals and
options (Solar Radiation Management, ocean fertilization, carbon pricing, etc.). It
is not yet approved, or even welcomed as the best possible, or least risky, option;
and yet it has not been rejected either. I am not in a position to open the box, in the
same way that I cannot tell the off-position from the on-position in Schrdingers
experiment, but I can intensify the proposal by reading for its scriptural plot
while resituating it in a culture of fiction and the history of the science of fables. The
proposal itself functions as one of these theoretical fictions that tell us that there is
no entry or exit for writing, but only the endless play of its fabrications,55 fictions
among which de Certeau placed Kafkas In the Penal Colony, Raymond Roussels
Locus Solus, and Marcel Duchamps celibate machines. In Kafkas story, access is
granted to an antiquated judiciary mechanism designed to
enforce/write/project/engrave/inscribe/prescribe the law directly into the flesh
of those who have been found guilty, and to write it in such a way that the
body brought before the law perishes in the process, without a trial,
unaware of the charges.56 In the Penal Colony grants Lyotard access to a
problematization of morals and politics, and by extension to the question of the
penitentiary within civil society. I leave aside much of Lyotards elaboration of the
innocence and infancy of this body before it entered the (time of the) law and was
reclaimed by the legal/lethal apparatus, to jump ahead to the ending and to the
return of a certain form of exacting cruelty. The old machine destroys itself before
the eyes of the visitor who had been granted access to it, thus making room for the
representational machine of politics, an enlightened machine that, unlike the
previous one, would permit trials and deliberations. But like the previous one, the
new machine would convene a community around its proceedings. The original
machine was already old, and its mode of operation in question. The visitor was
preparing to report back on its cruelty and spread outrage in the nascent public
space of the colony that had sought his services and granted him access to the
machine. The narrative feat that brings about the demise of the machine only
brings to the fore, and for the naked eye so to speak, what was meant to happen,
and may have in fact already happened. As Lyotard remarks at the beginning of his
intervention, Kafkas text doesnt call for any commentary, which would only
diminish both its clarity and its violent quality. One could also argue that there is
nothing radically new in principle in the bioengineering proposal, and again
nothing much to say about it, nor to read into it. Liaos proposal restarts the old
moral machine that had been stopped in Kafkas story. In the updated version, the
judicial function is almost entirely absent but the communal spectacle that at once
embodies and engineers the obligation, responsibility, prescription, and a certain
sense of Anthropocenic citizenship is more pronounced than ever (even if it is bloodless). In a normative world that only knows procedures, technical rationality, and
values, an ethics of responsibility ends up being performed by the return of Kafkas
machines. What is left of cruelty if sanguis is not shed to become cruor?57 With
Liao, it is not about the body anymore, nor about its indifference regarding the law
and the laws exacting timeliness, even when one of the proposed measures
exposes the unborn, through pre- implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), to select
shorter children. That which stands before the cruel machine has been relocated,
and cruelty is thus redirected toward a timeless and unmitigated future that does
not include usa future beyond the grasp of historical sensibilityto be reclaimed
by a moral apparatus.58 Those sudden shifts only happen in fiction, and particularly
in fictions that write themselves as fictional machines. The illegible praescripta to
be inscribed on the body of the convict become lethal only when the machine reads
them; a button is red only if pressed. The machine targets a scriptural and
legal efort that, turning one last time to de Certeau, preceded the historical form
that writing has taken in modern times and that will outlive this particular form.
This machine we call fiction stands for that which does, operates, and intervenes
without having to be observed doing, operating, and intervening. It is its own
archive even when access has been granted to it. For this reason, any machine
would dream of being a doomsday device that will keep on ticking, not necessarily
indefinitely, but at least untildoomsday or notthere is nothing left to register its
movement or notice its fading rustle anymore.59 James Watts steam engine
achieved that status in a post hoc fashion thanks to Paul Crutzen.60 Even if all
working steam engines have disappeared by the time the last observer expires,
Watts invention will have still been a doomsday device for those who are not
there on doomsday to recall the instrument of their demise. Having created the
future prospects of a genetic genocide, Liao and his colleagues may just have
set such a machine in motion, for, as George Annas contends, given the history
of humankind, it is extremely unlikely that we will see the better [or for that matter
the shorter] babies . . . as equal in rights and dignity to us, or that they will see us,
the naturals, as their equals.61 And so it may be with geoengineering
proposals Alan Robock confides his fears in the same issue of Ethics, Policy and
Environment where Liao published his proposal: I can imagine worse scenarios,
including global nuclear war started in response to unilateral
geoengineering implementation.62 But it is also in light of Liaos device and
its splicing of evolutionary, biotechnological, and historico-legal timelines that
normative differentials, such as human rights, may endure in the conjectural
ecologies of the Anthropocene.63 Policy relevance is very much a new frontier in
the humanistic and social humanistic culture of research. And it is so perhaps
because of the way it adjusts forms of inquiry to meet demands for meaning. It is
new as far as the future appears as a contingent set of possibilities about which
decisions are demanded; decisions are demanded because the future appears as
something about which we must do something.64 As suchand because
adjustments entail delays, mishaps, and replaysthe historicity of policy

relevance, as an object of discourse and an object of desire, must not be
ignored by literary scholars even if they cannot decide on the definitional status of
policy relevance within relations of power. However, when it comes to policy
relevance in its modalities of existence, as well as its non-definitional dimension and
exteriority relative to the reality it seeks to transform, protocols of intervention and
renunciation remain to be invented, textual competencies to be conceived. It is less
a plea to make literary criticism policy relevant, or a praise of its functional policy
irrelevance in a knowledge economy driven by risk management, and more a
memorandum of understanding for what the governance of futurity invests inor
attaches tothe cultivation of difference in forms of inquiry, and for the kind of
comparative work, notional distinctions, and forms of life that might sanction the
description of emergent orders of difference. If there is a definitional outcome to
this Anthropocenic sequencing of artifacts, it may be found in the distinction
between survival techniques and what Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents calls
techniques of living. A policy-relevant view of Svalbard, Liaos proposal, and
demands for sustainability would see each of these as survival techniques
necessary for the management of life after good life. Seen from the perspective of
those systemics of development that, according to Bill Readings commenting on
Oikos, are now the general horizon under which . . . all forms of life are being
subsumed,65 Svalbard, Liaos biotech proposal, and their respective demands for
sustainability, are all techniques of living. They stylize [our] capacity for sensefeeling and awareness.66 They manner sentiencewhere insentience is not
necessarily the nonawareness of a dead thing [but] also the opacity, to us, of the
inhuman structures that structure the human, and emerge in our artifacts.67 And
through this operation, they define zones of interest in life, rather than ways to
keep deathor the wrong kind of deathat bay.68 It is in this manner that the
Anthropocene project leaves us with something interesting to read. Policy relevance
relies on the ability to imagine the calibration of exchange by means of abstract
instruments,69 and on the particular regulatory, authoritative exchange of forms of
expertise. But what is of interest is precisely the relation of policy relevance to
the living, which is to say dying, beings who create them,70 especially as it
mediates their life interests. Likewise, what systemics of development will leave us
with, if we are sent to space after the explosion of the sun71 in a final sendoff, is less a matter of carbon life, finitude, and survival, than of an obligation
toward the philologies and those other techniques, disciplines, institutions,
architectures, proposals, policies, and narratives of the once we had been sent to
space, that interest us in our fables.
Capitalism
Links
A neoliberal green revolution simply shifts to domination and exploitation into other
spheres
White (post-doctoral research fellow in the School of Cultural and Innovation Studies, University of East London) 2
(Damian, A Green Industrial Revolution? Sustainable Technological Innovation in a Global Age, Environmental
Politics, Vo1.II. No.2, Summer 2002. pp.I-26)
The first point is essentially negative. Notably, it draws attention to the fact that even if all the
obstacles to a green industrial revolution posed by the structuring of the current political
economy are addressed - ifthere are notforces to make things differently - the type of eco-technological
and ecoindustrial reorganisation that triumphs could simply serve and reinforce the patterns of
interest of dominant groups. A neo-liberal version of the 'green industrial revolution'

could simply give rise to eco-technologies and forms of industrial reorganisation that
arc perfectly compatible with extending social control, military power, worker
surveillance and the broader repressive capacities of dominant groups and institutions. It
might even be that a corporate dominated green industrial revolution would simply ensure that employers
have 'smart' buildings which not only give energy back to the national grid but allow for new 'solar
powered' employee surveillance technologies. What of a sustainable military-industrial complex
that uses green warfare technologies that kill human beings without destroying
ecosystems? To what extent might a 'nonhero' dominated green industrial revolution simply
ensure that the South receives ecotechnologies that primarily express Northern interests
(for example, embedding relations of dependency rather than of self management and autonomy?). In
short then, a green industrial revolution could simply give rise to new forms of 'green
governmentality' [Dorier et aI., 1999].
The 1ACs call for development creates the ocean as a new space for neoliberal capitalism
Steinberg (Department of Geography, Royal Holloway University of London) 10
(Philip E., Sekula, Allan and Nol Burch 2010 The Forgotten Space, reviewed by Philip E. Steinberg
http://societyandspace.com/reviews/film-reviews/sekula/)
In other words, in
the capitalist imagination, the sea is idealized as a flat surface in which

space is abstracted from geophysical reality. As the seas space is reduced to an abstract
quantity of distance, or time, it is constructed as amenable to annihilation by
technologies that enable the compression (or, better yet, the transcendence) of space-time, like the
containership. While this construction of the ocean provides rich material for geographers of capitalism
and modernity (e.g. Steinberg 2001), it provides precious little material for filmmakers. Under capitalism,
the ocean is valued only in its (idealized) absence, and absence is notoriously difficult to film. Thus, as
Brett Story, the other geographer who has commented on the film, has noted, he film spends surprisingly
little time on actual water (Story 2012, page 1576, emphasis added). By my count, only about ten
minutes of the 110-minute film are spent at sea (all on the Hanjin Budapest) and even in this footage the
material ocean is not a force that needs to be reckoned with, except as a source of rust.
For viewers who are familiar with Sekulas book Fish Story, as well as with his other film The Lottery of
the Sea, the relative absence of the ocean in The Forgotten Space is, as Story suggests, surprising. In
contrast with The Forgotten Space, Fish Story begins with a meditation on the crude materiality of the
sea (Sekula 1995, page 12) and he reminds the reader throughout the book that the oceans
materiality persists despite the best intentions of capital to wash it away. Thus, for instance,
we learn in Fish Story that large-scale material flows remain intractable. Acceleration is not
absolute: the hydrodynamics of large-capacity hulls and the power output of diesel
engines set a limit to the speed of cargo ships not far beyond that of the first quarter of [the
twentieth] century (Sekula 1995, page 50). In Fish Story, the ocean is a space of contradictions and a
non-human actor in its own right. However, no such references to the seas geophysical materiality and
the barriers that this might pose to its idealization as a friction-free surface of movement appear in The
Forgotten Space.
Human frictions on the sea likewise feature in Fish Story: militant seafarers, longshoremen, and
mutineers all make appearances in the text. In contrast, these individuals receive scant attention in The
Forgotten Space (a point noted by Story as well), and much of the attention that they do receive is about
their failings. A relatively hopeful account of union organizing in Los Angeles is paired with a story of
labours defeat in the face of automation in Rotterdam and that of a faded movement in Hong Kong
where the union hall has become a social club for retirees and their widows.
For Sekula, the heterotopia of the ship celebrated by Foucault has become a neoliberal
dystopia. The world of containerization is Foucaults dreaded civilization without
boats, in which dreams have dried up, espionage has taken the place of adventure, and the police have
taken the place of pirates (adapted from Foucault 1986, page 27). Echoing Foucault, Sekula asks near the
beginning of the film, Does the anonymity of the box turn the sea of exploit and adventure into a lake of
invisible drudgery? Although Sekula never answers this question directly, his response would seem to be
in the affirmative: the sea is no longer a romantic space of resistance; it has been tamed.
Sekula and Burchs failure to depict the ocean as a space of dialectical encounters (whether
between humans or among human and non-human elements) reproduces a dematerialization of the
sea that is frequently found in narratives of globalization, including critical narratives

(Steinberg 2013). This leads the filmmakers to inadvertently reaffirm the capitalist
construction of the ocean as an external space beyond politics. By turning away from the
frictions encountered at sea, Sekula and Birch end up tacitly endorsing the very forgetting
of the sea promoted by capital, as it subscribes to an ideology of limitless mobility.
Massive change is needed to solve climate change only an end to capitalism can solve
Foster et al (professor of sociology at the University of Oregon; assistant professor of sociology at North
Carolina State University; associate professor of sociology at the University of Oregon) 9
(Foster, J. B., Clark, B. and York, R. (2009), The Midas Effect: A Critique of Climate Change Economics.
Development and Change, 40: 10851097)
Some argue today that the speed and intensity of the ecological threat leaves us with no
choice but to stick with the existing system and embrace its limited and myopic solutions to
environmental problems: such strategies as cap and trade carbon markets and market-driven
technological silver bullets. The fantastic nature of these strategies reflects the fact that they conform to
the Midas Effect of mainstream economics: environmental change must conform to the bottom line of
capital accumulation.
In fact, where adopted, carbon markets have accomplished little to reduce carbon emissions. This has to
do with numerous factors, not least of all provisions for nations to buy out of the actual reductions in
various ways. The idea that technology can solve the global environmental problem, as a
kind of deus ex machine without changes in social relations, belongs to the area of fantasy and
science fiction. Thomas Friedman (2008: 1867) provides a vision of green industrial revolution in
hisHot, Flat, and Crowded in which he repeatedly tells his readers that if given abundant, clean,
reliable, and cheap electrons, we could move the world and end all ecological problems. Gregg
Easterbrook (1995: 6878), in what he calls environmental realism, argues that even if we destroy this
biosphere we can terraform Mars so humanity's existence is not necessarily impaired by
environmental destruction.
The very desperation of such establishment arguments, which seek to address the present-day
environmental problem without confronting the reality of capitalism, highlights the need for more radical
measures in relation to climate change and the ecological crisis as a whole. Especially noteworthy in this
respect is Hansen's carbon tax proposal, and global contraction-conversion strategies. In place of carbon
markets, which invariably include various ways to buy out of emissions reductions (registering reductions
while actually increasing emissions), Hansen (2008a) proposes a carbon tax for the United States to be
imposed at well-head and point of entry, aimed at bringing carbon dioxide emissions down to near zero,
with 100 per cent of the revenue from the tax being deposited as monthly dividends directly into the bank
accounts of the public on a per person basis (with children receiving half shares). Not all carbon taxes of
course are radical measures. But Hansen's emergency strategy, with its monthly dividends, is designed to
keep carbon in the ground and at the same time to appeal to the general public. It explicitly circumvents
both the market and state power, in order to block those who desire to subvert the process. In this, the
hope is to establish a mass popular constituency for combating climate change by promoting social
redistribution of wealth toward those with smaller carbon footprints (the larger part of the population).
Hansen insists that any serious attempt to protect the climate means going against Big Coal. An important
step would be to declare a moratorium on new coal-fired power stations, which he describes as death
factories since the carbon emissions they produce contribute to escalating extinction rates (as well as
polluting regional environments and directly impairing human health) (Hansen, 2009). He argues that we
need to leave as much coal as possible in the ground and to close existing coal-fired power stations if we
are to prevent catastrophic environmental change.
From a global standpoint, ecological degradation is influenced by the structure and dynamics of a world
system hierarchically divided into numerous nation states, competing with each other both directly and
via their corporations. In an attempt to counter carbon imperialism, Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain
(1991) propose that carbon emissions of nations should be determined on an equal per capita basis, rooted
in what is allowable within the shared atmosphere. The global North, with its relatively smaller
population in contrast to the South, has used a disproportionate amount of the

atmospheric commons, given its immense carbon emissions. Thus Tom Athanasiou and Paul
Baer (2002) and other climate justice activists propose a process of contraction and convergence. The rich
nations of the North would be required to reduce (contract) their emissions of greenhouse gases to
appropriate levels as determined by the atmospheric carbon target. Given global inequalities, the nations
of the South would be allowed to increase their emissions gradually to a limited extent but only if a
nation had a per capita carbon emission rate below the acceptable level established by the target. This
would create a world converging toward equal and low, per capita allotments (Athanasiou and Baer,
2002: 84). Today contraction and convergence would necessarily aim at stabilizing atmospheric carbon
dioxide at 350 ppm, in conformity with scientific indications.
Such a proposal would mean that the rich nations would have to reduce their carbon emissions
very rapidly by levels approaching 100 per cent, while a massive global effort would be
needed to help countries in the global South move toward emissions stabilization as well,
while not jeopardizing sustainable human development. Such a process of contraction and convergence
would require that the global North pay the ecological debt that it has accrued through using up the bulk
of the atmospheric commons, by carrying the main cost of mitigation globally and aiding nations of the
South in adapting to negative climate effects.
In reality, the radical proposals discussed above, although ostensibly transition strategies, present
the issue of revolutionary change. Their implementation would require a popular revolt
against the system itself. A movement (or movements) powerful enough to implement
such changes on the necessary scale might well be powerful enough to implement a
full-scale social-ecological revolution. In fact, humanity cannot expect to reach 350 ppm
and avoid planetary climatic disaster except through a major global social
transformation, in line with the greatest social revolutions in human history. This would
require not simply a change in productive forces but also in productive relations,
necessitating a green cultural revolution. The answer to today's social and environmental crisis, as Lewis
Mumford argued inThe Condition of Man (1973: 41923), lies in the creation of the organic person,
or a system of sustainable human development. This means the creation of cultural forms that present the
opportunity for balance in the human personality. Rather than promoting the asocial traits of humanity,
the emphasis would be on nurturing the social and collective characteristics. Each human being would be
in dynamic interaction with every part of his environment.
Environmental Justice
Links
Their reductionist view of climate change reinscribes white
supremacy by marginalizing the daily struggles of people of
color. However, racism is intricately linked to environmental
destruction-The link means they cant solve
Utt 11
Jasmine, Writer for Change From Within
(Tim Wise and White Privilege, April 13, 2011, http://changefromwithin.org/2011/04/13/tim-wise-and-whiteprivilege/)
colormuteness may be even

worse. Colormuteness comes into play in the way many on the white liberal-left
fail to give voice to the connections between a given issue about which they are
passionate, and the issue of racism and racial inequity. So, for instance, when
environmental activists focus on the harms of pollution to the planet in the
abstract, or to non-human species, but largely ignore the day-to-day environmental
issues facing people of color, like disproportionate exposure to lead paint, or municipal,
But as troubling as colorblindness can be when evinced by liberals,
medical and toxic waste, they marginalize black and brown folks within the movement, and in so doing, reinforce
when climate change activists focus on the ecological

costs of global warming, but fail to discuss the way in which climate change
disproportionately affects people of color around the globe, they undermine the
ability of the green movement to gain strength, and they reinforce white
privilege. How many climate change activists, for instance, really connect the dots
between global warming and racism? Even as people of color are twice as likely
as whites to live in the congested communities that experience the most smog
and toxic concentration thanks to fossil fuel use? Even as heat waves connected to climate change kill
racial division and inequity. Likewise,
people of color at twice the rate of their white counterparts? Even as agricultural disruptions due to warming
as the
contribution to fossil fuel emissions by people of color is 20 percent below that of
whites, on average? Sadly, these facts are typically subordinated within climate
activism to simple the world is ending rhetoric, or predictions (accurate though
they may be) that unless emissions are brought under control global warming will
eventually kill millions. Fact is, warming is killing a lot of people now,and most of
them are black and brown. To build a global movement to roll back the ecological
catastrophe facing us, environmentalists and clean energy advocates must
connect the dots between planetary destruction and the real lives being destroyed
currently, which are disproportionately of color. To do anything less is not only to engage in a
form of racist marginalizing of people of color and their concerns, but is to
weaken the fight for survival.
caused disproportionately by the white west cost African nations $600 billion annually? Even
Neoliberalism
Links
Centering climate change trades of with focus on the
neoliberal social forces driving it the af displaces nonwarming environmental crises and the root causes of
warming
Crist 7
(Eileen, has been teaching at Virginia Tech in the Department of Science and
Technology in Society since 1997, where she is advisor for the undergraduate
program Humanities, Science, and Environment, Beyond the Climate Crisis: A
Critique of Climate Change Discourse, Telos, 141 (Winter 2007): 2955.)
While the dangers of climate change are real, I argue that there are even greater
dangers in representing it as the most urgent problem we face. Framing
climate change in such a manner deserves to be challenged for two reasons: it
encourages the restriction of proposed solutions to the technical realm, by
powerfully insinuating that the needed approaches are those that directly address
the problem; and it detracts attention from the planets ecological predicament as a
whole, by virtue of claiming the limelight for the one issue that trumps all others.
Identifying climate change as the biggest threat to civilization, and ushering it into
center stage as the highest priority problem, has bolstered the proliferation of
technical proposals that address the specific challenge. The race is on for figuring
out what technologies, or portfolio thereof, will solve the problem. Whether the
call is for reviving nuclear power, boosting the installation of wind turbines, using a
variety of renewable energy sources, increasing the efficiency of fossil-fuel use,
developing carbon-sequestering technologies, or placing mirrors in space to deflect
the suns rays, the narrow character of such proposals is evident: confront the
problem of greenhouse gas emissions by technologically phasing them out,
superseding them, capturing them, or mitigating their heating effects. In his The
Revenge of Gaia, for example, Lovelock briefly mentions the need to face climate
change by changing our whole style of living.16 But the thrust of this work, what
readers and policy-makers come away with, is his repeated and strident call for
investing in nuclear energy as, in his words, the one lifeline we can use
immediately.17 In the policy realm, the first step toward the technological fix for
global warming is often identified with implementing the Kyoto protocol. Biologist
Tim Flannery agitates for the treaty, comparing the need for its successful
endorsement to that of the Montreal protocol that phased out the ozone-depleting
CFCs. The Montreal protocol, he submits, marks a signal moment in human
societal development, representing the first ever victory by humanity over a global
pollution problem.18 He hopes for a similar victory for the global climate-change
problem. Yet the deepening realization of the threat of climate change, virtually in
the wake of stratospheric ozone depletion, also suggests that dealing with global
problems treaty-by-treaty is no solution to the planets predicament. Just as the
risks of unanticipated ozone depletion have been followed by the dangers of a long
underappreciated climate crisis, so it would be nave not to anticipate another

(perhaps even entirely unforeseeable) catastrophe arising after the (hoped-for)
resolution of the above two. Furthermore, if greenhouse gases were restricted
successfully by means of technological shifts and innovations, the root cause of
the ecological crisis as a whole would remain unaddressed. The destructive
patterns of production, trade, extraction, land-use, waste proliferation, and
consumption, coupled with population growth, would go unchallenged, continuing
to run down the integrity, beauty, and biological richness of the Earth. Industrialconsumer civilization has entrenched a form of life that admits virtually no limits to
its expansiveness within, and perceived entitlement to, the entire planet.19 But
questioning this civilization is by and large sidestepped in climate-change
discourse, with its single-minded quest for a global-warming techno-fix.20 Instead
of confronting the forms of social organization that are causing the climate crisis
among numerous other catastrophesclimate-change literature often focuses on
how global warming is endangering the culprit, and agonizes over what
technological means can save it from impending tipping points.21 The dominant
frame of climate change funnels cognitive and pragmatic work toward specifically
addressing global warming, while muting a host of equally monumental issues .
Climate change looms so huge on the environmental and political agenda today
that it has contributed to downplaying other facets of the ecological crisis :
mass extinction of species, the devastation of the oceans by industrial fishing,
continued old-growth deforestation, topsoil losses and desertification, endocrine
disruption, incessant development, and so on, are made to appear secondary and
more forgiving by comparison with dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system. In what follows, I will focus specifically on how climate-change
discourse encourages the continued marginalization of the biodiversity crisisa
crisis that has been soberly described as a holocaust,22 and which despite decades
of scientific and environmentalist pleas remains a virtual non-topic in society, the
mass media, and humanistic and other academic literatures. Several works on
climate change (though by no means all) extensively examine the consequences of
global warming for biodiversity, 23 but rarely is it mentioned that biodepletion
predates dangerous greenhouse-gas buildup by decades, centuries, or longer, and
will not be stopped by a technological resolution of global warming. Climate change
is poised to exacerbate species and ecosystem lossesindeed, is doing so already.
But while technologically preempting the worst of climate change may temporarily
avert some of those losses, such a resolution of the climate quandary will not put an
end towill barely addressthe ongoing destruction of life on Earth
Geoenginnering leads to war, massive inequality and endless

capitalism
Corner 9
(a Research Associate in the School of Psychology at Cardiff University)
(Dr Adam, GEO-ENGINEERING: DENIAL ON A GLOBAL SCALE, http://climatedenial.org/2009/06/02/geoengineering-denial-on-a-global-scale/)
Dr Adam Corner argues that geo-engineered
solutions to climate change are capitalisms
ultimate parlour trick.an impressive leap from a desperate denial of the causes of climate change, to a
triumphant denial of the consequences In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein joined the dots between
the commercial manufacture of military weaponry, the marketing of anti-flu pandemic drugs and the foreign
construction firms drafted in to rebuild Iraq three happy projects bound by the shared philosophy of disaster
capitalism. It may be time to add another enterprising scheme to this rather opportunistic programme of panicdriven profit making: Geo-engineering the intentional, large-scale manipulation of the earth and its
ecosystems in response to human-caused climate change. In an impressive leap from a desperate denial of the
causes of climate change, to a triumphant denial of the consequences, frontier capitalism may have stumbled
across its best idea yet. The loose band of technologies that offer the mouth-watering prospect of engineering
our way out of the climate crisis are straight out of science fiction, yet are being taken seriously by scientists
and investors alike. Schemes vary from injecting the atmosphere with sulphate particles to induce cooling, to
fertilising algal blooms with iron filings to cause increased CO2 sequestration, to chemically scrubbing CO2
out of the air. As the Royal Geographical Society event on geo-engineering last week link showed, many are
seduced by science that dangles the carrot of a technological fix to climate change in front of their noses. The
event provided a fascinating window into the way in which geo-engineering is currently perceived by the
scientific community. Professor David Keith link, a keen advocate (although far from an evangeliser) of geoengineering called for a responsible, measured research programme into the possibilities of geo-engineering.
The problem with this proposal, however, is that even toying with the idea of geo-engineering opens a
Pandoras Box of climatic and socio-political uncertainty. As the Greenpeace scientist Dr Paul Johnston noted
at the same event, even the most elementary research into geo-engineering will involve realworld experiments with the global commons. Jim Thomas, campaigner with the Canadian ETC
Group has observed that if control over this global commons appears even remotely feasible,
international conflict will inevitably ensue link . Environmental scientists like David Keith are
undoubtedly well-meaning in their pursuit of technological solutions to climate change, but their research does
not take place in a vacuum it is conducted in a world that is defined by a deeply unsustainable and
inequitable socio-economic system. What hope is there that geo-engineering will be benignly
applied for the greater good? Will the consent of the developing world be sought when we conduct our
climatic experiments with their natural resources? Will we share our new found knowledge with everyone, or
only those who can afford to buy our patented designs? As philosophers like John Gray have repeatedly
observed, an unwavering faith in human progress often amounts to little more than a secular replacement of
religious fervour. In response to accusations that that geo-engineering research would involve taking
unprecedented risks with the planets fragile eco-system, Professor David Keith replied This isnt 1750 the
implication being that while pre-industrial revolution scientists did not foresee the consequences of their
actions, todays crop of experts are too wise to act so carelessly. But while few in the environmental science
community would seek to take unquantifiable risks with the climate, there is a hardy band of disaster capitalists
that would happily take the risk for them. Worryingly, several experiments with algal blooming have
been driven by commercial pressure from companies keen to sell credits into the emerging
carbon-trading market. Never mind that artificial algal blooms are yet to deliver any proven
CO2 reductions large scale geo-engineering projects could be capitalisms ultimate parlour
trick: The design and manufacture of machines, on which we ultimately become dependent,
to neutralise the waste produced by a society of consumption-driven economic growth. The
lure of geo-engineering colonic irrigation for the planet is almost irresistible. What if it worked what if
we really could scrub the skies of carbon, and without having to reduce our carbon emissions? Unfortunately,
the question of technical proficiency is a red herring. We know we can design technologies that can
alter the climate thats the problem were trying to solve. The more important issue is whether we
can engineer our way out of trouble in a way that does not exacerbate existing inequalities.
Tackling climate change is perhaps the most critical test of our commitment to social justice we will ever
encounter what could be more fundamental than the intentional management and division of the earths
natural resources? But unless significant changes in how scientific knowledge is shared and distributed are
achieved, geo-engineering simply cannot address climate change in an equitable way. To
believe that the unprecedented power of geo-engineering will not be wielded by the rich and
the powerful at the expense of the weak and the vulnerable is more than simply wide-eyed techno-
optimism: It amounts
to a comprehensive denial of political reality.
Geoengineering makes environmental destruction beyond

warming inevitable
Crist 7
(Prof in Department of Science and Technology in Society @ Virginia Tech)
(Eileen, Beyond the Climate Crisis: A Critique of Climate Change Discourse, Telos 4 (Winter 2007): 2955)
Given the dominant framing of climate change, it is hardly surprising that schemes for what is called geoengineering (and, in even
more Orwellian speak, radiation management) are increasingly aired as rea- sonable solutions to the climate crisis; it will be equally
unsurprising if they are soon promoted as inevitable. A recent article in Nature claims that given the need for drastic approaches to stave
off the effects of rising planetary temperatures . . . curiosity about geoengineering looks likely to grow.54 Six months earlier, an article in
Wired gushed over the prospects, assuring us that luckily, a growing number of scientists are thinking more aggressively, developing
incredibly ambitious technical fixes to cool the planet.55 In the wake of apocalyptic fears, geoengineering is easily pack- aged as
an idea whose time has come; physicist Paul Crutzens recent attentions have imbued it with even more credibility. Crutzen received the
Nobel Prize for his work on ozone depletion, and is now cautiously promoting active scientific research into the possibility of shooting
SO2 into the stratosphere, which, by converting into sulfate particles, would mask global warming by an effect known as global dimming;
Crutzen calls it stratospheric albedo enhancement.56 In essence, this strategy calls
for countering one form of

pollution with another. In a 1997 article in the Wall Street Journal, nuclear physicist Edward Teller beat the environmental
mainstream to a geoengineering solution for global warming by a decade. Indeed Tellers summons to undertake, if necessary, incredibly
ambitious technical fixes to cool the planet, as a rational and economically defensible enterprise, may turn out in retrospect to have been
pioneering in the realm of policy. It even seems plausible that Tellers self-assured and dollar-quantified message (coinciding with the year
of the Kyoto protocol) played into the current U.S. administrations resolute defiance of calls to curb emissions, for he confidently affirmed
that should global warming turn out to be dangerous, an ingenious engineering mega-fix for it will be cheaper than phasing out fossil
fuels.57 If mainstream environmentalism is catching up with the solution promoted by Teller, and perhaps harbored all along by the Bush
administration, it would certainly be ironic. But the irony is deeper than incidental politics. The
projected rationality of a
geoengineering solution, stoked by apocalyptic fears surrounding climate change, promises
consequences (both physical and ideological) that will only quicken the real ending of wild nature: here
we encounter, notes Murray Bookchin, the ironic perversity of a pragmatism that is no different, in
principle, from the problems it hopes to resolve.58 Even if they work exactly as hoped,
geoengineering solutions are far more similar to anthropogenic climate change than they are
a counterforce to it: their implementation constitutes an experiment with the biosphere underpinned by technological arrogance,
unwillingness to question or limit consumer society, and a sense of entitlement to transmogrifying the planet that boggles the mind. It is
indeed these
ele-ments of techno-arrogance, unwillingness to advocate radical change, and

unlimited entitlement, together with the profound erosion of awe toward the planet that evolved life (and birthed us), that
constitute the apocalypse underwayif that is the word of choice, though the words humanization, colonization, or
occupation of the biosphere are far more descriptively accurate. Once we grasp the ecological crisis as the escalating conversion of the
planet into a shoddy way station,59 it becomes evident that inducing global dimming in order to offset global warming is not a
corrective action but another chapter in the project of colonizing the Earth, of what critical theorists called world domination.
Domination comes at a huge cost for the human spirit, a cost that may or may not include the scale
of physical imperilment and suffering that apocalyptic fears conjure. Human beings pay for the
domination of the biospherea domination they are either bent upon or resigned to with alienation from the living Earth.60 This
alienation manifests, first and foremost, in the invisibility of the biodiversity crisis: the steadfast denial and repression, in the public arena,
of the epochal event of mass extinction and accelerating depletion of the Earths biological treasures. It has taken the threat of climate
change (to people and civilization) to allow the tip of the biodepletion iceberg to surface into public discourse, but even that has been
woefully inadequate in failing to acknowledge two crucial facts: first, the
biodiversity crisis has been occurring

independently of climate change, and will hardly be stopped by windmills, nuclear power plants,
and carbon sequestering, in any amount or combination thereof; and sec-ond, the devastation that
species and ecosystems have already experienced is what largely will enable more climatechange-driven damage to occur. Human alienation from the biosphere further manifests in the recalcitrance of instrumental
rationality, which reduces all challenges and problems to variables that can be controlled, fixed, managed, or manip- ulated by technical
means. Instrumental rationality is rarely questioned substantively, except in the flagging of potential unintended consequences (for
example, of implementing geoengineering technologies). The idea that instrumental rationality (in the form of technological fixes for
global warming) might save the day hovers between misrepresenta- tion and delusion: firstly, because instrumental rationality has itself
been the planets nemesis by mediating the biospheres constitution as resource and by condoning the transformation of Homo sapiens into
a user species; and secondly, because instrumental rationality tends to invent, adjust, and tweak technical means to work within given
contextswhen it is the given, i.e., human civilization as presently configured economically and culturally, that needs to be changed.

Iron Fertilization Neg

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iron Fertilization Neg

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes

The lengthy international negotiations were triggered by a Planktos corporation

statistical analysis gives a nearly zero

Geoengineering an add on, but not alternative to emissions

rectify a global radiative imbalance, and can do so on a decadal timescale.

Their solvency evidence repeatedly stresses that international regulation

The highly uncertain but possibly disastrous side effects of geoengineering

The political process discourages program efficiency,

politically controlled agencies have a difficult time

DoD > DoE Solvnecy

DOD better with R and D than DOE due to process

DOD key to implementing tech empirics prove

DOD solves better than DOE tech production proves

In addition to reforming energy deployment subsidies and launching a new

With fuel convoys costing both lives and

suite of cutting-edge energy technologies with potential to enhance American

DoD grants spur innovation for renewable energy

DoD is ready to make awards worth

improving our energy security, we are not

DoD has the current capabilities and funding to do renewable

the military is making progress. The Army has begun

DoD published its first

operational energy plan this year. It also signed a memorandum of understanding

The challenge is to find

The Navys active participation in

AT: DoD Hurts Environment

The Department of Defense is committed to marine resources

Department of Defense has documented

Training occurs only when necessary majority of

Americas seas continue to be poorly managed by 24

nine regional bodies have held meetings.

only four of the

In New England, participation by the states, tribal

Western Pacific, including Hawaii.

Ocean policy changes disrupt the fragile partisan alliance

Section: Ocean policy popular

we need government to work better, smarter, and more

acidification is worsening each year, threatening multigeneration family-owned

Ocean environmental policies empirically appease democrats

this oceans and

Ocean regulation is empirically popular with the democratic

Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the top-ranked Democrat on the

Section: Environment unpopular

Republicans hate pro-environmental policies

WASHINGTON Supporters of the embattled Pebble Mine project in Alaska are

Section: Environment unpopular unions

The state Department of Ecology appears ready

Unions will afect the fate of the democrats

being a member of a union or living with

if a future Supreme Court decision suppresses union power

Union support key for democrats Obamas actions swing vote

five of the top ten overall

Put simply, despite the conventional

both the NEA and some

Section: Environment popular single women

wanted them to understand the importance of voting, especially in the upcoming

There are 55 million voting eligible

Section: Climate action unpopular

EPA doesn't have

authority to act on greenhouse gas emissions.

No global consensus on how to act on climate change makes it

The latest attempt ended in disarray last

Climate Change issues are controversial in Congress

something much greater than what were going to do.