Arctic Oil/Gas Aff Inherency
Beaufort Sea Drilling Won’t Happen
Download 2.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Beaufort Sea Drilling Inevitable
- Not about cook – it’s super safe
- No impact to biodiversity
- Zero chance of Arctic war---experts
- Zero risk of Ukraine escalation
- No link U---DOI Natives energy action now
- Starting with a bilateral approach and returning to multilat later is vital to solve and solves any internal net benefits
- **2AC Energy Efficiency
- Wind and solar are competitive despite low gas prices
- Renewables require more electricity—natural gas key to stop more coal back up energy—CCES nat gas key bridge fuel
- Renewables can’t meet demand and lead to increase consumer costs
- 1AR Natural Gas K2 Renewables Link Turn
Beaufort Sea Drilling Won’t HappenOil companies wouldn’t develop the Beaufort SeaO’Rourke ’12 – specialist in Naval Affairs (Ronald O'Rourke, Coordinator, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues ¶ for Congress, CRS, 8-1-2012, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf) Despite the warming trend in the Arctic, a discovery of new oil and gas deposits far from existing ¶ storage, pipelines, and shipping facilities can not be developed until infrastructure is built to ¶ extract and transport the petroleum. For example, a Devon Energy spokesman noted in April 2008 ¶ that a 240 million barrel discovery in the Beaufort Sea won’t be developed for at least 10 years ¶ because the company does not have the infrastructure to transport the oil.¶ 71¶ Other areas with oil ¶ and gas potential, such as offshore east Greenland, may take even longer to develop because they ¶ are still covered by substantial summer sea ice that would hinder exploration and development ¶ unless more ice melts.¶ 7 Beaufort Sea Drilling InevitableDrilling in the Beaufort Sea is inevitable—leasing plans already announcedKeil ’12 (Kathrin, “U.S. to Open More of the Arctic Ocean to Exploration as Part of 5-Year Drilling Plan”, The Arctic Institute, 6-28-2012, http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/06/us-to-open-more-of-arctic-ocean-to.html) While Shell is preparing for the start of its drilling activities in the Alaskan Arctic in July 2012, US policymakers are already outlining plans for the post-2012 development of hydrocarbons in their Arctic waters. ¶ On 26 June 2012 Ken Salazar announced the ‘Five Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program’, at the Norway Arctic Roundtable in Trondheim, Norway, which will open more of the Arctic Ocean to exploration. Chukchi Sea leases are scheduled to open in 2016, and Beaufort Sea leases one year later. Until then, the waiting period shall be used to “gather information from industry, Native Alaskan communities, the scientific community, and the public to identify specific high-resource, low-conflict areas that are best suited for exploration and development.” The leases are intended to be part of the “all of the above” energy strategy to expand US energy production that President Obama recently announced. No Cook Inlet AccidentsNot about cook – it’s super safeBOEM 12 - Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Report Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program 2012-2017, June 2012, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Leasing/Five_Year_Program/2012-2017_Five_Year_Program/PFP%2012-17.pdf Water Quality — Normal operations in the Cook Inlet could adversely impact water quality. However , because of dilution, settling, and flushing, these impacts are expected to be localized and temporary. Similarly, spills to coastal waters could adversely impact water quality. The impacts of these spills will be localized and short term, unless chronic spills occur in a localized area. Impacts from a large oil spill including those from a very large spill associated with an unlikely CDE, defined as a discharge of a volume of oil into the environment that could result in catastrophic effects, could persist for an extended period of time if oil were deposited in wetland and beach sediments or low - energy environments because of potential remobilization. The extent and magnitude of the impact would depend on the size, location, and season of the spill. Recovery times could be decreased by oil - spill cleanup activities. No impact to biodiversitySagoff 97 Mark, Senior Research Scholar – Institute for Philosophy and Public policy in School of Public Affairs – U. Maryland, William and Mary Law Review, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH? TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, March, L/N Note – Colin Tudge - Research Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy at the London School of Economics. Frmr Zoological Society of London: Scientific Fellow and tons of other positions. PhD. Read zoology at Cambridge. Simon Levin = Moffet Professor of Biology, Princeton. 2007 American Institute of Biological Sciences Distinguished Scientist Award 2008 Istituto Veneto di Scienze Lettere ed Arti 2009 Honorary Doctorate of Science, Michigan State University 2010 Eminent Ecologist Award, Ecological Society of America 2010 Margalef Prize in Ecology, etc… PhD Although one may agree with ecologists such as Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result. On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more," Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that "the elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota." n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346 [*906] The monumental Global Biodiversity Assessment ("the Assessment") identified two positions with respect to redundancy of species. "At one extreme is the idea that each species is unique and important, such that its removal or loss will have demonstrable consequences to the functioning of the community or ecosystem." n347 The authors of the Assessment, a panel of eminent ecologists, endorsed this position, saying it is "unlikely that there is much, if any, ecological redundancy in communities over time scales of decades to centuries, the time period over which environmental policy should operate." n348 These eminent ecologists rejected the opposing view, "the notion that species overlap in function to a sufficient degree that removal or loss of a species will be compensated by others, with negligible overall consequences to the community or ecosystem." n349 Other biologists believe, however, that species are so fabulously redundant in the ecological functions they perform that the life-support systems and processes of the planet and ecological processes in general will function perfectly well with fewer of them, certainly fewer than the millions and millions we can expect to remain even if every threatened organism becomes extinct. n350 Even the kind of sparse and miserable world depicted in the movie Blade Runner could provide a "sustainable" context for the human economy as long as people forgot their aesthetic and moral commitment to the glory and beauty of the natural world. n351 The Assessment makes this point. "Although any ecosystem contains hundreds to thousands of species interacting among themselves and their physical environment, the emerging consensus is that the system is driven by a small number of . . . biotic variables on whose interactions the balance of species are, in a sense, carried along." n352 [*907] To make up your mind on the question of the functional redundancy of species, consider an endangered species of bird, plant, or insect and ask how the ecosystem would fare in its absence. The fact that the creature is endangered suggests an answer: it is already in limbo as far as ecosystem processes are concerned. What crucial ecological services does the black-capped vireo, for example, serve? Are any of the species threatened with extinction necessary to the provision of any ecosystem service on which humans depend? If so, which ones are they? Ecosystems and the species that compose them have changed, dramatically, continually, and totally in virtually every part of the United States. There is little ecological similarity, for example, between New England today and the land where the Pilgrims died. n353 In view of the constant reconfiguration of the biota, one may wonder why Americans have not suffered more as a result of ecological catastrophes. The cast of species in nearly every environment changes constantly-local extinction is commonplace in nature-but the crops still grow. Somehow, it seems, property values keep going up on Martha's Vineyard in spite of the tragic disappearance of the heath hen. One might argue that the sheer number and variety of creatures available to any ecosystem buffers that system against stress. Accordingly, we should be concerned if the "library" of creatures ready, willing, and able to colonize ecosystems gets too small. (Advances in genetic engineering may well permit us to write a large number of additions to that "library.") In the United States as in many other parts of the world, however, the number of species has been increasing dramatically, not decreasing, as a result of human activity. This is because the hordes of exotic species coming into ecosystems in the United States far exceed the number of species that are becoming extinct. Indeed, introductions may outnumber extinctions by more than ten to one, so that the United States is becoming more and more species-rich all the time largely as a result of human action. n354 [*908] Peter Vitousek and colleagues estimate that over 1000 non-native plants grow in California alone; in Hawaii there are 861; in Florida, 1210. n355 In Florida more than 1000 non-native insects, 23 species of mammals, and about 11 exotic birds have established themselves. n356 Anyone who waters a lawn or hoes a garden knows how many weeds desire to grow there, how many birds and bugs visit the yard, and how many fungi, creepy-crawlies, and other odd life forms show forth when it rains. All belong to nature, from wherever they might hail, but not many homeowners would claim that there are too few of them. Now, not all exotic species provide ecosystem services; indeed, some may be disruptive or have no instrumental value. n357 This also may be true, of course, of native species as well, especially because all exotics are native somewhere. Certain exotic species, however, such as Kentucky blue grass, establish an area's sense of identity and place; others, such as the green crabs showing up around Martha's Vineyard, are nuisances. n358 Consider an analogy [*909] with human migration. Everyone knows that after a generation or two, immigrants to this country are hard to distinguish from everyone else. The vast majority of Americans did not evolve here, as it were, from hominids; most of us "came over" at one time or another. This is true of many of our fellow species as well, and they may fit in here just as well as we do. It is possible to distinguish exotic species from native ones for a period of time, just as we can distinguish immigrants from native-born Americans, but as the centuries roll by, species, like people, fit into the landscape or the society, changing and often enriching it. Shall we have a rule that a species had to come over on the Mayflower, as so many did, to count as "truly" American? Plainly not. When, then, is the cutoff date? Insofar as we are concerned with the absolute numbers of "rivets" holding ecosystems together, extinction seems not to pose a general problem because a far greater number of kinds of mammals, insects, fish, plants, and other creatures thrive on land and in water in America today than in prelapsarian times. n359 The Ecological Society of America has urged managers to maintain biological diversity as a critical component in strengthening ecosystems against disturbance. n360 Yet as Simon Levin observed, "much of the detail about species composition will be irrelevant in terms of influences on ecosystem properties." n361 [*910] He added: "For net primary productivity, as is likely to be the case for any system property, biodiversity matters only up to a point; above a certain level, increasing biodiversity is likely to make little difference." n362 What about the use of plants and animals in agriculture? There is no scarcity foreseeable. "Of an estimated 80,000 types of plants [we] know to be edible," a U.S. Department of the Interior document says, "only about 150 are extensively cultivated." n363 About twenty species, not one of which is endangered, provide ninety percent of the food the world takes from plants. n364 Any new food has to take "shelf space" or "market share" from one that is now produced. Corporations also find it difficult to create demand for a new product; for example, people are not inclined to eat paw-paws, even though they are delicious. It is hard enough to get people to eat their broccoli and lima beans. It is harder still to develop consumer demand for new foods. This may be the reason the Kraft Corporation does not prospect in remote places for rare and unusual plants and animals to add to the world's diet. Of the roughly 235,000 flowering plants and 325,000 nonflowering plants (including mosses, lichens, and seaweeds) available, farmers ignore virtually all of them in favor of a very few that are profitable. n365 To be sure, any of the more than 600,000 species of plants could have an application in agriculture, but would they be preferable to the species that are now dominant? Has anyone found any consumer demand for any of these half-million or more plants to replace rice or wheat in the human diet? There are reasons that farmers cultivate rice, wheat, and corn rather than, say, Furbish's lousewort. There are many kinds of louseworts, so named because these weeds were thought to cause lice in sheep. How many does agriculture really require? [*911] The species on which agriculture relies are domesticated, not naturally occurring; they are developed by artificial not natural selection; they might not be able to survive in the wild. n366 This argument is not intended to deny the religious, aesthetic, cultural, and moral reasons that command us to respect and protect the natural world. These spiritual and ethical values should evoke action, of course, but we should also recognize that they are spiritual and ethical values. We should recognize that ecosystems and all that dwell therein compel our moral respect, our aesthetic appreciation, and our spiritual veneration; we should clearly seek to achieve the goals of the ESA. There is no reason to assume, however, that these goals have anything to do with human well-being or welfare as economists understand that term. These are ethical goals, in other words, not economic ones. Protecting the marsh may be the right thing to do for moral, cultural, and spiritual reasons. We should do it-but someone will have to pay the costs. In the narrow sense of promoting human welfare, protecting nature often represents a net "cost," not a net "benefit." It is largely for moral, not economic, reasons-ethical, not prudential, reasons- that we care about all our fellow creatures. They are valuable as objects of love not as objects of use. What is good for [*912] the marsh may be good in itself even if it is not, in the economic sense, good for mankind. The most valuable things are quite useless. 2AC Russia DAZero chance of Arctic war---expertsMahony 3/19 Honor, EU Observer, "Fear of Arctic conflict are 'overblown'", 2013, euobserver.com/foreign/119479 The Arctic has become a new frontier in international relations, but fear of potential conflict in the resource-rich region is overblown, say experts.¶ For long a mystery because of its general impenetrability, melting ice caps are revealing more and more of the Arctic region to scientists, researchers and industry.¶ Climate change experts can take a more precise look at a what global warming is doing to the planet, shipping trade routes once considered unthinkable are now possible, and governments and businesses are in thrall to the potential exploitation of coal, iron, rare earths and oil.¶ The interest is reflected in the growing list of those wanting to have a foot in the Arctic council, a forum of eight countries with territory in the polar region.¶ While the US, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and Canada form the council, the EU commission, China, India, South Korea and Japan have all expressed an interest in having a permanent observer status.¶ "The Arctic has become a new meeting place for America, Europe and the Asia Pacific," says Damien Degeorges, founder of the Arctic Policy and Economic Forum.¶ During a recent conference on Arctic shipping routes in the European Parliament, Degeorges noted that "China has been the most active by far in the last years."¶ He points to its red-carpet treatment of politicians from Greenland, a territory that recently got full control over its wealth of natural resources. Bejing also cosied up to Iceland after the island's financial meltdown. The two undertook a joint expedition to the North Pole and the Chinese have the largest foreign embassy in Reykjavik.¶ Meanwhile, South Korea's president visited Greenland last year and shipping hubs like Singapore are holding Arctic conferences.¶ The interest is being spurred by melting icebergs.¶ Last year saw a record low of multi-year ice - permanent ice - in the polar sea. This means greater shipping and mineral exploitation potential. There were 37 transits of the North East Passage (NEP), running from the Atlantic to the Pacific along the top of Russia, in 2011. This rose to 47 in 2012.¶ For a ship travelling from the Netherlands to China, the route around 40 percent shorter than using the traditional Suez Canal. A huge saving for China, where 50 percent of its GDP is connected to shipping. Russia is also keen to exploit the route as the rise in temperatures is melting the permafrost in its northern territory, playing havoc with its roads and railways.¶ According to Jan Fritz Hansen, deputy director of the Danish shipowners’ association, the real breakthrough will come when there is a cross polar route. At the moment there are are two options - the North East Passge for which Russia asks high fees for transiting ships - or the much-less developed North West Passage along Canada.¶ His chief concern is that "trade up there is free. We don't want protectionism. Everyone should be allowed to compete up there."¶ And he believes the biggest story of the Arctic is not how it is traversed but what will be taken out of it. According to the US Geological Survey (2009), the Arctic holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered gas supplies.¶ Greenland is already at the centre of political tussle between the EU and China over future exploitation of its rare earths - used in a range of technologies such as hybrid cars or smart phones.¶ "The biggest adventure will be the Arctic destination. There is a lot of valuable goods that should be taken out of nature up there," he said.¶ This resource potential - although tempered by the fact that much of it is not economically viable to exploit - has led to fears that the Arctic region is ripe for conflict.¶ But this is nonsense, says Nil Wang, a former Danish admiral and Arctic expert.¶ Most resources have an owner¶ "There is a general public perception that the Arctic region holds great potential for conflict because it is an ungoverned region where all these resources are waiting to be picked up by the one who gets there first. That is completely false," he said.¶ He notes that it is an "extremely well-regulated region," with international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles off their coast.¶ On top of that is a further 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone "where you own every value in the water and under the seabed."¶ "Up to 97 percent of energy resources is actually belonging to someone already," says Wang.¶ He suggest the actors in the region all want to create a business environment, which requires stable politics and security. Zero risk of Ukraine escalationPeck 3/5/14 'm a defense writer, avid gamer and history buff. I'm currently a contributing editor for Foreign Policy Magazine, a writer for the War is Boring defense blog and of course a contributor at Forbes. My work has also appeared in the Washingon Post,Slate, Defense News, USA Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer and other fine publications. http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/05/7-reasons-why-america-will-never-go-to-war-over-ukraine/ 7 Reasons why America Will Never Go To War Over Ukraine America is the mightiest military power in the world. And that fact means absolutely nothing for the Ukraine crisis. Regardless of whether Russia continues to occupy the Crimea region of Ukraine, or decides to occupy all of Ukraine, the U.S. is not going to get into a shooting war with Russia. This has nothing to do with whether Obama is strong or weak. Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan would face the same constraints. The U.S. may threaten to impose economic sanctions, but here is why America will never smack Russia with a big stick: Russia is a nuclear superpower. Russia has an estimated 4,500 active nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Unlike North Korea or perhaps Iran, whose nuclear arsenals couldn’t inflict substantial damage, Russia could totally devastate the U.S. as well as the rest of the planet. U.S. missile defenses, assuming they even work, are not designed to stop a massive Russian strike. For the 46 years of the Cold War, America and Russia were deadly rivals. But they never fought. Their proxies fought: Koreans, Vietnamese, Central Americans, Israelis and Arabs. The one time that U.S. and Soviet forces almost went to war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Neither Obama nor Putin is crazy enough to want to repeat that. U.S. Marine Corps vehicle during amphibious assault exercise. U.S. Marine Corps vehicle during amphibious assault exercise. Russia has a powerful army. While the Russian military is a shadow of its Soviet glory days, it is still a formidable force. The Russian army has about 300,000 men and 2,500 tanks (with another 18,000 tanks in storage), according to the “Military Balance 2014″ from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Its air force has almost 1,400 aircraft, and its navy 171 ships, including 25 in the Black Sea Fleet off Ukraine’s coast. U.S. forces are more capable than Russian forces, which did not perform impressively during the 2008 Russo-Georgia War. American troops would enjoy better training, communications, drones, sensors and possibly better weapons (though the latest Russian fighter jets, such as the T-50, could be trouble for U.S. pilots). However, better is not good enough. The Russian military is not composed of lightly armed insurgents like the Taliban, or a hapless army like the Iraqis in 2003. With advanced weapons like T-80 tanks, supersonic AT-15 Springer anti-tank missiles, BM-30 Smerch multiple rocket launchers and S-400 Growler anti-aircraft missiles, Russian forces pack enough firepower to inflict significant American losses. Ukraine is closer to Russia. The distance between Kiev and Moscow is 500 miles. The distance between Kiev and New York is 5,000 miles. It’s much easier for Russia to send troops and supplies by land than for the U.S. to send them by sea or air. The U.S. military is tired. After nearly 13 years of war, America’s armed forces need a breather. Equipment is worn out from long service in Iraq and Afghanistan, personnel are worn out from repeated deployments overseas, and there are still about 40,000 troops still fighting in Afghanistan. The U.S. doesn’t have many troops to send. The U.S. could easily dispatch air power to Ukraine if its NATO allies allow use of their airbases, and the aircraft carrier George H. W. Bush and its hundred aircraft are patrolling the Mediterranean. But for a ground war to liberate Crimea or defend Ukraine, there is just the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit sailing off Spain, the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment in Germany and the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. While the paratroopers could drop into the combat zone, the Marines would have sail past Russian defenses in the Black Sea, and the Stryker brigade would probably have to travel overland through Poland into Ukraine. Otherwise, bringing in mechanized combat brigades from the U.S. would be logistically difficult, and more important, could take months to organize. The American people are tired. Pity the poor politician who tries to sell the American public on yet another war, especially some complex conflict in a distant Eastern Europe nation. Neville Chamberlain’s words during the 1938 Czechoslovakia crisis come to mind: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.” America‘s allies are tired. NATO sent troops to support the American campaign in Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. Britain sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. It is almost inconceivable to imagine the Western European public marching in the streets to demand the liberation of Crimea, especially considering the region’s sputtering economy, which might be snuffed out should Russia stop exporting natural gas. As for military capabilities, the Europeans couldn’t evict Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi without American help. And Germans fighting Russians again? Let’s not even go there. 2AC DOI Tradeoff DANo link U---DOI Natives energy action nowDOI 12, “Salazar Finalizes Reforms to Streamline Leasing, Spur Economic Development on 56 Million Acres of American Indian Trust Land”, 11-12, http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/salazar-finalizes-reforms-to-streamline-leasing-spur-economic-development-on-56-million-acres-of-american-indian-trust-land.cfm WASHINGTON – As part of President Obama’s commitment to empower tribal nations and strengthen their economies, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today announced final regulations that will streamline the leasing approval process on Indian land, spurring increased homeownership, and expediting business and commercial development, including renewable energy projects.¶ The comprehensive reform, informed by nation-to-nation tribal consultations and public comment, overhauls antiquated regulations governing the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ process for approving the surface leases on lands the federal government holds in trust for Indian tribes and individuals. As trustee, Interior manages about 56 million surface acres in Indian Country.¶ “This reform will expand opportunities for individual landowners and tribal governments to generate investment and create jobs in their communities by bringing greater transparency and workability to the Bureau of Indian Affairs leasing process,” Secretary Salazar said. “This final step caps the most comprehensive reforms of Indian land leasing regulations in more than 50 years and will have a lasting impact on individuals and families who want to own a home or build a business on Indian land.”¶ “This reform is about supporting self-determination for Indian Nations and was developed in close consultation with tribal leaders,” said Assistant Secretary Washburn. “The streamlined, commonsense rule replaces a process ill-suited for economic development of Indian lands and provides flexibility and certainty to tribal communities and individuals regarding decisions on the use of their land.”¶ The new rule complements and helps to implement the recently-passed Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act (HEARTH Act), which allows federally recognized tribes to assume greater control of leasing on tribal lands. The HEARTH Act was signed into law by President Obama on July 30, 2012.¶ Previous BIA regulations, established in 1961, are outdated and unworkable in today’s economy. They lacked a defined process or deadlines for review, which resulted in simple mortgage applications often languishing for several years awaiting approval from the federal government. These types of delays have been significant obstacles to homeownership and economic development on tribal lands.¶ The new regulation, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, will fundamentally change the way the BIA does business, in many ways by minimizing BIA’s role and restoring greater control to tribal governments. The final rule provides clarity by identifying specific processes – with enforceable timelines – through which the BIA must review leases.¶ The regulation also establishes separate, simplified processes for residential, business, and renewable energy development, rather than using a “one-size fits all” approach that treats a lease for a single family home the same as a lease for a large wind energy project. AT Unilat DAStarting with a bilateral approach and returning to multilat later is vital to solve and solves any internal net benefitsEbinger et al ‘14 Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic There is an equally persuasive view that, with such a large area containing such different conditions (various levels of presence of ice, water depth, proximity to supporting infrastructure), adopt ing a “one-size-fits-all” approach does not make sense. In support of this argument, the example of the contrast between the ice-free waters off Norway (the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea) and the ice-laden Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off the coast of Alaska is often cited. One oil and gas company executive stated that many of the cur rent initiatives to develop standards focus on ice-covered regions that are very different from ice-free areas, and it is precisely in the latter where commercial drilling is occurring. Thus in the view of this company, imposing Arctic-wide stan dards actually would hamper current commercial drilling activities and arguments for having per formance-based standards implemented on a lo calized basis. Other oil and gas companies echoed this skepticism of the need for, or effectiveness of, Arctic-wide standards, and stipulated that dif fering conditions by region or even sub-regions support locally-tailored, performance-based standards that will provide greater flexibility and incentivize technology innovation.141 One keen observer of Arctic governance notes that bilateral and lower level exchanges across na tions—for example regulator to regulator—have been taking place for many years and have been very effective (see Text Box 4). This expert recog nizes that, “baseline problems differ from area to area,” making a “neighborhood” approach to ad dressing governance challenges “very attractive.” In this regard, the Barents 2020 process was cited often in our discussions as a feasible model, and many supported the idea of initiating bilateral ar rangements on key issues and then linking the re sults back into the Arctic Council’s deliberations. Another argument in favor of the “neighborhood” approach is averting much of the sovereignty chal lenge, including the difficulty of wrangling eight countries toward a consensus agreement. Because the issue revolves around energy resources, strong sovereign interests are at stake hindering the de velopment of an Arctic-wide governance regime or, at the least, suggesting that any regime would have to be purely voluntary. With the different in terests of the littoral states, non-littoral states, and the expanding list of observers, it will be hard to construct some form of Arctic-wide mechanism under an IMO-type scheme (the Polar Code). This contrasts with the existing civil liability re gime established globally for tankers and vessels (including in the Arctic), where sovereignty con cerns did not prevent the implementation of a regulatory framework. **2AC Energy EfficiencyNatural gas key to energy efficiency—solves coal demand and makes natural gas supply longerWood 10/21 Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer, The Natural Gas Revolution: Good or Bad for Energy Efficiency?, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2012/09/the-natural-gas-revolution-good-or-bad-for-energy-efficiency?cmpid=rss So what does the natural gas bonanza mean to energy efficiency — another resource creating surprising changes in the electric grid?¶ Typically, when energy gets cheap consumers stop thinking about efficiency. But the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy sees a different scenario emerging this time, according to two reports released by the Washington, DC-based organization in September.¶ First, it’s important to note that energy efficiency is not just something done in the household or office. It’s managed on a large scale by utilities and grid planners and often now competes head-to-head with power plants as a means to keep the lights on. So when an area of the country needs more power, it might build a new gas-fired power plant, install wind turbines or solar, or some other kind of power generator. Or it might inject more energy efficiency into the system by way of energy saving technologies, programs or incentives.¶ Many factors go into deciding which will be selected, but price ranks high. And despite the fall in natural gas prices, energy efficiency remains the lowest cost resource on the electric grid — it’s still cheaper to save energy than to build new power plants, according to the ACEEE white paper “Saving Money and Reducing Risk: How Energy Efficiency Enhances the Benefits of the Natural Gas Boom.”¶ Natural gas and energy efficiency tend to be in competition with each other – because they are the cheapest resources — but the two also can foster each other, according to the white paper.¶ Here’s why.¶ Historically natural gas has been prone to sudden supply disruptions and price spikes. ACEEE quotes Jim Rogers, chairman, president and CEO of Duke Energy famously saying: “There are three things in life you can depend on: death, taxes and the volatility of natural gas markets.”¶ The sudden price spikes wreak economic havoc for homeowners who heat with natural gas, as well as manufacturers that use it in industrial processes, and utilities that generate electricity with it.¶ But energy efficiency helps smooth the sudden peaks and valleys of natural gas pricing. Energy efficiency reduces demand for natural gas and therefore elongates its supply, says ACEEE. In fact, energy efficiency could reduce energy demand 42 to 59 percent by 2050, according to a separate ACEEE study.¶ That’s one way the marriage of natural gas and energy efficiency work.¶ Another involves combined heat and power plants, which are highly efficient generating plants that recycle the waste heat created in power production for useful purposes. Also known as CHP, it is considered an underutilized resource in the US and is often championed by energy efficiency advocates.¶ President Barack Obama recently set a goal to increase CHP use about 50 percent by 2020. Low natural gas prices should help achieve this goal, since many CHP plants — more than half installed since 1990 — use natural gas as fuel. Cheap natural gas makes CHP more economical.¶ ACEEE sees CHP plants as good replacement for the large number of coal-fired plants now retiring. In fact, the organization says that CHP could replace all of the retiring plants at a highly competitive cost, about 6 cents/kWh. By comparison a new conventional power plant cost 6.9 cents/kWh to 11.3 cents/kWh.¶ “Our report suggests that instead of investing in new centralized power plants, utilities should invest in new CHP plants to keep costs down for their customers and generate much cleaner electricity,” said Anna Chittum, the report’s lead author. “Utilities around the country have expressed concern about the amount of coal-fired capacity they believe they will need to retire in the near future. Many are asking for substantial increases in customer rates to pay for new investments in traditional power plants when they could be investing in CHP instead.” **2AC Renewables DAWind and solar are competitive despite low gas pricesLacey 12 – Stephen Lacey is a reporter for Climate Progress, where he writes on clean energy policy, technologies, and finance. Before joining CP, he was an editor/producer with RenewableEnergyWorld.com. He received his B.A. in journalism from Franklin Pierce University. February 21st, 2012, "Top Three Reasons Cheap Natural Gas Won't Kill Renewable Energy," thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/21/421319/top-three-reasons-cheap-natural-gas-wont-kill-renewable-energy/ The industry clearly took the challenge seriously. Today, due to bigger turbines, more reliable equipment and better materials, the cost of wind has dropped to record lows. In fact, some developers are even signing long-term power purchase agreements in the 3 cents a kilowatt-hour range. And last fall, Bloomberg New Energy Finance projected that wind would be “fully competitive with energy produced from combined-cycle gas turbines by 2016″ under fair wind conditions.¶ The same technological improvements and maturation in project development in wind are driving down the cost of solar PV as well. For example, in California, solar developers have signed contracts for power below the projected price of natural gas from a 500-MW combined cycle power plant. (That projection does include a carbon price). Renewables require more electricity—natural gas key to stop more coal back up energy—CCES nat gas key bridge fuel--only the plan solves Zehner 6/12 Visiting scholar at the University of California, MS in Science and Technology Studies)(Ozzie Zehner, June 12, 2012, “Solar Cells and Wind Turbines Don't Offset Fossil Fuel Use, According to New Book, Green Illusions,” The Wall Street Journal, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/solar-cells-and-wind-turbines-dont-offset-fossil-fuel-use-according-to-new-book-green-illusions-2012-06-12)//DR. H BERKELEY, Calif., June 12, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Renewable energy technologies do not offset fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), by University of California - Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. In fact, building more solar cells and wind turbines could actually accelerate fossil fuel use unless nations take other steps to avoid a rebound effect. Many renewable energy researchers assume that building solar cells and wind farms will displace coal use and lower carbon dioxide levels. However, Zehner explains that subsidizing renewable energy merely expands energy supplies, which exerts a downward pressure on prices. Energy demand subsequently increases. "This brings us right back to where we started: high demand and so-called insufficient supply," says Zehner. "Historically, we've filled that added demand by building more coal-fired power plants, not fewer." "We create an energy boomerang," Zehner remarked during a recent PBS interview. "The harder we throw energy into the grid, the harder demand comes back to hit us on the head. More efficient solar cells, taller wind turbines, and advanced biofuels are all just ways of throwing harder." Renewables can’t meet demand and lead to increase consumer costsMills 11 - *MSc in Geological Sciences @ Cambridge Robin, “Capturing Carbon: The New Weapon in the War Against Climate Change,” Google Book • Fourthly, renewable electricity sources are mostly intermittent. It is a big challenge to maintain a stable electricity grid, and provide power at peak times, even with the current system, a fantastically complicated entity which has grown up, in developed countries, over more than a century. This balancing task becomes increasingly difficult with large quantities of wind, which is rather unpredictable, and solar, which does not necessarily match peak load, especially in winter in northern climates. A given wind turbine, for instance, produces no power at all between a sixth and a third of the time. In cloud, solar panels generate only 10% of the electricity they do in direct sunlight,113 particularly problematic for northern Europe and parts of the tropics during the rainy season. To some extent, this can be managed by intelligent management of demand, redundant generation capacity, including a geographically dispersed range of sites and plugging in other renewable sources such as geothermal and ocean power, employing 'dispatchable' renewable power such as biomass-fired plants, electricity storage (including 'pumped storage" behind dams and perhaps the batteries of a future fleet of electric vehicles), and long-distance imports. But these solutions become increasingly expensive as the proportion of renewables in the energy mix increases. Views on required back-up capacity vary, but might be as high as 60-95% for wind power. In fact, wind power may end up mainly displacing (low-carbon) gas-fired generation, and lowering electricity prices during windy spells, rather than replacing high-carbon coal.114 It has yet to be demonstrated, beyond theoretical calculations, that a national-scale, mainly renewables-powered grid can achieve reliability at acceptable costs."5 The rapid growth in alternative energy could easily be dented by a couple of high-profile black-outs and consequent loss of public faith. The most economic solution is therefore likely to involve a mix of generation options, including coal-fired baseload fitted with CCS, and gas-fired capacity, some of which is held in 'spinning reserve', operating at low levels, ready for demand surges.
Renewables failMills 11 - *MSc in Geological Sciences @ Cambridge Robin, “Capturing Carbon: The New Weapon in the War Against Climate Change,” Google Book Nor are renewable energy sources flawless environmental performers,¶ • The recent rush to biofuels has highlighted their environmental limi¬tations. It quickly became apparent that some biofuels were contributing to deforestation (destroying habitats and, ironically, accelerating global warming), driving up food prices, and reducing carbon emis¬sions only marginally, if at all. The prospect of increasing biomass use by a factor often, as proposed by Greenpeace, would probably lead to the establishment of vast monoculture plantations, with low biodiversity, vulnerable to disease, and probably with negative social impacts. Fast-growing energy crops also tend to be thirsty for water and fertilisers—and nitrous oxide from agriculture is a serious green-house gas in its own right. Widespread drought, increasingly likely as climate change advances, could cause not only famine, but also an energy crisis. Really effective biofuels seem likely to require genetic modification, a prospect which, no doubt, many environmental groups would oppose.¶ • The burning of biomass (plant material and organic wastes) can be dirtier than coal, in its emissions of air pollutants, especially particu¬lates1™ responsible for lung disease. Biomass combustion also releases the greenhouse gas methane. Burning the biofuel ethanol in car engines creates smog.lsl¶ • Hydroelectric dams and tidal barrages are damaging to the local environment; imagine the public opposition if a plan with impacts similar to that for the Severn Tidal Barrage152 in the UK were proposed by the oil business! Dams produce surprising amounts of methane from rotting vegetation: Indian dams yield a fifth of that country's greenhouse gas emissions.,53 They are not necessarily safe either: a major explosion at a Siberian hydroelectric power station in August 2009 killed seventy-six people and also polluted the Yenisei River.154¶ • Wind farms built on peat—as are more than half of those in windy Scotland—also generate large amounts of carbon dioxide, while damaging unique ecosystems.1^¶ • Geothermal energy can release carbon dioxide from underground waters, and has been blamed for triggering earthquakes.156 These were minor but did trigger local concern.¶ • Proponents of covering the Sahara Desert with solar panels should recall that the desert is a unique and diverse ecosystem in its own right, something I am vividly aware of through trips into the fringes of the famous Rub' Al Khali (Empty Quarter) in the UAE. The Sierra (.Hub and other environmentalists held up construction of a solar plant in California's Mojave Desert, as it threatened the habitat of a rare tortoise.157¶ • As another example, both cadmium and tellurium, used in some solar panels, are toxic, cadmium highly so. Solar panel manufactur¬ing yields 4 tonnes of poisonous silicon tetrachloride for every tonne of silicon, and there are instances of this being dumped by Chinese manufacturers. Environmentally responsible manufacturing might increase costs by 50-300%.15B Mining rare earth metals has been blamed for pollution and damaging landscapes in south-eastern China.159¶ • The energy payback period for solar panels is about four years, and some manufacturing processes release the powerful greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride, only just recognised as an environmental prob¬lem and so not even included in the Kyoto process. Marine and wind power also require substantial amounts of carbon-intensive concrete and steel. The life-cycle carbon emissions from renewable energy arc certainly low, but not zero—averaging typically 10% of those for gas-fired power generation. Solar electricity is responsible for about two-thirds the amount of greenhouse gases of a capture-equipped coal power plant.¶ • Solar thermal power plants require large amounts of water.lMi Water availability is increasingly a concern for new solar power in Califor¬nia, and water-efficient facilities arc considerably more costly.161¶ Furthermore, a number of renewable energy technologies, notably biomass and to some extent hydropowcr, are threatened by the very climate change they are trying to prevent, if crop yields fall due to drought and higher temperatures, and river and wind flows decrease or become less predictable.1"2 The destruction by floods of the Namche Bazaar hydropower facility in Nepal is one example;ib3 slowing winds over the USA and globally, reducing wind turbine output, perhaps another.164 1AR Natural Gas K2 Renewables Link TurnNatural gas solves intermittencyMcDonnell 1-31 Tim, “CHARTS: Renewables in Bed With Natural Gas?,” http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/charts-renewables-bed-natural-gas But a report released this morning makes it clear that the renewables industry sees itself in the latter camp, forming an unexpected alliance with the natural gas industry, since both groups are intent on giving coal the boot. The informal partnership should be a PR boon to the embattled gas industry, which has spent the last several years trying to allay concerns from the public and policymakers by shouting over the anti-fracking fracas.¶ "Natural gas and renewables complement each other very nicely," Rhone Resch, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said this morning at a press conference for the release of Bloomberg New Energy Finance's 2013 Factbook, an exhaustive analysis of the state of clean energy in America (it's chock full of interesting charts; we pulled out a couple key ones here). The report, based on a blend of original and existing government research, is unequivocal in placing natural gas in the same "clean energy" boat as renewables, a new arrangement Resch and Dave McCurdy, head of the American Gas Association, agreed they were happy to see.¶ "I think it can happen: In the next 30 years we're going to have 50 percent renewables and 50 percent natural gas," Resch said, referring to the breakdown of US energy generation. Natural gas can fill the gap when renewables go intermittant, he said, ramping up when the wind stops or the sun goes down; meanwhile, renewables, which are growing even faster than natural gas, can pick up the slack left by a waning coal industry.
1AR Renewables FailRenewables failMills 11 - *MSc in Geological Sciences @ Cambridge Robin, “Capturing Carbon: The New Weapon in the War Against Climate Change,” Google Book Renewable energy is also exposed to the risks that all new technologies face. In the 1950s, we were assured that nuclear electricity would be 'too cheap to meter'. But high-profile accidents and rising costs have led to disillusionment and a very poor public image for nuclear power. Something similar may happen if major renewable energy projects, for instance offshore wind farms, run into problems of budget, schedule or reliability. At Horns Rev in Denmark, the first large-scale offshore wind project, there were 75,000 maintenance trips by helicopter in the first year and a half of operation, working out at two per turbine per day.147 In that period, the eighty turbines only operated together for half an hour. All had to be removed to shore and replaced. Manufac¬turing faults and the rough marine environment were blamed.14*¶ There is also often significant local opposition to wind turbines: the UK has 2 gigawatts of wind capacity, but 9 CiW of potential is mired in planning permission.14* Technological progress in solar photovolta-ics, batteries and hydrogen fuel cells may stagnate. Rnergy crops seem particularly vulnerable to protests by competing land-users. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 2.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|