Atlanta Urban Debate League jv and Varsity



Download 92.87 Kb.
Date conversion10.08.2017
Size92.87 Kb.





Atlanta Urban Debate League

JV and Varsity

European Union Counterplan





Topic – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.








More at atlantadebate.org







Table of Contents
2014 Topic -- Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

Debating Counterplans 3

***Sample 1NC and 2AC*** 5

1NC – EU Counterplan Text – Offshore Wind 6

1NC – EU Counterplan Text – Aquaculture 7

1NC – EU Counterplan Text – NOPP 8

2AC – Disadvantage to the Counterplan 9

***Negative*** 10

Negative Article 1: “European Commission Sets Out Plan to Stimulate Innovation in the 'Blue Economy'” 11

Negative Article 2: “Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 5 Times Larger than Wind Energy Subsidies” 12

Negative Article 3: “Offshore Wind in Europe” 13

Negative Article 4: “Regulatory and Legal Constraints for European Aquaculture” 15

Negative Article 5: “The Importance of an Integrated End-to-End European Ocean Observing System” 16

Negative Article 6: “Austerity Has Made Europe’s Depression Longer” 17

***Affirmative*** 19

2AC – Permutation 20

2AC – Doesn't Solve The Affirmative 21

2AC – No Net Benefit 22

Affirmative Article 1: “Offshore Wind Farms in Europe” 23

Affirmative Article 2: “Commission’s Support for Aquaculture ‘Ineffective’, Say EU Auditors” 24

Affirmative Article 3: “Expanding Ocean Exploration” 26

Affirmative Article 4: “Austerity in Europe” 28

***Glossary*** 29

Glossary 30

Debating Counterplans


Counterplans are the negative version of plans: they're government policies that serve as alternatives to the affirmative's plan. So if the plan to go to McDonald's, a counterplan might be to go to Zaxby's. Then, instead of just arguing that McDonald's is bad, you would also be able to argue that Zaxby's is comparatively better.
To win a debate with a counterplan, the negative has to prove that their counterplan is (1) better than the plan, and (2) better than a combination of the plan and the counterplan.
The European Union Counterplan

The counterplan in this file – the European Union (EU) counterplan – is pretty straightforward: it has the EU take an action that's basically the same as the plan's action. The negative argues that the European Union would be a better actor for the plan than the United States because they can implement the same policies at lesser cost.


Parts of a Counterplan

A counterplan has two parts: (1) solvency, and (2) a net benefit.


Solvency
The primary purpose of a counterplan is to solve the affirmative's harms. For example, if the affirmative has a global warming advantage and an economy advantage, you want to make arguments for why the counterplan both reduces global warming and improves the economy.
Net benefits
It's not enough, though, to solve the affirmative's case: the negative also has to have a reason for why the counterplan is better than the affirmative. This reason is also called the “net benefit.” For this counterplan, the net benefit is a disadvantage, such as the NASA disadvantage, that applies to the plan but not the counterplan.
You might explain a counterplan's solvency and net benefit like this: “the European Union can solve global warming just as well as the United States by increasing its investment in offshore wind. This would also avoid the NASA disadvantage net benefit: since the European Union spends money, not the United States, the counterplan doesn't trade off with NASA's budget.”
Affirmative Answers
Solvency Deficits
The easiest way for the affirmative to answer the counterplan is to argue that it doesn't solve the affirmative's harms.
There's two different ways to think about these arguments. For each affirmative, there are articles that make arguments about why the European Union might not be effective at solving your harms. More importantly, though, you should think about how the arguments you've already made in the 1AC might interact with the counterplan. For example, are there reasons why only the United States is equipped to do the plan? Are your advantages specific to the United States, and not addressable through EU policies?
Disadvantages
In the same way that the negative can read disadvantages to the plan, the affirmative can read disadvantages to the counterplan. These are the reverse of net benefits: reasons why the counterplan is bad that don't apply to the plan. The disadvantage in this packet is an economy disadvantage, which argues that new European spending will hurt their economies.
Permutations
Permutations are arguments that combine the plan and the counterplan. Imagine, for example, that the negative reads a counterplan to ban all guns and makes an argument for why gun control is good. The best affirmative answer to this argument is probably a permutation: there's no reason the government can't both regulate aquaculture and ban guns. In this case, the affirmative would say “permutation – do both,” meaning that it's possible to do both the plan and the counterplan. Permutations can also be used for what's called “double solvency”: if it's good for the United States to do the plan alone, why not have the U.S. and EU do the plan at the same time?
Without permutations, the negative could read counterplans unrelated to the affirmative and simply claim that they're better than the plan. Permutations force the negative to explain why the plan and counterplan can't be done at the same time. In order to prove the permutation false, the negative has to explain why the counterplan both sufficiently resolves the affirmative's harms and avoids a disadvantage that only applies to the plan.
Answer the net benefit
The affirmative can answer the net benefit in two ways. First, they can (and should) argue that the net benefit is simply wrong, in the same way that they'd normally argue against a disadvantage. Second, the affirmative can argue that the net benefit applies just as much to the counterplan as the plan: the most common way to make this argument is to say that “the counterplan links to the net benefit.” Either argument proves that the counterplan is no better than the plan.
The economy disadvantage is an example of an argument that may or may not link to the counterplan. On one hand, the counterplan still spend money by offering a PTC for offshore wind. On the other hand, the counterplan doesn't use the United States federal government, so it's questionable whether it would affect the economy in the same way.

***Sample 1NC and 2AC***

1NC – EU Counterplan Text – Offshore Wind


We propose the following counterplan: the European Union should offer a long-term production tax credit for wind energy generated off the coast of the European Union.
The counterplan solves the affirmative's advantages - the EU has the tools to successfully develop and explore the ocean

European Commission, 14 (The executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation and implementing decisions. Published May 22, 2014. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/mare/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=16434)
As fresh water and land are running scarce in the face of a growing world population, we will have to turn more and more to our oceans for our food, medicine and energy needs. This blue economy has the potential of creating more jobs and further our economic growth but this must be done sustainably so that future generations can enjoy the same healthy and vibrant oceans that we enjoy in our lifetime. Innovation across all sectors is therefore key to realising the growth and jobs potential and can also bring environmental benefits.

Two thirds of our planet is covered by oceans and seas. If we manage them in a responsible manner, they can provide sources of food, medicine and energy while protecting ecosystems for generations to come. In order to untap the potential and exploit our waters in a sustainable way, the Commission identifies a number of challenges that need to be overcome: our knowledge about the sea is still limited, maritime research efforts between Member States are not linked up, whilst the European workforce of tomorrow will need more engineers and scientists to apply new technologies in the marine environment. The Commission's new Action Plan for Innovation in the 'Blue Economy' seeks to address these issues and to help us use ocean resources sustainably and drive growth and jobs in Europe.

European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki said: "Today, we put the building blocks in place so that tomorrow's generation of Europeans will have the knowledge and skills to better manage our oceans and draw the full benefits they can provide us, while respecting the balance of the ecosystem of the sea." She continued: "For example, our initiative to create a digital map of the entire seabed of European waters will increase the predictability for businesses to invest, lowering costs and stimulate further innovation for sustainable blue growth."
The net benefit is our ________________ disadvantage – the affirmative causes it to happen, but our counterplan doesn't, because __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

1NC – EU Counterplan Text – Aquaculture



We propose the following counterplan: the European Union should increase development of the Earth’s ocean resources by providing permits for offshore aquaculture development regulated by the European Commission’s Department of Maritime Affairs.
The counterplan solves the affirmative's advantages - the EU has the tools to successfully develop and explore the ocean

European Commission, 14 (The executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation and implementing decisions. Published May 22, 2014. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/mare/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=16434)
As fresh water and land are running scarce in the face of a growing world population, we will have to turn more and more to our oceans for our food, medicine and energy needs. This blue economy has the potential of creating more jobs and further our economic growth but this must be done sustainably so that future generations can enjoy the same healthy and vibrant oceans that we enjoy in our lifetime. Innovation across all sectors is therefore key to realising the growth and jobs potential and can also bring environmental benefits.

Two thirds of our planet is covered by oceans and seas. If we manage them in a responsible manner, they can provide sources of food, medicine and energy while protecting ecosystems for generations to come. In order to untap the potential and exploit our waters in a sustainable way, the Commission identifies a number of challenges that need to be overcome: our knowledge about the sea is still limited, maritime research efforts between Member States are not linked up, whilst the European workforce of tomorrow will need more engineers and scientists to apply new technologies in the marine environment. The Commission's new Action Plan for Innovation in the 'Blue Economy' seeks to address these issues and to help us use ocean resources sustainably and drive growth and jobs in Europe.

European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki said: "Today, we put the building blocks in place so that tomorrow's generation of Europeans will have the knowledge and skills to better manage our oceans and draw the full benefits they can provide us, while respecting the balance of the ecosystem of the sea." She continued: "For example, our initiative to create a digital map of the entire seabed of European waters will increase the predictability for businesses to invest, lowering costs and stimulate further innovation for sustainable blue growth."
The net benefit is our ________________ disadvantage – the affirmative causes it to happen, but our counterplan doesn't, because __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

1NC – EU Counterplan Text – NOPP


We propose the following counterplan: the European Union should substantially increase its ocean exploration by establishing an equivalent program to the United States’ National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
The counterplan solves the affirmative's advantages - the EU has the tools to successfully develop and explore the ocean

European Commission, 14 (The executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation and implementing decisions. Published May 22, 2014. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/mare/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=16434)
As fresh water and land are running scarce in the face of a growing world population, we will have to turn more and more to our oceans for our food, medicine and energy needs. This blue economy has the potential of creating more jobs and further our economic growth but this must be done sustainably so that future generations can enjoy the same healthy and vibrant oceans that we enjoy in our lifetime. Innovation across all sectors is therefore key to realising the growth and jobs potential and can also bring environmental benefits.

Two thirds of our planet is covered by oceans and seas. If we manage them in a responsible manner, they can provide sources of food, medicine and energy while protecting ecosystems for generations to come. In order to untap the potential and exploit our waters in a sustainable way, the Commission identifies a number of challenges that need to be overcome: our knowledge about the sea is still limited, maritime research efforts between Member States are not linked up, whilst the European workforce of tomorrow will need more engineers and scientists to apply new technologies in the marine environment. The Commission's new Action Plan for Innovation in the 'Blue Economy' seeks to address these issues and to help us use ocean resources sustainably and drive growth and jobs in Europe.

European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki said: "Today, we put the building blocks in place so that tomorrow's generation of Europeans will have the knowledge and skills to better manage our oceans and draw the full benefits they can provide us, while respecting the balance of the ecosystem of the sea." She continued: "For example, our initiative to create a digital map of the entire seabed of European waters will increase the predictability for businesses to invest, lowering costs and stimulate further innovation for sustainable blue growth."
The net benefit is our ________________ disadvantage – the affirmative causes it to happen, but our counterplan doesn't, because __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

2AC – Disadvantage to the Counterplan


European spending hurts their economy – austerity is a better option

Dorfman, 13 (Jeffrey, professor of economics at The University of Georgia. Published August 1, 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/01/austerity-in-europe-it-will-work-if-its-ever-tried/)
Now, let’s look at the claims about the link between austerity and economic growth.

The Eurostat database includes data on relative GDP growth rates from 2008 to 2011 (the 2012 data is not out for all countries). The relative growth rates compare each country’s GDP growth to the average of the twenty-seven countries in the EU. Thus, the relative growth rate tells us which countries are doing better than average, not whether actual GDP growth is positive or negative. Looking at the relative growth rate makes more sense as it incorporates any shared conditions across Europe. In this sense it provides a fair test of austerity.



The data on relative GDP growth show that only two of the eight countries that practiced austerity performed worse than the average. Those two countries are Iceland and Ireland. Iceland had a complete meltdown of their banking system, so it is clearly a special case. Ireland had a big real estate bubble that popped, which helped cause a bank crisis, and an enormous government deficit. It was definitely one of the countries in big financial trouble.

While two of the eight countries that have tried austerity had GDP growth that was worse than the EU average from 2008 to 2011, that still leaves six of the eight that performed better than average. Further, the two countries with the best relative performance in all of Europe, Poland and Lithuania, are both in the austerity group along with Bulgaria with the fourth best relative GDP growth.



Thus, this data suggests that for most of the European countries that have tried austerity, it has worked. That three out of the four best performing countries have followed austerity would seem to be strong evidence that austerity should not be casually dismissed. It certainly seems to have worked most of the places it has been tried.

The correlation between government spending growth and relative GDP growth is, in fact, negative. With a value of -0.14, the relationship between austerity and improved growth is not strong, so the debate is not settled by this number one way or the other. However, the correlation certainly does not support claims that austerity has failed.

When the Europe-wide negative correlation between government spending growth and GDP growth is combined with the fact that three of the four countries with the best GDP growth performance are ones that cut government spending, austerity would appear to have some good European support.

***Negative***

Negative Article 1: “European Commission Sets Out Plan to Stimulate Innovation in the 'Blue Economy'”



by the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union responsible for proposing legislation and implementing decisions. Published May 22, 2014. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/mare/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=16434
As fresh water and land are running scarce in the face of a growing world population, we will have to turn more and more to our oceans for our food, medicine and energy needs. This blue economy has the potential of creating more jobs and further our economic growth but this must be done sustainably so that future generations can enjoy the same healthy and vibrant oceans that we enjoy in our lifetime. Innovation across all sectors is therefore key to realising the growth and jobs potential and can also bring environmental benefits.
Two thirds of our planet is covered by oceans and seas. If we manage them in a responsible manner, they can provide sources of food, medicine and energy while protecting ecosystems for generations to come. In order to untap the potential and exploit our waters in a sustainable way, the Commission identifies a number of challenges that need to be overcome: our knowledge about the sea is still limited, maritime research efforts between Member States are not linked up, whilst the European workforce of tomorrow will need more engineers and scientists to apply new technologies in the marine environment. The Commission's new Action Plan for Innovation in the 'Blue Economy' seeks to address these issues and to help us use ocean resources sustainably and drive growth and jobs in Europe.
European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki said: "Today, we put the building blocks in place so that tomorrow's generation of Europeans will have the knowledge and skills to better manage our oceans and draw the full benefits they can provide us, while respecting the balance of the ecosystem of the sea." She continued: "For example, our initiative to create a digital map of the entire seabed of European waters will increase the predictability for businesses to invest, lowering costs and stimulate further innovation for sustainable blue growth."

Negative Article 2: “Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 5 Times Larger than Wind Energy Subsidies”


by Zachary Shahan, director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, and Bikocity; solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. Published in Clean Technica on June 26, 2012. Available at http://cleantechnica.com/2012/06/26/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-5-times-larger-wind-energy-subsidies-12-times-larger-renewable-energy-subsidies/

“International Energy Agency figures show that government subsidies for fossil fuels are 12 times greater than those for renewable energy,” the Guardian notes.


Julian Scola of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) writes: “It makes me wonder — how do politicians and media can get away with talking about removing subisidies from renewables without even mentioning the existence — let alone withdrawal — of much larger subsidies for much more established energy technologies? It is hard to understand.” [sic]
It is a wonder. Julian goes on to point out the difference between fossil fuel and wind power subsidies:
“…public subsidies for wind power are dwarfed by those channelled to fossil fuels and nuclear. OECD figures show that coal, oil and gas in the UK were subsidised to the tune of £3.63 billion in 2010, while onshore and offshore wind received only £700 million in the year to April 2011 — that’s more than five times less than fossil fuels.”
Moreover, International Energy Agency figures show that coal, oil and gas subsidies in 37 countries received a total of $409 billion in 2010, compared to $66 billion for renewables.
Shockingly different, eh?
And, another critical point is that fossil fuel industries are largely mature industries, which shouldn’t be receiving subsidies, while clean energy industries are largely nascent industries that should be receiving subsidies!
“Government support has already played an important role in expanding Europe’s use of wind power. And while the industry aims to be competitive in a fully liberalised market, wind power needs subsidies to get it on a level playing field with dominant fossil fuels which have received subsidies for decades.
The industry is working hard to become fully cost-competitive with fossil fuels. And that is setting aside the fact that much of the environmental and human health cost of extracting, transporting and burning fossil fuels to make electricity is not included in the cost of fossil fuels. Costs have already fallen over recent years — largely due to improved turbine design and the increased efficiency of blades and other components. A recent report by the Grantham Research Institute found that onshore wind power will be cost competitive with fossil fuels by 2016 in the UK. Meanwhile, the biggest and best-sited wind farms in the world are already cost competitive, and onshore wind is already considerably cheaper than nuclear power.”

Negative Article 3: “Offshore Wind in Europe”


by Lewis Milford, president of Clean Energy Group, a U.S. non-profit promoting renewable energy. Published September 30, 2013. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lewis-milford/offshore-wind-in-europe_b_4018542.html
There are a lot of great things Europe has that the U.S. doesn't -- comfortable taxis, good table wine, Idris Elba -- and then there's offshore wind, lots and lots of offshore wind.
I spent last week in Europe hearing from key offshore wind leaders -- from top officials in industry, government and finance -- about how they built a large, successful offshore wind industry. I learned some key lessons, and heard some precautions, about how we should go about offshore wind development in the U.S.
I listened to them with a wary ear. There are many differences between the U.S. and Europe on energy policy and, on some issues, we in the U.S. will never go Europe's way. Nevertheless, in the area of offshore wind, U.S. energy policymakers can learn a lot from the lessons Europe has to offer.
Here is what I picked up from the leaders in the field.
A Large Commercial Industry. Compared to the U.S. where we have no turbines in the water, in Europe offshore wind is serious business. Total installed capacity of offshore wind power from 55 wind farms (1,662 turbines) in ten European countries by the end 2012 was 4,995 megawatts, the combined capacity of several nuclear plants. More than $15 billion in investments has been made in the industry over the last 8 years. There were about 58,000 jobs in the industry in 2012, with growth expected up to 191,000 in 2020. Many of the major European public investment banks like the European Investment Bank, and public pension funds, are investing in the space.
Long-term Policy. Europe's offshore wind surge did not happen by accident. The simple and strong message from industry leaders was plain: The only way a country (or a state) can develop a strong offshore wind industry is through a long-term policy in favor of offshore wind. Public officials and private sector representatives emphasized that targets committing to build large installations in stages over a twenty-year period have created the industry in Europe and are essential.
The U.S. approach so far -- hit or miss, on-again off-again policy -- will not work. The European experts all warned against such a self-defeating approach.
The UK and Germany have had fairly stable policies to promote offshore wind for about 20 years. Unlike in the U.S., Europe has a consensus in favor of offshore wind despite changes in governments.
A Commercial Industry, Not R&D. The key issue in Europe is how to get projects to scale, to co-locate multiple gigawatt projects, to raise billions of dollars. The talk there is not about more research, although that is happening. Instead, the industry walks and talks like a serious commercial sector poised for greater growth, unlike in the U.S. where governments tend to view this area as a research arena. The basic technology works, and more R&D won't get existing technologies to scale. But, R&D and demonstration in new technologies like floating turbines could be important actions for the U.S. offshore wind market development.
How to Attract Supply Chains. European governments compete for the economic development benefits of the offshore wind industry, as in the U.S. But they realize that the most important way to get those benefits for their own countries is through favorable long-term policy -- and not by poaching investments from other countries. Again, long-term national targets ensure projects and, in turn, those projects bring jobs and investment: a simple message repeated and confirmed across the European spectrum of opinion.
Critical Public Investment. Public investment is critical to this still-emerging industry. In Germany and the UK, public banks provide long-term debt to offshore wind projects and companies. The projects are expensive, many over $1 billion, so a mix of public and private capital is needed. In contrast, in the U.S., no government, federal or state, has yet committed to a public debt package for offshore wind projects. No state has yet done a financing deal except Cape Wind, through a utility mandate. No green bank has moved into the space, as the UK Green Bank has done with a $1.5 billion commitment over the long term.
Industry-Government Partnerships. Despite the recession and the pull back of banks from lending, the governments and industry look for ways to cooperate to deploy projects. While Europe is besmirched as the heart of government regulation or worse, success in offshore wind is all about private and public sector partnerships. These productive investment partnerships between the wind industry and the government occur with both liberals and conservatives in power.


Negative Article 4: “Regulatory and Legal Constraints for European Aquaculture”


by the European Union's Directorate General for Internal Policies. Published in 2009. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2009/431568/IPOL-PECH_ET(2009)431568_EN.pdf
Although aquaculture has been expanding globally, the EU industry – after the initial period

of growth (from nearly 690 000 tonnes in 1981 to almost 1.3 million tonnes in 2001) – has grown much more modestly and in recent years has stagnated. Between 1995 and 2004, total aquaculture production in the EU-27 rose by only 3 to 4 % until 1999, or less than half the global growth rate, and since 2000 EU production stagnated (European Commission 2009). As a result of this overall stagnation, total EU aquaculture production in recent years accounts for around just 2% of worldwide aquaculture production (based on 2005 figures), which is well below its 4% share in 1996 and far less than the EU’s worldwide share of capture fish production (around 6%)...


The challenges for the EU aquaculture sector are numerous (European Commission 2009a). For example, competition for space and limited access to water in coastal areas and river basins are important obstacles to setting up, developing or even maintaining aquaculture production sites. Competition with imported products is a major issue, particularly since stricter EU rules, notably on environmental protection, and higher labour (and other) costs generate competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis competitors in Asia and South America. Entrepreneurs have difficulty gaining access to finance and investment, as the sector remains relatively unknown to investors and there is limited access to seed capital or loans for innovation in a risky context (particularly with constant changes in the economic situation and in trade patterns). Other challenges include a lack of understanding, and sometimes an image problem, with respect to the general public; limited access to licensing; industry fragmentation; and insufficiency of medicines and vaccines. It is against this background that the present study seeks to examine one of these potential challenges – regulatory and legal constraints. To a large extent, such constraints are of a cross-cutting nature: i.e. they form part of the policy, operational and commercial challenges such as access to space, environmental protection, licensing, etc. that have just been described. The burdens created by regulatory and legal provisions, however, are also challenges to be examined in their own right. Thus, the role of the legal or regulatory act needs to be examined both in its social, economic and political context and in its own right (against modern principles of regulatory practice).
1.1.2. EU aquaculture policy

There is no such thing as a Common Aquaculture Policy under the EU Treaties, nor in fact a distinct legislative, regulatory or administrative body in the field of aquaculture. Rather, EU aquaculture policy is devised around a number of Community policies which have an impact on the sector, including fisheries, environmental and health/food safety policies. The principal policy formulation to date has been the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture (European Commission 2002), adopted by the Commission in September 2002 and updated in April 2009 by a revised strategy Building a Sustainable Future for European Aquaculture – A New Impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture (European Commission 2009).


Negative Article 5: “The Importance of an Integrated End-to-End European Ocean Observing System”


by the European Global Ocean Observing System, an International Non-Profit Association of national governmental agencies and research organisations, committed to European-scale operational oceanography. Published May 14, 2014. Available at http://eurogoos.eu/2014/06/09/eoos-at-emd-bremen-2014/
Ocean observations are essential for marine science, operational services and systematic assessment of the marine environmental status. All types of activities in the marine environment require reliable data and information on the present and future conditions in which they operate. Many maritime economic sectors (e.g. oil and gas exploration, maritime transport, fisheries and aquaculture, maritime renewable energy) directly benefit from easily accessible marine data and information in several ways: improved planning of operations, risk minimization though increased safety, improved performance and overall reduced cost. Other activities, such as deep sea mining and marine biotechnology, also benefit from specialized deep-sea observations that were not feasible until recently.
The complexity and high density of human activities in European seas and oceans result in a high demand for marine knowledge in the form of data, products and services to support marine and maritime activities in Europe, stressing the need for an integrated European approach to ocean observation and marine data management (Navigating the Future IV, European Marine Board 2013). While Europe already has a relatively mature ocean observing and data management infrastructure capability, this is largely fragmented and currently not addressing the needs of multiple stakeholders. Mechanisms for coordinating existing and planned ocean observations using a system approach are needed for more integrated, efficient and sustained observations under the framework of a “European Ocean Observing System” (EOOS) following international practice (systems developed by USA, Australia and Canada) and the call of the EurOCEAN 2010 Conference Declaration.
The integration of different national and local marine data systems into a coherent interconnected whole which provides free access to observations and data, as pursued by the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) is of key importance for maritime sectors like fisheries, the environment, transport, research, enterprise and industry. However, much work still needs to be done in close collaboration with end-users, in particular industry, to further develop EMODnet into a fully functional, fit for purpose gateway to European marine data and data products taking into account requirements of multiple users.

Negative Article 6: “Austerity Has Made Europe’s Depression Longer”


by Dave Johnson, senior fellow at Renew California, a think tank composed of current and former liberal California State Senators and Assemblymembers. Published August 24, 2014. Available at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/24/austerity-has-made-europes-depression-longer-1930s
Europe’s economic depression has now lasted longer than the Great Depression of the 1930s. Meanwhile, America’s “Great Recession” also drags on thanks to cutbacks in government spending since the stimulus.
Europe’s leaders somehow were convinced that austerity – “deficit reduction” through cutbacks in government – would somehow lead them out of their economic doldrums. They believed that taking money out of the economy would help the economy. The result has been terrible. The Washington Post’s Wonkblog calls Europe’s austerity-lengthened depression “one of the biggest catastrophes in economic history.”
To top it off, Europe’s governments are learning that cutting back on spending not only worsens the economic picture, causing terrible unemployment, poverty and human misery, but the worsened economic picture means less revenue coming in, thereby increasing deficits instead of lowering deficits. In other words, austerity cutbacks to fight deficits have instead made deficits worse and hurt people.
Europe’s Policy-Driven Depression
In “Worse than the 1930s: Europe’s recession is really a depression,” Matt O’Brien writes,
It’s a policy-induced disaster. Too much fiscal austerity and too little monetary stimulus have crippled growth like almost never before. Europe is doing worse than Japan during its “lost decade,” worse than the sterling bloc during the Great Depression, and barely better than the gold bloc then—though even that silver lining isn’t much of one. That’s because, at this rate, it’ll only be another year until the eurozone is well behind the gold bloc, too.
In Wonkblog’s chart, the black line shows Europe’s negative GDP doldrums since 2007.
The harmful effect of austerity is so obvious that even Europe’s policymakers are starting to get it. The New York Times, in “France Acknowledges Economic Malaise, Blaming Austerity,” reports that, “President François Hollande on Wednesday … indicated that the austerity policies France had been compelled to adopt to meet the eurozone’s budget deficit targets were making growth impossible.”
“The diagnosis is clear,” Mr. Hollande said in an interview published Wednesday in the French daily Le Monde. “Due to the austerity policies of the last several years, there is a problem of demand throughout Europe, and a growth rate that is not reducing employment.”
It was the most public rejection by France of the austerity medicine that Germany has long prescribed for the eurozone — which even the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, recently acknowledged might be impeding the currency bloc’s recovery.
(Click here for a Businessweek/Bloomberg video in which Economist Joseph Stiglitz explains why Europe’s austerity has been a “dismal failure” and needs a change of approach.)
Demand Drives An Economy
Here’s the deal. In a slowdown consumers and businesses are not bringing enough “demand” to an economy. This lack of customers causes businesses to lay off workers and those workers stop being consumers, so businesses have to cut back even more. So they lay off workers and those workers stop being consumers, so businesses have to cut back even more. You get the picture: “Death spiral.”
This is when government (We the People) should step in. In the 20th century we learned a way out of recessions and depressions. During slowdowns government can spend, and this boosts the demand in the economy to make up for the demand shortfall from consumers and businesses. Government can invest in infrastructure, causing construction workers to be hired and suppliers of equipment and materials to thrive. Government can spend on things it needs like equipment and cars, etc. Government can hire to get things done that need to be done like teaching kids, daycare, adding police and firefighters … so many things.

***Affirmative***

2AC – Permutation


Permutation – do both.
Doing both the plan and the counterplan would be best because ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

2AC – Doesn't Solve The Affirmative


The counterplan doesn't solve our affirmative – our _______________ evidence indicates that only the U.S. can do the plan effectively because ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

2AC – No Net Benefit


The counterplan links just as much to the disadvantage as the plan, because __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________. Therefore, there's no reason to do the counterplan instead of the plan.

Affirmative Article 1: “Offshore Wind Farms in Europe”


By KPMG, a global network of professional firms providing audit and tax services. Report on European offshore wind farms. Published in 2007. Available at http://81.47.175.201/transvisions/documents/sectorial/energy/KPMG_Wind_farms.pdf
Based on the results of the factors considered in this study, a clear picture can be derived of the status quo and medium-term development of offshore wind energy in Europe and specifically in Germany.
In 2007, the European Union issued a clear commitment to the expansion of renewable energies and has set further ambitious targets for the period until 2020 despite the fact that the percentage of renewable technologies in relation to overall power supply has been declining overall since the year 2001. In this context, offshore wind energy is particularly important, because in the short term it will offer the potential of making a major contribution to energy supplies. Today,the crucial question is no longer whether the market for offshore wind energy will be developed; instead, the crucial question is how the technical and financial implementation can be achieved.
This assessment is also reflected in the above results of the survey. Whereas in Germany in 2006 overriding aspects such as approvals of the wind farmsand the cable section were quoted as the main problems for the implementa­tion of OWFs [offshore wind farms], the participants in the 2007 survey mainly quoted the availability of wind turbines and rising raw material prices as problems relevant for implementation.
The evaluation of the OWFs which are currently planned in Europe shows that there is potential for a significant expansion of offshore wind energy. However,the analysis of the expected returns from the implementation of OWFs under the prevailing Feed-in tariff systems clearly demonstrates that only a small number of countries in Europe provide attractive conditions which will result in actual investments in the offshore market.
The model calculation shows that in Germany, despite the fact that the Infrastructure Planning Acceleration Act was adopted in 2006, the return which can be achieved is overall unsatisfactory and also unsatisfactory on the basis ofan international comparison. Even if the currently discussed improvements in the tariff system are taken into consideration, Spain, France and Great Britain continue to be more attractive markets for potential investors.
In this assessment, it has to be borne in mind that OWFs feature differing risk profiles as a result of the geographical data .The construction and operation oflarge OWFs in deep water involve risks which are currently not fully under con­trol and which are thus not quantifiable. The extent of the return expectation thus constitutes a risk buffer which the operator and also a potential investor can incorporate in the project calculation.

Affirmative Article 2: “Commission’s Support for Aquaculture ‘Ineffective’, Say EU Auditors”


by Sarantis Michalopoulos, staff writer for EurActive, an EU news organization. Published September 24, 2014. Available at http://www.euractiv.com/authors/sarantis-michalopoulos

Measures to support aquaculture by the European Commission in the period up to 2013, were “weak and insufficient” at both EU and member state level, according to auditors. The Commission admitted the shortcomings. EurActiv Greece reports.


The European Court of Auditors (ECA) published (16 September) a Special Report on the effectiveness for the support of aquaculture in the EU.
Each year the EU produces about 1.3 million tonnes of fish from aquaculture, and the sector has a turnover of €4 billion euro.
Despite being a major objective of Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in the period up to 2013, the report reveals that the measures to support aquaculture were not well-designed and implemented at EU and Member State level.
It adds that the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), the funding instrument of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), “failed to deliver value for money and effective support for the sustainable development of aquaculture”.
By May 2013, the EFF provided over €400 million to fund measures for productive investments in aquaculture, as well as environmental and health measures.
“We found that the main objectives for growth of the aquaculture sector have not been met, and the sector has stagnated for many years. While the financial crisis undoubtedly contributed to this stagnation, the overall framework to support the sector was not well designed, and the actual measures taken were weak,” underlined Kevin Cardiff, the ECA Member responsible for the report.
He added that the projects that were audited in the Member States were often “poorly selected and, with some exceptions, did not deliver expected results or value for money, and contributed little to growth and employment”.
Commission admits the ineffectiveness
EurActiv Greece spoke to Helene Banner, spokesperson of Maritime Affairs and Maria Damanaki, Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, who welcomed ECA’s report and admitted that the support for aquaculture was not effective “as expected”.
“The Commission welcomes the European Court of Auditors' report and its observations and recommendations on the support from the European Fisheries Fund for investments in the aquaculture sector across the European Union […] admittedly this support was not as effective as we had hoped, at least until the end of 2013, which falls under the audited period”, she noted, adding that the EU executive had already taken corrective measures to ensure that this does not happen with the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) for the period 2014-2020.
Nevertheless, she attributed part of the failure to the global economic crisis that started in 2007.
“Let’s also bear in mind that many of the investments co-financed by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) were made in the context of a global economic crisis. Indeed, the economic and financial crisis was the main factor jeopardising the achievement of many of the growth and job objectives in the sector, and could not have been foreseen at the start of the programming period in 2007,” she told EurActiv Greece.

Affirmative Article 3: “Expanding Ocean Exploration”


By the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research. Published in 2013. Available at http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/about/what-we-do/annual-reports/oer-annual-report-2013.pdf
Exploration and data collection in the deep ocean requires robust undersea technology capabilities that can withstand the rigors of depth, salinity and shipboard operations. OER [Office of Exploration and Research] and our partners create and use this technology, and advance new platforms, sensors and systems, to expand the scope, pace, efficiency and cost effectiveness of ocean exploration.
New 6000-meter Remotely Operated Vehicle

In 2013, OER deployed on board the NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer a new 6,000-meter ROV, the Deep Discoverer, with more sophisticated capabilities than the ROV [Remotely Operated Vehicle] OER had been using for the previous three years. The increased capabilities will enable innovation through research and development of new sensors and systems. The new ROV currently includes hydraulic manipulator arms for deploying oceanographic sensors, an inertial navigation system, a Doppler velocity navigation system, and a system for dynamic lighting control. The vehicle weighs in at 9,200 pounds, has an overall length of 10.5 feet, and stands an impressive 8.5 feet tall. It carries a minimum of six underwater video cameras, two of which are high-definition; a large array of the newest LED lighting technology; and an available sensor payload of over 400 pounds. Two seven-function hydraulic manipulators, a hydraulically actuated sensor platform, full color sector scan sonar, and a fully integrated inertial navigation system are all standard capabilities of the new system.


In 2013, engineers from multiple disciplines performed a “shake down” of the ROV system to ensure that all systems were integrated and functioning properly. The ROV was a critical tool for the successful Atlantic Canyons cruises exploring diverse seafloor habitats and bottom types ranging from very flat areas at the base of the canyons on the continental rise to valleys that provide very complex terrain with steep slopes.
OER Partners Share Technology Risks and Rewards

In 2013, OER supported advancing undersea technology through the Cooperative Institute for the North Atlantic Region, resulting in operational missions with the new hybrid remotely or autonomously operated vehicle AUV Nereus, with plans to extend operations to the Arctic in 2014. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution operates Nereus.


The vehicle may operate in Arctic areas not otherwise accessible, producing high-resolution seafloor maps and images that provide ecosystem assessments and characterizations of the seafloor and water column. This information could be vital to understanding the Arctic where the U.S. may extend its continental shelf and secure rights to use or protect seabed resources.
Advanced Technology Engagement

Through the Small Business Innovation Research Program’s phase I (proof of concept), OER has successfully supported the development of a new in situ method to measure small changes in the ocean’s calcium concentrations. The project was selected for phase II funding, to develop a prototype within the next two years. OER also manages another phase II project to develop a multi-person foldable hypobaric chamber prototype.


OER leads several ocean technology initiatives both within NOAA and between agencies that spur engagement and cooperation on ocean exploration technology development and testing. With industry partners, NOAA’s ocean observation innovations forum group developed a series of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements to advance the use of autonomous vehicles to support ocean exploration and other NOAA mission priorities.
OER is also a leader in developing NOAA’s Unmanned Systems Roadmap encompassing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Unmanned Surface Vehicles and AUVs.
OER also created a federal interagency group, the Task Force on Ocean Exploration and Research Technology, which supports advancement of new technologies and capabilities for ocean exploration. Comprised of NOAA, the National Science Foundation, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Office of Naval Research, the USGS and NASA, the group identified technical capabilities for Arctic ocean exploration that were common among members. Benefits of this interagency collaboration include cost savings when leveraging investments to develop new or better technology tools that meet common objectives.

Affirmative Article 4: “Austerity in Europe”


by Jeffrey Dorfman, professor of economics at The University of Georgia. Published August 1, 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/08/01/austerity-in-europe-it-will-work-if-its-ever-tried/
...Now, let’s look at the claims about the link between austerity and economic growth.
The Eurostat database includes data on relative GDP growth rates from 2008 to 2011 (the 2012 data is not out for all countries). The relative growth rates compare each country’s GDP growth to the average of the twenty-seven countries in the EU. Thus, the relative growth rate tells us which countries are doing better than average, not whether actual GDP growth is positive or negative. Looking at the relative growth rate makes more sense as it incorporates any shared conditions across Europe. In this sense it provides a fair test of austerity.
The data on relative GDP growth show that only two of the eight countries that practiced austerity performed worse than the average. Those two countries are Iceland and Ireland. Iceland had a complete meltdown of their banking system, so it is clearly a special case. Ireland had a big real estate bubble that popped, which helped cause a bank crisis, and an enormous government deficit. It was definitely one of the countries in big financial trouble.
While two of the eight countries that have tried austerity had GDP growth that was worse than the EU average from 2008 to 2011, that still leaves six of the eight that performed better than average. Further, the two countries with the best relative performance in all of Europe, Poland and Lithuania, are both in the austerity group along with Bulgaria with the fourth best relative GDP growth.
Thus, this data suggests that for most of the European countries that have tried austerity, it has worked. That three out of the four best performing countries have followed austerity would seem to be strong evidence that austerity should not be casually dismissed. It certainly seems to have worked most of the places it has been tried...
The correlation between government spending growth and relative GDP growth is, in fact, negative. With a value of -0.14, the relationship between austerity and improved growth is not strong, so the debate is not settled by this number one way or the other. However, the correlation certainly does not support claims that austerity has failed.
When the Europe-wide negative correlation between government spending growth and GDP growth is combined with the fact that three of the four countries with the best GDP growth performance are ones that cut government spending, austerity would appear to have some good European support.

***Glossary***

Glossary



European Union
The European Union is a group of 28 countries – ranging from France, Spain, and Germany in the West to Slovakia, Hungary, and Estonia to the East – located in and around Europe. These countries share a common governmental and economic structure. Each country elects representatives to the European Parliament, and participates in collective European decision-making. One of the most important functions of the EU is to set uniform economic policies: all countries in the EU use the Euro as their currency, and have a similar set of trade laws.
European Commission
The European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union, with functions similar to (though overall far less powerful than) the U.S. President. The Commission's President is elected by the European Parliament, who then nominates twenty-seven other people to serve in the Commission. The EC is also responsible for proposing all legislation: unlike in the United States, the legislative branch cannot propose legislation.
European Commission Department of Maritime Affairs
This is the department of the European Commission that's responsible for policies relating to aquaculture and fisheries. In some ways, it's similar to the NOAA in the United States.
Blue Economy
This phrase is sometimes used to refer to an economic strategy that prioritizes ocean exploration and development.
Austerity
In the aftermath of the 2008 global economic crisis, many countries – especially in Europe – considered or implemented “austerity,” or substantial decreases in government spending, in response to government debt that was perceived as too high. These decreases in government spending largely affected the “social safety net,” including funding for healthcare, welfare, and higher education. Austerity in Europe is very controversial, in terms of its effects on individuals as well as the broader economy. Since the counterplan has European governments spend money, it raises the question of whether this spending would help or hurt the economy.
In many ways, this debate is similar to the arguments presented in the economy disadvantage: the main different is that it's about Europe, not the United States. It's worth taking a second look at those articles when developing this argument.




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2016
send message

    Main page