Fyi who has how many icebreakers
Download 0.8 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The ships won’t be nuclear
- AT – DA – Global Warming
- It’s too late to solve global warming – but we’ll adapt anyway
AT – DA - NuclearNormal means is non-nuclearO’Rourke 6/14 Specialist in Naval Affairs, Congressional Research Service, “Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress,” http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc85474/ Polar Star (WAGB-10) and Polar Sea (WAGB-11),5 sister ships built to the same general design (Figure 1 and Figure 2), were procured in the early 1970s as replacements for earlier U.S. icebreakers. They were designed for 30-year service lives, and were built by Lockheed Shipbuilding of Seattle, WA, a division of Lockheed that also built ships for the U.S. Navy, but which exited the shipbuilding business in the late 1980s. Neither ship is currently in operational condition. The ships are 399 feet long and displace about 13,200 tons.6 They are among the world’s most powerful non-nuclear-powered icebreakers, with a capability to break through ice up to 6 feet thick at a speed of 3 knots. Because of their icebreaking capability, they are considered heavy polar icebreakers. In addition to a crew of 134, each ship can embark a scientific research staff of 32 people. The ships won’t be nuclearO’Rourke 6/14 Specialist in Naval Affairs, Congressional Research Service, Quote from July 2010 Coast Guard High Latitude Study,“Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress,” http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc85474/ The Coast Guard estimated in February 2008 that new replacement ships for the Polar Star and Polar Sea might cost between $800 million and $925 million per ship in 2008 dollars to procure.31 The Coast Guard said that this estimate is based on a ship with integrated electric drive, three propellers, and a combined diesel and gas (electric) propulsion plant. The icebreaking capability would be equivalent to the POLAR Class Icebreakers [i.e., Polar Star and Polar Sea] and research facilities and accommodations equivalent to HEALY. This cost includes all shipyard and government project costs. Total time to procure a new icebreaker [including mission analysis, studies, design, contract award, and construction] is eight to ten years.32 AT – DA – Global WarmingCan’t solve without international cooperation – China is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world, and India’s output is significant – industrialization in the developing world trade off with US reductionsHawkins 2009 (John, July 16, “Why Cap And Trade Is A Waste Of Time: Poor Countries Won't Curb Their Emissions”, accessed 9/6/2010 http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/07/why_cap_and_trade_is_a_waste_o.php) Here's the issue: the United States is just one nation out of many. Even if the environmentalist kooks and the people lining their pockets with global warming profits, like Al Gore, are right -- we need the whole world, especially large developing nations like India and China, to reduce greenhouse gasses to make a difference. However, as Shikha Dalmia notes in a column at Forbes, it's simply not going to happen, In fact, there is a perfectly good reason developing countries are unwilling to act on climate change: What they are being asked to do is more awful than climate change's implications--even if one accepts all the alarmist predictions. Consider what would be necessary to slash global greenhouse-gas emissions just 50% below 2000 levels by 2050--a far less aggressive goal than what the enviros say is necessary to avert climate catastrophe. According to U.S. Chamber of Commerce calculations, even if the West reduced its emissions by 80% below 2000 levels, developing countries would still have to return their emissions to 2000 levels to meet the 50% target. However, Indians currently consume roughly 15 times less energy per capita than Americans--and Chinese consume seven times less. Asking them, along with the rest of the developing world, to go back to 2000 emission levels with a 2050 population would mean putting them on a very drastic energy diet. The human toll of this is unfathomable: It would require these countries to abandon plans to ever conquer poverty, of course. But beyond that it would require a major scaling back of living standards under which their middle classes--for whom three square meals, cars and air-conditioning are only now beginning to come within reach--would have to go back to subsistence living, and the hundreds of millions who are at subsistence would have to accept starvation. In short, the choice for developing countries is between mass death due to the consequences of an overheated planet sometime in the distant future, and mass suicide due to imposed instant starvation right now. Is it any surprise that they are reluctant to jump on the global-warming bandwagon? ...The Waxman-Markey climate change bill that just passed the U.S. House of Representatives wants to force developing countries to accept this fate by resorting to the old and tired method of protectionism. Should this monstrosity become law, starting in 2020 the United States will impose carbon tariffs on goods from any country that does not accept binding reductions. But this is a path to mutually assured economic destruction--not to combating climate change. For starters, by 2020, when these tariffs go into effect, India and China--with GDPs projected to grow anywhere from 6% to 10% annually--will have much bigger economies with huge domestic markets that they are increasingly opening to each other. Thus they might well be better off forgoing access to the U.S. market than accepting crippling restrictions on their growth. Also, by then they will also have more economic clout on the world stage to enforce their own ideas of who ought to take moral responsibility for climate change. The West's case for restricting Indian and Chinese exports rests on the claim that these countries' total emissions will exceed those from the West within the next few decades. (China's emissions are already at par with those of the U.S., the biggest emitter). But these countries have, and will continue to have, far lower emissions on a per-capita basis, given that China's are now around one-fifth those of the United States and India's one-twentieth. Thus they would have an equally valid case for imposing countervailing restrictions on American exports based on per-capita emissions. The West might well be the bigger loser in this economic warfare if it is barred from accessing new, growing markets. What environmental activists are demanding is that nations like China and India commit to permanently living in grinding poverty and miserable conditions in hopes that it'll stop global warming, which wouldn't be as bad grinding poverty for those nations, is set to occur in a hundred years, and probably won't happen anyway. It’s too late to solve global warming – but we’ll adapt anywayHewitt 8/17/10 Alison. August 17, 2010. Capitalism Will Help Us Adapt to Climate Change, Economist Says. http://www.international.ucla.edu/news/article.asp?parentid=116933. Writer UCLA today Kahn, an environmental economist, takes a pessimistic view of climate change — it's too late to avoid rising sea levels and hotter summers, he wrote — but he believes cities can cope with the changes. "Many people are fixated on how we can reduce greenhouse gases, and acting like adapting to a warmer climate is still in the sci-fi future," Kahn said. "But we've passed the point of no return. Certain urban places — like Los Angeles — will suffer. But I'm optimistic that Los Angeles will also adapt." 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 0.8 Mb. Share with your friends:
|