LINK TURNS Alaska
**Alaska is a toss-up state
Ocean policies are unpopular – Alaskans perceive them as too much oversight
Heartland Institute, 12 – one of the leading think-tanks in the US whose purpose is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems (“Alaska Officials Speak Out Against New National Ocean Policy”, Heartland Institute, 6/4/12, http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/06/04/alaska-officials-speak-out-against-new-national-ocean-policy)//EX
‘Adds Uncertainty and Anxiety’ Rick Rogers, executive director of the Resources Development Council for Alaska, summarized the Council’s concerns about too much federal involvement stifling state decision-making and oversight. “The National Ocean Policy adds uncertainty and anxiety to an already cumbersome and complex regime of state and federal permitting and oversight,” Rogers told Environment & Climate News. “Increased bureaucracy could hamper the already slow processes with no added benefit to the environment,” Rogers explained. “In our view the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning/Regional Planning Body structure is an unauthorized new regulatory program that suggests a federal-level ‘top down’ approach to management resources with minimal local input.”
Ocean policy is unpopular in Alaska – empirics and National Ocean Policy prove
Heartland Institute, 12 – one of the leading think-tanks in the US whose purpose is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems (“Alaska Officials Speak Out Against New National Ocean Policy”, Heartland Institute, 6/4/12, http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/06/04/alaska-officials-speak-out-against-new-national-ocean-policy)//EX
Local Concerns Summarized U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opened the field hearing by expressing concern the new National Ocean Policy will trample state and local oversight and disproportionately harm states like Alaska. “[D]espite the administration's claims that it will be the most transparent ever, this new federal environmental overlay is being developed and implemented with no direct stakeholder involvement,” said Young. "Nowhere in the United States will the effects of the National Ocean Policy be felt to the extent that it will in Alaska. The reach of this ‘ocean’ policy will stretch throughout the entire state and affect almost any activity that requires a federal permit,” Young explained. “As we will hear from our witnesses today, the State’s economic vitality is a direct result of our ability to use our natural resources. Any new federal initiative that affects our ability to use these natural resources will cost jobs. "The administration claims that this whole National Ocean policy is nothing more than an attempt to coordinate federal agencies and make better permitting decisions,” Young continued. “Forgive me if I am a little suspicious when the federal government—through an Executive Order—decides to create a new bureaucracy that will ‘help’ us plan where activities can or cannot take place in our waters and inland. This effort to ‘zone’ a majority of the State of Alaska using new criteria and new policy goals will not be helpful. The fact that this effort will take place whether the State of Alaska wants it to or not makes me even more suspicious.”
General Ocean conservation is unpopular- it conflicts with interests diverse as farmers and shippers
Eilperin 2012(Juliet Eilperin, reporter for The Washington Post, October 28, 2012, “National ocean policy sparks partisan fight”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html )
Partisan battles are engulfing the nation’s ocean policy, showing that polarization over environmental issues doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce election-year fights. Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to expand its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and reduce conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue — the country’s patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the oceans. Obama’s July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users.
Offshore drilling is unpopular amongst coastal areas
Lilley 2010 (Jonathan Charles Lilley, doctor of philosophy in Marine Studies, “Navigating a Sea of Values: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward the Ocean and Ocean Energy Resources”, http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf )
Unlike wind development, support for offshore drilling is split along party lines, with Republicans more likely to favor oil and gas drilling than Democrats in each of the three Rasmussen polls – in June 2008, 85% of Republicans supported the practice compared to 57% of Democrats (Rasmussen Reports, 2008a). There are also pronounced differences in the perceived effects offshore drilling will have on gasoline prices. In the same June 2008 poll, 78% of conservatives believed that expansion of U.S. offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to bring prices down, compared to just 57% of moderates and 50% of liberals. Although not tested, political differences might also explain the lower levels of support for offshore drilling found among residents of the Mid-Atlantic states. Among residents of coastal counties in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, support for oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic coast was at 46%. New York had the lowest levels of support at 37% and Maryland had the highest at 65% – a figure more in line with the national average (Monmouth University, 2009). The authors of the Monmouth study do note, however, that these support levels were higher in 2009 than in 2007, when just 33% of Mid-Atlantic coastal residents supported drilling in the Atlantic.
Ocean conservation is unpopular with the fishing industry
Eilperin 7/2/14 (Juliet Eilperin, reporter for The Washington Post, “Fishing groups criticize Obama’s Pacific plan”, http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140702/NEWS03/140709875)
WASHINGTON – When President Barack Obama announced two weeks ago that he intended to expand federal protections around seven islands and atolls in the central Pacific Ocean, many environmentalists hailed the move as an important step for conservation. But the main group overseeing fishing operators in Hawaii and three U.S. territories declared Monday that it opposes the proposal, on the grounds that it would hurt the U.S. fishing industry. The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council - composed of fishing industry representatives as well as some state and federal officials - helps establish fishing policy for both commercial and recreational operators in Hawaii as well as the territories of American Samoa and Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In a statement Monday afternoon, members of the quasi-governmental agency said they would oppose any additional limits on commercial fishing in the area. President George W. Bush used his executive authority to establish the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, which now encompasses almost 87,000 square miles, in 2009. Obama is now contemplating widening those boundaries to cover nearly 782,000 square miles of federal waters, which would be off-limits to fishing, energy exploration and other activities. The designation now extends 50 miles out from shore; it could be extended as far out as 200 miles. The statement argues that the move would deprive fishing operators of an important resource. “U.S. fishermen, including those in the Pacific, already abide by the strictest fishing regulations in the world, and this plan further inhibits their economic survival,” they wrote, adding it would yield “few, if any, ecological benefits from the restrictions.”
Share with your friends: |