CDL Core Files 2014/2015 IndexOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

Offshore Wind Negative Offshore Wind Negative 1

1NC Frontline: Inherency [1/1]...........................................................................21NC Frontline: Harms – Economy [1/3]..............................................................41NC Frontline: Harms – Economy [2/3]..............................................................51NC Frontline: Harms – Economy [3/3]..............................................................61NC Frontline: Harms – Climate [1/2].................................................................81NC Frontline: Harms – Climate [2/2].................................................................91NC Frontline: Solvency [1/1]...........................................................................112NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Climate #1 [1/1]............................................122NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Climate #2 [1/1]............................................132NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Economy #1 [1/1]..........................................142NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Economy #2 [1/1]..........................................152NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Economy #3 [1/1]..........................................162NC / 1NR Extensions: Solvency #1 [1/1].........................................................17

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

1NC Frontline: Inherency [1/1] 1. Wind energy is rapidly expanding in the status quo

AWEA 2014[The American Wind Energy Assc. AWEA is the national trade association of the U.S. wind energy industry, with 1,000 member companies, including global leaders in wind power and energy development, wind turbine manufacturing, component and service suppliers. “American wind power sees unprecedented growth entering 2014. Largest-ever crop of wind farms under construction, building U.S. industry’s momentum” 1/30/14 http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=6044]

The American wind energy industry responded to the extension of the Production Tax Credit in 2013 by starting construction on an historic and unprecedented number of new wind farms, backed by Power Purchase Agreements with electric utilities on a record scale by the close of the year.¶ “These results show the Production Tax Credit continues to be an effective and efficient policy, driving billions of dollars in private investment into our economy, fostering a new U.S. manufacturing sector, and creating economic benefits for communities across America,” said AWEA CEO Tom Kiernan as the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) released its U.S. Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2013 Market Report¶ The record growth for wind energy at the end of 2013 resulted not only from the extension of the Production Tax Credit (which provides up-front tax relief of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 10 years of a project), but also from investments in technological advancements that have driven down the cost of wind energy by 43 percent in just four years. “Our current growth demonstrates how powerful the tax credit is at incentivizing investment in wind energy,” Kiernan said. “Now it’s up to Congress to ensure that growth continues by extending this highly successful policy.”¶ Highlights from the U.S. Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2013 Market Report include:¶ At the end of 2013 there were more U.S. wind power megawatts (MW) under construction than ever in history: Over 12,000 MW of new generating capacity was under construction, with a record-breaking 10,900 MW starting construction activity during the fourth quarter. The wind projects under construction could power the equivalent of 3.5 million American homes, or all the households in Iowa, Oklahoma and Kansas.¶ A record number of long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) were signed in 2013. At least 60 PPAs for nearly 8,000 MW were signed by utilities and corporate purchasers, of which 5,200 MW have not yet started construction.¶ Some of the states poised for major growth in wind energy in coming years include Texas, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, and Michigan.¶ There are now over 5,600 MW of turbine orders placed, with major manufacturing facilities active in places such as Colorado, Kansas, Iowa and South Dakota.¶ U.S. manufacturing production capacity has ramped up dramatically, and the largest turbine order in history of the U.S. wind industry was placed in the Fourth Quarter.¶ The start of 2013 for the wind industry was slowed by uncertainty over the Production Tax Credit, which was allowed to expire momentarily on Dec. 31, then extended the next day by Congress and signed back into law on Jan. 2 as part of the fiscal cliff deal.¶ Historically when the PTC has been allowed to expire, the U.S. industry has faced a 70 to 95 percent drop-off in installations; in 2013, that drop-off amounted to a 92 percent reduction in new wind generating capacity brought online. That dropped from the record 13,131 MW of new capacity installed in 2012, to just 1,084 MW in 2013, a pattern that could repeat unless Congress acts.¶ But the industry quickly rebounded, signing a record number of Power Purchase Agreements and getting projects under construction in the fourth quarter. Of the 1,084 MW of new wind farms installed in 12 states plus Puerto Rico last year, 1,012 MW were completed in the Fourth Quarter.¶ The momentum and excitement toward the end of 2013 will carry over into 2014, as factories fill orders for turbines and construction continues at wind farms, but uncertainty over the tax policy again looms and will deter new project development.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

2. Inherency is a voting issue because it’s a stock issue that the affirmative must meet, and because if the status quo includes the plan then the negative is unable to argue in favor of no change.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

1NC Frontline: Harms – Economy [1/3] 1. Wind power’s not key to the economy

IER 2011[11/14/2011, Institute for Energy Research, “Rebutting Ms. Bode’s Wind Comments,” http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/11/14/rebutting-bodes-20-percent-by-2030/]

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the number of wind manufacturing jobs has remained relatively flat over the past 3 years at an estimated 20,000 jobs. (See chart below.) The majority of the 75,000 jobs (60 percent) that Ms. Bode quotes are in finance and consulting services, contracting and engineering services, and transportation and logistics. Only 3,500 jobs were in construction and 4,000 in operations and maintenance in 2010.¶ Wind turbine manufacturing is responsible for a very small share (less than 1 percent) of the total manufacturing jobs (11.5 million) in the United States in 2010. According to the DOE report that evaluated the 20 percent wind energy in 2030, turbine assembly and component plants would supply about 32,000 manufacturing jobs in 2026. But the American Wind Energy Association’s assessment is that the number would be 3 to 4 times that amount under a long-term stable policy environment. As CRS notes, the real number will be dependent not only on the demand for wind, but also on corporate decisions of where to produce the needed components. Those decisions could very well result in manufacturing jobs outside of the United States. As CRS notes, imports of wind generating equipment increased from $482.5 million in 2005 to $2.5 billion in 2008, held at $2.3 billion in 2009 and decreased to $1.2 billion in 2010 due to lower relative demand for new wind energy, declining prices, and new manufacturing plants in the United States. While European suppliers were the leaders in wind equipment imports to the United States, South Korea and China are now becoming players in the U.S. market.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

1NC Frontline: Harms – Economy [2/3] 2. The United States is not key to the global economy – other nations matter more

Keane 2014[Tom Keane writes regularly for the Globe. He was a Boston city councilor from 1994 to 1999. “World economy no longer hangs on the US.” 4/13/14. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/12/world-economy-longer-hangs/GRC0rfo0QP2YT5q4qpFw8L/story.html ]

When the United States sneezes, the world catches a cold. And when America recovers, the planet has a spring in its step. Or so it used to be.¶ For decades, that metaphor had seemed an accurate description of the global economy. The old USSR may have once shared superpower status with the United States, but that was a function of nuclear weapons, a well-armed military, and a bombastic attitude. When it came to economic matters, however, there had been — at least since World War II’s end — only one true superpower. If that superpower was doing well, its success lifted the rest of the world. If it hit a recession, the world would suffer. That shouldn’t surprise. The United States had by far the biggest slice of the global pie. If Americans weren’t buying, then no one else was selling.¶ In 2008, the United States did more than sneeze. As the Great Recession unfolded and financial markets threatened collapse, it appeared to some that a near-fatal illness had struck the country. And sure enough, the rest of the world had it tough, too. Global economic growth fell. Some countries — notably China — continued to perform well, but most everyone else was hit hard.¶ Now, however, it appears that America is getting back on its feet, its economy about to surge. Granted, we’ve heard this story before. The recession officially ended in June 2009, according the National Bureau of Economic Research. But growth since then has been anemic, with stubbornly high unemployment, tepid job creation, and largely flat incomes. But — really! — 2014 promises to be different. The March jobs report, for example, showed 192,000 new positions created. The US economy seems to be emerging from its winter doldrums, shaking off government shutdowns, sequestration, and tax hikes. Economists from all over the spectrum increasingly agree that this year should be a good year.¶ So now that the United States appears poised to bounce back, does the world bounce back as well?¶ The International Monetary Fund says yes — it expects the US revival to translate to global revival. The fund’s World Economic Outlook, just released this month, figures worldwide economic activity will grow in 2014 by 3.6 percent (up from 2013’s 3.0 percent) and in 2015 by 3.9 percent. “Much of the impetus” for that, the IMF says, is “coming from advanced economies” — namely, the United States.¶ So the metaphor still holds. We matter. We really do matter. But perhaps not as much as we once did.¶ The US economy is big, but relatively speaking, not as big as it once was. Thirty years ago, America accounted for one-quarter of world output. Today it’s down to one-fifth. That’s a meaningful change. Back then we were rich, and everyone else was much less so. Now those countries — especially China — have gotten better off. (In fact, China, with a 15 percent share of global output, is now the second biggest economy in the world.)

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

1NC Frontline: Harms – Economy [3/3] 3. Economic decline doesn’t result in conflict

Brandt and Ulfelder 2011 [Patrick T. Brandt, Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Science at the University of Texas at Dallas. **Jay Ulfelder, Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University, is an American political scientist whose research interests include democratization, civil unrest, and violent conflict, April, 2011, “Economic Growth and Political Instability,” Social Science Research Network)]

These statements anticipating political fallout from the global economic crisis of 2008–2010 reflect a widely held view that economic growth has rapid and profound effects on countries’ political stability. When economies grow at a healthy clip, citizens are presumed to be too busy and too content to engage in protest or rebellion, and governments are thought to be flush with revenues they can use to enhance their own stability by producing public goods or rewarding cronies, depending on the type of regime they inhabit. When growth slows, however, citizens and cronies alike are presumed to grow frustrated with their governments, and the leaders at the receiving end of that frustration are thought to lack the financial resources to respond effectively. The expected result is an increase in the risks of social unrest, civil war, coup attempts, and regime breakdown. Although it is pervasive, the assumption that countries’ economic growth rates strongly affect their political stability has not been subjected to a great deal of careful empirical analysis, and evidence from social science research to date does not unambiguously support it. Theoretical models of civil wars, coups d’etat, and transitions to and from democracy often specify slow economic growth as an important cause or catalyst of those events, but empirical studies on the effects of economic growth on these phenomena have produced mixed results. Meanwhile, the effects of economic growth on the occurrence or incidence of social unrest seem to have hardly been studied in recent years, as empirical analysis of contentious collective action has concentrated on political opportunity structures and dynamics of protest and repression. This paper helps fill that gap by rigorously re-examining the effects of short-term variations in economic growth on the occurrence of several forms of political instability in countries worldwide over the past few decades. In this paper, we do not seek to develop and test new theories of political instability. Instead, we aim to subject a hypothesis common to many prior theories of political instability to more careful empirical scrutiny. The goal is to provide a detailed empirical characterization of the relationship between economic growth and political instability in a broad sense. In effect, we describe the conventional wisdom as seen in the data. We do so with statistical models that use smoothing splines and multiple lags to allow for nonlinear and dynamic effects from economic growth on political stability. We also do so with an instrumented measure of growth that explicitly accounts for endogeneity in the relationship between political instability and economic growth. To our knowledge, ours is the first statistical study of this relationship to simultaneously address the possibility of nonlinearity and problems of endogeneity. As such, we believe this paper offers what is probably the most rigorous general evaluation of this argument to date. As the results show, some of our findings are surprising. Consistent with conventional assumptions, we find that social unrest and civil violence are more likely to occur and democratic regimes are more susceptible to coup attempts around periods of slow economic growth. At the same time, our analysis shows no significant relationship between variation in growth and the risk of civil-war onset, and results from our analysis of regime changes contradict the widely accepted claim that economic crises cause transitions from autocracy to democracy. While

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

we would hardly pretend to have the last word on any of these relationships, our findings do suggest that the relationship between economic growth and political stability is neither as uniform nor as strong as the conventional wisdom(s) presume(s). We think these findings also help explain why the global recession of 2008–2010 has failed thus far to produce the wave of coups and regime failures that some observers had anticipated, in spite of the expected and apparent uptick in social unrest associated with the crisis.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

1NC Frontline: Harms – Climate [1/2] 1. Wind power doesn’t solve climate change – it risks making the problem worse

Lea 2012[Ruth. Director and Economic Advisor at the Arbuthnot Banking Group. “Electricity Costs: The Folly of Wind Power” 2012 http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf]

Wind-power is not effective in cutting CO 2 emissions ¶ At first glance it could be assumed that wind-power could play a major part in cutting CO 2 emissions. Once the turbines are manufactured (an energy-intensive business in itself) and installed then emissions associated with the electricity could be expected to be zero - as indeed for nuclear power.¶ But, as pointed out in chapter 2, wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) or with uncontrolled variability (intermittency). Clearly the CO 2 emissions associated with using back-up capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying wind turbines. This is all the more relevant given the relatively high CO2 emissions from conventional plants when they are used in a back-up capacity. ¶ As energy consultant David White has written:5¶ “... (fossil -fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this supporting role because it is being used to balance a reasonably predictable but fluctuating demand with a variable and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines. Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally.”¶ “... it seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation.” 6 In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. 7,8 Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

1NC Frontline: Harms – Climate [2/2] 2. Climate change doesn’t risk extinction

Carter 14[Robert, PhD, Adjuct Research Fellow, James Cook University, Craig Idso, PhD, Chairman at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Fred Singer, PhD, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, , Sherwood Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Research Physicist with the US Department of Agriculture, Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Botany, and Microbiology at Arizona State University, Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy, all from the University of Minnesota, Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist from Environment Canada and is an expert reviewer for the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Panel, The following is a list of contributing authors: David J. Barnes (Australia), Daniel B. Botkin (USA), Raymond A. Cloyd (USA), Susan Crockford (Canada), Weihong Cui (China), Kees DeGroot (The Netherlands), Robert G. Dillon (USA), John Dale Dunn (USA), Ole Henrik Ellestad (Norway), Fred Goldberg (Sweden), Barry Goldman (Australia), H. Dickson Hoese (USA), Morten Jødal (Norway), Madhav Khandekar (Canada), Miroslav Kutilek (Czech Republic), Steven W. Leavitt (USA), Howard Maccabee (USA), Jennifer Marohasy (Australia), Cliff Ollier (Australia), Jim Petch (United Kingdom), Robert J. Reginato (USA), Paul Reiter (France), Tom Segalstad (Norway), Gary Sharp (USA), Walter Starck (Australia), David Stockwell (Australia), Mitchell Taylor (Canada), Gerd Weber (Germany), Bastow Wilson (New Zealand), Raphael Wust (Australia), “Climate Change Reconsidered II,” March 2014, Climate Change Reconsidered, nipccreport.org]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) does not seriously affect human health until the CO2 content of the air reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), more than 37 times greater than the current concentration of atmospheric CO2. There is no reason to be concerned about any direct adverse human health consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content now or in the future, as even extreme model projections do not indicate anthropogenic activities will raise the air’s CO2 concentration above 1,000 to 2,000 ppm. Nevertheless, IPCC contends rising CO2 concentrations are causing several indirect threats to human health, which they project will worsen as the air’s CO2 concentration rises in the future. According to a draft from the Working Group II contribution to IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, The most important effect of climate change is that it will exacerbate current risks to health [very high confidence]. In recent decades, climate change has contributed to levels of ill-health (likely). If climate change continues as projected in scenarios in the next few decades, the major increases of ill-health compared to no climate change will occur through: Greater incidence of injury, disease, and death due to more intense heat waves, storms, floods, and fires. [very high confidence] Increased risk of under-nutrition resulting from diminished food production in poor regions. [high confidence] Increased risks of food- and water-borne diseases and vector-borne infections. [high confidence] … positive effects will be out-weighed, worldwide, by the magnitude and severity of the negative effects of climate change. [high confidence] ((IPCC-II, 2013a, Chapter 11, Human Health, p. 3; italics in original, bold removed and formatting changed). We should note before going on that IPCC’s assignment of “confidence” levels to each of these claims is purely a rhetorical device and not based on any statistical tests. (Idso et al., 2013) Placing these expressions of opinion in italics and brackets doesn’t make any of these dubious or untrue statements any more credible or true. In a draft Technical Summary of the same document, Working Group II claims, “The health of human populations is sensitive to shifts in weather patterns and other aspects of climate change [very high confidence] and “There is emerging evidence of non-linearities in response (such as greater-thanexpected mortality due to heat waves) as climates become more extreme” (IPCC-II, 2013b, Technical Summary, p. 16; italics in original, bold removed). As shown in the material presented in this chapter, however, IPCC’s view of the impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 on human health is simply wrong. Numerous peer-reviewed studies demonstrate a warmer planet is beneficial to humanity, as warmer temperatures in all parts of the world lead to decreases in temperature-related mortality. The medical literature shows warmer temperatures and a smaller difference between daily high and low temperatures, as occurred during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, reduce mortality rates due to cardiovascular and respiratory disease and stroke occurrence. Similarly, the research is quite clear that climate has exerted only a minimal

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

influence on recent trends in vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and tick-borne diseases. Other factors, many of them related to economic and technological setbacks or progress and not to weather, are far more important factors determining the transmission and prevalence of such diseases. Finally, IPCC entirely overlooks several positive effects of rising levels of atmospheric CO2 on human health. Carbon dioxide fertilization, for example, has been shown to enhance certain health-promoting substances in plants, such as antioxidants, vitamin C, and fatty acids, and promote the growth of plants such as St. John’s wort used for the treatment of a variety of illnesses. In this way, global warming portends great health benefits for humans. IPCC makes no mention of these benefits.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 1NC FrontlinesOffshore Wind Energy Case NEG

1NC Frontline: Solvency [1/1] 1. Incentives are insufficient to spur market adoption of offshore wind energy

Gunderson 2013[William. Wealth Management and Investment Advisor. “Gunderson: Some Basic Facts about Wind Energy: It Doesn’t Work” The Washington Times, 3/16/2013. Available via Lexis-Nexis]

When you set these facts aside, here is what remains: Wind turbines do not last as long as promised. They do not produce as much energy as hoped. Moreover, they require more maintenance than anyone imagined.¶ Wind energy turns out to be a lot like solar energy.¶ The Daily Mail recently reported that the University of Edinburgh found “for onshore wind, the monthly ‘load factor’ of turbines – a measure of how much electricity they generate as a percentage of how much they could produce if on at full power all the time - dropped from a high of 24 per cent in the first year after construction, to just 11 per cent after 15 years.”¶ That’s a 55 percent drop, for you dinosaurs who still think that is important — and that is just for turbines still working.¶ There’s a reason why so many wind projects got so much attention on the drawing board, but when it comes time to build them, they wither away. The offshore wind project in Delaware is a good example: One day it was hailed as the secret to the universe. The next day, it was gone. It disappeared down a black hole when people who actually had to pay for it and build it figured out what it actually was going to cost them.¶ It was the real numbers that scared them off. In America, these numbers are harder to come by — another red flag for investors — but as many as 1 in 4 wind turbines just does not work. Some do not even spin. Others spin, but do not generate electricity, so it is hard to tell by looking at them.¶ Hawaii provides the favorite example: The 37 turbines at the Kamaoa Wind Farm stood derelict for more than six years after it was discovered that repairs were more expensive than replacements. This is just one of six abandoned wind farms in one of the most wind-ideal places on the planet.¶ The Altamont Pass Wind Farm in Northern California used to be the largest wind farm on Earth. Now it is best known as the largest killer of eagles and other raptors. The turbines are shut down for four months a year to protect the birds during their migration. So much for that pro-forma. ¶ As many as 4,500 wind turbines have been built — and abandoned — in California alone. ¶ How long can that last? Ask that question of a True Believer at your own peril. They say making money is no longer the point of being in business; saving the planet is.¶ Even Al Gore is getting out of alternative energy such as wind. Just check the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings for his company, Generation Investment. Not a wind play in the portfolio. ¶ There may be one million reasons to invest in wind, or to install a windmill. Most involve bragging to your friends that you are saving the planet. But if you need the energy or the money, don’t — because right now, wind is still nothing more than a faith-based initiative. ¶ Just ask Al.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFF

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Climate #1 [1/1] Offshore wind energy doesn’t stop global warming – backup capacity prevents effective CO2 reduction

Korchinski 2012[William. Chemical engineer who has spent his career working worldwide in the oil refining and chemical industries. October 2012, William, “The Limits of Wind Power,” http://reason.org/files/thelimitsofwindpower.pdf]

Existing estimates of the life-cycle emissions from wind turbines range from 5 to 100 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. This very wide range is explained by differ-ences in what was included in each analysis, and the proportion of electricity generated by wind. The low CO 2 emissions estimates are only possible at low levels of installed wind capacity, and even then they typically ignore the large proportion of associated emissions that come from the need for backup power sources (“spinning reserves”).¶ Wind blows at speeds that vary considerably, leading to wide variations in power output at different times and in different locations. To address this variability, power supply companies must install backup capacity, which kicks in when demand exceeds supply from the wind turbines; failure to do so will adversely affect grid reliability. The need for this backup capacity significantly increases the cost of producing power from wind. Since backup power in most cases comes from fossil fuel generators, this effectively limits the carbon-reducing potential of new wind capacity.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFF

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Climate #2 [1/1] Global warming doesn’t risk extinction – empirics are strongly on our side

Willis et al 2010[Kathy J. Willis, Keith D. Bennett, Shonil A. Bhagwat & H. John B. Birks (2010): 4 °C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?, Systematics and Biodiversity, 8:1, 3-9, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14772000903495833, ]

The most recent climate models and fossil evidence for the early Eocene Climatic Optimum (53–51 million years ago) indicate that during this time interval atmospheric CO2 would have exceeded 1200 ppmv and tropical temperatures were between 5–10 ◦ C warmer than modern values (Zachos et al., 2008). There is also evidence for relatively rapid intervals of extreme global warmth and massive carbon addition when global temperatures increased by 5 ◦ C in less than 10 000 years (Zachos et al., 2001). So what was the response of biota to these ‘climate extremes’ and do we see the large-scale extinctions (especially in the Neotropics) predicted by some of the most recent models associated with future climate changes (Huntingford et al., 2008)? In fact the fossil record for the early Eocene Climatic Optimum demonstrates the very opposite. All the evidence from low-latitude records indicates that, at least in the plant fossil record, this was one of the most biodiverse intervals of time in the Neotropics (Jaramillo et al., 2006). It was also a time when the tropical forest biome was the most extensive in Earth’s history, extending to mid-latitudes in both the northern and southern hemispheres – and there was also no ice at the Poles and Antarctica was covered by needle-leaved forest (Morley, 2007). There were certainly novel ecosystems, and an increase in community turnover with a mixture of tropical and temperate species in mid latitudes and plants persisting in areas that are currently polar deserts. [It should be noted; however, that at the earlier Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) at 55.8 million years ago in the US Gulf Coast, there was a rapid vegetation response to climate change. There was major compositional turnover, palynological richness decreased, and regional extinctions occurred (Harrington & Jaramillo, 2007). Reasons for these changes are unclear, but they may have resulted from continental drying, negative feedbacks on vegetation to changing CO2 (assuming that CO2 changed during the PETM), rapid cooling immediately after the PETM, or subtle changes in plant–animal interactions (Harrington & Jaramillo, 2007).]

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFF

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Economy #1 [1/1] Wind energy doesn’t solve growth and hurts other jobs

Green 2009[Resident Scholar at the AEI 2/23/2009, “"Green" Illusions,” http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/green-illusions/]

Let's review the reasons why governments cannot create jobs, and why labelling them "green" doesn't change the basic dynamics.¶ Let's start with the fallacy that governments can create jobs. This fallacy was exploded all the way back in 1845 by a French politician and political economist named Frédéric Bastiat. Bastiat pointed out that the only way governments can create jobs is by first obliterating other jobs.¶ Sometimes, they obliterate other jobs by diverting taxpayer money away from the economic uses the taxpayer would have pursued if they had kept their taxes.¶ Other times, they obliterate jobs by imposing regulations that kill off one industry in favour of another. In still other situations, they impose mandates, such as using recycled paper to create an artificial market for recycled paper which reduce jobs in fresh-paper production.¶ In the green energy case, they are doing all of the above: Taxpayer dollars are being used to subsidize the renewable energy sector; damaging regulations are being implemented on the traditional fossil fuel sector, and mandates for the use of renewable energy are being issued, creating a false market in wind power at the expense of fossil fuel and nuclear power. Governments also invariably siphon off a good part of the money for "administration," creating civil service jobs that pay comparatively higher wages than the private sector for similar activity.¶ Inevitably, government efforts to create jobs cost the economy jobs and, adding insult to injury, divert limited resources to inefficient uses, causing economic underperformance.

Will destroy the economy with greater costs and electricity prices --- Germany proves

O’Keefe 2012[CEO, George C. Marshall Institute. 12/22/2012, William, “The Wind Tax Credit: Green Welfare,” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/12/should-congress-support-wind-t.php?comments=expandall#comments]

Many European countries, especially Germany, have traveled the clean energy road and by doing so have put their economies into a ditch. An analysis of Germany’s rush to renewables by the European Institute for Climate and Energy warned of “impending doom for the German economy caused by the lemming like charge to the Green mirage of affordable renewable energy.” The report went on, “The problem is that these energy sources are weather-dependent and thus their sporadic supply is starting to wreak havoc on Germany’s power grid and is even now threatening to destabilize power grids all across Europe! … after tens of billions of euros spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for consumers, not a single coal or gas-fired power plant has been taken offline. To the contrary, old inefficient German plants have been brought back into service in an effort to stabilize the grid.”¶ With an economy that increasingly is reliant on electric power generation, we need to focus on abundant, reliable, and affordable sources of electric power generation. For the foreseeable future, that source is natural gas.¶ There is a clear lesson from 40 years of energy industrial policy initiatives, including the wind tax credit. It is simply not possible to create technological short cuts by throwing money at alternative energy systems.

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFF

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Economy #2 [1/1] The United States is not key to the global economy – China matters much more.

Rushton 2014[Katharine. Economics for the Telegraph. “China overtakes US to become world’s biggest goods trading nation” The Telegraph (UK), 1/10/14. Available via Lexis-Nexis]

America has finally lost its crown to China as the world’s biggest goods trading nation.¶ China imported and exported goods valued at $4.16 trillion (£2.5 trillion) last year, marking a 7.6pc rise on 2012, according to new figures.¶ America will not release the equivalent numbers until February but it is highly unlikely to stay ahead of China. During the first 11 months of 2013, it traded $3.57 trillion of goods.¶ The US remains the biggest overall trading nation in the world, thanks to heavy exports of services, but Friday’s data demonstrate a shift in the balance of economic might between the two superpowers.¶ Zheng Yuesheng, chief statistician of China’s customs administration, said: “This is a landmark milestone for our nation’s foreign trade development.” ¶ Kamel Mellahi, professor of strategic management at Warwick Business School, who focuses on emerging markets, said that China is set to maintain its new lead.¶ “It’s always been a matter of time until China surpasses the US ... and there are good reasons to believe that China is likely to retain this pole position for the foreseeable future.¶ “The trade figures look very healthy and the factors underpinning them are structurally sustainable. It is hard to see them being reversed significantly, at least in the short to medium term.”

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFF

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Harms – Economy #3 [1/1] Economic contractions do not result in war – the statistical evidence strongly concludes negative

Drezner 2012[Daniel is a professor in the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts. “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked”, October 2012, http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf]

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict, there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. ¶ The aggregate data suggests otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012 report is that “The average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.”38 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis – as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive. As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42¶

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFF

2NC / 1NR Extensions: Solvency #1 [1/1] 1. Too many barriers to solvency

Nunez 2013[Christina. Energy for National Geographic. “As US Eyes Offshore Wind Development, Whales get New Protections” The Energy Collective, 12/20/13 http://theenergycollective.com/cnunez/162456/us-eyes-offshore-wind-development-whales-get-new-protections]

The United States does not currently have any utility-scale wind turbines installed in its waters. A DOE-commissioned analysis projects that in a “high-growth scenario,” the offshore wind industry could support up to 350,000 jobs and stimulate $70 billion in annual investments by 2030 (the DOE seems to be sticking to a more conservative number, citing 200,000 potential jobs on its blog and infographic). But the offshore wind industry has many hurdles to overcome in order to achieve that high growth.¶ Aside from the potential end of the production tax credit, which would result in a loss of $10 billion in investments to the wind industry as a whole next year, according to a report from the American Wind Energy Association, the offshore wind industry faces other significant challenges. Though offshore wind has the potential to generate 4,000 gigawatts of electricity — four times the current overall U.S. generation capacity — the industry lacks adequate means of integrating that power with the nation’s grid. (See related story: “High-Voltage DC Breakthrough Could Boost Renewables“)¶ As the DOE notes in its National Offshore Wind Strategy document, the specialized vessels, port capacity, transmission lines and grid configuration necessary for cost-effective offshore wind energy installations does not yet exist in the United States. Projects also face a complex permitting process that must take into account an array of existing activity in U.S. waters: shipping lanes, fisheries, military operations, and wildlife.

2. Offshore wind isn’t competitive – the incentives are not enough

Taylor 2012[8/10/2012, Phil, E&E reporter, “OFFSHORE WIND: With advance of tax credit and OCS leases, optimism builds in nascent U.S. industry,” http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/08/10/1]

Still, skeptics of Interior's offshore wind energy program, known as "smart from the start," include the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank led by a former oil industry lobbyist, which last month criticized the cost of new projects.¶ "It is 'dead in the water' because offshore wind energy is 3.4 times more expensive than onshore wind energy," the group said in a July 26 blog post, "making it not a prudent investment compared to other renewable alternatives for electricity generation."

3. There’s no demand for offshore wind

North American WindPower 2012[“Report: U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Progress Expected To Be 'Lackluster' Through 2016,” 12/17/2012, http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.10836#.UNx7WcWgRGk]

Offshore wind energy installations are expected to achieve a compound annual growth rate of 44% between 2011 and 2016, with 18 GW of installations expected by the end of that period, according to a new analysis from MAKE Consulting. Much of that growth can be attributed to favorable policy in Europe and China, the firm notes.¶ MAKE Consulting expects that Europe will be the growth powerhouse for offshore wind, with the continent accounting for 62% of total installations in the 2011-2016 period. Of those European installations, 77% will be driven by Germany and the U.K., which are striving toward their ambitious 2020 offshore wind targets of 18 GW and 10 GW, respectively.¶ Mirroring the upward swing in northern Europe,

CDL Core Files 2014/2015 2AC Topicality Frontline: Coral Reefs AffirmativeTopicality AFFAFFthe Asia Pacific region is expected to install 6.6 GW of offshore wind through 2016, representing 36% of the global offshore wind energy market. Although China will remain the largest offshore wind market in the Asia Pacific, the emergence of South Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan will supplement growth during that period.¶ In sharp contrast, progress in the U.S. is expected to be lackluster, due to low gas and electricity prices, an ample onshore resource and weak political commitment to renewables, MAKE Consulting says.¶ Offshore wind asset ownership will remain dominated by European utilities and developers, with Vattenfall and DONG Energy leading the way, according to the firm. Currently, southern European utilities are not represented in the top asset owners, due to a lack of offshore wind activity and challenging economics in their home markets, but they do represent a sizable chunk of the 185 GW pipeline.