1NC v. ryan

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 24 | Comments: 0 | Views: 217
of 25
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content


China DA
Uniqueness - China is becoming a maritime hegemon— they are flexing their naval
muscle and attempting to gain regional influence
Sevastopulo, Financial Times South China correspondent, 6/19
[Demetri, 6/19/14, Financial Times, ―South China Seas: Troubled waters,‖
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/313432b0-f78f-11e3-b2cf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz36v1WmMxp, 7/8/14,
IC]
In a recent speech at the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore, Chuck Hagel, US defence secretary, said what many southeast Asian countries
believe but are wary of articulating too forcefully out of fears about Chinese retaliation: ―China has called the South China Sea ‗a sea of peace,
friendship, and co-operation‘ and that‘s what it should be. But in recent months, China has undertaken destabilising, unilateral
actions asserting its claims in the South China Sea.‖ From Manila to Washington, experts are trying to answer what Rory
Medcalf, an Asia security expert at the Lowy Institute, describes as the ―billion dollar question‖: why is China taking a more assertive stance over
territorial claims in the South China Sea that have, in most cases, existed for decades? Where some see an emerging power
flexing its new naval muscles, others view a bolder ambition to push the US navy out of the western
Pacific where it has been dominant since the second world war. The tensions are mounting at a pace that worries everyone from military
planners in the Asia-Pacific region to multinational retailers and global energy companies. In the latest example of friction, scores of Chinese and
Vietnamese naval, coast guard and fishing vessels are playing a dangerous game of maritime chicken near the disputed Paracel Islands after
China infuriated Vietnam by starting to drill for hydrocarbons. The spat has also sparked deadly anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam that forced
factories supplying everyone from Apple to Adidas to temporarily halt production. ―It is still very serious, not only for Vietnam, but also for the
region and the world,‖ said Chi Vinh Nguyen, Vietnam‘s deputy defence minister. ―They violated international laws when they placed the oil rig
in our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.‖ Hanoi is mulling taking China to international court, following Manila, which has seen
relations with Beijing plummet since Chinese ships wrested control of a Scarborough Shoal reef from the Philippines in April 2012 after a tense
month-long stand-off. In his new book Asia‘s Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific, Robert Kaplan says there is
―nothing unusually aggressive‖ about China‘s actions given its geography and aim to prevent foreign powers taking advantage as they did in the
past two centuries. ―The fact that it seeks to dominate an adjacent sea crowded with smaller and much weaker powers, where there is possibly a
plenitude of oil and natural gas, is altogether natural,‖ he concludes. China argues that Hanoi and Manila have breached the code of conduct, or
drilled in waters claimed by China China dismisses the view it is raising tensions. At the Shangri-La dialogue, Lieutenant General Wang
Guanzhong, a top Chinese officer, accused Mr Hagel and Mr Abe – who gave a highly critical speech on China – of teaming up to provoke
Beijing. The US accepts that the Chinese military will play a bigger regional role as it grows. But General Martin
Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said China was using its military muscle in a ―provocative‖ way
that would complicate the search for diplomatic solutions. ―We had discussions just two years ago that regional powers . . . would not use military
force or the military instrument of power in order to pressurise what is rightly a diplomatic issue and that dynamic has changed, so now there is
military power being used to pressurise the diplomacy,‖ he said in a joint interview. Just this year, Chinese warships have tried to
block Philippine boats from resupplying a ship called the Sierra Madre that is lodged on the Second Thomas Shoal in the
disputed Spratly Islands. Manila has also accused Beijing of breaching a 2002 regional code of conduct by reclaiming land at Johnson South,
another reef in the Spratlys, for the possible construction of a runway. There have also been reports that China wants to turn nearby
Fiery Cross Reef into an artificial island that would help it to project power in the South China Sea
and beyond into the Pacific. China argues that Hanoi and Manila are being hypocritical, saying they have breached the code of
conduct, or drilled in waters claimed by China. Tommy Koh, a widely respected former Singaporean ambassador to the US and maritime law
expert, points out that none of the six claimant nations in the South China Sea have adhered to the letter of the law of the code of conduct. Some
think China is responding to what it sees as growing US interference in its back yard. During the Bush administration, the US was so preoccupied
with Iraq and Afghanistan that many Asian nations worried it was losing sight of China as its navy and coastguard grew. In 2010, the US
signalled a shift. Speaking in Hanoi, Hillary Clinton, then Barack Obama‘s secretary of state, declared the South China Sea was in the US
―national interest‖ – a remark that infuriated China, coming just months after Beijing had called the waters one of its ―core‖
interests. Two years later, Leon Panetta, then US defence secretary, told Asian defence ministers in Singapore that the Pentagon would boost
its presence in the Pacific as part of a ―pivot‖ to Asia. En route home, he flew to Vietnam, becoming the first Pentagon chief to visit the country
in decades, and signalling to China that US-Vietnam relations were warming. Washington has since signed deals with Australia and the
Philippines to base troops, planes and ships in those countries on a rotational basis. Chris Johnson, a former Central Intelligence Agency China
expert at CSIS, said: ―From a strategic or military operational point of view, China looks around and from the Japanese islands down to the
Philippines they see this net of US alliances and other defence arrangements that box them in.‖ He argued China was responding to more than the
―pivot‖. It decided in the mid-1990s to focus on Taiwan instead of the South China Sea, where it had been building infrastructure on places such
as Mischief Reef. But since the 2008 election of President Ma Ying-jeou in Taiwan, ties with Taipei have sharply improved,
allowing China to focus on its maritime claims. In 2012, Hu Jintao, then Chinese president, gave a strong hint of the
future when he announced in a major speech that the Communist party would ―build China into a maritime
power‖ – in what was the first time the country had declared itself a maritime power in 500 years. Towards
that aim, China is creating a ―blue water‖ navy that can operate far from its shores, and particularly beyond the
―first island chain‖ that separates the South China, East China and Yellow seas from the Pacific.
Many capitals worry that China will ignore international rules as it expands its sphere of influence
―Chinese leaders believe strongly that as a rising great power they should have a sphere of
influence in Asia, much like the US has maintained in the western hemisphere since its 19th-century articulation of the Monroe Doctrine,‖
said Paul Haenle, head of the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center in Beijing. Many capitals worry that China will ignore international rules as it expands
its sphere of influence. They point to the ―nine-dash line‖ – a marking on Chinese maps that encloses most of the South China Sea, suggesting
that China claims most of the waters, which critics say would contravene the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea [Unclos].
B. Link – the expansion of US influence into the ocean is perceived as an act of
containment -
Dingli, assoc. dean @ Fudan U., ‗13
[Shen, 08/20/2013, ChinaUS Focus, ―Managing China‘s Maritime Interests,‖
http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/managing-chinas-maritime-interests/, 07/02/2014, PD]
Second, it is natural that China needs to safeguard all its core interests, including territory, territorial
water and space. With China‘s sea baseline spreading as long as 18,000 km, it is a daunting task to
assure that all its territorial water is under proper sovereign control. When foreign reconnaissance
planes and intelligence ships approach quite often, it is important to keep alert, dissuading such behavior
while following relevant global codes. It is never easy to achieve both ends at one time, with the 2001
China-US air collision off Hainan Island in mind. Over the past decade, Chinese armed forces seem to
have enhanced their capacity and skill to do so. Third, with the creation of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982, China‘s maritime economic rights have been
much enlarged, in a sense. China has to ensure that this area will be tapped both exclusively and
sustainably. China‘s EEZ could overlap with that of its close neighbors at sea, which requires proper
bilateral talks to divide various overlapping interests. Meanwhile, it is necessary to command UNCLOS
in a sensible way. As China revealed its navy‘s access to the US EEZ in the Shangri-La Dialogue this
June in Singapore, it shall have room to relax its interpretation of the legality of foreign navy‘s access to
its own EEZ. Fourth, assuring free access to high sea is increasingly of China‘s vital maritime
interest. Given China‘s status as both a top exporter and importer, China is gaining wealth through
trade from the ocean. In this regard, it is not incomprehensible that China is becoming more
interested in building its blue water navy so as to assure that the international code of free access to
maritime global common will remain undisrupted. This certainly has particular bearing on China-
US relations. On the one hand, China and the US are sharing more common interests so as to roll back
the threat of pirating; on the other hand, Beijing strongly perceives Washington‘s maritime hegemony
due to the latter‘s dominance in East Asia, especially in the Taiwan context, which affects the
mainland‘s freedom of option in dealing with the island province. It is not impossible that the
Beijing-Washington security dilemma would generate their arms competition, even unintendedly,
though not at a full scale to repeat what occurred between the US and the former Soviet Union.
C. Internal Link - US attempts to unilaterally interfere in China‘s perceived
interests will fuel Chinese nationalism and lead to a catastrophic war
Bandow 2007(Doug, ―China: Fragile Superpower, Readings in the Age of Empire‖, Foreign Follies,
September 7, ,http://www.antiwar.com/bandow/?articleid=11565)
Which naturally leads to relations with the U.S., the subject of the penultimate chapter of Shirk's book.
Beijing has an incentive to maintain good relations with the U.S. – the PRC would suffer greatly from
American economic sanctions let alone military hostility, and "the best way for China to rise peacefully is
to behave like a responsible power and accommodate to the current superpower, the United States." If
only life was so simple. Warns Shirk: "on the other hand, inside China, other leaders, the public, and
the military expect Chinese leaders to stand up to the United States. Nationalist ardor runs high,
fanned by government propaganda and the commercial media and Internet. The United States, as the
dominant power in the world, is the natural target of suspicion and resentment in China, just as it is
in many other countries, particularly after the American invasion of Iraq. A Chinese political leader
who takes a principled stand against the United States always wins more points than one who gives
in to it." Where does the U.S. go from here? As is so often the case in international relations,
responsible statesmanship is necessary on both sides of the Pacific. Moreover, she adds, "only by
understanding the dangers of China's domestic fragility and incorporating this understanding into
their policies can Chinese and American decision makers avoid a catastrophic war." She advocates a
series of sensible steps – focusing on Chinese international behavior, downplaying American military
power, demonstrating respect for China, working in Chinese-Taiwanese relations, and not overreacting to
China's economic rise. But that's not enough. Shirk wants to maintain "a strong military presence" in the
region and opposes building up Japan as a military power. As she notes, "Preventing war with a rising
China is one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges our country faces." That being the case,
Washington should emphasize conflict avoidance, stepping back militarily while shifting defense
responsibilities onto allied and friendly states. Perhaps the most important duty for U.S. policymakers
today is to distinguish between vital interests, such as defending America, and peripheral interests,
such as attempting to dictate events in East Asia in the face of a rising China. The world in which
America can micro-manage international events is disappearing. Washington, too, must learn to
accommodate. And America's interest will best be served by stepping back from confrontation where its
vital interests are not involved.
Miscalculation and escalation is the most likely impact scenario
Fisher, former writer and editor at The Atlantic, 11
(Max, 10/31/11, ―5 most likely ways the US and China could spark accidental nuclear war‖,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/5-most-likely-ways-the-us-and-china-could-
spark-accidental-nuclear-war/247616/, AL)
This three-part process can move so quickly that the best way to avert a nuclear war is for both sides to have absolute confidence that they
understand when the other will and will not use a nuclear weapon. Without this, U.S. and Chinese policy-makers would have
to guess -- perhaps with only a few minutes -- if and when the other side would go nuclear. This is especially
scary because both sides have good reason to err on the side of assuming nuclear war. If you think there's a 50-50
chance that someone is about to lob a nuclear bomb at you, your incentive is to launch a preventative strike, just to be
safe. This is especially true because you know the other side is thinking the exact same thing. In fact, even
if you think the other side probably won't launch an ICBM your way, they actually might if they fear that you're
misreading their intentions or if they fear that you might over-react; this means they have a greater incentive to
launch a preemptive strike, which means that you have a greater incentive to launch a preemptive strike, in turn
raising their incentives, and on and on until one tiny kernel of doubt can lead to a full-fledged war that nobody wants.¶ The U.S.
and the Soviet Union faced similar problems, with one important difference: speed. During the first decades of
the Cold War, nuclear bombs had to be delivered by sluggish bombers that could take hours to reach their targets
and be recalled at any time. Escalation was much slower and the risks of it spiraling out of control
were much lower. By the time that both countries developed the ICBMs that made global annihilation something that could happen
within a matter of minutes, they'd also had a generation to sort out an extremely clear understanding of one another's nuclear policies. But the
U.S. and China have no such luxury -- we inherited a world where total mutual destruction can happen as quickly as the
time it takes to turn a key and push a button.¶ The U.S. has the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal with around
5,000 warheads (first-ranked Russia has more warheads but less capability for flinging them around the globe); China has only about
200, so the danger of accidental war would seem to disproportionately threaten China. But the greatest risk is
probably to the states on China's periphery. The borders of East Asia are still not entirely settled; there are a number of small, disputed territories,
many of them bordering China. But the biggest potential conflict points are on water: disputed naval borders, disputed islands, disputed shipping
lanes, and disputed underwater energy reserves. These regional disputes have already led to a handful of small-scale naval skirmishes and
diplomatic stand-offs. It's not difficult to foresee one of them spiraling out of control. But what if the country squaring off with China happens to
have a defense treaty with the U.S.?¶ There's a near-infinite number of small-scale conflicts that could come up between the U.S. and China, and
though none of them should escalate any higher than a few tough words between diplomats, it's the unpredictable events that are
the most dangerous. In 1983 alone, the U.S. and Soviet Union almost went to war twice over bizarre and
unforeseeable events. In September, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner it mistook for a spy plane; first
Soviet officials feared the U.S. had manufactured the incident as an excuse to start a war, then they refused to admit their error,
nearly pushing the U.S. to actually start war. Two months later, Soviet spies misread an elaborate U.S. wargame (which the U.S.
had unwisely kept secret) as preparations for an unannounced nuclear hit on Moscow, nearly leading them to launch a preemptive strike. In both
cases, one of the things that ultimately diverted disaster was the fact that both sides clearly understood the
others' red lines -- as long as they didn't cross them, they could remain confident there would be no nuclear war.¶ But the U.S. and
China have not yet clarified their red lines for nuclear strikes. The kinds of bizarre, freak accidents that the U.S. and Soviet
Union barely survived in 1983 might well bring today's two Pacific powers into conflict -- unless, of course, they can clarify their rules. Of the
many ways that the U.S. and China could stumble into the nightmare scenario that neither wants, here are five of the most likely. Any one of
these appears to be extremely unlikely in today's world. But that -- like the Soviet mishaps of the 1980s -- is exactly what makes them so
dangerous.
CP
Plan Text: The Republic of China should increase its development of Ocean
thermal energy conversion plants.

China can solve – location and private investment
Hall, Wall Street Journal, 2014
[Simon, 3-31, ―China's New Wager: Pulling Energy From the Ocean Lengthy Coastline, Pollution Make
Country a Prime Testing Ground in Joint Ventures With Western Firms‖,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303287804579446904069462752, Accessed 6-
29-14, JF]
HONG KONG—A race is under way to unlock one of the world's biggest untapped sources of clean
energy—the ocean—with China emerging as an important testing ground.
That could heighten competition with Western companies, especially if Chinese businesses begin
using technologies developed with joint-venture partners to expand rapidly.
The European Union so far has led efforts to harness the sea to make electricity, for which there are three
principal techniques: underwater turbines that draw power from the ebb and flow of tides, surface-based
floats that rely on wave motion and systems that exploit differences in water temperature.
The world's first commercial, grid-connected tidal-flow generator was installed in Northern Ireland in
2008. Germany's Siemens AG SIE.XE -0.55% , a big investor in wave and tidal power, predicts that tidal
currents alone could someday power 250 million households world-wide. France's Alstom SA ALO.FR
+0.19% also is developing the technology.
But with 11,000 miles of coastline rich with energy potential and pollution that is getting worse,
China is seen by many experts as an ideal location to pioneer and commercialize ocean-energy
technologies.
China is stepping up spending in the sector, and foreign companies including U.S.-based Lockheed
Martin Corp. LMT +0.40% are testing equipment and entering joint ventures in the country.
Among the projects under study with Chinese backing: the dynamic tidal-power wall, with turbines using
curved blades that are designed to allow eels and fish to pass through safely. If approved, the wall could
supply as much electricity as 2½ large nuclear reactors—and cost as much as $30 billion. Investors
include the Netherlands government and a consortium of eight Dutch companies, including engineering
firms Arcadis ARCAY 0.00% NV and Strukton Groep NV.
The venture dwarfs other sea-power projects and could produce electricity more cheaply than offshore
wind farms, says Dimiti de Boer, a senior adviser for environment and climate change at the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization.
The project involves building a wall running perpendicular from the coast and then branching off into a T,
extending around 20 miles and studded with turbines that would channel and concentrate the power of
tidal water. Beijing provided $3.3 million for feasibility studies that are under way in China. Construction
is at least a decade away, though initial findings suggest that shallow waters on the Chinese, Korean and
European coasts could be suitable.
"China is at the cutting edge" in sea-energy technology development, says Mr. de Boer, who is
based in Beijing.
Making electricity from the sea still is far more costly than using coal, oil, nuclear reactors or wind, and
some technologies being tested in China could prove impractical.
Since 2010, Beijing has spent around one billion yuan, or roughly $160 million, on energy from the sea,
says Wang Chuankun, a former head of the ocean-energy committee of the China Renewable Energy
Society academic association.
Overall private investment in sea-energy projects in Europe has reached about $825 million over the past
seven years, and the U.S. Energy Department is supporting several Pacific Coast research ventures. Chile,
Australia and other countries also have substantial projects under way.
Many people in the industry believe China will be key, however. Lockheed is working with Chinese
conglomerate Reignwood Group, to build the world's first large-scale, ocean thermal-energy
conversion power station. The companies plan to decide by June where in Asia to build the 10-megawatt
facility, which will use warm surface water to heat ammonia, which has a low boiling point, making
steam to drive a turbine without carbon emissions. The steam is then condensed using deeper, colder
water and the cycle is repeated, producing a constant flow of electricity costing around 15 cents a
kilowatt-hour. That is more expensive than nuclear power but well below the 22 cents for offshore wind
turbines, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Ten megawatts is enough to power
about 10,000 Western households.
Lockheed believes that building utility-scale generators that are 10 times larger would be
economically and technically viable, says Dan Heller, the company's vice president of new ventures.
China has worldwide market share in renewable now
Mastny, World Watch Institute Senior Editor, 10
[Lisa, Oct. 2010, The World Watch Institute, ―Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in China:
Current Status and Prospects for 2020‖, http://www.worldwatch.org/bookstore/publication/worldwatch-
report-182-renewable-energy-and-energy-efficiency-china-current-sta, accessed 7/6/2014 CK]
Over the past few years, China has emerged as a global leader in clean energy, topping the world in
production of compact fluorescent light bulbs, solar water heaters, solar photovoltaic (PV) cells,
and wind turbines. The remarkable rise of China‘s clean energy sector reflects a strong and
growing commitment by the government to diversify its energy economy, reduce environmental
problems, and stave off massive increases in energy imports. Around the world, governments and
industries now find themselves struggling to keep pace with the new pacesetter in global clean energy
development. Chinese efforts to develop renewable energy technologies have accelerated in recent
years as the government has recognized energy as a strategic sector. China has adopted a host of new policies and
regulations aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy deployment. Taking lessons from its own experience as well
as the experiences of countries around the world, China has built its clean energy sector in synergy with its unique economic system and
institutions of governance. At a time when many countries still struggle with the aftermath of a devastating financial crisis, the Chinese
government has used its strong financial position to direct tens of billions of dollars into clean
energy— increasing the lead that Chinese companies have in many sectors. Among other initiatives, the
Chinese government has taken strong action to promote renewable energy, establish national
energy conservation targets, and delegate energy saving responsibilities to regions. Key legislative actions
include the national Renewable Energy Law, which entered into force in January 2006, the national Medium and Long-Term Development Plan
for Renewable Energy, launched in September 2007, and the Medium and Long-Term Energy Conservation Plan, launched in November 2004.
Although per capita energy use in China remains below the international average, it is growing very rapidly, spurred recently by the
infrastructure-intensive government stimulus program launched in late 2008. Even with efficiency advances, demand for energy is expected to
continue to rise in the coming decades. Chinese energy consumption is currently dominated by coal, and the
major energy-consuming sector is industry. Improving the efficiency of energy use and enhancing
energy conservation will be critical to ease energy supply constraints, boost energy security, reduce
environmental pollution, ―green‖ the economy, and tackle the climate challenge. Since 2005, the
Chinese government has elevated its energy conservation and energy efficiency efforts to basic state
policy. The 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–10) set an energy-savings target of 20 percent, and the country has adopted
administrative, legal, and economic measures to achieve this goal. During the first three years of the plan, China‘s
energy intensity— its energy consumption per unit of GDP—fell by just over 10 percent, saving 290 million tons of coal equivalent (tce) and
reducing the country‘s greenhouse gas emissions by 750 million tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. This pace of energy conservation has rarely
been achieved by the rest of the world. According to China‘s Medium and Long-Term Energy Conservation
Plan, the energy consumption per unit of major industrial products should ―reach or be close to the
international advanced level of the 1990s by 2010, and reach or be close to the international upto-
date level by 2020.‖Although China is working hard on this target and has recently accelerated its
pace of energy savings, especially in the industry sector, a gap remains. Challenges that impede progress in
energy savings include low fossil energy prices due in part to energy and fuel subsidies, an incomplete market-drivers policy, and the lack of
capacity building for energy saving. China‘s success in the renewable energy arena has been more dramatic.
Renewables use in China totaled some 250 million tce in 2008 (excluding traditional biomass
energy). Renewables accounted for 9 percent of the country‘s total primary energy use that year,
up from 7.5 percent in 2005. Hydropower dominated China‘s renewable energy usage, at 180
million tce, followed by solar, wind, and modern biomass, which together comprised 70 million tce
of renewables consumption. Hydropower and wind power accounted for the bulk of China‘s total
installed renewable energy capacity in 2009, reaching 197 gigawatts (GW) and 26 GWrespectively. Cumulative wind
installations more than doubled that year, and new wind installations increased more than 100
percent, allowing China to surpass the United States to become the largest market for wind
power—housing nearly one-third of the world‘s total installed capacity in 2009. Total installation of solar PV
reached 310 megawatts (MW) in 2009,more than double the 150 MWin place in 2008 but leaving China with still only 2 percent of the global
installed capacity. China installed 42 million square meters of solar water heaters in 2009 and increased the total installed capacity by 31 percent,
to 135 million square meters, with the central government providing strong incentives for rural installations. China has accounted for 70–80
percent of the global market for solar hot water systems in recent years.. China‘s rapid rise to global leadership in clean
energy is rooted in an unusual level of cooperation between government and industry, with the
government providing a broad range of incentives that have led to the creation of renewable energy
industrial bases nationwide. China‘s past two decades of investment in science and technology,
focused in large part on the energy sector, has been stepped up in recent years, with the aim of
making the country an innovator as well as a low-cost manufacturer of cutting-edge technologies
These dramatic developments have implications that go well beyond China. As the country‘s skills
in efficient, low-cost manufacturing are brought to clean energy industries, this could widen the
energy options for the world as a whole. Already, Chinese companies have become a strong
presence in clean energy markets in Europe and North America. Renewables in China will almost
certainly see continued strong growth in the years ahead as new policy incentives are enforced,
including a regional feed-in tariff scheme for wind power, a plan to build seven large-scale
windbases in six provinces, and the new Golden Sun program aimed at accelerating the domestic solar market. Across China,
provincial and city governments are working with industry to create industrial parks dedicated to
clean energy and are providing a range of subsidies and infrastructure investments to support the
creation of new companies, jobs, and revenues for local governments. Meanwhile, China‘s renewable
energy products and equipment manufacturing capacity are maturing rapidly. The domestic wind turbine
industry has mastered technology at the megawatt scale and beyond and now has an annual manufacturing capacity of 10 GW. China has become
the world‘s largest solar PV producer, and domestic manufacturers are now offering complete production lines, from raw materials to solar
modules. The annual capacity to produce solar water heaters is more than 40 million square meters. Domestic industry players are
paying attention to both technological advancement and quality, aiming to improve the reliability
of products while also preparing for an impending expansion of the renewables market. Many
Chinese renewable energy companies rely heavily on export markets to fuel their growth. This is
particularly true in the case of solar PV, where most production is exported, but both the wind and solar hot water industries are now expanding
their exports rapidly. This has led to growing tensions with European and North American companies that
are losing market share. Analysts attribute this trend in part to the unusually strong state support
that Chinese companies receive. Renewable energy is positioned strategically in China‘s energy
structure and is one of the most important instruments for boosting energy security and tackling
climate change. The country has set national targets for a 10 percent renewables share in the country‘s overall energy mix by 2010 and a
15 percent share by 2020. Forecasts suggest that this share might reach 28–32 percent by 2030 and 30–45 percent by 2050,moving renewable
energy closer to becoming a mainstream energy resource.
PTX
A. Uniqueness - NSA reform coming now – Obama political capital key to a
middle of the road reform
Feaver, Duke University Political Science and Public Policy professor, 14
[Peter Feaver, 1/17/14, Foreign Policy, ―Obama Finally Joins the Debate He Called For‖,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/01/17/obama_finally_joins_the_debate_he_called_for,
accessed 7/12/14, GNL]

Today President Barack Obama finally joins the national debate he called for a long time ago but
then abandoned: the debate about how best to balance national security and civil liberty. As I
outlined in NPR's scene-setter this morning, this debate is a tricky one for a president who wants to
lead from behind. The public's view shifts markedly in response to perceptions of the threat, so a
political leader who is only following the public mood will crisscross himself repeatedly.
Changing one's mind and shifting the policy is not inherently a bad thing to do. There is no absolute and
timeless right answer, because this is about trading off different risks. The risk profile itself shifts in
response to our actions. When security is improving and the terrorist threat is receding, one set of trade-
offs is appropriate. When security is worsening and the terrorist threat is worsening, another might be.
It is likely, however, that the optimal answer is not the one advocated by the most fringe position. A
National Security Agency (NSA) hobbled to the point that some on the far left (and, it must be
conceded, the libertarian right) are demanding would be a mistake that the country would regret
every bit as much as we would regret an NSA without any checks or balances or constraints.
Getting this right will require inspired and active political leadership. To date, Obama has preferred to
stay far removed from the debate swirling around the Snowden leaks. This president relishes
opportunities to spend political capital on behalf of policies that disturb Republicans, but, as former
Defense Secretary Robert Gates's memoir details, Obama has been very reluctant to expend political
capital on behalf of national security policies that disturb his base. Today Obama is finally
engaging. It will be interesting to see how he threads the political needle and, just as importantly,
how much political capital he is willing to spend in the months ahead to defend his policies.

B. No support for OTEC- it‘s too risky for investors, too ugly for citizens, and
too unpopular for the federal government.
HPR, 6 (Harvard Political Review, Becca Freidman, ―An Alternate Source Heats
Up: Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,‖ 2-26-2006,
http://hprsite.squarespace.com/an-alternative-source-heats-up)

Although it may seem like an environmentalist‘s fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that
the technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the United States already exists in the
form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and
promising prototypes, however, a lack of governmental support and the need for risky capital
investment have stalled OTEC in its research and development phase. Regardless, oceanic energy
experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a Department of Energy team on oceanic
energy, told the HPR, ―If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for
electricity and other things, the potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times more than the
current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other
renewable energy that can compare with OTEC.‖ The Science of OTEC French physicist George
Claude first explored the science of OTEC in the early twentieth century, and he built an
experimental design in 1929. Unfortunately for Claude, the high maintenance needed for an
OTEC plant, especially given the frequency of storms in tropical ocean climates, caused him to
abandon the project. Nevertheless, his work demonstrated that the difference in temperature
between the surface layer and the depths of the ocean was enough to generate power, using the
warmer water as the heat source and the cooler water as a heat sink. OTEC takes warm water and
pressurizes it so that it becomes steam, then uses the steam to power a turbine which creates
power, and completes the cycle by using the cold water to return the steam to its liquid state.
Huge Capital, Huge Risks Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet
to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although
piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale
plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology
Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt
OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry
Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination
of cost and risk is OTEC‘s main liability. ―We‘ve talked to inventors and other constituents over
the years, and it‘s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many
[alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty,‖
Penney told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine
environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production
by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe
weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC
plant would cause the machinery to ―rust or corrode‖ or ―fill up with seaweed or mud,‖ according
to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman. Even environmentalists have impeded
OTEC‘s development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they
look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think
pollution. Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal
support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company
specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, ―Years ago in the ‘80s, there was a small
[governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to
this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government
funding for this. It‘s not the Democrats, not the Republicans. It‘s a bureaucratic issue.‖
1. Obama political capital key to stop Senate modifications – modifications crush
House support and wipeout NSA effectiveness
Hattem, The Hill, 5/25/14
[Julian, 5/25/14, The Hill, ―NSA reform to be ‗fight of the summer‘‖,
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/207143-nsa-reform-to-be-senate-fight-of-the-summer, accessed
7/12/14, GNL]

Civil libertarians who say the House didn‘t go far enough to reform the National Security Agency
are mounting a renewed effort in the Senate to shift momentum in their direction.
After compromises in the House bill, the NSA‘s critics are buckling down for a months-long fight in
the Senate that they hope will lead to an end to government snooping on Americans.
―This is going to be the fight of the summer,‖ vowed Gabe Rottman, legislative counsel with the
American Civil Liberties Union.
If advocates are able to change the House bill‘s language to prohibit NSA agents from collecting
large quantities of data, ―then that‘s a win,‖ he added.
―The bill still is not ideal even with those changes, but that would be an improvement,‖ Rottman
said.
The USA Freedom Act was introduced in both the House and Senate last autumn, after Edward
Snowden‘s revelations about the NSA‘s operations captured headlines around the globe.
Privacy advocates like the ACLU rallied around the bill as the way to rein in the spy agency and more
than 150 lawmakers signed on as cosponsors in the House.
In recent weeks, though, advocates worried that it was being progressively watered down.
First, leaders on the House Judiciary Committee made changes in order to gain support from a broader
cross-section of the chamber. Then, after it sailed through both the Judiciary and Intelligence
Committees, additional changes were made behind closed doors that caused many privacy groups
and tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple to drop their support.
When it passed the House 303-121 last week, fully half of the bill‘s original cosponsors voted against
it.
―We were of course very disappointed at the weakening of the bill,‖ said Robyn Greene, policy counsel at
the New America Foundation‘s Open Technology Institute. ―Right now we really are turning our
attention to the Senate to make sure that doesn‘t happen again.‖
Instead of entirely blocking the government‘s ability to collect bulk amounts of data, critics said
that the new bill could theoretically allow federal agents to gather information about an entire area
code or region of the country.
One factor working in the reformers‘ favor is the strong support of Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick
Leahy (D-Vt.).
Unlike House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who only came to support the bill after
negotiations to produce a manager‘s amendment, Leahy was the lead Senate sponsor of the USA Freedom
Act.
The fact that Leahy controls the committee gavel means he should be able to guide the bill through
when it comes up for discussion next month, advocates said.
―The fact that he is the chairman and it‘s his bill and this is an issue that he has been passionate
about for many years‖ is comforting, Greene said.
―I think this is something he really wants to see get done. He wants to see it get done right. And he wants
to see that Americans are confident that their privacy is being adequately protected,‖ she added.
Moments after the House passed its bill, Leahy issued a statement praising the action but said he was
―disappointed‖ that some ―meaningful reforms‖ were not included.
Other surveillance critics such as Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.)
and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) expressed similar dissatisfaction with the House effort.
Their sentiments should be buoyed by the swift outrage from civil liberties advocates on both sides of the
aisle, reformers hoped.
One reason the House bill moved so far away from its early principles, lawmakers and surveillance
critics have claimed, was pressure from House leadership and the Obama administration in the
days ahead of the vote.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is pledging to let Leahy and Intelligence
Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) take the lead on how to move forward.
―I want Chairman Feinstein and Chairman Leahy to take a very close look at that and report to the Senate
as to what they think should be done,‖ he told reporters on Thursday.
―I believe we must do something and I have no problem with the House having acted, but I couldn‘t pass
a test on what‘s in their bill. But I guarantee I‘ll be able to after Feinstein and Leahy take a look at this,‖
said Reid.
Feinstein, who is also the No. 2 Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, could pose the biggest
obstacle for Leahy‘s efforts.
She previously pushed for a much narrower reform bill, but said late Thursday that she was ―open
to considering‖ the House-passed legislation.
House lawmakers, however, might not be too pleased if the two chambers end up with a significantly
different piece of legislation.
After passing its bill on Thursday, Goodlatte warned the Senate not to deviate too far from the
compromise that he and his colleagues had put together.
―This has been very carefully negotiated here within the House but also with the administration,‖
he said. ―And it‘s going to be very important that if the Senate does something different that it is... better
and not just different.
―Because different can be worse rather than better,‖ Goodlatte said.

2. Even if both bills are bad, a lack of reform collapses the program and a bill with
Senate modifications would gut NSA effectiveness
Sasso, National Journal, 14
[Brendan Sasso, 3/25/14, National Journal, ―Why Obama and His NSA Defenders Changed Their
Minds‖, http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/why-obama-and-his-nsa-defenders-changed-their-minds-
20140325, accessed 7/12/14, GNL]

It was only months ago that President Obama, with bipartisan backing from the heads of
Congress's Intelligence committees, was insisting that the National Security Agency's mass
surveillance program was key to keeping Americans safe from the next major terrorist attack. They
were also dismissing privacy concerns, saying the program was perfectly legal and insisting the necessary
safeguards were already in place.
But now, Obama's full-speed ahead has turned into a hasty retreat: The president and the NSA's
top supporters in Congress are all pushing proposals to end the NSA's bulk collection of phone
records. And civil-liberties groups—awash in their newly won clout—are declaring victory. The
question is no longer whether to change the program, but how dramatically to overhaul it.
So what changed?
It's not that Obama and his Hill allies suddenly saw the error of their ways and became born-again
privacy advocates. Instead, with a critical section of the Patriot Act set to expire next year, they
realized they had no choice but to negotiate.
If Congress fails to reauthorize that provision—Section 215—by June 1, 2015, then the NSA's
collection of U.S. records would have to end entirely. And the growing outrage prompted by the
Snowden leaks means that the NSA's supporters would almost certainly lose an up-or-down vote on the
program.
Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that looming
sunset is what forced lawmakers to the bargaining table. "I think what has changed is the growing
realization that the votes are simply not there for reauthorization," he said in an interview. "I think
that more than anything else, that is galvanizing us into action."
Obama and the House Intelligence Committee leaders believe their proposals are now the NSA's
best bet to retain some power to mine U.S. phone records for possible terror plots. Senate
Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, another leading NSA defender, also indicated she
is on board with the changes, saying the president's proposal is a "worthy effort."
And though the Hill's NSA allies are now proposing reforms to the agency, they don't seem
particularly excited about it.
At a Capitol Hill press conference Tuesday, Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the panel's top Democrat, often sounded like
they were arguing against their own bill that they were unveiling.
"I passionately believe this program has saved American lives," Rogers said. Ruppersberger said if the
program had been in place in 2001, it may have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.
But the lawmakers acknowledged there is broad "discomfort" with the program as it is currently
structured.
"We need to do something about bulk collection because of the perception of our constituents,"
Ruppersberger admitted.
Under their legislation, the vast database of phone records would stay in the hands of the phone
companies. The NSA could force the phone companies to turn over particular records, and the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court would review the NSA orders after the fact.
But Rogers rejected a reporter's suggestion that the NSA should have never had control of the massive
database of phone records in the first place.
"There was no abuse, no illegality, no unconstitutionality," he said.
For all their hesitance, however, Rogers and company much prefer their version to a competing proposal
to change the way the government gathers information.
That would be the USA Freedom Act, a proposal from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Patrick Leahy and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Rogers and his ilk fear would go too far in
hamstringing the NSA. The USA Freedom Act would require the NSA to meet a tougher standard
for the data searches and would limit other NSA programs, such as Internet surveillance of people
overseas.
Additionally, President Obama is expected to unveil his own plan to reform the controversial phone
data collection program this week. According to The New York Times, Obama's proposal would also
keep the database in the hands of the phone companies. His plan would have tougher judicial
oversight than the House bill by requiring pre-approval from the court for every targeted phone number,
the newspaper reported.
But though the momentum has shifted and officials seem to be coalescing around a framework for
overhauling the NSA program, the question is far from settled.
Leahy and Sensenbrenner are not backing off from their USA Freedom Act, and outside groups
will continue their policy push as well.
In a statement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group, said the White House
proposal and the House bill would make "seemingly significant changes" to NSA spying. The group
said it prefers the White House plan because it would impose more judicial review on the process.
Michelle Richardson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said she is "optimistic" about the
White House plan but maintained that the House bill is on the "wrong track."
She said it would actually be a step back from the status quo, because Obama already implemented
reforms in January that require judicial approval before each search of the database.
"The bill's modest improvements to the phone-records program are not worth demolishing the
important judicial role in overseeing these programs," she said. "The best bill we've seen so far to
fix the NSA is the bipartisan USA Freedom Act."
And while Leahy and Sensenbrenner push, the Intelligence Committee leaders are digging in as well,
saying the USA Freedom Act would jeopardize national security.
"In my opinion," Ruppersberger said, "the Sensenbrenner bill makes our country less safe."

C. Impact – Terrorism
1. Effective NSA surveillance key to prevent terrorist attacks
Yoo, former US Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel Deputy assistant 13
[John Yoo, 8/16/13, National Review, ―Ending NSA Surveillance Is Not the Answer‖,
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/356027/ending-nsa-surveillance-not-answer-john-yoo, accessed
7/12/14, GNL]

We should be careful not to put the NSA in an impossible position. Of course, we should be vigilant
against the administrative state in all of its tangled tendrils, especially its collection of taxes (the IRS
scandal) and enforcement of the laws (Obama‘s refusal to enforce Obamacare and immigration law). The
problem here, however, is that we are placing these kinds of domestic law-enforcement standards
on a foreign intelligence function. With domestic law enforcement, we want the Justice Department to
monitor one identified target (identified because other evidence gives probable cause that he or she has
already committed a crime) and to carefully minimize any surveillance so as not to intrude on privacy
interests.
Once we impose those standards on the military and intelligence agencies, however, we are either
guaranteeing failure or we must accept a certain level of error. If the military and intelligence
agencies had to follow law-enforcement standards, their mission would fail because they would not
give us any improvement over what the FBI could achieve anyway. If the intelligence community is
to detect future terrorist attacks through analyzing electronic communications, we are asking them
to search through a vast sea of e-mails and phone-call patterns to find those few which, on the
surface, look innocent but are actually covert terrorist messages. If we give them broader authority,
we would have to accept a level of error that is inherent in any human activity. No intelligence agency
could perform its mission of protecting the nation‘s security without making a few of these kinds of
mistakes. The question is whether there are too many, not whether there will be any at all.
Domestic law enforcement makes these errors too. Police seek warrants for the wrong guy, execute a
search in the wrong house, arrest the wrong suspect, and even shoot unarmed suspects. We accept these
mistakes because we understand that no law-enforcement system can successfully protect our
communities from crime with perfection. The question is the error rate, how much it would cost to reduce
it, the impact on the effectiveness of the program, and the remedies we have for mistakes. Consider those
questions in the context of the NSA surveillance program. The more important question is not the top
of the fraction but the bottom — not just how many mistakes occurred, but how many records were
searched overall. If there were 2,000 or so mistakes, as the Washington Post suggests, but involving
billions of communications, the error rate is well less than 1 percent. Without looking at the latest
figures, I suspect that is a far lower error rate than those turned in by domestic police on searches and
arrests.
To end the NSA‘s efforts to intercept terrorist communications would be to willfully blind ourselves
to the most valuable intelligence sources on al-Qaeda (now that the president won‘t allow the capture
and interrogation of al-Qaeda leaders). The more useful question is whether there is a cost-effective way
to reduce the error rate without detracting from the effectiveness of the program, which, by General Keith
Alexander‘s accounting, has been high. Increasing judicial oversight might reduce errors — though I am
dubious — but in a way that would seriously slow down the speed of the program, which is all-important
if the mission is to stop terrorists. And perhaps Congress should think about ways to remedy any privacy
violations in the future. But to end the program because it does not have an error rate of zero is to
impose a demand on the NSA that no other government program, foreign or domestic, military or
civilian, could survive.

2. Terrorist retaliation causes nuclear war – draws in Russia and China
Ayson, Victoria University strategic studies professor, 10
(Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at
the Victoria University of Wellington, July, ―After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic
Effects,‖ Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, Available Online to Subscribing
Institutions via InformaWorld)

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in
the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there
are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of
truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a
massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in
significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into
insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold
War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds
and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly
awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two
nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not
necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear
terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons
between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today‘s and tomorrow‘s terrorist
groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small
nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers
started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew
about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. t may require a considerable amount of
imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such
a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United
States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the
picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or
encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that
sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however
remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or
discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40
and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of
that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by
Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be ―spread over a wide
area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of
information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and,
most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.‖41 Alternatively, if the act
of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a
terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state
possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel
and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North
Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia
and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of
nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington‘s relations with Russia
and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would
officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring
would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed
conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war,
as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too:
should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or
even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise
domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack?
Washington‘s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility
of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise
and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president
might be expected to place the country‘s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of
alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just
possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force
(and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might
grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating
response.
Case
Oil

High oil prices are key to the Russian economy
Talley, Dow Jones Newswires, 2011 (Ian, ―IMF: High Oil Prices Opportunity For Russia Economic
Reform,‖ September 14, http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110914-714339.html)
Oil-producing Russia should take advantage of high commodity prices to restructure its
economy, the International Monetary Fund's executive board said Wednesday in its annual country
survey. "High commodity prices create a window of opportunity to embark on bold and decisive
reforms to strengthen growth prospects over the medium term," IMF board directors said. In
particular, Moscow should focus on building a stronger government balance sheet, lowering inflation,
developing a better banking system and fostering investment.
Russian economic collapse leads to nuclear war and terrorism
Filger, writer and founder of GlobalEconomicCrisis.com, 2009 (Sheldon, ―Russian Economy Faces
Disastrous Free Fall Contraction,‖ Huffington Post, May 10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-
filger/russian-economy-faces-dis_b_201147.html?)
Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out of the
question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the
Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the
economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status,
Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and
capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev
and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national
economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political
upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obama's national security team has
already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of
the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence
community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national
security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political instability in the world. During the
years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the nation's nuclear
arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would
illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia
were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It may
be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.

Increasing cooperation shale boom solves
Thiegles, Domestic Energy Policy Analyst for EagleFordTexas, 6/20/14
(Shane, ―US could find unlikely energy ally in China‖, http://eaglefordtexas.com/news/id/128463/us-find-unlikely-energy-ally-china/, accessed
6/27/14, LLM)
For all that America and China butt heads and position themselves as rivals in the global energy game, however, the truth is that our
ongoing energy markets will be inextricably linked moving forward.
Ongoing talk says the US is all but certain to loosen restrictions on natural gas exports soon, and oil may
not be far behind. When that happens, we will have a huge monetary incentive to sell as much of our
massive energy stockpile as we can. There‘s more natural gas in America than we can use, leading to rock bottom utility prices
but also an almost total lull in natural gas shale drilling, such as is found in Louisiana‘s Haynesville and New York‘s Marcellus shales. Demand
and production are also growing at almost the same rate, meaning that if we want this gas to be profitable we have to find more prospective
buyers.
American companies have already made deals with China for Liquid Petroleum Gas, and it‘s a safe
bet that China will be willing to buy whatever we have to sell. The US is also positioning itself as a
leader in the worldwide fight against climate change, and a widespread Chinese adoption of US gas
would make us look like a diplomatic leader. Recent studies suggesting natural gas won‘t reduce long-term ozone damage
would also be silenced, with focus shifting to the fight against a public health hazard.
As hydraulic fracturing starts to catch on in the rest of the world, energy supplies and influence will
continue to shift in response. Countries like the UK, Venezuela and Mexico are attempting to tap into local shale deposits in hopes
of replicating US success. If supply raises accordingly, the resulting price drop could make natural gas unprofitable for the foreseeable future. If
the US wants to make money for its efforts, and China wants to buy up diverse power options, the two could do worse than to form a partnership
sooner rather than later.

Independently, the increasing trade deficit will destroy the economy
Johnson, writer for ourfuture.org, 13 [Dave, citing an Economic Policy Institute report, Feb 8 2013, ―Fix The Trade
Deficit, Fix The Economy.‖ http://ourfuture.org/20130208/fix-trade-deficit-economy-and-jobs-get-a-shot-in-the-arm, 6-24-14, Tang]
Yet another report is out showing how the trade deficit is costing us millions of jobs and hurting our economy. This
report has specific numbers: between 2.2 million and 4.7 million U.S. jobs, between 1 percent and 2.1 percent of
the unemployment rate and a gross domestic product increase of between 1.4 percent and 3.1 percent.
These are real numbers that were carefully calculated. This is a real problem that is hurting people, hurting small and
mid-sized companies, hurting communities, hurting our tax base and hurting our ability to make a living
in the future. And there are real solutions available to fix the problem.
If you saw the movie ―Roger & Me,‖ you saw what happened to Flint, Michigan when GM‘s executives moved the jobs out of the country. That
movie showed what a trade deficit does. ―Roger & Me‖ came out in 1989 and was really only a small, local look at what was coming to much of
the country. In the decades since then, the problem spread to entire regions. This is not some economic dislocation due to changes in the
economy; this is regional and even national devastation that doesn‘t have to happen and that no country should tolerate.
The trade deficit is huge. It transfers around $1 billion a day out of our country. For those well-to-do elites so
worried about the budget deficit instead of American jobs, factories, industries and our ability to make a living in the future, the trade
deficit increases our budget deficit by between $78.8 billion and $165.8 billion.
Hydrogen cells are too expensive and not feasible
Institute of Physics 2012
[Institute of Physics, ―Fuel Cells‖, http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/fuel/, 7-2-14, JY]
Two things have prevented major production of hydrogen-powered cars until now:
the cost, and producing the hydrogen in the first place. Until recently, the platinum catalyst that splits
the hydrogen into an ion and an electron has been prohibitively expensive. Up to a few years ago,
hydrogen fuel cells cost around $1000 for every kilowatt of power they generated – or around
$100,000 per cars. There were various avenues of research into how to bring the cost down,
including work at Lawrence Berkley Laboratories on replacing the platinum catalyst with a platinum-
nickel alloy that was 90 times more efficient. By last year, US Department of Energy reported that it
had got the cost down to $61 per kilowatt – far closer to the target cost of $30. One further possibility
being explored by Ballard Power Systems is enhancing the platinum with carbon silk. This is
expected to bring a 30% reduction in cost with no loss of performance. Where does the hydrogen
come from? As free hydrogen doesn‘t occur naturally on Earth in any large
quantity, it has to be extracted from water. This is normally achieved by reforming natural
gas or by passing a current through water, splitting it into its components, hydrogen and oxygen. This
has led some to question fuel cells‘ credentials as an environmentally friendly power source –
they‘re only as green as the electricity that makes the hydrogen, which often
comes from burning fossil fuels. But some have suggested that hydrogen can instead by
produced at home by using sunlight to split water with the help of a catalyst, titanium dioxide – the
white in white paint. With more centralised production, a large infrastructure of hydrogen refueling
stations would be required if vehicles powered by fuel cells are to become used more widely than just
by demonstration taxis. The first commercial hydrogen refueling station was opened in Iceland in
2003. Japan has a number of filling stations and they are becoming more common in the US –
however this may change now that the Obama administration has cut off public funding for the
development of hydrogen vehicles. The first hydrogen station in the UK – in Hornchurch,
northeast London – closed in 2007 after the end of a three-year trial of hydrogen-powered
buses. Others have since opened up in London to support a larger trial of buses, and in Birmingham.
Solvency
Aff can‘t solve—demonstration plant alone takes five years, on top of
commercialization
Vega, University of Hawaii at Manoa School of Ocean and Earth Science and
Technology Hawaii Natural Energy Institute Specialist, 2010
[Louis A., 2010, Offshore Technology Conference, ―Economics of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC): An Update,‖ http://hinmrec.hnei.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/OTEC-Economics-
2010.pdf, p. 14, IC]
In discussing OTEC‘s potential it is important to remember that implementation of the first plant
would take about 5-years after order is placed. This is illustrated with the baseline schedule shown
in Table 7. The time required for each major activity also applies to the pre-commercial or
demonstration plant. Completion of the engineering design with specifications and shop drawings
would take one-year. Presently it is estimated that the licensing and permitting process through
NOAA (in accordance with the OTEC Act) would take longer than 2-years for commercial plants
with the provision of exemptions from the licensing process for plants considered to be demonstration
plants because of the limited duration of the operational phase. A survey of factories that can supply
all equipment required for the OTEC systems discussed above shows that no technical breakthroughs
are required but that some components would require as long as 3-years to be delivered after the
order is placed. The solicitation of equipment quotes based on technical specifications, as it was done
in preparation of this report, indicates that long-lead items would require from 18-months to 36-
months to be delivered. Based on experience with offshore projects of similar size it is expected that
one-year would be required to complete the deployment with a second year set aside for
commissioning.

Scaling up too quickly is risky- aff authors agree
McKenna, freelance environmental writer, 2008
Phil, ―Deep oceans may offer ‗limitless‘ green energy‖, New Scientist, 11/22, Vol 199, Issue 2683, p. 28-
9
For Cohen, who has also waited decades for ocean thermal to come into its own, such a large plant
seems overambitious, especially as it is coupled with the production of hydrogen, whose distribution
structure is still largely undeveloped.
"Scaling up so quickly could be risky," warns Cohen. "I'd like to see us move fast on ocean thermal
but I think we have to be careful."
Not feasible—transmission lines cost too much
Kindt, University of Illinois Professor of Business and Legal Policy, 1984
[John Warren, 1984, ―Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,‖ Georgia Journal of International and
Comparative Law, 14:1, p.9, IC]
The economic feasibility of the underwater cables designed to transmit the electricity to shore is a
critical factor for non-grazing OTEC power plants. This potential problem area stems from a lack of
experience in dealing with projects of such magnitude. 1 The economic considerations of transmitting
electricity from distant offshore areas to a coastal state could be prohibitive. For example, the cost of
underwater transmission lines, estimated at $1 million per mile, to an OTEC site situated 200 miles
offshore could "equal the capital cost of constructing the OTEC plant." 2

Commercialization fails- high capital costs and lowered cost of alternative
renewables prevents investment
Muralidharan, in his master‘s thesis for a Master of Science in Engineering and Management degree at
MIT, 12(Shylesh Muralidharan, B. Tech. Mechanical Engineering, Pondicherry University. 1998, Master
of Management Studies, University of Mumbai, 2001 Submitted to the System Design and Management
Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Engineering
and Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ―Assessment of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion‖, February 2012, pg. 98, KShapiro)
This study has shown that investments in OTEC become more favorable with scale, as costs are projected
to decrease by more than one-fifth with every doubling of plant output. But the capital intensive nature
of OTEC projects will be a deterrent to immediate large-scale investment, especially by private
investors. Energy technologies such as wind and solar might be seen as less risky renewable energy
investment options, given their proven costs and performance. Also, as these technologies are
currently ahead of OTEC in market maturity, their levelized cost of energy might continue to
decrease significantly in the coming years. These other available options for renewable electricity
generation may impede investments in OTEC.

Low temperature differentials make OTEC inefficient
Williams 2002
[Lawrence O., An End To Global Warming, p. 44-45, JY]
The surface of the ocean in the tropics has a temperature of 24 to 28 degrees Celsius. The water at
depths greater than about 500 meters is at a temperature of about 4 degrees Celsius. This
temperature difference of 20 to 24 degrees can be used to drive power-generating equipment.
When the size of the ocean is taken into account, the total energy available is many times that used by
humanity. 102 The efficiency of heat driven machines is dependent on the temperature difference
between the heat source and the coolant. With the maximum 20-Kelvin difference available from
seawater, the peak theoretical efficiency is 7%. The low efficiency results in a very large power
plant if useful amounts of energy are to be recovered. A 100 MWe electric plant must have a
coolant pipe 10 meters in diameter descending 400 to 500 meters. There must be millions of square
meters of heat exchanges to extract the heat from the surface water. All this equipment must be
protected from the corrosive effects of seawater and the growth or marine organisms. The problem of
designing, operating, and maintaining such plants are formidable. 103 The facilities used to harvest
the ocean thermal energy are called OTEC plants (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion). To achieve
their maximum potential they must be located in the open ocean near the equator, far from any
market. Several schemes to transmit their output to the market have been examined. The most
practical appears to be: use the electric power to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
The oxygen can be vented and the hydrogen liquefied for shipment to market. This scheme allows the
OTEC plant to produce a storable fuel that can be used for most energy needs. Several small
demonstration plants have been funded by the United States Department of Energy and the State of
Hawaii. 104 These plants have proven the general technological feasibility of the concept. They have
also helped to identify the following collection of severe problems. The optimum location far out at
sea in the equatorial ocean, make direct transport of electrical energy to the markets difficult or
impossible. Theauxillary quipment needed to produce fuels, such as hydrogen, will greatly increase
the complexity of the facility. The plants will be very costly when configured to produce fuels.
Biological fueling of the heat exchange equipment prevents operational problems. Solutions, such as
chlorination of the water, introduce significant environmental pollution. Because of the large area of
heat exchanges required, storm resistance is difficult and costly to achieve. The environmental impact
of a large number of these plants on the open ocean ecosystem is difficult to assess. The combined
effect of cooling the surface and raising large amounts of deep water to the surface is likely to change
the plant and animal life in the zones where the OTEC plants operate. These difficulties support the
position that OTEC plants are unlikely to be a major long-term
Warming
No extinction – we have time to adapt
Mendelsohn, Professor of Environmental Studies at Yale University, 2009
(Robert O., ―Climate Change and Economic Growth,‖
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf)
These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem
that deserves attention, society‘s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to
catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions
over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by
alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted
impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change
over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a
century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these ―potential‖ impacts will never occur because
people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to
thwart long‐ range climate risks. What is needed are long‐ run balanced responses.
Warming is slowing down
Morales 2-9-14 [Alex, reporter for Bloomberg News in London, ―Global-Warming Slowdown Due to
Pacific Winds, Study Shows,‖ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-
due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html]

Stronger Pacific Ocean winds may help explain the slowdown in the rate of global warming since the turn
of the century, scientists said. More powerful winds in the past 20 years may be forcing warmer seas deeper
and bringing cooler water to the surface, 10 researchers from the U.S. and Australia said today in the journal
Nature. That has cooled the average global temperature by as much as 0.2 degree Celsius (0.36 Fahrenheit) since 2001. Scientists have
been trying to find out why the rate of global warming has eased in the past 20 years while greenhouse-gas
emissions have surged to a record. Today‘s paper elaborates on a theory that deep seas are absorbing more warmth by explaining
how that heat could be getting there.
Global warming not real- 2014 was coolest year in history
Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News for the Heartland
Institute, 2014
[James, May 9, ―Record Antarctic Ice Extent Deflates Global Warming Scare.‖ Heartlander Magazine.
from http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/05/09/2014-uss-coldest-year-ever-so-far,
Retrieved July 12, 2014, WZ]
This year has been the coldest year in history through May 6, according to the network of nationwide
thermometers monitored by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Summer officially arrives later this
month, and it better be a warm one if the United States is to avoid setting a new record for its coldest year
ever.
Southeastern Florida and the U.S. Southwest are the only regions with above-average temperatures so far
this year. The Upper Midwest and the Great Lakes region are experiencing the coldest departures from
average temperatures.
Assertions that warming temperatures in the United States are causing a host of problems are
soundly contradicted by the objective temperature data. The U.S. Historical Climatology Network
thermometers, which have been measuring U.S. temperatures since the 1890s, show no long-term
trend in U.S. temperatures.




Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close