West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

Advantage One: Climate Change Extension

Solves energy security / meets electricity needs

Investment in MHK technologies fosters energy security by providing 25% of energy needs by 2050

Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI), March 24, 2014, “The U.S. MHK Industry Request for the DOE Water Power Program,” Fiscal Year 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, http://www.strategicmi.com/press/FY15_Request_for_MHK_ EW_Approps_FINAL_3.21.14.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

Marine hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies generate power from predictable and forecastable ocean currents, waves, tidal flows and in-stream sources. Commercialization of the technologies to capture these MHK resources can add to our national energy security, help strengthen our economic development and balance our renewable energy portfolio. By any measure, the U.S. has significant MHK resources. Mr. Mike Carr, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office, testified before the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on February 27, 2014, that recently completed comprehensive MHK assessments estimate that the technically extractable resource potential is almost 900 TWh/yr for wave energy and under 400 TWh/yr for tidal and ocean current, which represents up to 25 percent of projected U.S. generation needs by 2050.

Increasing federal government investment in MHK technologies can supply up to 19% of U.S. electricity needs

Dr. Belinda A. Batten, Director, Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center at Oregon State University, February 27, 2014,

Testimony Before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power

Hearing on "S. 1419, the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013", http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ files/serve?File_id=36dec212-8949-4671-b65e-e8a0892c851c, Accessed 4/28/2014

The United States is blessed with abundant MHK renewable resources from ocean waves and currents. For the continental United States, the potential MHK resource, dominated primarily by ocean waves, is estimated between 13 and 19 percent of current electricity demand. DOE estimates that Oregon, Washington and California can meet up to twenty percent of their electricity requirements from wave energy convertors, and Alaska and Hawaii can meet nearly all of their power loads from MHK technologies. Clearly, this is a potential renewable energy resource worthy of additional investments by the U.S. Federal Government.

We can harness four times current electricity capacity with ocean renewables

José Zayas, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, January 2014, “Advancing Ocean Renewable Energy In the United States,” Sea Technology Magazine, http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2014/0114/1.php, Accessed 4/11/2014

With more than 4,000 gigawatts (GW) gross energy resources (four times the nation’s installed electricity capacity) within 50 miles of U.S. coasts, offshore wind has the potential to become a major source of clean energy if only a small portion of that resource is actually tapped for electricity production. Tidal and wave energy are renewable resources that can be harnessed wherever changing tides, waves or currents move a significant volume of water. The Department’s nationwide wave and tidal energy resource assessments from 2012 identify a technical resource potential of up to 1,400 terawatt-hours of generation per year. For context, 1 terawatt-hour of electricity is enough to power 85,000 homes. Nearly 80 percent of the U.S. electrical demand comes from coastal and Great Lake states, with many of them having major U.S. cities with access to domestic clean energy resources. 

Solves energy security / meets electricity needs

Energy from the oceans could supply half of U.S. electricity needs

Todd Woody, Staff Writer, February 27, 2012, “The Next Wave In Renewable Energy From the Ocean,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/02/08/the-next-wave-in-renewable-energy-from-the-ocean/, Accessed 4/11/2014

Indeed. A new government-sponsored study has found that the oceans surrounding the U.S. contain enough energy to potentially supply more than half the nation’s electricity demand. Even with the limits of today’s technology, scientists concluded, there’s sufficient recoverable energy offshore – some 1,170 terawatt-hours a year in all – to keep a third of the country humming. More energy crashes annually onto the West Coast, for instance, than California uses in a year.

Ocean energy can reduce electricity rates and revitalize coastal manufacturing sectors

José Zayas, Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, January 2014, “Advancing Ocean Renewable Energy In the United States,” Sea Technology Magazine, http://www.sea-technology.com/features/2014/0114/1.php, Accessed 4/11/2014

Coastal states tend to have high electricity rates and, in areas such as the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, have carbon-intensive electricity supplies with limited local options for clean energy production. Ocean energy offers these states a significant new energy option that can provide as a hedge against fluctuating fuel prices, omitting the need for long-distance overland transmission. It is expected that ocean energy systems, similar to land-based wind, can provide coastal states the opportunity to revitalize the manufacturing sector. 

MHK technologies are more predictable, constant, and creates tons of energy for homes

Peter J. Schaumberg, counsel and Ami M. Grace-Tardy, associate, both with Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., Winter 2010, “The Dawn of Federal Marine Renewable Energy Development,” Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 24, No. 3, Accessed 4/28/2014, http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/2010%20The%20Dawn%20of%20Federal%20Marine%20Renewable%20Energy%20Development%20NRE%20P%20Schaumberg%20and%20A.%20Grace-Tardy.pdf

Moving water is at least 800 times denser than wind blowing at the same speed. Consequently, ocean waves and currents produce significantly more energy than wind over the same surface area. Wave energy is also more consistently available than solar or wind energy, and wave strength can be predicted days in advance. To capture wave energy, wave power devices extract energy from the surface motion of waves or from pressure fluctuations below the ocean’s surface. For example, Pelamis Wave Power Limited (PWPL) commissioned the world’s first commercial wave farm off the coast of Portugal in 2008. This project uses 140-meter long attenuators, multi-segment floating devices that capture wave energy by means of the differing wave heights along the length of the devices. Each attenuator can produce enough electricity for 500 hundred homes. Energy from ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, is also relatively constant and predictable. Ocean current energy may be captured by submerged turbines anchored to the sea floor. Offshore solar technologies are also possible, but, at present, there is limited interest in this technology.

New investment is essential

New investments in mitigation technologies can meet the 2 degree goal

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), April 13, 2014, Press Release: “IPCC: Greenhouse gas emissions accelerate despite reduction efforts,” http://ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg3/20140413_pr_pc_wg3_en.pdf, Accessed 5/2/2014

“Many different pathways lead to a future within the boundaries set by the two degrees Celsius goal,” Edenhofer said. “All of these require substantial investments. Avoiding further delays in mitigation and making use of a broad variety of technologies can limit the associated costs.” Estimates of the economic costs of mitigation vary widely. In business-as-usual scenarios, consumption grows by 1.6 to 3 percent per year. Ambitious mitigation would reduce this growth by around 0.06 percentage points a year. However, the underlying estimates do not take into account economic benefits of reduced climate change.

A clean energy transition is inevitable, but the longer we delay the less we’ll solve. Increasing investment in renewables is key

Brandon Baker, Staff Writer, April 14, 2014, “New IPCC Report: Fossil Fuel Divestment Must Start Now,” Ecowatch, http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/14/ipcc-fossil-fuel-divestment/, Accessed 5/2/2014

Renewable energy can power our society, drive the economy, and give us cleaner air. Moving from fossil fuel based energy supplies to renewables will result in a wide range of benefits—including new jobs and improved public health. The clean energy transition is inevitable, people are demanding it, and it is already underway. Governments need to put in place the enabling policies so these technologies can be scaled up faster. The longer we delay action to foster the low carbon transition, the more expensive addressing climate change will get. At a UN summit in September, world leaders must commit to deeper cuts in emissions and faster shifts in energy finance from dirty fossil fuels to clean renewables. This will lay the groundwork for the strong global climate treaty that’s due in Paris in 2015.

Climate change is real, human-induced, and risks the survival of civilization. Only investments in clean energy that reduce emissions can avoid the 2 degree threshold

Brandon Baker, Staff Writer, April 14, 2014, “New IPCC Report: Fossil Fuel Divestment Must Start Now,” Ecowatch, http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/14/ipcc-fossil-fuel-divestment/, Accessed 5/2/2014

Climate change is real, caused by human activity, and requires urgent action. Sea levels are rising, precipitation patterns are changing, sea ice is declining and oceans are acidifying. This will have grave consequences for our communities, environments and economies and leave them open to risks for which we are not prepared. We need to accelerate climate action starting today. We are already experiencing severe impacts on every continent and across the oceans, resulting in growing economic and social costs. We have to brace ourselves for more frequent or more intense droughts, floods and storms. Civilisation as we know it at risk—unless we cut carbon pollution rapidly. We can keep global warming below the danger-threshold of 2 degrees C, even below 1.5 degrees of warming. But this is only possible if we make deeper and faster emissions cuts and all governments introduce ambitious policies, backed by strong investments, to enable clean and innovative energy solutions.

Reducing emissions is key

Reducing emissions from fossil fuel plants is essential to meet the 2 degree goal

Brandon Baker, Staff Writer, April 14, 2014, “New IPCC Report: Fossil Fuel Divestment Must Start Now,” Ecowatch, http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/14/ipcc-fossil-fuel-divestment/, Accessed 5/2/2014

Limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius means lowering global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 40 to 70 percent, compared to 2010 levels, according to the report. That needs to happen by the middle of this century, with the recommendation of getting warming levels to net-zero by the end of the century. Clearly, that will be tough considering that annual GHG emissions grew by 2.2 percent per year from 2000 to 2010. From 1970 to 2000, the figure was 1.3 percent. The report suggests letting go of oil and coal before it’s too late. The growth of coal, particularly in Asia, was a direct pathway to the GHG boom from 2000 to 2010, the IPCC states.

Current emissions reduction policies are not enough. Only major reductions with new technologies can avoid the 2 degree threshold

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), April 13, 2014, Press Release: “IPCC: Greenhouse gas emissions accelerate despite reduction efforts,” http://ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg3/20140413_pr_pc_wg3_en.pdf, Accessed 5/2/2014

A new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that global emissions of greenhouse gases have risen to unprecedented levels despite a growing number of policies to reduce climate change. Emissions grew more quickly between 2000 and 2010 than in each of the three previous decades. According to the Working Group III contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, it would be possible, using a wide array of technological measures and changes in behaviour, to limit the increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. However, only major institutional and technological change will give a better than even chance that global warming will not exceed this threshold. The report, entitled Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, is the third of three Working Group reports, which, along with a Synthesis Report due in October 2014, constitute the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report on climate change. Working Group III is led by three Co-Chairs: Ottmar Edenhofer from Germany, Ramón Pichs-Madruga from Cuba, and Youba Sokona from Mali. “Climate policies in line with the two degrees Celsius goal need to aim for substantial emission reductions,” Edenhofer said. “There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual.” Scenarios show that to have a likely chance of limiting the increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius, means lowering global greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 percent compared with 2010 by mid-century, and to near-zero by the end of this century. Ambitious mitigation may even require removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Reduces fossil fuels / emissions

CO2 is increasing now and disturbing ocean life and marine renewables are essential to reduce emissions. Any wildlife responses would be local and the impacts are not supported by science

Manuela Truebano, Ph.D., Lecturer in Marine Biology at the Plymouth Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Et al., June 19, 2013, “Marine Renewables, Biodiversity and Fisheries,” Plymouth Marine Institute at Plymouth University, http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/ default/files/downloads/marine_ renewables_biodiver.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014

A decade after the Kyoto protocol, CO2 emissions continue to increase, as atmospheric levels cross the symbolic mark of 400 ppm. This is leading to increased temperature and CO2 levels (and consequently acidity of the oceans) with effects on ocean productivity, food web dynamics, abundance of habitat-forming species and species distributions. Globally, Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) will assist in the effort to reduce carbon emissions worldwide, thus mitigating climate change and minimising its effects on fish and benthic communities. However, the construction and operation of MRE devices, like any large-scale development, will inevitably result in changes to the marine environment on a local scale, which may induce responses in fish and benthos. These responses are likely to have both positive and negative effects on individuals and communities on a local scale, but it is not clear that the documented responses lead to negative, long-term impacts at the population level.

Coal for electricity places the entire planet at risk and should be displaced by clean energy sources

Union of Concerned Scientists, staff writer, January 14, 2014, “Smart Energy Solutions: Decrease Coal Use,”

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/decrease-coal/, Accessed 5/2/2014

Coal is a dirty energy source. It pollutes our environment with toxins, produces a quarter of U.S. global warming emissions, and accounts for a whopping 80 percent of all carbon emissions produced by power generation nationwide. When we burn coal for electricity, we place our health, our environment, and our planet at risk. It’s time to reduce our dependence on this polluting energy source. There are nearly 600 coal-fired power plants operating in the United States today, producing almost half of the nation’s electricity. To decrease our reliance on coal, we must shut down the oldest and dirtiest coal plants and replace them with reliable and clean energy sources.  UCS experts work to analyze practical, cost-effective strategies for lowering America’s coal use—and have consistently demonstrated that closing down the dirtiest coal-fired power plants would not adversely effect the reliability of our electricity supply, nor would it significantly increase the cost of electricity for consumers.

Marine renewables emit substantially less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels

Peter J. Schaumberg, counsel and Ami M. Grace-Tardy, associate, both with Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., Winter 2010, “The Dawn of Federal Marine Renewable Energy Development,” Natural Resources & Environment, Vol. 24, No. 3, Accessed 4/28/2014, http://www.bdlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/2010%20The%20Dawn%20of%20Federal%20Marine%20Renewable%20Energy%20Development%20NRE%20P%20Schaumberg%20and%20A.%20Grace-Tardy.pdf

The potential environmental costs associated with marine renewable energy must be balanced with the environmental benefits of harnessing a renewable resource that emits substantially less greenhouse gases than traditional energy sources. Although marine renewable energy may likely have fewer negative environmental effects overall than traditional energy sources and will undoubtedly emit less greenhouse gases, this sector, like the traditional energy sector, must comply with a broad range of regulatory requirements before receiving government approval.

Fossil fuels for electricity causes huge emissions

Electricity generation from fossil fuels causes a huge amount of greenhouse emissions

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), January 27, 2014, Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants,” http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/learn-about-carbon-pollution-power-plants, Accessed 5/2/2014

The electric power sector accounted for 33% of U.S. total greenhouse gas emissions and 60% of U.S. stationary source greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. Fossil fuel-fired power plants are the largest source of U.S. CO2 emissions. Fossil fuel-fired power plants use natural gas, petroleum, coal or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such material for the purpose of generating electricity.

Using fossil fuels for electricity causes massive global warming emissions

Union of Concerned Scientists, staff writer, March 19, 2012, “Our Energy Choices,” http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_ energy/our-energy-choices/, Accessed 5/2/2014

Fossil fuels—coal, natural gas, and oil—produce most of our electricity but come with significant and harmful consequences. They produce the vast majority of global warming emissions. They release toxic chemicals that pollute our air and water. And they have adverse, and costly, effects on public health. Coal is the worst offender, a dirty, carbon-intensive fuel source that pollutes the air, fouls our environment, and single-handedly produces more than a quarter of U.S. global warming emissions. More on coal and other fossil fuels. Fossil fuels produce power through combustion, generating heat that is then converted to electricity.

Reduces fossil fuels / tidal energy

Tidal energy displaces fossil fuel dependence, which reduces greenhouse emissions

Ocean Energy Council, 2014, “Tidal Energy,” http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/, Accessed 4/9/2014

The demand for electricity on an electrical grid varies with the time of day. The supply of electricity from a tidal power plant will never match the demand on a system. But, due to the lunar cycle and gravity, tidal currents, although variable, are reliable and predictable and their power can make a valuable contribution to an electrical system which has a variety of sources. Tidal electricity can be used to displace electricity which would otherwise be generated by fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas) fired power plants, thus reducing emissions of greenhouse and acid gasses.

Expanding tidal energy development reduces the use and emissions from fossil fuels

Ocean Energy Council, 2014, “Tidal Energy,” http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/, Accessed 4/9/2014

Tidal energy is a renewable source of electricity which does not result in the emission of gases responsible for global warming or acid rain associated with fossil fuel generated electricity. Use of tidal energy could also decrease the need for nuclear power, with its associated radiation risks. Changing tidal flows by damming a bay or estuary could, however, result in negative impacts on aquatic and shoreline ecosystems, as well as navigation and recreation.

Impact Extension – Climate change

Climate change is anthropogenic and the biggest cause if fossil fuel emissions

J. Hansen, Earth Institute and Columbia University, Et al., 2013, “Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature,” PLoS ONE, 8(12): e81648, http://www.plosone.org/article/ info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648, Accessed 5/2/2014

Humans are now the main cause of changes of Earth’s atmospheric composition and thus the drive for future climate change. The principal climate forcing, defined as an imposed change of planetary energy balance, is increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel emissions, much of which will remain in the atmosphere for millennia. The climate response to this forcing and society’s response to climate change are complicated by the system’s inertia, mainly due to the ocean and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica together with the long residence time of fossil fuel carbon in the climate system. The inertia causes climate to appear to respond slowly to this human-made forcing, but further long-lasting responses can be locked in.

Climate change will erase civilization and history

Lesley Docksey, The Centre for Research on Globalization, September 29, 2013, “Climate Change and its Disastrous Impacts on Earth and Humanity,” Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-and-its-disastrous-impacts-on-earth-and-humanity/5342677, Accessed 5/2/2014

For most of our history human activity has harmed the earth that sustains us.  We are so proud of our intellectual achievements, our history of creating civilisations, yet almost all civilisations have depended on some form of energy use – the more advanced the civilisation, the more dependent it becomes on energy.  And civilisations have almost always included militarization, weapons and war.  But – imagine a future of no future, of no schools or universities, no musical instruments or theatres, no art, no writing, no research, no science.  All that will disappear if humanity is overwhelmed by climate change.  Then who will be left to mourn the silencing of Beethoven and Brahms? This isn’t just a problem for academicians.  It concerns all of us and our sense of history is a good place to start seeking an answer.  The thing about history is that it simply doesn’t exist if there is no one there to witness it, to record it, to remember what happened and, just as important, why.  And even with a record, if there is no one there to read it and understand it, no one to whom the knowledge can be passed, no children who can sit and listen to their elders tell the lore of their tribe, then history is dead.  Climate change may take away our future and without a future there is no past.

Unchecked climate change causes extinction

Ivan Molloy, Geology: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, July 6, 2012, “Rebuff to Climate Change Denial,” http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au/articles/article-display/rebuff-to-climate-change-denial,26302, Accessed 5/2/2014

As a former geologist I have to respond to those who deny human induced Climate Change. Yes its true the world’s climate and geomorphology have been continually changing throughout natural history providing favourable conditions for some forms of life at times, while extinguishing others. In recent geological time, the planet has provided favourable conditions for the flourishing of human life, which in turn like other forms of life also contributes to climate and geomorpholigical change. However, unlike no other form of life, the impact of modern human civilisation has greatly distorted and added to global climate change, and impacting heavily on flora and fauna. Human kind through massive over population and industrialisation is now like a cancer on the planet exterminating hundreds of other life species annually, and now it threatens its own survival with massive pollution. The Global Climate has always changed but not at such a massive rate due to human activity which in turn now threatens our survival. But other forms of life, such as cockroaches will continue on.