Warming

Overview
Overview: Runaway greenhouse coming now, we must cut
back emissions to avoid crossing the threshold runaway
greenhouse leads to extinction due to ozone destruction
and oxygen loss, and, independently, warming causes
extinction from ocean acidification due to death of marine
life.

AT: No Impact to Warming

Warming is the only existential threat guarantees
environmental destruction through sea level rise, oxygen loss,
desertification, and ozone destruction thats Brandenberg.
They dropped the impact to ocean acidicification thats
another extinction scenario
Their evidence is not specific to offshore wind. Onshore
wind needs backup generators because of the
inconsistency of wind on land. Extend Thaler 12 that says
wind is 90% stronger of water than over land, meaning
that OSW wont need backups. osw isnt intermittent
(--) Wind energy achievable and requires no Fossil Fuels
Fischetti 13 (Mark Fischetti, Science writer and Senior editor for Scientific
American, 4/15/14, How to Power the World without Fossil Fuels, Scientific
American,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-power-the-world/,
mgsk-sd)
Jacobson has gone out on the same limb. In 2009 he and co-author Mark Delucchi published a
showed how the entire world could get all of its
energyfuel as well as electricityfrom wind, water and solar sources by 2030. No coal
or oil, no nuclear or natural gas . The tale sounded infeasibleexcept that Jacobson, from Stanford
Three times now, Mark

cover story in Scientific American that

University, and Delucchi, from the University of California, Davis, calculated just how many hydroelectric dams, waveenergy systems, wind turbines, solar power plants and rooftop photovoltaic installations the world would need to run itself
completely on renewable energy. The article sparked a spirited debate on our Web site, and it also sparked a larger debate
between forward-looking energy planners and those who would rather preserve the status quo. The duo went on to
publish a detailed study in the journal Energy Policy that also called out numbers for a U.S. strategy. Two weeks ago

This time Jacobson showed in much finer

detail how New York States residential, transportation, industrial, and heating and
cooling sectors could all be powered by wind, water and sun, or WWS, as he calls it.
Jacobson and a larger team, including Delucchi, did it again.

His mix: 40 percent offshore wind (12,700 turbines), 10 percent onshore wind (4,020 turbines), 10 percent concentrated
solar panels (387 power plants), 10 percent photovoltaic cells (828 facilities), 6 percent residential solar (five million
rooftops), 12 percent government and commercial solar (500,000 rooftops), 5 percent geothermal (36 plants), 5.5 percent
hydroelectric (6.6 large facilities), 1 percent tidal energy (2,600 turbines) and 0.5 percent wave energy (1,910 devices). In

New York would reduce power demand by 37 percent , largely because

the new energy sources are more efficient than the old ones. And because no fossil fuels
would have to be purchased or burned , consumer costs would be similar to what they are today,
and the state would eliminate a huge portion of its carbon dioxide emissions. New York
the process,

State could end fossil fuel use and generate all of its energy from wind, water and solar power, according to Mark
Jacobson. The New York Times heralded the study as scientifically groundbreaking and practically impossible. But this time
Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, is digging in. He took his analysis a step further and found a
surprising way to sell his plan. And hes close to finishing a similar study for California, which will lend more depth to his
vision. I asked Jacobson why hes out to change the world, how he answers his critics and what it will take for his plans to
get traction in government.

2AC
1. Policy comes first- its key to cost benefit analysis and
topic specific education
a. Alts without an agent should be rejected- they make
debating the alt impossible
b. They need a specific action- comparing consequences
of actions are good; theyre key to decisionmaking skills
2. Ontological focus is badits subjective, non-falsifiable,
and authoritarian
Graham, 99 Phil Graham, Graduate School of Management , University of
Queensland, Heideggers Hippies: A dissenting voice on the problem of the
subject in cyberspace, Identities in Action! 1999,
http://www.philgraham.net/HH_conf.pdf

Of course, the problem of the subject is not specific to the information age. Indeed, it found

The power of
abstraction reached new levels when Heraclitus concentrated attention on
the knowing of things rather than the thing known. As thought constitutes the
thinker it controls phenomena. Since thought controls all things the universe was
intelligible. The whole was a perpetual flux of change. The cosmos was the
dynamics of existence. Being was a perpetual becoming. In attempting to meet the
problem of correlating being and becoming or space and time Parmenides
declared the two mutually exclusive and that only being was real. His
philosophical absolute was the unshaken heart of wellrounded truth . (Innis
1951: 111) To state their positions more succinctly: Heraclitus maintained that
everything changes: Parmenides retorted that nothing changes (Russell 1946: 66).
Between them, they delineated the dialectical extremes within which the problem
of the subject has become manifest: in the Identities in Action! 4 extremes
of questions about ontology, the nature of Being, or existence, or Existenz
(Adorno 1973: 110-25). Historically, such arguments tend towards internalist hocus
pocus: The popular success of ontology feeds on an illusion : that the state of
the intentio recta might simply be chosen by a consciousness full of
nominalist and subjective sediments, a consciousness which self-reflection
alone has made what it is. But Heidegger, of course, saw through this illusion
beyond subject and object, beyond concept and entity. Being is the supreme concept for on
the lips of him who says Being is the word, not Being itself and yet it is
said to be privileged above all conceptuality, by virtue of moments which the
thinker thinks along with the word Being and which the abstractly obtained
significative unity of the concept does not exhaust . (Adorno 1973: 69) Adornos
its roots, like most recurring philosophical problems, in ancient Greece:

(1973) thoroughgoing critique of Heideggers ontological metaphysics plays itself out back
and forth through the Heideggerian concept of a universalised identity an essentialist,
universalised being and becoming of consciousness, elided from the constraints of the social

there can be no universal theory of

being in and of itself because what such a theory posits is, precisely, nonidentity. It obscures the role of the social and promotes a specific kind of
politics identity politics (cf. also Kennedy 1998): Devoid of its otherness, of what it
world. Adornos argument can be summed up thus:

renders extraneous, an existence which thus proclaims itself the criterion of thought will

its decrees in authoritarian style, as in political practice a dictator

validates the ideology of the day. The reduction of thought to the thinkers
halts the progress of thought; it brings to a standstill would thought would
need to be thought, and what subjectivity would need to live in. As the solid
ground of truth, subjectivity is reified Thinking becomes what the thinker has
been from the start. It becomes tautology, a regressive form of
consciousness. (Adorno 1973: 128). Identity politics - the ontological imperative is inherently authoritarian precisely because it promotes regression,
internalism, subjectivism, and, most importantly, because it negates the role
of society. It is simplistic because it focuses on the thingliness of people: race, gender,
ethnicity. It tries to resolve the tension of the social-individual by smashing the
problem into two irreconcilable parts. Identity politics current popularity in
validate

sociological thought, most wellevidenced by its use and popularity in Third Way politics,

can be traced back to a cohort I have called Heideggers Hippies the failed, halfhearted, would-be revolutionaries of the 60s, an incoherent collection of
middle-class, neo-liberal malcontents who got caught up in their own

hyperbole, and who are now the administrators of a totally administered

society in which hyperbole has become both lingua franca and world currency
(Adorno 1964/1973 1973)

3. You cant solve the root cause of war deterrence key

to empirically reduce its likelihood
Moore 4 Dir. Center for Security Law @ University of
Virginia, 7-time Presidential appointee, & Honorary
Editor of the American Journal of International Law,
Solving the War Puzzle: Beyond the Democratic Peace,
John Norton Moore, pages 41-2.
If major interstate war is predominantly a product of a synergy between a potential nondemocratic aggressor and an absence of

the

traditional "causes" of war

effective deterrence, what is the role of

many
? Past, and many
contemporary, theories of war have focused on the role of specific disputes between nations, ethnic and religious differences,
arms races, poverty or social injustice, competition for resources, incidents and accidents, greed, fear, and perceptions of

may well play a

role in motivating aggression or in serving as a means for generating fear and manipulating public
opinion. The reality , however, is that while some of these may have more potential to contribute to war than
others, there may well be an infinite set of motivating factors , or human
wants, motivating aggression. It is not the independent existence of such
motivating factors for war but rather the circumstances permitting
or encouraging high risk decisions leading to war that is the key to more
effectively controlling war . And the same may also be true of democide. The early focus in the Rwanda
"honor," or many other such factors. Such factors

slaughter on "ethnic conflict," as though Hutus and Tutsis had begun to slaughter each other through spontaneous combustion,
distracted our attention from the reality that a nondemocratic Hutu regime had carefully planned and orchestrated a genocide

if we were able to press a

button and end poverty, racism, religious intolerance, injustice,
and endless disputes, we would want to do so. Indeed, democratic governments
against Rwandan Tutsis as well as its Hutu opponents.I1 Certainly

must remain committed to policies that will produce a better world by all measures of human progress. The broader achievement

No one , however, has yet been able

to demonstrate the kind of robust correlation with any of these
"traditional" causes o f war as is reflected in the "democratic peace." Further, given
the difficulties in overcoming many of these social problems, an
approach to war exclusively dependent on their solution may be
to doom us to war for generations to come. A useful framework in thinking about the war puzzle is provided in
of democracy and the rule of law will itself assist in this progress.

the Kenneth Waltz classic Man, the State, and War,12 fi rst published in 1954 for the Institute of War and Peace Studies, in which
he notes that previous thinkers about the causes of war have tended to assign responsibility at one of the three levels of
individual psychology, the nature of the state, or the nature of the international system. This tripartite level of analysis has
subsequently been widely copied in the study of international relations. We might summarize my analysis in this classical
construct by suggesting that the most critical variables are the second and third levels, or "images," of analysis. Government
structures, at the second level, seem to play a central role in levels of aggressiveness in high risk behavior leading to major war.
In this, the "democratic peace" is an essential insight. The third level of analysis, the international system, or totality of external
incentives influencing the decision for war, is also critical when government structures do not restrain such high risk behavior on
their own. Indeed, nondemocratic systems may not only fail to constrain inappropriate aggressive behavior, they may even
massively enable it by placing the resources of the state at the disposal of a ruthless regime elite. It is not that the fi rst level of
analysis, the individual, is unimportant. I have already argued that it is important in elite perceptions about the permissibility and
feasibility of force and resultant necessary levels of deterrence. It is, instead, that the second level of analysis, government
structures, may be a powerful proxy for settings bringing to power those who may be disposed to aggressive military adventures
and in creating incentive structures predisposing to high risk behavior. We should keep before us, however, the possibility, indeed
probability, that a war/peace model focused on democracy and deterrence might be further usefully refined by adding
psychological profiles of particular leaders, and systematically applying other findings of cognitive psychology, as we assess the
likelihood of aggression and levels of necessary deterrence in context. A post-Gulf War edition of Gordon Craig and Alexander
George's classic, Force and Statecraft,13 presents an important discussion of the inability of the pre-war coercive diplomacy effort
to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait without war.14 This discussion, by two of the recognized masters of deterrence
theory, reminds us of the many important psychological and other factors operating at the individual level of analysis that may
well have been crucial in that failure to get Hussein to withdraw without war. We should also remember that nondemocracies can
have differences between leaders as to the necessity or usefulness of force and, as Marcus Aurelius should remind us, not all
absolute leaders are Caligulas or Neros. Further, the history of ancient Egypt reminds us that not all Pharaohs were disposed to
make war on their neighbors. Despite the importance of individual leaders, however, we should also keep before us
that

major international war is predominantly and critically an interaction , or synergy, of

of democracy and an absence

of effective deterrence. Yet another way to conceptualize the importance of
democracy and deterrence in war avoidance is to note that each in its own way internalizes the
costs to decision elites of engaging in high risk aggressive behavior .
certain characteristics at levels two and three, specifically an absence

Democracy internalizes these costs in a variety of ways including displeasure of the electorate at having war imposed upon it by
its own government. And deterrence either prevents achievement of the objective altogether or imposes punishing costs making
the gamble not worth the risk.I5 VI Testing the Hypothesis Theory without truth is but costly entertainment. HYPOTHESES, OR
PARADIGMS, are useful if they reflect the real world better than previously held paradigms. In the complex world of foreign affairs

perfection is unlikely . No general construct will fit all

cases even in the restricted category of "major interstate war"; there are simply too many variables. We should
insist , however, on testing against the real world and on results that suggest enhanced
usefulness over other constructs. In testing the hypothesis , we can test it for consistency with
major wars ; that is, in looking, for example, at the principal interstate wars in the
twentieth century, did they present both a nondemocratic aggressor and an absence
of effective deterrence ?' And although it is by itself not going to prove causation, we might
also want to test t he hypothesis against settings of potential wars that did not
occur . That is, in nonwar settings, was there an absence of at least one element of the synergy? We might also ask questions
and the war puzzle,

about the effect of changes on the international system in either element of the synergy; that is, what, in general, happens when
a totalitarian state makes a transition to stable democracy or vice versa? And what, in general, happens when levels of
deterrence are dramatically increased or decreased?

4. Permutation- do both the aff does not endorse a securitized

vision of the world- the plan is a non-military mission to
provide incentives for wind farms not at all securitized
5. Alt fails cooption political engagement key
McCormack, 10 [Tara, is Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Leicester and has
a PhD in International Relations from the University of Westminster. 2010, (Critique, Security and Power:
The political limits to emancipatory approaches, page 137-138]
In chapter 7 I engaged with the human security framework and some of the problematic implications of

the shift away from

the pluralist security framework and the elevation of cosmopolitan and emancipatory
goals has served to enforce international power inequalities rather
than lessen them . Weak or unstable states are subjected to greater
international scrutiny and international institutions and other states have greater
freedom to intervene, but the citizens of these states have no way of
controlling or influencing these international institutions or powerful
states. This shift away from the pluralist security framework has not
challenged the status quo , which may help to explain why major international
institutions and states can easily adopt a more cosmopolitan
rhetoric in their security policies. As we have seen, the shift away from the pluralist
emancipatory security policy frameworks. In this chapter I argued that

security framework has entailed a shift towards a more openly hierarchical international system, in which
states are differentiated according to, for example, their ability to provide human security for their citizens
or their supposed democratic commitments. In this shift, the old pluralist international norms of (formal)
international sovereign equality, non-intervention and blindness to the content of a state are overturned.
Instead, international institutions and states have more freedom to intervene in weak or unstable states in

theorists
argue that the goal of the emancipation of the individual means that
security must be reconceptualised away from the state. As the domestic
order to protect and emancipate individuals globally. Critical and emancipatory security

sphere is understood to be the sphere of insecurity and disorder, the international sphere represents

Tickner argues, if security is to start with

the individual, its ties to state sovereignty must be severed (1995: 189).
greater emancipatory possibilities, as

For critical and emancipatory theorists there must be a shift towards a cosmopolitan legal framework, for

For critical
theorists, one of the fundamental problems with Realism is that it is
unrealistic. Because it prioritises order and the existing status quo, Realism attempts to
impose a particular security framework onto a complex world ,
ignoring the myriad threats to people emerging from their own
governments and societies. Moreover, traditional international theory serves to obscure
example Mary Kaldor (2001: 10), Martin Shaw (2003: 104) and Andrew Linklater (2005).

power relations and omits a study of why the system is as it is: [O]mitting myriad strands of power
amounts to exaggerating the simplicity of the entire political system. Todays conventional portrait of
international politics thus too often ends up looking like a Superman comic strip, whereas it probably
should resemble a Jackson Pollock. (Enloe, 2002 [1996]: 189) Yet as I have argued, contemporary critical

theorists seem to show a marked lack of engagement with their

problematic (whether the international security context, or the Yugoslav break-up and wars).
Without concrete engagement and analysis, however, the critical
project is undermined and critical theory becomes nothing more
than a request that people behave in a nicer way to each other .
Furthermore, whilst contemporary critical security theorists argue that they
present a more realistic image of the world, through exposing power
relations, for example, their lack of concrete analysis of the problematic
considered renders them actually unable to engage with existing
power structures and the way in which power is being exercised in
the contemporary international system. For critical and emancipatory theorists the
security

central place of the values of the theorist mean that it cannot fulfil its promise to critically engage with
contemporary power relations and emancipatory possibilities. Values must be joined with engagement with
the material circumstances of the time.

6. Their call to step back and think is philosophically

counterproductive creative and active engagements
with the world are far more authentic than their
alternative
Harman, 2005 (Graham, critically acclaimed Heidegger scholar who
spent 10 years reading everything Heidegger wrote [even in German,]
Associate Provost for Research Administration at the American University of
Cairo, Guerrilla Metaphysics: Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things,
p. 238-241)
What must be rejected from the start is the prevailing model of humans as transcending or negating the world, as critics who break loose from animal bondage and
stand in a windy, starry space of freedom. We should be equally suspicious of those hermeneutic versions of critique that merely add the caveat that perfect
transcendence is impossible. For even when this proviso is added, it is still a question of trying to rise above what is taken for granted and seeing it "as" what it is.

a kind of critical thinking less attached to the world than other

mocking
the triviality of "ontic" acts, dismissing major political and scientific events as beneath
their attention, perhaps even forbidding their children to read newspapers due to the merely superficial, ontic character of journalism. Others
enact critical thinking by challenging their peers to endless oral disputes , assertively poking holes in each
other's argumentation, competing to free themselves ever more decisively than their rivals from all naive
presupposition-the sort of pushy, clambering atmosphere that would have crushed such melancholic loners as Plato and Spinoza. Indeed, there are
many who think that philosophy amounts to nothing more than this: the ability to knock down
all comers. In one sense, critical thinking deserves praise for acting as a cor rosive fluid on dogmatic tradition, and our educational
institutions must encourage this skill at the introductory level. But at a later stage it easily becomes counterproductive, for there is a
Both models support the peda gogically influential idea that philosophy is

modes of dealing with objects, a style of cognition opposed to the gullibility of the unreflective. Some people put this model of philosophy to work by

sense in which the great thinkers are always far more childlike and gullible, far more involved with some mesmerizing central idea than all of the wary,
uncommitted, replaceable critics. For

contrary to popular belief, it is not philosophers, but only ironists,

hipsters, lizards, and cows who remain relatively free of fascination with the world around them and reduce to
dust whatever they might criticize or even eat, converting all objects into terms com mensurate with themselves. To be a critic is to eat
transgressors, blase

the world, leaving no seed left over to blossom in the spring. This is not to say that only philosophers are able to avoid this tempta tion, since it is not a lower form

What distinguishes
humans from animals is not some sort of critical distance from our surroundings, but rather an expansive fascination with all domestic
and exotic things; no animal knows the gullible attach ment to things that humans enact in the practice of religion or the labor of designing a submarine. We are
of human who devotes herself to chem istry, opera, sports leagues, epic poems, fashion shows, or petroleum commodities.

not more critical than animals, but more object-oriented, filling our minds with all present and absent objects, all geographical and astronomical places, all species
of animal, all flavors of juice, all players from the history of baseball, all living and dead languages. We do not remain in the holistic prisons of our own lives where

face outward toward a cosmos speckled with independent campfires and black
holes, packed full with objects that generate their own private laws and both welcome and resist our
attempts to gain information. We even devote endless fascination to objects that turn out not to exist-empty fears, phantoms, rickety
things are fully unified by their significance for us, but

theories, cartoon characters, false friends, glacial highland monsters. No animal is ever duped or hypnotized as deeply as we ourselves can be. If we are critics and
analysts, then we analyze only in order to gullibilize ourselves still further, inserting ourselves into worthier forms of naivete than before. As we develop we become

The
distinction between critique and fascination is no mere toying with words, but suggests a very different
style of philosophy from the more popular model of critical/analytical thought-a kind of constructive
thinking. While it is certainly better to train students to pick apart flaws in argu ments than to leave them as easy prey for sophistry and propaganda, these
are not the only two options, and both are too easy to improve us as thinkers. What we really need are not more critical
readers, but more vulnerable ones, readers so hungry for the unexpected that they can
"recognize a good [idea] when they see [it], 21 to paraphrase William James's view of the essence of higher education. But this
more innocent and more fascinated, not less so. This may be the ultimate lesson of the famous three metamorphoses of Nietzsche's Zarathustra.

implies the rare ability to become dissatisfied with the dominant trench warfare of one's own age. For this reason, when asked by friends to define philosophy, I
have taken to saying that philosophy means to find ideas that bore us and invent ways to make them obsolete. But this is difficult, and requires as much scrupu lous
respect for reality as the construction of bridges and power plants whose failure would result in the deaths of thousands. It cannot be allowed to degenerate into a
kind of ultra-hip mannerism.22 There is now available a useful English edition of the early reviews of Kant's Critique ofPure Reason, which are shocking in their
ability to miss the point. Reading these reviews we discover numerous reasonable criti cisms of Kant that persist to this day, and even a number of discerning
compliments. Yet none of the first reviewers is able to recognize the revo lutionary kernel in Kant's now idolized book. There is plenty of "critical thinking" at work
in these reviews; the authors are not fools. Their chief deficiency is subtler than this-they simply overlook the surprising treasure that lies before them, and enlist
Kant's book into the existing leaden-paced trench warfare between well-known opponents that dominated their era as it does every era. Put differently: the
reviewers had too little capacity for surprise, a capacity that Paul Berman has recently identified with wisdom itself. 23 Wisdom means the ability to be surprised
because only this ability shows sufficient integrity to listen to the voice of the world instead of our own prejudice about the world, a goal that eludes even the wisest

While the critical intellect surveys the land from its lofty tower ,
punishing gaffes and discrepancies wherever it finds them, only inventive thinking is
able to be surprised, because only such thinking stays in close contact with the contours
of the world, listening closely and in silence to its mysterious intermittent signals. Somewhere, Santayana writes that laughter and worship are the two
of humans a good deal of the time.

things that take us beyond the boundaries of this world. I would say the opposite: that laughter and worship are what bind us to the world more tightly than

thinking as a whole, which, cements us to the universe rather than freeing us

from it, since freedom really occurs only in the self-aborption of laziness, indifference, selfishness,
or animal need. In this sense, any engineer who invents a new electronic device is already far more of a
thinker than the critical Heideggerian intellectual who complains vaguely that we should
"stop and think" before using the tool. If the machine in question is truly an abominable
invention, then it is best opposed not by some anemic critical proofreading of its possible misdeeds, but
rather by a compelling invocation of all the counter machinery threatened by the new device
(marshland, folk dances, the autonomy of local farmers). For similar reasons, it is a weak criticism of a historical work to
com plain loosely that it has not "proven" all of its claims ; a stronger critique would be to summon up all of the
anything else. The same holds for

major historical actors that were down played or omitted in the historian's account. Likewise, it is relatively fruit less to scan through a philosopher's book and
expose its numerous redundancies and non sequiturs as analytic philosophy trains us to do; far more devastating is to place before the reader a series of questions
that the philosopher never posed, the neighboring ideas never ventured, the ignored new alternatives never considered, or the simple predictability, nit picking
tedium, and lack of gambler's spirit in the work lying before us. While relatively few books are hopelessly riddled with errors, numerous books are too boring to be

What is most important is never critique, but invention

worth our time.

and counter invention. As Michel Serres puts
it: "philosophy is an anticipation of future thoughts and practices . . . Not only must philosophy invent, but it also invents the common ground for future

To invent always means to put oneself in motion

along with what is invented, to hitch oneself to the wagon wherever it goes, to travel elsewhere than one was. By contrast, to
critique without innovating implies that we remain where we already stand and merely
chop down the trees planted by others, the reactionary gesture par excellence. If
enlightenment was once a matter of debunking traditional pieties, it should now be a
matter of creating new ones-not arbitrarily, but rigorously and in accordance with the demands of the tectonic
inventions. Its function is to invent the conditions of invention. 24

plates of the world. Unfortunately, there are moments when it seems that the most treasured whipping boy of the critical intellectual is still the Wizard of Oz, the
hypocritical zero who manipulates the world with illusions until his curtain is finally torn to shreds and his deceptions exposed. While such debunking may be
necessary work at times, we should not forget that it is mainly the work of dogs (cynics, to say it in Greek). And instead of releasing seven hundred dogs from the

city pound to tear away even more curtains and expose ever more frauds by the mighty, the work of the thinker should be to find the counter-wizard, or to pave the
way for him oneself.

7. Life outweighs value to life

Kateb, Professor of Politics at Princeton University, 92
(George, The Inner Ocean, pg. 141)
But neither of these responses will do in the nuclear situation. To affirm
existence as such is to go beyond good and evil; it is to will its perpetual
prolongation for no particular reason. To affirm existence is not to praise it or love
it or find it good. These responses are no more defensible than their contrariesno
more defensible than calling existence absurd, or meaningless, or worthless. All
such responses are appropriate only for particulars. Existence does not have

systemic attributes amenable to univocal judgments. At least some of us cannot accept the
validity of revelation, or play on ourselves the trick of regarding existence as if it were the
designed work of a personal God, or presume to call it good, and bless it as if it were the
existence we would have created if we had the power, and think that it therefore deserves to
exist and is justifiable just as it is. No: these argumentative moves are bad moves; they are

The hope is to go beyond the need for reasons, to go beyond

the need for justifying existence, and in doing so to strengthen, not weaken, one's
attachment. Earthly existence must be preserved whatever we are able or unable
to say about it. There is no other human and natural existence. The alternative is
earthly nothingness. Things are better than nothing; anything is better than nothing.
hopeless stratagems.

T-its

2AC- T its
We meetThe United States federal government is taking
a risk and building offshore wind farms. Without tax
incentives, the wind farms wont even exist
We meetand CI: Tax credits are defined as federal
development
Walsh 13 (Kevin, Law Clerk for the Superior Court of Connecticut, 20122013 term; LLM in Taxation Candidate, New York University School of Law,
2013-2014; J.D., Suffolk University Law School, Renewable Energy Financial
Incentives: Focusing on Federal Tax Credits and the Section 1603 Cash Grant:
Barriers to Development, University of California, Davis, 36.2)
Something that is federal encompasses not only actions by the
federal government, but also actions by nonfederal actors with
effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to
Federal control and responsibility.109 Further, the distinguishing
feature of federal involvement is the ability to influence or control
the outcome in material respects.110 Renewable energy
developments that take federal tax credits/grants appear to qualify
as federal projects. Without the federal tax credit/grant,
renewable energy projects would not be financially attractive for
investors. This would lead to a lack of sufficient funding for renewable energy
construction. Therefore, the federal government affects the outcome of
renewable energy development through the availability of tax
credits/grants. Hence, when the federal government provides a tax
credit/grant for a renewable energy project, the project qualifies as
a federal project.

Prefer this interpretation- it provides a clear brightline to

the topic
Walsh 13 (Kevin, Law Clerk for the Superior Court of Connecticut, 20122013 term; LLM in Taxation Candidate, New York University School of Law,
2013-2014; J.D., Suffolk University Law School, Renewable Energy Financial
Incentives: Focusing on Federal Tax Credits and the Section 1603 Cash Grant:
Barriers to Development, University of California, Davis, 36.2)
If a tax credit/grant is not used, however, then the only way a renewable
energy development can be deemed federal is if it is subject to
federal responsibility or control. Most of the federal regulations for
renewable energy relate to renewable energy consumption. These
regulations do not apply. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005
mandates renewable energy consumption requirements for federal
buildings.111

Its isnt strict on direct ownership:

Merriam Webster 14 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its
Its relating to or belonging to a certain thing, animal, etc. : made or done by a
certain thing, animal, etc.

Prefer this interpretation--Aff ground all federal ocean development is contracted

out to private companies the neg overlimits the topic by
excluding one half of the topic---that kills AFF innovation
and flexibility
Vague plans- they force us to read vague plans about
exploration- this causes PICs and competition debates
which are net worse for neg ground and education
Reasonability good is good enough -- competing interps
cause a race to the bottom
Functional limits and lit check abuse -- no one would run
the small affs they talk about

Politics
1. Case outweighs and turns the DA Manufacturing is
key to trade. If it collapses, we wont have anything to
trade, which turns the impact.
2. Democrats are blocking the trade deals they dont
have the votes to get it done
Walsh 5/8/15 (Deirdre, CNN News, "Democrats Work Against Obama on
Trade")
A major test comes Tuesday in the Senate with a vote on whether to begin
debate on the fast-track bill, known formally as Trade Promotional Authority
or TPA. The outcome is uncertain because Republicans who control the
chamber need help from several Democrats to get the 60 votes they need to
take up the bill and Democrats appear to be balking. "We need 15 or
more Democratic votes," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the top vote counter
for Senate Republicans. "We're not unanimously, on our side, in support of it.
So this is a priority of the President so that comes with an obligation for him
to work on members of his own party to produce the votes." RELATED:
Obama sells trade deal to House Democrats Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, who
handles wrangling Democratic votes, thought Cornyn was inflating the
number of Democratic votes Republicans would need, but predicted between
three and six Republicans would vote no. While Republicans are typically
pro-trade, some GOP senators, especially those up for re-election in states
where jobs have moved overseas, may vote against it. One example is Sen.
Richard Burr. A reliable Republican voter on most issues, Burr -- up for reelection -- has seen many textile jobs leave his state of North Carolina in
recent years. He voted against fast-track authority when it was considered in
committee. While many congressional Democrats vehemently oppose big
trade bills as job killers, seven Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee
voted for the measure. Most are from states with large shipping ports where
international trade is a mainstay. Adding to the uncertainty over Tuesday's
vote, Democratic leaders are insisting Republicans agree to package the fasttrack bill with three other trade bills that include Trade Adjustment
Assistance, which would help American workers displaced by international
trade, as well as provisions dealing with the enforcement of trade deals.
"The enforcement provisions that a lot of our colleagues feel is important
because a lot of previous deals haven't been enforced.," said Sen. Chuck
Schumer of New York, a Democratic leader. "I think there is a large feeling in
our caucus that we want those four put together before we move forward."
RELATED: Boehner says Obama needs Hillary Clinton on trade In fact, Sen.
Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the finance committee and a cosponsor of the legislation, urged Democrats in a private caucus meeting
Thursday not to take up his bill unless there is a deal with Republicans to do
all four bills, according to a person familiar with the session.

3. TPA wont pass the oil exports rider will cause the
debate to be MUCH more contentious
Foran 5/7/15 (Clare, "Oil Exports Could Become New Hurdle for Obama's
Trade Deal")
Get ready for the possibility of another controversial political ingredient
entering the debate over trade legislation: the oil export ban. Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski will
introduce legislation to end the oil export ban next week, and suggested it
could move as an amendment to the upcoming trade bill. Murkowski has
long been a vocal advocate of lifting the ban. But the standalone bill will mark
the start of an intensified push by the chairman to fundamentally alter the
decades-old policy barring the sale of most U.S. oil abroad. Laying out her
thinking during a meeting with reporters, Murkowski said she believes the
export bill could advance on its own, as an amendment to another piece of
legislation such as the so-called "fast-track" deal that would grant Congress
an up-or-down vote on international trade agreements negotiated by the
White House, or as part of a broader energy package that the Senate panel is
currently working to formulate. "We will be taking up the trade promotion
issue theoretically next week. When you talk about oil exports, that's
certainly in the realm of trade," Murkowski said, noting that bringing up the
issue during the trade debate would create "a great talking opportunity at a
minimum." "I'm going to be looking for every opportunity where we might
have to advance it," Murkowski said, though she also conceded that, "there
may not be any opportunity for amendment on the trade bill." If Murkowski
ties legislation ending the export ban to the "fast-track" bill, which faces
intense opposition from many Democrats, it could make the push to pass
trade promotion authority even more contentious. Democrats, labor, and
environmental groups strongly oppose the trade legislation, saying it would
pave the way for Obama to finalize a trade deal that will hurt American
workers and the environment. The politics of lifting the export ban also are
tricky. The issue has divided Republicans in the past, and many senators are
wary of lifting the ban for fear that it could cause gasoline prices to spike. A
spate of recently-released studies, including research from the nonpartisan
advocacy group Resources for the Future, suggest that lifting the would
actually cause gas prices to go down.

4. Political oppositions over the plans a massive win

Conathan 13, Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the
Center for American Progress, Making the Economic Case for Offshore Wind,
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/02/28/54988/makingthe-economic-case-for-offshore-wind/
The current state of offshore wind in the United States
The U.S. offshore wind industry is emerging from the political doldrums
that derailed its early days, and finding champions such as Sen. Carper in
the process. Sen. Collins has championed funding for a deepwater offshore

wind development project in her home state of Maine, and has taken over as
lead co-sponsor of Sen. Carpers bill following the retirement of her former
colleague, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Governors such as Marylands Martin
OMalley (D) have prioritized offshore wind development as well. They view it
as a political victory on multiple fronts: creating jobs in construction,
operation, and maintenance; contributing to a diverse energy portfolio; and
moving them closer to renewable energy targets and away from polluting
fossil fuels.

7. Politics is not an opportunity cost to the plan- a logical

policy maker could pass both the plan and the politics daproves that both should not be logically compared to each
other if they are both good ideas.
8. Reid blocking TPA now
Fox News 5/5/15 ("Reid Throws Barkes on Obama Trade Push")
Illustrating this challenge, Reid told The Huffington Post he now wants the Senate to put the trade bid on
hold, until the chamber first deals with an infrastructure bill and proposed surveillance reforms. " We

have two very complicated issues that I think should have strong
consideration before we even deal with trade ," Reid said in the interview. He
reportedly said he's spoken with Democratic colleagues about banding
together to ensure those two bills are addressed before moving forward on
trade. "I'm not willing to lay over and play dead on trade until we have some
commitment from them on surface transportation," he told The Huffington Post.

States

2AC (1:50)
1. Extend Traub 12 and Savitz 12 Only US federal
government tax credits are key to global spillover and
solving offshore wind
2. Perm do both shields the link to politics
Overby 3 Professor of Law, Tulane University School of Law,
(Brooke, Our New Commercial Law Federalism. Temple University of the
Commonwealth System of Higher Education Temple Law Review, Summer, 76
Temp. L. Rev. 297 Lexis)
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress
cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States' officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring
the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a
federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is
necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.n65 The concerns articulated
in New York and echoed again in Printz addressed the erosion of the lines of political accountability that could result from federal

Federal authority to compel implementation of a national

legislative agenda through the state legislatures or officers would
blur or launder the federal provenance of the legislation and shift
political consequences and costs thereof to the state legislators. Left
unchecked, Congress could foist upon the states expensive or unpopular
programs yet shield itself from accountability to citizen s. While drawing the line
commandeering.n66

between constitutionally permissible optional implementation and impermissible mandatory implementation does not erase these concerns
with accountability, it does ameliorate them slightly.

3. Federal preemption of states restrictions on offshore

wind establishes a federal commitment to solve warming,
spills over, generates expertise. The framework alone
solves.
EBERHARDT 06 B.A., 1998, Swarthmore (Biology); M.F.S., 2001, Harvard;
J.D. Candidate, 2006, New York University School of Law. Senior Notes Editor,
2005-2006, New York University Environmental Law Journal [Robert W.
Eberhardt, FEDERALISM AND THE SITING OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
FACILITIES, New York University Environmental Law Journal, 14 N.Y.U. Envtl.
L.J. 374]
Since the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ("UNFCCC") in 1992, the
international community has committed itself to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system" resulting from emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. n138 The Kyoto
Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005, starting the latest chapter in international climate
change mitigation efforts, with most industrialized countries (with the notable exception of the United
States) committing to binding net emissions reduction targets during the first commitment period of 20082012. n139 Major challenges loom ahead, including - given the sheer scale of the efforts required to
stabilize atmospheric concentrations at safe levels - the need to adopt comprehensive, large-scale

The decarbonization of electricity generation , including

represents one
central climate change mitigation strategy. n141
mitigation strategies quickly. n140

the large-scale adoption of renewable technologies like offshore wind energy,

Greenhouse gas emissions reductions thus represent one of the principle

environmental benefits associated with the development of an offshore wind energy facility.
As with conventional air pollutants, actual greenhouse gas emissions reductions that would result from the
development of a facility would depend on the identity of the displaced existing or alternative competitors,

which in turn would depend on the geographic scope of a facility's wholesale electricity market, the terms
of the power purchase agreement for the facility and competing generators, and overall electricity
demand. n142 As an example,

a study conducted as part of the environmental review [*407] process

for Cape Wind notes that, had the facility been in operation during 2000, regional
carbon dioxide emissions would have been reduced by 949,000 tons . n143
Beyond actual emissions reductions, the development of individual facilities
would build expertise in the energy industry, which potentially would reduce
the costs associated with the development of additional facilities that in turn
could generate future emissions reductions. n144
The potential environmental benefits associated with climate change mitigation raise somewhat distinct
questions about the theoretical justifications for state environmental regulation of offshore wind energy
facilities. First, because greenhouse gases disperse evenly in the atmosphere and climate change stands
to affect local environments in locations across the country, climate change clearly is an environmental

Emissions reductions resulting from the development

of a facility have the potential to generate positive horizontal spillovers , and
concern of national dimensions.

thus a state-based siting regime could lead to the construction of fewer facilities than justified by efficiency
criteria. n145 This could justify national regulations with a preemptive effect over restrictive state siting
standards.

the sheer scale of the mitigation effort required to stabilize ambient

greenhouse gas concentrations requires the implementation of multiple
mitigation measures at a large scale. This sets up a classic prisoner's dilemma
among the states, and the resulting coordination problem provides a
theoretical justification for national regulation . One offshore wind energy facility (even
Second,

if it completely displaced electricity generated by an inefficient conventional coal-fired power plant)

would result in emissions reductions dwarfed by total regional emissions and

the scale of reductions required to stabilize ambient concentrations. n146 As a result, an effective
climate change strategy likely would require the [*408] development of multiple
facilities under the regulation of multiple states and, without assurances that other
states will follow suit, a state may rationally conclude that climate change
mitigation benefits do not justify the acceptance of scenic or aesthetic impacts or other
environmental costs. Furthermore, coordination problems are intensified by the fact
that offshore wind energy is only one of many potential climate change
mitigation measures, and an effective climate change strategy undoubtedly will require other
measures in other sectors and in other states lacking offshore wind resources. n147 General
inattention or hostility by other states to climate change mitigation could offset any
reductions resulting even from the large-scale development of offshore wind energy facilities, further
intensifying coordination problems. n148 The need to coordinate activities among states, and to
prevent states from making collectively irrational regulatory decisions,
provides a theoretical justification for federal regulation addressing climate change
mitigation measures that would have a preemptive effect over more restrictive state siting criteria. n149

climate change is a problem of international dimensions ; emissions from

all sources contribute to climate change, and climate change stands to affect local
Third,

environmental conditions across the globe. In the U.S. federal system, the national government, through
the Senate's power to ratify treaties and the President's inherent powers over foreign affairs, has the
power to negotiate and enter into agreements with co-equal sovereign governments to address issues of

Given the national government's role in international

affairs, federal regulation of climate change mitigation measures may be
theoretically justified by the potential for state actions to affect the ability of the national
international dimensions. n150

government [*409] to meet treaty obligations or secure commitments from other countries favorable to
the nation as a whole. n151 Depending on the relative positions on climate change taken by the state and

preemptive effects prohibiting more restrictive or more

permissive state regulation may be justified.
national governments,

4. Grouped state action doesnt fix the lack of federal

commitment to warming only federal preemption works
GLICKSMAN & LEVY 08 Professors of Law at the University
of Kansas [Robert Glicksman and Richard Levy. A COLLECTIVE ACTION
PERSPECTIVE ON CEILING PREEMPTION BY FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION: THE CASE OF GLOBALCLIMATE CHANGE. Northwestern
University Law Review. Vol 102 No. 2.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n2/579/LR102n2Glicksman
&Levy.pdf]
We also doubt that unilateral state regulation would so undermine the international bargaining position of

The
United States is responsible for an estimated twenty to twenty-five percent of
the worlds GHG emissions.204 An effective global solution to the climate change
problem therefore depends on U.S. participation. As long as the United States
refuses to unilaterally reduce its GHG emissions, the federal government can hold out
U.S. participation in an international climate change regime as the carrot to induce
other nations to make concessions. Theoretically, the decision by a state or group of
states to require reductions before the EPA does so weakens the impact of the Presidents
threat of continued noncooperation. But the defection of a state (even a large
one such as Califor nia)205 or group of states from the united, antiregulatory front presented by
the federal government is unlikely to put a significant dent in the clout that federal
negotiators have in dealing with the environmental policymakers of foreign
nations. Many other factors are likely to have a far more substantial impact on negotiations.206
the United States as to warrant a congressional decision to adopt express ceiling preemption.

5. Federal waters key to testing and scaling

Sterne 9
(J.D. Roger Williams University): Symposium: The Seven Principles of Ocean
Renewable Energy: A Shared Vision and Call for Action. Lexis
THE NEED FOR ACTION America urgently needs new sources of clean energy.
While the deployment and evaluation of ocean energy technologies8
represent a unique and important renewable energy opportunity, these
technologies are being hampered and constrained by several factors. The
technologies are generally recognized as not sufficiently mature for
commercial-scale development. This makes it difficult for project developers
to attract sufficient capital, due to the perceived risk of these projects.
Another factor, which is the focus of this paper, is an uncertain regulatory
system that results in larger transaction costs than are appropriate for this
demonstration phase of these emerging technologies. Principle 1. As general
policy, the United States should substantially increase electrical generation
from renewable sources. Ocean renewable energy has significant potential to
contribute to this increase. The United States government should use its
authorities and commit the resources needed to support a robust evaluation

of ocean renewable energy technology and its potential environmental

impacts. Development of diverse and numerous sources of alternative 8. This
paper focuses on ocean energy generated from waves, tides, and currents. It
does not address other technologies deployable in the marine environment,
including thermal conversion or offshore wind, although these
recommendations may also have relevance to those technologies. renewable
energy is critical to our nation's energy security and environmental well
being. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, ocean renewable
energy in U.S. waters has the estimated potential to supply some 400
Terawatt hours of clean power annually, or roughly 10% of today's electrical
demand.9 Yet project testing and deployment in coastal waters is almost non
existent. The federal role is crucial because virtually every site where ocean
renewable energy technology is likely to be tested or deployed is subject to
federal jurisdiction. Unlike conventional wind and solar, ocean renewable
energy technology cannot be tested or deployed on private land. The industry
will emerge and mature in the United States only if the federal
government uses its considerable resources and authorities to answer
critical questions and encourage appropriate use of marine areas.