Nuclear Shipping Fails Nuclear shipping impractical due to poor shielding, leads to radiation spillage –empirics prove Anthony ‗14(Sebastian, journalist, Where are all the clean, infinite-range nuclear-powered cars, ships, and planes?, online: http://www.extr emetech.com/extreme/186907- where-are-all-the-clean-infinit e-range-nuclear- powered-cars-ships-and- planes) With all that said, nuclear power isn‘t without its i ssues —and yes, there have been attempts in the past to make nuclear cars, planes, and ships. The main problem, as you can probably guess, is radiation. Poor shielding could result in a messy end for the occupants of a nuclear vehicle, and any kind of containment leak would be bad news for the e nvironment. Generally, the problem with good-enough shielding is that it tends to be heavy —and planes and cars aren‘t fans of ex tra weight. Both the US and So viet Union researched the possibility of nuclear-powered bombers during the Cold War. These bombers would carry thermonuclear bombs and would act as the perfect omnipresent nuclear deterrents. The heavy shielding requirement, plus the development of thermonuclear ICBMs and nuclear submarines in the 1960s, meant that these nuclear aircraft never took off. The NS Savannah, one of the f ew nuclear-powered passenger ships ever built (by the US of course), dumped low-level radioactive waste into the ocean—the waste didn‘t actually harm the environment very much, but as you‘ve probably realized by now, the media and public (and thus politicians) a re hyper-sensitive when it comes to any kind of nuclear-related mishap. Nuclear shipping leads to destructive accidents and dumping of nuclear waste Their Author- Singla 11 (Smita - experienced professional writer with a masters degree in food technology, ‘Nuclear Ship Propulsion: Is it the Future of the Shipping Industry?”, 2 September 2011, http://ww w.marineins ight.com/ tech/nuclear-sh ip-propulsion-is-it-the-future-of-the-ship ping-industr y/, JS) The picture of a nuclear energy powered propulsion ship seems very rosy. However, there is a downside with this whole scenario. Some of the points not so good with this technology are: ¶ Nuclear reactions produce immense energy, which if not controlled can lead todisastrous results. As such, even a minor fault can lead to accidents with massive implications all over the world. ¶ Most apprehensions lie with use of something as dynamic as nuclear energy on ships which can be occupied by thousands of people at sometimes. ¶ In case of accidents of nuclear ships, there is a huge chance of contamination of water bodies with nuclear fuels that can damage marine life and human population both.During the brief usage of such ships, the number of accidents due to minor technical faults has been proportionately large. ¶Due to the need for ships to travel across the world, there is a need for nuclear reactors to be able to bear that sort of wear and tear. The nuclear reactor should be secured to prevent its undesirable movement on the ship. ¶ The major problem faced by every nuclear ship would be of disposal of nuclear waste. With increasing use of nuclear fuel all over the world, there is an increasing stack of nuclear waste that humans are still struggling to dispose of. In absence of a practical solution to dispose of excessive amount of nuclear wastes that will be produced due to such ships, there could be more problems in long run.¶ At last, one major apprehension with this energy is its political and moral implications. There will always be fear of this energy being misused which remains one of the major political reasons to be cautious about this energy. ¶ There is a future in nuclear energy for marine propulsion but still there is a long way to go before we can see a fully fledged ship running on nuclear marine propulsion system. Nuclear meltdown at sea would devastate marine life Novak 13 (Matt - author of the Paleofuture blog, “Paper: Nuclear meltdown at sea “would have a far more devastating effec t” than on land —Thousands of cubic miles of ocean contaminat ed”, Energy News,http://en enews.com/paper-nuclear- meltdown- at-sea-would-have-a- far-more-de vastating-effec t- than-on-land-thou sands-of-cubic-miles-of-ocean-contaminated, JS)
Nuclear shipping impractical due to poor shielding, leads to radiation spillage –
empirics prove
Anthony ‗14 (Sebastian, journalist, Where are all the clean, infinite-range nuclear-powered cars, ships, and planes?,online: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186907-where-are-all-the-clean-infinite-range-nuclear- powered-cars-ships-and-planes)With all that said, nuclear power isn‘t without its issues — and yes, there have been attempts in the past to make nuclear
cars, planes, and ships. The main problem, as you can probably guess, is radiation. Poor shielding could
result in a messy end for the occupants of a nuclear vehicle, and any kind of containment leak
would be bad news for the environment. Generally, the problem with good-enough shielding is that it tends to be heavy — and
planes and cars aren‘t fans of extra weight. Both the US and Soviet Union researched the possibility of nuclear -powered bombers during the ColdWar. These bombers would carry thermonuclear bombs and would act as the perfect omnipresent nuclear deterrents. The heavy shieldingrequirement, plus the development of thermonuclear ICBMs and nuclear submarines in the 1960s, meant that these nuclear aircraft never took
off. The NS Savannah, one of the few nuclear-powered passenger ships ever built (by the US of
course), dumped low-level radioactive waste into the ocean — the waste didn‘t actually harm the environment very
much, but as you‘ve probably realized by now, the media and public (and thus politicians) are hyper-sensitive when it comes to any kind ofnuclear-related mishap.
Nuclear shipping leads to destructive accidents and dumping of nuclear waste
Their Author - Singla 11 (Smita - experienced professional writer with a masters degree in food
technology, ‘Nuclear Ship Propulsion: Is it the Future of the Shipping Industry?”, 2 September 2011,
The picture of a nuclear energy powered propulsion ship seems very rosy. However, there is a downside with this whole
scenario. Some of the points not so good with this technology are:¶Nuclear reactions produce immense energy,
which if not controlled can lead to disastrous results. As such, even a minor fault can lead to accidents
with massive implications all over the world.¶ Most apprehensions lie with use of something as dynamic as nuclearenergy on ships which can be occupied by thousands of people at sometimes.¶ In case of accidents of nuclear ships, there is a
huge chance of contamination of water bodies with nuclear fuels that can damage marine life and
human population both. During the brief usage of such ships, the number of accidents due to minor
technical faults has been proportionately large.¶ Due to the need for ships to travel across the world, there is a need
for nuclear reactors to be able to bear that sort of wear and tear. The nuclear reactor should be secured to prevent its
undesirable movement on the ship.¶ The major problem faced by every nuclear ship would be of disposal of
nuclear waste. With increasing use of nuclear fuel all over the world, there is an increasing stack of
nuclear waste that humans are still struggling to dispose of. In absence of a practical solution to
dispose of excessive amount of nuclear wastes that will be produced due to such ships, there could be
more problems in long run.¶ At last, one major apprehension with this energy is its political and moral implications. There
will always be fear of this energy being misused which remains one of the major political reasons to be cautious about this
energy.¶ There is a future in nuclear energy for marine propulsion but still there is a long way to go before we can see a fullyfledged ship running on nuclear marine propulsion system.
Nuclear meltdown at sea would devastate marine life
Novak 13 (Matt - author of the Paleofuture blog, “Paper: Nuclear meltdown at sea “would have a far
more devastating effect” than on land — Thousands of cubic miles of ocean contaminated”, Energy
Since nuclear power plants have a tremendous impact on the surrounding community, problems and
confrontations on land have contributed to the impending move offshore. Physically, the plants consume enormous amounts of
water for cooling and steam production and emit low-level radiation. With reference to the “once-through” cooling water
necessary for the plants’ operation, one study has projected that the demand for such coolant will encompass over fifty percent
of the entire runoff from the continental United States in only twenty-five years unless the plants are moved offshore. The
possibile ecological impact of running half our river water through nuclear power pants has led many to conclude that suchplants would be better built in the coastal zone. [...]¶ Selfridge wrote in 1975 (even before Three Mile Island) about the
difference between an accident on land and one in the ocean: “A similar accident at sea, however, would have a far
more devastating effect. A meltdown at sea would not create its own glazed insulation chamber. The
poisonous reactor core would melt through the barge and descend into the hydrosphere where the
radioactive core would contaminate thousands of cubic miles of ocean. Some radiation would be
released to the atmosphere, the rest would enter the marine food chain. Radioactive contamination
of the entire northwest Atlantic food chain for hundreds of years from one meltdown is a conceivable
scenario.”
Ocean radiation contaminates marine food chain
Levesque ‗13 (William, Tampa Bay Time writer, December 20, 2013, Effects of dumping radioactive waste in oceanneed more study, scientists say, online: http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/effects-of-dumping-radioactive-waste-in-ocean-need-more-study-scientists/2157923)
Dumping radioactive waste into the world's seas began in 1946 with a scientific argument whose foundation was the
vastness of the oceans. "It was no stretch (for officials) to assume that, like fish stocks, the ocean would rejuvenate itself through dilution, andthat it had a definable annual capacity to do so for radioactive waste," Jacob Darwin Hamblin wrote in Poison in the Well , a history of dumpingduring the Cold War. What was true in the 1940s is true today — some mainstream scientists argue the oceans can absorb and disperse radiation
so that it is harmless. But few argue that the ocean is a good place for radioactive waste. Some scientists say
radioactivity from dumps can make its way into the marine food chain. The barrels of radioactive
waste dumped by the U.S.S. Calhoun County during the Cold War had a lifespan of 30 years, and
scientists believe they have leached radioactivity into sea sediment. It didn't help that the Navy shot"floaters" – barrels that sometimes would sink only after taking rifle shots or, at least once, a
strafing by military aircraft. Scientists also note that many barrels imploded from ocean pressure
as they fell to the sea floor. Navy spokesman Kenneth Hess pointed to a 1981 General Accounting Office study that said the
environmental danger of dumping was overblown. "Testimony at numerous congressional hearings, including statements by EPA, theDepartment of Energy, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, have supported . . . that past ocean dumping of radiological waste does not posea serious risk to human health or the environment," Hess said. Even so, scientists say the issue of the impact of radioactive dumps on both theenvironment and human health requires more study. That is made more difficult because the Navy did not keep detailed records about thematerials dumped. "The ocean's solution to pollution is dilution," Ken Buesseler, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution marine chemist, saidin 2011 when discussing radiation from Japan's Fukushima reactor. Buesseler is no advocate for ocean dumping, but he said the oceans alreadycontain radioactivity, including from nuclear tests in the Cold War. In an incident such as Fukushima, radiation spreads from a source and isdiluted as it moves away. "Dilution does happen," Buesseler told the Tampa Bay Times. "We can still be concerned about these unknown sourcesof radioactive wastes. But levels will decrease the farther you go from the source. … As that radioactivity makes its way into the ocean,concentrations will become much lower offshore, so that we are no longer as concerned about human exposure in the ocean and external doses."
But some scientists aren't convinced. "The reality is, if you dump radioactive waste in concentrated areas, most of it
will not be evenly distributed throughout the ocean," said Thomas Suchanek, a research ecologist
who studied Navy dumps off San Francisco. "Most of it will remain in that location and will
contaminate organisms in that local area." The nation has come a long way from the U.S.
government's careless attitude toward atomic waste during the Cold War when a government handbook on
ocean dumping said, "It seems very reasonable to assume that producers or users of radioactive isotopes located on or near the coasts, or oninland waterways, may find it simpler to dispose of virtually all wastes at sea." The handbook warned of the down side. "Unfavorable situationsmight arise if a package of radioactive material were found on the shore or recovered in a fisherman's net or by a trawler or dragger," it said."Unsound rumors that marine food products contain sufficient quantities of radioisotopes to be detrimental to health should be countered rapidlyand effectively."
Nuclear Powered merchant ships have empirically failed.
Handrlica 09 (Jakub, Law at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic in 2006 (MA equivalent2006, PhD 2009). Diploma in Energy and Mining Law at the Institute for Energy and Mining Law, RuhrUniversity Bochum, Germany in 2007 and in International Nuclear Law at the International School of Nuclear Law at the University of Montpellier 1, France in 2008. Jan 1, 2009. Facing plans for multiplyingnuclear-powered vessels. Accessed through academia.edu Ap)
While the subject of much expectation, nuclear propulsion failed to prove its ability to be a
prospective means of marine propulsion. There have been only four nuclear-powered merchant
cargo ships in operation until now. ¶ 45 ¶ The USA launched the NS ¶ Savannah ¶ (in operation 1962 – 1972),Japan the NS ¶ Mutsu ¶ (in operation 1970 – 1992), the Federal Republic of Germany the NS ¶ Otto Hahn ¶ (inoperation 1968 – 1979) and the Soviet Union the NS ¶ Sevmorput ¶ ( ¶ Севморпуть ¶ ), a nuclear-poweredcargo ship with ice-breaking abilities in operation since 1988.The fate of the NS¶ Savannah¶ illustrates
the entire issue. The NS ¶ Savannah ¶ is considered a demonstration of the technical feasibility of nuclear propulsion for merchant ships. Basically, it was not expected to be commercially competitive. It wasdesigned as a visually impressive luxury yacht, carrying 30 air-conditioned staterooms, a dining facility or100 passengers, a lounge, a swimming pool and a library. By many measures, the ship was a success.
From 1965 to 1971, the US Maritime Administration leased the NS¶ Savannah¶ to American
Export Isbrandtsen Lines for revenue cargo service. However, many of their competitors couldaccommodate several times the cargo of the NS¶ Savannah¶ . The crew was a third larger than
comparable oil-fired ships and had to receive additional training after completing all requirements
for conventional maritime licences. The operating budget had to include maintenance of a
separate shore organisation to negotiate port visits. Consequently, the US Maritime
Administration decommissioned the NS¶ Savannah¶ in order to save costs in 1972. Similarly, the
NS¶ Otto Hahn¶ was decommissioned in 1979.Her nuclear reactor and propulsion plant wereremoved and replaced by a conventional diesel engine room. The NS¶ Mutsu¶ was decommissioned
in 1992. There have been only two areas where the nuclear energy showed itself to be an
appropriate means of marine propulsion: First, there is the example of nuclear-powered military
submarines, which continued to be constructed both by the USA and the Soviet Union. Second, theSoviet Union proceeded to build nuclear-powered icebreakers, constructed for use for both ocean aswell as river transport.
Can‘t solve warming – nuke power causes a net increase in emissionsKivi 14 – contributer @ USAToday specializing in nuclear energy and habitat conservation (Rose Kivi,
2014, ―How does Nuclear Energy Affect the Environment?‖ http://www.ehow.com/how-
does_4566966_nuclear-energy-affect-environment.html)//twonilyIntroduction Nuclear energy has been proposed as an answer to the need for a clean energy source as opposed to
CO2-producing plants. Nuclear energy is not necessarily a clean energy source. The effects nuclear energy
have on the environment pose serious concerns that need to be considered, especially before the decision to build additional
nuclear power plants is made. Carbon Dioxide Nuclear power has been called a clean source of energy because the power
plants do not release carbon dioxide. While this is true, it is deceiving. Nuclear power plants may not emit
carbon dioxide during operation, but high amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted in activities related
to building and running the plants. Nuclear power plants use uranium as fuel. The process of mining uranium
releases high amounts of carbon dioxide into the environment. Carbon dioxide is also released into the environment
when new nuclear power plants are built. Finally, the transport of radioactive waste also causes carbon dioxide
outlook-idINL3N0L23B820140206>.)The shipping industry is poised to emerge from its longest downturn in three decades, buoyed by an
end to years of overcapacity that have depressed freight rates since the end of a shipping boom in2008. Dry cargo ships are likely to see the strongest recovery, say owners and analysts, as growth in bulk commodity cargoes such as iron ore and coal outpaces supply of new tonnage for the first time inseven years. But tanker rates will also rise as fleet growth is slowing, while strategic oil reserve
projects in China and India should boost already solid Asian demand. The recovery will bring somerespite to shipping firms that have endured years of losses as freight rates failed to cover costs. Globalshipper TMT Group filed for bankruptcy protection last June, shortly after South Korea's STX Pan Oceanfiled for court receivership, while Indonesian shipper PT Berlian Laju Tanker narrowly avoided bankruptcy. "While there will be potholes, here and there, as always, the worst is over based on themarket fundamentals," said Ong Choo Kiat, president of U-Ming Marine Transport, one of Taiwan'slargest listed shipping companies. Prices of new and secondhand ships started to rise last year onexpectations of a recovery, though experts warn some shippers will still only break even this year and anyrecovery may fade after 2016 when overcapacity could again dampen freight rates. Key drivers of the
pick-up will be China's continued urbanisation and falling iron ore prices, experts say, which
should support import growth even though the commodities super-cycle that drove a 2003-2008
boom in shipping markets is over. The global dry bulk seaborne trade is forecast to grow 5.8
percent in 2014 to 4.37 billion tonnes, according to Barclays Research, outpacing a 5.3 percent rise
in the global merchant fleet to 753 million deadweight tonnes. This is the first time growth in demandfor shipping of iron ore, coal, grain and minor bulks such as fertilizer, logs and soya beans has beengreater than dry bulk fleet growth since 2007, Barclays said, as the industry finally shakes off a surge innew ship orders in the wake of the boom. However, ship owners who paid high prices for new tonnage atthe peak of the market would still only break even this year, said Jayendu Krishna, senior manager atshipping consultancy Drewry Maritime Research, Buyers who paid up to around $100 million for a180,000 dwt Capesize ore carrier at the top of the market would need a daily charter rate of $44,000-$45,000 to break even, still well above current rates. The price of a similar Capesize ship has since easedto around $56 million, according to Clarkson Research.
Government regulations hurts the shipping industry
Economist 14 ("Sinking under a Big Green Wave." The Economist . The Economist
PREVENTING pollution was one of the original aims of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), when it was set up in 1948. But its environmental rule-making has intensified in recent years. It has turned its attention to such things as the gases ships
belch from their funnels and the invasive foreign species they pump out of their ballast-water tanks when they call at ports. The shippingindustry now faces the cost of complying with a deluge of new rules . To make matters worse, it is in the middle of
a slump caused by too many ships chasing too little trade. As the deadlines for all these rules approach, shipping
bosses are firing off distress flares. Masamichi Morooka, chairman of the International Chamber of
Shipping (ICS), a lobby group, lamented on March 19th that the cost could run into ―hundreds of
billions‖ of dollars. He begged regulators to take into account the dire state of shipping firms‘finances. One of the first big expenses will be for cleaner fuel. Ships used to burn the cheap, unrefined crud, laden with sulphur and other
nasties, that is left over when oil is refined. The fine soot that such fuel gives off can cause premature deaths from asthma and heart attacks. So
in 2005 the IMO started to limit the sulphur content of maritime fuel, especially in “emission-control areas” along heavily populated coasts in
North America and Europe. These limits are set to be tightened drastically (see chart). Ships will have to start burning better grades of fuel,
similar to diesel. Such fuels currently cost about 50% more than unrefined “residual” grades, and their prices will surely rise as ship operators
scrap with car owners and airlines for the limited amounts that refineries can turn out. The ICS is pleading with the IMO to conduct a study of
whether there will be enough of the fuel to go around. Shipping firms are also under pressure to cut their emissions
of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The IMO reckons that ships cause about 2.7% of total man-made emissions,
a bit more than planes but a lot less than cars and trucks. Under a convention it has brought into force this year, ships will have to introduce
fuel-economy measures with the aim of reducing their emissions by 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2050. But that may be just the start. The IMO is
looking at further “market-based” measures, such as making ship operators buy tradable permits to emit CO2. The European Union
was until recently considering imposing such a scheme on shipping. But it has backed off for now,
following the hostile response by other governments to its attempts to make airlines buy permits. The
IMO is also pressing on with planned new rules on cleaning up ships’ ballast water. These may come into effect this year, onc e enough national
governments have signed up for them. A study last year in the Journal of Marine Engineering and
Technology* reckoned that around 60,000 ships worldwide would need refitting with one or more
cleansing units, costing up to $1.7m each. In that case, shipping firms could be whacked with a bill of the order of $50 billion.
How they will persuade banks to lend them the money for this is unclear: whereas measures to cut CO2 emissions produce a return in the formof lower fuel bills, there is no such payback on ballast-water equipment. New proposals to make shipping greener, and push it further into the
red, keep popping up. This week the European Parliament’s environment committee backed proposals for recycling levies on vessels calling at
EU ports. This would pay for safer scrapping of old ships, which can contain asbestos and other toxic materials. As they contemplate the cost of
all this, shipping bosses are realising that they have not been very good at arguing their corner. At a conference in Athens recently John
Platsidakis, a Greek shipping boss who chairs an association of bulk-cargo operators, grumbled: “We carry 90% of world trade and we emit only
2.7% of the CO2 but still we are treated as if we are acting with indifference to the environment.” Philip Roche, a solicitor at Norton Rose who
advises transport industries on regulatory matters, says that airlines, for example, have lobbied more shrewdly than shipping firms. But then
again, he notes, the shipping industry is bigger and more fragmented than aviation, making it harder for it to present a united front. Many
small, family-owned shipping firms have publicity-shy bosses and lack the sophisticated public-relations machines that giant firms deploy.
Grime of the ancient mariner Nevertheless, says Craig Eason, technical editor of Lloyd’s List, a shipping daily, some sort of consolidation, or at
least better co-operation, among shipping associations would make sense. Especially since they are so thinly staffed: the ICS seeks to represent
the entire global merchant-shipping fleet with just 20 people. The industry‘s sluggish lobbying has meant that rules
get passed before it has a chance to object to them. And once they are passed, it is much harder to
get them changed.
Ocean shipping is the backbone of the US economyNarula 14 [Svati Kirsten Narula is a former producer for TheAtlantic.com. 3/21/14, ―America's Ocea n-Powered Economy‖
The area of the sea with in an invisible border 200 miles out from every U.S. shore isn't called the "exclusive economic zone" for nothing: Countries have property
rights at sea just as they do on land. The fact that every nation with a coast also has an EEZ — which extends far
beyond a country's "territorial" waters — reflects the importance of the ocean as a source of wealth.
But when it comes to analyzing our economy, we hardly ever single out the activity in the EEZ as a
special slice of national employment or productivity. The National Ocean Economics Program,
which started at MIT and is now based at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, is home to a
group of academics who would like to change that. NOEP has been tracking economic activity in U.S. coastal zones (both on and
offshore)
since 1999. It released the first comprehensive report on the American maritime economy in 2009,covering time-series data through 2005. This month NOEP published a new analysis of the oceaneconomy with data from 2007-2012. Seafood harvesting accounts for fewer jobs and less money in this country than ever before. Among the
findings from this report: The number of Americans going on cruises has grown by more than a third since 2000;Louisiana residents say they are willing to pay thousands of dollars to restore their disappearing wetlands;
and seafood harvesting accounts for fewer jobs and less money in this country than ever before. Unlike what NOEP calls "the coastal economy," which is defined
solely by geography (and is also pretty much a reflection of the national economy as a whole), the ocean economy represents a range of
goods produced and services performed all over the country. It includes 21 industries in six sectors.
Certain industries, like commercial fishing, obviously depend on the sea and are wholly included. But
only portions of other industries qualify; the tourism & recreation sector, especially, is full of these cases: There are many luxury hotels in America, for example, but
only the ones in shore-adjacent zip codes can be said to depend on the sea. Here, below, are 7 more big-picture things to know about the ocean's ties to American jobs,
money, and well-being. Most of the values are reported in 2005 dollars. 1. In 2010, the ocean economy employed about 2.8 million people and produced $258 billion
worth of goods and services. But, according to NOEP, an additional 2.6 million jobs and $375 billion wereindirectly associated with or induced by ocean industries. Taking this multiplier effect into account, NOEP says that the ocean economy contributes roughly 4.4 percent of total U.S. GDP. That's not huge, but it is
more than America's creative industries (recently estimated to contribute 3.2 percent of U.S. GDP) oragriculture. 2. Its two pillars are the mineral extraction and tourism & recreation sectors. It's not really surprising that these are the two most productive sectors
of the ocean economy. The minerals sector includes o ffshore drilling and exploration of oil and natural gas — a business that, catastrophic explosions and spillsnotwithstanding, is booming. And there remains a solid American tradition of flocking to the seashore for vacations. But these two sectors dominate the ocean
economy in different ways. Nearly three out of every four ocean economy jobs are in tourism & recreation, but 65 percent of the ocean economy's GDP comes from other sectors. The workers in the minerals sector, who account for only 5 percent
of ocean-related employment, contribute over six times that to the total ocean-related GDP.Tourism & recreation is a service-oriented sector; the minerals sector is
about producing high-value goods. The workers' wages reflect this. 3. But a third sector is growing rapidly: marine
transportation. This includes the deep sea freight, warehousing, navigational equipment, marine
transportation services, and marine passenger industries. The production of search and navigation
equipment contributes more to GDP than the other four industries in this sector. The freight
industry is becoming more productive with fewer workers (and a case in point here is the coming fleet of drone ships, as The
Atlantic's Megan Garber recently reported): the total value of freight coming through U.S. ports nearly doubled
between 2002 and 2012, while employment of people moving that fre ight dropped by 2.5 percent. Transportation of cargo at sea — encompassed by four
out of five industries in this sector — is huge, but what's really growing is the transportation of humans at sea. The cruise industry just keeps getting richer, and thoughit's a global industry, it's dominated by the U.S. The number of global cruise ship passengers doubled between 2000 and 2010, and in 2010, 3 out of every 4 of those
passengers embarked from a U.S. port. 4. People stopped buying boats during the recession. Ship building in the U.S. primarily revolves around construction andmaintenance of naval vessels. That industry has had its ups and downs, but the boat builders, who serve fishermen and recreat ional boaters, were hit particularly hard
by the recession. Sales of recreational boats dropped by more than half in 2009-2010, and the boat building industry lost more than half of its 2005 employment.
Turns environment – kills new energy developments and causes more gasoline usage
Klare 08 (Michael T. Klare, a Five Colleges professor of Peace and World Security Studies, whose department is located at Hampshire
College, defense correspondent of The Nation magazine, and author, October 20th 2008, ―How the Economic Crisis Will Affect theEnvironment,‖ http://www.alternet.org/story/103808/how_the_economic_crisis_will_affect_the_environment) But there is a downside to all this as well. Most serious is the risk that venture capitalists will refrain from pouring big
bucks into innovative energy projects. At an energy forum organized by professional services firm Ernst & Young on October 9,
experts warned of a sharp drop-off in alternative energy funding. "The concept of alternative
energy has a lot of momentum," says Dan Pickering, head of research for Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities in Houston.
"But lower oil prices make it harder to justify investment. At $50 a barrel, a lot of that investment
will die." Governments could also have a hard time coming up with the funds to finance
alternative energy projects. Moderators at the presidential debates repeatedly asked both John McCain and Barack Obama what
programs they would cut in order to finance the massive financial-rescue packages the Bush administration has engineered in order to avert
further economic distress. Both insisted that their respective energy initiatives would be spared any such belt-tightening. It is highly likely,
however, that costly endeavors of this sort will be scaled back or postponed once the magnitude of the
financial rescue effort becomes apparent. The same is true for Europe and Japan, who have also pledged to undertake
ambitious energy initiatives in their drive to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Indeed, leaders of some European Union countries are calling for aslowdown in efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases due to the burgeoning economic crisis. Under a plan adopted by the EU in 2007,member countries pledged to reduce such emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, which is far more ambitious than the KyotoProtocol. European leaders are scheduled to implement a detailed plan to achieve this goal by December of this year. But at a rancorous summitmeeting of the EU heads of state in mid-October, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy and the leaders of some Eastern European countriesindicated that due to the current crisis, they were no longer able to finance the high costs of attaining the 2020 goal and so weren't prepared toadopt a detailed plan. "We don't think this is the moment to push forward on our own like Don Quixote," Berlusconi declared at the summit. "We
have time." At some point, the price of gasoline will fall so low that many drivers will once again engage in
the wasteful driving habits they may have given up when the price of gas soared over $3 per gallon.
This may not occur right away. But with crude oil at $70 per barrel, half of what it was in August, a corresponding drop
in the price of refined products will eventually follow. And that could lead people to see cheap gasoline as the one bright
spot on an otherwise dismal horizon.
Economic decline increases chance of nuclear conflict
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and is widely regarded as one of the
world‘s foremost Peak Oil educators, November 16th 2012, ―Conflict and Change in the Era of Economic
Decline: Part 1 - The 21st century landscape of conflict,‖ http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-04/conflict-and-change-in-the-era-of-economic-decline-part-1-the-21st-century-landscape-of-conflict When empires crumble, as they always do, the result is often a free-for-all among previous subject nations and potential rivals as they sort out
power relations. The British Empire was a seeming exception to this rule: in that instance, the locus of military, political, and economic power
simply migrated to an ally across the Atlantic. A similar graceful transfer seems unlikely in the case of the U.S., as
economic decline during the 21st century will be global in scope. A better analogy to the current case might be the
fall of Rome, which led to centuries of incursions by barbarians as well as uprisings in client states.Disaster per se need not lead to violence, as Rebecca Solnit argues in her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities thatArise in Disaster. She documents five disasters – the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; earthquakes in San Francisco and Mexico City; a giant shipexplosion in Halifax, Canada; and 9/11 – and shows that rioting, looting, rape, and murder were not automatic results. Instead, for the most part,
people pulled together, shared what resources they had, cared for the victims, and in many instances found new sources of joy in everyday life.However, the kinds of social stresses we are discussing now may differ from the disasters Solnit surveys, in that they comprise a ―long
emergency,‖ to borrow James Kunstler‘s durable phrase. For every heartwarming anecdote about the convergence of rescuers and caregivers on a
disaster site, there is a grim historic tale of resource competition turning normal people into monsters. In the current context, a continuing
source of concern must be the large number of nuclear weapons now scattered among nine nations.
While these weapons primarily exist as a deterrent to military aggression, and while the end of the Cold War has arguably reduced the likelihood
of a massive release of these weapons in an apocalyptic fury, it is still possible to imagine several scenarios in which a
nuclear detonation could occur as a result of accident, aggression, pre-emption, or retaliation. We are
in a race – but it‘s not just an arms race; indeed, it may end up being an arms race in reverse. In many nations around the globe
the means to pay for armaments and war are starting to disappear; meanwhile, however, there is
increasing incentive to engage in international conflict as a way of re-channeling the energies of jobless young males and of distracting the general populace, which might otherwise be in a
revolutionary mood. We can only hope that historical momentum can maintain The Great Peace until industrial nations are sufficiently
bankrupt that they cannot afford to mount foreign wars on any substantial scale.
China is investing heavily in renewables- they‘re set to become a global leader Bateman 14 [osh Bateman is a freelance journalist based in As ia. He has covered a variety of topics related to Asia including private equ ity, entrepreneurship,
renewable energy, agriculture, gaming, sports, art, and Chinese consumption trends. 1/13/14, ―The New Global Leader in Renewable Energy‖
China is taking a multipronged approach to addressing its energy shortage. According to Xinhua, China's official press agency, in March 2012, Wen Jiabao,
former Premier of the State Council, said: "we will optimize the energy structure, promote clean and efficient use of traditional
energy, safely and effectively develop nuclear power, actively develop hydroelectric power, tackle key problems more quickly in the
exploration and development of shale gas, and increase the share of new energy and renewable energy in total
energy consumption." The Chinese government has introduced a multitude of measures to support
the progress of renewables. Zhang said, "China has named 'new energy' — including solar, wind and bioenergy — as one of
the seven new strategic industries. China hopes this can transform the economy from heavy industrialization to a
more value-added clean manufacturing capability." Given that the renewable energy sector is
capital intensive, the Chinese government has offered subsidies and low or zero interest loans in
this space. Talking about how to foster industry growth, Nathaniel Bullard, Director of Content at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a data a nd news company
covering the energy sector, said: "it has mostly to do with the level of commitment that leads to scale.
A huge advantage is enormous scalethat allows manufacturers to get costs low. Government commitment and a stable demand scenario
[are conducive growth factors]." Innovation & Investment China's leadership in the renewable
energy space is an example of its transition from a predominantly manufacturing economy to a
more knowledge- and technology-based economy. Not only has China introduced new policies, but it is also investing
heavily in new technologies. According to data from Bloomberg, China will invest as much as $294 billion in renewable
energy as part of its current five-year pan . A recent study by researchers at MIT, the Santa Fe Institute, and Indiana University found that
―China is now logging more energy patents per year than the European Patent Office and growing much faster than any other nation...China now comes a close second
to Japan in terms of cumulative wind patents.‖ China had the third-most solar patents behind Japan and the U.S. In an August 2013 white paper on China, Bloomberg New Energy Finance stated, "nuclear, power transmission, solar PV, smart grid, onshore wind, as well as energy efficiency across all parts of the economy are likely
to be the biggest areas of investment in China over the next 20 years." Much of China's investment in the renewable energy
sector is through State-Owned Enterprises. Talking about commercialization of renewable energy solutions, Rosie Pidcock, who
manages strategic partnerships at CGTI, said, "China has the capital to acquire technologies that they might not have domestically." Foreign companies also see
opportunities in China. In late 2012, leading an investment consortium, Morgan Stanley's infrastructure group made a second investment in Zhaoheng Hydropower, bringing the group's investment to $300 million in total. Capital flows both ways. Chinese institutions are also investing outside of its borders. According to World
Resource Institute data, "China has made at least 124 investments in solar and wind industries in 33 countries over the
past decade." Bullard said, "I think you will start to see movement of more Chinese companies becoming international companies - companies with Chinese roots and
many Chinese executives. There are likely to be many fewer companies you've never heard of."
New U.S. federal support for renewables crowds out chinaMathews 13 [John, Mathews holds the Chair of Strategy at the Macquarie Graduate School of Management at Macquarie University, Sydney. 2/1/13, ―The
Globalist Debate: Renewable Energy and the Clash of Civilizations‖ http://www.theglobalist.com/the-globalist-debate-renewable-energy-and-the-clash-of-civilizations/ //jweideman]
Samuel Huntington‘s Clash of Civilizat ions is considered one of the foundation texts of our t ime, given its appearance in the decade prior to the destruction of theWorld Tr ade Center towers in September 2001. But Huntington‘s focus on ―the West‖ and ―Islam‖ has done little to illuminate an even more fundamental and far-
reaching clash — the one pitching the waning fossil fuel civilization against the waxing civilization based on renewables and resource-efficiency. We see the
evidence for this ―civilizational clash‖ in terms of the struggle of the renewables industries to be
born and prosper, while the fossil fuel industries — along with the companies, subsidies, regulations and laws that uphold their privileges — refuse to
leave the field. China and the United States represent the polar extremes in this clash — with China
acting to build renewable energy industries. It is racing ahead as fast as is physically possible in
order to ensure energy security, even as it builds a coal- and nuclear-fired thermal energy system.
The United States, in contrast, is focusing on innovation, while Congressional leaders are subject to
heavy fossil fuel lobbying and act to delay the transition to renewables. The clash is heating up in the current spat over
trade in solar photovoltaic modules, where the United States now (and potentially the European Union as well) is levelling countervailing tariffs on Chinese solar PVimports into the United States. This move is inviting tit-for-tat retaliation by China against U.S. exports of polysilicon and PV equipment, where the United States
currently runs a strong trade surplus with China. The dispute even threatens an all-out trade war. That this is actually a
clash of civilizations becomes evident when we examine the ideological support for each side‘s
position in this dispute. China is supporting its policies to promote its solar PV industry at home, and
for companies that then export their product, on the grounds that it is a developing industry that
needs support in order to become established in the face of incumbent intransigence. It is a market-
oriented strategy that is proving to be extremely effective. The United States, by contrast, is ideologically promoting
a transition away from fossil fuels (insofar as any transition is allowed by Congress) through support for
innovation and Schumpeterian creative destruction. In its first term, the Obama Administration promoted renewables against fossil fuel incumbents through tax credits
and loan guarantees, sometimes at very high levels (such as the $535 million allocated to Solyndra as a loan guarantee, which became a public liability when the
company went bankrupt). This policy was aimed at offering strong support for a few chosen recipients to help them bring new versions of existing products to market.In Solyndra‘s case, this was CIGS thin-film PV technology, which has been falling rapidly in cost — but not as fast as first-generation crystalline silicon cells, whichhave overtaken the thin-film innovators and made life very difficult for them. Where things become interesting is on the ideology-based flanking moves undertaken by
Washington-based think tanks in support of the U.S. position. Consider the example of the ITIF, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, which is
very active on this issue. It conveniently labels the two sides in this clash as ―innovation‖ on the one hand (the U.S. approach) and ―green mercantilism‖ on the other
(China‘s approach). Innovation is ―good‖ and green mercantilism is ―bad.‖ The ITIF (and other think tanks along with it) have taken sides in the current trade dispute,arguing that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the companies urging it forward (a coalition led by SolarWorld) are s imply trying to enforce the rules of global
competition, while the green mercantilists a re threatening the survival of the rest of the industry. The problem with this position is that it
ignores the reasons for China‘s success. Chinese firms are not ―dumping‖ product on the rest of the
world, but are benefiting from the cost advantages they have reaped through scaling up production.
This is a time-honored approach to reducing costs and enlarging the market, perfected in the
United States ever since it was applied so effectively by Henry Ford to the (at the time) luxury
automotive market. In the solar race, U.S. firms like Solyndra and Konarka are in difficulties not
because of Chinese dumping, but because their market in the United States was not allowed to
expand fast enough — thanks to Congressional hostility linked to fossil fuel lobbying. TheAmerican slowness to diffuse renewable energies does not so much reflect a lack of innovation as a
plethora of regulatory and institutional blockages. Take the case of Google and its promot ion of renewables — a quest launched
with much fanfare in 2007 and quietly abandoned in November 2011. Google invested in the Atlantic Wind Connection, an
ambitious project to establish wind farms off the Northeast coast and link them to the mainland
grid by a single connection. But the project has gone nowhere, as one regulatory barrier after
another has had to be negotiated. In China, by contrast, there is strong focus on building a national
smart grid as counterpart to policies promoting renewables. This is not just a ―fast follower‖ technology strategy, but one
where China intends to take the lead through development of new standards and their promotion through domestic market creation.
Renewable energy is key to china‘s economy LaMonica 10 [Martin, independent technology and business reporter writing for MIT Technology Review. 12/1/10, ―Ernst & Young: China clear leader in
Driven by a surge in wind power installations, China is building on its lead in Ernst & Young's
ranking of top renewable energy countries. Wind investment in China this quarter is nearly half of
global spending, ensuring that one out of every two wind turbines to go live this year will be in
China, according to consultants at Ernst & Young which does a quarterly "country attractiveness" index. The U.S. will see a jump in large solar installations
before the end of year because developers are rushing to start projects before the end of the year. In place of a tax credit subsidy, renewable energy projects can nowget a grant but that policy may not be renewed. Federal policy uncertainty and the financial markets have hurt the U.S. wind industry which is second in the global
wind index. Low natural gas prices have also made solar and wind projects harder to finance. The Ernst & Young report noted that South Korea, which is a large
consumer of energy, has risen significantly based on a national policy and well developed supply chain. Beyond solar and wind, China has
elevated clean technology to a national strategic level, making it core to its future economic growth,
said Ben Warren, the infrastructure advisory leader at Ernst & Young's UK Energy and
Environmental, in a statement. "Since reaching top spot in our Index in September, China has opened up a healthy gap from
other markets. Cleantech, including renewable energy, represents a significant part of the country's future
economic growth plans," he said. "The Chinese solar industry is also fast becoming of great importance in the global market place."
Chinese economic collapse causes Chinese arms build-up and war with the U.S.Roberts 1 [Brad, INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY. ―China-U.S. Nuclear Relations: What
Relationship Best Serves U.S. Interests?‖ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dtra/china_us_nuc.pdf //jweideman]
Some experts in the United States dismiss the possibility of a major build -up of China's forces as not possible for a country so poor, especially one that has put
military modernization at the bottom of the list of four modernizations. But this is not for China first and foremost a question of money. It is important to
recall that China's original nuclear tests and first system deployments came at a time of huge
turmoil and profound economic collapse in the country. Moreover, much of the infrastructure is already in place. In trying to
gauge the impact of BMD on China's s trategic modernization program, it is important to understand what will happen
regardless of what the United States does on BMD. China's modernization program long predates
BMD and will presumably extend for decades into the future. China's force will grow more capable, quantitatively and
qualitatively, whatever the United States does. This is a point made by Clinton administration officials in the NMD debate: "Whether or not we proceed with nationalmissile defense, China's nuclear forces would expand in a way that would make this system less threatening to China."19 This theme has been echoed by the Bushadministration: "China is already engaged in a substantial effort to modernize its strategic nuclear forces which are currently capable of striking the United States. Wedo not believe our deployment of limited missile defenses should lead Beijing to further accelerate or expand its buildup of strategic nuclear forces."-0 Washington
should not let Beijing blame it for every new deployment. But BMD is hardly irrelevant to how China modernizes its forces. Indeed, it seems likely to have a direct
effect on the future trajectory of the Chinese modernization effort. Chinese analysts are also skeptical that the "limited
defense" promised by the Clinton and Bush administrations will not emerge, in timelines relevant
to Chinese force modernization, as a "thicker" defense. Americans must understand the very long time- horizons that inform
China's investment policies and strategic posture. The DF-31 missile, for example, has been in development for more than two decades. Chinese experts
find it virtually impossible to believe that the United States will stop at some initial capability. Indeed,
they fully expect the kind of "open-ended" pursuit of BMD that some in the Bush administration
describe. China can also find a great deal o f evidence in the U.S. political debate suggesting that thin defenses are merely a prelude to thicker defenses, perhaps
sooner, perhaps later, but in any case a decade or two hence. And whatever reassurances they might have heard from the Bush or Clinton administration
representatives about the nature of Washington's commitment to a limited defense, the Chinese have also heard a steady dose of
expert opinion from Moscow reiterating the long-held view that the United States will never stop in
the effort to construct the maximally effective defense within its reach once its heads down that
path. This is another reason for thinking that China may well look beyond the status quo ante.
Nuclear warDoble 11 [John, has an M.A. in International Affairs from American University and a B.A. in Political Science and History from the University of Wisconsin-
Madison. ―Maritime Disputes a Likely Source of Future Conflict‖ http://www.policymic.com/articles/2279/maritime-disputes-a-likely-source-of-future-conflict
December]//jweideman
Yesterday, the U.S. and China were involved in a nuclear exchange. The cause of this conflict was a war broughtabout between China and the Philippines after the Philippines seized several of the Spratly Islands to secure natural resources
and the sea lanes traversing the South China seas, both of which it would use to advance itself in the global economy. China refused to accept this action and attacked, and the U.S. was dragged in after the president was pressured by Congress and American a llies to honor America‘s mutual -defense
agreement with the Philippines. The result was disastrous. While this is a hypothetical example, similar scenarios are becoming increasingly probable. Due to increasing economic competition and climate change, a source of future conflict will be the contest forcontrol over the seas. The U.S. must adequately plan for future contingencies to avoid any surprises and to discern what it needs to do to prevent the
worst-case scenario from occurring. Economic competition on the seas can be seen most clearly in terms of port construction. As it stands, over 90% of allgoods measured by weight or volume are transported by cargo ship, and port construction greatly increase a nation‘s access to foreign markets and appeal as a
manufacturing center. Conversely, a nation‘s investment in ports reduces the amount of goods traveling to other nations, thus damaging their economies. Unlike otherforms of infrastructure investment, maritime infrastructure implicitly affects international security. This competition has already created conflict in the Middle East.Bilateral efforts to improve relations between Iraq and Kuwait were scuttled earlier this year after Kuwait announced it was investing heavily in building a new port(the Mubarak Kabeer) only 20 kilometers away from a port Iraq was building (the Grand al-Faw). Rapprochement swiftly ended over Iraqi fears of economic
strangulation and calls for eternal brotherhood were replaced by curses. Nowadays, rumors abound that Iraqi and Kuwaiti forces are infiltrat ing the border areas andIraqi militants have already launched rockets from Iraq into Kuwait and threatened to kidnap the contractors building the Mubarak Kabeer port. While threatening, this
conflict is unlikely to explode as Iraq is in no shape to wage war and labors under a history of belligerence it is trying to expunge. But what if a similar sequence ofevents occurred in Southeast/East Asia, where GDP is growing an average of 6%-7% a year(with China at 9.1%) and states can operate more freely? The U.S. isinvesting more resources in the region at the exact moment when growing economic competition make conflict more likely. Secondly, climate change will soon have
a massive impact on the world‘s coastal areas. Global sea levels are likely to rise between 80 to 200cm at the end of the century and would submerge large tracts ofland, displacing millions of people and wiping out urban and agricultural areas. Since they are built on the coast, this would also damage or destroy many portsworldwide and jeopardize international commerce as we know it. These losses would be difficult to replace given the increased environmental pressures
Southeast/East Asian states would face as well as the spillover problems that would arise as low-lying countries sink into the sea and collapse. Competitionover the ports that survive will be fierce as whoever possesses them would likely dominate the sea lanes and
international commerce for some time, leading to regional dominance. Similarly, economic competition and climate change are going to going to
cause havoc on the military industrial base supporting naval power in the region. It is expensive to build a competitive navy, and many states will be unable to afford itif they need to constantly adapt to economic and environmental pressure. China and India are a lready building up their naval forces and will likely be naval powers
into the foreseeable future, but the U.S. wi ll gain a lot of al lies in the future struggling to get the U.S. involved in every security dispute they have. Like WWI,
someone may gamble incorrectly, and a conflict that starts as a minor incident may explode into something much greater. The U.S. consequently needs to
utilize all facets of American power, from military to diplomatic to foreign aid, to confront these complex challenges and prevent themfrom escalating out of control. We need to promote broader acceptance of free trade on the open seas as well as democratic governance to limit the
appeal of coercive power and the ability to use that power arbitrarily. We need a way to maintain the st rength of our alliances without getting sucked into conflicts we
don‘t want, besides selling more weapons that only make war increasingly likely. Regardless of the exact policies, policymakers need to start thinking ahead on how it
will deal with the implications economic competition and climate change are going to have on maritime power. Intelligent observers of the Middle East knew foryears that the authoritarian status quo was unsustainable, yet no plans were made to respond to the collapse of those regimes and our response could have been better.
Current trends indicate that the current status quo in Southeast/East Asia is equally untenable. Do we have a plan in place?
Florida, Texas and Alaska are nowhere near the Chesapeake Bay. But that hasn‘t stopped thosestates from trying to intervene in the EPA‘s cleanup of the mid-Atlantic estuary. Earlier this month,the attorneys general from those states and 18 others filed an amicus brief [PDF] on behalf of theAmerican Farm Bureau Federation, which is suing to limit the extent of the Environmental Protection
Agency‘s Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort. The Farm Bureau argues that the EPA exceeded its authorityin regulating the amount of pollutants flowing into the bay, which the federal agency says is severelycontaminated. At question is how far the EPA can go in setting limits to ‖the maximum amount of
pollution a body of water can receive and still meet state water quality standards.‖ According to theFarm Bureau, the EPA exceeded its legal authority by trying to determine how much individual polluterswould have to cut back, instead of just setting an overall so-called ―Total Maximum Daily Load‖ andallowing the states to determine how it would be parceled out. ―These are uniquely local decisions thatshould be made by local governments,‖ said Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman in a statement. ―That iswhy this power is specifically withheld from EPA in the Clean Water Act.‖ The amicus brief, which
was signed by 18 Republican attorneys general and three Democrats, seconds this line of argument.Although all but one of the 21 signatories hail from states which do not border the Chesapeake Bay, they
say that the case has national implications . A legal regime which gives the EPA the power to closely
regulate pollution in the bay could give it equivalent power in contaminated bodies of water across theUnited States.
No federal authority for Ports- State action solves
Sherman 2000 (Roberts Director of Research and Information Services American Association of Port Authorities ―SEAPORT GOVERNANCE IN THEUNITED STATES AND CANADA,‖ http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/PDFs/governance_uscan.pdf)
To observers from abroad, even experienced port specialists, the seaport system of the United States might seem at first
glance to be anything but a system. In other countries, port systems are typically small by comparison and commonly
subject to direct control by national authority. The situation in the United States differs in several crucial
respects. First is simply the size of the industry itself--183 commercial deepdraft ports dispersed along the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific and Great Lake coasts. Included
in that number, too, are the seaports o f Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Saipan and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Here, unlike many countries, there is no
national port authority. Rather authority is diffused throughout all three levels of government-
federal, state and local. That stems from the federal character of the U.S. Constitution, which
reserves certain powers for the national government and others strictly for the states. The Canadian system, by contrast, is subject to the
general purview of the central government and more specifically to enactments of the national parl iament. The enactment in Ju ne 1998 of the Canada Marine Actchanged somewhat the character of the federal port system and permits the divestment of many port s previously administered by the Ministry of Transport to non-
federal public and private entities. However, the nation‘s major seaports are governed and managed by federal port authorities and ultimate statutory authority
constitutionally remains with Parliament. Constitutional Parameters: The U.S. Constitution does grant the federal government
exclusive jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States, including its deepdraft channels and harbors--
authority delegated primarily to the Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But federal jurisdiction over harbors stops at
the water's edge. Port authorities in the United States are instrumentalities of state or local
government established by enactment or grants of authority by the state legislature. Neither
Congress nor any federal agency has the power, or even the right, to appoint or dismiss port
commissioners or staff members, or to amend, alter or repeal a port authority charter . Certain port activities
are, of course, subject to federal law and jurisdiction, particularly those pertaining to foreign and interstate commerce.
Last week, the RFA signed on to a group letter of 80 different organizations in support of efforts by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) to call for a ―pause in
policy implementation‖ through funding appropriations towards President Obama‘s National Oceans Policy. Enacted by
the president through executive privilege on July 19, 2010, the National Oceans Policy is eerily similar to a piece of
legislation sponsored by Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) which languished in Congress for nearly a decade due to overalllack of support by democrats and republicans in the House. After several failed attempts to get legislation (Oceans 21) passed
out of the House Natural Resources Committee, a National Oceans Policy was instead enacted by President Obama through executive order 13547. In a recent email
blast to members, RFA executive director Jim Donofrio called the National Oceans Policy ―a complete takeover of our
state rights ,‖ which he said ―should not be supported by either party.‖ RFA praised the latest effort by the nine signers of
the Senate letter to Rockefeller, Boxer and Bingaman and encour aged the committee chairs to give ample consideration to the request. ―Some groups are
hailing this executive order as a way to curb sea sprawl and regulated ocean industry , but the political reality
is that this effort never made it out of a congressional committee in the first place because it essentially awarded complete control
of our nation‘s waters to the federal government and key political appointees in the process,‖ he said.
―Some Beltway insiders are claiming to have the public‘s interest at heart by part icipating in this process but most grassroots activists see it as more
Washington two-stepping and bureaucratic bungling at the sake of our coastal communities,‖ Donofrio
said, adding ―this Presidential edict completely bypassed the legislative process and left all congressional debate and concerns at the wayside.‖ RFA has been
bolstered by the fact that many U.S. legislators recognize what the political action fishing organizations has said all along, that well-funded
environmental groups have been pushing an agenda-driven no- use policy masked as a multi-use spatial planning
initiative. ―If you look at the catalyst for the entire initiative, it comes from the playbook of environmental groups
that think the ocean ought to be controlled by the federal government ,‖ said Rep. Bill Flores (R -TX). In a recent
article by award-winning investigative journalist Audrey Hudson, Flores noted ―This one to me could be the sleeping power grab that Americans will wake up to oneday and wonder what the heck hit them.‖
Federalism is modeled
Calabresi 95 (Steven G. Calabresi, professor of law at Northwestern University, George C Dix
Professor of Constitutional Law, BA cum laude from Yale University, JD from Yale University, co-founder of the Federalist Society, Chairman of the Federalist Society Board of Directors, editor of the
American Journal of Comparative Law, member of the Oquosoc Angling Association, former advisor toAttorney General Edwin Meese III, former speechwriter for former Vice President Dan Quayle, formerresident scholar at Harvard University, former Benjamin Mazur Summer Research Professor, formerassociate and assistant professor of law at Northwestern University, former research associate at theAmerican Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, December 1995, ―‗A Government of Limitedand Enumerated Powers‘: In Defense of United States v. Lopez,‖ published by the Michigan LawReview, volume 94 number 3, page 759-60)At the same time, U.S.-style constitutional federalism has be-come the order of the day in anextraordinarily large number of very important countries, some of which once might have been thought ofas pure nation-states. Thus, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria, the RussianFederation, Spain, India, and Nigeria all have decentralized power by adopting consti-tutions that aresignificantly more federalist than the ones they re- placed.25 Many other nations that had been influenced
long ago by American federalism have chosen to retain and formalize their fed-eral structures. Thus, thefederalist constitutions of Australia, Can-ada, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, for example, all are basically alive and well today. As one surveys the world in 1995, American-style federalism of some kindor another is everywhere triumphant, while the forces of nationalism, although still dangerous, seem to becontained or in retreat. The few remaining highly centralized democratic nation- states like GreatBritain,26 France, and Italy all face serious seces-sionist or devolutionary crises.27 Other highlycentralized nation- states, like China, also seem ripe for a federalist, as well as a demo-cratic, change.Even many existing federal and confederal entities seem to face serious pressure to devolve power furtherthan they have done so far: thus, Russia, Spain, Canada, and Belgium all have very serious devolutionary
or secessionFeist movements of some kind. Indeed, secessionist pressure has been so great that some fed-eral structures recently have collapsed under its weight, as has hap-pened in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia,and the former Soviet Union.
Federalism solves war and secessionLawoti, 09- Professor of Political Science at Western Michigan University (Mahendra, ―Federalism for
Nepal‖, Telegraph Nepal, 3/18,http://www.telegraphnepal.com/backup/telegraph/news_det.php?news_id=5041)//MCCross-national studies covering over 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes violent
conflicts whereas unitary structures are more apt to exacerbate ethnic conflicts. Frank S. Cohen (1997) analyzed ethnic conflicts and inter-governmental organizations over nine 5-year – periods(1945-1948 and 1985-1989) among 223 ethnic groups in 100 countries. He found that federalism generates increases in the incidence of protests (low-level ethnic conflicts) but stifles the development of
rebellions (high-level conflicts). Increased access to institutional power provided by federalism leads to
more low-level conflicts because local groups mobilize at the regional level to make demands on theregional governments. The perceptions that conflicts occur in federal structure is not entirely incorrect.
But the conflicts are low-level and manageable ones. Often, these are desirable conflicts because theyare expressions of disadvantaged groups and people for equality and justice, and part of a process thatconsolidates democracy. In addition, they also let off steam so that the protests do not turn into
rebellions. As the demands at the regional levels are addressed, frustrations do not build up. It checks
abrupt and severe outburst. That is why high levels of conflicts are found less in federal countries .
On the other hand, Cohen found high levels of conflicts in unitary structures and centralized politics.According to Cohen (1997:624): Federalism moderates politics by expanding the opportunity for victory.The increase in opportunities for political gain comes from the fragmentation/dispersion of policy-making
power… the compartmentalizing character of federalism also assures cultural distinctiveness by
offering dissatisfied ethnic minorities proximity to public affairs. Such close contact provides afeeling of both control and security that an ethnic group gains regarding its own affairs. In general,such institutional proximity expands the opportunities for political participation, socialization, andconsequently, democratic consolidation. Saidmeman, Lanoue, Campenini, and Stanton‘s (2002: 118)findings also support Cohen‘s analysis that federalism influences peace and violent dissent differently.They used Minority at Risk Phase III dataset and investigated 1264 ethnic groups. According to Saideman
et al. (2002:118-120): Federalism reduces the level of ethnic violence. In a federal structure, groups at
the local level can influence many of the issues that matter dearly to them- education, law enforcement,and the like. Moreover, federal arrangements reduce the chances that any group will realize its greatestnightmare: having its culture, political and educational institutions destroyed by a hostile nationalmajority. These broad empirical studies support the earlier claims of Lijphart, Gurr, and Horowitz that
power sharing and autonomy granting institutions can foster peaceful accommodation and prevent
violent conflicts among different groups in culturally plural societies. Lijphart (1977:88), in his awardwinning book Democracy in Plural Societies, argues that "Clear boundaries between the segments of a
plural society have the advantage of limiting mutual contacts and consequently of limiting the chances ofever-present potential antagonisms to erupt into actual hostility". This is not to argue for isolated or closed polities, which is almost impossible in a progressively globalizing world. The case is that when quitedistinct and self-differentiating cultures come into contact, antagonism between them may increase.Compared to federal structure, unitary structure may bring distinct cultural groups into intense contactmore rapidly because more group members may stay within their regions of traditional settlements underfederal arrangements whereas unitary structure may foster population movement. Federalism reduces
conflicts because it provides autonomy to groups. Disputants within federal structures or anymechanisms that provide autonomy are better able to work out agreements on more specific issues that
surface repeatedly in the programs of communal movement (Gurr 1993:298-299). Autonomy agreementshave helped dampen rebellions by Basques in Spain, the Moros in the Philippines, the Miskitos in
Nicaragua, the people of Bangladesh‘s Chittagong Hill Tracts and the affairs of Ethiopia, among others(Gurr 1993:3190) The Indian experiences are also illustrative. Ghosh (1998) argues that India statemanged many its violent ethnic conflicts by creating new states (Such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujurat,Punjab, Harayana, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland) and
autonomous councils (Such as Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council, Bodoland Autonomous Council, andJharkhand Area autonomous Council, Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council). The basic idea,according to Ghosh (1998:61), was to devolve powers to make the ethnic/linguistic groups feel that
their identity was being respected by the state. By providing autonomy, federalism also undermines
militant appeals. Because effective autonomy provides resources and institutions through which groupscan make significant progress toward their objectives, many ethnic activities and supporters of ethnicmovements are engaged through such arrangements. Thus it builds long-term support for peaceful
solutions and undermines appeals to militant action (Gurr 1993:303). Policies of regional devolutionin France, Spain and Italy, on the other hand, demonstrate that establishing self-managing autonomousregions can be politically and economically less burdensome for central states than keeping resistant peoples in line by force: autonomy arrangements have transformed destructive conflicts in these societiesinto positive interregional competition". Federalism for Nepal Federalism is essential in plural
countries like Nepal because it provides cultural autonomy to different cultural groups within acountry. By allowing ethnic groups to govern themselves in cultural and developmental matters, it lessenstheir conflicts with the central state. Many of the conflicts of the identity movements are in cultural issueslike religion, language, education and so on. Once regional governments are established, either thecontesting parties from their own governments at the regional level, and decides in those matters, and/orinfluence the outcome because their proportional presence at the regional level is more than in thenational level. Thus, many ethnic and linguistic groups can effectively put more pressure to the regionalgovernments. Under unitary system, numerous regionally concentrated groups have not been able to put pressure on the central government because their population and voice are small at the central context.Even if they are not, their nature will become different. Some of the conflicts will be regionally
focussed. Hence, many of the conflicts will decrease in intensity and strength at the central level. The bureaucracy will also increasingly reflect the regional composition because the regional governments
would hire local people in the administration. Bureaucrats with knowledge of local languages and specificlocal problems will be able to provide relatively more efficient administration. This will also reduceconflicts. Inclusion of more ethnic members into regional politics and administration will ensure more public politics directed toward regional needs, instead of irrelevant policies directed by the center. Thiswill contribute to reducing conflicts arising out of mal-distribution of resources. If minorities want someform of autonomy to protect and promote their culture, develop their people and regions, and self-determine their future, they are likely to struggle for it unless some autonomy is provided. The strugglemight take different form in different periods due to varying circumstances. Even if unfavorablecircumstances may lead to non-actions during some periods, favorable conditions for mobilizations in
other periods may lead to more activities, perhaps in violent ways. The growth of ethnic movements in Nepal after 1990 is an example. Thus, to address the conflicts arising out of issues of identity and culturalrights that are inherent human aspirations, autonomy is essential. Granting of federalism would in all
likelihood bring an end to ethnic insurgencies like the Khambuwan Mukti Morcha because it meetstheir major demand. It will also prevent the possibilities of other ethnic insurgencies with demand forfederalism. Territorial federalism can work for the benefit of large ethnic groups concentrated
regionally but may not be able to address problems of the numerous low populated ethnic groups orgroups that are not concentrated because they may not form majorities anywhere. For these groups, non-territorial federalism, as in Belgium, Austria etc. may address their needs. In non-territorial federalism,members of ethnic groups have rights to decide about their culture, education, language and so on byelecting councils who have jurisdiction over cultural, social and developmental realms. The problems ofthe dalit and small ethnic groups can be addressed through non-territorial federalism. Federalism and its
critics in Nepal The dominant group in Nepal often argues against federalism by raising the fear ofsecession. I have argued elsewhere that this fear is misplaced. In demanding only a few of the rights thatmainly deal with cultural and social issues, the minority groups acknowledge that advantages of stayingwithin the existing nation-state. On the other hand, devolution helps to avert separatism because
granting of devolution meets substantial demand of the minorities. However, power has to bedevolved in ways that make the state and minorities perceive benefit form it. Large numbers of ethnic
groups with small population further minimize the secessionist possibilities in Nepal, if any. The lack ofresources and difficult topography of settlement in may cases make the creation and sustenance of smallerindependent nations difficult, more so when the groups are in a state of under development. On the other
hand, experience elsewhere demonstrates that absence of autonomy may lead to secessionist
movements. Federalism was considered "slippery" in the 60s in Sri Lanka when the Tamils demanded
autonomy. Today, autonomy does not satisfy the demands of the movement that arouse out of its denial
(Stepan 1999). Hence federalism, in fact, may contribute in keeping a country together by satisfying
communities have power over themselves, there is less need to secede ; hence, a federal structure
can keep different communities united within a nation-state framework. Where cultural autonomy
has not been provided, many countries have seceded or are undergoing civil war or violent ethnic
conflicts . Many in Nepal ignorantly argue that a small country like Nepal does not need a federalstructure. However, federal countries like Belgium, Switzerland, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Holland andAustria have less population than Nepal. This belies the widespread fallacy that ‗small‘ country l ike Nepal does not require federalism. The difficult geographic terrain and the problems of transportation andcommunication, on the other hand, make Nepal effectively larger than its area and population indicates.The perception that Nepal is a small country is due to its sandwiched position between the world‘s twomost populous countries. In terms of real and effective population, geography and cultural diversity, Nepal is not a small country. In fact, it is the 40th populous country among 227 countries in the world asof 2002 (US Census Bureau 2002). Federalism in not only in the interests if the marginalized groups,
however. It is also in the interests of the dominant community because it lessens the underlying
reasons for conflicts. Conflicts are more costly to the privilege sections of the society; hence as a toll
for lessening the conflicts, federalism can serve the interests of the dominant community as well.
Excerpts from the book "Nepal Tomorrow: Voices and visions" edited by D.B. Gurung.
