Greyson+&+Reid

Plan Text

 * The United States federal government should expand United States Maritime Administration Title XI loan guarantee funding for short sea transportation in the United States.**

Advantage 1: Deterrence
As President Obama announced his robust infrastructure investment program touting an immediate infusion of $50 billion for improvements to the nation’s infrastructure, images of a newly revitalized U.S. maritime industry swirled around me in a twilight zone moment. The six-year plan is estimated to cost about $350 billion to fix 150,000 miles of broken roadways, 233,000 miles of dilapidated railroad track, and 150 miles of aging airline runways. Yet not aword was uttered about increasing funding for America’s Marine Highway Program or rejuvenating the shipbuilding industry.Perhaps the president ’s advisors had forgotten to remind him about the gridlock stifling the nation ’s cities and highways. Or about the car and truck pollution that kills an estimated three percent of the population each year. In an era of rising fuel costs, dense smog and roadway congestion, personnel at the Department of Transportation (DOT) should have pointed out to Obama that there are 15.5 million commercial trucks on U.S. highways, of which two million are tractor trailers, and that they log about 435 billion miles each year while consuming approximately 53.9 billion gallons of fuel. Now add the estimated 136 million registered cars and about one million buses to the highway equation and you have a horrific traffic jam of 152.5 million motorized, fuel-burning vehicles bogging down freedom of the roadways and polluting the populace. As the president deals with the 2010 $1.3 trillion budget deficit calculated to be 9.2 percent of GDP, which is slightly less than the shortfall of 9.9 percent of GDP ($1.4 trillion) posted in 2009, he is also confronted with $130 billion (2010) for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will cost the nation $745 billion between 2011 and 2020. With unemployment hovering around 10 percent due to the Great Recession that began in late 2007, federal revenues from corporate income taxes fell by 55 percent ($166 billion) in 2009, and individual income taxes declined by 20 percent ($230 billion). Additionally, for the first time since 1946, taxes from Social Security and Medicare declined 1 percent or $9 billion. And, of course, there is the $7.5 trillion owed by the government to domestic investors ($4 trillion-52%) and foreign investors ($3.6 trillion-48%) at the end of 2009. With this bleak economic picture staring the nation in the face like a double-barrelled shotgun, it’s no wonder that America’s shipyards are closing at record numbers and the number of U.S. mariners is declining rapidly. And forget the Jones Act, because if there are no U.S. yards or mariners there won’t be any need for U.S. cabotage laws. To all the anti-Jones Act folks screaming protectionism costs consumers too much and that American shipyards and ships cannot be competitive in the new global economy, I say the U.S. government will have to beef up its police forces, Coast Guard and National Guard to ensure a catastrophic event by terrorists or criminals doesn’t shut down U.S. ports or waterways. Because freedom isn’t free and a bigger government means more taxes. Really, grandma can pay the extra dollar for the iron at Walmart. Besides, if the U.S. maritimeindustry ceases to exist,who will run the supply lines the next time the U.S. military isdeployed overseas ? DOT’s budget in 2010 is $73.2 billion and it’s scheduled to increase to $79 billion for 2011. In 2011, highways will get $42.1 billion and rail will receive $11 billion. Meanwhile, the Maritime Administration’s( MARAD)budget gets smaller : $433 million in 2009, $363 million this year, and $352 million allocated for 2011. The vast majority of MARAD’s budget goes to the Military Security Program, which stays constant at $174 million. Assistance to small yards in 2011 is zero, while getting rid of the Ready Reserve Fleet has been allocated $10 million. An additional $49.3 million currently goes for operations and programs. Does that mean there might be some loose change rattling around for America’s Marine Highway Program ? The U. S. is exceptional among nations as it has 95,000 miles of coastline and 25,000 miles of navigable inland waterways and lakes. In moving domestic cargo, the math is simple: Move a ton of freight by truck and a gallon of fuel will get 155 miles down the road; by rail, that gallon will go 413 miles; but by towed barge that gallon will move the ton of freight nearly 576 miles. Furthermore, trucks are the dirtiest form of ground transport. In the past decade, automotive emissions have risen 3.3 percent, while truck emissions have risen nearly 77 percent. The evidence is clear, and throwing more money at thecrumbling highway system so that more and more trucks can clog the roadways to move a few tons of freight seems ludicrous. America’s Marine Highways areplentiful and renewable. A barge moving over 400,000 tons of cargo 2,300 miles would only consume 9,000 gallons of fuel, whereas that same cargo being moved by trucks would require 53,000 gallons. Since the mid-1990s, more than 40,000 U.S. merchant mariners, 38,000 longshoremen and 200,000 shipyard workers have lost their jobs. And over the last 50 years more than 60 shipyards have gone out of business. Northrop Grumman is closing its Tallulah yard in Louisiana by the end of 2010 and its much bigger Avondale yard by 2013…and another shipyard closes. Recently, the internal Revenue Service did an “Audit Techniques Guide” for its agents regarding inland waterway transportation. The report concluded, “Barge shipping is by far the most energy-efficient mode of transportation, extremely safe, causes little congestion, produces little air/noise pollution, has minimal land use or social impact.” The report went on to say, “The goods exchanged between states using the waterways exceeds $100 billion, and the industry supports 70,000 jobs while supporting 800,000 jobs in related industries. River states represent 54 percent of the population, 56 percent of heavy manufacturing, and 61 percent of agricultural jobs. And the waterways’ transportation industry provides $1.6 billion in fuel tax.” The CBO study cited earlier declared that national highway congestion resulted in 4.2 billion hours of delay and 2.9 billion gallons of additional fuel used at a cost of $78 billion. The proposed remedy is for the federal government to impose a policy of “congestion pricing.” This policy would charge drivers to use highways-roadways. More money out of your pocket during heavy traffic and lower prices in opposite circumstances, and check this one out: “Nationwide implementation of congestion pricing could provide governments a ‘social benefit’ of $19 billion to $45 billion per year.” President Obama needs to realize that we cannot pave our way or railroad our way to inevitable growth. The cost would probably be around $350 billion over six years. Obama and Secretary LaHood need to sit down with a few of us in the maritime industry so we can explain to them that the way to alleviatecongestion and pollution and save billions of dollars in fuel costs is by transporting goods over water.Think of the creation of jobs at shipyards, on vessels, and in ports.Imagine a budget surplus for the arts, education, mass transportation, and health care for the poor. Imagine….
 * The plan reverses tidal waves of shipyard closings which decimate the industry**
 * Munoz, 11** [January 11, The Obama Infrastructure Plan, and Another Shipyard Closes, OP-ED by Tony Munoz, Editor-in-Chief of the Maritime ExecutiveMagazine and the MarEx Newsletter, [] ]

http://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/short-sea-shipping-long-on-benefits/ To help meet the current congestion crisis on U.S. highway systems and rail networks, the Department of Transportation and the U.S. Maritime Administration are promoting short sea shipping as an environmentally friendly, timely, and cost-effective way to expand freight capacity. The practice uses existing vessels and infrastructure to move freight betweencoastal ports, and between coastal ports and inland ports. It is a critical component of the nation's transportation system, and an integral part of the global transportation and logistics network. Providing consistent service, reliability, competition, and pricing, short sea shipping can help the U nited S tates meet present and future domestic andforeign trade demands. Short sea shipping proponents envision waterways used in tandem with trucks, rail, and pipelines to provide physically and economically integrated, timely, and competitive service for moving freight to final destinations. Eventually, meeting capacity demands will require //new,// technologically advanced vessels and //infrastructure// components— //a boon for the// American //maritime// and //shipbuilding industries//. And, choosing short sea shipping instead of routing cargo by rail or road provides //important environmental benefits// such as reduced emissions and energy use. European Union (EU) countries use short sea shipping to mitigate their significant surface transportation problems. Today, more than 44 percent of all freight movements in the EU are waterborne. EU policymakers have put short sea and coastal shipping—in close coordination with rail and highway freight improvements—at the top of their transportation agendas. Short sea shipping is already a vital part of the EU's transportation system. It is the only European transportation mode to keep pace with the growth of road transportation. Indeed, its ton-kilometer performance grew by almost 38 percent in the 1990s. A Fragmented U.S. System In the U nited S tates, public and private sector leaders believe in short sea shipping as a//promising concept//. But due to infrastructure, legal, and economicconstraints facing our shipping supply chain, no agreement has been reached on its application. The U.S. system today is an aggregate of public and private modes of freight and passenger delivery, each with its own areas of interest and funding. U.S. transportation planners readily acknowledge that the national highway and rail systems cannot build themselves out of an impending trade explosion. Water, especially along the coastlines, offers a natural and inexpensive solution to many congestion problems. We must make a concerted effort to maintain, enhance, modernize, and expand the base of the marine transportation system and the services at U.S. ports. But building necessary intermodal freight and passenger capacity in congested metropolitan or transportation corridor areas is capital-intensive and time-consuming—and can sometimes be controversial. The General Accountability Office is investigating the viability of short sea shipping as part of the United States' overall intermodal transportation system. This should help raise awareness of short sea shipping's potential with the major legislative and executive policymakers in the United States. Currently under consideration is legislation that would provide resources to help local ports meet their growing infrastructure needs and better handle increased business. This legislation focuses on leveraging funds from federal, state, and local governments, as well as the private sector. Genuine progress in moving freight off our crowded highways and rail systems and onto the waterways //requires a real commitment// on the part of U.S. political leaders.
 * Increased support for short sea shipping sustains the shipbuilding industry**
 * Raymond, 05** [Charles, President and CEO Horizon Inc. “Short Sea Shipping: Long On Benefits”,

In conclusion, our study found that the tremendous advantage the US enjoys in naval power directly supports our national security through global power projection and maintaining freedom of the seas. Our ability to build large, highly capable naval ships is a vital part of our naval superiority and is therefore inexorably linked to our national security. The US must maintain it lead in naval power by protecting its domestic shipbuilding industry. It is our conclusion that the number one issue facing the American military shipbuilder today is the uncertainty in future orders for ship construction. The year to year fluctuation in the projected naval order book adds uncertainty for the shipbuilder wanting to invest in capital and labor improvement, and adds cost to the vessels actually being delivered. This fluctuation is exacerbated when the US Navy cancels entire ship classes or severely limits procurement of vessels that have been programs of record, programs which the shipbuilders have used to make labor and capital investment decisions. We feel it is imperative for the Navy to identify the force of the future and commit to a stable procurement plan to implement that force. The concept of Seabasing must mature at least to the point where the major yards can invest in the infrastructure necessary to build the force. In this area, we also conclude that the requirement for full funding of naval vessels in the year of authorization hampers the ability of the Navy and the industry to maintain a steady shipbuilding plan. It is apparent to us that the US Navy shipbuilding program is often used as a “bill payer” for other DoD priorities. In addition to the reality that the money is not obligated in the year of funding, the temptation to use the US Navy shipbuilding account to pay current year expenses is greater if significant procurement dollars are available to pay the full cost of individual ships. While we are convinced the nation must maintain sufficient shipbuilding capacityto allow for surge in national emergencies, we feel that the current and projected naval order book does not support the capacity being carried by the six largest shipyards. Restructuring of the industrial base is necessary. This restructuring may entail the politically difficult decision to allow some yards to close, but if the naval order book does not increase and the restructuring does not occur, unit cost will continue to skyrocket out of proportion to the value to the nation of the vessel.
 * And, a strong maritime and shipbuilding industry is a vital pre requisite to credible naval capabilities**
 * Alberto, et al., 5** (Lieutenant Colonel Ronald P., U.S. Army, Colonel Michael G. Archuleta, U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel Steven H. Bills, U.S. Air Force, Commander William A. Bransom, U.S. Navy, Mr. Kenneth Cohen, Department of State, Commander William A. Ebbs, U.S. Navy, George Manjgaladze, Ministry of Defense, Republic of Georgia, Commander Elizabeth B. Myhre, U.S. Navy, Audrea M. Nelson, DA, Robert L. Riddick, Department of Defense, Colonel Christopher M. Ross, U.S. Army, Julia N. Ruhnke, DA, Lieutenant Colonel Gregory M. Ryan, U.S. Marine Corps, Colonel David D. Thompson, U.S. Air Force, Commander Hugh D. Wetherald, U.S. Navy, Dr. Mark Montroll, faculty at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Dr. Michael Farbman, USAID, faculty at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Captain David B. Hill, U.S. Coast Guard, faculty at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, “SHIPBUILDING”, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, 2005, http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/programs/academic/industry/reports/2005/pdf/icaf-is-report-shipbuilding-2005.pdf, Deech)

Deter major power war**.** __No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major powers__. __Maintenance and extension of this Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key component of **deterring major power war**__. While war with another great power strikes many as improbable, __the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred using all elements of national power.____The expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational agility—provide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options__. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.
 * Great power war**
 * Conway et al 7** [James T., General, U.S. Marine Corps, Gary Roughead, Admiral, U.S. Navy, Thad W. Allen, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” October, http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf]
 * Win our Nation’s wars. **__In times of war, our ability to impose local sea control, overcome challenges to access, force entry, and project and sustain power ashore, makes our maritime forces an **indispensable element** of the joint or combined force__ . This expeditionary advantage must be maintained because it provides joint and combined force commanders with freedom of maneuver. __Reinforced by a robust sealift capability that can concentrate and sustain forces, sea control and power projection enable extended campaigns ashore__.

NLUS, 12 – a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating our citizens about the importance of sea power to U.S. national security and supporting the men and women of the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and U.S.-flag Merchant Marine and their families (Navy League of the United States, “Maritime Primacy & Economic Prosperity: Maritime Policy 2012-13”, Navy League of the United States, 1/21/12, [] | AK) Global engagement is critical to the U.S. economy, world trade and the protection of democratic freedoms that so many take for granted. The guarantors of these vital elements are hulls in the water, embarked forward amphibious forces and aircraft overhead. The Navy League of the United States’ Maritime Policy for 2012-13 provides recommendations for strategy, policy and the allocation of national resources in support of our sea services and essential to the successful execution of their core missions. We live in a time of complex challenges — //terrorism//, //political// and //economic turmoil//, //extremism//, //conflicts// over environmental resources, manmade and natural //disasters// — andpotential //flash points// exist //around the globe//. It is the persistent forward presence and engagement of maritime forces that keep these flash points in check, prevent conflict and crisis escalation, and allow the smooth flow of goods in a global economy. The United States has fought multiple wars and sacrificed much to ensure un challenged access to sea lanes and secure the global commerce upon which the U.S. economy depends. The “persistent naval presence” provided by our forward-deployed Navy and Marine Corps ships, aircraft, Sailors and Marines is the guarantor of that hard-won maritime security and the critical deterrent against those who might seek to undermine that security. Maintaining naval forces that can sustain our national commitment to global maritime security and dissuade transnational aggression in the future must be a national imperative. The No. 1 challenge to that imperative is the lack of a fully funded, achievable Navy shipbuilding program that produces the right quantity and quality of ships, with the right capabilities, for the right costs, in economically affordable numbers over the next 25 years. A shipbuilding plan must be defined and agreed upon by the Navy, the Departments of Defense (DoD) and Homeland Security, Congress and the administration — and executed now. Recognizing that hard choices must be made in a reduction of the defense budget, the Navy League is reducing its recommended funding for the Department of the Navy’s Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), account to $20 billion or more per year. This reduced funding leads to a recommended reduced force level of 305 ships to meet our nation’s global security challenges. This also recognizes that the worldwide commitment of ship deployment must be reduced. America’s amphibious expeditionary force is prepared to engage today’s threats — today. Our Marines remain heavily engaged in Afghanistan and support numerous other small-unit operations that enable nation-building with allies around the globe. The Marine Corps needs the authorization to reduce to an end strength of 186,800 Marines, and this force level must be properly resourced to maintain a balanced air-ground logistics team. The Corps must regain its expertise in amphibious operations and maintain that capability in force structure. The service also must be provided the resources to reset the force, to restore or acquire new equipment and capabilities consumed in the ongoing wars. The Coast Guard is a multimission, worldwide-deployed armed force with broad law enforcement authorities. It operates seamlessly with the DoD services as prescribed by the National Command Authority and is the lead agency for maritime homeland security and law enforcement support to the Navy in deployed operations. In addition, it fulfills several legally mandated missions, including its most employed mission of search and rescue, plus protection of living marine resources, drug interdiction, illegal migrant interdiction, defense readiness, marine safety, ice operations, aids to navigation, marine environmental protection, and ports, waterways and coastal security. The substantial breadth of operations, which has increased markedly in tempo since the 9/11 attacks, continues to overstress aging equipment, resulting in rising maintenance costs and a greater workload for Coast Guard personnel. The Coast Guard must increase its active-duty military strength to at least 45,000, have an operational expense budget of at least $6.7 billion and an Acquisition, Construction and Improvements (AC&I) budget resourced at no less than $2.5 billion per year, of which $2 billion should be dedicated to continuing the recapitalization of the fleet. Skilled Mariners are more critical than ever to ensuring our ability to sustain U.S. national and global security interests. Ninety-five percent of the equipment and supplies required to deploy the U.S. armed forces is moved by sea. The base of skilled U.S. Merchant Mariners is shrinking. The shipping capabilities of the Maritime Administration’s Ready Reserve Force and the DoD’s Military Sealift Command are sized to support routine and some surge logistics and specialized mission requirements. This critical capability must be maintained by ensuring an active commercial U.S.-flag Merchant Marine to support efficient and cost-effective movement of DoD cargo. //The U.S. shipbuilding industry is in crisis//. Finding a solution must be an imperative if our nation is to maintain a Navy capable of supporting the nation’s defense. Jobs lost in this sector mean precious ground lost in capability and capacity that cannot be regained. The current production levels for ship construction and the manufacturing of the other critical systems, equipment and weapons that we install in our ships, submarines and aircraft are at critically low levels. Sustaining and upgrading our nation’s critical, defense-related industrial base must be an essential element of our National Security Strategy. Personnel must train as they will fight to remain operationally ready. This all-volunteer military also must receive highly competitive compensation in the way of salary as well as health care, retirement and quality-of-life benefits to remain an effective fighting force. Taking care of our wounded warriors is fundamental.
 * And, causes and escalation of every transnational threat – the ship building industry is key**

— professor of operations at the Naval War College, former commanding officer in the former Yugoslav Navy and former West German merchant marine (Milan N., “On Naval Power”, Joint Forces Quarterly, July 2008, http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/jfq-50/JFQ-50.pdf, Deech) Operations in time of peace encompass routine activities, homeland security, protection of the country’s economic interests at sea, enforcement of maritime treaties, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. In general, routine duties include maritime border laws/customs enforcement, hydrographic surveys, oceanographic research, salvage, search and rescue, ordnance disposal, and marine pollution control. For the most part, these tasks are the responsibility of the coast guard, with naval forces employed in a supporting role. The threats to homeland security from across the sea are increasing in both intensity and sophistication. Specifically, these threats include ballistic missiles, maritime terrorism, illicit fishing, cross-border illegal immigration, criminal activity in ports/ harbors and at critical installations/facilities ashore, piracy, and trafficking in narcotics, humans, and weapons. The threat of ballistic missiles against ports/airfields and coastal installations/facilities can be countered by creating seabased ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, as the U.S. Navy is doing. BMD systems detect and destroy enemy aircraft and missiles by physically and electronically attacking bases, launch sites, and associated command and control systems. As part of homeland security, they are intended to provide defense against ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their flight. 3 Maritime terrorism has emerged as a formidable threat to both civilian and navalvessels. Large commercial shipsareeasy targets for determined terrorists, and the value of these vessels and cargoes makes them attractive to both regional terrorist groups and international organizations that desire to disrupt the economic lifelines of the industrial world. Compounding the threat is the use of commercial vessels by criminals who are often allied with terrorists. There is also a possibility that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could be used as terrorist weapons.
 * Naval strength solves ballistic missile defense and nuclear terrorism**
 * Vego, 8**


 * BMD solves Russian and Chinese conflict and is critical to deterrence**
 * NDU ’10** [The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University, “Industry Study Final Report Shipbuilding Industry,” Spring 2010, p. 1, http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/programs/academic/industry/reports/2010/pdf/icaf-is-report-shipbuilding-2010.pdf, AZhang]

Countering Near-Peer and Technologically Enabled Competitors “ Preventing war is preferable to fighting wars. Deterring aggression must be viewed in global, regional, and transnational terms via conventional, unconventional, and nuclear means.”17 Although the Cold War is over, the US must continue to counter threats posed by near-peer and technologically-enabled competitors. Deterrence in regards to the maritime strategy basically refers to ballistic missile defense and forward offensive missile capability. The requirement for maritime security to secure freedom of movement and secured access remains unchanged, but a different solution may be required to affect it. Ballistic missile defense is an important piece of the nation’s strategy to protect forward deployed forces, allied nations, and the homeland, and Navy ships play a crucial role in this task. It is a capability important for today and will continue to grow in importance as missiles continue to proliferate in the world both in the hands of nation states and possibly in the hands of nontraditional and non-state actors. The ability to deliver missiles forward from the sea is also an important piece of the nation’s strategic deterrence. The ability to launch conventional or nuclear missiles from anywhere in the ocean gives pause to any nation that would attempt to do us harm. The submarine is the most effective delivery system of choice since they are virtually 5 ￼ undetectable in location. Power projection should also focus on strategic sealift while ceding some power projection missions from carrier battle groups to other services. Resurgent Russia and China do not challenge US dominance at sea; however, they do pose a threat to access and freedom of action at sea.Russia understands the current deterrence calculus associated with the strategic stockpile of nuclear weapons that the US possesses. Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBM) places Strike Groups at risk should China decide to engage militarily.18A carrier can be defended organically, but at a very high operational cost. Defense of the Strike Group would likely expend prohibitively large portions of the strike capability thereby limiting accomplishment of the carrier’s primary power projection mission. If that mission is sacrificed, it changes the cost-benefit analysis that currently favors the Strike Group.

Advantage 2: Warming
(http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/2012/04/04/carbon-dioxide-caused-global-warming-at-ice-ages-end-pioneering-simulation-shows/) Climate science has an equivalent to the “what came first—the chicken or the egg?” question: __ What came first, greenhouse gases or global warming? A multi-institutional team led by researchers at Harvard, Oregon State __ University, __ and the University of Wisconsin used a global dataset of paleoclimate records and the Jaguar supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory __ (ORNL) __ to find the answer __ (spoiler alert: **__ carbon dioxide drives warming __** ). __ The results __, published in the April 5 issue of Nature, __ analyze **15,000 years** of climate history __. Scientists hope amassing knowledge of the causes of natural global climate change will aid understanding of human-caused climate change. “ __ We constructed the first-ever record of global temperature spanning the end of the last ice age based on 80 proxy temperature records from around the world __ ,” __ said Jeremy Shakun __, __ a __ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate and Global Change __ postdoctoral fellow at Harvard and Columbia Universities __ and first author of the paper. “It’s no small task to get at global mean temperature. Even for studies of the present day you need lots of locations, quality-controlled data, careful statistics. For the past 21,000 years, it’s even harder. But because the data set is large enough, these proxy data provide a reasonable estimate of global mean temperature.” Proxy records from around the world—derived from ice cores and ocean and lake sediments—provide estimates of local surface temperature throughout history, and carbon-14 dating indicates when those temperatures occurred. For example, water molecules harboring the oxygen-18 isotope rain out faster than those containing oxygen-16 as an air mass cools, so the ratio of these isotopes in glacial ice layers tells scientists how cold it was when the snow fell. Likewise, the amount of magnesium incorporated into the shells of marine plankton depends on the temperature of the water they live in, and these shells get preserved on the seafloor when they die. The authors combined these local temperature records to produce a reconstruction of global mean temperature. Additionally, samples of ancient atmosphere are trapped as air bubbles in glaciers, providing a direct measure of carbon dioxide levels through time that could be compared to the global temperature record. **__ Being the first to reconstruct global mean temperatures throughout this time interval allowed the researchers to show what many suspected but none could yet prove: “This is the first paper to definitively show the role carbon dioxide played in helping to end the last ice age, __****__ ” __** said Shakun, who co-wrote the paper with Peter Clark of Oregon State University. “ __ We found that global temperature mirrored and generally lagged behind rising carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation, which points to carbon dioxide as the major driver of global warming __ .” Prior results based on Antarctic ice cores had indicated that local temperatures in Antarctica started warming before carbon dioxide began rising, which implied that carbon dioxide was a feedback to some other leading driver of warming. __ The delay of global temperature behind carbon dioxide found in this study __, however, __ shows that the ice-core perspective does not apply to the globe as a whole and instead suggests that **carbon dioxide was the primary driver of worldwide warming** __. __ While the geologic record showed a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide and global temperature, the researchers also turned to state-of-the-art model simulations to further pin down the direction of causation suggested by the temperature lag. Jaguar recently ran approximately 14 million processor hours to simulate the most recent 21,000 years of Earth’s climate __. Feng He of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, a postdoctoral researcher, plugged the main forcings driving global climate over this time interval into an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)–class model called the Community Climate System Model version 3, a global climate model that couples interactions between atmosphere, oceans, lands, and sea ice. The climate science community developed the model with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration and used many codes developed by university researchers. “Our model results are the first IPCC-class Coupled General Circulation Model (CGCM) simulation of such a long duration (15,000 years),” said He, who conducted the modeling with Zhengyu Liu of the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “ **__ This is of particular significance to the climate community because it shows, for the first time, that at least one of the CGCMs used to predict future climate is capable of reproducing both the timing and amplitude of climate evolution seen in the past under realistic climate forcing __** .” The group ran simulations that used 4.7 million processor hours in 2009, 6.6. million in 2010, and 2.5 million in 2011. The Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment program, jointly managed by leadership computing facilities at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, awarded the allocations. Shaun Marcott and Alan Mix of Oregon State University analyzed data, and Andreas Schmittner, also of Oregon State, interpreted links between ocean currents and carbon dioxide. Edouard Bard of Centre Européen de Recherche et d’Enseignement des Géosciences de l’Environnement provided data and expertise about radiocarbon calibration. NSF supported this research through its Paleoclimate Program for the Paleovar Project and NCAR. The researchers used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, located in the National Center for Computational Sciences at ORNL, which is supported by DOE’s Office of Science. The paleoclimate community generated the proxy data sets and provided unpublished results of the DATED Project on retreat history of the Eurasian ice sheets. The NOAA NGDC and PANGAEA databases were also essential to this work.
 * C02 Causes Global Warming and the Newest Research Methods Account for the Objections of the Skeptics **
 * Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, April 4, 2012 **


 * Newest analysis shows warming is happening and not slowing – incorporates neg studies. **
 * The Daily Galaxy **, “EcoAlert: Global Warming Threat Accelerating,” 12/7/ ** 2011 ** , http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/12/ecoalert-global-warming-threat-accelerating.html

This stunning image of Alaska's annual walrus migration at top of page from the National Geographic mini-series, Great Migrations, underscores new research showing that __ global warming has no signs of slowing down and that further increases are to be expected in the next few decades __. Scientists fear declining Arctic sea ice may have caused an unprecedented mass migration of thousands of walrus from the ice floes to dry land along Alaska's coast. Researchers from the US Geological Survey (USGS), who have been tracking walrus movements using satellite radio tags, say 10,000 to 20,000 of the animals, mainly mothers and calves, are congregating in tightly packed herds on the Alaskan side of the Chukchi Sea, in the first such known exodus of its kind. __ New research has clarified the global climate trend, proving that global warming is showing no signs of slowing down and that further increases are to be expected in the next few decades __. __ The team __ --researchers, statisticians and climate experts from Tempo Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research-- __ analyzed the **five leading global temperature data sets** __, covering the period from 1979 to 2010, and factoring out three of the main factors that account for short-term fluctuations in global temperature: El Niño, volcanic eruptions and variations in the Sun's brightness. " __ Our approach shows that the idea that the global warming trend has slowed or even paused over the last decade or so is a **groundless misconception**. It shows that differences between the five data sets reside, to a large extent, in their short-term variability and not in the climatic trend. After the variability is removed, all five data sets are very similar __ ," said study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf. After removing known short-term fluctuations they showed that the global temperature has increased by 0.5°C in the past 30 years. In all of the five global data sets, 2009 and 2010 were the two hottest years. In the average over all five data sets, 2010 is the hottest year on record. Their study comes at a time when global warming is at the forefront of the political agenda, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) currently taking place in Durban. It is well known that temperatures have been rising since the early 20th Century and the effects have become visible in shrinking mountain glaciers, accelerating ice loss and sea level rise. In recent years, however, there have been claims by some that the global warming trend has slowed or even paused over the last decade or so. __ As global temperatures are constantly being measured by several different scientific teams, each adopting different methods for dealing with their data, it is clear that no single record is free of complications, uncertainties and corrections. ____ By bringing together and analyzing the five records – three surface records and two lower-troposphere records – the researchers were able to clarify the discrepancies between each __ one __ and __, when factoring out the naturally occurring variability, __ show the excellent agreement between all five data sets. ____ The three surface temperature data sets analysed by the researchers were from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the UK. __ Data representing the lower troposphere temperatures was based on satellite microwave sensors. El Niño is a naturally and irregularly occurring warming of surface ocean waters in the eastern tropical Pacific, whilst solar variation is the change in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun, dominated by an approximately 11-year-long cycle. Volcanic eruptions predominantly have a cooling effect lasting a few years, due to the very tiny erupted particles and droplets shielding light from hitting the earth. "The unabated warming is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on the climate," says Grant Foster, lead author of the study.

__A recent study published by University of Southern California researchers suggests that Antarctica featured drastically different conditions in its past __—particularly during the Miocene Era. __The study, conducted with the purpose of predicting conditions following further climate change, found that global temperature changes in the past have drastically altered the climates of the poles __. By drilling into the crust beneath Antarctic ice sheets, the scientists were able to analyze waxed leaf fossils, suggesting that the climate allowed for vegetation. Past experiments have reached difficulties using this technique, as shifting ice sheets destroy fossils. However, Sarah J. Feakins, leader of the study, was tipped off by pollen samples that suggested hints of plant life. By looking at hydrogen isotopes present in the plant matter, the team was able to determine air and water conditions during the plant’s life __. In a paper published in Nature Geoscience, the researchers reported hotter and wetter conditions in Antarctica’s past than were previously believed. The research has been used by many to claim evidence that global warming is part of a natural phenomenon involving cyclic climate change.Carbon monoxide readings during the Miocene Era fall somewhere between 400 and 600 parts per million (ppm). Readings today are steadily reaching 393 ppm, one of the highest readings in several million years, a trend geologists say match with this period in Earth’s history. USC researchers suggest that at the current rate, global temperatures will reach Miocene Era levels by the end of this century. __
 * Warming fast-Artic studies prove **
 * Kelly 6/19 ** (Conor “NASA’s Antarctic Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming” ForexTV.com 6/19/12 http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/nasa-s-antarctic-study-casts-doubt-on-global-warming)

__According to__ Carrie __Denning, a researcher at the Environmental Defense Fund__ who coauthored the report The Good Haul: Freight Innovations for the 21st Century __, a shipping company that moves containers by sea between Port Manatee, Florida, and Brownsville, Texas, already saves 70,000 gallons of fuel on each one-way voyage compared to a comparable truck journey.__ __Those fuel savings translate into fewer emissions in population centers. “One way to reduce pollution emissions in some regions will be to substitute multiple truck trips with single barge trips via coastal shipping routes that meet robust environmental performance standards,” she said.__ Even with the obvious fuel savings, Denning says that marine routes could still pose serious environmental consequences. Ports themselves are notorious for high levels of emissions from machinery used to move freight. __To truly be environmentally responsible, ports along a marine highway would have to implement solutions such as electric forklifts and yard trucks — many of which are already in place____at the Port of Los Angeles.__ Additionally, highways would have to be designated clear of environmentally sensitive areas. “Coastal shipping is not a panacea,” she said. “Depending on the highway route, there could be serious ramifications for marine life if dredging is required, if migratory patterns are disrupted, or if additional infrastructure is needed that interferes with certain marine ecosystems.”
 * Plan cuts greenhouse gas emissions**
 * Barry 10**** — ** Wired Contributor (Keith, “DOT to Turn Underused Waterways Into Marine Highways”, July 23, 2010, http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/07/dot-turns-underused-waterways-into-marine-highways/)//NJain

MARAD ‘11 [U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration], America’s Marine Highway Report to Congress, Prepared in Consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, April 2011, p. 21] America’s Marine Highway offers the potential of signifi cantly enhancing the environmental sustainability of the nation’s transportation system. In particular, water transportation is often the most energy-efficient means of moving cargo between two points, withcorresponding reductions per ton-mile in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Similarly, with appropriate technology and regulation, water transportation is an environmentally-friendly transportation mode that can reduce noise and air pollution and have minimal impact s on water quality.
 * Marine Highway water transportation reduces greenhouse gas emissions, noise, air, and water pollution**

__The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) modeled the reflectivity of clouds__ in a detailed simulation that aimed to determine the net effect of increased aerosols on cloud reflectivity. __Chief climate scientist Phil Rasch____and__ his team at the __US Department of Energy Office__ of Science's PNNL in Richland, Washington, __simulated three ships chugging along in a 93-mile by 37-mile____area__ of the Pacific Ocean, several hundred miles southwest of Los Angeles. __Their findings suggest that introducing aerosols near the surface would, in fact, result in cloud brightening and reflectivity and therefore form an effective tool against global warming__, except in clouds already __drizzling__ which __would be largely unaffected__. While the __aerosols currently affecting clouds in shipping lanes are expelled from ships as polluting steam,__ the artificially-brightening aerosol could be seawater sprayed from ocean vessels. But there are still unanswered questions as to how safe, efficient or predictable such methods might be. Rasch and his team are also using the simulation to explore when might be the best time of day to spray, given further information as to how the aerosols are affected by climate and prevailing weather; what effect brighter clouds have on rain, whether aerosols are burned off by the rising sun and how long they maintain a brighter cloud. __This is one of a few circulating ideas to fight global warming__ with geoengineering and is not the first of these to suggest modification of Earth's atmospheric particles.
 * Shipping solves warming – aerosol emissions**
 * Cattermole 10** (Tannith Cattermole Brighter, whiter clouds could fight global warming By 14:55 February 22, 2010 [] )

__ "The __ scientific __debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers__ - let alone the happily shopping general public - __still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy.__ Global __warming isn't just warmer temperatures__, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. __Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction____"__, reported Bill Henderson in //CrossCurrents.// __If strict global environmental security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million year old existence__, along __with the extinction of most flora and fauna__ beloved to man in the world we share.
 * Extinction **
 * Stein 6/26/2011 ** (Science editor for the magazine the Canadian) http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/02/26/01381.html)


 * Warming ensures migrations from other countries --- that ensures tensions between Russians and Chechens**
 * Welzer 12** —director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Memory Research at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities in Essen and Research Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Witten/Herdecke (Harald, //Climate Wars: What People Will Be Killed For in the 21st Century//, pg. 110-111, Google Books, DA: 6/26/2012//JLENART)

But __if climate change affects population distribution and redraws the boundaries of agrarian and waste land__, variously __producing water shortages and flooding, then this upsets the geopolitical balance and fuels international tensions at the level of power and resource politics.__ Thus, __there is every sign that the twenty-first century will see an increased potential for tensions and a major danger of violent solutions.__ Michael __Mann lines up a number of likely candidates for the next conflicts__ : Indonesia will be unable to assimilate or repress Aceh or West Papuan autonomy movements; India will lie unable to assimilate or repress Muslim Kashmiris or several of its small border peoples; Sri Lanka will be unable to assimilate or repress Tamils; Macedonia will be unable to assimilate or repress Albanians; Turkey, Iran and Iraq will be unable to assimilate or repress Kurdish movements; China will be unable to assimilate or repress Tibetans or Central Asian Muslims; __Russia will be unable to repress Chechens__ ; the Khartoum regime will be unable to contain South Sudanese movements, Israel will be unable to repress Palestinians. __Conflicts are to be expected in the Baltic too, since ethnic Russians are in a majority in many industrial regions that have offered extreme environmental damage.__

__The United Nations’ top climate change official said on Tuesday that food shortages and rising prices caused by climate disruptions were among the chief contributors to the civil unrest coursing through North Africa and the Middle East__. In a speech to Spanish lawmakers and military leaders, __Christiana Figueres__, __executive secretary of the United Nations climate office, said that climate change-driven drought, falling crop yields and competition for water were fueling conflict throughout Africa and__ elsewhere in __the developing world__. She warned that __unless nations took aggressive action to reduce emissions causing global warming such conflicts would spread, toppling governments and driving up military spending around the world__. “It is alarming to admit that __if____the community of nations is unable to fully stabilize climate change, it will threaten where we can live, where and how we grow food and where we can find water,”__ said Ms. Figueres, a veteran Costa Rican diplomat and environmental advocate. “In other words __, it will threaten the basic foundation – the very stability on which humanity has built its existence.”__ Rising food prices were a factor in the January riots that unseated Tunisia’s longtime president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, although decades of repression and high unemployment also fed the revolution. The link between food and resource shortages and Egypt’s revolution is less clear. But Ms. Figueres said that __long-term trends in arid regions did not look promising unless the world took decisive action on climate change__. She said that a third of all Africans now lived in drought-prone regions and that by 2050 as many as 600 million Africans would face water shortages. “On a global level, __increasingly____unpredictable weather patterns will lead to falling agricultural production and higher food prices, leading to food insecurity__ ,” she said in her address. “In Africa, crop yields could decline by as much as 50 percent by 2020. __Recent experiences around the world clearly show how such situations can cause political instability and undermine the performance of already fragile states__ .” She said that __rising sea levels__, more frequent and severe na __tural disasters, pandemics, heat waves and widespread drought could lead to extensive migrations within countries and across national borders.__ Military leaders around the world, including those in the United States, have warned __that such effects of a changing climate can serve as “threat multipliers,” adding stresses to nations and regions that already face heavy burdens of poverty and social insecurity__. “All these factors taken together,” Ms. Figueres concluded, “ __mean that climate change, especially if left unabated, threatens to increase poverty and overwhelm the capacity of governments to meet the basic needs of their people, which could well contribute to the emergence, spread and longevity of conflict__ .”
 * Warming causes middle east instability and war – it’s a threat multiplier**
 * Broder 11** (John, Writer for Green from the New York Times, “Climate Change Drives Instability, U.N. Official Warns,” 2/15/11, [] )//PC

As long as the total movement of isotherms toward the poles is much smaller than the size of the habitat, or the ranges in which the animals live, the effect on species is limited. But now __ the move­ment is inexorably toward the poles and totals more than one hun­dred miles over the past several decades __. If __ greenhouse gases continue to increase at business-as-usual rates, then the rate of isotherm movement will double in this century to at least seventy miles per decade __. __ Species at the most immediate risk are those in polar climates and the biologically diverse slopes of alpine regions ____. __ Polar animals, in effect, will be pushed off the planet. Alpine species will be pushed toward higher altitudes, and toward smaller, rockier areas with thinner air; thus, in effect, they will also be pushed off the planet. A few such species, such as polar bears, no doubt will be "rescued" by human beings, but survival in zoos or managed animal reserves will be small consolation to bears or nature lovers. Earth's history provides an invaluable perspective about what is possible. __ Fossils in the geologic record reveal that there have been five mass extinctions during the past five hundred million years— geologically brief periods in which about half or more of the species on Earth disappeared forever __. In each case, life survived and new species developed over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. __ All these mass extinctions were associated with large and relatively rapid changes of atmospheric composition and climate. ____ In the mostextreme extinction __, the "end-Permian" event, dividing the Permian Triassic periods 251 million years ago, nearly all life on Earth— __ more than 90 percent of terrestrial and marine species—was exterminated __. None of the extinction events is understood in full. Research is active, as increasingly powerful methods of "reading the rocks" are being developed. Yet __ enough is now known to provide an invalu­able perspective for what is already being called the sixth mass ex­tinction, the human-caused destruction of species __. Knowledge of past extinction events can inform us about potential paths for the future and perhaps help guide our actions, as __ our single powerful species threatens all others, and our own. __ We do not know how many animal, plant, insect, and microbe species exist today. Nor do we know the rate we are driving species to extinction. About two million species—half of them being insects, including butterflies—have been cataloged, but more are dis­covered every day. The order of magnitude for the total is perhaps ten million. Some biologists estimate that when all the microbes, fungi, and parasites are counted, there may be one hundred million species. Bird species are documented better than most. Everybody has heard of the dodo, the passenger pigeon, the ivory-billed woodpecker—all are gone—and the whooping crane, which, so far, we have just barely "saved." We are still losing one or two bird species per year. In total about 1 percent of bird species have disap­peared over the past several centuries. If __ the loss of birds is repre­sentative of other species, several thousand species are becoming extinct each year. The current extinction rate is at least one hundred times greater than the average natural rate. So the concern that humans may have initiated the sixth mass extinction is easy to understand. __ However, the outcome is still very much up in the air, and human-made cli­mate change is likely to be the determining factor. I will argue that __ if we continue on a business-as-usual path, with a global warming of several degrees Celsius, then we will drive a large fraction of species, conceivably all species, to extinction __. On the other hand, just as in the case of ice sheet stability, if we bring atmospheric composition under control in the near future, it is still possible to keep human-caus ed extinctions to a moderate level.
 * Warming destroys biodiversity—Leads to extinction **
 * Hansen 2011 - ** is member of the National Academy of Sciences, an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and at Columbia’s Earth Institute, and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (James E, “Storms of my Grandchildren”)

Advantage 3: Solvency
***Note: SST = short sea transportation, CCF = capital construction fund For more than a decade, Europe and the U.S. have witnessed increasing highway traffic congestion and considered the possible use of water transport as a highway supplement and alternative. The European Community has moved to embrace water transport for its container and ro/ro traffic using programs like the Marco Polo and Motorways of the Sea initiatives. In the U.S., there has been general agreement that our ocean coastal waters could provide additional transportation capacity and that a comprehensive federal program would be required to achieve it. But no such program has been initiated, and the multiple " choke points " and miles of bumper-to-bumper traffic that have characterized travel on major highways, such as I-95, I-10 and I-5, have simply grown more pronounced year by year. These issues remain unaddressed today. With the December 2007 enactment of the Marine Transportation sections of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Act), Congress and the Bush Administration provided the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with the authority for a European-style Motorways of the Sea program to facilitate federal and local government collaborations and attract public and private sector investment for short sea transportation infrastructure projects to access the potential of our nation's ocean highways. The Short Sea Transportation Program The Act directed the Secretary to establish a short sea transportation program (SST) to mitigate landside congestionand provide a favorable legal regime for public and private sector investment to create the infrastructure necessary for new coastwise and other domestic waterborne services. The program was intended to expand the use of the Great Lakes/Saint Lawrence Seaway System as well as inland, intracoastal and coastal waterways for the transportation of freight loaded in containers and trailers to mitigate landside congestion. Section 1121 mandated actions to create an environment that would foster federal, state and local cooperation in the planning and financing of shore-side infrastructure and attract private sector investment to finance vessel fleet requirements. The House version of Section 1122 addressed the need for U.S. government-assisted financing for the vessels that would be involved by extending the Maritime Administration’s (MARAD) Capital Construction Fund’s (CCF) tax-deferral program to container and ro/ro services nationwide and authorizing $2 billion for MARAD’s Title XI loan guarantee program. Section 1123 mandated a report to be made not later than one year after the December 19, 2007 enactment to detail progress in the implementation of SST and provide recommendations for further administrative or legislative action as appropriate. Certain actions in the Act are mandated as "shall" while others are merely permitted as "may." The Act provides that the Secretary "shall establish a short sea transportation program and designate short sea transportation projects to be conducted under the program to mitigate landside congestion and encourage the use of short sea transportation through the development and expansion of: (1) documented vessels; (2) shipper utilization; (3) port and landside infrastructure; and (4) marine transportation strategies by state and local governments." In administering the program, the Secretary "shall": • Designate SST routes as extensions of the surface transportation system to focus public and private efforts to use the waterways to relieve landside congestion along coastal corridors; • Enter into memorandums of understanding with the heads of other federal entities to transport federally owned or generated cargo using program-designated SST projects when practical or available; • Consult with shippers and other participants in transportation logistics and develop proposals for short-term incentives to encourage the use of SST in consultation with federal entities and state and local governments; • Develop strategies to encourage the use of SST for passengers and cargo; • Assess the extent to which states and local governments include SST and other marine transportation solutions in their transportation planning, and encourage state departments of transportation to develop strategies, where appropriate, to incorporate SST, ferries, and other marine transportation solutions for regional and interstate transport of freight and passengers in their transportation planning; • Encourage groups of states and multi-state transportation entities to determine how SST can address congestion, bottlenecks, and other interstate transportation challenges; • Establish a board to identify and seek solutions to impediments hindering effective use of SST, with representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal, state, and local governmental entities and private sector entities; and • Issue temporary SST program regulations for the implementation of the SST program not later than 90 days after December 19, 2007, and to issue final regulations not later than October 1, 2008. MARAD was assigned responsibility for implementation of SST, which it renamed America's Marine Highway Program. Two Years Late and $2 Billion Short The report to Congress on the implementation of SST and any recommendations for further legislative or administrative action, which was due not later than December 19, 2008, was finally issued on April 5 of this year. It addresses the "shall" tasking assigned under Section 1121 point by point and confirms – without noting DOT’s failure to meet the mandated deadlines of March 18 and October 1, 2008 for the publication of regulations or the December 19, 2008 deadline for filing the report – that the congressionally assigned tasks have been completed or are otherwise well underway. The report's organization and content are explained in an Executive Summary which commences: "The first section of this report provides the justification for expanding the utilization of Marine Highway services. It describes the interests of the federal government in encouraging greater use of Marine Highways and, through the example of Europe, shows that government policy can be successful in achieving this result. An important point of this section is that the full range of public benefits of Marine Highways services will not be realized based solely on market-driven transportation choices." The report confirms the Secretary's apparent compliance with the Act's directions. In the Conclusion it acknowledges that: "The private sector will ultimately be the key to the success of America's Marine Highway through innovation, outreach and investment,” and goes on to state: "Without strong leadership from the federal government, however, the nation's rivers and coastal waterways will continue to be underutilized for domestic container and trailer freight transportation. It is difficult for private operators to support the scale of investment needed to initiate large-scale operations. Private operators are particularly disadvantaged by the fact that many of the important public benefits of water transportation. . . cannot be captured in the form of higher revenues or lower costs. . . . Government action is required to help overcome these challenges and assist the expansion of Marine Highway services in a significant manner." The report confirms the Secretary's apparent compliance with the Act's directions. In the Conclusion it acknowledges that: "The private sector will ultimately be the key to the success of America's Marine Highway through innovation, outreach and investment,” and goes on to state: " Without strong leadership from the federal government, however, the nation's rivers and coastal waterways will continue to be underutilized for domestic container and trailer freight transportation. It is difficult for private operators to support the scale of investment needed to initiate large-scale operations . Private operators are particularly disadvantaged by the fact that many of the important public benefits of water transportation . . . cannot be captured in the form of higher revenues or lower costs. . . . Government action is required to help overcome these challenges and assist the expansion of Marine Highway services in a significant manner." But there are no "recommendations [to the Congress] for further legislative or administrative action that the Secretary of Transportation considers appropriate." Instead, the report provides only: "suggestions from the transportation community. . . which are under consideration by the Administration and thus not necessarily endorsed by MARAD, US DOT, or the Administration, that stakeholders say could induce increased waterborne freight traffic on America's Marine Highways." We are assured that MARAD will work to “incorporate America's Marine Highway more completely into the national transportation system . . . fund research and study the commercial market . . . [and] evaluate the outcomes of Marine Highway projects already underway . . . .” Where are the outlines of any MARAD process to address and prioritize the "suggestions from the transportation community," or of Administration support for the modification of the Harbor Maintenance Tax, or of support for a well-funded, multiyear MARAD Title XI program for the financing necessary for the creation of the container and ro/ro fleets of $150-to-$200 million vessels that will required to achieve SST’s objectives? One only need review the MARAD Administrator's FY 2012 budget testimony on March 1 and the March 10 testimony of the Secretary to understand that there will be no America's Marine Highway Program. Instead of a request for some portion or all of the Act's authorization of $2 billion for Title XI vessel financing, the MARAD Administrator requested the cancellation of $54.1 million of the $76.6 million of its existing Title XI authority "because the maritime industry must share in the national sacrifice during these challenging economic times." And while the Secretary spoke of multibillion-dollar investments for six-year authorizations in high-speed rail, road and bridge improvements, and rehabilitation of existing transit systems, the entire MARAD operating budget request was only $357.8 million. So we have a delayed December 2008 report to Congress, delivered in April 2011, and not much else. End of the Highway? From discussions too numerous to count over the past dozen years, it is clear that two of the most important impediments to the initiation of coastwise blue water services have been (1) the absence of the two federal support programs that have proven essential to the financing of the nation's existing blue water container and ro/ro fleets in prior decades, and (2) the imposition of the Harbor Maintenance Tax. Financing the multiple vessel commitments to meet the service frequencies that will be needed to attract cargoes from interstate highways to coastal waterways will almost certainly require federal assistance. The congressional sponsors of the Act were mindful of this need, which is why the original versions of the Act, as reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and later passed by the House, provided access to two important MARAD financing assistance programs: the Title XI loan guarantee program , authorizing $2 billion of new financing, and the CCF tax deferral program , extending these deferrals to SST project use. These programs, which enable vessel owners to obtain long-term commercial financing and purchase vessels with tax-deferred dollars over periods of up to 25 years, have been used in combination in the financing of virtually all of the container and ro/ro vessels in current U.S. domestic service. The final version of the Act does not provide additional Title XI authorization but does extend CCF program availability. The CCF extension to coastwise services has been a long-time maritime community objective. The extension was included in congressional initiatives in the 1990s, in the SEA 21 congestion mitigation proposals in 2002, and in congressionally sponsored legislation in 2003. The CCF program is made up of individual tax deferrals based on MARAD contracts; its extension has already become effective for existing MARAD contract holders and should be available upon application and approval for others. The availability of Title XI 25-year term debt is of equal transaction importance. The two programs are complementary and designed for joint use. Title XI or similar debt financing support will be necessary for meaningful SST developments. Title XI program opponents have called it a "corporate subsidy." But, in fact, it is simply "mortgage insurance," as it was termed in its 1938 enactment, that is being purchased by the vessel owner and included as a transaction cost.
 * A comprehensive federal expansion of Title XI loan guarantees mitigates congestion and creates conditions favorable for private investment – the plan reverse the only barrier to short sea transportation**
 * Cook, 11** — former General Counsel of the Maritime Administration, Counsel to Seward and Kissel LLP (H. Clayton, “Dead in the Water”, Maritime Executive, 7/8/2012, http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/dead-in-the-water, Deech)

A loan guarantee is not the same as a federal grant. Rather, it means the federal government will assign a loan-loss reserve to guarantee that the bank makingthe loan or mortgage for ship building will have a solvent debtor should the ship owner default.It reduces the risk to the lender, and is an //essential element to attracting financial backing.// The U.S. Maritime Administration’s ( MARAD ) Title XI programwas the backbone of loan guarantees forship builders. The program, decades old, was designed to ensure the United States had sufficient ships for a war-time emergency. The Bush Administration //stopped new funding// for shipbuilding, citing waste and some defaults in the program. While influential lawmakers from both parties expressed support of Title XI, Republican Senator John McCain came out in support of the president’s plan, and led successful efforts in the Senate to oppose new shipbuilding funds. McCain, who chaired the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which had partial oversight of Title XI, questioned the relevance of the program in support of national security during a 2003 debate on a supplemental budget proposal bill in the U.S. Senate. “This funding is simply not justified as part of an emergency supplemental to fund the ongoing war,” McCain said in an April 3, 2003, speech on the Senate floor. “The Title XI program does not serve any defense or homeland security purpose and it should not receive funding under the guise of a wartime need.” McCain described Title XI as “riddled with problems .” And in fairness to the Arizona senator, there have been loan defaults related to the program. Some of these defaults, however, occurred due to the intervention of members of Congress who overrode MARAD staff on behalf of projects that should never have been funded. Which is to say, the problem wasn’t always with Title XI, but with Congress itself. Former Rep. Helen Bentley (R-Maryland) expressed such a sentiment during a House Transportation Committee hearing on short sea shipping in February, 2007. Bentley, a chair of the Federal Maritime Commission under former President Richard Nixon and a long-time advocate for the U.S. maritime industry, blamed “members of Congress” for some of the loan default problems with Title XI. When her comments, which were made as an aside to another witness, were reported during the hearing, there was no rebuttal. In a recent interview, Mark Schlefer, a retired Washington, D.C., maritime attorney and an authority on Title XI, also recalled that problems with the program surfaced with passenger ships that he says should never have been built. Congressional meddling, Schlefer agrees, undermined the program. Schlefer not only calls for //the re-authorization of Title XI funding//, but for reforming the program to remove obstacles to new participants and start-up companies that hope to build ships.
 * And, the plan reduces risk and creates the financial backing necessary for short sea shipping**
 * Margaronis, 08** [Green Ships Can Fight Global Warming, president of California-based Santa Maria Shipowning & Trading Inc, p. online document retrieved via a google download, full text email alexanderdpappas@gmail.com ]

[18 April 2012, “The U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Plan: Assumptions and Associated Risks to National Security” Dr. Seth Cropsey, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Washington, DC. He served as Naval Officer from 1985 to 2004 and as deputy senior under secretary of the Navy in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush, http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SethCropsey--USNavyShipbuildingPlan--Testimony041812.pdf, AZhang] Knowledge of shipbuilding remains part of American manufacturing. But accelerating cost,an ageing workforce, reduced orders for warships,and an uncertain future risk the nation’s ability to turn out sufficient numbers of vessels at affordable prices and profitably enough to keep shipbuilding companies alive. The destabilization of the American shipbuilding industrial base is one reason thatthe cost of warships is outpacing the rate of inflation. The Navy’s reduced procurement of ships over the past twenty years has caused the industry to contract, lay off workers, and in general to become less reliable. This has driven up the cost of labor and the cost of construction materials. The fewer ships the Navy buys, the less lucrative the industry is for skilled workers. As the cost of labor rises shipbuilders are increasingly pressed to attract and train qualified personnel. The negative trends reinforce each other. As younger workers are dissuaded from seeking employment or remaining in the industry by the prospects of sporadic employment those who remain—the existing workers—age. The cycle is self-defeating. Paying older workers increases overhead costs and makes it increasingly expensive to invest in the training and education of a younger workforce. The destabilization of the industrial base also causes costs to rise since many of the materials and products that go into building Navy ships are not useful for other purposes. Since the Navy is buying far fewer ships now than it did in the 1980s, many shipyards rely on a single source for necessary materials. With a virtual monopoly on these products, the suppliers have in large part the ability to name their price. The inefficient manner in which the shipyards acquire these materials drives up labor and overhead costs. The solution lies in stabilizing the American shipbuilding industry. This means that the Navy must either increase its orders of ships and/or improve its business practices, for example disciplining the changes it requires of shipbuilders once orders have been placed and vessels are under construction. Buying and stockpiling spare parts for ships that are already in service and whose need for regular maintenance and repair is well known would also help provide stability for the American shipbuilding industry. In a study conducted on the subject in 2006, the RAND Corporation concluded thatthe rising costs of building ships is the result of a combination of unsteady U.S. Government procurement rates and a “monopsony relationship” between the government and the shipbuilders. In a monopsony a single purchaser is faced with a host of sellers. Because there is so little American shipbuilding outside of what the Navy purchases, U.S. firms are at the commercial mercy of the 9 percent of the Navy budget devoted to buying ships. A 2005 Government Accountability Office report a ttributed cost increases in shipbuilding to instability in the entire industry, the difficulty in recruiting and training qualified personnel, high rates of skilled personnel turnover and the shipbuilders’ depend ence on a rapidly shrinking supplier base.
 * Stabilizing the shipbuilding industry would reduce costs and solve institutional problems**
 * Cropsey ’12**