The united states federal government should offer tax incentives for offshore wind turbines

SOLVENCY A.) NO SHIPS FOR CONSTRUCTION According to Robet B. Hopkins and Duane Morris LLP w/ with a concentration on transportation, products liability and commercial litigation, there are NO ships available to install wind farms as most of the ships in the SQ are tied up in Asia (especially China, the leading producer of Wind Energy) and Europe. This means that the plan is impossible and cannot actually happen, thus it shouldn’t be voted on. (link below) Inherency A.) Price of the energy on the consumer Institute for Energy Research, 11-6-2013, "N.J. Offshore Wind Project Reveals True Cost to Taxpayer," IER, http://instituteforenergyresearch.org... As noted previously by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), offshore wind is a terrible investment economically. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), offshore wind is 2.6 times more expensive than onshore wind power and is 3.4 times more expensive than power produced by a combined cycle natural gas plant. On a kilowatt hour basis, offshore wind power is estimated to cost 22.15 cents per kilowatt hour, while onshore wind is 8.66 cents per kilowatt hour, and natural gas combined cycle is only 6.56 per kilowatt hour. The price for coal is about 10 cents per Kilowatt hour thus doing the plan will raise prices of electricity more than 2 fold. Not only thins but you, the judge will have to pay for the subsidy with YOUR tax money meaning that your wallet will be double hit by this plan. Pro said that wind energy is: “a rapidly growing industry that needs the US federal government support in order to expand.” How exactly does that work? if you are rapidly growing industry you are successful if you require subsidies you are failing and thus require a crutch. Wind is a failing industry that is usurping money from the US economy which could be better used in education, infrastructure or hell, even onshore wind which is much cheaper and more reliable. Just look at how weak wind energy really is without the Production Tax Credit to support and subsidize it and then tell me how such an industry can truley be profitable on its own two feet: Response:Global Warming Advantage A.) Creation of wind turbines causes massive pollution and leads to Radioactive waste in chinaIER, 10-23-2013, "Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste," http://instituteforenergyresearch.org... "A typical wind turbine contains more than 8,000 different components, many of which are made from steel, cast iron, and concrete. One such component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals"It is these magnets which result in huge amounts of radioactive waste being produced in china, here is testimony from Simon Pary from the Daily Mail who went to see these magnet factories in China first hand: "As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming. 'It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’ People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed. Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found." "According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals. To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines. For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel." Furthermore..."Not only do rare earths create radioactive waste residue, but according to the Chinese Society for Rare Earths, one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, [and] approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater.” These facts alone represent a case take-out and shows that wind turbine creation will have no better effects on the environment then other methods of energy production B.) Methane makes warming impossible to stopBobby Magill, 2014, "Arctic Methane Emissions 'Certain to Trigger Warming'," No Publication, http://www.climatecentral.org... "As climate change melts Arctic permafrost and releases large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, it is creating a feedback loop that is "certain to trigger additional warming," according to the lead scientist of a new study investigating Arctic methane emissions. The study released this week examined 71 wetlands across the globe and found that melting permafrost is creating wetlands known as fens, which are unexpectedly emitting large quantities of methane. Over a 100-year timeframe, methane is about 35 times as potent as a climate change-driving greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and over 20 years, it's 84 times more potent." As stated methane is about 35X more potent than CO2 and the world is stuck in a feedback loop that will flood the atmoshphere with methane resulting in inevitable global warming. Folks, global warming is inevitable and no human action can stop it especially a few wind turbines.Jobs A.) Ecoomy is fine, no need for riskWe have surfaced from the recession and we are improving faster than ever now, the economy is adding a sustainable amount of jobs now and there is no reason to take any chances with risky investments in offshore wind.B.) Offshore wind fails at bringing jobsTelegraph View7, 6-15-2013, "Wind power has failed to deliver what it promised," <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">Telegraph.co.uk</span>, <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;"our report shows that this industry is expensive, passes costs on to the consumer and does not create many jobs in return. Wind power is far from the panacea that its supporters claim it to be."" The Sunday Telegraph reveals how many 'green jobs’’ the wind-power industry really generates in exchange for its generous subsidies. The figures show that for 12 months until February 2013, a little over £1.2  billion was paid out to wind farms through a consumer subsidy financed by a supplement on electricity bills. During that period, the industry employed just 12,000 people, which means that each wind-farm job cost consumers £100,000 – an astonishing figure......Summary: offshore wind fails in all aspects