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

To answer and refute my opponents statement:A) No ships for construction? Increasing demand for offshore wind means that an offshore wind building crew will be established by businesses who want to take advantage of this new industry. No site here, just basic capitalism at work since supply eventually meets demand. Siemens and other corporations have met the European demand, all that these corporations have to do is expand, which is a really easy thing for corporations to do. They will not create these turbines if we don't incentivize them. B)onshore wind? Only offshore wind can prevent climate change Thaler 12 . http://papers.ssrn.com...; ninety percent stronger and more consistent over water than - land, with higher power densities and lower shear and turbulence,13 America’s offshore resources can provide more than our current electricity use.14 Moreover, these resources are near many major cities that are home to much of the population and electricity demand thereby “reducing the need for new high-voltage transmission from the Midwest and Great Plains to serve coastal landsso basicly, onshore wind may be cheaper now since it's already implemented, offshore wind offers greater potential energy without creating co2 emmissions. economies of scale will make offshore wind cheaper. Clarke et al, 9 . http://offshorewind.net... Offshore wind farms are more expensive to build and maintain than onshore systems. According to the U. S. DOE 20% Wind Energy by 2030 report, the capital costs for offshore wind farms are estimated at $2,400/kW (in 2006 dollars) compared with $1,650/kW for land-based wind projects. Windpower Monthly notes that information on the cost of offshore wind power facilities continues to be sparse. 81 Based on limited data available from completed offshore projects, this publication estimates that a fully-installed offshore wind system will cost as much as €3,300/kW ($4,600/kW) compared with €1,700/kW ($2,400/kW) for landbased. These figures include the cost of the turbines, as well as installation and maintenance. Despite the increased costs associated with building and operating turbines in ocean and lake environments, there are several factors that make offshore wind development extremely attractive. Benefits include a more robust and consistent wind resource, and the ability to host ever-larger turbines (approaching 10 MW) and more expansive multi-turbine projects (with installed capacities of 1,000-3,000 MW). Economies of scale can offset, at least partially, the higher initial capital costs. Also, one of the most important economic benefits of wind power (both land-based and offshore) is that it reduces energy price risk. Once wind farms are operational, the fuel cost is zero (in contrast to the high price volatility of fossil fuels). Finally, for a number of states along the East Coast and Great Lakes, offshore wind offers the best—or only—opportunity to develop utility-scale renewable energy projects. The great potential benefits of offshore wind energy warrant its serious economic analysis. Global warming/environmentThe status quo and alternative to offshore wind is coal, which is bad for the enviornmentgreen peace 14 . http://www.greenpeace.org...A large coal-burning power plant releases millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the air â€" and ultimately into our bodies â€" every year. The nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, and dozens of other hazardous substances that come from coal combustion can lead to not only respiratory ailments, but also cardiovascular and nervous system disorders. Many of these pollutants also make their way into our water, creating more opportunities for them to make it into our system. Coal-burning power plants emit more than 30% of the USâ€™s global warming pollution. Coal mining includes more fatal injuries than any other American industry. Each year, up to 36,000 Americans die as a result of air pollution from coal-fired power plants. Nearly one in ten American children has asthma. Coal-fired power plants cause 554,000 asthma attacks every year. Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, and dozens of other hazardous substances that come from coal combustion can lead to not only respiratory ailments, but also cardiovascular and nervous system disorders. Cities with high concentrations of nitrogen oxides, a compound produced in coal combustion, have death rates four times higher than those with low concentrations, which suggests a potential correlation. Children are at particular risk from the mercury emissions from coal. According to Physicians for Social Responsibility, every year between 300,000 and 630,000 American children are born with blood mercury levels so high that they underperform on neurodevelopmental tests and face lifelong loss of intelligence. Look the fact is, we can't regulate how China get's their resources but we can regulate how we use their resources. Even the the mining costs of offshore wind and coal are similar, in the end, which is more sustainable and which one is burnt away in a constant cycle. coal ash is radioactivescientific america 7 . http://www.scientificamerican.com...coal ash(emissions from coal) also emit radioactive nuclear minerals such as uranium into the atmosphere. An area around a coal factory is proven to be 100 times more radioactive then then an area near nuclear power plants. Ok,your right about methane, this is exactly why we need to curb pollution now so we don't cross the methane artic melting and so the perpetual cycle doesn't start. We're nearing the tipping point so we need to stop now! . http://www.climatecentral.org...Rare earths disadvantage:from your negatives source:"While nuclear storage remains an important issue for many U. S. environmentalists, few are paying attention to the wind industry’s less efficient and less transparent use of radioactive material via rare earth mineral excavation in China. The U. S. nuclear industry employs numerous safeguards to ensure that spent nuclear fuel is stored safely. "The fact is, yes, China's rare earth mining does create radioactive waste. But China will need to be pressured by the international community in order to reduce their reactivity and reprocess or potentially store the radioactive waste. This is not a fault of the affirmative, but merely a flaw within the system of which the pro must solve for. In increasing our demand for these rare earths, we should also pressure China to get rid of this sludge. Conclusion: If you vote pro, you are voting to solve global warming which is on the brink from methane hydrates, we avoid the rare earths disadvantage since this problem is external of the plan. This disadvantage can also be solved for with effective international policy. My plan doesn't cause radiation, but merely perpetuates a system that does. We try to end or regulate this system, which i agree with, but that doesn't mean You should vote negative based on this outside effect. If you vote neg, we will all eminently fail to solve global warming, radiation, and other impacts. Global warming needs to stop now from the negatives evidence which states that there will be artic methane emission. Using my evidence, the methane emission will only be released when a 2.5 celsius increase in global temperatures occurs, which means that we have to stop and curb emissions now or methane emissions will increase and warming will accelerate. Yes, these offshore wind turbines will be slightly costlier than coal, but coal has much more social cost then offshore wind. Global warming will lead to mass extinction.