Omega produces improved ecosystem conditions, renewable biofuels, and clean water through the use of waste products and non-invasive algae

Energy dependence Advantage

1AC

OMEGA is the solution to renewable energy- the only problem is funding

Jonathan Trent 12’

“Grow Your Own Energy “ Jonathan Trent studied at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC-San Diego, specializing in extremophiles. He is lead scientist on the OMEGA project at NASA's Ames Research Center in California. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2012/09/algae_for_biofuel_omega_project_has_success_in_california_ready_to_scale_up_.html

A solution occurred to me: For coastal cities, we should try a system I call OMEGA: Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae. Some 40 to 60 percent of Earth's population lives near a coast, most of the biggest cities are near a coast, and nearly all coastal cities discharge wastewater offshore.¶ How does OMEGA work? It uses PBRs made from cheap, flexible plastic tubes floating offshore, and filled with wastewater, to grow freshwater, oil-producing algae. It would be easier to build the systems in protected bays, but breakwaters could also be constructed to control waves and strong currents. The water need not be deep or navigable, but a few things are crucial, including temperature, light, water clarity, frequency and severity of storms, boat traffic, nature and wildlife conservation.¶ Beyond solving the problem of proximity to wastewater plants, there are other advantages to being offshore. OMEGA uses buoyancy, which can be easily manipulated, to move the system up and down, influencing exposure to surface waves and adjusting light levels. And the overheating problem is eliminated by the heat capacity of the surrounding seawater.¶ The salt gradient between seawater and wastewater can also be exploited to drive forward osmosis. Using a semipermeable membrane, which allows water, but not salt, pollutants, or algae to pass through, wastewater is drawn into the saltwater with no added energy. In the process, algae are concentrated in preparation for harvesting and the wastewater is cleaned, first by the algae, and then by forward osmosis. This produces water clean enough to release into the marine environment or recover for reuse.¶ If OMEGA's freshwater algae are accidently released, they die in seawater, so no invasive species can escape into the ecosystem. In fact, OMEGA can improve conditions by providing a large surface for seaweed and invertebrates to colonize: part floating reef, part floating wetland. Then there are the extra possibilities of developing wind or wave power and aquaculture, growing food such as mussels.¶ OK, if it's so good, where is it? For the past two years, backed by NASA and the California Energy Commission, and about $11 million, we have crawled over every aspect of OMEGA. In Santa Cruz, Calif., we built and tested small-scale PBRs in seawater tanks. We studied OMEGA processing wastewater in San Francisco, and we investigated biofouling and the impact on marine life at the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in Monterey Bay.¶ I'm now pretty confident we can deal with the biological, engineering, and environmental issues. So will it fly economically? Of the options we tested, the OMEGA system combined with renewable energy sources—wind, solar, and wave technologies—and aquaculture looks most promising. Now with funds running out and NASA keen to spin off OMEGA, we need the right half-hectare site for a scaled-up demonstration. While there is enthusiasm and great potential sites in places ranging from Saudi Arabia to New Zealand, Australia to Norway, Guantanamo Bay to South Korea, as yet no one has committed to the first ocean deployment.¶ We could be on the threshold of a crucial transition in human history—from hunting and gathering our energy to growing it sustainably. But that means getting serious about every option, from alpha to OMEGA.

US energy independence allows us to distance ourselves from the Middle East, preventing intervention

Pedro Mielgo et al 13 ( President, Nereo GreenCapital, Florentino Portero, Lecturer of Contemporary History, UNED, Gerardo del Caz Esteso,Mechanical Engineer. Specialist in Energy Policy, 6/9/13, GEOPOLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES' ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, http://www.fundacionfaes.org/file_upload/publication/pdf/20130926105628geopolitical_implications_of_the_united_states__energy_independence.pdf )

Faced with a difficult economic situation, significant budget constraints and modest results in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington has chosen to avoid participating in distant conflicts and favors temporary alliances with regional leaders that do not involve significant deployments to minimize the risk of being drawn into persistent and costly conflicts. This is the so-called withdrawal strategy to minimize influence in distant geopolitical areas and which focuses instead on addressing internal problems, especially economic ones. Particularly, on not increasing a massive debt that leaves no budget margin to invest more in security or defense. The claim on self-sufficiency perfectly fits the current strategy of the Obama Administration. Scenarios such as the Caucasus, Afghanistan, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf will not be as decisive for power supply as they are now. For example, the Strait of Hormuz, through which 35% of global supplies of oil and 20% of liquefied gas flows, and the conflicts that arise there, will not become in the future a direct danger to Western economy.¶ The United States and Europe will be able to carry out their relations with the countries of the Middle East area according to political affinity criteria and values such as freedom and democracy, thus altering existing partnerships in the region.¶ The U.S. energy independence is one of the most important changes, economically speaking, of the century and could have a profound global impact. As happens with many countries now exporting gas and oil, the economy will internationalize further but, as has happened with other oil exporting countries, it could turn, politically speaking, into an element to isolate itself and relinquish their presence in international forums or work in trade agreements17. The United States would have a new engine of economic growth in the energy sector that would bring significant benefits but also the risks carried by economies with energy resources18.¶ However, as is clearly shown by history, forgoing a capacity to influence implies losing it at the expense of another power that, hypothetically, would be China. The turbulent situation in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation risks, the permanent threat of Islamist terrorism and the conflict with Israel, will be a constant reminder to the United States that with great power comes great responsibility and will require it to stay in the region, but without the mortgage entailed by being energy-dependent on certain countries as is happening today.¶ Without taking it as an excuse to give up current global involvement and presence, the increase in hydrocarbon production will provide greater flexibility and maneuverability in policies that the United States and Europe may assume with regard to producing countries. It will be a dividend in terms of safety since, in order for hydrocarbon supply shocks to have an impact on markets, these disturbances would have to be increased and would therefore become less likely19. With respect to energy and its supply, America will have in the future an advantage over any other country. Apart from its undoubted political ability to influence, it will become the first gas producer in the world, one of the largest oil producers and will have more economic resources than other countries to supply itself from international markets. It is located next to Canada, with its vast unconventional reserves yet untapped. It will have the most advanced and innovative extraction industry with regard to hydrocarbons with competitive companies and almost exclusive technology. It also has huge coal reserves and is still committed to tap other generation sources such as nuclear or renewable energy and to develop programs to improve the efficiency of energy consumption, particularly for transport and domestic use.¶ Given all the political and economic uncertainties that may exist, the U.S. ability to respond to potential energy shortage crises worldwide is unquestionable.¶ Conclusions¶ For several decades, in sight of geopolitical instability in oil-producing countries, energy independence and control of supply have been a strategic objective for the US. Today, thanks to unconventional hydrocarbon reserves and technological advances that have enabled their exploitation, the goal seems attainable and their exploitation will increase U.S. production and make it less oil-dependent on the Middle East or countries such as Venezuela or Russia.¶ Given the technological advances and a higher return in terms of energy and economy by the exploitation of such deposits, it is expected that other countries will follow suit. Even considering the increased demand, mainly from Asian countries, it is possible to anticipate that oil supply capacity will grow faster than global demand, therefore the current system of cartelized oil producing countries will lose relevance and the first to be damaged will be those that now have an economic dependence on their energy exports. These countries will witness the disappearance of what, in practice, is an almost exclusive supply of hydrocarbons: the OPEC and particularly producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria.¶ An increased oil production will have its effect on international markets, which will witness a downward pressure on oil and gas prices. Prices will not only decrease but will also become less sensitive to political instability in certain geographic areas allowing for a greater certainty of supply, a particularly positive thing for very energy-intensive countries in the developing world.¶ At a political level, a consequence will be that U.S. strategic interests will give less importance to energy resources. Scenarios like the Strait of Hormuz and the Caucasus are not vital to the global supply of oil and this will allow the West to distance itself from the affairs of the region. All this would be convergent with the U.S. strategy and would fit the strategy of the current Administration of President Obama, who has chosen to reduce U.S. involvement in distant conflicts.¶ With regard to the Middle East, although its reserves and production do not have today such a degree of criticality regarding the many geopolitical risks, the constant threat on Israel, the risk of nuclear proliferation and potential existing religious conflicts, the American presence as a deterrent seems necessary. In any case, the United States will have more freedom to choose its allies, as the criterion of energy supply will lose weight under other factors of political affinity.¶ American energy independence will be good news for consumer countries in general and Europe in particular due to the economic benefits to be gained from greater diversification of supply. Some producing countries will lose influence and the relationship with them will not be conditioned by strategic weakness, which creates an imbalance in favor of the producer, but it could be based instead on mutual interest agreements.¶ However, it is not very convenient to take overly optimistic views regarding the future of global energy. The growing energy needs of large emerging economies and regions will require an economic and technological effort unparalleled in history and international relations will not be without tension and conflict for these reasons. However, in the energy field, technological advances in the field of hydrocarbons and their consequences can provide the world with a period of lower stress that should be used to join forces and define a horizon of new technologies yet to be specified.

US policies to gain oil from Middle Eastern countries can cause instibility

John Deutch and James R. Schlesinger 06 (Deutch: Institute Professor at the¶ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and served as Chairman¶ of the Department of Chemistry, Dean of Science, Schlesinger: s Chairman of the¶ MITRE Corporation and a Senior Adviser at Lehman Brothers. He¶ is also a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense ,national security¶ consequences of¶ u.s. oil dependency, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cfr.org%2Fcontent%2Fpublications%2Fattachments%2FEnergyTFR.pdf&ei=D8rGU9yrBY2YyASI9YLgDw&usg=AFQjCNEPZOz_ew-2eHRY0SY6oJG8Na4GFA&sig2=6BZozuaUbhs2NO2KHm7xRA&bvm=bv.71126742,d.aWw2eHRY0SY6oJG8Na4GFA&sig2=6BZozuaUbhs2NO2KHm7xRA&bvm=bv.71126742,d.aWw )

Fourth, revenues from oil and gas exports can undermine local¶ governance. The United States has an interest in promoting good¶ governance both for its own sake and because it encourages investment¶ that can increase the level and security of supply. States that are politically¶ unstable and poorly governed often struggle with the task of responsibly¶ managing the large revenues that come from their oil and gas exports.¶ The elements of good governance include democratic accountability,¶ low corruption, and fiscal transparency. Production in fragile democracies, such as in Nigeria, can be undermined when politicians or local¶ warlords focus on ways to seize oil and gas rents rather than on the¶ longer-term task of governance. Totalitarian governments that have¶ control over those revenue flows can entrench their rule.¶ When markets are tight, large oil consumers have tended to become¶ especially focused on securing supply and ignore the effects of their¶ investments on corruption and mismanagement. In Sudan, for example,¶ despite civil war and widespread human rights abuses, the Chinese¶ government and its oil enterprises are funding extensive oil supply and infrastructure projects. China has used its threat of a veto in the UN¶ Security Council to thwart collective efforts by other countries to¶ manage the Darfur crisis in Sudan. Similarly, China, India, and several¶ Western European countries continue to invest in Iran despite the need¶ to contain its nuclear aspirations.

The Middle East the world’s most unstable region, and nothing is set to change

VOV 14 (The Voice of Vietnam, Middle East: 2013’s most unstable region, 1/10/2014, http://english.vov.vn/Opinion/Middle-East-2013s-most-unstable-region/272115.vov )

In 2013, the Middle East topped the list of the world’s most unstable regions due to clashes between Israel and Palestine, Syria’s civil war and Iran’s nuclear program. The instability has brought the Middle East to the verge of explosion. Territorial disputes, uranium enrichment, and internal conflicts caused instability, conflicts and civil war in the end. These conflicts have continued for a long time with no solution. Middle East picture is shadowed In 2013, Syria might be the hottest place in the region. The long-lasting civil war has resulted in more than 100,000 deaths and made millions of people homeless. Famine has reached an alarming level, especially in war ravaged areas. While Syria was threatened by military intervention by the West, but on September 15, Russia and the US reached a surprising agreement under which Syria would allow the UN to inspect all of its chemical weapons stockpiles and would sign the international treaty prohibiting chemical weapons. This agreement barred the West from automatically imposing sanctions on Syria for failing to abide by UN resolutions. But ridding Syria of chemical weapons was not enough to end the civil war. Fire fights between the Syrian army and the rebels continue. Many analysts say destroying the chemical weapons has not significantly impacted the rebels. Despite diplomatic efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry, Middle East peace prospects didn’t improve much in 2013. Dialogues between Israel and Palestine failed once again. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proceeded with the construction of more Jewish resettlements in Palestinian territory. Egypt experienced many changes in 2013. Egyptian President Mohamad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was ousted one year after taking power. This sparked a series of demonstrations by Morsi loyalists. Growing protests, and violence have pushed Egypt into a grave serious political crisis. An interim government, backed by the army, has struggled to revise the Constitution and prepare for elections that might bring Egypt back to democracy and stability. The situation in Iraq in 2013 was the worst in the last several years. Some 9,500 people died in bombings and attacks across the country, the most since 2008. The most positive sign in the Middle East in 2013 was an historic agreement between the P5+1 Group and Iran signed in Geneva on November 24. Though it is just a short-term agreement with temporary provisions, it was highly praised because for 3 decades nuclear disagreements between P5+1 and Iran have been intractable. Analysts say the agreement has reduced the inflexibility of the parties. Prospects for 2014 Observers agree that the world’s hot spots won’t cool down overnight. British Foreign Secretary William Hague warned that violence and instability in the Middle East are likely to continue in the next few years. Syria’s civil war shows no signs of ending. The international conference on Syria, known as the Geneva II conference, scheduled for January 22, is predicted to be very difficult as the opposition wants a government without Bashar Al Assad while Assad vows he will run for a new term in 2014. Iran’s nuclear program still worries the public. Though the Iranian President tries to demonstrate his moderate stance, it has been difficult for him to gain trust from the West and suppress reactions from opposition groups within Iran. Terrorists in Iran are seeking ways to increase their influence and set up relations with Muslim groups in the Middle East making terrorism a security horror in the region

US oil interests draws us into middle east conflicts

Thanassis Cambanis 12 (teaches at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and at the New School’s Graduate Program, The Carter Doctrine: A Middle East strategy past its prime.

Our creaky, 30-year-old vision of America’s role is ripe for an overhaul from the next president, http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/10/13/the-carter-doctrine-middle-east-strategy-past-its-prime-the-carter-doctrine-middle-east-strategy-past-its-prime/xkDcRIPaE68mFbpnsUoARI/story.html , 10/4/12 )

President Jimmy Carter confronted another time of great turmoil in the region. The US-supported Shah had fallen in Iran, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, and anti-Americanism was flaring, with US embassies attacked and burned. His new doctrine declared a fundamental shift. Because of the importance of oil, security in the Persian Gulf would henceforth be considered a fundamental American interest. The United States committed itself to using any means, including military force, to prevent other powers from establishing hegemony over the Gulf. In the same way that the Truman Doctrine and NATO bound America’s security to Europe’s after World War II, the Carter Doctrine elevated a crowded and contested Middle Eastern shipping lane to nearly the same status as American territory.¶ The consequences have been profound. Every conflict in the Gulf since (and there has been a constant supply) has involved the United States. Our Navy patrols its waters, in constant tension with Iran; our need for bases there has persuaded us to support otherwise noxious leaders. The Carter Doctrine has driven the US fixation on stability among Arab regimes and Washington’s micromanagement of Israel’s relations with its neighbors. The entire world enjoys the same oil prices when they’re low and stable, but the United States carries almost all of the increasingly unsustainable cost of securing the Gulf.

Small US action will be perceived as a large attack causing escalation

W Andrew Terril 09 (Research Professor of National Security Affairs, ESCALATION AND INTRAWAR DETERRENCE¶ DURING LIMITED WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub941.pdf , September 2009)

U.S. policymakers need to remain cognizant that limited military attacks may not appear limited to those nations under attack. In 1973, some intelligent and experienced Israeli leaders believed that they faced an existential threat, although most Israeli and other historians with the benefit of time and study no longer support this view. In contemporary times, large-scale attacks can start to look like an effort at regime change. The temptation for foreign nations to respond to perceived regime changing attacks with every resource available will be serious. While escalation was avoided in the 1973 and 1991 wars, reasons for this restraint might not always be present. The Israeli government, drawing upon its democratic principles, engaged in an open and rigorous debate on escalation issues in which a moderate majority swayed the Prime Minister into a better understanding of the military situation and helped to neutralize the unrelenting pessimism attributed to Defense Minister Dayan. As noted, countries such as Iran also have a tradition of governmental debate, but it does not rise to the Israeli standard. A limited U.S. attack against Iran or North Korea could be viewed as the beginnings of an existential challenge to these regimes, although this interpretation may be more likely with Pyongyang than Tehran since that regime is by far the most insulated and paranoid of the two. Nevertheless, even an Israeli attack against Iran could be viewed as the beginning of a U.S.-Israeli campaign to destroy the Islamic Republic, and it could provoke an overwhelming response